NewsMine — deceptions — plagues — anthrax-attacks — hatfill — Viewing Item

Hatfill libel suit against new york times dismissed { November 29 2004 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--anthrax-hatfillla1129nov29,0,7016078,print.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--anthrax-hatfillla1129nov29,0,7016078,print.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia Hatfill's libel suit against New York Times dismissed By MATTHEW BARAKAT Associated Press Writer November 29 2004 ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- A federal judge has dismissed a libel lawsuit against The New York Times filed by Steven Hatfill, who claimed the newspaper falsely insinuated he was responsible for the deadly anthrax mailings in 2001. U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton also dismissed Hatfill's suit against Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who wrote several columns in the spring and summer of 2002 on the FBI's handling of the anthrax investigation. Hilton ruled that Kristof's columns did not defame Hatfill, and that they accurately reflected the state of the FBI's investigation, in which Hatfill was labeled "a person of interest" by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Hilton's ruling, issued Wednesday, notes that the primary target of Kristof's columns was the FBI for its mishandling of the investigation. While several columns criticize the FBI for failure to thoroughly investigate Hatfill, Kristof also wrote that Hatfill was entitled to a presumption of innocence. "It is evident that the Op-Ed pieces highlighting the perceived shortcomings of the FBI are not reasonably read as accusing Hatfill of actually being the anthrax mailer," Hilton wrote. In most of the five columns cited in the lawsuit, Kristof does not mention Hatfill by name, referring to him only as "Mr. Z." Only after Hatfill held a press conference Aug. 11, 2002, does Kristof identify Hatfill. The judge's ruling has no effect on a libel suit Hatfill filed in Washington against Attorney General John Ashcroft and other government officials, claiming they named him as a person of interest to deflect attention from their inability to find whoever was responsible. Hatfill's lawyer, Victor Glasberg, said Monday that no decision has been made on whether to appeal Hilton's ruling. Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the paper is pleased with the ruling, "which upholds an important First Amendment right to comment on an investigation." A similar suit filed by Hatfill against the publishers of Vanity Fair magazine and Reader's Digest for an article written by Vassar College professor Donald Foster was transferred from the federal court in Alexandria to Manhattan at the magazine's request. The October 2001 attacks killed five people and sickened 17 others. Hatfill is still the only publicly identified "person of interest" in the case, although he has never been charged. Copyright © 2004, Daily Press

Anthrax coverup Anthrax probe leaks assailed by judge { October 8 2004 } Bloodhounds { August 5 2002 } Evidence lacking { August 15 2002 } Fbi regrets hatfill person of interest label Fed seek anthrax suit dismissal { March 29 2004 } Hatfill anthrax scientist { June 28 2002 } Hatfill anthrax Hatfill bloodhounds Hatfill denies { August 11 2002 } Hatfill evidence { August 12 2002 } Hatfill files suit against government Hatfill fined 5dollars Hatfill libel suit against new york times dismissed { November 29 2004 } Hatfill still tracked Hatfill studied attack Hatfill sues fbi { March 11 2007 } Hatfill sues new york times over columns { July 15 2004 } Hatfill sues over anthrax probe Hatfill sues over probe { August 26 2003 } Hatfill trained dia on bioweapons { July 3 2003 } Hatfill vietnam Loses job Search again Searches apartment Searches home { June 25 2002 } Stephen hatfill Story.hatfill [jpg] Third search Files Listed: 29

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.