Hatfill v. US - DOJ and FBI Statement of Facts (filed Friday)

On Friday, the government filed this statement of the facts in its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment in a civil rights and Privacy Act lawsuit brought by Dr. Steve Hatfill.

“The anthrax attacks occurred in October 2001. Public officials, prominent members of the media, and ordinary citizens were targeted by this first bio-terrorist attack on American soil. Twenty-two persons were infected with anthrax; five died. At least 17 public buildings were contaminated. The attacks wreaked havoc on the U.S. postal system and disrupted government and commerce, resulting in economic losses estimated to exceed one billion dollars. The attacks spread anxiety throughout the nation – already in a heightened state of alert in the wake of the attacks of September 11 – and left behind a lasting sense of vulnerability to future acts of bioterrorism. Given the unprecedented nature of the attacks, the investigation received intense media attention. Journalists from virtually every news organization pursued the story, sometimes conducting their own worldwide investigation to determine the person or persons responsible for the attacks and the motive behind them.

Testimony has revealed that at least certain members of the media began focusing their attention upon Hatfill in early 2002 because of tips they had received from former colleagues of his who found him to be highly suspicious. Articles about Hatfill thus began to appear in the mainstream press and on internet sites as early as January of 2002, and continued until the first search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, which, in turn, led to even more intense press attention.

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a Professor at the State University of New York, for example, complained in January and February 2002 on the Federation of American Scientists’ (“FAS”) website of the FBI’s apparent lack of progress on the investigation, and described generally the person she believed was the “anthrax perpetrator.” “Analysis of Anthrax Attacks,” Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator (Section IV.6), Defendant’s Appendix , Ex. 1. Rosenberg did not identify Hatfill by name, but described him in sufficient detail: a “Middle-aged American” who “[w]orks for a CIA contractor in Washington, DC area” and [w]orked in USAMRIID laboratory in the past” and “[k]nows Bill Patrick and probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from him informally.” Id. In his amended complaint, Hatfill states that “Professor Rosenberg’s ‘Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator’ . . . described [him].”

In addition to her postings on the FAS website, Professor Rosenberg also presented a lecture on February 18, 2002 at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, entitled “The Anthrax Attacks and the Control of Bioterrorism.” Ex. 2. During the course of her lecture, Rosenberg stated that she had “draw[n] a likely portrait of the perpetrator as a former Fort Detrick scientist who is now working for a contractor in the Washington, D.C, area[.]” Ex. 3. Rosenberg also commented upon Hatfill’s whereabouts on the date of the attacks, stating that “[h]e had reason for travel to Florida, New Jersey and the United Kingdom” – where the attacks had been and from which the letters had been purportedly sent – that “[h]e grew [the anthrax], probably on a solid medium, and weaponised it at a private location where he had accumulated the equipment and the material.” Id. Rosenberg also stated that the investigation had narrowed to a “common suspect[,]” and that “[t]he FBI has questioned that person more than once[.]” Id. Former White House Spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, immediately responded to Rosenberg’s comments, stating that there were several suspects and the FBI had not narrowed that list down to one. Ex. 4. The FBI also issued a press release, stating that it had “interviewed hundreds of persons, in some instances, more than once. It is not accurate, however, that the FBI has identified a prime suspect in this case.” Id. Rosenberg’s comments and writings were subsequently pursued by The New York Times (“The Times”). In a series of Op-Ed articles published from May through July 2002, Nicholas Kristof, a journalist with The Times, accused Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks. Kristof wrote on May 24, 2002 that the FBI was overlooking the anthrax perpetrator, noting that “experts” (Professor Rosenberg) point “to one middle-aged American who has worked for the United States military bio-defense program and had access to the labs at Fort Detrick, Md. His anthrax vaccinations are up to date, he unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax, and he was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the anthrax attack.” Ex. 5.

Hatfill first noticed the Kristof columns in May 2002. Hatfill Dep. Tran. in Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 6, at 13: 3-6. According to Hatfill, “[w]hen Mr. Kristof’s article appeared, it was the first [time] that [he] realized that [his] name [was] in the public domain with connection with an incident of mass murder.” Id. at 16:15-18. Hatfill has charged that The Times began the “entire conflagration and gave every journalist out there reason to drive this thing beyond any sort of sanity. Mr. Kristof lit the fuse to a barn fire and he repeatedly kept stoking the fire.” Id. at 43:19 - 44:1. In July 2004, Hatfill thus filed suit alleging that these articles libeled him by falsely accusing him of being the anthrax mailer. Complaint, Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 7.

Hatfill alleges in that lawsuit that “Kristof wrote his columns in such a way as to impute guilt for the anthrax letters to [him] in the minds of reasonable readers.” Id. ¶ 12. The articles, Hatfill claimed, which described his “background and work in the field of bio-terrorism, state or imply that [he] was the anthrax mailer.” Id. ¶ 14. Hatfill specifically alleged that statements in Kristof’s articles were false and defamatory, including those that stated that he: (1) “‘unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax’”; (2) “had the ‘ability’ to send the anthrax”; (3) “had the ‘access’ required to send the anthrax”; (4) “had a ‘motive’ to send the anthrax”; (5) “was one of a ‘handful’ of individuals who had the ‘ability, access and motive to send the anthrax’”; (6) “had access” to an ‘isolated residence’ in the fall of 2001, when the anthrax letters were sent”; (7) “‘gave CIPRO [an antibiotic famously used in the treatment of anthrax infection] to people who visited [the ‘isolated residence’]”; (8) his “anthrax vaccinations were ‘up to date’ as of May 24, 2002”; (9) he “‘failed 3 successive polygraph examinations’ between January 2002 and August 13, 2002”; (10) he “‘was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the attack’”; (11) he “‘was once caught with a girlfriend in a biohazard ‘hot suite’ at Fort Detrick [where Hatfill had concedely worked] surrounded only by blushing germs.’” Id. ¶ 16 (brackets in original). Hatfill alleges in his lawsuit against The Times that “[t]he publication of [Kristof’s] repeated defamation of [him] . . .gave rise to severe notoriety gravely injurious to [him].” Id. ¶ 29. The injury, Hatfill alleged, “was [made] all the more severe given the status and journalistic clout of The Times.” Id. This harm was compounded, Hatfill alleged, by the fact that these articles were “thereafter repeatedly published by a host of print and on-line publications and on the television and radio news” in the following months. Id., ¶ 30.

