Ron Rosenbaum, Writer

August 2, 2008

The Anthrax Attack, Vanity Fair and The Shakespeare Connection

Filed under: Uncategorized — ronrosenbaumwriter @ 11:09 am

\ I was going to write about it earlier this year when the news emerged that the government had paid off the former chief anthrax “person of interest”, Steven Hatfill, $5.8 million dollars for subjecting him to what they admitted was wrongful suspicion. I was going to write about the “Shakespeare Connection”.

But I wasn’t sure if would be beating a dead horse: said metaphorical horse being the pseudo-science of “forensic linguistics” promoted by so called “Shakespeare Super Sleuth” Don Foster, the Vassar professor who gave us the “The Great Shakespeare ‘Funeral Elegy’ Fiasco” as I called it in The Shakespeare Wars. Foster used the fame from his later-discredited claim that he had identified a previously unrecognized long poem–a barely readable 600 line snoozathon–as a lost work of Shakespeare’ it became a foundation for a self-promoting career as a “super sleuth”, in high-profile criminal cases which featured Foster claiming his “science” of “foresnic linguisitcs” couild identify the lingusitic “fingerprints” of potential suspects, and nail them for a crime they might otherwise have gotten away with.

One problem. He was often wrong. He was wrong about the wretched poem he claimed he found Shakespeare’s fingerprints in. He was wrong in the Jon Benet case, wrong in somehow convincing Vanity Fair that he could shed light on the anthrax case. Poor gullible VF (disclosure: I wrote for them regularly and feel bad theyapparently allowed Foster to convince them he had any particular crime solving skills).

Especially with the revelation in today’s Times about VF and their “super sleuth”.

It turns out Foster had been forced to retract his Shakespearean claim, thus pulling the rug out of the inflated self-image he ‘d built upon it. And now it turns out that he has retracted his Vanity Fair story and that he and VF have had to apologize for Foster’s article.

According to today’s (August 2, 2008)’s Times :

Dr. Hatfill also sued Vanity Fair for publishing along with Reader’s Digest which published a condensed version. As part of a 2007 settlement, other terms of which were confidential, the defendants issued a statement retracting any implication that Dr. Hatfill had been behind the attacks.”

Amazing! Why haven’t we heard about this latest Don Foster retraction? (I published excerpts from the first one in my book).* What is the text of the retraction? “Confidential terms:” suggests money was aid too. How much responsibility did Foster take? Didn’t anybody at least Google his past failures?

A question better asked about whoever, if any, anthrax investigators cooperated with Foster and took his “forensic linguistics” seriously. For all we know it could be the endorsement of Foster’s “science” that kept the government on the trail of the wrong suspect. Old fashioned investigators always seem to be intimidated by those who used computers and Foster frquently claimed computer basis for his “forensic lingusitics” claims.

But there may be more to it. I found myself fascinated by this Glenn Greenwald article. which makes a pretty persuasive case that the pre-suicide scientist, Bruce Ivins was at the very least involved in spinning the investigation, spreading false information that would link the genomic “fingerprints” of the anthrax to Iraq. (The “bentonite clue” for those of you who have read the Greenwald piece.) Greenwald wants to know if the sources who fed ABC News (lead Hatfill accuser in the media, were part of a disinformation conspiracy. Could Ivins have been a part? Could Ivins have been a source for the Foster/VF piece. If not then who? Foster and VF could help solve the crime and reveal if there were people in the government invovled in spreading deliberate disinformation that added its weight to the false intelligence about Iraqi WMD that helped to lead us into war.

I found Greenwald’s insistence that the ABC news investigative team give up its sources if it turns out they were deliberate liars, persuasive but problematic, since I’m against reporters being forced to reveal sources by the government</em. But looked at another way they may be sitting on a big news story and that voluntary disclosure that they’d been tricked might be valuable to closing the case, especially if Ivins was a source.

it seems to me that VF should, at the very least, question Foster about whether Ivins was a source and then consider voluntary disclosure if he was. Better for them to quiz Foster before the Feds decide to quiz them about his sources.

It’s too bad because I’ve come to feel a kind of fondness for Foster who gave me such a great character, and chapter, for my book. Perfectly illustrated the perils of Shakeseare intoxication.

Was Foster merely misled by vanity, as he appeared to be with Shakespeare and Jon Benet (bet you never thought you ‘d hear those two in the same sentence). Or was he the vicitim of sinister forces.

Frankly, I think the “sinister force” may be the vengeful ghost of Shakespeare who put a curse on all future Foster endeavors because Foster tried to pin that wretched poem on him.

*UPDATE: (8/4): I see that Richard Fernandez in his thoughtful post on the subject has a link to a New York Sun story from February 2007, which quotes from the settlement Conde Nast agreed to on behalf of Foster and VF. According to The Sun this is the key portion:

“Neither Condé Nast Publications nor the article’s author intended to imply that they had concluded that Steven J. Hatfill, M.D., perpetrated the anthrax attacks that occurred in the United States in the fall of 2001. To the extent any statements contained in the article might be read to convey that Condé Nast and Prof. Foster were accusing Dr. Hatfill of perpetrating these attacks, Condé Nast and Prof. Foster retract any such implication,” the statement said. The statement from Reader’s Digest was essentially identical.



  1. Re: the gullibility of “Vanity Fair” and Conde Nast, in last month’s “VF”, Kurt Andersen thinks the Olympics architecture (such as Herzog & DeMeuron’s Bird’s Nest Stadium) justifies Chinese oppression and, in this week’s “New Yorker”, David Remnick writes a long hymn to Chinese pianist Lang Lang while glossing over China’s Fascist reality. Then, in Saturday’s “Times”, there is a cynical “on the one hand, on the other hand” piece on the status of “freedom” in China, which, among other logical atrocities, cites the recent Pew Poll that “84% of the Chinese people are satisfied”. Note that the sample of this poll is 3,212 in a nation of 1.3 billion people! This is a dangerous dovetailing between smug Western intellectual elites and the Chinese Communist elites, a combined self-interest of material comfort, entitlement and meritocratic narcissism. This dangerous combo puts a chokehold on the flow of information and the realization of freedom for the rest of us.

    Comment by charlie finch — August 2, 2008 @ 11:43 am | Reply

  2. I rolled my eyes when I saw Foster’s name being brought up in this story, because I became familiar with his methods through your book.

    But what really makes my stomach turn is how desperate the FBI is to pin the entire operation on one dead guy, when it stretches credibility sooooooo much to make all of the leaps that they are just to have their case shut.

    It turns the stomach, because the real culprits are still out there….

    Comment by Josh — August 8, 2008 @ 1:01 pm | Reply

  3. “Perfectly illustrated the perils of Shakeseare intoxication.”

    Okay. Uncle. Or, dare I suggest you are most perfectly illustrating the perils of writing such a statement while proving your point that one so intoxicated ought not write such a statement? What, exactly, though, *is* “Shakeseare intoxication?” Is it an archaic form of Seer DTs with the disfortunate side-effect that one forgets how to spell the name of the Bard or, perhaps, one roasts his prophetic abilities?

    J/funnin’ ya. Loved your book; and, from reading it, know you will appreciate the — ahem — good Will upon which my ribbing is based; that is, I am simply demonstrating the logical fallacy of taking “forensic linguistics” to its extremist exitstream.

    “Prithee do not turn me about, my stomach is not constant.”
    — What’s His Name

    Comment by Cogito Ergo Doleo — August 11, 2008 @ 1:13 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at