Hatfill was taking Cipro. He was known to have been to NJ, and Florida when the attacks in those states occured. He was involved in a program teaching rescue personnel in the event of a biological attack. Bloodhounds reacted over and over again when near somewhere where Hatfill had been based on a scent given to the dogs from the anthrax letters. He had access to anthrax in his duties at Fort Dietrich.
I’ll risk Hatfill suing me for he’ll get my dog, cats and Jeep. But I think the FBI’s been on the right track all along only they can’t prove it.
Plus this fine fellow forged his diploma, such an honest guy.
I don’t get this defense of this man. There’s plenty of evidence pointing his way.
Maybe he is innocent but I sure don’t see any problem with him being a “person of interest”, no I sure do not.
Fishtalk, what is your authority he is known to have been in NJ when the attacks occurred when to the contrary it is not known — all indications are that he has never been to Princeton, NJ in his life. As for Florida, the anthrax was mailed from NJ, not Florida.
As for bloodhounds, when used in the sniper case, they alerted to a dog grooming parlor.
As for whether the FBI has been on the right track, they are charged with leaving no stone unturned. If they had not had vigorously investigated Dr. Hatfill, it would seem negligent.
I do think the forged diploma does bear on the equities. When seeking justice, do justice.
Of course, if the FoxNews report is right that the closest match to the powder was dry powder made at Ft. Detrick, it shows that the FBI was anchored to Ft. Detrick for reasons that went way beyond the mere fact that Ft. Detrick was the key origin for distribution of the Ames strain.
Like Dr. Hatfill’s attorney Glasberg said, when scaffolding was around the Washington Monument, you didn’t know whether there was masonry behind it. So we can tear down the scaffolding and poke fun at the Greendale school story, and the cabin in the woods, etc. but we don’t know what the FBI knows.
Personally, I don’t think there is any evidence at all Dr. Hatfill is guilty. I think the pond and bloodhound leaks were an outrage (given that they were so insubstantial). I have no idea how the lawsuit will turn out. As for the Privacy Act claim, it is pretty technical. I have not included the legal discussion.
According to the FoxNews report which relied upon an unnamed law enforcement source, the FBI no longer suspects Hatfill. I credit that.
On the forged diploma business, I think it is far more serious for a professional that recognized by Attorney Connolly or Ed Lake. It is a really, really big deal for an M.D. to have done that.
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com