Untitled Document

8-8-08

Why the FBI Murdered Bruce Ivins

Army scientist Bruce Ivins "was the only person responsible" for anthrax attacks in 2001 that killed five and rattled the nation, the Justice Department said Wednesday, buttressing its claim with the release of dozens of documents all pointing to his guilt.

Why do we know Bruce Ivins did not act alone and therefore is probably not responsible for the anthrax attacks at all? The anthrax notes were not written by him. A handwriting expert examined the anthrax notes and said they were written by a female who worked at the Government lab and the follow the dots logical guess is that the female employee who wrote the anthrax notes is Dr. Marian Rippy. So if Ivins did not write the anthrax notes there had to have been another person involved in the anthrax murders other than Ivins. Ivins Letter to the Editor as explained, And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006: Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue." By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue." In the anthrax note the writer writes "Death to Israel." Bruce Ivins in a letter to the editor writes "Jews are God's chosen,". Why would a person who is on the side of Israel engage in trying to kill Democratic Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy with anthrax to advertise "Death to Israel." Ivins had worked for government labs for all his adult working life and he received honors. Does this make sense that Ivins is the guilty party when there is an ex CIA operative with a forged resume who had been working for the lab only a short while before 911 and the lead suspect, Stephen Hatfill? Nope. Especially since Ivins had forgotten more about anthrax than anyone else in the lab ever knew and the real perpetrators had to have been known by him. Ivin knew who the real anthrax murders were. The real anthrax murders lead to the real 911 perpetrators. Good motive to kill Ivins. Ivins knew he was a walking dead man. Ivins knew the guilty parties. Did Ivins leave proof as to his innocence and the names of those guilty? Yep. Why did the FBI wait so long to kill Ivins? They were worried Ivins left evidence which would nail them? The FBI could not wait any longer and are holding their breath they won't get nailed. Mr. Ivins, Aren't you enjoying all this. FBI go steal Ivin's proof ya'all are the bad guys. Hope you are not anthraxed in the process.

In this "he said, she said," anthrax investigation apparently the FBI is saying, Ivins had sole custody of highly purified anthrax spores with "certain genetic mutations identical" to the poison used in the attacks, according to the documents. Does the FBI know what the "highly purified anthrax spores with 'certain genetic mutations identical" to poison used in the attacks is? Nope. A scientist tells them. Where does the scientist come from that the FBI gets its information? The same government lab Bruce Ivins worked all his life. One thing we know for sure. The anthrax came from the government lab. Could the FBI's scientist who says this that and the other about Ivins be in with the real guys who spread the anthrax? Yep. Who knows who is telling the truth? No one. Dr. Philip Zack, with "Pathogen X" was videotaped assisted by his "good friend" Dr. Marian Rippy. "Pathogen X" may be the "highly purified anthrax spores with 'certain genetic mutations identical" to poison used in the attacks. Dr. Phillip Zack and Dr. Marion Rippy may be the real anthrax murders. They hated Arabs and belittled an Egyptian scientist out of the government lab. Pretty good motive. Hate Arabs. Dr. Ivins loved Israel. So who is the FBI going to get to nail Bruce Ivins? Drs. Zack and Rippy. Probably.

But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com

The anthrax murders have lay dormant for seven years. What are the chances that the anthrax murders just so happened to come on the scene in the heart of the 2008 presidential race and the timing of nuking Iran? None. Way too big a coincidence. Why did the FBI murder Bruce Ivins? To interject the anthrax murders and 911 in to the 2008 presidential race and the debate as to whether or not Israel and the USA should nuke Iran. The next step is to connect John McCain to Bruce Ivins. Why? To force McCain to withdraw from the presidential race.

We are coming up on the anniversary of 911 and the Little George Administration is having a fit to nuke Iran. The big sound bite is the USA was attacked by anthrax and 911. Arabs responsible. Nuke em.

Is it possible the FBI did not deliberately murder Bruce Ivins? Yes. The FBI may be patsies. Certainly there is a force out there trying to make the FBI look real dumb. Then again the FBI may be trying to make themselves look dumb. Why? Because the FBI may be in on the anthrax murders and 911, is my guess. Who knows.

FBI - ( they had traced back to his lab the type of envelopes used to send the deadly powder through the mails.) Ho. Ho. Special envelope! Looks like one of the ten billion other envelopes you see everyday at Walmart or any other store you shop.

If the murder of Bruce Ivins is the stupidity used to interject anthrax into the 2008 election I hate to imagine the stupidity used to nuke Iran. The FBI kills a guy who can expose the real anthrax murders. McCain is linked to Bruce Ivins and drops out of the race for president. The USA and Israel nuke Iran because of the anthrax murders. Bruce Ivins death proves the anthrax murders and thus 911 are home grown! Good grief. About as smart as using sniper shots in Ohio to convict the DC sniper patsies.

It is my guess the $5.8 million in damages paid Stephen Hatfill was the FBI's way of paying Hatfill to pull off the anthrax murders, with the help of Zach and Rippy. The murder of Bruce Ivins was to blame Ivins for Hatfill's crimes. Hatfill claims to be a CIA operative and had been at the lab for only a short while before the anthrax murders. Why would the FBI nail a guy Bruce Ivins who had worked at government labs for 36 years or so, and pay a guy $5.8 million who was a ex CIA operative with a faked resume, and let Stephen Hatfill off the hook? Stephen Hatfill was working for the FBI. Hatfill is probably a walking dead man. Hatfill is a sure link in the chain to the real perpetrators of the anthrax murders and 911. Mullen ordered Ivin out ted and that is a link as well. Like Ivin there are honest good people in the FBI who are keeping notes. This is the time to disclose a little info. It is my theory an honest person in the loop can discretely disclose maybe 10% of the puzzle and not get caught. The coming change in Administrations may have played a role in the decision to murder Ivins.

I-Ching - Did the FBI hire Stephen Hatfill to pull off the anthrax murders?

--- ---
------* --- ---
--- ---
-------* --- ---
------ * --- ---
--- ---

48 The Well changes to 2 Pure Yin

The Well - never changes - rewards the common folk - to help each other - Changes to 2 Pure Yin - One will prevail only if one is perfectly compliant ( submissive) - When Yin is manifest in something, that something must distance itself from its own ilk and go to the opposite kind.

Bruce Ivin's widow won't get money from the FBI because her husband is the patsy and not in on the anthrax murders.

All along, though, the anthrax came from a U.S. Government/Army research lab.

. That means that the same Government lab where the anthrax attacks themselves came from was the same place where the false reports originated that blamed those attacks on Iraq.
It's extremely possible -- one could say highly likely -- that the same people responsible for perpetrating the attacks were the ones who fed the false reports to the public, through ABC News, that Saddam was behind them.

The American Enterprise Institute's Laurie Mylroie (who had an AEI article linking Saddam to 9/11 ready for publication at the AEI on September 13) expressly claimed in November, 2001 that "there is also tremendous evidence that subsequent anthrax attacks are connected to Iraq" and based that accusation almost exclusively on the report from ABC and Ross ("Mylroie: Evidence Shows Saddam Is Behind Anthrax Attacks").

to blame the attacks on Iraq and then, ultimately, to blame Stephen Hatfill.

And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:
Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."
By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."

On a note related to the main topic of the post, macgupta in comments notes the numerous prominent people in addition to those mentioned here -- including The Wall St. Jorunal Editors and former CIA Director James Woosely -- who insisted rather emphatically from the beginning of the anthrax attacks that Saddam was likely to blame.

See this important point from Atrios about Richard Cohen's admission that he was told before the anthrax attacks happened by a "high government official" to take cipro.

zzzzzzzzz

Justin Raimando

The FBI just continued to push his buttons.'"

another Ft. Detrick scientist, Dr. Ayaad Assaad.
Assaad, an American citizen born in Egypt,

In September 2001 – before the news of the anthrax letters broke, but after they had been postmarked – a letter addressed to the "Town of Quantico police" was received that accused Assaad of being a terrorist who was planning to wage biological warfare against the U.S.

the Camel Club was getting its revenge.
Whatever the motives of the Quantico letter's author, one fact seems fairly obvious: whoever wrote it very likely had foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks.

Don Foster, a professor of English was asked to analyze the anthrax letters, Quantico letter

What, I wondered, has the anthrax task force been doing.

female officer perfect match. detailed report on the evidence, anthrax task force declined

part of the 9/11 investigation." Dr. Philip Zack, with "Pathogen X" was videotaped assisted by his "good friend" Dr. Marian Rippy.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=284246

Feds say Irvins alone caused 2001 anthrax attacks

Justice Department says scientist Bruce Irvins solely responsible for 2001 anthrax attacks

LARA JAKES JORDAN and MATT APUZZO
AP News

Aug 06, 2008 15:54 EST

Ivins, who committed suicide last week, had sole custody of highly purified anthrax spores with "certain genetic mutations identical" to the poison used in the attacks, according to the documents. Investigators also said they had traced back to his lab the type of envelopes used to send the deadly powder through the mails.