The case was initially dismissed by the trial court. Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807, 2004 WL 3023003 (E.D.Va.). That decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 416 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon remand, the trial court granted The Times summary judgment, finding that Hatfill was a public figure and public official and had failed to present evidence of malice. Hatfill v. The New York Times, 488 F. Supp. 2d 522 (E.D. Va. 2007). In arriving at that conclusion, the court considered Hatfill’s repeated media interviews before the attacks; the fact that he had “drafted a novel, which he registered with [the] United States Copyright office, describing a scenario in which a terrorist sickens government officials with a biological agent”; and had lectured on the medical effects of chemical and biological agents. Id. at 525.

Although not recited by the district court in The New York Times litigation, Hatfill also talked directly to reporters about his suspected involvement in the attacks. Brian Ross of ABC News, and his producer, Victor Walter, for example, talked separately to Hatfill on two to three occasions as early as January and February 2002, Ross Dep. Tran., Ex. 8, at 263:14 - 270:1, and continued talking to Hatfill until May of that year. Id. Ross also spoke to Hatfill’s friend and mentor, William Patrick, about Hatfill. Id. at 287:9 - 295:12. These meetings were prompted by discussions ABC News had in January 2002 with eight to twelve former colleagues of Hatfill at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (“USAMRIID”). Id. at 242:7 - 246:14. Hatfill’s former colleagues found him to be “highly suspicious because of a number of things he had done when he worked at [USAMRIID], and this behavior was strange "and unusual and they felt that he was a likely candidate.” Id. at 242: 7-17. These meetings were also prompted by ABC News’s own investigative reporting into Hatfill’s background; the more ABC News learned “the more interested [they] became” in Hatfill. Id. at 264: 14-15.

Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun also spoke to Hatfill in February 2002. Shane also spoke to USAMRIID employees who had worked with Hatfill. Ex. 9. These employees stated that they had been questioned by the FBI and “asked about a former Fort Detrick scientist” – Hatfill – “who returned a few years ago and took discarded biological safety cabinets, used for work with dangerous pathogens.” Id. at 1. These employees claimed that Hatfill “ha[d] expertise on weaponizing anthrax and ha[d] been vaccinated against it[.]” Id. Shane also called one of Hatfill’s former classmates, who was “plagued” by questions from the Baltimore Sun and others within the media regarding Hatfill’s “alleged involvement with the large anthrax outbreak in Zimbabwe[.]” Ex. 10. According to Hatfill, this classmate was told by Shane that Hatfill was purportedly responsible for “mailing the anthrax letters and also starting the [anthrax] outbreak in Zimbabwe/ Rhodesia twenty years before.” Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014; see also e-mail to Hatfill fr. DF Andrews, dated Mar. 1, 2002, Ex. 10. Hatfill told Shane in February 2002 that he had been “questioned by the FBI” and that “he considered the questioning to be part of a routine effort to eliminate people with the knowledge to mount [the] attack.” Ex. 9. Hatfill also confirmed for Shane that he had taken an FBI polygraph. Ex. 12, at 2. In March 2002, Hatfill left Shane a frantic telephone message reportedly stating how he had “been [in the bioterrorism] field for a number of years, working until 3 o’clock in the morning, trying to counter this type of weapon of mass destruction” and fearing that his “career [was] over at [that] time.” Ex. 13, at 2. According to Hatfill, Shane later Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 232-2 Filed 04/11/2008 Page 17 of 73

____ Hatfill did not sue either Shane or Rosenberg, even though Hatfill has stated that Rosenberg “caused” the focus on him. Ex. 14, at 10. Because Hatfill believed that the portrait Rosenberg painted at the February 2002 Princeton conference and in her website postings was so identifying and incriminating, however, Hatfill advised Rosenberg through his lawyers that “before [she] get[s] close to describing him in the future, by name or otherwise, [that she] submit [her] comments for legal vetting before publishing them to anyone.” Ex. 15. There is no evidence that the agency defendants bore any responsibility for the media presence. Information about FBI searches is routinely shared with a variety of state and local law enforcement authorities. Roth Dep. Tran., Ex. 16, at 163:5 -165:21; Garrett Dep. Tran. Ex. 17, at 79: 8-18. ______

compounded Hatfill’s problems by calling his then-employer, Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), and accusing Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks, Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014, which, according to Hatfill, cost him his job as a contractor at SAIC. Id. 1

The media frenzy surrounding Hatfill intensified upon the search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, and the search of a refrigerated mini-storage facility in Ocala, Florida on June 26, 2002. Both were witnessed by the media, and the search of his apartment was carried live on national television. In addition to the television coverage, the searches generated a slew of articles about Hatfill throughout the media, one fueling the next. The Associated Press, for example, detailed in an article, dated June 27, 2002, Hatfill’s (1) work as biodefense researcher, including studies he had conducted at SAIC, and the work he had done at the USAMRIID; (2) his educational background; (3) where he had previously lived; and (4) security clearances he had held and the suspension of those clearances. Ex. 18. The Hartford Courant reported these same details, and additional information regarding Hatfill’s purported service in the Rhodesian army. Ex. 19. The next day -- June 28, 2002 -- the Hartford Courant reported details about Hatfill’s background in biological warfare, his vaccinations against anthrax, questioning that purportedly had occurred among Hatfill’s colleagues, his educational background (including the claim that he had attended medical school in Greendale), and lectures that he had given on the process of turning biological agents into easily inhaled powders. Ex. 20. None of this information is attributed to a government source.

In July 2002, after these reports and after the first search of Hatfill’s apartment on June 25, 2002, Hatfill retained Victor Glasberg as his attorney. Glasberg Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 12: 16-19. Glasberg believed that “any number of people in the media [had] overstepped their bounds. . . . prior to July of 2002 .” Id. at 141:1 - 142:6. To counter this information, Hatfill set out on a “public relations offensive” of his own to “turn [the] tide.” Id. at 138: 20-21, 178: 12-13.

