Tuesday, June 5 - Barbara Hatch Rosenberg testifies before a congressional committee on Biological Weapons Convention Protocols.
Friday, July 27 - CNN reports "U.S. rejects germ warfare accord". Many scientists are upset by this, including Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg.
Tuesday, September 18 - The anthrax letters sent to the media are postmarked.
Tuesday, October 9 - The anthrax letters sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy are postmarked.
Mid-November - Someone mails a hoax anthrax letter to Senator Daschle from London that looks very similar to the real anthrax letter. Dr. Hatfill is in England at the time.
Thursday, November 21 - Barbara Hatch Rosenberg tells the Biological Weapons Convention in Geneva her theory. According to Science Magazine:
Profiling the attacker. The anthrax letters that struck down and disrupted lives in New York, Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C., last fall embodied the fears of Rosenberg and many other bioweapons experts, who had long warned that the country was ill prepared to handle such an attack. Her 2 decades of work in bioweapons control have given Rosenberg deep ties in the community; almost immediately following the attacks, she began receiving unsolicited tips from U.S. scientists whose connections with federal programs prevented them from speaking publicly.
By early November, Rosenberg says that certain clues, including signs that the anthrax strain had come from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, convinced her that the perpetrator was an American. She went public with those thoughts on 21 November at a BTWC meeting in Geneva, asserting that New York City "has just been attacked, first by foreign terrorists, then by an American using a weaponized biological agent."
Rosenberg declines to explain why she chose that venue. But her voice rises in anger when she recalls how U.S. officials refused to join with other delegations at the November meeting. "[The U.S. was] accusing everyone else of having bioweapons, when the attack was coming from our program. ... I felt that it was necessary to point out."
Monday, December 3 - Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg publishes a paper via the Federation of American Scientists' web site: A Compilation of Evidence and Comments on the Source of the Mailed Anthrax." Some of her comments:
Conclusions: A recent report by the GAO, and many recent statements by experts in the BW field, hold that terrorists are unlikely to be able to mount a major biological attack without substantial assistance from a government sponsor. The recent anthrax attack was a minor one but nonetheless we now see that it was perpetrated with the unwitting assistance of a sophisticated government program. It is reassuring to know that it was not perpetrated by a lone terrorist without such support. However it is not reassuring to know that a secret US program was the source of that support. Secret threat assessment activities are undermining the intent of the Biological Weapons Convention and encouraging BW proliferation in other countries, which in turn may support terrorist attacks on the US.
Friday, December 14 - The New York Times prints an article titled "FBI Queries Expert Who Sees Federal Lab Tie In Anthrax Cases." The article begins with this:
F.B.I. agents yesterday questioned a leading proponent of the theory that the anthrax attacks were the work of someone linked to a federal laboratory or contractor, asking her about possible clues to the culprit's identity.
"They wanted to know whether I had ideas about who did it," said the expert, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a molecular biologist at the State University of New York at Purchase and chairwoman of a biological weapons panel at the Federation of American Scientists.
Dr. Rosenberg said that in response she had given the agents detailed information about ideas that she had sketched out in a paper posted on the federation's Web site.
Friday, January 4 - New York Times' columnist Nicholas Kristof publishes his first opinion piece about the Amerithrax case: "Profile of a Killer". It begins with this:
I think I know who sent out the
anthrax last fall.
He is an American insider, a man working in the military bio-weapons field. He's a skilled microbiologist who did not aim to kill anybody or even to disrupt the postal system. Rather, he wanted to sow terror. Like many in the bio-warfare field, he felt that the government was not sufficiently attuned to the risks of anthrax, so he seized upon the opportunity presented by Sept. 11 to get more attention and funding for bio-terror programs like those that have been his career.
Sunday, January 6 - Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun writes an article titled "Everyone has an anthrax theory."
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a molecular
biologist at the State University of New York, thinks she has figured
a great deal about the person who mailed the anthrax that killed five
"He had to be an insider in the U.S. biological defense program," she says. Not only that: He is a microbiologist. He probably lives near Washington. And for those who want details, she has laid her reasoning out on the Internet.
Thursday, January 17 - Barbara Hatch Rosenberg uses the Federation of American Scientists' web site to publish an article titled "Analysis of the Source of the Anthrax Attacks." It contains this:
Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a professor of molecular biology at the State University of New York and chair of the biological weapons panel at the Federation of American Scientists, says she has shared her ideas on who is the likely culprit with the FBI, and now posts updates regularly on the Internet. "I get a lot of calls _ some with very elaborate theories, although some people do not know the simple facts," she said. She believes the culprit is going to turn out to be a middle-aged American, who is a government insider with a doctoral degree in biology and knowledge of sophisticated U.S. bio-defense programs, which he would need to make the anthrax.
In order not be made sick from the bacteria, he must have an up-to-date vaccination, and may be employed by a government contractor in the Washington, D.C., area, she said. That's a small enough group that the FBI should be zeroing in on a possible suspect, and she believes the FBI has already interviewed the culprit.
"Whoever knows this knows an awful
lot _ it's going to be very embarrassing information that's going to
out in a trial," she said.
Another academic who has provided information to FBI investigators is Donald Foster, a Shakespearean scholar at Vassar University in New York, where he works normally as a professor of English.
Tuesday, February 5 - Barbara Hatch Rosenberg publishes another article via The Federation of American Scientists' web site. It's titled "Is The FBI Dragging Its Feet?" It contains this:
For more than three months now the FBI has known that the perpetrator of the
anthrax attacks is American. This conclusion must have been based on the
perpetrator's evident connection to the US biodefense program. In addition to
this signpost, the perpetrator has left multiple, blatant clues, seemingly on
purpose: second letters, addressed similarly to the anthrax letters and
containing powder, sent to most (and possibly all) the anthrax recipients;
similar letters sent to several other media organizations; even a letter,
addressed to the Military Police at the Quantico Marine Base, accusing a
former USAMRIID scientist (with whom the anonymous writer says he once
worked) of having bioterrorist intentions.
--The FBI has surely known for several months that the anthrax attack was an
Wednesday, February 6 - The Hartford Courant publishes an article titled "Anthrax Mystery Turns Scholars Into Sleuths."
Shakespeare scholar Don Foster has, for the moment, traded sonnets for the twisted prose at the center of one of the nation's most expansive criminal probes.
Foster is just one, perhaps the best known, of a growing number of armchair investigators drawn to the first big whodunit of the 21st century.
At the forefront is a cadre of academics and scientists such as Foster and biowarfare expert Barbara Hatch Rosenberg.
Rosenberg, a professor of molecular biology at the State University of New York in Purchase, is working on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists. She said that in the four months since the first case of anthrax was confirmed, a jumbled portrait of the perpetrator has come into sharper relief: a skilled scientist, acting alone, who works or worked in one of a handful of labs involved in the U.S. biowarfare program.
Friday, February 8 - Laura Rosen at Salon.com writes an article titled "Is a U.S. bioweapons scientists behind last fall's anthrax attacks?" It contains this:
Although Rosenberg goes further than most experts in criticizing the FBI's anthrax investigation, her analysis of the case has become must reading for scientists and congressional staffers concerned about biodefense issues. (An FBI spokesman contacted by phone Thursday says the agency, too, is reading her work, but won't comment on it.) A microbiologist by training, Rosenberg worked as a cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and as a professor of biochemistry at Cornell Medical College. A decade ago, she founded the Federation of American Scientists' biological and chemical weapons program, which she now heads.
In her analysis of the details
known about the anthrax attacks to date, she has built a persuasive and
disturbing case that the anthrax culprit is a deep insider to the U.S.
government's biological weapons program. Her conclusion is based on a
of facts that point to a smaller and smaller number of individuals who
could have met all the criteria for producing, handling and sending out
the anthrax letters. The perpetrator seemed to have advanced expertise
and experience in biological weapons like anthrax, for instance, and
to the technology to produce and refine it. He or she (but most think
a he) probably would have had to have access to the anthrax vaccine,
is not widely available, in order not to succumb to the disease himself
-- which means records of anthrax vaccinations, which require a yearly
booster shot, would be available to further help identify the person.
