Hatfill Suit vs. NYT Gets Go-ahead
Posted by alex in frauds, science at 3:11 am | 
Permanent Link
[The FBI tried for a very long time to railroad an innocent Aryan for what it knows is the work of a jew.]
Justices: Suit Against Times Can Proceed
By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court refused Monday to block a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times over columns that linked a former Army scientist to the 2001 anthrax killings.
Authorities have never solved the mysterious mailing of anthrax-laced letters that killed five people and sickened 17 not long after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
[Not true. They know who did it, but because it’s a jew, they won’t prosecute.]
Steven Hatfill, a physician and bioterrorism expert, was labeled a “person of interest” by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, although he was never charged and has since sued Ashcroft and others.
A federal judge had thrown out Hatfill’s lawsuit against The New York Times over 2002 columns by writer Nicholas Kristof that faulted the FBI for failing to thoroughly investigate Hatfill. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the suit, and the Supreme Court declined without comment to take up the case.
Times lawyer David Schulz of New York said the appeals court decision undermines free speech protections for reporters and invites more lawsuits over legitimate news reporting.
The Associated Press and some 30 other news organizations urged the court to use the case to clarify reporters’ free-speech protections.
“Reporting on government investigations is critical to the public’s ability to evaluate how their elected and appointed officials are executing the responsibility of enforcing the laws and protecting the peace,” Washington lawyers Paul M. Smith wrote in the groups’ filing.
Hatfill’s attorney, Christopher Wright, said that the reporting by Kristof was reckless, with multiple errors, including the claim that Hatfill had failed three polygraph tests.
The Supreme Court itself was touched by the anthrax scare. Traces of anthrax were found in the court’s mailroom, forcing the building’s closure for a week in October 2001.
Hatfill had sued in federal court in Alexandria, Va., in 2004, claiming defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In its ruling, the appeals court said that the newspaper columns, taken as a whole, might be considered defamatory.
One of the dissenting judges said that The New York Times appeared only to be trying to reveal flaws in the FBI investigation, not to accuse Hatfill of the murders.
The case is The New York Times v. Hatfill, 05-897.
28 March, 2006 at 3:26 am
It’s so obvious who did it, too. I heard they got the Zackster on video at night entering at illegal hours after signing in. His lab was where the thrax that matches the strain in the mail just happened to lose sample right around that time, too. A coincidence, to be sure.
The evidence against Hatfield? He was a super competent aryan who wrote warning of just such an attack. That’s it. No video footage, nor was he ever within a million miles of being able to steal a similar sample as part of his own job.
To allow Zack to escape to Israel, the old bait-and-switch was pulled to set the FBI on Hatfield via the First Israeli Typing Corps.
28 March, 2006 at 7:59 am
A good article on the case, which also mentions the Dancing Israelis:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/sept-oct02/0209018.html
Then there was the text: the letters clearly intended to imply the writer was of Middle Eastern origin and included deliberate misspellings (the letters suggested taking “penacilin�), a Star of David, as well as threats to Israel, Chicago’s Sears Tower, and President George W. Bush. Someone obviously hoped to focus attention on an Arab scapegoat.
—–
Dr. Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991 amid allegations of unprofessional conduct. The Jewish scientist and others were accused of harassing their co-worker, Dr. Ayaad Assaad, until the Egyptian-born American scientist quit, according to an article in Connecticut’s The Hartford Courant, the country’s oldest newspaper in continuous publication. Dr. Assaad sued the Army, claiming discrimination after Zack’s badgering.
Although Dr. Zack was let go, he returned frequently to visit friends, and used the Fort Detrick laboratories for “off-the-books� work after hours. After reports of missing biological specimens—including anthrax, Ebola and the simian AIDs virus—came to light, as well as reports of unauthorized research, a review of surveillance camera tapes recorded Dr. Zack entering the lab late on the night of Jan. 23, 1992, according to The Hartford Courant report. He was let in that night by Marian Rippy, a lab pathologist and close friend of Zack’s, although she now says she has no memory of the evening. She did say that Zack occasionally visited and that other friends let him in.
Inexplicably, the national press ignored these documented unauthorized visits to a top-secret government lab embroiled in the anthrax attacks. Did journalists fear being labeled anti-Semitic for casting suspicions on a Jewish scientist?
Soon after the 9/11 attack, a long, typed anonymous letter was sent to Quantico Marine Base accusing the long-suffering Assaad, Zack’s victim in 1991, of plotting terrorism. This letter was received before the anthrax letters or disease were reported. The timing of the note makes its author a serious suspect in the anthrax attacks. The sender also displayed considerable knowledge of Dr. Assaad, his work, his personal life and a remarkable premonition of the upcoming bioterrorism attack.
After interviewing Assaad on Oct. 2, 2001, the FBI decided the letter was a hoax. While major newspapers noted that an anonymous letter had accused Dr. Assaad of bioterrorism, none followed up on it after his innocence was established. Zack’s name never surfaced again as one of the 30 suspects.
When the Washington Report asked Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, Ph.D., a biological arms control expert at the State University of New York, if the allegations regarding Dr. David Hatfill now took the heat off Lt. Col. Philip Zack, she replied, “Zack has NEVER been under suspicion as perpetrator of the anthrax attack.�
—–
Another person not naming names is New York Times reporter Nicholas D. Kristof. In a series of articles published on July 2, 12, and 19, however, he called the anthrax perpetrator “Mr. Z� (not “Mr. H�). Kristof’s description of “Mr. Z� sounds very much more like Dr. Zack than Dr. Hatfill.
The New York Times journalist reported that “Mr. Z� was caught with a girlfriend after hours in Fort Detrick. According to Kristof, “Mr. Z� talked about the importance of his field and his own status in it, and often used the B’nai B’rith attack as an example of how anthrax attacks might happen. He also “had a penchant for dropping Arab names� when he discussed the possibility of anthrax attacks.
28 March, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Yeah, this was about the ultimate in chutzpah. No one ever even *asserted* a basis for suspecting Hatfill. The media said, “He’s guilty, and that’s all you need to know.”
29 March, 2006 at 3:18 am
The best part was spending about a million dollars of goyish tax money on an experiment to prove that just because Hatfield had no sterile laboratory access he might have been able to do the necessary refining in a nearby pond using an upside down serving bowl and rubber gloves. Super Goyim Hatfield didn’t need access to the biological lab where the original crap was grown like Zack the Flack, he made his own high tech bioweapons lab out of a serving bowl and an aquarium while working in water up to his knees for a couple of day.
These crazee joos, it’s more fun than coming up with new whacky shit to stick in the Talmud. Oh, I forgot, Hatfield could also fly using kabbala words and reverse time.
1 August, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Zack was a ROMAN CATHOLIC not a Jew
who crucified Jesus on the cross.