Recognizing that Hatfill “continue[d] [to] get[] killed with bad press, national as well as local[,]” Hatfill drafted a statement and Glasberg forwarded that statement in July 2002 to Hatfill’s then-employer at Louisiana State University (“LSU”). Ex. 11, at 1. The statement detailed Hatfill’s background, including his medical training and employment history, and provided details about Hatfill’s involvement in the anthrax investigation, including how he had been interviewed by the FBI and had taken a polygraph examination. Id. at AGD29SJH00002-13. Hatfill’s statement corroborated the conversations that Hatfill reportedly had with Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun in February 2002, and how that interaction had purportedly cost Hatfill his job at SAIC in March 2002. Id. at AGD29SJH00014.

In his July statement, Hatfill was careful not to blame DOJ or the FBI for his troubles or for any wrongdoing for the information about him that had made its way into the press. He touted the professionalism of the FBI, noting that “[t]he individual FBI agents with whom [he had come] in contact during this entire process are sons and daughters of which America can be justifiably proud. They are fine men and women doing their best to protect this country.” Id. at AGD29SJH00016. Hatfill’s objection lay with the media, whom he labeled as “irresponsible[,]” for trading in “half-truths, innuendo and speculation, making accusations and slanting real world events . . . to gain viewer recognition, sell newspapers, and increase readership and network ratings.” Id.

As the investigation proceeded, however, Glasberg publicly criticized investigators on the date of the second search of Hatfill’s apartment, August 1, 2002, for obtaining a search warrant rather than accepting the offer Glasberg had allegedly made to cooperate. Ex. 22. So angry was Glasberg with investigators that he wrote a letter, dated the same day as the search, to Assistant United States Attorney Kenneth C. Kohl, denouncing the fact that the search had been conducted “pursuant to a search warrant.” Ex. 23. Glasberg forwarded a copy of this letter to Tom Jackman of the Washington Post, and to the Associated Press, the morning of August 1st. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 24, at 265:12 - 266:5; see also Ex. 25 (Glasberg memorandum to file, stating, among other things, that Glasberg showed Jackman Kohl letter on August 1, 2002).

On the day of the search, an FBI spokeswoman at the Bureau’s Washington field office, Debra Weierman, “confirmed that the search was part of the government’s anthrax investigation.” Ex. 25. Weierman added, however, that “she was unable to confirm that [investigators were acting on a search warrant] or to provide any further information about the search.” Id.

The next day – August 2, 2002 – Glasberg faxed the Kohl letter to members of the media. Ex. 26. In the fax transmittal sheet accompanying the Kohl letter, Glasberg also advised the media that: Dr. Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI earlier this year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI. He and his lawyer Tom Carter were told that the results were all favorable and that he was not a suspect in the case. Id. at AGD16SJH03106. Subsequent to the fax transmittal by Glasberg, Weierman confirmed that the search had been conducted pursuant to a search warrant, but only after receiving appropriate authorization from her superiors. Weierman Dep. Tran., Ex. 27, at 93:16 - 94:14.

Hatfill had also accompanied Glasberg for his interview with Jackman the day before to address the “media feeding frenzy.” Ex. 28. Glasberg provided Jackman with the promise of an “[e]xclusive personal statement” from Hatfill and the promise of “[n]o other press contacts pending publication” of the article. Id. Glasberg thus provided Jackman background information about Hatfill, Rosenberg’s statements, and other publications. Ex. 25. Hatfill reportedly complained to the Washington Post in the interview about the media feeding frenzy, and about how his “friends are bombarded” with press inquiries. Ex. 29, at 1. Hatfill also complained about the “[p]hone calls at night. Trespassing. Beating on my door. For the sheer purpose of selling newspapers and television.” Id.

Following this “media frenzy,” not to mention the two searches of Hatfill’s apartment, former Attorney General John Ashcroft was asked on August 6, 2002 (at an event addressing the subject of missing and exploited children) about Hatfill’s involvement in the investigation. Jane Clayson of CBS News asked General Ashcroft about the searches and whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 30, at 2. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person of interest.” General Ashcroft cautioned, however, that he was “not prepared to say any more at [that] time other than the fact that he is an individual of interest.” Id. At the same media event, Matt Lauer of NBC News also asked General Ashcroft whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 31. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person that – that the FBI’s been interested in.” Id. at 2. General Ashcroft cautioned that he was “not prepared to make a . . . comment about whether a person is officially a . . . suspect or not.” Id.

General Ashcroft made the same comments at a news conference in Newark, New Jersey on August 22, 2002, stating that Hatfill was a “person of interest to the Department of Justice, and we continue the investigation.” Ex. 32, at 1. As in his previous statements, General Ashcroft refused to provide further comment. Id. When asked upon deposition why he referred to Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation in response to these media inquiries, General Ashcroft testified that he did so in an attempt to correct the record presented by the media that he was a “suspect” in the investigation, which he believed served a necessary law enforcement purpose. Ashcroft Dep. Tran., Ex. 33, at 81: 5-12; 103:18; 108: 9-13; 138: 5-7; 125: 18-21; 134:22 - 136:8. Prior to making these statements, General Ashcroft did not review or otherwise consult any investigative record, id. at 128:14 - 129:12, much less any record pertaining to Hatfill.

General Ashcroft’s initial statements on August 6, 2002 were followed, on August 11, 2002, by the first of Hatfill’s two nationally televised press conferences. Ex. 34. During his press conference, Hatfill lashed out at Rosenberg and other journalists and columnists who he believed wrote a series of “defamatory speculation and innuendo about [him].” Id. at 3. In apparent response to the “person of interest” statements, by contrast, he stated that he did “not object to being considered a ‘subject of interest’ because of [his] knowledge and background in the field of biological warfare.” Id. at 4. This was consistent with Hatfill’s statement to ABC News earlier in 2002 in which he stated that “his background and comments made him a logical subject of the investigation.” Ex. 35. As noted, moreover, Glasberg told the media -- almost a week before the first of General Ashcroft’s statements -- that “Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI [earlier that] year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI.” Ex. 26.

Hatfill’s second press conference was held on August 25, 2002. In the flyer publicizing the conference, Hatfill identified himself to the media -- in bold lettering -- as “the ‘person of interest’ at the center of the federal Government’s [anthrax] investigation.” DA, Exhibit 36.

Patrick Clawson joined the Hatfill team in early August 2002 as spokesperson and “fielded hundreds of inquiries from members of the press worldwide regarding Dr. Hatfill[.]” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson believed it best to employ a media strategy that would, in his words, “let it all hang out.” Id. at 50:10. Clawson felt that “permitting maximum sunshine into . . . Hatfill’s existence would do both him and the public the best good.” Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 50:16-18.