Tuesday, February 19 -
The Daily Princetonian contains an article titled "Investigators explore new anthrax suspect."
It contains this:
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg is the
proponent of a new conspiracy theory. Rosenberg, a molecular
leading an independent investigation into last fall's anthrax attacks
behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, said in a speech yesterday
that many U.S. government insiders agree on one likely perpetrator whom
they believe is responsible for the attacks.
But according to Rosenberg, the government may not want to prosecute this person because he is a government insider. Taking this insider to court might require making aspects of America's secret bioweapons program public.
"Many government insiders agree on one likely perpetrator, whom the FBI has questioned more than once," Rosenberg said. The Bureau has known about this individual since October, she added.Rosenberg noted that the U.S. government may not want to prosecute the sender of the anthrax letters publicly, because doing so might force government officials to reveal the extent of the U.S. bioweapons program.
Friday, February 22 - Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey puts this comment on his web site:
Smith took the opportunity to amplify concerns raised to him about the investigation by his constituents over the past four-plus months. A significant portion of the briefing focused on troubling allegations raised by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Chemical and Biological Weapons Program, regarding the probe.
Friday, February 22 - The Baltimore Sun publishes an article titled "FBI scrutinizes biodefense labs in anthrax probe" which contains this:
late last month, when a team of agents from the FBI's Washington, Baltimore and New York field offices arrived at Fort Detrick, the agents clearly had a different mission. They asked "pointed questions" about a few people they appeared to consider potential suspects, said several employees.
Among others, the agents asked about a former Fort Detrick scientist who returned a few years ago and took discarded biological safety cabinets, used for work with dangerous pathogens. Like some other military lab workers, the scientist has expertise on weaponizing anthrax and has been vaccinated against it, sources say.
Reached by The Sun at his job with a government contractor, the scientist volunteered that he had been questioned by the FBI. He said he considered the questioning to be part of a routine effort to eliminate people with the knowledge to mount such an attack.
"I think they had a profile,"
the scientist said. "They had a bunch of people on the list. They have
to rule people out. ... I certainly didn't appreciate getting called
No one likes that. I'm one of the good guys."
The scientist acknowledged that several years ago, with Army permission, he took three biosafety cabinets that were being discarded at Fort Detrick, but he said they were for use in a classified Defense Department project that he could not discuss.
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a microbiologist who heads a working group on bioweapons for the Federation of American Scientists, has claimed on the federation Web site and in a talk at Princeton University on Monday that the FBI long ago identified a former government scientist as a "prime suspect." Agents haven't taken action, she says, because the suspect did secret bioweapons work the U.S. government does not want revealed.
Wrong, said Silberling, the FBI spokeswoman. "It is not accurate that the FBI has identified a prime suspect in the case," she said.
Monday, February 25 - The
Washington Times publishes an article titled "Suspect
worked in U.S. lab." The article contains this:
The FBI has known for more than three months that the person responsible for sending the letters was a U.S. citizen and, according to the sources, probably a former scientist connected to the government's biodefense program.
The government's chief suspect,
the sources said, is believed to have worked at the U.S. Army Medical
Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md., which has
stores of weapons-grade anthrax — commonly known as the Ames strain of
The sources said the former scientist is now employed as a contractor in the Washington area.
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a microbiologist at State University of New York who heads the biological arms-control panel for the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), said that the FBI has been working on a "short list of suspects" for some time, and that agents had narrowed the list to "a particular person ... a member of the biochemical community."
"It has taken a long time for the FBI to identify any suspects in this case, and I don't know why, considering that the person responsible for this comes from a very narrow list of people who have the necessary skill to do what was done," she said. "But there is a common suspect, and the FBI has questioned that person more than once."
Mrs. Rosenberg said she and several colleagues have wondered whether the FBI's failure to bring charges in the case is related to government reluctance to publicly acknowledge its biochemical operation.
Monday, February 25 - According to a Reuters article titled "FBI Not Close to Identifying Anthrax Probe Suspect":
Federal law enforcement officials
denied a newspaper report that the FBI had a identified a scientist who
once worked in a U.S. government laboratory as a chief suspect.
"I wish it was that easy and that simple right now, but unfortunately, there still are several suspects," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) told reporters. "The FBI has not narrowed it down to just one. They are continuing their investigation."
Tuesday, February 26 - According to a New York Times article titled "U.S. Says 'Short List' of Suspects is Being Checked in Anthrax Case":
Officials said the list was compiled mostly through tips from scientists and an analysis by investigators of people with skills to have made the highly concentrated anthrax spores
Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said today that the F.B.I. had several "suspects" in the case, a characterization that law enforcement officials said went beyond the evidence uncovered thus far in the four-month investigation.
In fact, they said, the F.B.I.
is still searching for clues that might point to a specific person. "It
would be inaccurate to say that these people are suspects in the
sense," one law enforcement official said.
is no prime suspect in
this case at this time," said Bill Carter, a bureau spokesman.
Tuesday, February 26 -
According to a Washington Post article
Still Lacks Identifiable Suspect in
The FBI has
conducted anthrax tests in the homes, offices and vehicles
of about a dozen people who have been investigated in the deadly
mailings, but the individuals
were cleared of suspicion after the tests
came back negative, according to officials familiar with the
keep a running list of as many as 20 people who are under
scrutiny at any time. But no individual has remained on the list for
than a month, and none has
emerged as a solid suspect, authorities said.
In a speech at Princeton University
last week, Rosenberg said the FBI
was focusing on a single scientist who had been fired twice
and was now working for a defense contractor in the Washington area.
said she learned of the suspect from law enforcement officials, whom
declined to name.
FBI officials over the last week have flatly discounted Rosenberg's claims, which were included in a Washington Times article yesterday reporting that a suspect had been identified. Numerous Bush administration officials, including White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, yesterday called the report erroneous and said the FBI was not close to identifying a suspect.Tuesday, February 26 - According a The Baltimore Sun article titled "No leading suspect emerges in Anthrax Probe, FBI reports":
The FBI said yesterday that it has not identified a leading
suspect in its 5-month-old anthrax investigation,
denying a published report.
"In our investigation we have interviewed hundreds of persons, in some instances more than once," said FBI spokeswoman Tracey Silberling. "It is not accurate, however, to say the FBI has identified a prime suspect."Monday, March 4 - According to a Hartford Courant article titled "Anthrax Probe Remains Slow Go":
Interviews last week with scientists familiar with the investigation, as well as law enforcement experts who have been following it, suggest that the bureau's insistence that it has not locked its sights on any single suspect is sincere.
The physical evidence gathered so far doesn't point to any one lab, let alone any one person, said the scientist, who is close to the FBI probe and requested anonymity.
That's also the opinion of renowned
forensic expert Henry C. Lee. Speaking as a knowledgeable outside observer,
Lee said the dragnet tactics employed recently by federal agents point
to an investigation that's still far from closing in on its prey.
Lee also said the FBI's move shows officials are confident that sending the samples to Fort Detrick does not risk dropping them into the hands of a potential suspect.
"These last two months, [FBI agents]
have probably interviewed everyone at Fort Detrick and didn't find a
he said. "They don't want to publicly rule anyone out, but their
suggest that's what's going on. They don't think it's anybody who
works at Detrick."
Wednesday, March 6 -
According an article in The Frederick News-Post titled "Anthrax Story: Detrick Cleared":
No Fort Detrick scientist, past or present, is probably a suspect in the anthrax letter case, according to the Hartford, Conn., Courant.
The newspaper, which has been closely following the FBI investigation, said a renowned forensic expert believes Detrick personnel have been cleared.
Henry C. Lee said the FBI wouldn't be sending its anthrax investigation samples to Detrick for testing unless it had confidence in the Army's biowarfare research lab.
