Posted on 09/06/2002 7:10:37 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
It wasn’t long ago when the mention of the word “anthrax” had everyone in this country scared to open their mail. For Dr. Steven Hatfill, the word association has now cost him his job.
Chancellor Mark Emmert fired Hatfill Tuesday, but said the decision to terminate him was not made based upon any assumptions in the FBI’s investigation.
Hatfill is still a “person of interest” in the FBI’s investigation of last year’s anthrax attacks. The FBI’s interest in Hatfill stemmed from his employment at the Fort Detrick Army bioweapons lab in Maryland, where scientists had access to anthrax.
LSU hired Hatfill as an adjunct professor for the National Center for Biomedical Research and Training in April. The University placed Hatfill on paid administrative leave in August, before he moved to Baton Rouge, and after the FBI searched his Maryland home. Emmert said this was to give the university time to assess the situation while still letting Hatfill get paid.
The FBI label has prompted lots of media attention for Hatfill and controversy for the school in recent months, and this sudden firing makes things worse.
LSU’s main concern may not be that it hired a man possibly linked to anthrax killings, but rather what could come next. The University could be in hot water down the road if Hatfill decides to sue for wrongful termination.
I think the school’s heart is in the right place by claiming Hatfill’s guilt or innocence wasn’t a factor in firing him, but it’s obvious the school was looking to dump this public relations mess before it got out of hand. After all the bad press associated with Hatfill, it seems the University just couldn’t take the heat. For Hatfill, things likely won’t end here. Even if he’s innocent, the perception of being a possible anthrax suspect will follow him wherever he goes.
Considering LSU didn’t do a stellar job of checking Hatfill’s background, the termination could come back to haunt the school. According to The Advocate, the University received assurances from the FBI that Hatfill wasn’t involved in the anthrax case before promoting him to associate director of bioterrorism in July.
Daniel Walsh, LSU dean of Continuing Education, oversaw Hatfill’s hiring. Walsh told The Advocate he’s always relied mainly on personal references when deciding who to hire.
The FBI’s strange investigation didn’t help Hatfill’s cause, either. It’s still not clear if Hatfill is involved in last year’s attacks or if he’s only a nifty scapegoat for a sagging government investigation. The office has never declared him a suspect, but it did pass around his picture in a New Jersey area where the anthrax mail could have originated.
At a news conference last month, Hatfill declared his innocence and accused the FBI of overzealously investigating him. He also claimed FBI officials trashed his apartment, threatened his girlfriend and leaked information about him to the press.
I watched the conference, and in my mind, Hatfill didn’t seem to act like a guilty man. He was emotional, breaking down a few times as he spoke. He seemed angry, particularly about the things FBI investigators allegedly did to him.
To me, he looked more like a man caught in a bad situation rather than a sadistic individual who mailed poison to unsuspecting victims. Unfortunately, the University didn’t feel the same way, though, and Hatfill is stuck in the middle.
While I understand LSU’s reaction, the school could have given its employee the benefit of the doubt and afforded him the luxury every American enjoys — being innocent until proven guilty.
This is an INCREDIBLE ADMISSION. So as recently as last July, the FBI has been assuring others that Hatfill WASN'T involved in the Hatfill case. So WHY are they persecuting him???
Orders from Ashcroft? Pressure from Congress?
Seems to me those political interests would now be well-advised to cut their losses, drop their lies, and hope everybody forgets about them in the midst of a war. If they keep up their lies, they're going to be badly discredited.
Hatfill and his lawyer seemed to me to be suggesting that they might get around to doing exactly that, at their first press conference. At the second press conference, the threat was more clearly directed at Nicholas Kristof and the New York Times.
And what if she's wrong? Rosenberg concedes that interrogating Hatfill might not help the FBI crack the case. But she quickly reverts to character. Even if that's true, she says, "the broad principles and the things I've said, I stand behind."
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.