Replies

QUESTION: All right. But were you —

The reason I’m asking is because of 2004, a Michael Mason, who was the head of, I believe, the Washington Office of the FBI, went on the record and said that the FBI attempt to reverse-engineer the powders at Dugway failed —

DR. MAJIDI: Yeah. He was exclusively talking about the silicon signal.

QUESTION: So — he was exclusively talking a about the silicon signal, not the powders?

DR. MAJIDI: That’s right.

Comment: So let’s have a presentation on the different means they sought to replicate the silicon signal. Did they try silicone sealant on the inside of the envelope? Did they use equipment that had processed rice hulls (high in silica content). Did they grow the stuff in culture medium with silicon dioxide in the medium? Did they use the biochemistry information underlying the March 14, 2001 patent application filed by the former USAMRIID deputy commander and leading anthrax scientist involving silicon dioxide in the culture medium for the purpose of concentrating the anthrax? Did they use sol gel in the drying process to absorb moisture such as was done under an old method?

QUESTION: If it’s not clear if it was a deception, why did the affidavit label this as a failure to cooperate?

DR. HASSELL: Affidavit is a snapshot in time of what the investigative picture brings to bear. And this should really be looked at only as that. As we develop the case throughout, we may find information post-affidavit that may either support or nullify what’s in an affidavit.

Comment:

The affidavit was filed in good faith by the young investigators in support of a search. We would want the FBI to “leave no stone unturned.” But it did not begin to come close to proving Ivins guilty of the five capital murders. US Attorney Jeff Taylor, if he is not going to either set things right or alternatively resign for his performance at the press conference, then perhaps instead submit his name for confirmation by the Senate.