Posted on 03/09/2007 8:41:11 AM PST by jpl
(CBS) They followed him. They brought bloodhounds into his home. The attorney general identified him to the world as a "person of interest" in the first major bioterrorism attack in the nation's history.
But five years after letters sent through the U.S. mail containing anthrax killed five and injured 17, the FBI has yet to charge Dr. Steven Hatfill. In 2003, he sued the government.
The resulting depositions of FBI personnel and law enforcement records obtained by 60 Minutes provide an inside look into one of the FBI's biggest investigations ever and raise the possibility that the bureau may have a cold case on its hands.
Correspondent Lesley Stahl's report, which contains revelations from those depositions, will be broadcast this Sunday, March 11, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Hatfill, a scientist who worked at an Army laboratory where the strain of anthrax used in the attacks was stored, is the only "person of interest" named publicly in the case. He has maintained his innocence all along.
Hatfill is suing the government for destroying his reputation by, among other things, naming him "a person of interest." According to depositions taken for Hatfill's suit and obtained by 60 Minutes, the FBI official who oversaw the investigation says the bureau was looking at many more people.
"There were 20 to 30 other people who were also likewise identified as 'persons of interest' in the investigation,' " the FBI's Richard Lambert says under oath.
60 Minutes has learned that today at least a dozen of those other people still have not been eliminated as so-called "persons of interest."
Hatfill charges in his suit that the FBI leaked information about him that was distorted and damaging. After the deadly mailings, evidence-sniffing bloodhounds reportedly "went crazy" at Hatfill's apartment, according to a Newsweek story.
60 Minutes has learned that the bloodhounds reacted similarly at the home and office of another scientist, too. And two of the dogs have been wrong on a number of occasions, including a serial rape case in which a man in California was arrested and jailed, based largely on the evidence from the dogs. He was ultimately exonerated with DNA evidence.
To quell the leaks, FBI Director Robert Mueller instituted a tactic known as "stovepiping," whereby the various squads assigned to the case stopped sharing information with one another.
In his deposition, the FBI's Lambert said he opposed Mueller's order because barring investigators from exchanging information " would inhibit our ability to 'connect the dots' in a case of this magnitude " just as it had leading up to 9/11.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, agrees that stovepiping undercut the investigation. He also charges that the FBI used the leaks to cover a lack of progress in the case.
"I believe they wanted the public to believe that they were making great progress in this case," he tells Stahl. "It's just turning out to be a cold case."
60 Minutes has also learned that the FBI's biggest hope to crack the case turned out to be a dead end created by one of its own investigators.
Early on in its investigation, the bureau was able to lift trace amounts of DNA from one of the envelopes used in the attacks. Agents hoped this forensic evidence would hold the key to solving the crime. But the amount of DNA recovered was so minute the bureau decided not to test it, fearing that doing so would use up the sample without yielding results.
The FBI then improved its DNA-testing technology so it could accurately test the microscopic sample. They then discovered that the DNA belonged to one of its own investigators who had contaminated the envelope.
1. The enemy planned a really major action ~ the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
2. They failed ~ and you're the one going over the reasons they failed. I simply noted they failed to accomplish what they set out to do.
3. You want us to stay "hushed up" about the attempt to kill all those people, with me among them.
Foolish person. The attack failed to accomplish its goals; we can recount numerous reasons why that is so; but the cat is out of the bag regarding the effectiveness of CIPRO in containing the threat.
It's not like anyone is keeping an atom bomb type secret.
BTW, the lady in Connecticut may have been infected by as little as one spore carried as contamination on a piece of mail having nothing to do with the attack. All of that is public information ~ hardly the sort of thing the discussion of which is going to cause panic in the streets.
So we've gone from tens of millions to tens of thousands. Well I suppose that's an improvement.
You want us to stay "hushed up" about the attempt to kill all those people, with me among them.
You misunderstand. No one wants anything but screamingly shockingly blatantly false information hushed up.