Ivins killed himself last week as investigators closed in, and U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor said, "We regret that we will not have the opportunity to present evidence to the jury."

Ivins' attorney, Paul Kemp, has repeatedly asserted his late client's innocence.

The prosecutor's news conference capped a fast-paced series of events in which the government partially lifted its veil of secrecy in the investigation of the poisonings that followed closely after the airliner terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The newly released records depict the scientist as deeply troubled, increasingly so as he confronted the possibility of being charged.

"He said he was not going to face the death penalty, but instead had a plan to kill co-workers and other individuals who had wronged him," according to one affidavit. In e-mails to colleagues, Ivins described a feeling of dual personalities, the material said.

The affidavits also said Ivins submitted false anthrax samples to the FBI, was unable to give investigators "an adequate explanation for his late laboratory work hours around the time of" the attacks and sought to frame unnamed co-workers.

In addition, he was said to have received immunizations against anthrax and yellow fever in early September 2001, several weeks before the first anthrax-laced envelope was received in the mail.

Authorities say that language Ivins used in an e-mail days before the 2001 anthrax attacks was similar to the messages in anthrax-laced letters to Democratic Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.

In the e-mail, Ivins wrote that "Bin Laden terrorists for sure have anthrax and sarin gas" and have "just decreed death to all Jews and all Americans." The letters
The letters to Daschle and Leahy said: "WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX . . . DEATH TO AMERICA . . . DEATH TO ISRAEL."

Wednesday's documents were released as the FBI held a private briefing for families of the victims of the attacks and officials said the agency was preparing to close the case.

As for motive, investigators seemed to offer two possible reasons for the attacks: that the brilliant scientist wanted to bolster support for a vaccine he helped create and that the anti-abortion Catholic targeted two pro-choice Catholic lawmakers.

"We are confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks," Taylor told a news conference at the Justice Department.

Noting that Ivins would have been entitled to a presumption of innocence, Taylor nevertheless said prosecutors were confident "we could prove his guilt to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."

The events in Washington unfolded as a memorial service was held for Ivins at Fort Detrick, the secret government installation in Frederick, Md., where he worked. Reporters were barred.

More than 200 pages of documents were made public by the FBI, virtually all of them describing the government's attempts to link Ivins to the crimes.

"It is a very compelling case," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., who attended a briefing for lawmakers and staff.

The government material describes at length painstaking scientific efforts to trace the source of the anthrax that was used in the attacks.

It says that in his lab, Ivins had custody of a flask of anthrax termed "the genetic parent" to the powder involved — a source that investigators say was used to grow spores for the attacks on "at least two separate occasions."

Anthrax culled from the letters was quickly discovered to be the so-called Ames strain of bacteria, but with genetic mutations that made it distinct. Scientists developed more sophisticated tests for four of those mutations, and concluded that all the samples that matched came from a single batch, code-named RMR-1029, stored at Fort Detrick.

Ivins "has been the sole custodian of RMR-1029 since it was first grown in 1997," said one affidavit.

Powder from anthrax-laden letters sent to the New York Post and Tom Brokaw of NBC contained a bacterial contaminant not found in the anthrax-containing envelopes mailed to Sens. Patrick Leahy or Tom Daschle, the affidavit said.

Investigators concluded that "the contaminant must have been introduced during the production of the Post and Brokaw spores," the affidavit said.

The documents disclosed that authorities searched Ivins' home on Nov. 2, 2007, taking 22 swabs of vacuum filters and radiators and seizing dozens of items. Among them were video cassettes, family photos, information about guns and a copy of "The Plague" by Albert Camus.

Investigators also reported seizing three cardboard boxes labeled "Paul Kemp ... attorney client privilege."

Ivins' cars and his safe deposit box also were searched as investigators closed in on the respected government scientist who had been troubled by mental health problems for years.

According to an affidavit filed by Charles B. Wickersham, a postal inspector, the scientist told an unnamed co-worker "that he had `incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts at times' and 'feared that he might not be able to control his behavior.'"

A mental health worker who was involved in treating Ivins disclosed last week that she was so concerned about his behavior that she recently sought a court order to keep him away from her.

Allegations that Ivins sought to mislead investigators ran through the material made public.

One FBI document said Ivins "repeatedly named other researchers as possible mailers and claimed that the anthrax used in the attacks resembled that of another researcher" at the same facility.

The name of the other researcher was not disclosed.

Stephen A. Hatfill's career as a bioscientist was ruined after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft named him a "person of interest" in the probe. The government recently paid $6 million to settle a lawsuit by Hatfill, who worked in the same lab.

The documents made public painted a picture of Ivins seeking to mislead investigators beginning in 2002, when he allegedly submitted the wrong samples to FBI investigators.

It wasn't until more than two years later, in March 2005, that he was confronted with the alleged switch, according to U.S. Postal Inspector Thomas Dellafera, who added that Ivins insisted he had not sought to deceive.

The documents were released following an order from U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth. Among them were more than a dozen search warrants issued as the government closed in on Ivins in an investigation into the terrifying mail poisonings a few weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Lamberth ordered the release after consultation with Amy Jeffress, a national security prosecutor at the Department of Justice.

The investigation dates to 2001, when anthrax-laced mail turned up in two Senate offices as well as news media offices and elsewhere. At the time, the events were widely viewed as the work of terrorists, and delivery of mail was crippled when anthrax spores were discovered in mailing equipment that had processed the contaminated envelopes.

The FBI's investigation had dragged on for years, tarnishing the reputation of the agency in the process.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html
Glenn Greenwald
FRIDAY AUG. 1, 2008 05:36 EDT
Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News
(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V - Update VI)
The FBI's lead suspect in the September, 2001 anthrax attacks -- Bruce E. Ivins -- died Tuesday night, apparently by suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to charge him with responsibility for the attacks. For the last 18 years, Ivins was a top anthrax researcher at the U.S. Government's biological weapons research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, where he was one of the most elite government anthrax scientists on the research team at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID).
The 2001 anthrax attacks remain one of the great mysteries of the post-9/11 era. After 9/11 itself, the anthrax attacks were probably the most consequential event of the Bush presidency. One could make a persuasive case that they were actually more consequential. The 9/11 attacks were obviously traumatic for the country, but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event. It was really the anthrax letters -- with the first one sent on September 18, just one week after 9/11 -- that severely ratcheted up the fear levels and created the climate that would dominate in this country for the next several years after. It was anthrax -- sent directly into the heart of the country's elite political and media institutions, to then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt), NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, and other leading media outlets -- that created the impression that social order itself was genuinely threatened by Islamic radicalism.
If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. This was the letter sent to Brokaw:

