{"id":3696,"date":"2002-08-26T16:00:24","date_gmt":"2002-08-26T21:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=3696"},"modified":"2021-02-28T11:34:33","modified_gmt":"2021-02-28T16:34:33","slug":"hatfill-contradicts-kristof-on-polygraphs-kristof-stands-by-columns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2002\/08\/26\/hatfill-contradicts-kristof-on-polygraphs-kristof-stands-by-columns\/","title":{"rendered":"Hatfill Contradicts Kristof on Polygraphs; Kristof Stands by Columns"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry\">\n\n\n<p>In a 13 August 2002 op-ed piece titled <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2002\/08\/13\/opinion\/13KRIS.html\">&#8220;The Anthrax Files,&#8221;<\/a> <em>New York Times<\/em> columnist Nicholas D. Kristof reported that anthrax investigation &#8220;person of interest&#8221; Dr. Steven J. Hatfill had &#8220;failed&#8221; three polygraph &#8220;tests&#8221; since January and declined a fourth. In an article titled <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20021026202458\/http:\/\/www.sunspot.net\/bal-te.md.hatfill26aug26.story?coll=bal%2Dhome%2Dheadlines\">&#8220;Anthrax figure steps up offense,&#8221;<\/a> <em>Baltimore Sun<\/em> staff writer Scott Shane reports that Dr. Hatfill has publicly contradicted Kristof&#8217;s claim in a news conference held on Sunday, 25 Aug. Excerpt: <\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>At the news conference, Hatfill strongly criticized Nicholas Kristof, a New York Times columnist who has written about him several times, accusing the FBI of &#8220;lethargy&#8221; and urging investigators to pursue clues about a scientist he called &#8220;Mr. Z.&#8221; In his most recent column on the subject, published Aug. 13, Kristof acknowledged that Hatfill was &#8220;Mr. Z&#8221; and reported, without attribution, that Hatfill had failed three polygraph tests since January.<\/p><p>Hatfill called that allegation &#8220;a total lie&#8221; yesterday, saying he has been given only one polygraph examination by the FBI and was told he had passed.<\/p><p>Hatfill&#8217;s spokesman, [Pat] Clawson, said Kristof had failed to seek comments from Hatfill or his attorneys before making allegations against him. He said Kristof was guilty of &#8220;journalism malpractice at its worst.&#8221;<\/p><p>Correspondence released yesterday showed that The New York Times declined to publish Glasberg&#8217;s letter on the issue, saying it was too long. The Times&#8217; opinion page also rejected the letter, and Kristof declined to run it in his column.<\/p><p>Reached at his Scarsdale, N.Y., home last night, Kristof said only: &#8220;You can quote me as saying I stand by the columns.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a 13 August 2002 op-ed piece titled &#8220;The Anthrax Files,&#8221; New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof reported that anthrax investigation &#8220;person of interest&#8221; Dr. Steven J. Hatfill had &#8220;failed&#8221; three polygraph &#8220;tests&#8221; since January and declined a fourth. In an article titled &#8220;Anthrax figure steps up offense,&#8221; Baltimore Sun staff writer Scott Shane &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[82,30,84],"class_list":{"0":"post-3696","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-anthrax","8":"tag-fbi","9":"tag-terrorism","10":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3696"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3696\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3697,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3696\/revisions\/3697"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}