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 true - go back and read the book. He saw the fried egg gunk on these spores also.

I have a personally autographed copy of Richard Preston's book in front of me. On page 175 he describes killing the spores in a "cobat irradiator -- which fried the DNA in the spores, rendering them sterile."

On page 176 he talks about static electricity causing the spores to jump all over the place. Then, when he finally gets to see the spores in the SEM, he says, "The spores were stuck together like moon rocks ..." And, "The anthrax particles had an eroded, pitted look, like meteorites fallen to earth. Most chunks were very tiny, sometimes just one or two spores, but there were also boulders." And he described how the chucks fell apart as he watched.

On page 177 is this image of a reference sample, similar in character to the spores in the Daschle letter:

Note that there is NO sign of any silica in that image. The spores in that image look NOTHING like any kind of silica coated spores.

And that's the last mention of what he saw. Where's the mention of "fried egg gunk?"

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

People like Ed Lake ...

Ed’s lackadaisical approach to biosecurity — and his “the clock ticked 5 p.m. so I’m outta here” approach to true crime analysis —

Ed’s lackadaisical approach to biosecurity also extends to the threat posed by salafi-jihadists.

“Do I look like I’m negotiating?”

Your comments are starting to get pretty creepy. You're reminding me once again of what was said about you in another thread:

Nothing personal...but you sound a little bit on the obsessive side, and not completely coherent. Are you surprised that people might ask to have you banned? Besides the obvious trespass of registering under a new name after being banned, you have the sound of someone who might drive halfway across the country to find someone who offended you in a post.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

The difference, Ed, is I address the merits of your argument whereas you make ad hominem attacks.

It is you who has a “bogey man” view of Al Qaeda:

You write:
“Al Qaeda terrorists are vicious, dedicated killers who look for maximum damage and maximum impact.

You don’t pause to study the raging debate over tactics and the killing of innocents discussed in FISA and NSA wiretaps — or the prohibition against killing women and children with a poison.

You argue:

“Clearly, the terrorist was warning the recipients that the powder in the letters was dangerous and to act accordingly. That’s certainly not something the Al Qaeda would be likely to do.”

When I quote Al-Timimi, 15 feet from Ed’s expert, on what the hadiths say about the conduct of warfare, you dismiss it as esoteric trivia not worthy of your attention.

You ask:

“And why use the Ames strain of anthrax?” ignoring that the CIA experts like Michael Scheuer have explained that Al Qaeda perceives a duty to use the weaopns of their enemy.

You write: “The evidence almost certainly indicates that the terrorists were not Al Qaeda.”

Yet you have remained entirely ignorant of the relevant evidence by not informing yourself about the Salafi-Jihadists, their motivations, and their tactics.

But then you advance your profile of the perpetrator:

” 8. The terrorist probably watches Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel.”

You continues:

” 13. The terrorist probably has a bumper sticker on his car that reads something like “Clean Up The Environment! Kill a Liberal!”

You continue:

“15. The terrorist may be divorced.
16. The terrorist may have a small child and visitation
rights with the child.
17. The terrorist may have used his child to address the
envelopes and to write the letters.
18. The terrorist’s child is probably home schooled.”

What utter and total uniformed amateurish crock.

Instead, the correct profile would have been someone in current contact with the people who have said — and in fact — moving forward with plans to use weaponized anthrax against US targets. And so the task for the CIA and FBI was to identify that person.

They immediately did and then undertook through investigation to identify what affiliates might have processed and/or mailed the anthrax.

The reason you don’t address the merits, Ed, is you don’t know the merits and are not informed enough to credibly address the true crime matter. If it doesn’t fit your preconceptions from December 2001, you have no interest in exploring it. That’s cognitive rigidity.

If you were a government analyst and you demonstrated this sort of truncated analysis, you should have been fired 5 years ago.

AFIP clearly stated that silica was a key aerosol enabling component of the Daschle anthrax.