The letter sent to Leahy contained this message:
We have anthrax.
You die now.
Are you afraid?
Death to America.
Death to Israel.
Allah is great.
By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished.
Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.
During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."
ABC News' claim -- which they said came at first from "three well-placed but separate sources," followed by "four well-placed and separate sources" -- was completely false from the beginning. There never was any bentonite detected in the anthrax (a fact ABC News acknowledged for the first time in 2007 only as a result of my badgering them about this issue). It's critical to note that it isn't the case that preliminary tests really did detect bentonite and then subsequent tests found there was none. No tests ever found or even suggested the presence of bentonite. The claim was just concocted from the start. It just never happened.
That means that ABC News' "four well-placed and separate sources" fed them information that was completely false -- false information that created a very significant link in the public mind between the anthrax attacks and Saddam Hussein. And look where -- according to Brian Ross' report on October 28, 2001 -- these tests were conducted:
And despite continued White House denials, four well-placed and separate sources have told ABC News that initial tests on the anthrax by the US Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland, have detected trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite and silica.
Two days earlier, Ross went on ABC News' World News Tonight with Peter Jennings and, as the lead story, breathlessly reported:
The discovery of bentonite came in an urgent series of tests conducted at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and elsewhere.
Clearly, Ross' allegedly four separate sources had to have some specific knowledge of the tests conducted and, if they were really "well-placed," one would presume that meant they had some connection to the laboratory where the tests were conducted -- Ft. Detrick. That means that the same Government lab where the anthrax attacks themselves came from was the same place where the false reports originated that blamed those attacks on Iraq.
It's extremely possible -- one could say highly likely -- that the same people responsible for perpetrating the attacks were the ones who fed the false reports to the public, through ABC News, that Saddam was behind them. What we know for certain -- as a result of the letters accompanying the anthrax -- is that whoever perpetrated the attacks wanted the public to believe they were sent by foreign Muslims. Feeding claims to ABC News designed to link Saddam to those attacks would, for obvious reasons, promote the goal of the anthrax attacker(s).
Seven years later, it's difficult for many people to recall, but, as I've amply documented, those ABC News reports linking Saddam and anthrax penetrated very deeply -- by design -- into our public discourse and into the public consciousness. Those reports were absolutely vital in creating the impression during that very volatile time that Islamic terrorists generally, and Iraq and Saddam Hussein specifically, were grave, existential threats to this country. As but one example: after Ross' lead report on the October 26, 2001 edition of World News Tonight with Peter Jennings claiming that the Government had found bentonite, this is what Jennings said into the camera:
This news about bentonite as the additive being a trademark of the Iraqi biological weapons program is very significant. Partly because there's been a lot of pressure on the Bush administration inside and out to go after Saddam Hussein. And some are going to be quick to pick up on this as a smoking gun.
That's exactly what happened. The Weekly Standard published two lengthy articles attacking the FBI for focusing on a domestic culprit and -- relying almost exclusively on the ABC/Ross report -- insisted that Saddam was one of the most likely sources for those attacks. In November, 2001, they published an article (via Lexis) which began:
On the critical issue of who sent the anthrax, it's time to give credit to the ABC website, ABCNews.com, for reporting rings around most other news organizations. Here's a bit from a comprehensive story filed late last week by Gary Matsumoto, lending further credence to the commonsensical theory (resisted by the White House) that al Qaeda or Iraq -- and not some domestic Ted Kaczynski type -- is behind the germ warfare.
The Weekly Standard published a much lengthier and more dogmatic article in April, 2002 again pushing the ABC "bentonite" claims and arguing: "There is purely circumstantial though highly suggestive evidence that might seem to link Iraq with last fall's anthrax terrorism." The American Enterprise Institute's Laurie Mylroie (who had an AEI article linking Saddam to 9/11 ready for publication at the AEI on September 13) expressly claimed in November, 2001 that "there is also tremendous evidence that subsequent anthrax attacks are connected to Iraq" and based that accusation almost exclusively on the report from ABC and Ross ("Mylroie: Evidence Shows Saddam Is Behind Anthrax Attacks").
And then, when President Bush named Iraq as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in his January, 2002 State of the Union speech -- just two months after ABC's report, when the anthrax attacks were still very vividly on the minds of Americans -- he specifically touted this claim:
The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade.
Bush's invocation of Iraq was the only reference in the State of the Union address to the unsolved anthrax attacks. And the Iraq-anthrax connection was explicitly made by the President at a time when, as we now know, he was already eagerly planning an attack on Iraq.
There can't be any question that this extremely flamboyant though totally false linkage between Iraq and the anthrax attacks -- accomplished primarily by the false bentonite reports from ABC News and Brian Ross -- played a very significant role in how Americans perceived of the Islamic threat generally and Iraq specifically. As but one very illustrative example, The Washington Post's columnist, Richard Cohen, supported the invasion of Iraq, came to regret that support, and then explained what led him to do so, in a 2004 Post column entitled "Our Forgotten Panic":
I'm not sure if panic is quite the right word, but it is close enough. Anthrax played a role in my decision to support the Bush administration's desire to take out Saddam Hussein. I linked him to anthrax, which I linked to Sept. 11. I was not going to stand by and simply wait for another attack -- more attacks. I was going to go to the source, Hussein, and get him before he could get us. As time went on, I became more and more questioning, but I had a hard time backing down from my initial whoop and holler for war.
Cohen -- in a March 18, 2008 Slate article in which he explains why he wrongfully supported the attack on Iraq -- disclosed this:
Anthrax. Remember anthrax? It seems no one does anymore -- at least it's never mentioned. But right after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were received at the New York Post and Tom Brokaw's office at NBC. . . . There was ample reason to be afraid.
The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.
For this and other reasons, the anthrax letters appeared linked to the awful events of Sept. 11. It all seemed one and the same. Already, my impulse had been to strike back, an overwhelming urge that had, in fact, taken me by surprise on Sept. 11 itself when the first of the Twin Towers had collapsed. . . .
In the following days, as the horror started to be airbrushed -- no more bodies plummeting to the sidewalk -- the anthrax letters started to come, some to people I knew. And I thought, No, I'm not going to sit here passively and wait for it to happen. I wanted to go to "them," whoever "they" were, grab them by the neck, and get them before they could get us. One of "them" was Saddam Hussein. He had messed around with anthrax . . . He was a nasty little fascist, and he needed to be dealt with.
That, more or less, is how I made my decision to support the war in Iraq.
Cohen's mental process that led him to link anthrax to Iraq and then to support an attack on Iraq, warped as it is, was extremely common. Having heard ABC News in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack flamboyantly and repeatedly link Saddam to the anthrax attacks, followed by George Bush's making the same linkage (albeit more subtly) in his January, 2002 State of the Union speech, much of the public had implanted into their minds that Saddam Hussein was not just evil, but a severe threat to the U.S., likely the primary culprit behind the anthrax attacks. All along, though, the anthrax came from a U.S. Government/Army research lab.
Critically, ABC News never retracted its story (they merely noted, as they had done from the start, that the White House denied the reports). And thus, the linkage between Saddam and the anthrax attacks -- every bit as false as the linkage between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks -- persisted.
We now know -- we knew even before news of Ivins' suicide last night, and know especially in light of it -- that the anthrax attacks didn't come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government's scientist, from the top Army bioweapons research laboratory. More significantly, the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government -- from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.
Surely the question of who generated those false Iraq-anthrax reports is one of the most significant and explosive stories of the last decade. The motive to fabricate reports of bentonite and a link to Saddam is glaring. Those fabrications played some significant role -- I'd argue a very major role -- in propagandizing the American public to perceive of Saddam as a threat, and further, propagandized the public to believe that our country was sufficiently threatened by foreign elements that a whole series of radical policies that the neoconservatives both within and outside of the Bush administration wanted to pursue -- including an attack an Iraq and a whole array of assaults on our basic constitutional framework -- were justified and even necessary in order to survive.
ABC News already knows the answers to these questions. They know who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and -- as importantly -- to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks. And yet, unbelievably, they are keeping the story to themselves, refusing to disclose who did all of this. They're allegedly a news organization, in possession of one of the most significant news stories of the last decade, and they are concealing it from the public, even years later.
They're not protecting "sources." The people who fed them the bentonite story aren't "sources." They're fabricators and liars who purposely used ABC News to disseminate to the American public an extremely consequential and damaging falsehood. But by protecting the wrongdoers, ABC News has made itself complicit in this fraud perpetrated on the public, rather than a news organization uncovering such frauds. That is why this is one of the most extreme journalistic scandals that exists, and it deserves a lot more debate and attention than it has received thus far.

UPDATE: One other fact to note here is how bizarrely inept the effort by the Bush DOJ to find the real attacker has been. Extremely suspicious behavior from Ivins -- including his having found and completely cleaned anthrax traces on a co-worker's desk at the Ft. Detrick lab without telling anyone that he did so and then offering extremely strange explanations for why -- was publicly reported as early as 2004 by The LA Times (Ivins "detected an apparent anthrax leak in December 2001, at the height of the anthrax mailings investigation, but did not report it. Ivins considered the problem solved when he cleaned the affected office with bleach").
In October 2004, USA Today reported that Ivins was involved in another similar incident, in April of 2002, when Ivins performed unauthorized tests to detect the origins of more anthrax residue found at Ft. Detrick. Yet rather than having that repeated, strange behavior lead the FBI to discover that he was involved in the attacks, there was a very public effort -- as Atrios notes here -- to blame the attacks on Iraq and then, ultimately, to blame Stephen Hatfill. Amazingly, as Atrios notes here, very few people other than "a few crazy bloggers are even interested" in finding out what happened here and why -- at least to demand that ABC News report the vital information that it already has that will shed very significant light on much of this.