“The majority of Clawson’s communications with the press regarding this case have been oral and by telephone and he did not keep a press log or any other regular record of such contacts with the press.” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson nonetheless admitted upon deposition that he revealed numerous details about Hatfill’s personal and professional background to members of the press (Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 101:9 - 105:21), including Hatfill’s professional expertise (id. at 103:10 - 105:21), use of Cipro (id. at 123:16 - 130:11, 248: 8-13), whereabouts on the days of the attacks (id. at 148:12 - 158:10, 361:15 - 362:3), expertise in working with anthrax (id. at 194:13 - 195:8), former service in the Rhodesian Army (id. at 210:9 - 211:10), and drunk driving arrest (id. at 795: 7-9, 798: 4-6). Clawson also told reporters what had been purportedly removed from Hatfill’s apartment during the two searches of his apartment on June 25, 2002 and August 1, 2002 (including medical books and a jar of bacillus thuringiensis (“BT”)) (id. at 121: 6-12, 131:2 - 131:12, 14:8 - 147:3, 313: 3-10). Clawson also freely relayed to the press that bloodhounds had been presented to Hatfill during the investigation (id. at 200: 15-19); that Hatfill had been the subject of surveillance (id. at 123:12-15, 428: 19-21); that Hatfill had taken polygraphs (id. at 135:16 - 137:17); and that he had submitted to blood tests (id. at 137:18-138:5, 347: 6-10).

In furtherance of Clawson’s “sunshine” policy, Hatfill, Clawson, and Glasberg, together, provided countless on-the-record, on-background (i.e., for use, but not for attribution), and off-the-record (i.e., not for attribution or use) interviews to counter misinformation. Although Hatfill repeatedly claimed upon deposition not to remember what he said during these interviews, he acknowledged in his responses to the Agency Defendants’ interrogatories having such conversations with, in addition to Mr. Jackman, Judith Miller of The New York Times, Jeremy Cherkis of the City Paper, Guy Gugliotta of the Washington Post, David Kestenbaum of National Public Radio, Rick Schmidt of the LA Times, Rob Buchanan of NBC Dateline, Jim Popkin of NBC News, Dee Ann David and Nick Horrock of UPI, Gary Matsumato of Fox TV, Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, and David Tell of the Weekly Standard. Ex. 12, at 3-4. With respect to the Matsumato interview, Glasberg warned Hatfill before the interview that he “should not be quoted, nor should Matsumato say or imply that he spoke with him.” Ex. 38, at 1. Glasberg warned Hatfill that “Matsumato must be willing to go to jail rather than reveal word one of anything [he] says on ‘deep background.’” Id.

All of these disclosures became too much even for Glasberg, who attempted to put a stop to them. In August, when Jackman aired his exclusive interview with Glasberg and Hatfill, Glasberg heralded the success of his public relations strategy noting that “Rosenberg, Shane and Kristof are, [each] of them, in varying stages of sulking, licking their wounds, reacting defensively and changing their tune.” Ex. 39. Slowly Glasberg advised both Hatfill and Glasberg to observe “the rule of COMPLETE SILENCE regarding anything and everything about the case[.]” Ex. 40 (emphasis in original). Ultimately, in September 2002, Glasberg ordered Clawson to stand down, noting “[w]hat you know, you know, and you have put virtually all of that into the public record. Fine. That is where we are, and for good or ill we can and will deal with it. But we must put a full stop to any further conveyance of substantive data about ANYTHING from Steve to anyone [but his attorneys].” Ex. 41 (emphasis in original). To no avail. On October 5, 2002, Hatfill and Clawson appeared together at an Accuracy in Media Conference. Hatfill was asked about the reaction of bloodhounds, and stated, I’m not supposed to answer things against . . . but let me tell you something. They brought this good-looking dog in. I mean, this was the best-fed dog I have seen in a long time. They brought him in and he walked around the room. By the way, I could have left at anytime but I volunteered while they were raiding my apartment the second time, I volunteered to talk with them. The dog came around and I petted him. And the dog walked out. So animals like me (laughter). Ex. 42, at 2.

Disclosures from the Hatfill camp to the media continued. For example, between late 2002 and May 8, 2003, Hatfill’s current attorney, Tom Connolly, and CBS News reporter James Stewart had multiple telephone conversations and two lunch meetings. Ex. 43. According to Stewart, Connolly told Stewart that the investigation was focusing on Hatfill, and detailed at great length the FBI’s surveillance of Hatfill. In virtually every one of these conversations, Connolly encouraged Stewart to report on these subjects. Id. at 96.

At the time of the second search of his apartment in August 2002, Hatfill was working as a contract employee at the Louisiana State University (“LSU”) on a program to train first responders in the event of a biological attack. This program was funded by the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”) as part of a cooperative agreement. Ex. 44. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, OJP “maintain[ed] managerial oversight and control” of the program. Id. at 2. Following the second search of Hatfill’s apartment on August 1, 2002, Timothy Beres, Acting Director of OJP’s Office of Domestic Preparedness, directed that LSU “cease and desist from utilizing the subject-matter expert and course instructor duties of Steven J. Hatfill on all Department of Justice funded programs.” Ex. 45. LSU, meanwhile, had independently hired Hatfill to serve as Associate Director of its Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education. Following the second search, LSU placed Hatfill on administrative leave. Ex. 46. LSU then requested a background check of Hatfill. Ex. 47. During the course of that investigation, the University became concerned that Hatfill had forged a diploma for a Ph.D that he claimed to have received from Rhodes University in South Africa. Hatfill explained to Stephen L. Guillott, Jr., who was the Director of the Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education at LSU, that “[h]e assumed the degree had, in fact been awarded since neither his [thesis advisor] nor Rhodes University advised him to the contrary.” Ex. 48. LSU’s Chancellor, Mark A. Emmert, made “an internal decision to terminate [LSU’s] relationship with Dr. Hatfill quite independent of [the DOJ e-mail] communication.” Ex. 51.

