Recent
Updates to this Site
&
Thoughts
about what it all means
by
Ed
Lake
| Updates & Changes: Sunday, May 4, 2008,
thru Saturday, May 10, 2008
May 9, 2008 - The Locy appeal was heard
on schedule. The Associated
Press reports:
A federal appeals court appeared reluctant Friday to uphold
hefty fines for a reporter who refuses to identify the sources of her stories
about the 2001 anthrax attacks.
...
"You've got enough to go to trial. You think you can win," Judge Douglas
H. Ginsburg told Hatfill's lawyer. "Why is more evidence critical to the
case? That seems to be a contradiction."
There's no information on when the judges will issue their ruling.
May 7-8, 2008 - While continuing the
endless arguments on FreeRepublic.com,
an interesting scientific puzzle came up. It relates to the
article in Aerosol Science magazine and the two pictures shown in my
comment dated May 4 below. On page 167, the article says this about
the pictures:
Figure 7a shows a particle potentially containing a single
BG spore; since no uncoated single spores were
observed, this suggests that virtually
all single spores remained coated with silica. The coating apparently
solidified from exposure to water in the air over the years of sample storage
and use. However, multiple spores or clumps
were found frequently and these were often largely uncoated as indicated
in Figure 7b. The reason for the difference in coating adherence
to different sized particles is unclear.
Unlike arguments over things which cannot be answered without new facts
from the FBI, this is something which seems to demand an explanation.
And the answer lies in the science of physics, where the facts are probably
already known but not yet applied.
If the silica sticks to spores due to van der Waals forces, as some
claim, why would the silica particles stick to single spores but not equally
well to clumps of spores? If, instead, the silica sticks due to static
electricity, would the difference between single spores and clumps be explained
by the irregular surface area of the clumps? I just don't know
enough about surface
static electricity. And what about the fact that the single
clump in picture 7b seems to show unusually small spores -- almost half
normal size. Smaller spores might go through the mesh filters first,
which means there would be less time for static electricity to build up.
For awhile, I thought another explanation might be that the pounding done
by the ball mill causes the silica particles to be pounded into
the latice-like outer coating on the spores (the exosporium) and the particles
stick like tennis balls stuck in a chain-link fence. Smaller spores
which go through the mesh filters first would have fewer silica particles
stuck to them. But that explanation, while possible, seems less likely
than some explanation involving surface static electricity.
So, we have two possible explanations, while the van der Waals forces explanation
doesn't seem to work at all.
The milling process begins with large clumps of trillions of spores
stuck together due to the way they were dried. So, the clumps in
the final product are clumps that were never broken up by the ball mill.
Why weren't they broken up? Probably because they were small enough
to go through the final mesh filter before they got broken up.
Does that answer the question of why there is very little silica
stuck to them? There wasn't time to break them up? But wouldn't
there be a lot of unattached silica particles on the other side
of the final mesh filter? And the article says they added more silica
to the BG preparation after filtering in order to enhance the flow
characteristics. If van der Waals forces were at work, they'd work
equally well on either side of the filter. But static electricity
wouldn't. The friction from milling would have stopped. That
would mean the pounding of tiny silica particles into the latice-like surface
of the spores would have stopped, too. Hmm.
That's the type of thing that keeps me interested in all this for
six and a half years.
May 6, 2008 (B)
- I've been informed by one of the authors of the
Aerosol Science article that, at the time they began their study, they
were not in a position to know any details about the anthrax powders used
in the attacks of 2001 and did indeed accept what was printed in the media
as being the truth or close to it.
It's unfortunate that they mentioned their
beliefs about the anthrax attacks of 2001 in their article. They
stepped on a "land mine" when they mentioned the anthrax attacks of 2001,
and that "land mind" exploded around them. It could wipe out a lot
of the good work their article provides to people interested in sampling
methods.
Maybe if enough scientists understand that
they are entering a "mine field" any time they mention the anthrax attacks
of 2001, they'll be more careful in what they say. And maybe they'll demand
that more facts be made public about the anthrax powders that were in the
anthrax letters so that the "mine field" can be eliminated.
May 6, 2008 (A) - While discussions
about the the
Aerosol
Science and Technology article seem to have temporarily died
down on FreeRepublic.com,
in my weary brain the information in the article is still connecting pieces
of the overall anthrax puzzle in ways that now seem so obvious that
I'm amazed that they weren't pointed out and discussed before.
The "horse and buggy" anthrax simulants created by Dugway back during
the Cold War used the techniques that were then considered to be "the state
of the art." And, while the techniques might now seem antiquated
in a certain light, they still produced a very deadly end-product.
Simulants using those techniques were used in both the sampling
study described in the recent Aerosol Science article and
in the Canadian "Risk
assessment of anthrax threat letters" study completed in September
of 2001.
Why did those studies use simulants from that old process?
Because that's what Dugway supplied. Why did Dugway supply simulants
from that old process? Because they were forbidden
by international agreements from developing any new techiques.
And they were required to destroy all stockpiles of actual bioweapons from
that era.