No, they didn't. That just more of your twisting of the facts.

In their self-serving newsletter, AFIP said:

“Ft Detrick sought our assistance to determine the specific components of the anthrax found in the Daschle letter,” said Florabel G. Mullick, MD, ScD, SES, AFIP Principal Deputy Director and department chair. AFIP experts utilized an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (an instrument used to detect the presence of otherwise-unseen chemicals through characteristic wavelengths of X-ray light) to confirm the previously unidentifiable substance as silica. “This was a key component,” Mullick said. “Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize. Significantly, we noted the absence of aluminum with the silica. This combination had previously been found in anthrax produced by Iraq.”

The AFIP article says the chemical they were trying to detect with the EDX was OTHERWISE UNSEEN and then they explain some things in general terms. But THEY DID NOT SEE ANY SILICA, so its purpose was unknown. Generally, though, "Silica prevents the anthrax from aggregating, making it easier to aerosolize." No one disputes that.

They CERTAINLY didn't see any coating. And General Parker later said,

I’d like to say that, although we may see some things on the microscopic field that may look like foreign elements, we don’t know that they’re additives, we don’t know what they are, and we’re continuing to do research to find out what they possible could be. They’re unknowns to us at this present time.

The fact that AFIP wrote their comment after General Parker said what he said doesn't mean anything. The known information shows that AFIP only saw the Daschle anthrax for a few hours one day. Geisbert brought the sample to AFIP already prepared and ready for the EDX. And he undoubtedly took the sample with him when he left.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Stuart, you have to appreciate Alibek’s reasoning and the basis for that phrasing. He is explaining that anthrax has an exosporium and thus there would be no need for silica except for drying — which relates directly to the question of adhesion and clumping.

My consulting military scientist has sent SEMS of spores — which I’ve shared with you — that if you run an infrared spectroscopy on them they contain a large peak of silica, but no silica particles are to be seen. He says they “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.” They look very different from the ones in the aerosol journal article but the same as those represented to look like the Daschle product (except as to concentration). That is because, he reports, they are better than those made for the tests reported in the aerosol article. His lab does aerosol experiments with anthrax simulants. He has worked with the journal authors. No, I can’t tell you how they were made. In one ordinary light microscope picture (phase contrast), the clumps are of dried spores from a water solution and the individual ones are from the dried siliconizing solution (which is your signature polymerized glass). But all of Ed’s obsession about silica is merely due to the total absence of substance to his true crime analysis. I mean you can’t go too far with his analysis when he created his profile around specific individuals and none of the posited traits in fact apply. But when you appreciate that all of his ad hominem labels best apply to him, his theory can be put on the trash heap with a Zack Theory. My military consultant method supports you IMO. He just has not provided an EDX yet to us that would be definitive on these points.

Yup, and he still stands by the statement from Alibek - “there is no principle to coating”.

All you seem to do is attack people who say things you do not believe.

Dugway coated spores with silica. You attack Alibek because you believe he was either lying or incompetent for not knowing or remembering how American biopweapons experts made bioweapons during the Cold War.

You attack Dr. Beecher because he didn't write what you believe he should have written in his article.

You attack Matthew Meselson for every reason you can think of.

Instead of looking at the facts, you want everyone to ignore everything these experts have ever said.

Without going into more personal attacks upon them, why don't you tell us what they've said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Ken’s assistant has explained the reason for the silica in a PhD thesis supervised by Ken. She reports that “many experts who examined the powder stated the spores were encapsulated. Encapsulation involves coating bacteria with a polymer which is usually done to protect fragile bacteria from harsh conditions such as extreme heat and pressure that occurs at the time of detonation (if in a bomb), as well as from moisture and ultraviolet light. The process was not originally developed for biological weapons purposes but rather to improve the delivery of various drugs to target organs or systems before they were destroyed by enzymes in the circulatory system” (citing Alibek and Crockett, 2005). “The US and Soviet Union, however, “ she explains, “used this technique in their biological weapons programs for pathogens that were not stable in aerosol form... Since spores have hardy shells that provide the same protection as encapsulation would, there is no need to cover them with a polymer.“ She explains that one “possible explanation is that the spore was in fact encapsulated but not for protective purpose. Encapsulation also reduces the need for milling when producing a dry formulation.” By reducing the need for milling, she means permits greater concentration of the biological agent. If the perpetrator was knowledgeable of the use of encapsulation for this purpose, then he or she may have employed it because sophisticated equipment was not at his disposal.”