UPDATE II: Ivins' local paper, Frederick News in Maryland, has printed several Letters to the Editor written by Ivins over the years. Though the underlying ideology is a bit difficult to discern, he seems clearly driven by a belief in the need for Christian doctrine to govern our laws and political institutions, with a particular interest in Catholic dogma. He wrote things like this:
Today we frequently admonish people who oppose abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide or capital punishment to keep their religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs to themselves.
Before dispensing such admonishments in the future, perhaps we should gratefully consider some of our country's most courageous, historical figures who refused to do so.
And then there's this rather cryptic message, published in 2006:
Rabbi Morris Kosman is entirely correct in summarily rejecting the demands of the Frederick Imam for a "dialogue."
By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for "dialogue" with any gentile. End of "dialogue."
It should be noted that the lawyer who had been representing Ivins in connection with the anthrax investigation categorically maintains Ivins' innocence and attributes his suicide to "the relentless pressure of accusation and innuendo."
On a note related to the main topic of the post, macgupta in comments notes the numerous prominent people in addition to those mentioned here -- including The Wall St. Jorunal Editors and former CIA Director James Woosely -- who insisted rather emphatically from the beginning of the anthrax attacks that Saddam was likely to blame. Indeed, the WSJ Editorial Page -- along with others on the Right such as Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report and Fox News -- continued even into 2007 to insist that the FBI was erring by focusing on domestic suspects rather than Middle Easterners.
The Nation's Michael Massing noted at the time (in November, 2001) that as a direct result of the anthrax attacks, and the numerous claims insinuating that Iraq was behind them, "the political and journalistic establishment suddenly seems united in wanting to attack Iraq." There has long been an intense desire on the neoconservative Right to falsely link anthrax to Saddam specifically and Muslims generally. ABC News was, and (as a result of its inexcusable silence) continues to be, their best friend.

UPDATE III: See this important point from Atrios about Richard Cohen's admission that he was told before the anthrax attacks happened by a "high government official" to take cipro. Atrios writes: "now that we know that the US gov't believes that anthrax came from the inside, shouldn't Cohen be a wee bit curious about what this warning was based on?"
That applies to much of the Beltway class, including many well-connected journalists, who were quietly popping cipro back then because, like Cohen, they heard from Government sources that they should. Leave aside the ethical questions about the fact that these journalists kept those warnings to themselves. Wouldn't the most basic journalistic instincts lead them now -- in light of the claims by our Government that the attacks came from a Government scientist -- to wonder why and how their Government sources were warning about an anthrax attack? Then again, the most basic journalistic instincts would have led ABC News to reveal who concocted and fed them the false "Saddam/anthrax" reports in the first place, and yet we still are forced to guess at those questions because ABC News continues to cover up the identity of the perpetrators.

UPDATE IV: John McCain, on the David Letterman Show, October 18, 2001 (days before ABC News first broadcast their bentonite report):
LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?
MCCAIN: I think we're doing fine . . . I think we'll do fine. The second phase -- if I could just make one, very quickly -- the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may -- and I emphasize may -- have come from Iraq.
LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?
MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that's when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.
ThinkProgress has the video. Someone ought to ask McCain what "indication" he was referencing that the anthrax "may have come from Iraq."
After all, three days later, McCain and Joe Lieberman went on Meet the Press (on October 21, 2001) and both strongly suggested that we would have to attack Iraq. Lieberman said that the anthrax was so complex and potent that "there's either a significant amount of money behind this, or this is state-sponsored, or this is stuff that was stolen from the former Soviet program."
As I said, it is not possible to overstate the importance of anthrax in putting the country into the state of fear that led to the attack on Iraq and so many of the other abuses of the Bush era. There are few news stories more significant, if there are any, than unveiling who the culprits were behind this deliberate propaganda. The fact that the current GOP presidential nominee claimed back then on national television to have some "indication" linking Saddam to the anthrax attacks makes it a bigger story still.

UPDATE V: I tried to be careful here to avoid accepting as True the matter of Ivins' guilt. Very early on in the article, I framed the analysis this way: "If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab," and I then noted in Update II that Ivins' lawyer vehemently maintains his innocence. My whole point here is that the U.S. Government now claims the anthrax attacks came from a Government scientist at a U.S. Army lab, and my conclusions follow from that premise, accepted as true only for purposes of this analysis.
It's worth underscoring that it is far from clear that Ivins had anything to do with the anthrax attacks, and someone in comments claiming (anonymously though credibly) that he knew Ivins personally asserts that Ivins was innocent and makes the case as to why the Government's accusations are suspect. As I see it, the more doubt there is about who was responsible for the anthrax attacks, the greater is the need for ABC News to reveal who fabricated their reports linking the attacks to Iraq.

UPDATE VI: I'll be on Rachel Maddow's radio show tonight at 8:30 p.m. EST to discuss this story. Local listings and live audio feed are here.
Numerous people have advised me in comments and via email that ABC News is deleting any mention of my piece today in the comment section to their article on the Ivins suicide (though many such comments now seem to be posted there). Last year, ABC was in full denial mode when responding to the stories I wrote about this issue. The key here, I think, will be to try to devise the right strategy to induce the right Congressional Committee to hold hearings on the false ABC News stories and the anthrax issue generally. I hope to have more details on that effort shortly.
-- Glenn Greenwald

~ Justin Raimondo

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13251
August 4, 2008
The Patsy
Was Bruce Ivins the anthrax killer?

