A person no longer of interest in FBI anthrax case

After almost seven years, former biological warfare scientist Steven Hatfill is finally, in the words of one of his lawyers, "an ex-person of interest." He and his legal team will also collect a cash payout of $2.825 million from the Justice department and the department will also buy Hatfill an annuity that will pay him $150,000 a year in recognition of the fact that its heavy-handed and ultimately futile investigation made him all but unemployable.

Hatfill became the center of the FBI's investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks -- and for all we know the bureau's only suspect -- after Attorney General John Ashcroft identified him as "a person of interest." The term should have raised flags because it was the same one used when Richard Jewell was wrongly named in the 1996 Atlanta bombing case.

The Hatfill-centric investigation that followed was almost comically intense. His apartment and his girl friend's apartment were ransacked, a pond was drained in rural Maryland at considerable expense and Hatfill trailed everywhere by a small motorcade, one following so closely, he said, that the agents ran over his foot.

In 2003, Hatfill sued the Justice department for violating his rights under the Privacy Act by leaking information about him to reporters. That threatened to become another crossroads reporter confidentiality case when a judge imposed a ruinous $5,000 a day fine on former USA Today reporter Toni Locy for not revealing those who leaked to her.

The Justice department had little to say about the embarrassing settlement, which was disclosed late Friday, the Bush administration's preferred time for letting slip bad news. The public is owed an explanation as to how this investigation was so badly bungled that taxpayers must pay a penalty of almost $5 million, on top of the millions the still-open probe itself has cost.

A spokesman said only, "By entering into this agreement, the United States does not admit to any violation of the Privacy Act and continues to deny all liability in connection with Dr. Hatfill's claims."

Writing on the ABC News Web site, former FBI agent Brad Gannon, based on firsthand experience, offered this explanation: "The anthrax investigation, almost from the beginning, was hampered by top-heavy leadership from high ranking, but inexperienced FBI officials, which led to a close-minded focus on just one suspect and amateurish investigative techniques that robbed agents in the field the ability operate successfully."

The FBI says the investigation continues with 17 agents and 10 postal workers. Almost seven years later, we still don't know who sent those anthrax-laced envelopes that killed five, including two postal workers.

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Forensic evidence also botched by FBI labs

The forensic science evidence behind the anthrax attacks is highly controversial and needs to be properly debated by scientists qualified not only in microbiology but also the physics and chemistry of aerosol powders.
FBI scientist Douglas Beecher published a highly controversial paper in August 2006 - claiming, without data, that the spores contained no additives. This is the opposite of what was reported by US Army labs.

Details are given here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

The August 2006 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology contained an article written by Dr. Douglas Beecher of the FBI labs in Quantico, VA.[22] The article, titled "Forensic Application of Microbiological Culture Analysis to Identify Mail Intentionally Contaminated with Bacillus anthracis spores ," states "Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents." The article also specifically criticizes "a widely circulated misconception" "that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production." The harm done by such things is described this way: "This idea is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone. The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations." However, after this article had appeared the editor of Applied and Environmental Microbiology, L. Nicholas Ornston, stated that he was uncomfortable with Beecher's statement in the article since it had no evidence to back it up and contained no citation.[23]

In August 2007 Dr. Kay Mereish, UN Chief, Biological Planning and Operations, published a letter in Applied and Environmental Microbiology titled "Unsupported Conclusions on the Bacillus anthracis Spores".[25] This letter, published in the same journal as FBI scientist Douglas Beecher (see paragraph above), points out that the statements made by Dr. Beecher in his article on the lack of additives were not backed up with any data. She suggested that Dr. Beecher publish a paper with analytical data showing the absence of silica or other additives. Such data would include SEM images of the pure spores as well as EDX spectra and EDX images showing the absence of any foreign additives such as silica or the elements silicon and oxygen. Dr. Mereish referenced a 2006 CBRN, Counter-Proliferation and Response meeting in Paris where a presenter announced

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.