So if the product was not stolen outright, then the task for the FBI was to find the scientist knowledgeable about an encapsulation technique.

But all of Ed’s obsession about silica is merely due to the total absence of substance to his true crime analysis.

Of course, my interest in the subject has nothing to do with the fact that silicon and oxygen were detected in the Daschle sample, but no one saw any silica OR poylmerized glass in the sample. And the entire field of Microbial Forensics seems to have been created to determine with scientific accuracy what that silicon and oxygen was and how it got there. If it's "lab contamination" as believed, it would be key evidence in a criminal case.

That may seem unimportant to you, but it seems pretty important to me.

The rest of my interest is simply a matter of showing that Stuart's belief is a lot of hogwash when he tries to suggest that the attack spores were coated with silica and that the entire FBI and thousands of microbiologists are all involved in some sinister plot to keep that information from the American public.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Ken’s assistant has explained the reason for the silica in a PhD thesis supervised by Ken. She reports that “many experts who examined the powder stated the spores were encapsulated.

And this is supposed to be believed? You think it's the definitive explanation for the silicon and oxygen that was detected?

The FACTS say that that explanation is RIDICULOUS.

The very idea that someone writing a PhD thesis and who has never had access to the attack anthrax would provide the definitive explanation for the detection of silicon and oxygen in the attack anthrax is RIDICULOUS.

Since spores have hardy shells that provide the same protection as encapsulation would, there is no need to cover them with a polymer.“ She explains that one “possible explanation is that the spore was in fact encapsulated but not for protective purpose. Encapsulation also reduces the need for milling when producing a dry formulation.”

"one possible explanation" says that she's just guessing. That doesn't make her the definitive expert.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

I’ve explained based on the SEMS of the anthrax simulant made by the military lab that makes anthrax simulant for the government (for biodefense testing purposes) why silica was detected but not seen. Now that’s science. His results and conclusions are the subject of testing, measurement, and verification.

Stuart is hung up on the characterization of “super-sophisticated” versus the military scientist’s characterization (and Ken’s characterization) of the method as relatively simple. The difference is that the anthrax scientist has done it. But, of course, it is sophisticated. Everything about the work of the lab is sophisticated.

The suggestion that it was due to lab contamination — as you suggest — well, that’s is not subject to duplication and has not been duplicated. But there was nothing improper about Dwight Adams’ citation of that study to Senate Staffers. No conspiracy here on the science, Stuart. Just on the use of the lethal weapon.

Now as to neither Dwight nor Doug being expert on anthrax weaponization, there is no surprise there. That is why they are contracting with numerous outside labs.

So you say. And we're just supposed to simply salute and believe everything you say? That's not science.

Finding one possible explanation for the detection of silica and oxygen and believing it MUST be the ONLY explanation is NOT SCIENCE.

You look for things which support your beliefs, and when you find them you declare that they are the final truth. That's NOT SCIENCE.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

Ed argues against an Al Qaeda theory:

“It’s all really very simple. It’s just the hard-core al Qaeda theorists who try to complicate things with wild theories about how dead people
could mail letters a week and a month after they died.”

Yet, Ed nowhere discusses the affiliates and supporters of Al Qaeda in the US. First, he reasoned (foolishly) that the FBI would be talking about them (rather than trying to wiretap them while their guard was down). Then when they began talking about them — issuing $5 million rewards etc. — Ed made no mention of them and just has left his “hijackers are dead” theory as the cornerstone of his theory against an Al Qaeda theory.