The media narrative now being woven around the apparent suicide of U.S. government scientist Bruce E. Ivins – a prominent anthrax researcher who worked at Ft. Detrick's U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases bio-weapons research lab (USAMRIID) – is that he was a lone nut, a "homicidal maniac" who poisoned the five people killed in the 2001 anthrax attacks and was determined to go on another killing spree at his workplace as the Feds closed in on him. The Times of London headline says it all: "Mad Anthrax Scientist in Threat to Kill Co-Workers."
However, as we sift through the reams of media coverage occasioned by this startling development in a 7-year-old case, we get quite a different story from the alleged objects of his rage: his colleagues on the job at Ft. Detrick. As the Washington Post reported:
"Colleagues and friends of the vaccine specialist remained convinced that Ivins was innocent: They contended that he had neither the motive nor the means to create the fine, lethal powder that was sent by mail to news outlets and congressional offices in the late summer and fall of 2001. Mindful of previous FBI mistakes in fingering others in the case, many are deeply skeptical that the bureau has gotten it right this time.
"'I really don't think he's the guy. I say to the FBI, "Show me your evidence,"' said Jeffrey J. Adamovicz, former director of the bacteriology division at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID, on the grounds of the sprawling Army fort in Frederick. 'A lot of the tactics they used were designed to isolate him from his support. The FBI just continued to push his buttons.'"
Another one of his co-workers, Richard O. Spertzel, pointed out that "USAMRIID doesn't deal with powdered anthrax. I don't think there's anyone there who would have the foggiest idea how to do it. You would need to have the opportunity, the capability, and the motivation, and he didn't possess any of those."
In what seems very similar to the coordinated series of "leaks" that pinned the blame on Steven J. Hatfill, a former bio-warfare scientist recently awarded nearly $6 million in recompense and effectively exonerated, the effort to posthumously demonize Ivins has blanketed the "mainstream" media. The main feature of this effort has been the testimony of one Jean Duley, a counselor, who claims Ivins not only threatened her but also came to a group therapy session with a detailed story about how he had bought a gun, a bulletproof vest, and was planning to "go out in a blaze of glory" and kill as many of his coworkers as possible as the FBI closed in on him.
It's passing strange, then, that these very same coworkers are springing to his defense. Two Ft. Detrick scientists, who presumably would have been mowed down by Ivins, the so-called "revenge killer" (as Duley describes him), told the Baltimore Sun they were "stunned and angry" at the posthumous targeting of Ivins. "Nobody thinks Bruce did it," said one of them.
Nobody, that is, but the FBI, Duley, and Ivins' estranged brother Tom, who hadn't spoken to Bruce since 1985, and who averred, "It makes sense, what the social worker said. He considered himself like a god." Giving credence to such crass bad-mouthing of the dead has got to be a new low, even for the agenda-driven "journalism" we've become so inured to.
As doubts arise about the government/media narrative, it is becoming all too clear that Ivins' suicide – likely brought about by the unrelenting pressure brought to bear on him over many months of constant harassment by the FBI, rather than actual guilt – is the occasion for the institutional whitewashing of the FBI's almost unbelievable incompetence, which seems more like a cover-up as events unfold. We are being treated to media reports burbling about how the suicide of Ivins means that the victims of the anthrax attack and their families will finally have "closure" – but what's all too clear is that it's the FBI seeking closure of a case that exposes its shameful (and, perhaps, criminal) conduct.
Move along, nothing to see here! Or is there?
No doubt the FBI will come out with its own version of the "scientific" evidence that supposedly led them to Ivins' doorstep. We are told that "new techniques," developed since the pursuit and eventual exoneration of Hatfill, conclusively prove Ivins was the lone culprit. This has long been the methodology favored by anti-biological weapons activist and scientist Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, whose pronouncements in the early stages of this case were taken as gospel by the major media. It was Rosenberg's theory that the anthrax killer was an "insider" with detailed knowledge of the government's bio-weapons research – and that his motive was to draw attention to a supposedly overlooked and under-funded field of vitally important research – that led to the persecution of Hatfill. Today, the same theory is being trotted out to finger Ivins.
This concept of the anthrax killers' motive drops the entire context of the postal terrorism that put the nation in a post-9/11 panic and energized the march to war with Iraq. As Glenn Greenwald and others have pointed out, the anthrax attacks were used by administration officials and neoconservative commentators to make the case for war: administration officials and their amen corner (including John McCain) used this "talking point" to promote the invasion of Iraq. The Rosenberg thesis also ignores the text of the anthrax letters, in which the author(s) clearly meant to indicate these horrific acts were being perpetrated by a Muslim who hated the U.S. and Israel.
It seems to me a stretch to divorce motive not only from context, but also from important physical evidence in this case, i.e., the letters themselves. Other equally important evidence has been completely ignored. Over the years, I've presented much of this neglected-albeit-fascinating aspect of the anthrax mystery in a series of columns – here, here, here, here, here, and here – in which I related the story of what happened to another Ft. Detrick scientist, Dr. Ayaad Assaad.
Assaad, an American citizen born in Egypt, worked for USAMRIID in the early 1990s and was involved in a conflict with a group of Ft. Detrick employees who dubbed themselves the "Camel Club." As detailed in a series of eye-popping pieces by Dave Altimari and Jack Dolan of the Hartford Courant, this cabal was engaged in systematic harassment of Assaad and other Arab-American employees at the facility, including putting obscene and racist poems on his desk and presenting him with a rubber camel adorned with a sex toy. The Camel Club's harassment of Assaad had a distinctively ideological edge, one that pre-dated the "invade their countries, bomb their cities, and convert them to Christianity" meme that later became so popular with post-9/11 neocons of a Coulterish stripe.
In September 2001 – before the news of the anthrax letters broke, but after they had been postmarked – a letter addressed to the "Town of Quantico police" was received that accused Assaad of being a terrorist who was planning to wage biological warfare against the U.S. on American soil. As the first anthrax letters were opened, Assaad got a call from the FBI. Agent Gregory Leylegian wanted to have a little talk with him.
The meeting, also attended by Assaad's lawyer, proved quite a shock to Assaad. As the agent read the accusing letter aloud, one thing became readily apparent: the Camel Club was getting its revenge.
Whatever the motives of the Quantico letter's author, one fact seems fairly obvious: whoever wrote it very likely had foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks. Yet all attempts to examine this vital piece of evidence have been deflected by the FBI. Don Foster, a professor of English at Vassar and an expert in the field of textual analysis – it was Foster who identified Joe Klein as the author of Primary Colors – was asked to analyze the anthrax letters, and on the subject of the Quantico letter he had this to say in Vanity Fair:
"It was now December 2001, yet Dolan and Altimari's Hartford Courant story was the first I had heard of the Quantico letter. [Supervisory Special Agent James R]. Fitzgerald had not heard of it, either. In fact, there were quite a few critical documents that Fitzgerald had not yet seen. What, I wondered, has the anthrax task force been doing. Hoping that the Quantico letter might lead, if not to the killer, at least to a suspect, I offered to examine the document. My photocopy arrived by FedEx not from the task force but from FBI headquarters in Washington. Searching through documents by some 40 USAMRIID employees, I found writings by a female officer that looked like a perfect match. I wrote a detailed report on the evidence, but the anthrax task force declined to follow through: the Quantico letter had already been declared a hoax and zero-filed as part of the 9/11 investigation."
"The trail that leads us to the perpetrators of the anthrax letter terrorist attacks ends at Ft. Detrick" – I wrote those words in July, before the suicide of Ivins, yet we haven't quite yet reached the end of this particular road.
Foster refers to the yeoman's work done by the Hartford Courant's team of reporters in uncovering the chaotic and dangerous conditions that existed at Ft. Detrick for years, as well as the victimization of Assaad. One Courant story in particular, which detailed the wide variety of pathogens the facility lost track of over the years – including one developed by U.S. scientists known simply as "Pathogen X" – sent chills down my spine. In exposing this laxity, the Courant reported an incident in which a former employee, Dr. Philip Zack, was videotaped sneaking into the supposedly secured facility where pathogens were stored, assisted by his "good friend" Dr. Marian Rippy. They were both involved in conducting unauthorized experiments, according to Dolan and Altimari, and were charter members of the Camel Club. Indeed, the reason for Zack's departure reportedly had much to do with his constant harassment of Assaad.
I make no connection between Rippy and Foster's discovery of "writings by a female officer that looked like a perfect match" to the Quantico letter. It's just that inquiring minds want to know…

The suicide of one tortured soul doesn't put the anthrax mystery to rest. Instead, it raises more questions than it answers. According to the obituary in his hometown newspaper, Ivins worked at Ft. Detrick for his entire professional life: he was there for the Camel Club's antics and doubtless knew all the major participants, including Assaad. What he knew about the highly suspicious extracurricular activities of the Camel Club, and the true origins of the deadly anthrax letters, is not known, and may never be known as this point. And that's just how the real perpetrators of one of the scariest crimes in our history would have it.
You'll note I use the plural, perpetrators: it is almost inconceivable that a single person could have been responsible for the anthrax terror. Logistically, it's near to impossible to imagine that a single "lone nut" could have produced the anthrax, let alone distributed it, without being caught. Did he travel all the way to New Jersey, of all places, just to mail these deadly missives, after single-handedly whipping up a substance that required all sorts of advanced equipment (and safety precautions) to prepare? It hardly seems likely.
Which means that, even if Ivins was in on the plot, he wasn't alone – and the rest of the poisoners are still out there.
Did Ivins wind up a "suicide" because he knew too much and was about to reveal what he knew to investigators? We may never know the answer to this question, but that should hardly stop us from raising it.
This whole sorry episode exemplifies media complicity with U.S. government agencies in creating narratives that reflect well on official Washington. The wide dissemination of the Ivins-was-a-psychopathic-killer meme, which depicts the departed scientist as an "obsessed" nerd who was a danger to his therapist – actually, Duley wasn't his therapist, and her charge that Ivins was a "sociopath" is based on her version of what his actual psychiatrist, Dr. David Irwin, is reputed to have said – underscores the American media's evolving role as the handmaiden of the state, rather than the citizens' watchdog.
We've been covering this scary story at Antiwar.com ever since the anthrax attacks hit the headlines, and we've continued to cover it even while the rest of the media tried to bury it. I believe that practically every year since 2001 I've written about it in this space and noted many of the facts related above. The sudden reemergence of this case in this spectacular manner emphasizes the need for outlets like this one, which present the facts the "mainstream" media would rather not deal with – because they're too busy creating phony narratives to cover the asses of government officials, or worse.
~ Justin Raimondo

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/01/mccain-anthrax-iraq/
One Month After 9/11, McCain Said Anthrax ‘May Have Come From Iraq,’ Warned Iraq Is ‘The Second Phase’»
Today, the LA Times reports that the individual who may have been responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 others apparently committed suicide. As Atrios recalls, shortly after 9/11, conservatives were pinning the blame for the anthrax attacks on Iraq, laying the groundwork for a subsequent invasion. John McCain was part of this fearmongering effort.
On October 18, 2001, McCain appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman. When asked how the war in Afghanistan was progressing, McCain volunteered that the invasion of Iraq would be the “second phase” of the War on Terror. He preyed on the public’s fear at the time by claiming that the anthrax “may have come from Iraq”:
LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?
MCCAIN: I think we’re doing fine …. I think we’ll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.
LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?
MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that’s when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.
Watch it:
In the interview McCain tastelessly joked, in reference to the House adjourning until the Capitol could be cleared of the anthrax threat, that Congress members should “bring out their dead!” Less than a week later, two US Postal Service employees working in a facility that sorted mail destined for the Capitol would be dead.
McCain opened the interview by asking Letterman, “What is Osama bin Laden going to be for Halloween?” “Dead!” McCain said, delivering the punchline to his joke. Nearly seven Halloweens later, Osama bin Laden remains alive and free.
Later in the interview, McCain explained his counterterrorism approach: “The more serious these people [terrorists] think we are and believe we are – and we are serious – then I think they might, you know, go back to selling camels or whatever enterprise that they might want to engage in.”
Concluding the interview, McCain warned once again that Iraq was next. “The crunch time will be if – and emphasize if – we have to go after Iraq, and then that coalition could be strained,” he said. “But nothing succeeds like success. … World power politics is very interesting. People are very friendly when they know you’re the most powerful kid on the block.”

zzzzzzzzzz
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/02/2008-08-02_fbi_was_told_to_blame_anthrax_scare_on_a.html
FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Saturday, August 2nd 2008, 6:32 PM
WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.
After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.
"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.
On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."
But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Edwards_Ivins

Bruce Edwards Ivins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a person who has recently died.