BTW, the lady in Connecticut may have been infected by as little as one spore carried...
She may have been infected by aliens from the Planet Zorg using a technology that we do not yet possess. She may also have been infected by a stray Wildebeast that galloped through her bedroom while she slept. But to say that one single spore carried on an envelope is actually within the real of probability is complete and utter bullsh**.
L
I think this is the first "60 Minutes" I've watched in decades. And I only watched the 13 minutes and 13 seconds about anthrax. So, I don't know what their political agenda is. I would assume it is "left-leaning". People who deal with facts instead of beliefs tend to be "left-leaning."
I have my own problems with the way the investigation ran under Ashcroft's DOJ, but for CBS News, the temptation is just too strong not to pinch him at the exclusion of all the other actors that were in play.
I agree. Ashcroft may have been totally incompetent, but he wasn't micro-managing the anthrax investigation. He was just responding to reporters' questions as any incompetent would -- by saying the wrong things.
Also the hound dogs reacting to Hatfill's apartment. No mention was made as to what type of scent the dogs were "keyed" on to begin with.
According to the Newsweek article, "Agents presented the canines with 'scent packs' lifted from anthrax-tainted letters mailed to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy (long since decontaminated), hoping some faint, telltale trace of the perpetrator's smell still remained months after the fact."
But when one looks at the facts, it's clear that that is absolute nonsense. It was just a story made up by the FBI to cover up what they were really doing. As it says in my book and on my web site, the FACTS say that the FBI had lost their tail on Dr. Hatfill when he was driving from Louisiana back to Maryland. The FBI was using the dogs to find out where Dr. Hatfill had been during the time he'd been "missing". They began their search at the Denny's restaurant in Louisiana where they'd last seen him, they checked his storage locker in Florida, they checked to see if he'd visited with William Patrick III (the "other scientist" mentioned on "60 Minutes") and they probably checked other places we don't know about. Then they took the dogs to Dr. Hatfill's apartment so the dogs could "find" him. It helps the dogs stay motivated if they "find" what they have been looking for and are given a treat for doing so. The FBI probably used some T-shirt or underwear belonging to Hatfill as the source scent for the dogs.
Exactly. Usually, 60 Minutes are good reliable pitbulls when it comes to going after the government and questioning their motives and competence at every turn (especially in days like these).
But it just so happens that the Barbara Hatch Rosenberg/FBI profile of the anthrax perp coincides well with the 60 Minutes profile of a "bad guy". It's the exact same profile, really. And as a result, the pitbulls turn into cute, compliant little poodles.
If Steven Hatfill's name had been something like Wen Ho Hatfill or el-Muhammad-al-Hatfill, you can be sure we'd be seeing a lot more of these reports, and the nature would be drastically different.
While it's certainly true that everything we think and believe is a summation of everything we've learned and that has gone on in our lives since we were born, it is still possible to look at things objectively. The problem is: people who do NOT look at things objectively will say you aren't doing it, either, since you do not agree with them.
If you are looking at things objectively, you cannot use logic which says that, regardless of what the facts say, there could be some information not yet made public which will support a different conclusion. It may be true, but it's really just an excuse for refusing to accept or even look at the facts.
If you are looking at things objectively, you cannot assume that everyone who disagrees with you is lying.
If you are looking at things objectively, you cannot simply look for alternative explanations for everything that does not fit your beliefs.
I had no particular interest in who sent the anthrax when I began doing my research. I was just tired of listening to nothing but opinions and speculation which seemed to totally ignore the facts. So, being an analyst, I thought it might be interesting to look at the facts to see what the facts had to say. And, that's what I did.
But, people who disagree with me can claim that I just twisted things to fit my beliefs, and I cannot prove them wrong. So, I'm immune to opinions and speculation and only change my analysis when confronted with FACTS.
Yes, facts can be twisted to fit any theory. That's why we have courts of law. And that's why we have "scientific method". And that's why I have to rely on MY analysis until proven wrong by solid facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.