Of course! And that's why the conspiracy theorists went nuts!
They believed they saw evidence that the Bush administration was violating
those international agreements!
Here's some background
information from www.cdi.org about the agreements:
U.S. efforts to eliminate biological weapons began in earnest
under the Nixon administration. On November 25, 1969, President Nixon declared
that the United States would not use chemical weapons in a first instance,
and he renounced the use of biological weapons in any situation. Future
biological weapons research was confined to defensive measures such as
immunization, detection and safety. Consequently, the Department
of Defense destroyed large stockpiles of biological weapons. Canada, Sweden
and the United Kingdom followed suit and began to abolish their BW stockpiles
as well.
The United States, through the United Nations Conference of the Committee
on Disarmament, discussed the possibility of an international agreement
with the Soviet Union. On August 5, 1971, the Soviet Union and the United
States agreed to a revised draft of the convention and a vote in the General
Assembly resulted in 110 for the treaty, and 0 against. The
United States Senate ratified the convention in 1974 during the Ford administration.
Developing new techniques for making bioweapons would not be
considered a defensive measure in any context allowed under the
treaty.
To conspiracy theorists, the fact that the end-product from those
old techniques was nothing like what was in the anthrax letters
mailed in September and October of 2001 was seen as "proof" that the anthrax
powder in the letters came from some NEW and totally illegal program.
And their beliefs were enflamed by articles in the media, such as "Terror
Anthrax Linked to Type Made by U.S." in the December 3, 2001, issue
of The New York Times, the "FBI's
Theory On Anthrax Is Doubted" article from the October 28, 2002, issue
of The Washington Post, and, of course, the absolutely absurd, pure
conspiracy theory article "Anthrax Powder
- State Of The Art?" from the November 28, 2003, issue of Science Magazine.
Of course. Of course. Of course.
In those highly emotional times, it just didn't seem reasonable to
many people that the anthrax in the letters could have come from some routine
lab technique used to create insecticides. (In many ways,
that is a lot more scary than that it came from some illegal U.S.
Government program.) But when beliefs are used to generate news instead
of facts, even though the results can be totally ridiculous, there
is no rule that totally ridiculous ideas cannot be believed by normally
intelligent people.
May 5, 2008 - The "merry month of May"
also includes the Florida Supreme Court hearing Maureen Stevens' lawsuits
against the U.S. Government and the Battelle Memorial Institute.
It happened today. According to the Fort
Mills (SC) Times:
The federal government and a private laboratory have no duty
under state law to protect the public from lethal materials, their lawyers
argued Monday in a lawsuit over the anthrax death of a supermarket tabloid
staffer in 2001.
...
The lawsuit claims the strain of anthrax that killed Stevens was traced
to the Army's Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick,
Md.
If the case goes to trial, that's an issue the jury will be asked to
determine. Genetic analysis by researchers at Northern Arizona University
and the Institute of Genomic Research in Maryland indicate the strain probably
originated at Fort Detrick.
The suit also claims the government and Battelle are negligent because
they failed to keep it secured.
Maureen's husband, Bob Stevens was the first victim to die as a result
of the anthrax attacks of 2001. Many documents related to the case
can be found
HERE.
And, if you are really interested in the legal issues of this case,
there's more information HERE.
May 4, 2008 - Well,
we've made it to "the merry month of May!" According to The
New York Times, Toni Locy's arguments in her appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia will be heard on May 9, this coming
Friday. Mediation in the Hatfill v FBI lawsuit is scheduled to conclude
on the following Monday, May 12. And according to the
Docket in the Hatfill v FBI et al lawsuit, all parties must file their
oppositions to the summary judgment motions on or before Friday, May 16,
2008, and replies in support of such motions on or before Friday, May 30,
2008.
There's no way of knowing how quickly the Appeals Court will issue
a ruling in the Locy Contempt of Court matter. And there's certainly
no way of knowing what will come out of the mediation sessions -- if anything.
Meanwhile, the discussions about the
Aerosol Science and Technology article seem to have died down.
(For multiple reasons, I can't yet put a copy of the article on this site.)
In some ways, the article seems to have produced more questions than answers:
1. Why would a branch
of the CDC in Cincinnati author a document that says it is "believed"
that some of the material used in the 2001 attacks was in a "fluidized"
form, meaning: containing fumed silica?
2. How come some scientists from Dugway
agreed to provide for this paper a description of how they made such anthrax
powders back during the Cold War, and also providing a supply of "weaponized"
simulants they made using those techniques 40 years ago?
3. Since when have U.S. government agencies
been publishing details about techniques for making bioweapons?
4. How come this information was
published in an article about sampling methods and not in an article
where known information (versus believed
nonsense) about the powders used in the anthrax attacks of 2001
is also provided?
The process described in the article doesn't seem to match the actual
industrialized
weaponization process used back during the Cold War. This process
uses a ball mill instead of a grinding mill. However, the way silica
is used to dampen static electricity and the way they reduce solid pellets
of trillions of spores down to individual spores and tiny clumps indicates
that the
end product would be fairly similar
to what came out of the industrialized process.
