From the Mixed-Up Files of Mr. Steven J. Hatfill
A cache of documents from Hatfill's lawyer shed some light on the fairness of his treatment by the New York Times.
7:15 AM, Sep 10, 2002 • By DAVID TELL
A LITTLE DOCUMENTARY appendix to my cover story about FBI "person of interest" Steven J. Hatfill in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD (The Hunting of Steven J. Hatfill). On August 25, Hatfill called a second press conference here in Washington (the first was on August 11) to deny all knowledge of and involvement in last fall's anthrax murders. During that press conference, Hatfill's attorneys distributed to attending reporters a rather thick sheaf of papers relevant, they said, to their client's complaints of mistreatment at the hands of the Justice Department and the media. News accounts of Hatfill's statement that day very briefly described these handouts. But so far as I'm aware, no publication--either in print or on the Internet--has so far reproduced the documents whole.
Somebody ought to do that, I figure. So, without further ado, but with a necessary caution to readers that these papers in most respects necessarily reflect only Steven J. Hatfill's side of the story, what follows are links to some of them. (I'll post the rest as the week goes by.)
Copies of Hatfill's Science Applications International Corporation payroll timesheets from last fall--indicating that he was credited for at least 11 hours and 15 minutes of work in that company's McLean, Virginia offices on each of the four days in September and October when anthrax letters are thought to have been mailed from New Jersey--can be found here.
A copy of the letter to the editor Hatfill attorney Victor M. Glasberg sent the New York Times on August 13 in response to a series of pieces by columnist Nicholas D. Kristof can be found here.
The string of e-mail correspondence that Glasberg's letter generated--a back-and-forth between Glassberg and Mary Drohan of the Times--can be found here.
Drohan having refused Glasberg the space he felt was necessary for an adequate response to Kristof's allegations about Hatfill, the attorney then, on August 15, approached Kristof directly, by faxed letter--a copy of which appears here.
Kristof's e-mail response to Glasberg's letter, four days later, can be found here.
Glasberg's rather stern same-day "thank you" to Kristof, noting that "we will all live with the consequences" should the Times and its columnist refuse to apologize for "errors" and "unfairness," appears here.
Finally, Glasberg's August 21 letter to Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., summarizing the above correspondence and reiterating his past requests for relief, can be found here.
David Tell is opinion editor of The Weekly Standard.