The FBI wouldn't risk dropping the samples into the hands of a potential suspect, Mr. Lee said.
Monday, March 11 - Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg is interivewed by The New Yorker for an article titled "The Anthrax Culprit." It contains this:
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a slight woman with short graying hair and deeply concerned hazel eyes, who works out of a small office at the State University of New York at Purchase, thinks she knows who was responsible for the anthrax attacks last October. Rosenberg is, to use the technical term, not chopped liver: she is a veteran molecular biologist and one of the world's leading experts on biological weapons. In 1998, she was one of a group of seven scientists who were invited to the White House to brief President Clinton on the subject. Yet her theory sounds like the plot of a conspiracy thriller, which is not usually true of experts' theories, especially on matters this grave.
It's important to note that, in addition to being an expert, Rosenberg has a political agenda: she is a committed campaigner for outside monitoring of biological-weapons laboratories. Although several local newspapers and the online magazine Salon ran articles on Rosenberg, it took a surprisingly long time—nearly three weeks—for her sensational Web posting to make an official impact, but on February 25th, after the Washington Times published a story that the F.B.I. had a prime suspect who sounded a lot like Rosenberg's, an array of top government officials, including Ari Fleischer, of the White House, and Robert Mueller III, of the F.B.I., were forced to address it—which is to say, deny it—publicly.
Here is Rosenberg's theory: All of the anthrax letters were sent by one person, a middle-aged man who had worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and who was familiar with the method of weaponizing anthrax devised by William Patrick III, the longtime head of bioweapons research at Fort Detrick.
The perpetrator now
a Washington-area subcontractor to the U.S. biological-weapons program.
He is, as Rosenberg puts it, "not a normal person," and has a pattern
erratic behavior. She believes he received some kind of career setback
after he left Fort Detrick that caused him to become "confused, upset,
depressed, angry." He decided to retaliate with the anthrax attacks,
which, Rosenberg guesses, he meant to accomplish two things: first,
showing somebody how good he is" at producing and distributing
anthrax, and thus proving that the career setback was unwarranted; and,
second, he wanted to get the government to invest more in bioweapons
which would mean a budget increase for his current employer.
Friday, March 15 - The Scotsman contains an article titled "Anthrax attacks may have been CIA test gone wrong." It contains this:
AMERICAN expert last night
claimed last autumn’s anthrax attacks may have been the result of CIA
which went disastrously wrong.
Barbara Rosenberg, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Chemical and Biological Weapons Program, raised the possibility that the CIA could have ordered a “field trial” on the possible effects of delivering anthrax through the mail and the contents could have been used by whoever was responsible for the anthrax attacks.
Dr Rosenberg told the BBC’s Newsnight: “Some very expert field person would have been given this job and it would have been left to him to decide exactly how to carry it out.
“The result might have been a project gone badly awry if he decided to use it for his own purposes and target the media and the Senate for his own motives as not intended by the government project.”
Wednesday, March 20 - According to an article on GlennBeck.com titled "British Suggest Anthrax Attacks Were CIA Backed":
A British news program is suggesting that the anthrax attacks on American soil since September 11th may be the product of a government-sanctioned experiment gone terribly, tragically awry.
Dr. Barbara Rosenberg from the Federation of American Scientists believes that theory is very plausible. Milton Leitenberg from the Center for International & Security Studies agrees. Only someone with years of experience and the "cowboy mentality" to match his bravado could have pulled something like this off. If you're looking for someone with qualifications like that, all roads seem to lead to Fort Detrick.
Tuesday, March 26 - According to a USA Today interview with the head of the Amerithrax investigation, Van Harp, titled "Ask the FBI: The Anthrax Investigation":
WDC : How close is the FBI to finding out who mailed the letters?
Van A. Harp: We have made substantial progress in our investigation, but unfortunately we have not identified the perpetrator. I'm confident that in the long run, we will be able to do so.
Monday, April 29 - The Weekly Standard (and maybe also The New York Post) print an article by David Tell titled "Remember Anthrax?" It contains this:
Rosenberg claims the FBI has known the anthrax mailer's precise identity for months already, but has deliberately avoided arresting him--indeed, may never arrest him--because he "knows too much" that the United States "isn't very anxious to publicize." Specifically, according to an account the hazel-eyed professor offered on BBC Two's flagship "Newsnight" telecast March 14, the suspect is a former federal bioweapons scientist now doing contract work for the CIA. Last fall, you see, the man's Langley masters supposedly decided they'd like to field-test what would happen if billions of lethal anthrax spores were sent through the regular mail, and "it was left to him to decide exactly how to carry it out." The loosely supervised madman then used his assignment to launch an attack on the media and Senate "for his own motives." And, this truth being obviously too hot to handle, the FBI is now trying very hard not to discover it.
What if "some kind of deal is made that the perpetrator just disappears from view," Rosenberg worries aloud? She appears already to have taken proactive steps to thwart such a conspiracy. Over the past several months, using language lifted almost verbatim from Rosenberg's website, ABC News and the Washington Times have both fingered the same unnamed "top scientist" as the FBI's only (never-to-be-revealed) anthrax suspect.
Friday, May 24 - Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times writes a column titled "Connecting Deadly Dots." The column includes this:
One of the first steps we can take to reduce our vulnerability is to light a fire under the F.B.I. in its investigation of the anthrax case. Experts in the bioterror field are already buzzing about a handful of individuals who had the ability, access and motive to send the anthrax.
These experts point, for example,
to one middle-aged American who has worked for the United States
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
in the period preceding the anthrax attack.
I say all this to prod the authorities, for although the F.B.I. has known about this handful of people since October, it has been painstakingly slow in its investigation. Let's hope it will pick up the pace, for solving the case would reduce our vulnerability to another attack.
Monday, June 3 - According to The Wall Street Journal: "FBI Reform: Connect the Dots":
The "lone wolf" theory is evidence of the Bureau's ineptitude.
Thursday, June 13 - Barbara Hatch Rosenberg writes a new article for the Federation of American Scientists' web site. It's titled "The Anthrax Case: What the FBI knows."
On February 5 I raised the question "Is the FBI Dragging Its Feet?" Nearly four months later, the question is more urgent than ever. In the interim I have largely avoided commenting on the situation, not wishing to interfere with investigation of promising leads the FBI had received. Now, however, nearly everyone who has followed the situation closely-knowledgeable biodefense insiders, investigative reporters (who have turned up a great many pertinent facts that have not yet been reported), and interested outsiders like myself--knows who a likely perpetrator is. The FBI continues to claim that it has no suspects and few clues, but it continues to focus on biodefense scientists with anthrax experience.
Early in the investigation, a number of inside experts (at least five that I know about) gave the FBI the name of one specific person as the most likely suspect. That person fits the FBI profile in most respects. He has the right skills, experience with anthrax, up-to-date anthrax vaccination, forensic training, and access to USAMRIID and its biological agents through 2001.
Following the anthrax letters, at least three of the five anthrax letter targets (NBC, NY Post, Sen. Daschle) were sent letters similar in handwriting and text to the anthrax letters but containing an innocuous powder. (It is possible that the other two targets (National Observer, Sen. Leahy) were also sent hoax letters that were lost because of mail complications.) Additional, similar hoax letters were also sent to two other media: the NY Times and the St. Petersburg Times. All but one of these five hoax letters were mailed BEFORE anything was known about the anthrax letters. The likelihood that the hoax letters were coincidental is therefore small.
The exceptional hoax letter, to Senator Daschle, was mailed from London in mid-November. This could be an important piece of evidence, depending on the whereabouts and activities of likely suspects at that time.
The FBI was warned early on that the Suspect probably prepared the anthrax on his own and that he might have cultures or equipment at his home. Moreover, his computer/copier/fax may have been used to make the photocopied letters that were mailed with the anthrax.