The article provides an image of a coated spore produced from
this process. (It was displayed all over the place in the
FreeRepublic discussions but then disappeared. Since it came
from a government agency, I assume it's in the public domain, so here it
is:
As you can see, it looks something like a clump of sugar. Nothing
of the actual spore is visible. You can only see the silica particles
which totally cover the spore to the point where the article describes
it as a "Particle assumed to contain a spore
coated with fumed silica." The grains of sugar (i.e., silica) seemed fused
together but nothing like the chain-like strands in the close-up image
of fumed silica seen HERE
or the image of smoke-like particles which immediately follows the close-up
image at that link.
The Aerosol Science article seems to explain why. The
chain- or smoke-like particles of fumed silica were put into a ball
mill with the spores and then battered into fragments. The friction
from the milling process would generate a great deal of static electricity,
and the end result, after being pounded through "increasingly finer mesh
screens," is spores coated with crushed bits of fumed silica, which presumably
cling to the spores as a result of the static electricity. And the
silica, being an insulator, prevents the static-charged
spores inside the particle from clinging to each other. (And,
of course, there's an argument about whether or not van
der Waals forces are involved in any of this.)
So, in this process, fumed silica was MIXED with spores and then
run through a ball mill and various kinds of filtering. The end result
was spores covered with silica and a great deal of debris of various
kinds. The purpose of the process is NOT to coat spores, but to create
particles small enough to be effectively aerosolized in a bioweapon. The
silica coating on the spores is an unfortunate but necessary side effect
of the milling.
Not every spore gets completely covered with silica in this process,
but most do. Many particles end up looking something like the one
below, a clump consisting of multiple spores with a sprinkling of silica,
but still small enough to get through the final filter:
This is totally unlike what was placed in any
of the anthrax letters. The spores in the anthrax letters
were NOT MILLED. The debris in the media letters was dead bacteria
and the organic residue of sporulation. The senate letters contained
just "pure spores" with little or no debris --
and absolutely NO visible silica.
Looking through my
book and through my supplemental page on coatings,
I don't find anything I need to change, although if I were to write the
book and that page over again I would probably explain certain things differently.
I've also been endlessly reminded that, in my
December 2004 interview with Ken Alibek, this was said:
Lake: Is it true to say
that spores are not actually COATED with silica, they are MIXED with silica?
Alibek: (laughing) Yeah,
because there is no principle for coating. This is one mistake, hopefully,
which just comes from the media.
Presumably, Mr. Alibek either didn't know or remember how the Americans
weaponized spores back during the Cold War, or a process where MIXING results
in a COATING was not seen as the correct answer to the question I asked.
Either way, that's what was said, so no correction is needed.
And, of course, all the beliefs that spores were coated with silica
using techniques that would certainly kill every
single spore are as crazy now as they've always been.
In dicussions, I've stated many times that coating a spore with silica
will have two undesirable effects: 1.
It will make the spore heavier and less "flyable." 2.
It will reduce the ability of the spore to germinate.
Both factors show that coated spores would reduce the effectiveness
of a bioweapon.
Undesirable effect #1 is undoubtedly still true, but the difference
is evidently not enough to create a significant problem in allowing the
spore to "fly." They won't fly as well with a silica coating,
but they'll still fly.
Undesirable effect #2 is also true, but evidently also not significant
enough to create a serious problem with infecting the human targets when
billions or trillions of spores are involved. The Aerosol Science
article says at the bottom of page 169:
This means that if the spore particle
is completely coated with silica, it may not have sufficient contact with
the growth medium to grow and be detected as a CFU [Colony Forming
Unit].
The article discusses ways the silica can be washed off during the sampling
process, so presumably there could be ways it gets washed off in a battlefield
setting and/or inside the human lung. And, if not, the tiny, partially-coated
clumps
will do the job.
An analogy seems appropriate here:
I feel like I've been arguing for years with people who believed
that they knew about a new, top secret, super-sophisticated way
to travel across America:
by horse and buggy.
And I've been counter-arguing that it is absolutely ridiculous to believe
that anyone would ever travel across America by horse and buggy.
And now we've both been suddenly informed that there was a
time, many many years ago, when lots of people actually
did travel
across America by horse and buggy.
So, we all live and learn.
The key, however, is that all this new information doesn't change
any part of my analysis of the anthrax attacks. It only increases
what we know about peripheral subjects. |
| Updates & Changes: Sunday, April 27, 2008,
thru Saturday, May 3, 2008
May 1, 2008 - The article
from Aerosol Science and Technology mentioned yesterday is generating
a lot of interesting discussion on FreeRepublic.com.
April 30, 2008 - The scientific article
people were waiting on, and which I mentioned at the end of my comment
for April 27, turns out to be a rather bizarre article in Aerosol Science
and Technology titled "Development
of an Aerosol System for Uniformly Depositing Bacillus Anthracis Spore
Particles on Surfaces." It was published on March 1, 2008, and
the authors are from the CDC and Dugway Proving Grounds.