Hatfill has now testified that in fact he created a fraudulent diploma with the assistance of someone he met in a bar who boasted that he could make a fraudulent diploma. Hatfill Dep. Tran., Ex. 49 at 19:20 - 20:12. Glasberg, moreover, has stated under oath that Hatfill’s earlier attempted explanation was untrue. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 314:10 - 317:2. In a nationally televised 60 Minutes episode that aired in March 2007, Connolly confirmed that Hatfill forged the diploma for the Ph.D from Rhodes University. Ex. 50, at 3.

Hatfill claims lost wages and other emotional damages resulting from General Ashcroft’s “person of interest” statements and other for-attribution statements by DOJ and FBI officials. He also seeks to recover for certain other alleged “leaks” by DOJ and FBI officials. Hatfill additionally asserts that the defendants violated the Act by purportedly failing to (1) maintain an accurate accounting of such disclosures, which he asserts is required by section 552a(c) of the Act; (2) establish appropriate safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of the records that were purportedly disclosed, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(10); (3) correct information that was disseminated about him that was inaccurate or incomplete, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(5); and (4) establish adequate rules of conduct, procedures, and penalties for noncompliance, or to train employees in the requirements of the Act, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(9). Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”

Not Rosenberg, some-one whispered the name to her, gave her the idea. Who??

******

In a 1992 article that was not published in an academic journal, Dr. Meryl Nass, a close associate of Hatfill-nemesis Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, cited "journalist Jeremy Brick hill" [sic], who has insisted that anonymous military contractors told him that the outbreak was a military attack by the multiracial Selous Scouts. The credibility of Brickhill, a self-described "antiapartheid activist" who claims to have fought on the side of the black rebels, is questionable. This reporter has not been able to find any record of massive, biowarfare-induced, cutaneous anthrax infections anywhere. ------"Scientist With Rhodesian Past Still Center of Media Crosshairs,"http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=267517

******

To: mrustow; Shermy
The real interesting part is that Meryl Nass wrote her advocacy paper in 1992:

http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/zimbabwe.html*

Let's look at the "Acknowledgments" section: "Thanks to........ Barbara Rosenberg, Ph.D........ for contacts and encouragement."

In light of this it's always been my bet that as soon as Rosenberg heard the name "Hatfill" and "Zimbabwe" in the same sentence after the 2001 anthrax attacks, she had her man. 31 posted on 09/05/2003 5:20 AM PDT by Badabing Badaboom
[* piasa notes : IIRC, this domain name belonged to Nass. ]

*****

Dr. Meryl Nass...a holistic medicine doc who claims to be a bioweapons expert. She came up with the claim that a Rhodesian cutaneous anthrax outbreak was weaponized, a claim evidently close to Rosenberg's heart.

She is a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, a leftwing group which along with Voices in the Wilderness, helped sanctions-bust in Iraq.

"... In 1993, I went to Cuba as a consultant to the Cuban Ministry of Health. ..." ~ Meryl Nass, MD.- Red Flags Weekly

Maine Doctor Leads National Campaign Against Anthrax Vaccinations
... What has Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist from Freeport, done to cause such a swirl of ... there was an epidemic of 50,000 cases of blindness in Cuba, which the ... www.commondreams.org/headlines/031100-03.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

She joined a pretentiously named empty shell front group composed of names that claim to be "honorary" SEALs and so on -- meaningless crap derived from their effort to get gov bucks for "Gulf War Syndrome" and the like:

Joined IMM 2001. The Institute for Molecular Medicine 16371 Gothard Street H Huntington Beach, California 92647-3652, USA

********

Who is IMM?

**********

The Institute for Molecular Medicine
IMM is formally affiliated with: Contaminated Veterans of America, Albuquerque, NM; Center for Complex Infectious Diseases, Rosemead, CA ... www.immed.org/ - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

*********

IMM is formally affiliated with: James Mobb Clinics of Harare, Zimbabwe

******

Zimbabwe of course is stripped and impoverished Marxist Mugabe's turf now.

********

She wouldn’t say she was a bioweapons expert. She’d say she was expert on reactions to vaccines. She is immensely likable IMO. Non-dogmatic on the Hatfill issues even if she had her opinion. She took down a RedFlags article when it proved unreliable. She never had met Dr. Hatfill. She called me once to excitedly pass on the rumored news about the cabin in the woods once and I asked her “What state?” She didn’t know. That was my first tip that the spread of the Hatfill Theory was on shaky grounds indeed. And so while her politics might be aligned with BHR, I think she certainly was acting in good faith. Of course, one doesn’t want to go down that slippery slope between falsely accusing one of murder to falsely accusing one of genocide. But contrast Meryl with Don Foster. Meryl stood down. Don Foster didn’t. He should have withdrawn the Vanity Fair article — even after being approved, in light of what had developed. That libel suit was inevitable as was the result. Libel law views favorably the person who adapts to new information, etc.

Dr. Hatfill on the Anthrax Letter Attacks:

“I telephoned Chief Civilian Scientist Peter Jahrling at USAMRIID to try to find out what was going on. He told me that it looked like there were an awful lot of spores in the preparation he had examined for the FBI, and advised me to get our SAIC people on antiobitoics if they thought they had an exposure. No one had any idea of the actual size of the attack, how many letters were involved and whether the attack was still underway or not. I therefore made the rather unpopular decision that every SAIC employee within the area of the Capitol building was to come in, go for nasal swabbing at a nearby clinic, and start antiobiotics. I contacted the clinic, discussed what had to be done with the doctor in attendance, and supervised the process.

The eventual FBI announcement that the strain used in the letters was called the Ames strain and that Fort Detrick had been using this strain for experiments came as a surprise to me. I knew the bacteriology unit USAMRIID had been doing animal work with anthrax, but thought these involved the old Vollum 1 B used by the former U.S. offensive program. At the time I disbelieved that anyone at Fort Detrick was involved in these acts of domestic terrorism, and I maintain that opinion today.

A number of weeks later, two investigators from the FBI came by my office. The interview was cordial and short. The agents explained that polygraphs were being conducted on a wide scale in connection with the anthrax letters. They asked if I would consent to a polygraph concerning the anthrax letters. I immediately agreed and the short interview was over. A week or so later on my appointment date, I went down to the FBI Washington Field Office for the polygraph. An agent met me at the entrance and advised me, apologetically, that no one was around to administer the polygraph. I went on to work and a few days later I was telephoned with a new appointment. I went down to the Washington Field Office and this time the polygraph was administered. As I recall, this was in early January 2002. The polygraph examiner told me I had passed and that he believed that I had nothing do with the Anthrax event. I went back to work, believing any involvement in the investigation was completed. Unfortunately, I was wrong.”

