The announcement by the FBI that a scientist who recently committed suicide sent those anthrax-laced letters soon after the 9/11 bombings has been greeted in many quarters with skepticism, even derision. Plainly, the reaction is based at least in part on the coming to light of some outrageous liberties taken by government agencies in pursuit of individuals who were subjected to a full-court prosecutorial press and publicly vilified and convicted through strategic leaks in the media - yet were ultimately exonerated.

As The New York Times editorialized "Identifying the Anthrax Killer," Aug. 8):

The F.B.I. seems convinced that it has finally solved the long-festering case of who mailed the anthrax letters that killed five people in 2001. Yet its description of the evidence pointing to a mentally disturbed Army bioweapons expert [Dr. Bruce Ivins] as the sole culprit leaves us uncertain about whether investigators have pulled off a brilliant coup after a bumbling start - or are prematurely declaring victory, despite a lack of hard, incontrovertible proof.

None of the investigators' major assertions, however, have been tested in cross-examination or evaluated by outside specialists....

The investigators came up with lots of circumstantial evidence to bolster their case.... But there is no direct evidence of guilt....

Because Dr. Ivins killed himself before he could be indicted, there will be no opportunity for an adversarial testing of the F.B.I.'s conclusions. The bureau, unfortunately, has a history of building circumstantial cases that seem compelling at first but ultimately fall apart. Congress will need to prove the adequacy of this investigation - and to insist that federal officials release as much evidence as possible, so the public can be assured they really did get the right person this time.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand where the Times was coming from. Dr. Steven Hatfill, a colleague of Dr. Ivins, was called a "person of interest" in the anthrax case by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2002 and was, for months, subjected to 24-hour surveillance. There were regular leaks from the government about this or that aspect of the investigation and he was invariably identified as the leading suspect.

We daresay the name Steven Hatfill was indelibly identified in the public mind with the nation's first bioterrorism attack for years. Yet he was never arrested or charged in the matter. In fact, in the lawsuit he brought against the government and several media outlets, the federal judge presiding over the case said recently that there "is not a scintilla of evidence" linking him to the mailings." The case was settled and the government will pay Hatfill an annuity of $150,000 a year for 20 years.

A lawyer for Hatfill said at the time of the announcement of the settlement: "If anybody in the country really knew what it was like to be Steven Hatfill for the past six years, nobody would trade places with him." He faulted "a handful of credulous reporters," who he said published or broadcast government leaks of "gossip, speculation and misinformation."

And then there's the case of David Tenenbaum of Southfield, Michigan, an Orthodox Jewish Army engineer who in 1997 was accused by the Pentagon of passing secrets to Israel and was under public suspicion and close, intrusive investigation for more than 10 years. Without question Tenenbaum was publicly viewed as a new Jonathan Pollard in the making. Yet, despite all of the leaks, innuendo and publicity, Tenenbaum was never charged with espionage and the Defense Department's Office of Inspector General recently issued a report concluding that the suspicions against him were baseless and that he was targeted because of his Orthodox Jewish faith.

There was also the celebrated case of Richard Jewell, the hapless security guard targeted by the FBI after a pipe bomb exploded during the 1996 Olympics held in Atlanta. Jewell, who found the bomb and helped clear the area and minimize fatalities, was, for 88 days, relentlessly portrayed as the leading suspect in the case through strategic leaks by various governmental officials. His life and reputation were dragged in the gutter day after day. Yet he was totally exonerated and two FBI agents were censured and one was suspended for five days without pay.

So it is important to always bear in mind that just because someone is accused of something, it doesn't mean there is necessarily even "a scintilla" of truth to the charge. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just some cynical legalism. It means that, ordinarily, even the most credible charges must be deemed the beginning of an inquiry, not its end.

Which brings us to the charges against AgriProcessors being bandied about by individuals and government agencies. As we've said before on this page ("Elasticizing Kashrut," July 25), AgriProcessors will, and should, pay the price if it turns out the company is indeed guilty of those charges. But we think the incidents mentioned above illustrate the prudence of awaiting a definitive determination.

This is especially true in the AgriProcessors case, where various individuals and groups - including union organizers, immigration activists and those seeking to carve a place for themselves in the regulation of kosher food production - are working to promote their own agendas.

Read Comments (1)

Paying the price
Date 04:08, 08-15, 08

While i think you're correct in saying "Agriprocessors will and should, pay the price if it turns out the company is indeed guilty of those charges."

I feel it to be just as true, that should they be not guilty of those charges, than much of the liberal Jewish media (starting with the J.T.A., Forward,...) should "pay the price" for slandering, damaging, and strongly harming over 750 workers directly employed by Agriprocessors, the hundreds of butchers who's livelihood has recently taken A downturn, and to the general kosher consumer who now has difficulty obtaining kosher meat in a lot of states nationwide.

Never mind the obvious irreversible affect it has on Mr Aaron Rubashkin & his family's reputation.

When the government report is out there will definitely be a price to pay, the question is by whom?

Sal Goldfine