It's bizarre because it seems to be based entirely on the bizarre
belief that the article titled "FBI's
Theory On Anthrax Is Doubted" from the October 28, 2002, issue of The
Washington Post was a valid description of the attack anthrax of
2001. Right now I'm just scratching my head and wondering how they
can be so out of touch with reality. But conspiracy theorists will
undoubtely LOVE it and consider me to be out of touch with reality.
Which proves one thing: The world in is great need of a scientifically
indisputable report on what the attack anthrax of 2001 really looked
like. A picture by a scientist who actually
viewed the anthrax isn't good enough.
The article contains a lot of information about how Dugway
evidently produced anthrax bioweapons back during the Cold War. The
process described appears to result in spores coated
with silica. While that process has nothing to do with the anthrax
attacks of 2001, I'll have to figure exactly what is being said in the
article and whether or not there is something on this web site about "weaponizing
anthrax" that I need to change.
April 27, 2008 - The news media continues
to totally ignore everything contained in the Motions for Summary
Judgment in the Hatfill v FBI lawsuit.
There was absolutely nothing about that flood of information in the news
last week.
Instead, the Toni Locy situation seems to be their point of interest.
Last week, more articles were generated about the "Shield Law" the media
wants passed. The only article of interest that I noticed, however,
was from over a week ago. It was headlined "McCain,
Obama back law shielding reporters." But the text of the article
doesn't quite match the headline. Here's what it said about McCain's
endorsement:
McCain told a group of newspaper executives
at the annual meeting of the Associated Press that when it comes to anonymous
sources, he trusts that "you will not do more harm than good, whether
it comes to the security of the nation or the reputation of good people."
The proposed shield law is, "frankly, a license
to do harm, perhaps serious harm," he said. "But it also is
a license to do good; to disclose injustice and unlawfulness and inequities;
and to encourage their swift correction."
And here's what it said about Obama's endorsement:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack
Obama, who spoke later at an AP luncheon, has endorsed the shield
law to protect reporters but told editors that
courts should decide whether a confidential source deserves protection.
That's a long way from the blanket, total immunity the media wants.
The article also says,
Hillary Rodham Clinton ... also supports the law
An article in Editor
& Publisher expands upon that a bit:
she recently signed on to co-sponsor the Federal Shield Law
bill.
“To ensure whistle-blowers that they can blow the whistle
Yes, everyone wants to "ensure whistle-blowers that they can blow the
whistle," but that kind of statement avoids the real argument: How far
should the law go toward giving the media a "license to do harm?"
I also thought that there might be something somewhere about the
confirmed finding that the person the Neo-Nazis
consider to be the prime suspect in the anthrax attacks is not Jewish,
as they believe. He's a Catholic.
The bad information apparently originated in one
of those idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theory books, where the author just
assumed
the man was Jewish because the name
seemed Jewish. It then
got repeated
word for word over
and over and over
and over.
I changed the Wikipedia
entry for his name to point out that he was a member of the St. Nicholas
Catholic Church when he lived in Ohio. But there's no indication
that any web site which considers him to be a suspect because they believe
he is Jewish will let facts change their minds. Attacking him because
they believe he's Jewish clearly has nothing to do with facts.
Along that same line, last week on FreeRepublic.com there was message
after message
after message
where I was bizarrely (or insanely) attacked. I'm not sure what set
the guy off, but it appears to be because I showed him to be wrong in his
beliefs as to what a
patent filed by Ken Alibek does. The person who disguises his
identity by calling himself "ZacandPook" apparently somehow came to believe
that Alibek's the patent encapsulates spores in silica, which "ZacandPook"
seems to believe is the explanation for why silicon and oxygen were detected
in the attack anthrax. In reality, the patent involves a
cell culture method where bacteria (cells) are grown (cultured)
inside tiny "microdroplets" which are prevented from combining into larger
droplets by a coating of silica particles. The patent has absolutely
nothing
to do with spores.
Here's how the process is described in the patent:
1. A cell culture method
comprising the steps of: introducing liquid media
inoculated with cells to be cultured into a vessel; converting
the inoculated liquid media into individual microdroplets; introducing
a sufficient quantity of hydrophobic particles in the form of a dry powder
into the vessel to coat the individual microdroplets;
and growing the cells within the individual microdroplets.
According to the patent, the tiny microdroplets are between half a millimeter
and 2 millimeters in diameter - hundreds and thousands of times larger
than a spore - and they are inoculated to contain large numbers of bacteria
inside. Is there any other way to read what the patent describes?:
The size of the microdroplets will vary, with an optimum size
for the cultivation of microorganisms, for example, usually being between
0.5
and 2.0 mm in diameter. Sizes within this range have been found
to result in high concentrations of microorganisms
per microdroplet.
This invention requires less equipment and is less expensive than other
methods, and greatly reduces a key problem associated with growing bacteria
in bioreactors or fermenting vats, the problem where all
the bacteria in a large vat can be contaminated by some other kind
of bacteria. The method described in Ken Alibek's (and Charles L.
Bailey's) patent limits such contamination to only the bacteria
growing within a tiny microcroplet. That would be a significant advantage
over other culturing methods.