As someone responded to Ed:

“Ed. It seems you still believe that there are only 19 al qaeda, and
they are all dead from the 911 attacks... “

Ed has no answer. He has this dichotomy: “American scientist” vs. supporter of the Salafi-jihadists. It’s as if Ed does not realize that the two categories are not exclusive. That’s because he has a “Bogey Man” view of Al Qaeda and does not recognize that a Salafist who supports the jihadists might be the nicest (and most consummately professional) guy you ever met.

The reason Ed does not mention Al-Timimi on his website and his lawyer’s admission he is an “anthrax weapons suspect” is that it would blow every puerile argument he has every made about an Al Qaeda Theory to smitheerens. Ali was an American scientist, Ed.

Ed did not explore the possibility that there were American scientists because he was a true believer in his specious drunk bowler theory.

“And we’re just supposed to simply salute and believe everything you say?”

There are thousands of links, organized chronologically, in support of the argument here. I don’t believe you’ll find any broken links.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/bibliography.html

BTW, in case you didn’t see the movie “Michael Clayton,” “Summons to Conquest” is the name of the memo he is holding. It was the name of a chapter in a book explained by his son to him. That name was then selected by senior defense counsel Albert in writing his memo. Given that the Vanguards of Conquest used the anthrax in threatening the destruction of the US, I thought Summons to Conquest was an appropriate title.

“Without going into more personal attacks upon them, why don’t you tell us what they’ve said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny?”

Meselson stated that AFIP released a spectrum of only silicon. AFIP released a spectrum of silica.

Meselson and Alibek said that anonymous sources should not be trusted and that we should wait for named, knowledageable government officials to announce their results. They did anounce them. Meselson and Alibek then pretended the announcement did not exist or else fabricated waht was relased.

Beecher said that the media reported that the spores were weaponized. He failed to mention that AFIP, Detrick and the Whitehouse all officially announced on the record that silica had been found.

Beecher chose to enter the peer reviewed systam with his unsupported statement. When asked to support it , he ignored the request.

Alibek said there is no principle to coatings. The US and Russia have used coatings for years to weaponize dry powders and simulants.

The question was:

why don’t you tell us what they’ve said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny?

You responded,

Meselson stated that AFIP released a spectrum of only silicon. AFIP released a spectrum of silica.

That's not about the anthrax. That's about a spectrum that was NOT a spectrum of the attack anthrax.

Meselson and Alibek said that anonymous sources should not be trusted and that we should wait for named, knowledageable government officials to announce their results. They did anounce them.

That's not about the anthrax. That's your interpretation of a statement about believing unidentified sources.

Beecher said that the media reported that the spores were weaponized. He failed to mention that AFIP, Detrick and the Whitehouse all officially announced on the record that silica had been found.

Failing to mention something you think is important is not something which close scrutiny" would show to be invalid. And the statements are not necessarily incompatible. The presence of something UNSEEN but believed to be silica does not necessarily mean the anthrax was weaponized.

Beecher chose to enter the peer reviewed systam with his unsupported statement. When asked to support it , he ignored the request.

So? That's not about the attack anthrax. That's about the review process.

Alibek said there is no principle to coatings. The US and Russia have used coatings for years to weaponize dry powders and simulants.

Or so you believe. But your belief that they glued silica to spores with organic resin is just plain ridiculous. Plus, Ken Alibek explained to me in detail how they weaponized anthrax, and it didn't involve coating spores. Plus, the way Russia weaponized spores had nothing to do with the attack anthrax since, coating or not, the Russian technique involved silica which would be EASILY SEEN under an SEM.

So, you have NOTHING that they've said about the anthrax used in the attacks of 2001 that doesn't hold up under close scrutiny.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

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.