The Suspect had access to a conveniently-located but remote location where activities could have been conducted without risk of observation. According to insider experts, there are methods by which the perpetrator alone could have made the anthrax and filled the letters in such a location. Details of the methods have been communicated to the FBI.
The Suspect worked at USAMRIID at one time, probably in a secret project, with access to top secret agents. He has also had other interesting connections.
The Suspect is part of a clique that includes high-level former USAMRIID scientists and high-level former FBI officials. Some of these people may wish to conceal any suspicions they may have about the identity of the perpetrator, in order to protect programs and sensitive information.
The anthrax attack was a crime by an American against Americans. Solving such crimes has been the FBI's mission. Failure cannot be blamed on lack of foreign intelligence.
The FBI has stated more than once that it insists upon 100% proof before making an arrest in this case-a very stringent requirement. Why? --Either the FBI is under pressure from DOD or CIA not to proceed because the Suspect knows too much and must be controlled forever from the moment of arrest; [For the good of the country, is it really more important to hide what he knows than to let justice be served?]
--or the FBI is sympathetic to the views of the biodefense clique;
--or the FBI really is as incompetent as it seems.
Fragmentation of investigative activities and undue control of investigators by a less-informed hierarchy seem to be the hallmarks of the anthrax investigation. This profoundly unscientific approach eliminates the cross-fertilization that can occur when seemingly isolated facts are brought together. There has been a tendency to write off a direction of inquiry, or to swing radically in the opposite direction, on the basis of superficial results or incomplete data. The likely outcome for the investigation is continued stalemate, marking time on the off-chance that an unknown informer will turn up with a smoking gun.
Sunday, June 16 - The newspaper Scotland on Sunday publishes an article titled "War on Terror: FBI 'guilty of coverup' over anthrax suspect."
AMERICAN investigators know the identity of the killer who paralysed the US by sending anthrax in the post but will not arrest the culprit, according to leading US scientists.
Dr Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, director of the biological warfare division at the Federation of American Scientists, first accused the FBI of foot-dragging in February with a scathing investigation that included a portrait of the possible perpetrator so detailed that it could only match one person.
Rosenberg said she knows who that person is and so do a top-level clique of US government scientists, the CIA, the FBI and the White House.
in the investigation,"
Rosenberg told Scotland on Sunday, "a number of inside experts, at
five that I know about, gave the FBI the name of one specific person as
the most likely suspect. That person fits the FBI profile in
He has the right skills, experience with anthrax, up-to-date anthrax
forensic training, and access to the US Army Medical Research Institute
for Infectious Diseases (AMRIID) and its biological agents through
"Dr Barbara Hatch Rosenberg says she knows who the terrorist is"
Tuesday, June 18 - According page 10 of a court document in Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit against the government:
Congress picked up on criticism of the FBI by outsiders, and it pressed the FBI to
show that it was making progress on the anthrax investigation. On June 18, 2002, three weeks after The Anthrax Files appeared in The Times, Professor Rosenberg received an audience with members of the staffs of Senators Leahy and Daschle, the two senators to whom the anthraxladen letters were addressed. [...] Van Harp, then the Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office and one of the FBI officials responsible for the Amerithrax investigation, and other FBI officials were “summoned” to attend the meeting to listen to Professor Rosenberg’s theory on who committed the anthrax attacks. [...]
At this meeting, Professor Rosenberg, who had been granted no official authority by the FBI, no access to any forensic tests conducted on the anthrax letters or the FBI’s investigative file, and was “misinformed” about aspects of the investigation, explained to Senate staff members her theory of the case. [...]
It was clear that Professor Rosenberg was talking about Dr. Hatfill.
According to pages 10 and 11 of another court document in Dr. Hatfill's lawsuit against the government:
29. Meanwhile, Professor Rosenberg continued her efforts to finger Dr. Hatfill. On
June 18, 2002, Professor Rosenberg received an audience with members of the staffs of Senators Leahy and Daschle, the two senators to whom anthrax-laden letters were addressed. Defendant Van Harp, then the Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office out of which the Amerithrax investigation was based, also attended this meeting – at the insistence of Senate staff. In this meeting, Professor Rosenberg, who had no official authority, no investigative experience, and most significantly no access to the forensic tests conducted on the anthrax letters or the
FBI’s investigative file, made clear to the Daschle and Leahy staffs that her suspicions rested on Dr. Hatfill as the person most likely responsible for the mailings.
30. Assistant Director Harp was openly skeptical of Rosenberg’s claims during their
meeting, so much so that a Senate staffer later instructed him to call Professor Rosenberg and apologize, which he did. Harp and his superiors were anxious to placate the senators because at that time many senators had made it publicly known that they were displeased at how the FBI had handled terrorism investigations generally and the Amerithrax investigation in particular. Some had remarked that it was time to think about revoking the FBI’s responsibility in investigating domestic terrorism and to consider turning those responsibilities over to another government agency.
Friday, June 21 - Salon.com publishes an article titled "I'm ready for my close-up, Sen. Daschle." It is subtitled:
A leading FBI critic with her own theories about post-9/11 anthrax attacks makes a quiet visit to Capitol Hill.
And it contains this:
The scientist who has been a persistent thorn in the FBI's side over its handling of the anthrax investigation finally got her audience in Congress this week. As the FBI continues to investigate who was behind domestic anthrax attacks last fall, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg came to Capitol Hill to brief Senate staff members about her own widely disseminated theories of who may be responsible -- and how the FBI has botched the search for the anthrax mailer.
The meeting, which was requested by Rosenberg, lasted about 90 minutes. After Rosenberg left, Senate staff talked to FBI representatives for an additional 45 minutes.
"They discussed her letter, which
has been online for sometime," said one Senate source, referring to
posted on the FAS Web site. "She
answered questions from the staff members
and the FBI, but she was not asked, and did not identify, any
in conjunction with her letter."
Monday, June 24 - According
an article in the British newspaper The Guardian titled "Anthrax
killer 'could grow more bacteria'":
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a biological warfare expert at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and a vocal critic of the official investigation, has claimed that biodefence experts had told the FBI the identity of a likely suspect but that the bureau was keeping it secret, possibly because the suspect knows too much about US experimentation with germ warfare.
Mrs Rosenberg said the suspect, whom she does not name but describes in detail, was an American contractor working for the CIA, who suffered a career setback last summer that "left him angry and depressed".
"He must be
angry at some biodefence agency or component, and he is driven to
demonstrate, in a spectacular way, his capabilities and the
government's inability to respond. He is cocksure that he can get away
with it," she wrote in an assessment on the FAS website.
"Does he know something that he believes to be sufficiently damaging to the United States to make him untouchable by the FBI?"
Monday, June 24 - According to a BBC News story titled "New anthrax attack fear":
Frustration is growing in the US at the failure by authorities to arrest the culprit.
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer told Congress that too much time was
being spent on creating an anti-terror bureaucracy, and not enough on
finding the killer.
Monday, June 24 - According to an article in USA Today titled "FBI mystified by anthrax attacks":
from the offices of Leahy,
Daschle and other senators have in the past two weeks met with Barbara
Hatch Rosenberg, a bioweapons expert from the State University
who has for months criticized the FBI for what she calls a fragmented,
mismanaged and profoundly unscientific investigation. Rosenberg
the FBI knows who's behind the attacks but is trying to develop an
"Without a swift arrest, and the message it sends, the nation risks a future threat that could dwarf 9-11," Rosenberg warned in a critique prepared for the Web site of the Federation of American Scientists.
Tuesday, June 25 - The New York Times publishes an article titled "Traces of Terror: The Anthrax Inquiry; Search of biologist is uneventful" which contains this:
Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation examined the apartment of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill near Fort Detrick, Md., after he consented to the search, the officials said. They had said before the search that Dr. Hatfill was not a suspect, and today's results seemed to strengthen that position.