Yet, evidently somehow "ZacandPook" believes this explains why silicon
and oxygen were detected in the attack anthrax spores. And it appears
that, because I showed that Alibek's patent has nothing to do with spores,
he says:
Ed stood ready to serve his country
by so totally confusing the issue on silica. Ed, you are a True American.
So, I'm "confusing the issue on silica" because I show that he is mistaken
in his beliefs?
You might think that I should just ignore him. But he's shown
that he'll do anything he can to shut down this web site, so he's hard
to ignore.
While he was ranting away, another person who would also like to
shut down this web site went suddenly silent. Not a word all week.
But there were vague indications that he's waiting on something.
I noticed some searches on my web site which I believe were his searches.
They seemed to indicate that he's waiting on a scientific article that
might shed some light on some aspect of the attack anthrax. In the
past, such silences were sometimes followed by the publication of a scientific
article about the attack anthrax. But the "signs" I'm reading are
so vague that I could be totally wrong.
Do I believe he's waiting on an article? No. I believe
it's equally likely that he's waiting on something else, but I have no
idea what it could be. And I believe it's far more likely that the
"signs" mean nothing at all. I believe I don't have enough information
to know what he's doing -- if anything. But I also believe I should
continue to watch and pay attention, since the "signs" could mean
some facts are coming. And if there are new facts coming,
they will almost certainly support existing facts as laid out and discussed
on this web site.
That's the way things happen when you look for facts and don't just
rely on beliefs. |
| Updates & Changes: Sunday, April 20, 2008,
thru Saturday, April 26, 2008
April 22, 2008 - I'd forgotten that
the Hatfill v FBI et al lawsuit is in mediation.
I was reminded today when a request was made to alter some deadlines because
the parties need to be able to concentrate on mediation proceedings.
The request says:
Mediation is scheduled to conclude on
May 12, 2008. The parties believe it will be difficult to devote adequate
attention to the mediation if they are simultaneously preparing oppositions
to summary judgment motions. Defendants therefore respectfully request
that the deadline for the filing of oppositions be extended by one week,
until May 16, 2008, and that the deadline for the filing of replies also
be extended by one week, until May 30, 2008.
April 20, 2008 - Most of the past week
was spent trying to determine if there is anything new in the documents
associated with the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Dr. Hatfill and
the government in the Hatfill v FBI et al lawsuit.
While there's been a lot of discussion on FreeRepublic.com,
where some of the documents have been posted, at least 80 percent of the
documents I've seen are just copies of newspaper and other media articles
which have been on this site for years. (A couple documents were
actually obtained by copying what is ON this site.) (Dr. Hatfill's
deposition is apparently available somewhere, but I haven't yet seen it.)
There are also emails and letters between various people. Some have
been seen before. Some haven't. Whether there is anything
new in them depends upon how closely you've been paying attention for the
past six years -- and how thoroughly you study the documents. I haven't
had the time to do much more than skim through them.
(The files of supporting documents are too big to put on this web
site where they would be repeatedly downloaded by Google, Yahoo! and many
universities and colleges around the world, generating a lot of bandwidth
usage with no benefit for the expense.)
Mostly the documents contained in the files are just support for
what is described in the Memoranda and Statements of Facts filed by Dr.
Hatfill and the government.
However, some documents provide some insights into what was going
on in matters related to stopping leaks about the FBI's investigation of
Dr. Hatfill.
Looking at just what has been put on FreeRepublic.com,
for example, we see that the letter in Message
#178 is from U.S. Attorney Ken Kohl and says,
By the way, WFO [Washington Field Office]
has opened a leak investigation in an attempt to find out who spoke to
NEWSWEEK magazine over the weekend about the bureau’s use of bloodhounds
in the investigation.”
Although undated, we know that the
Newsweek article in question was published in their August 12, 2002,
issue, which went to press about a week earlier, around the 5th.
Another letter from that time is shown in Message
#180 and says,
Because Hatfill said he was going to make his referall to OPR
[Office of Professional Responsibility], and because the
substance of Hatfill’s complaints are not really criminal, Hatfill’s
referall would probably result in OPR handling it (with OIG [Office of
the Inspector General] deferring).
Another letter from that time is shown in Message
#182 and says,
Van [Harp] has indicated to Ken[Kohl] that WFO opened the investigation
and assigned it to a separate squad, but neither
Ken nor any of the agents have been interviewed or have any other indication
that an investigation is ongoing.
This appears to confirm that the FBI knew who was doing the leaking,
and they simply set up a "sting operation" to trap that individual.
That would explain why neither Ken Kohl or any FBI agents were interviewed.
In another thread on FreeRepublic.com,
there is further information. Message
#14 shows a letter of some kind from two months later, October 8, 2002,
from David W. Szady, Assistant Director in charge of the FBI's Counterintelligence
Division, to Mr. H. Marshall Jarrett, a lawyer in the Office of Professional
Responsibility (OPR) in the United States Department of Justice.