Some information, such as that pertaining to the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known. In the event that this article is disruptively edited following the death of the subject, please request administrator intervention.
Bruce Edwards Ivins

"This 2003 photo provided by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases shows Bruce E. Ivins participating in an awards ceremony."
Born April 22, 1946(1946-04-22)
Lebanon, Ohio
Died July 29, 2008 (aged 62)
Frederick Memorial Hospital
Frederick, Maryland
Cause of death Suicide
Education University of Cincinnati (Ph.D.)
Employer United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases
Bruce Edwards Ivins (April 22, 1946 – July 29, 2008),[1] was a United States government microbiologist and vaccinologist for 36 years[1] and senior biodefense researcher at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland for 18 years.[2] In July 2008 he reportedly committed suicide prior to any formal charges being filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for an alleged connection to the 2001 anthrax attacks,[3] which killed five people and made 17 others ill.[4] At a news conference at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 6, 2008, FBI and DOJ officials formally announced that the Government had concluded that Dr. Ivins was likely to have been solely responsible for "the deaths of five persons, and the injury of dozens of others, resulting from the mailings of several anonymous letters to members of Congress and members of the media in September and October, 2001, which letters contained Bacillus anthracis, commonly referred to as anthrax."[5]

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
1.1 Early and family life
1.2 Education and career
1.3 Personal interests
2 Alleged involvement in 2001 anthrax attacks and investigations
2.1 Initial investigative role
2.2 2002 Fort Detrick anthrax containment breach
2.3 2003 Department of Defense commendation
2.4 2008 investigation
2.5 Allegations of mental illness
2.5.1 Allegations by Ivins' counselor
3 Death
4 Patents
5 References
6 External links

[edit] Biography

[edit] Early and family life
Bruce Ivins was born in Lebanon, Ohio to Thomas Randall Ivins and Mary Johnson Knight, as the youngest of three sons.[1] His father, a pharmacist, owned a drugstore and was active in the local Rotary Club and Chamber of Commerce, while his mother stayed at home and volunteered in her sons' Parent-Teacher Associations. The family went regularly to Lebanon Presbyterian Church.[6]

Avidly interested in science, Ivins was an active participant in extracurricular activities in high school, including National Honor Society, science fairs, the current events club, and the scholarship team all four years. He ran on the track and cross-country teams, worked on the yearbook and school newspaper, and was in the school choir and junior and senior class plays.[6]

[edit] Education and career
Ivins graduated with honors from the University of Cincinnati with a B.S. degree in 1968, an M.S. degree in 1971, and a Ph.D. degree in 1976, all in microbiology.[2] Ivins conducted his Ph.D. research under the supervision of Dr. P. F. Bonventre. His dissertation focused on different aspects of toxicity in disease-causing bacteria.[6]

Ivins was a scientist for 36 years[1] and senior biodefense researcher at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland for 18 years.[2] After conducting research on Legionella and cholera, in 1979 Ivins turned his attention to anthrax after the anthrax outbreak in the Soviet city of Sverdlovsk (also known as Yekaterinburg), which killed at least 64 after an accidental release at a military facility.[7]

He has published at least 44 scientific papers dating back to May 18, 1969.[8][9] His earliest known published work pertained to the response of peritoneal macrophages, a type of white blood cell, to infection by Chlamydia psittaci an infectious bacterium that can be transmitted from animals to humans. He was the co-author of numerous anthrax studies, including one on a treatment for inhalation anthrax published in the July 7, 2008 issue of the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.[4] He often cited the 2001 Anthrax attacks in his papers to bolster the significance of his research in years subsequent to the attacks. In a 2006 paper in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he writes with his co-authors; "Shortening the duration of antibiotic postexposure prophylaxis in a bioterrorism event involving B. anthracis by adding postexposure vaccination could greatly alleviate problems of noncompliance and side effects associated with prolonged antibiotic therapy. The value of adding vaccination to postexposure antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered in planning the public health response to bioterrorism events involving inhalational anthrax."[10]

Ivins was a coinventor on two US patents for anthrax vaccine technology, U.S. Patent 6,316,006 and U.S. Patent 6,387,665 . Both of these patents are owned by his employer at the time, the US Army.

[edit] Personal interests
Ivins was a Roman Catholic. The Fredrick News-Post has made public several letters to the editor written by Ivins[11] in which he displays a conservative Catholic political philosophy. These were cited in the Department of Justice summary of the case against Ivins as suggesting that he may have harbored a grudge against pro-choice Catholic senators Daschle and Leahy, recipients of anthrax mailings.[12]

His pastimes included playing keyboard at his local church, Saint John the Evangelist;[1] he was a member of the American Red Cross;[1] he was an avid juggler and founder of the Frederick Jugglers.[13] He played keyboards in a Celtic band and would often compose and play songs for coworkers who were moving to new jobs.[6][7]

He was married to Diane Ivins for 33 years and they adopted two children together, a boy and a girl. They lived in a modest Cape Cod home in a post-World War II neighborhood right outside Fort Detrick, and he could walk to work.[1][6][7]

[edit] Alleged involvement in 2001 anthrax attacks and investigations
Main article: 2001 anthrax attacks
The 2001 anthrax attacks involved the mailing of several letters proclaiming "Death to America... Death to Israel... Allah is Great"[14], and contaminated with anthrax to the offices of U.S. Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, as well as to the offices of ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, the New York Post, and the National Enquirer. [15][16]

[edit] Initial investigative role
Ivins became involved in the investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks because he was regarded as a skilled microbiologist.[2] Ivins also helped the FBI analyze the powdery material recovered from one of the anthrax-tainted envelopes sent to a U.S. senator's office in Washington.[2]

Results of the investigation were initially distributed to the public via ABC News claiming "four well placed sources" attesting to the fact that "trace amounts of the chemical additives bentonite" were found in the anthrax samples, and that this was the chemical signatures of Iraqi-made anthrax.[14] But since, it has been confirmed that bentonite was never actually found in the anthrax samples.[14] While it is presumed that Ivins was one of ABC News' four sources, ABC News has refused to reveal their identities, which has contributed to the mystery of Ivins' role in the initial investigation and its widely reported findings.[14]

[edit] 2002 Fort Detrick anthrax containment breach
In 2002, an investigation was carried out as a result of an incident at Fort Detrick where anthrax spores had escaped carefully guarded rooms into the building’s unprotected areas.[17] The incident called into question the ability of USAMRIID to keep its deadly agents within laboratory walls seven months after the anthrax mailings.

A coworker told Ivins that she was concerned she was exposed to anthrax spores when handling an anthrax-contaminated letter. Ivins tested the technician’s desk area that December and found growth that had the earmarks of anthrax. He decontaminated her desk, computer, keypad and monitor, but did not notify his superiors. [17]

[edit] 2003 Department of Defense commendation
On March 14, 2003, Ivins and two of his colleagues at USAMRIID at Fort Detrick received the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service—the highest award given to Defense Department civilian employees—for helping solve technical problems in the manufacture of anthrax vaccine.[18]

[edit] 2008 investigation
For some time, the FBI focused its investigation on Steven Hatfill, considering him to be the chief suspect in the attacks. In March 2008, however, authorities exonerated Hatfill and settled the lawsuit he initiated for $5.8 million.[19] According to ABC News, Ivins was considered a suspect by some in the FBI as early as 2002.[20] FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III changed leadership of the investigation in late 2006, and at that time Ivins became the main focus of the investigation.[2] The FBI thought Ivins, who had complained about the limits of testing anthrax drugs on animals[21], might have sent the anthrax letters in order to test a vaccine he had been developing.[22]

After Hatfill was no longer considered a suspect, Ivins began "showing signs of serious strain." As a result of his changed behavior, he lost access to sensitive areas at his job. He began being treated for depression and expressed some suicidal thoughts.[2] On March 19 2008 police summoned to Ivins' home in Frederick found him unconscious and sent him to the hospital.[6]

Late in July 2008, investigators informed Ivins of his impending prosecution for his alleged involvement in the 2001 anthrax attacks that Ivins himself had previously assisted authorities in investigating. It has been reported that the death penalty would have been sought in the case.[23] Ivins maintained his security clearance until July 10 however; ironically, Ivins had been publicly critical of the lab's security procedures for several years. [24]