Dr. Hatfill, 48, had been the subject
of Web site gossip among scientists, journalists and other
professionals about possible domestic suspects in last year's anthrax
attacks. After reporters pursued him, he was fired in March from his
job at Science Applications International Corporation, a contractor for
the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency that helps the
government with germ defenses. From 1997 to 1999, he worked at the
Army's biodefense laboratory at Fort Detrick.
In an interview, Dr. Hatfill said he had been the victim of a witch hunt.
'I've got a letter from the F.B.I. that says I'm not a suspect and never was,'' he said. ''I just got caught up in the normal screening they were doing, because of the nature of my job.'
Tuesday, June 25 - The Baltimore Sun publishes an article titled "Frederick scientist's home searched in anthrax probe." It contains this:
The scientist agreed to the search in the hope that it would remove his name from the list of possible suspects in the investigation, one law enforcement official said.
Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, 48, has not been charged or identified by the FBI as a suspect. He worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, the top military bioterrorism research facility, for about two years in the late 1990s.
He was interviewed by FBI agents and given a polygraph test early this year, which he passed, he said in an interview with The Sun in February.
Reached at his job with a government
contractor, Hatfill said then that he considered the questioning to be
part of a routine effort to eliminate people with the knowledge to
an anthrax attack.
In the February interview, he explicitly denied having anything to do with the attacks.
Wednesday, June 26 - The Hartford Courant publishes an article titled "FBI searches home in anthrax case." It contains this:
Tuesday's search came a week after
Hatfill's name came up during a meeting between Barbara Hatch
a biological weapons expert from the Federation of American Scientists,
and staff members of Sens. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and Thomas A.
D-S.D., both of whom were sent anthrax-contaminated letters. FBI
were present at the meeting, sources said.
For months, Rosenberg has been publicly prodding the FBI to take a closer look at Hatfill.
Thursday, June 27 - Brian Ross at ABC decides that the voluntary search was actually a "raid." He writes an article titled "Blueprint for Anthrax Attack" and subtitled:
Government Scientist Commissioned Report on Hypothetical Attack
The article contains this:
The former government scientist whose home was searched by the FBI this week commissioned a report three years ago on how to deal with an anthrax attack by mail, ABCNEWS has learned.
The FBI obtained a copy of the
secret anthrax report last week just before agents raided Hatfill's home
in Frederick, Md., and a storage facility he maintains in Ocala, Fla.
The report, obtained by ABCNEWS, was written in February 1999 by William Patrick III, a leading bioweapons expert and submitted to a defense contractor, Science Applications International Corporation where Hatfill worked at the time. It says that a terrorist would use 2.5 grams of powder in a standard envelope, about the same amount sent to Leahy, a Vermont Democrat and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Hatfill responded to this report in a phone message to ABCNEWS tonight, calling the it "completely inaccurate, scandalous and libelous."
Thursday, June 27 - Scott Shane at The Baltimore Sun writes an article title "Scientist theorized anthrax mail attack." It contains this:
Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, the former Fort Detrick biodefense researcher whose Frederick apartment was searched Tuesday by the FBI, commissioned a 1999 study that described a fictional terrorist attack in which an envelope containing weapons-grade anthrax is opened in an office.
The study, portions of which were read to The Sun by a person who has a copy, illustrates the central paradox of the FBI's nine-month quest for the anthrax mailer: The perpetrator could be a respected American scientist in the biodefense field, where he acquired the skills he then used to kill.
Hatfill is a friend and protege of Patrick, 75, a bioweapons legend who has himself experienced the dual status of expert and possible suspect.
In the case of Hatfill, it is
unclear why FBI agents waited at least six months after they first
him to conduct a thorough search of his home. One possibility: a
last week for Senate staffers by biologist Barbara Hatch Rosenberg.
Rosenberg, who heads a biological weapons working group at the Federation of American Scientists, has repeatedly criticized the bureau for failing to aggressively pursue a "likely suspect" whom she has not named but who closely resembles Hatfill. Her Senate briefing was attended by Van Harp, who heads the anthrax investigation as assistant FBI director in charge of the Washington field office, and three other FBI agents.
Thursday, June 27 - The Hartford Courant publishes an article titled "The Case of Dr. Hatfill: Suspect or Pawn?" The authors can only see two possible explanations for the FBI's sudden interest in Dr. Hatfill:
Former Army microbiologist Steven J. Hatfill is either a pawn in an FBI attempt to recharge its stalled anthrax investigation, or a potential suspect who holds critical clues to solving the case that has bedeviled the agency for the past nine months.
After its public show of investigative
aggressiveness in Maryland Tuesday, and before the evidence had even
examined, bureau officials insisted the search of Hatfill's apartment
produced anything significant.
The FBI also pointed out that Hatfill had agreed to the search and is not considered a suspect.
Thursday, June 27 - Laura Rosen at Salon.com and American Prospect produces an article titled "Who is Steven Hatfill?" It contain this:
FBI agents investigating last fall's anthrax attacks searched the Frederick, Maryland, apartment of Steven J. Hatfill, a former U.S. government bio-defense scientist, this past Tuesday. Hatfill is not a suspect in the anthrax case, the FBI says. Rather, law-enforcement officials have told The Associated Press that Hatfill consented to the search in order to clear his name, which The New York Times reports has been much mentioned on Web sites frequented by scientists, journalists, and others who've taken an interest in the anthrax investigation.
While colleagues at SAIC say that Hatfill's clients adored him, some of them grew concerned about Hatfill this February, after The (Baltimore) Sun ran a story -- not mentioning Hatfill -- about a scientist who was seen taking biosafety cabinets from USAMRIID, at the same time that Hatfill lost his government-issued security clearance and consequently his job at SAIC.
The cabinets episode raises important questions about the concerns some of Hatfill's colleagues have raised. Do they reflect, as some Hatfill acquaintances feared, suspicious actions and statements, or just the musings of an expert during an extraordinary time of public scrutiny in his very field of study? Were Hatfill's colleagues right to be concerned, or were they seized by the mood of paranoia then gripping the nation? By several accounts, Hatfill appears to believe that such speculations and the snooping of journalists cost him his job. Whether the FBI's assertion earlier this week that Hatfill is not a suspect in the case will quiet these suspicions remains to be seen.
Tuesday, July 2 - Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times writes a new column titled "Anthrax? The F.B.I. Yawns." It contains this:
The F.B.I.'s bumbling before 9/11 is water under the bridge. But the bureau's lackadaisical ineptitude in pursuing the anthrax killer continues to threaten America's national security by permitting him to strike again or, more likely, to flee to Iran or North Korea.
Almost everyone who has encountered the F.B.I. anthrax investigation is aghast at the bureau's lethargy. Some in the biodefense community think they know a likely culprit, whom I'll call Mr. Z. Although the bureau has polygraphed Mr. Z, searched his home twice and interviewed him four times, it has not placed him under surveillance or asked its outside handwriting expert to compare his writing to that on the anthrax letters.
Perhaps it's a cheap shot for an armchair detective to whine about the caution of dedicated and exceptionally hard-working investigators. Yet months pass and the bureau continues to act like, well, a bureaucracy, plodding along in slow motion. People in the biodefense field first gave Mr. Z's name to the bureau as a suspect in October, and I wrote about him elliptically in a column on May 24.
If Mr. Z were an Arab national, he would have been imprisoned long ago. But he is a true-blue American with close ties to the U.S. Defense Department, the C.I.A. and the American biodefense program.
Have you examined whether Mr. Z has connections to the biggest anthrax outbreak among humans ever recorded, the one that sickened more than 10,000 black farmers in Zimbabwe in 1978-80? There is evidence that the anthrax was released by the white Rhodesian Army fighting against black guerrillas, and Mr. Z has claimed that he participated in the white army's much-feared Selous Scouts.
Wednesday, July 3 - The World Socialist Web Site publishes an article titled "Why is the U.S. government protecting the anthrax terrorist?" It contains this:
An extraordinary commentary published in Tuesday’s New York Times declares that the FBI is refusing to arrest or seriously investigate the most obvious suspect in the anthrax attacks last fall which killed five people.