The letter says,
The purpose of this memorandum is to notify your office of
the
closing of the FBI’s criminal investigation of the captioned media leak
matter. It is the understanding of the FBI that your continued investigation
of this matter will be pursued by your office.
It appears they were closing the leak investigation that led to finding
that Daniel S. Seikaly leaked information about the bloodhounds to Newsweek.
Turning the matter over to the OPR meant that it wouldn't likely become
a criminal matter. It would more likely end with a repremand, a firing
or disbarment. (Seikaly left the DOJ.)
While interesting, it adds little to our knowlege of the Amerithrax
investigation.
The same with most of the other documents I've seen. One news
article that wasn't on my web site (but has been added) is from the March
25, 2002, issue of The Los Angeles Times and is titled "FBI
Denies That Hijacker Had Skin Anthrax." It says,
But Saturday, FBI officials said they still believe the
19 hijackers never came into contact with anthrax, noting that authorities
scoured their cars, apartments and personal effects for traces of the deadly
bacteria and found none.
"This was fully investigated and widely vetted
among multiple agencies several months ago," FBI chief spokesman
John E. Collingwood said in a statement in response to the report.
"Exhaustive testing did not support that anthrax was present anywhere the
hijackers had been."
While I didn't have that particular article, the information in it isn't
new. I recall it appeared many places, since it's what I and others
have been saying for many years.
When digging for information, finding only old and/or irrelevant
information takes all the fun out of the digging. I'll continue
to poke around, but I'm also waiting for people to come to me with arguments
that they've found something in the heap that I need to study and comment
upon. There are just too many other things for me to do.
The key information in the documents, as far as I'm concerned, is
still the confirmation that Barbara Hatch Rosenberg was responsible for
what happened to Dr. Hatfill. It's what I've
been saying on this web site for years.
But maybe the most newsworthy item to come from these documents so
far is the fact that absolutely no one in the media has found anything
in them worthy of comment. Motions for Summary Judgment in high-profile
cases are usually met with headlines supporting one point of view or the
other. But not this time. There's only total silence from both
the Right and the Left. I find that a bit strange. I don't
understand it at all. |
| Updates & Changes: Sunday, April 13, 2008,
thru Saturday, April 19, 2008
April 16, 2008 - Ah! Finally!
An arrest for something I've been tracking on
this web site. The title of the Associated Press article says it
all: "Man
at center of Las Vegas ricin case arrested, charged." According
to The
New York Times:
The six-page indictment said Mr. Von Bergendorff told investigators
he had been experimenting with ricin production since the 1990s and had
made ricin in Utah and Reno, Nev., in recent years. He described learning
to make it as “an exotic idea” and told them he has “experimented with
a lot of things, even counterfeiting.”
Curiosity almost killed this cat.
April 14, 2008 - Hmm. There's
a lot of discussion on FreeRepublic.com
about specific emails and other documents released on Friday. But
I don't seem to be able to find them. I found a
list of the documents, but it was accompanied by
a statement that the documents were only available in paper form and
you have to go to the clerk's office to see them. I don't yet
know where the copies of the documents can be found.
April 13, 2008 - Ah, nuts! I had
hoped that at least one or two newspapers and news outlets would have summarized
what is in documents associated with the "Motion
For Partial Summary Judgement" filed by Dr. Hatfill and the "Motion
for Summary Judgement" filed by the government on Friday. But,
I don't see a single word about it anywhere -- except on a discussionforum.
That means I have to slog through the documents myself to summarize them.
Although I haven't found it yet, I've been told via an email that
I'm mentioned in at least one document filed by Dr. Hatfill. The
mention is as follows:
Dr. Hatfill also recalls [...] calling Ed Lake to correct inaccuracies
reflected in a New York Times article about "mobile labs," [...]
That's a first. I've never been mentioned in any other document
in this case, as far as I know.
The "Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Support of Motion For Partial Summary Judgment"is
a 40 page document which makes claims such as these:
[From page 13:] Deborah Daniels, the Assistant Attorney
General who approved Dr. Hatfill’s blackballing
and kibitzed about how to spin it to the press, also received no Privacy
Act training and did not have even a general understanding of what it required.
[From page 19:]So many people had actually gotten into Amerithrax case
files via the ACS that one agent’s inquiry into who had done so during
“some period of time that wasn't very long” resulted in a “blizzard of
paper” that he described as “massive.” So many individuals had accessed
the investigatory records that Agent Roth estimated it would have taken
a second investigation the size of the Amerithrax investigation just to
identify them—even with the FBI’s technical capability to determine who
had accessed any particular file.
[From page 20:] ... they left the Amerithrax investigative records wide
open to any of the “vast majority” of the 24,000 or so FBI personnel who
had generalized access to the ACS system, plus other state, federal and
local government personnel
working on any FBI task force.
[From page 28:] Discovery has provided admissions from
FBI and DOJ officials, or in some cases direct testimony from reporters,
of over 140 disclosures of investigative information about Dr. Hatfill
alone. Eighty of those have now been traced to discrete, identified
DOJ and FBI officials.