Dr. Hatfill’s explanation of events continues:

“In February, I received a phone call from one Scott Shane, a reporter with the Baltimore Sun. All but accusing me of mailing the anthrax letters, Shane wanted to know precise details about a certain classified project on which I had previously worked which I was barred from discussing. I hung the phone up with him in mid sentence and immediately reported the event to my immediate supervisor as an improper solicitation of classified information. Two dates later, I received an email from a former medical school classmate advising that Shane had phoned him and accused me of mailing the anthrax letters and also starting the anthrax outbreak in Zimbabwe/ Rhodesia twenty years before. *** Later I telephoned the Baltimore Sun and left a message for the eidtor that Scott Shane’s accusations had cost me my job.”

[Thought question: Would SAIC have kept him on if they knew about the forged PhD certificate submitted to NIH?]

“On leaving SAIC, I secured a position with Louisiana State University to work with a consortium of universities on important federally funded probes for biological defense. I was constantly being called back to SAIC to assist with projects I had started, as to well as to help with new projects. SAIC eventually undertook to contract for my continued services through Louisiana State University, a process that continues today. I continued to work with SAIC because of the close association I had with my superb team there and my desire to help as requested in the completion of important contracts. I consider several of the projects in question to be of national importance for the defense of my country.”

“At the end of February 2002, a year after my application for clearance had been aborted by the termination of the contract for which I had sought it, I was surprised to receive a letter from the CIA advising that my application had been turned down due to my involvement with Zimbabwean authorities twenty years earlier. I did not need and was not at the time seeking CIA clearance. I was under the impression that my file had been closed pending possible re-application for clearance under a contract for which it would be needed. Since I objected to the adverse conclusions drawn from my time in Africa, however, I appealed the negative determination. My appeal is pending at this time. None of this affected any of my SAIC work in the slightest way.”

[Thought question: Would CIA have granted him a security clearance if they knew about the forged PhD certificate submitted to NIH?]

“In June 2002, one Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a self-proclaimed biological weapons expert whom I do not know, with whom I have never corresponded, and to my knowledge is ignorant of my work and background except in the broadest of terms, saw fit to denounce me as a prime suspect in the anthrax letters in meetings with Senate staffers involved in the anthrax inquiry. ***”

[Thought question: Would Dr. Hatfill gotten the job wearing a moon suit injecting ebola virus into guinea pigs at Ft. Detrick if it was known he had forged a PhD certificate in seeking to work at NIH? Would he have gotten the earlier research fellowship in 1996 at NIH? Who is at moral fault in setting down this path? Barbara Hatch Rosenberg or Steve Hatfill? Who is the patriot? Didn’t his fraud in obtaining the original job relating to ebola research make him worthy of suspicion given the high level of trust needed before allowing someone access to ebola, such as he came to have at Ft. Detrick? How can Dr. Hatfill ultimately expect to be persuasive if his greatest expression of contrition is Mr. Connolly’s remarks about puffery on a resume or Dr. Hatfill’s private comment at the deposition that he doesn’t know what he was thinking.

Dr. Hatfill writes of his earlier history at NIH and USAMRIID

National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

In 1996 I received a research fellowship at the National Institutes for Health.”
***
“I made appropriate arrangements to transfer loaded tissue bioreactors from NIH to Fort Detrick. There they were taken into the high containment facility and equipments safely performed by resident USAMRIID scientists, not including myself. As this work was progressing, I became increasingly aware of the potential health risk caused by the release of a virulent virus in a densely populated area. The more I learned about biological warfare, the more alarmed I became about this potential threat. Several anthrax hoaxes had by then been described in the media, with some legislation being passed by Congress (Nunn-Lugar=Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996) to assist in the training of first responders (i.e., fire and police) to manage potential terrorist attacks similar to the sarin nerve agent attack by Japanese terrorists on the Tokyo subway. I gave a few public lectures on the subject including one to the George Washington University Terrorist Group, showing how easy it would be for a terrorist to culture infectious disease organisms using only low technology methods dating back from the 1800’s. I also began to assist in the development of the Domestic Preparedness First Responder Training Course being developed by Science Applicatioons International Corporation (”SAIC”). In August of 1997, I assisted a friend of mine who was a reporter for the Washington Times, write a small article on the subject. It was published on August 11, 1997.

USAMRIID, Fort Detrick

In 1997, I was offered a National Reserach Council position at USAMRIID, at Fort Detrick. My task was to refine the tissue culture system so as to compare Ebola infection in human and animal tissues and (as a hematologist) to dissect the bleeding disorder which the disease caused in the Ebola animal models of human disease.

The work at USAMRIID was exciting but dangerous. It was difficult to work with the tissue culture system an the Ebola virus in the space suit, and even more difficult to work with the small mice and guinea pigs. The guinea pigs were the worst because they were large enough to be difficult to hold still while injecting with the virus. One careless mistake or bit of inattention and a simple need stick injury would be translated into a slow and painful death from a disease for which there was no vaccine and no cure. It had happened before with other viral agents and researchers in other centers. I believe that researchers in this field are unsung heroes.

I gave a final public lecture on the potential threat of biological terrorism shortly after I started work at USAMRIID. The next day I was called into the Commander’s office and told no longer to speak publicly without official permission. The hypothetical attack in my talk had been on the White House, and the Secret Service was upset. The Commander was a man I greatly respected, as well as my boss, and his objection was more than sufficient to end my brief tour on the public lecture circuit discussing potential biological terrorism scenarios without first obtaining official permission from USAMRIID.

Comment:

But once again: If he had not forged the PhD certificate, would he have had the NIH job and job at USAMRIID?

Did Dr. Hatfill really graduate from medical school in 1984, Ed?

Were his letters of recommendation for the NIH job also forged?

While I agree that there is no evidence he is guilty of the anthrax crimes, and I think the overwhelming documentary and other evidence shows that US-based supporters of Al Qaeda are responsible, did the media and USG treat him unfairly? Or was the intense interest in him motivated, in part, of knowing that he is not above reckless fraud and deceit involving access to the dangerous pathogen ebola?

http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/hatfill.pdf

Ed, this resume you have on your webpage. Where did he submit this? Or where was it obtained?