The allegations made by Times columnist Nicholas Kristof are so serious that they deserve immediate and thorough public investigation. But so far, both the Bush administration and the media have remained silent on what is, without exaggeration, one of the most astounding articles ever to appear in a major American newspaper.
Friday, July 12 - Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times writes another column about the anthrax attacks. It's titled "The Anthrax Files," and it contains a suggestion that Mr. Z may have also been responsible for the B'nai B'rith letter and various hoaxes:
When someone expert in bio-warfare
mailed anthrax last fall, it may not have been the first time he had
So while the F.B.I. has been unbelievably lethargic in its investigation so far, any year now it will re-examine the package that arrived on April 24, 1997, at the B'nai B'rith headquarters in Washington D.C. The package contained a petri dish mislabeled "anthracks."
In a column on July 2, I wrote about "Mr. Z," an American bio-defense insider who intrigues investigators and whose career has been spent in the shadowy world of counterterror and intelligence. He denies any involvement in the anthrax attacks.
On the date that the perpetrator
chose for the B'nai B'rith attack, a terrorism seminar was under way in
the Washington area and Mr. Z seemed peeved that neither he nor any
bio-defense expert had been included as a speaker. The next day, Mr. Z
sent a letter to the organizer saying that he was "rather concerned" at
the omission and added: "As was evidenced in downtown Washington D.C. a
few hours later, this topic is vital to the security of the United
I am tremendously interested in becoming more involved in this area. .
Over the next couple of years, Mr. Z used the B'nai B'rith attack to underscore the importance of his field and his own status within it. "Remember B'nai B'rith," he noted at one point. In examples he gave of how anthrax attacks might happen, he had a penchant for dropping Arab names.Thursday, July 18 - Scott Shane of The Baltimore Sun writes an article titled "Boss says Md. doctor isn't anthrax suspect." It contains this:
Two outside consultants used by the F.B.I. to examine documents in the anthrax case, Don Foster and Mark Smith, both say they have not been shown the 1997 or 1999 hoax letters. The 1999 envelopes carried stamps, which may have been licked.
It would be fascinating to know whose DNA that is. Perhaps when the F.B.I. is finished defending itself from charges of lethargy, it will check.
Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, whose Frederick apartment was searched June 25 in the anthrax investigation, has a new employer who says the FBI told him the bioweapons expert is "not a suspect and not on any list" of suspects in the case.
Hatfill started July 1 as associate director of Louisiana State University's National Center for Biomedical Research and Training, which is supported by grants from the Justice Department to train emergency personnel to handle bioterrorist attacks.
Stephen L. Guillot Jr., director
of the center, said he was contacted by the FBI a few days after agents
searched Hatfill's apartment near Fort Detrick and a storage unit he
rented in Ocala, Fla.
"They told me Steve was not a suspect and was not on any list," Guillot said. He said he was satisfied that Hatfill had been cleared of any role in the anthrax mailings.
Sunday, July 28 - The Pittsburg Tribune-Review prints an article titled "Slowness in tracking down anthrax killer is intolerable." The article contains this:
The failings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation before Sept. 11 are understandable. What is intolerable is its continuing failure to bring the mass murderer to justice who killed five Americans using weaponized anthrax last fall.
There is a suspect, an individual named
Steven J. Hatfill, 48. He is a
medical doctor who had the means, the motives and opportunity to commit
the crime. Hatfill also could benefit from the attacks and he
pretends to knowledge that would make his arrest embarrassing to our
government. All of this, the FBI denies.
We've learned that his former
colleagues in the biodefense community brought Hatfill's name to the
FBI's attention last October, shortly after the anthrax victims began
dying. He recently had lost his security clearance through
polygraph inconsistencies. Some investigators believe the FBI's amazing
caution stems from Hatfill's loose connections to the late Ron Brown,
President Clinton's commerce secretary. Others think that he was
working for the CIA; and still others believe that the anthrax killings
were a defense-related exercise that went badly wrong.
A final scenario is that "non-suspect" Hatfill has been so deeply involved in U.S. secret operations related to biological warfare that the possibility of him "telling all" has terrified the Justice Department — and not the FBI — into immobility.
NOTE: From this point on, the number of media articles about Dr. Hatfill gets just too numerous to provide quotations for each one. Here are some of the articles:
Newsday - Aug. 1, 2002 - "FBI searches trash bins near former Army researcher's home"
WUSA - Aug. 1, 2002 - "Anthrax Investigation Leads Back to Scientist's Home" or HERE (a.m. & p.m).
CBS - Aug. 1, 2002 - "Heat On Scientist In Anthrax Probe" or HERE (a.m. & p.m. versions).
CNN - Aug. 1, 2002 - "Anthrax Investigation"
The Washington Post - Aug. 1, 2002 - "Md. Home Searched In Probe of Anthrax"
The New York Times - Aug. 2, 2002 - "Apartment Searched Anew in F.B.I.'s Anthrax Inquiry"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 3, 2002 - "Ex-Fort Detrick scientist is put on leave from new job at LSU"
The Boston Globe - Aug. 3, 2002 - "Germ researcher is put on leave"
Saturday, August 3 - The Washington Times publishes an article titled "Scientist says FBI asked about setup." It begins with this:
A top microbiologist in New York
says FBI agents interviewing her
Thursday asked whether a team of government
scientists could be trying to frame Steven J. Hatfill, a former
whose apartment in Frederick, Md., was searched for a second time by
agents on Thursday.
"They kept asking me did I think there might be a group in the biodefense community that was trying to land the blame on Hatfill," said Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a microbiologist at State University of New York.United Press International - Aug. 3, 2002 - "Lab security may not prevent anthrax theft"
The Washington Post - Aug. 4, 2002 - "Still No Arrests in Anthrax Probe, but 'Progress' Is Noted"
Newsweek - Aug. 12, 2002 issue - "The Hunt for the Anthrax Killer"
The Ocala Star-Banner - Aug. 4, 2002 - "FBI returns to search Ocala storage shed"
USA Today - Aug. 8, 2002 - "Anthrax probe proceeding with increased vigor"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 8, 2002 - "Security clearance with faulty resume"
Associated Press - Aug. 9, 2002 - "Hatfill to Make Statement Sunday"
The Sydney Morning Herald - Aug. 10, 2002 - "Anthrax scientists under microscope" (X)
The New York Times - Aug. 10, 2002 - "Anthrax Inquiry Draws Protest From Scientist's Lawyers"
Sunday, August 11 - Barbara Hatch Rosenberg publishes a statement on The Federation of American Scientists' web site. It is part III of an article with the title "Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks." The statement says this:
I have never mentioned any names in connection with the anthrax investigation, not to the FBI, nor to media, nor to Senate Committees or staffs, not to anyone. I have never said or written anything publicly that pointed only to one specific person. Anyone who sees parallels is expressing his own opinion.
It is the FBI that has gone out of its way to make one suspect's name public. I presume they must have had some good reason for doing that; only time will tell. But if the publicity was not an important part of their investigative strategy, I think it was reprehensible.The Washington Post - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Ex-Army Scientist Denies Role in Anthrax Attacks"
Associated Press - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Experts: Hatfill Courting Public"
The New York Times (AP) - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Steven Hatfill's Statement"
Transcript - Aug. 11, 2002 - The Q&A session with Dr. Hatfill's lawyer Victor Glasberg
The Washington Post - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Scientist Steps Up Anthrax Defense"
ABC - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Anthrax Probe Figure Claims Innocence, Protests Gov’t ‘Innuendo’"
ABC - Aug. 11, 2002 - "Scientist Responds To Anthrax Allegations"
The London Sunday Times - Aug. 11, 2002 - "US ‘Anthrax Suspect’ Trained At Porton Down"
The Washington Post - Aug. 12, 2002 - "FBI Said Not Ready to Clear Hatfill"
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Anthrax Investigators Test Mailbox in Princeton Area"
USA Today - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Official: No physical evidence links anthrax to Hatfill"
The Guardian - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Scientist denies anthrax link"
Monday, August 12 - CBS releases an article titled "Scientist Wants Leaks Investigated." The article contains this:
Law enforcement officials have described Hatfill, 48, as a "person of interest," not a criminal suspect, and said he is only one of about 30 people being scrutinized.