The "Plaintiff's Statement of Material Undisputed Facts in Support of
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" is 114 pages long, too long for me
to put a copy on my site where it will be downloaded endlessly. Mostly
it's a rehash of all the things that have appeared in the media and in
previous legal documents which show that the FBI and the DOJ routinely
leaked information about the Amerithrax investigation to the media.
I'm not sure what point can be made by showing that people within the FBI
do
talk to the media "off the record" about ongoing criminal investigations.
Just about every law enforcement agency briefs the media about ongoing
criminal investigations. If they didn't, it would appear that nothing
is being done. And, if they didn't, the media (and everyone else)
would be guessing about what was being done.
But talking to the media "off the record" about a particular individual
is clearly risky business -- unless the individual is a suspect and
a fugitive.
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's name comes up frequently in the document,
appearing first on page 8:
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg is a professor at the State University
of New York at
Purchase. [...]. Professor Rosenberg published on the Internet a “profile”
of the anthrax killer in which she speculated that the perpetrator not
only “fit[] the FBI profile” but also was a “[m]iddle-aged American” who
“[w]orks for a CIA contractor in [the] Washington, DC area,” “[w]orked
in USAMRIID laboratory in the past,” and “[k]nows Bill Patrick and has
probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from him, informally.”
then on page 9:
In addition to providing a “profile” of the anthrax mailer,
Professor Rosenberg asserted that the FBI had focused in on one particular
suspect. This assertion received a swift rebuke by the FBI. The FBI issued
a media statement designed to refute Professor Rosenberg’s allegations
that the FBI had a prime suspect in the anthrax investigation.
then on page 10:
Congress picked up on criticism of the FBI by outsiders, and
it pressed the FBI to
show that it was making progress on the anthrax investigation. On June
18, 2002, three weeks after The Anthrax Files appeared in The Times, Professor
Rosenberg received an audience with members of the staffs of Senators Leahy
and Daschle, the two senators to whom the anthraxladen letters were addressed.
[...] Van Harp, then the Assistant Director
in Charge of the Washington Field Office and one of the FBI officials responsible
for the Amerithrax investigation, and other FBI officials were “summoned”
to attend the meeting to listen to Professor Rosenberg’s theory on who
committed the anthrax attacks. [...]
At this meeting, Professor Rosenberg, who had
been granted no official authority by the FBI, no access to any forensic
tests conducted on the anthrax letters or the FBI’s investigative file,
and was “misinformed” about aspects of the investigation, explained to
Senate staff members her theory of the case. [...]
It was clear that Professor Rosenberg was talking
about Dr. Hatfill.
and on page 11:
She also expressed to the staffers her concerns about the FBI’s
handling of the investigation. [...]
The FBI is very conscious of its image in the eyes of Congress and the
general
public. It is concerned about maintaining a good public image generally.
[...] The Agency Defendants were aware of mounting public criticism
concerning the handling of the anthrax investigation. [...] The Agency
Defendants also were aware that members of Congress were criticizing the
FBI and of pressures to solve the case. [...] Indeed, Agency Defendants
were aware of the debate within Congress concerning the FBI’s institutional
competence to investigate terrorism cases and the
allocation of responsibility for investigating terrorism cases. [...]
On June 25, 2002, one week after Professor
Rosenberg’s meeting on Capitol Hill, the FBI searched Dr. Hatfill’s apartment
under the full glare of the national press.
But, the document doesn't go into all the things
that Dr. Rosenberg did to point the finger at Dr. Hatfill before she
finally got the attention of those senate staffers. It will take
me some time to go through all of what is in the document instead. It's
purpose is to show that the government violated the Privacy Act, not
to show in detail how Dr. Rosenberg contributed to that violation.
Although I haven't yet found the document, I'm
told that there's a copy of a letter dated September 5, 2002, which
was sent by Dr. Hatfill's attorney at the time, Victor M. Glasberg, to
Dr. Rosenberg which contained this subtle warning:
I understand that you have recently observed
that the FBI’s focus on Dr. Hatfill was a matter of its own choosing, for
which you were in no way responsible. I will not comment on the appropriateness
of any such position, but on behalf of Dr. Hatfill I would request,
and suggest, that before you even get close to describing him in the future,
by name or otherwise, you submit your comments for legal vetting before
publishing them to anyone. This will benefit all parties.
The government's response is easier to summarize. In "The
Defendants' Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute" it basically
says Dr. Hatfill has no case because the government didn't leak anything
from any confidential government files. Here are the headings for
the government's main arguments:
The Attorney General’s “Person of Interest”
Statements Did Not Violate the Act
Debra Weierman Did Not Violate The Privacy Act
CBSNews.com Inaccurately Reported Van Harp’s Comments
Van Harp Did Not Confirm Details of a Newsweek
Story to Eleanor Clift
And here is the key argument covering Dr. Hatfill's claim that just
about everyone in the world had access to the FBI's ACS (Automated Case
Support) database.
38. There is no evidence that any “leaks” to the media came
from the ACS database, or were by individuals who should not have had access
to the Amerithrax investigation files. Indeed, the evidence is decidedly
to the contrary. In each case where the source of information has been
identified, the evidence is clear that the source did not acquire the information
from the ACS database.