Dr. W. Russell Byrne, a colleague who worked in the bacteriology division of the Fort Detrick research facility, said FBI agents "hounded" Ivins by twice raiding his home and that Ivins had been hospitalized for depression earlier in the month. According to Byrne and local police, Ivins had been removed from his workplace out of fears that he might harm himself or others. "I think he was just psychologically exhausted by the whole process," Byrne said. "There are people who you just know are ticking bombs," Byrne said. "He was not one of them." However, Tom Ivins, who last spoke to his brother in 1985, said, "It makes sense ... he considered himself like a god."[25]

The Los Angeles Times also reported that Ivins stood to gain financially from the attacks because he was a co-inventor on two patents for a genetically-engineered anthrax vaccine. The San Francisco-area biotechnology company, VaxGen, licensed the vaccine and won a federal contract valued at $877.5 million to provide the vaccine under the Project Bioshield Act.[26] However, biological warfare and anthrax vaccine expert Dr. Meryl Nass has expressed skepticism of this purported motive, pointing out that "Historically, government employees do not receive these royalties: the government does." [27]

Anonymous sources told the Associated Press[28] that Ivins reportedly was obsessed with the college sorority Kappa Kappa Gamma (KKG) ever since he was rebuffed by a woman in the sorority during his days as a student at the University of Cincinnati. According to The Smoking Gun, US Government court documents stated that Ivins edited the KKG article in Wikipedia using the account name "Jimmyflathead" with which he attempted to add derogatory information about the sorority to the article.[29]

Reports were leaked that anthrax spores were found, thus suggesting the letters were mailed from a postal drop box located at 10 Nassau Street, less than 100 yards away from a building at 20 Nassau Street containing an office used by Princeton University's Kappa Kappa Gamma chapter to store property. As of this date, leaks from the law enforcement community claim they have not been able to place Ivins in Princeton the day the letters were mailed. Katherine Breckinridge Graham, an advisor to Kappa's Princeton chapter, stated that there was nothing to indicate that any of the sorority members had anything to do with Ivins.[28]

On August 6 2008, a federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor, officially made a statement that Ivins was the "sole culprit "in the 2001 anthrax attacks. [30] Taylor stated that Ivins had submitted false anthrax evidence to throw investigators off of his trail, was unable to adequately explain his late laboratory working hours around the time of the attacks, tried to frame his co-workers, had immunized himself against anthrax in early September 2001, was one of more than 100 people with access to the same strain of anthrax used in the killings, and had used similar language in an email to that in one of the anthrax mailings. Ivins' attorney, Paul F. Kemp, responded that the US government was, "'taking a weird guy and convicting him of mass murder' without real evidence."[31]

[edit] Allegations of mental illness
On August 6, 2008, the FBI released a collection of emails[32] written by Ivins. In some, Ivins describes episodes of anxiety, paranoia, and depression for which he was medicated; these are referenced in the summary of the case against Ivins. [12] A clinical psychiatrist engaged by The New York Times to analyse the released documents found evidence of psychoses, but could not rule out that the possibility that Ivins was feigning or exaggerating mental illness for purposes of attention or sympathy.[33]

[edit] Allegations by Ivins' counselor
Documents show that Ivins was ordered late July 2008 to stay away from Jean C. Duley, a social worker who counseled him. In her handwritten application for a protective order, Duley wrote that Ivins had stalked and threatened to kill her and had a long history of homicidal threats[citation needed] . However, in her testimony, Duley also stated that she had only known Ivins for 6 months.[34] Duley, who was apparently still a college student as recently as 2007[35], had been set to give testimony against Ivins on August 1, 2008. [25] Ivins, however, had no criminal record, whereas Duley herself has a history of convictions for driving under the influence, in addition to drug-related criminal charges and charges of battery by her ex -husband.[36]. Duley's credibility as a person and the credibility of her charges have been questioned on several other grounds[35].

Duley gave testimony late in July 2008 that Ivins had devised a "detailed homicidal plan" to kill his co-workers after learning he was going to be indicted on capital murder charges. Ivins had indicated that upon hearing of his possible indictment that he'd purchased a gun and a bullet-proof vest. [37]

[edit] Death
Ivins is alleged to have committed suicide on July 29, 2008, by overdosing on acetominophen with codeine. He died at Frederick Memorial Hospital.[38][4] His obituary was published on July 31[1], and his death was announced in a staff-wide email to USAMRIID colleagues.[2] No autopsy was ordered following his death.[39] Immediately after news of his death, the FBI refused to comment on the situation.[4] Ivins' attorney released a statement asserting that Ivins had cooperated with the six-year investigation by the FBI and also asserting that Ivins was innocent in the deaths.[40]

Ivins' family has made no public statement about the investigation or the suicide. His children placed messages on their Facebook pages saying goodbye to their father. "I will miss you Dad. I love you and I can’t wait to see you in Heaven," his son, Andy Ivins, wrote, "Rest in peace. It’s finally over."[7]

[edit] Patents
U.S. Patent 6,316,006 November 13, 2001 Asporogenic B anthracis expression system
U.S. Patent 6,387,665 May 14, 2002 Method of making a vaccine for anthrax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hatfill

Steven Hatfill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please improve this article if you can. (August 2008)
Steven Jay Hatfill
Born October 24, 1953 (1953-10-24) (age 54)
Saint Louis, Missouri
Education Southwestern College (1975)
Steven Jay Hatfill (born October 24, 1953) is an American physician, virologist and bio-weapons expert. The US Department of Justice identified the former government scientist as a "person of interest" in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. FBI raids on his home were well-attended by journalists and, consequently, several news outlets speculated that Hatfill was at one time the likely suspect for the attacks. He later sued the government for ruining his reputation, a case which the government settled for US$5.8 million.[1] Investigators later announced that the anthrax attacks had been carried out by another government scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, whom they concluded had acted alone.

Contents [hide]
1 Biography
1.1 Youth and education
1.2 The anthrax attacks
1.3 60 Minutes interview
2 Lawsuits
2.1 Hatfill v. John Ashcroft, et al.
2.2 Hatfill v. The New York Times
2.3 Hatfill v. Foster
3 See also
4 References
5 Further reading

[edit] Biography

[edit] Youth and education
Hatfill was born in Saint Louis, Missouri, and graduated from Mattoon Senior High School, Mattoon, Illinois (1971), and Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas (1975), where he studied biology. During college he took a year off and worked with a Methodist medical missionary in Kapanga, Zaire. (His mentor was Dr. Glenn Eschtruth, whose daughter Caroline he later married and divorced.)

Hatfill served as an enlisted soldier in the U.S. Army in the late 1970s. (In 1999, he would tell a journalist during an interview that he had been a "captain in the U.S. Special Forces", but in a subsequent investigation the Army stated that he had never served with the Special Forces[2].)

Hatfill then settled in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) where his claimed military associations included work with the United States Army's Institute for Military Assistance, the Rhodesian SAS, and the Selous Scouts. He stayed on to study medicine (1978-84) at the Godfrey Huggins Medical School [3] in Salisbury (now Harare), graduating (after failing in 1983) in 1984. In that year he also took a board certification in hematological pathology from South Africa. The South African government recruited him to be medical officer on a one-year (1986) tour of duty in Antarctica. He then served (1987-90) as an Emergency Medical Officer at the Conradie General Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa. A medical residency (1991-93) at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, resulted in a Master's Degree in Medicine and board certification in hematopathology.

Hatfill later claimed to have a Ph.D. degree in molecular cellular biology from Rhodes University in South Africa, as well as completion of a post-doctoral fellowship (1994-95) at Oxford University in England and three master's degrees (in microbial genetics, medical biochemistry, and experimental pathology). Some of these credentials have been questioned. During a later investigation, officials at Rhodes University insisted that he had never been awarded a Ph.D. from their institution [4]. On 11 March 2007, Hatfill's lawyer Tom Connolly [5] (in his lawsuit against former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI) admitted that his client had "Puffed on his resume. Absolutely. Forged a diploma. Yes, that's true."[6]

[edit] The anthrax attacks
Hatfill's "post-doctoral" appointments included one (1997) at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He subsequently worked (1997-99) as a civilian researcher at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), the U.S. Department of Defense's medical research institute for biological warfare (BW) defense at Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD. There he studied, under a National Research Council fellowship, new drug treatments for the Ebola virus and became a specialist in BW defense.

In January 1999 Hatfill transferred to a "consulting job" at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which has a "sprawling campus" in nearby McLean. The corporation did work for a multitude of federal agencies. Many projects were classified, and SAIC's tight relationship with the CIA led to a standing one-liner: "What is SAIC spelled backwards?"