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Cloud of Suspicion"
Newsweek - Aug. 12, 2002 - "A ‘Person of Interest’" (X)
USA Today - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Official: No physical evidence links anthrax to Hatfill"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Scientist says he's anthrax 'fall guy'"
CNN - Wolf Blitzer interviews - Aug. 12, 2002
Daily Insight - Aug. 12, 2002 - "Media Manufacture Cloud of Suspicion Over Hatfill"
Florida Today - Aug. 13, 2002 - "Agency hushed anthrax scandal"
The Washington Times - Aug. 13, 2002 - "FBI second-guessed in anthrax probe"
The New York Post - Aug. 13, 2002 - "‘Anthrax' Doctor Failed Lie Test"
The Washington Post (AP) - Aug. 13, 2002 - "Hatfill Novel Depicts Terror Attack"
AlterNet.org - Aug. 13, 2002 - "Why Isn't Stephen Hatfill in Jail?"
Tuesday, August 13 - Nicholas Kristof writes another column about the anthrax case. This one is titled "The Anthrax Files" and it includes this:
It's time for me to come clean on "Mr. Z."
Since May, I've written periodically
about a former U.S. Army scientist who, authorities say privately, has
become the overwhelming focus of the investigation into the anthrax
last fall. I didn't name him.
But over the weekend, Mr. Z named himself: He is Steven J. Hatfill, 48, a prominent germ warfare specialist who formerly worked in the Army labs at Fort Detrick, Md. Dr. Hatfill made a televised statement on Sunday, describing himself as "a loyal American" and attacking the authorities and the media for trying "to smear me and gratuitously make a wasteland of my life."The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 13, 2002 - "FBI defends anthrax inquiry"
The Trenton Times - Aug. 13, 2002 - "Anthrax found in mailbox"
The North Jersey News - Aug. 14, 2002 - "The Scientist And The Mailbox"
The Trenton Times - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Anthrax probe goes door to door"
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Merchants Near New Jersey Site Are Canvassed in Anthrax Probe"
Nicholas Stix - Aug. 14, 2002 - "A High-Tech Lynching: ABC News, The FBI, And The Greendale School Myth"
The Naples News (Scripps Howard) - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Martin Schram: When the only evidence is barking dogs"
The Athens Banner-Herald - Aug. 14, 2002 - "FBI leaks threaten innocent people and criminal investigations"
Associated Press - Aug. 14, 2002 - "FBI shows Hatfill's photo; researcher denies having been to Princeton, N.J."
The New York Times - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Anthrax Finding Prompts Questions in Princeton About Scientist"
The Baltimore Sun (AP) - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Agents circulate Hatfill photo in N.J."
The New York Daily News - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Anthrax doc denies being at mail site"
CNN - Aug. 14, 2002 - Aaron Brown interviews Hatfill's spokesman Pat Clawson.
The Miami Herald - Aug. 14, 2002 - "Hatfill novel depicts terror attack"
The Washington Post - Aug. 15, 2002 - "Evidence Lacking as Probe of Scientist in Anthrax Scare Intensifies"
USA Today - Aug. 15, 2002 - "Attorney protests anthrax case leaks - FBI agents investigate tainted mailbox in N.J."
Fred On Everything - Aug. 15, 2002 - "Steve Hatfill, Anthrax, And Bushwah"
The Express Times - Aug. 15, 2002 - "Legislator irate over FBI's anthrax probe"
The Mail & Guardian - Aug. 16, 2002 - "Murky past of a US bio-warrior"
The Christian Science Monitor - Aug. 16, 2002 - "Turning the spotlight on the FBI"
The Arab News - Aug. 16, 2002 - "While media spotlights one anthrax suspect, another is too hot to touch"
The Baltimore Sun (opinion) - Aug. 16, 2002 - "Who's suspect here?"
The BBC - Aug. 18, 2002 - "Anthrax killer 'is US defence insider'"
TooGood Reports - Aug. 18, 2002 - "FBI Anthrax "Person Of Interest" Positively ID'd In Princeton, NJ"
The Washington Post - Aug. 18, 2002 - "You May or May Not Be a Suspect, But You Will Be All Over the News"
The Baltimore Sun (columnist) - Aug. 19, 2002 - "FBI anthrax investigation smells funny"
The Wall Street Journal - Aug. 19, 2002 - "The Hatfill Case: Essential Background"
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 20, 2002 - "Anthrax Inquiry May Get Wider"
The Denver Post (editorial) - Aug. 20, 2002 - "Anthrax probe troubling"
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel - Aug. 20, 2002 - "One individual can relate with a media frenzy"
CNN - Aug. 22, 2002 - "Ashcroft: No charges yet in anthrax probe"
The Advocate - Aug. 22, 2002 - "Hatfill's work continued after firing"
Science Magazine - Aug. 22, 2002 - "Unconventional Detective Bears Down on a Killer"
The Washington Post - Aug. 24, 2002 - "Handling of Anthrax Inquiry Questioned"
The Advocate - Aug. 25, 2002 - "Hatfill to reveal new data"
CNN - Aug. 25, 2002 - "Scientist blasts Ashcroft for anthrax 'innuendo'"
Associated Press - Aug. 25, 2002 - "Hatfill Files Complaint on FBI Probe"
CNN - Aug. 25, 2002 - Transcript of Dr. Steven J. Hatfill's second statement
CNN - Aug. 25, 2002 - Interview with Newsweek's Mark Miller"
The National Review (columnist) - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Hatfill Strikes Back"
US News & World Report - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Circle of suspicion"
The Baltimore Sun - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Anthrax figure steps up offense"
TooGoodReports - Aug. 26, 2002 - "FBI Terrorizes Hatfill"
The Washington Times (advertisement!) - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Who Mailed The Anthrax?"
The Hartford Courant - Aug. 26, 2002 - "Hatfill Gives Public Statement But Refuses To Answer Questions"
The Washington Times - Aug. 28, 2002 - "Hatfill to undergo blood test for FBI"
The Advocate - Aug. 29, 2002 - "LSU scientist discounts Hatfill's blood-test offer"
The Chicago Sun-Times (columnist) - Aug. 29, 2002 - "FBI's bullying tactics are growing tiresome"
PBS Online News Hour - Aug. 29, 2002 - "Searching For Clues"
The Wichita Times Record News - Aug. 31, 2002 - "Not the killer"
Salon Magazine - Aug. 31, 2002 - "Bio-sleuth or crackpot?"
Associate Press - Sept. 3, 2002 - "Former Anthrax Reseacher Loses Job"
The Advocate - Sept. 4, 2002 - "LSU firing devastates Hatfill"
The Washington Post - Sept. 4, 2002 - "Scientist in Anthrax Probe Fired"
The Baltimore Sun - Sept. 4, 2002 - "Anthrax researcher is fired from job at LSU"
CNN - Sept. 4, 2002 - "Justice Dept. wanted Hatfill off its LSU programs"
The Washington Post (editorial) - Sept. 5, 2002 - "Blacklisting Steven Hatfill"
The Rocky Mountain News (columnist) - Sept. 5, 2002 - "Littwin: Anthrax trail on wrong path?"
The Washington Post - Sept. 5, 2002 - "LSU: Justice Did Not Cause Hatfill Firing"
The Advocate - Sept. 5, 2002 - "LSU axes official - E-mail on Hatfill not forwarded"
The Gainesville Sun - Sept. 6, 2002 - "Attorney: Hatfill is owed new job"
The Naples Daily News - Sept. 6, 2002 - "Guest editorial: Blacklisted"
The New York Post (editorial) - Sept. 7, 2002 - "Anthrax Scapegoat?"