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:M6F9K4jiSaYJ:www.anthraxinvestigation.com/hatfill.pdf+%22Hatfill,+S.J.,+PhD%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

STEVEN JAY HATFILL M.D., Ph.D.
OFFICES

United States Army Medical Research Institute for
Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
Virology Division
Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD
21702-5011
Telephone: (redacted)
Fax: (redacted)

National Institutes of Health
National Institute for Child Health/Development
Laboratory of Cellular and Molecular Biophysics
Building 10, Room 10D14
10 Center Drive
Bethesda, MD. 20892-1855
Telephone: (redacted)
Fax : (redacted)
24 hour Pager: (redacted)

PERSONAL DATA
American Citizenship
Birth Date: (redacted) 1953, St. Louis MO.
Social Security No. (redacted)
Medical License No. RSA-MP28117 SAMDC
SECRET Security Clearance

I. EDUCATION
MEDICAL DEGREES:
M.Med / Board Certification in Hematopathology (June 1993)

Three-year residency/specialist training in blood and bone marrow disorders at the University of
Stellenbosch, RSA. Clinical rotations through coagulation/homeostasis, hemolytic and platelet
disorders, immunohematology and blood transfusion medicine, hematology-oncology and the bone
marrow transplantation unit (Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town). Pathology rotations through
forensic, hematology, and chemical pathology / toxicology.

Medical Degree (April 1984)

Godfrey Huggins School of Medicine, Salisbury, Rhodesia. LRCS,. Includes; all basic medical
sciences and clinical studentships (Andrew Fleming Teaching Hospital). Internship (rotating)-at
the Paul Kruger Hospital (RSA). Educational Council for Foreign Medical Graduates (USA)-
Certificate No. 376-621-9.

GRADUATE DEGREES:
Ph.D. Thesis in Molecular Cell Biology (August 1994)

Completed by experimental work, thesis, Rhodes University, Department of Biochemistry and
Microbiology. External Thesis Examiners- Argonne National Laboratory (USA) and NASA
Center for Special Studies, Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (USA). Thesis demonstrated
mitochondrial DNA topology changes in high LET radiation-induced MDS and leukemia, as a
possible basis for biological dosimetry.

Ed, his 1999 resume claims he knows former BG (anthrax simulant) production methods. So he apparently disagrees with your assessment that he does not know such methods.

Former Army scientist forged Ph.D. certificate, school says
Forgery is kind of intrigue in Hatfill’s past attracting interest in anthrax case
By Scott Shane | Sun Staff
October 9, 2002
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.hatfill09oct09,0,5372526.story

His 1999 resume claims “working knowledge ... of wet and dry BW [biological warfare] agents, large-scale production of bacterial, rickettsial, and viral BW pathogens and toxins, stabilizers and other additives, former BG [Bacillus globigii] simulant production methods.”

Shane reports:

“Such knowledge would be quite relevant to the preparation of the dry anthrax powder in the envelopes. Bacillus globigii is a nontoxic relative of the anthrax bacterium and is often used as an anthrax simulant. Anyone who knows how to grow Bacillus globigii and turn it into a simulant powder could do the same with anthrax, scientists say.”

She wouldn’t say she was a bioweapons expert.

She'd just describe herself as "a national expert in the field of anthrax and biological warfare." Or at least look innocently on while someone did it for her.

This is from the IMM website, something I snagged years ago. Presumably it was she who submitted her own questionable biography, much as the former Ambassador Joe Wilson submitted his "Valerie Plame" bio to Who's Who in that other ongoing media soap opera. Come to think of it, that bio, like those of Nass's friends at IMM, also included unneccessary and goofy "honorary" military ranks. At least Nass's didn't :

Meryl Nass, M.D. Dr. Nass is in private practice in Freeport, Maine and on the medical staff of Parkview Hospital, Brunswick, ME. She received her B.S. in Biology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1974) and her M.D. from the University of Missippi Medical School (1980). She specializes in the treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia Syndrome and Gulf War Illnesses. Dr. Nass has published over 20 articles in medical and scientific journals. She is a national expert in the field of anthrax and biological warfare. She was the first scientist to realize that Zimbabwe's anthrax epidemic of 1978-80 was not a natural event, and proved it in 1992. As a consultant to Cuba's Ministry of Health, she correctly diagnosed the cause of a neuropathy epidemic affecting 50,000 Cubans. She has developed a model for evaluating epidemics to determine the likelihood that they are due to bioterrorism. She was the first researcher to point out the relationship between anthrax vaccine and Gulf War Illnesses, and has been very active in identifying the role of this vaccine in a variety of chronic medical illnesses. Dr. Nass is an Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at the Institute for Molecular Medicine.

So, from where did the publisher get this info on Nass if not from Nass?

Bioterror: Manufacturing Wars the American Way
Ellen Ray and William H. Schaap (ed.)
Publisher : Ocean Press
Published : 2003
Copyright : Ellen Ray and William H. Schaap 2003
ISBN : PB 1-876175-64-8
Publishers Write-Up

The editors of this book, Ellen Ray and William Schaap, are two prominent U.S. authorities on the CIA. This well-documented book backgrounds several cases of development and use by the United States of chemical-biological warfare, from Agent Orange in Vietnam to the Gulf War syndrome of the 1990s.
In their introduction, the editors offer an up-to-the-minute analysis of current events concerning the issue of biochemical weapons and the "war on terror."
While Washington opts for 'first strikes' against Iraq and other nations declared to be part of the 'Axis of Evil' for stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, this book proves that the United States itself has been the most notorious practitioner of chemical and biological warfare since blankets laced with smallpox were given to Native Americans 200 years ago.
This well-documented book backgrounds numerous cases of the development and use of chemical-biological warfare by the United States, including anthrax, Agent Orange, nerve gas, dioxin, and depleted uranium. Such action has endangered US citizens and armed forces personnel as well as 'target populations', who will continue to suffer if Washington's belligerence remains unchecked.

Among the contributors are:

Robert Lederer (WBAI/Pacifica Radio journalist)
Tod Ensign (director of Citizen Soldier and veterans' rights advocate)
Dr. Meryl Nass (expert on anthrax and biological warfare who has testified several times to U.S. Congress). -------http://www.booklore.co.uk/PastReviews/RayEllen/Bioterror/BioterrorReview.htm.