By this time there had been a number of hoax anthrax mailings in the United States. Hatfill and his collaborator, SAIC vice president Joseph Soukup, now commissioned William C Patrick, retired head of the old US bioweapons program (who had also been a mentor of Hatfill) to write a report on the possibilities of terrorist anthrax mailing attacks. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg (director of the Federation of American Scientists' biochem weapons working group in 2002) said that the report was commissioned "under a CIA contract to SAIC". However, SAIC said Hatfill and Soukup commissioned it internally — there was no outside client.

The resulting report, dated February 1999, was subsequently seen as a "blueprint" for the 2001 anthrax attacks. Amongst other things, it suggested the maximum amount of anthrax powder - 2.5 grams - that could be put in an envelope without making a suspicious bulge. The quantity in the envelope sent to Senator Tom Daschle in October 2001 was 2 grams. After the attacks, the report drew the attention of the FBI, and led to their investigation of Patrick and Hatfill.[7]

Hatfill later went to work at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA. In September 2001 SAIC was commissioned by the Pentagon to create a replica of a mobile WMD "laboratory", alleged to have been used by Saddam. The Pentagon claimed the trailer was to be used as a training aide for teams seeking weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Hatfill has maintained that he is innocent of any involvement in the 2001 anthrax letter attacks and sued the government for compensation for the damage he claims has been inflicted on his professional reputation and employment prospects[8].

His lawyer, Victor M. Glasberg [9], stated: "Steve's life has been devastated by a drumbeat of innuendo, implication and speculation. We have a frightening public attack on an individual who, guilty or not, should not be exposed to this type of public opprobrium based on speculation." [10]

In an embarrassing incident, FBI agents trailing Hatfill in a motor vehicle ran over his foot when he attempted to approach them in May 2003. Police responding to the incident did not cite the driver, but issued Hatfill a citation for "walking to create a hazard." [11] He and his attorneys fought the ticket, but a hearing officer upheld the ticket and ordered Hatfill to pay the requisite $5 fine. [12]

[edit] 60 Minutes interview
Hatfill's lawyer, Tom Connolly, was featured in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about the anthrax incidents on March 11, 2007.[6] In the interview it was revealed that Hatfill forged a Ph.D. degree certificate. "It is true. It is true that he has puffed on his resume. Absolutely," Connolly acknowledged. "Forged a diploma. Yes, that's true." He went on to state, "Listen, if puffing on your resume made you the anthrax killer, then half this town should be suspect."

The New York Times stated in their paper that Hatfill had obtained an anti-anthrax medicine (ciprofloxacin) immediately prior to the anthrax mailings. Connolly explained, "Before the attacks he had surgery. So yes, he's on Cipro. But the fuller truth is in fact he was on Cipro because a doctor gave it to him after sinus surgery". Hatfill had previously said the antibiotic was for a lingering sinus infection. [13] The omission in the Times' article, of the reason why he had been taking Cipro, is one reason Hatfill sued the newspaper. The newspaper won a summary judgment ruling, in early 2007, squelching the libel suit that had been filed by Steven Hatfill against it and columnist Nicholas Kristof. [14]

[edit] Lawsuits

[edit] Hatfill v. John Ashcroft, et al.
On the 26th of August 2003, Hatfill filed a lawsuit[15] against the Attorney General of the United States John Ashcroft, the United States Department of Justice, DOJ employees Timothy Beres and Daryl Darnell, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Van Harp and an unknown number of FBI agents.[16]

On March 30, 2007, US District Judge Reggie Walton issued an order warning Hatfill that he could lose his civil lawsuit over the leaks if he did not compel journalists to name their sources. He gave Hatfill until April 16 to decide whether to press the journalists to give up their sources.[17]

On April 16, Hatfill gave notice that he would "proceed with discovery to attempt to obtain the identity of the alleged source or sources at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation who allegedly provided information to news reporters concerning the criminal investigation of Dr. Hatfill.”[18]

On April 27, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, federal prosecutors wrote that Steven Hatfill had overstepped court orders allowing him to compel testimony from reporters whom he had already questioned and had instead "served a new round of subpoenas" on organizations "that he failed to question during the discovery period."

During the first round of depositions, Hatfill subpoenaed six reporters: Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek, Brian Ross of ABC, Allan Lengel of The Washington Post, Jim Stewart of CBS, and Toni Locy of USA Today.

Hatfill now has subpoenaed eight news organizations, including three that he didn’t name before: The New York Times (Nicolas Kristof, David Johnson, William Broad, Kate Zernike, Judith Miller, Scott Shane, and Frank D. Roylance), The Baltimore Sun (Gretchen Parker and Curt Anderson), and the Associated Press. Subpoenas for Washington Post writers Marilyn W. Thompson, David Snyder, Guy Gugliotta, Tom Jackman, Dan Eggen and Carol D. Loenning, and for Mark Miller of Newsweek, are now included.

The Justice Department responded to Hatfill's subpoenas, saying that they went too far. “The court should reject this attempt to expand discovery,” prosecutors wrote.[19] In a status conference on Friday 11th January 2008, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ordered the attorneys for the government and for Hatfill to seek mediation over the next two months. According to the Scheduling Order[20], the parties will be in mediation from January 14 until May 14 2008. The prospects of a mediated settlement notwithstanding, Walton said he expected that a trial on the lawsuit could begin in December. Afterward, Hatfill's attorney Mark A. Grannis said: "The court has set a schedule for bringing this case to trial this year, and we're very pleased at the prospect that Dr. Hatfill will finally have his day in court."

On March 7, 2008, Toni Locy of USA Today was ordered to personally pay contempt of court fines of up to $5,000 a day which begin the following Tuesday, until she identifies her sources.[21]

On June 27, 2008 Hatfill was exonerated by the government and a settlement was announced in which the Justice Department has agreed to pay $5.8 million to settle the lawsuit in which Hatfill claimed the Justice Department violated his privacy rights by speaking with reporters about the case.[22][23]

[edit] Hatfill v. The New York Times
In July 2004, Hatfill filed a lawsuit against The New York Times Company and Nicholas D. Kristof. [24]

In a sealed motion [25] on December 29, 2006, the New York Times argued that the classification restrictions imposed on the case were tantamount to an assertion of the state secrets privilege. Times attorneys cited the case law on state secrets to support their argument that the case should be dismissed. The "state secrets" doctrine, they said, "precludes a case from proceeding to trial when national security precludes a party from obtaining evidence that is... necessary to support a valid defense. Dismissal is warranted in this case because the Times has been denied access to such evidence, specifically documents and testimony concerning the work done by plaintiff [Hatfill] on classified government projects relating to bioweapons, including anthrax."

A redacted copy [25]of the December 29, 2006 New York Times Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for an Order Dismissing the Complaint Under the "State Secrets" Doctrine was obtained by Secrecy News. [26]

Attorneys for Dr. Hatfill filed a sealed response on January 12, 2007 in opposition to the motion for dismissal on state secrets grounds. A redacted copy [27] of their opposition has been made available by Secrecy News.[28]

On January 12, 2007, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Hatfill against The New York Times. [29]

On January 30, 2007, Judge Hilton's order dismissing the Hatfill v The New York Times was made public, along with a Memorandum Opinion explaining his ruling.

The Order: [30] The Opinion:

Kenneth A. Richieri, Vice President and General Counsel of the New York Times scored what he called a "very satisfying win" at the beginning of 2007 in the Eastern District of Virginia. The newspaper won a summary judgment ruling squelching a libel suit that had been filed by anthrax poisoning "person of interest" Steven Hatfill against it and columnist Nicholas Kristof. [31]

[edit] Hatfill v. Foster
Donald Foster, an expert in forensic linguistics, advised the FBI during the investigation of the anthrax attacks. He later wrote an article for Vanity Fair about his investigation of Hatfill. In the October 2003 article Foster described how he had tried to match up Hatfill's travels with the postmarks on the anthrax letters, and analyzed old interviews and an unpublished novel by Hatfill about a bioterror attack on the United States. Foster wrote that "When I lined up Hatfill's known movements with the postmark locations of reported biothreats, those hoax anthrax attacks appeared to trail him like a vapor cloud," [32]

Hatfill subsequently sued Donald Foster, Condé Nast Publications, Vassar College, and The Reader's Digest Association. The suit sought $10 million in damages, claiming defamation. [33] The Reader's Digest published a condensed version of the article in December 2003.

The lawyers delayed bringing the Hatfill v. Foster lawsuit to court because "the parties are close to finalizing the settlement".[34]

On February 27, 2007, The New York Sun reported that he settled without a trial.[35]