Steven Hatfill

Dr. Steven Jay Hatfill (b. October 24, 1953) (photo [1]) 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 but has not sought charges. FBI raids on his home were well attended by journalists and consequently, several news outlets have speculated that Hatfill was the likely suspect for the attacks.

Additional recommended knowledge

Guide to balance cleaning: 8 simple steps

Safe Weighing Range Ensures Accurate Results

Essential Laboratory Skills Guide

Biography

Youth and education

Hatfill was born in St. 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 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 ^[1] in Salisbury (now Harare), graduating (after failing in 1983) in 1984. In 1984, he took a board certification in hematological pathology from South Africa. The South African government recruited him to be medical officer on a one-year tour of duty in Antarctica. He claimed a Ph.D. in molecular cellular biology from Rhodes University in South Africa, as well as completion of a post-doctoral (sic) fellowship 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. On March 11 2007, Hatfill's lawyer Tom Connolly ^[2] (in his lawsuit against the former Attorney General of the United States (John Ashcroft) and the FBI) admitted that his client had "Puffed on his resume. Absolutely. Forged a diploma. Yes, that's true."^[3]

The anthrax attacks

Hatfill's "post-doctoral" appointments included one at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD. He subsequently worked 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 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.

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 patron 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.^[4]

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 is suing the government for compensation for the damage he claims has been inflicted on his professional reputation and employment prospects^[5].

His lawyer, Victor M. Glasberg ^[6], 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." ^[7]

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." ^[8] He and his attorneys fought the ticket, but, after listening for nearly a half-hour to the officer who issued the citation and to Hatfill's attorneys, a hearing officer upheld the ticket and ordered Hatfill to pay the requisite $5 fine. ^[9]

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.^[3] 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. ^[10] 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. ^[11]

Hatfill v. John Ashcroft, et al.

On the 26th of August 2003, Hatfill filed a lawsuit^[12] 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.^[13]

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.^[14]

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.”^[15]

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.^[16]

Hatfill v. The New York Times

In July 2004, Hatfill filed a lawsuit against The New York Times Company and Nicholas D. Kristof. ^[17]

In a sealed motion ^[18] 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 ^[18]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. ^[19]

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 ^[20] of their opposition has been made available by Secrecy News.^[21]

On January 12, 2007, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Hatfill against The New York Times. ^[22]

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: ^[23] The Opinion: ^[24]

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. ^[25]

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," ^[26]

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. ^[27] 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".^[28]

On February 27, 2007, The New York Sun reported "Hatfill Settles $10M Libel Lawsuit"^[29]

References