But of far more interest is a 73 page document titled "The
United States Department of Justice and The Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgement."
I haven't finished reading through it, but I notice that starting on page
4 it contains this:
A. Journalistic Interest In Hatfill That Predates Alleged
Disclosures
Testimony has revealed that at least certain members of the media began
focusing their attention upon Hatfill in early 2002 because of tips they
had received from former colleagues of his who found him to be highly suspicious.
Articles about Hatfill thus began to appear in the mainstream press and
on internet sites as early as January of 2002, and continued until the
first search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, which, in turn, led to
even more intense press attention.
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a Professor at the State University of New
York, for example, complained in January and February 2002 on the Federation
of American Scientists’ (“FAS”) website of the FBI’s apparent lack of progress
on the investigation, and described generally the person she believed was
the “anthrax perpetrator.” “Analysis of Anthrax Attacks,” Possible Portrait
of the Anthrax Perpetrator (Section IV.6), Defendant’s Appendix , Ex. 1.
Rosenberg did
not identify Hatfill by name, but described him in sufficient detail:
a “Middle-aged American” who “[w]orks for a CIA contractor in Washington,
DC area” and [w]orked in USAMRIID laboratory in the past” and “[k]nows
Bill Patrick and probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from
him informally.” Id. In his amended complaint, Hatfill states that “Professor
Rosenberg’s ‘Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator’ . . . described
[him].” [...]
In addition to her postings on the FAS website, Professor Rosenberg
also presented a lecture on February 18, 2002 at Princeton University’s
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, entitled “The
Anthrax Attacks and the Control of Bioterrorism.” Ex. 2. During the
course of her lecture, Rosenberg stated that she had “draw[n] a likely
portrait of the perpetrator as a former Fort Detrick scientist who is now
working for a contractor in the
Washington, D.C, area[.]” Ex. 3. Rosenberg also commented upon Hatfill’s
whereabouts on the date of the attacks, stating that “[h]e had reason for
travel to Florida, New Jersey and the United Kingdom” – where the attacks
had been and from which the letters had been purportedly sent – that “[h]e
grew [the anthrax], probably on a solid medium, and weaponised it at a
private location where he had accumulated the equipment and the material.”
Id. Rosenberg also stated that the
investigation had narrowed to a “common suspect[,]” and that “[t]he
FBI has questioned that person more than once[.]” Id.
Former White House Spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, immediately responded
to Rosenberg’s comments, stating that there were several suspects and the
FBI had not narrowed that list down to one. Ex. 4. The FBI also issued
a press release, stating that it had “interviewed hundreds of persons,
in some instances, more than once. It is not accurate, however, that the
FBI has identified a prime suspect in this case.” Id.
Rosenberg’s comments and writings were subsequently pursued by The New
York Times (“The Times”). In a series of Op-Ed articles published from
May through July 2002, Nicholas Kristof, a journalist with The Times, accused
Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks. Kristof wrote
on May 24, 2002 that the FBI was overlooking the anthrax perpetrator, noting
that “experts” (Professor Rosenberg) point “to one middle-aged American
who has worked for the United States military bio-defense program and had
access to the labs at Fort Detrick, Md. His anthrax vaccinations are up
to date, he unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax,
and he was upset at the United States government in the period preceding
the anthrax attack.”
In a footnote on page 10 there is this:
Hatfill did not sue either Shane or Rosenberg, even though
Hatfill
has stated that
Rosenberg “caused” the focus on him.
[...] Because Hatfill believed that the portrait Rosenberg painted at the
February 2002 Princeton conference and in her website postings was so identifying
and incriminating, however, Hatfill advised Rosenberg through his lawyers
that “before [she] get[s] close to describing him in the future, by name
or otherwise, [that she] submit [her] comments for legal vetting before
publishing them to anyone.”
And on page 36 it explains when people within the FBI and DOJ can talk
with the media without violating the Privacy Act:
...even if [FBI Spokesperson Debra] Weierman had retrieved
information from a protected record (which she did not), an appropriate
routine
use exception under the Privacy Act (No. 3) allows disclosures “to
the news media or members of the general public in furtherance of a legitimate
law enforcement or public safety function as determined by the FBI,” including
disclosures
that are necessary “to keep the public appropriately informed of other
law enforcement or FBI matters or other matters of legitimate public interest
where disclosure could not reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.”
Opposition to these Motions are due by 5/9/2008., Replies to these Motions
due by 5/23/2008. So, there'll probably be more paperwork on those
days.
That's about all the comments I have for today, since I'm being overwhelmed
with material I still need to locate, stuff I still have to read, and bizarre
emails arguing that because these documents do not specifically confirm
my analysis about the bloodhound incident, that I must be wrong in my
analysis of the bloodhound incident. |
All prior comments
and updates are also available.
Click HEREfor
year 2007.
Click HERE
for year 2006.
Click HERE
for year 2005.
Click HERE
for year 2004.
Click HEREfor
years 2001, 2002 and 2003. |