The Advocate - Sept. 7, 2002 - "LSU's administration changing after dismissal of Hatfill"
The Weekly Standard - Sept. 10, 2002 - "From the Mixed-Up Files of Mr. Steven J. Hatfill"
NewsMax.com - Sept. 10, 2002 - "The Department of Injustice?"
The Baltimore Sun - Sept. 12, 2002 - "Scientist's apartment searched a third time"
The Washington Post - Sept. 12, 2002 - "FBI Returns To Hatfill Apartment"
The Weekly Standard - Sept. 16, 2002 - "The Hunting of Steven J. Hatfill"
The Washington Post - Sept. 19, 2002 - "Senator Questions Anthrax Investigation"
USA Today - Sept. 19, 2002 - "Proof of 'person of interest' sought"
The Los Angeles Times (opinion) - Sept. 22, 2002 - "Anthrax Attacks Pushed Open an Ominous Door"
The Boston Globe - Sept. 23, 2002 - "Anthrax probe raises doubts on FBI"
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times - Sept. 25, 2002 - "One year later: anthrax probe seems stalled
Accuracy In Media (AIM commentary) - Sept. 27, 2002 - "A Shaggy Dog Story"
Scripps-Howard News Service - Sept. 29, 2002 - "Critics argue new attacks probably likely"
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch - Sept. 29, 2002 - "St. Louis native labeled "person of interest" in anthrax case fights to clear his name
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch - Sept. 30, 2002 - "Pat Clawson, Hatfill's PR Guru Profiled as an 'FBI Informant'"
NewsMax.com - Oct. 3, 2002 - "Alibek Doubts FBI Claims on Hatfill"
Accuracy In Media (AIM commentary) - Oct. 3, 2002 - "Curiouser And Curiouser"
NewsMax.com - Oct. 3, 2002 - "Hatfill Story Irks FBI"
The Florida Sun-Sentinel - Oct. 5, 2002 - "1 year later, yet no anthrax culprit found"
Reuters - Oct. 6, 2002 - "Fired researcher in US anthrax probe plans to sue" (X)
CNN - Oct. 6, 2002 - "Researcher says he'll sue over anthrax probe"
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 9, 2002 - "Former Army Scientist Forged Ph.D. Certificate"
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 9, 2002 - "A year later, clues on anthrax still few"
The Wall Street Journal - Oct. 14, 2002 - "Armchair Sleuths Track Anthrax Without a Badge"
NewsMax.com - Oct. 15, 2002 - "Ashcroft May Target Hatfill With RFK Tactics"
Time Magazine - Oct. 28, 2002 - "Sleuth Without a Badge" (X) - or HERE.
ABC - Oct. 22, 2002 - "Bloodhounds Lead Investigators to Ex-Government Scientist in Anthrax Case"
Accuracy In Media - Oct. 23, 2002 - "ABC News Repeats Shaggy Dog Story"
Insight Magazine (commentary) - Oct. 29, 2002 - "No Progress in Battle on Bioterror - Why?"
Media Monitor (AIM) - Oct. 24, 2002 - "Why Is Dr. Hatfill A Person Of Interest?"
The Baltimore Sun - Oct. 29, 2002 - "FBI's use of bloodhounds in anthrax probe disputed"
Letter from FBI to Sen. Grassley - Nov. 4, 2002 - re: The media and the first search of Dr. Hatfill's apartment
ABC Australia - Background Briefing - Nov. 17, 2002 - "Anthrax: a Political Whodunit"
AIM Report - Dec. 6, 2002 - "'Person of Interest' Takes It Personally"
DefenseLINKnews - Dec. 9, 2002 - "Skilled Technician Behind Anthrax Attacks, New CDC Director Believes"
Fox News - Dec. 12, 2002 - "Anthrax Investigators Search Public Land in Maryland"
Associated Press - Dec. 12, 2002 - "U.S. Defends Treatment of Steven Hatfill"
ABC News - Dec. 12, 2002 - "Anthrax Clues Underwater?"
United Press International - Dec. 12, 2002 - "FBI may be searching for anthrax clues"
Friday, December 13 - The Washington Post contains an article titled "Justice Dept. Says It Intended To Shield Anthrax Probe Figure" The article contains this:
The Justice Department says it did not intend to focus attention on former Army scientist Steven Hatfill by describing him as a "person of interest" in last year's anthrax attacks, and in fact sought to shield him from unwarranted public scrutiny, according to department documents released yesterday.
Assistant Attorney General Daniel J. Bryant said in a letter to Grassley that the department meant no harm in describing Hatfill as a "person of interest." Instead, the phrase was used "to deflect media scrutiny" and "explain that he [Hatfill] was just one of many scientists" who had cooperated with the FBI.
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 13, 2002 - "FBI investigators search Md. forest for anthrax"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 13, 2002 - "FBI searches Catoctin woods"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 14, 2002 - "FBI continues anthrax search"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 16, 2002 - "FBI agents shift watershed search"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 18, 2002 - "City briefed on search, but mayor still in dark"
The Washington Post - Dec. 19, 2002 - "No Anthrax Leads in Search of Forest"
The Frederick News-Post - Dec. 20, 2002 - "FBI search in Catoctins could be wrapping up"
NewsMax.com - Dec. 24, 2002 - "FBI is tracking Hatfill"
The New York Times - Dec. 24, 2002 - "With Dog Detectives, Mistakes Can Happen"
The Baltimore Sun - Dec. 27, 2002 - "Anthrax fighters await outcome"
Tuesday, December 31 - The Washington Post publishes an editorial titled "Anthrax, One Year Later" which includes this:
it is hard to know where the Justice Department stands with Steven J. Hatfill, the expert on biological warfare whom investigators have labeled a "person of interest" in the case. Several months ago the government searched Mr. Hatfill's possessions and drove him from his job -- but it still won't call him a suspect, charge him with a crime or clear him.
More of my comments about the Dr. Hatfill matter can be found HERE and HERE.
The results of Dr. Hatfill's lawsuits:
Hatfill v Ashcroft et al: On June 27, 2008, the case was settled. The government paid Dr. Hatfill $2.825 million in cash plus an annuity of $150,000 per year for 20 years. The Settlement Agreement is HERE.
Hatfill v Foster, Vanity Fair & Readers Digest: A change of venue was granted to move the case from Alexandria, VA, to New York City and the case was handled there. The lawsuit was settled on or around February 23, 2007. My "comment" for March 4, 2007, provides details. (I think Dr. Hatfill probably won close to ten million dollars from this law suit.)
Hatfill v The New York Times:
An appeal filed in the Hatfill vs The New York Times lawsuit
in the dismissal being overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals
the 4th circuit on July 29, 2005, and by the full 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals on October 14, 2005. According to
the Docket, on November 8, 2005, the case
"stayed" while The New York Times filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal was denied on March 27, 2006. The final
occurred on schedule on November 16, 2006.
On October 20, 2006, Judge Liam O'Grady Ordered the New York Times to
3 confidential sources. The Times refused. The
case was dismissed in a Summary
on January 12, 2007. The appeals were heard on March 21, 2008,
the dismissal was upheld by the appeals court on July 14,
The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and was rejected by the
Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2008.
consisting of conspiracy
theorists, people from the media and a few politicians attempted to lynch an innocent man, and they now
blame the FBI for their own actions.
2. They had the same lack of respect for the law as a lynch mob.
3. They used beliefs instead of facts to justify their actions, just like a lynch mob.
4. The leaders called for action against legal authority, just like a lynch mob.
5. They declared their victim guilty without a trial, just like a lynch mob.
NOTE: The timeline strongly suggests that the London hoax letter mailed in mid-November 2001 to Senator Daschle was sent by someone from the lynch mob in an attempt to point the finger at Dr. Hatfill. (Hatfill was in London at the time.)