Piasa,

That book is a great find. And, yes, I guess she is holding herself out as an expert in the field of biological weapons, and my point is valid only to the extent she would agree she is not an expert on methods of weaponization or making powders. Her research in the Zimbabwe article was of a historical nature.

The best authority on Zimbabwe is the one you won’t be able to get access to — the special collections person at the GMU Center for Biodefense says it won’t be hitting the shelf any time soon. It is a 660 page PhD thesis published in 2006 written by Dr. Hatfill’s former colleage A. Cross, the former SAIC colleague who allegedly passed on a comment by Dr. Hatfill re Maryland ponds. See Seikaly depo. Perhaps he was the one at a SAIC meeting that Dr. Hatfill pissed off. Essentially it is on the same subject as Meryl’s 1992 article. Only the abstract is available at ProQuest Dissertations. Mr. Cross’ mentor was, I believe, Dr. Kenneth Alibek (but I’m not 100% confident of my recollection). After SAIC, Mr. Cross was hired by the FBI as an analyst. I believe he got his PhD attending night classes, while he was working for the FBI (but I’m not sure). Dr. Ken Alibek told me last week that he knows who the FBI suspects but he can’t tell me, but that it will eventually come out — it just intensifies the conundrum, to borrow Justin R’s apt phrase. Who is the “leading anthrax scientist” who could make the powder? If Connolly took the case because he was sure Hatfill couldn’t make the powder because it was too sophisticated, given Dr. H’s friendship with William Patrick, is any sophistication of the powder truly exculpatory? Or is it inculpatory? Might he not have learned a few tricks from WP? (see his 1999 resume saying he knew how to make anthrax simulant).

But who would the USAMRIID deputy commander be from the FoxNews report? I emailed Dr. Spertzel to ask his view but never heard back. The FoxNews report, to be sure, says that the FBI no longer suspects Dr. Hatfill. And the judge, to be sure, said there was no scintilla of evidence suggesting his involvement. (But truth be told, his guilt or innocence is not being litigated — and if you lift the robe, there is just a lawyer aided by a graduate one year out of law school who is overwhelmed by numerous matters.)

So all we know for sure is that Ed is mistaken in what he says about Dr. Hatfill re ability to make an anthrax simulant and the magnitude of lies he told in gaining access to dangerous pathogens. His fraud in gaining his jobs destroy his claim for damages. His distress was of his own making.

Fortunately for Dr. Hatfill it turns out that the documentary and other evidence clearly establishes that US-based supporters of the salafist-jihadis are responsible for mailing the anthrax. But I think that upon this data dump in federal district court, it seems that both the media and USG acted reasonably and within their proper roles. With the exception of the lead prosecutor in the DC US Attorney’s Office. Given he is so senior, it would seem that liability may be imputed to the DOJ under Section 1983 (the civil rights claim) if he was acting within the scope of his work duties. Was he?

http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com

It was more than a happy coincidence for Ayman Zawahiri and Mohammed Islambouli that an active supporter of the Taliban and supporter of jihad was a US biodefense insider. Microbiologist Al-Timimi worked in the same building as famed Russian bioweapons scientist Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID Deputy Commander and Acting Commander Charles Bailey, who would come to publish a lot of research with the “Ames strain” of anthrax. Al-Timimi was a current associate and former student of Bin Laden’s spiritual advisor, dissident Saudi Sheik al-Hawali. He would speak along with the blind sheik’s son at charity conferences — the blind sheik’s son served on Al Qaeda’s WMD committee. Al-Timimi’s mentor Bilal Philips was known for recruiting members of the military to jihad. The first week after 9/11, FBI agents questioned Ali Al-Timimi, a microbiology graduate student in a program jointly run by George Mason University and the American Type Culture Collection (”ATCC”). Ali, according to his lawyer, had been questioned by an FBI agent and Secret Service agent in 1994 after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He had a high security clearance for work for the Navy and years earlier for two months had worked for the White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card when he was Secretary of Transportation. As time off from his university studies permitted, Ali was an active speaker with a charity Islamic Assembly of North America.

Well It’s clear that Patrick and Alibek have made dry powders - after all that was their speciality. But Meselson has never made a dry powder in his life - and he is on record saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim he said - namely that making dry powders is VERY DIFFICULT.
Maybe you can ask him if his quote below is yet again some kind of error by the reporter.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.2/osullbio.html

“People who say that you can make these weapons in your kitchen just don’t understand what’s involved,” says Meselson.

“If anthrax is stirred incorrectly it may clump,” notes Meselson, “and if the cells clump you can’t make an aerosol weapon. They stick together like glue. Who would have thought of that? And I imagine that there are hundreds of little wrinkles like that. All the nonsense about ease of production ignores these facts.”

namely that making dry powders is VERY DIFFICULT.

“People who say that you can make these weapons in your kitchen just don’t understand what’s involved,”

You endlessly try to make disagreements where there are no disagreements.

“If anthrax is stirred incorrectly it may clump,”

Absolutely true. And if you stir the anthrax CORRECTLY, it does NOT clump. In other words, it's all a matter of knowing how.

As with most things, it's "difficult" if you don't know how to do it, but it's easy if you know how to do it.

How can that be so difficult for you to understand? You've made this same bizarre argument DOZENS of times!

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

By the way Ed, I wonder if you can explain the statement below that the powder was found to contain a chemical additive - after MONTHS OF INTENSIVE LABORATORY ANALYSIS? Was this still the “early panicky days” as you like to spin it? Can you explain why, 5 years later, Beecher stated there were NO ADDITVES whatsover?

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/anthraxpowdernotroutine.html

Extensive lab tests of the anthrax powder have revealed new details about how the powder was made, including the identity of a chemical used to coat the trillions of microscopic spores to keep them from clumping together. Sources close to the investigation declined to name the chemical but said its presence was something of a surprise.

The powder’s formulation “was not routine,” said one law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Somebody had to have special knowledge and experience to do this,” the official said.

The finding, one of several emerging from months of intensive laboratory analyses of anthrax spores mailed to Senate offices in October, appears to further deepen the mystery of who is behind the worst act of biological terrorism in U.S. history.

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.