Dr. Beecher, with whom I corresponded in getting a copy of the article to distribute, was not directly involved in the forensic examination as you suggest. If you are suggesting that his understanding is based on what he was told by a fellow FBI scientist, however, that would be correct. (And personally, regardless whether it fit the usual standard for sourcing in a peer reviewed article, I think it is the most authoritative statement we have, so long as it can be construed consistently with the AFIP finding. (Which it can).
But the article is best left to speak for itself to include the express disclaimer. Dr. Beecher was very circumspect and limited in what he said, but the article never pointed to a direct role relating to the detection of siliica etc.
In my lay opinion, the method described in the patents above are fully consistent with what Dr. Beecher wrote. One man’s “sophisticated additive” is another person’s beach sand or soap detergent or substance available at your local Home Depot or Elmer’s Glue or commercially available product used with BT (bacillus thuringiensis).
These patents were dual use and not classified. Thus, by definition, state sponsorship is not required.
And according to the expert opinion of a military microbiologist, the forensic findings are consistent with the method described in the patents.
As for Dr. Meselson, his main point has been: it’s best to wait for official results to be announced by the FBI. Whatever critique or interpretation he placed on the AFIP’s EDX in Lois Ember’s article, he’d agree that absent access to the extensive research done by the FBI, he’s not in a good position to judge.
His only agenda, it would seem, would relate to catching the anthrax perp.
Any institution associated with access to the strain or know-how, OTOH, would have an institutional motive to suppress information of such access and then take steps to avoid any future access to such technical knowledge, such as the elimination of such programs, restrictions on the right of students to consult with Ken etc. so as to avoid civil liability.
The GMU Assistant General Counsel, indeed, made a special point to me that the Florida counsel had not involved GMU. Director Bailey was already in a bunker mode, referring me to counsel over the simplest question relating to confirming what the directory indicated about al-Timimi’s location.
But that Florida matter has been on appeal, I believe. If Florida counsel has any sense, he’ll take the necessary civil discovery on these issues.
In his Acknowledgements, Beecher acknowledges assistance from a whole host of people who would have had experience with the actual attack anthrax.
Only a true conspiracy theorist would believe that Beecher could lie in such an article and all those other people would silently go along with it.
“absent access to the extensive research done by the FBI”
Are you claiming the FBI have a fully equipped BW analysis lab, or had one back in November 2001?
Why do you think they asked USAMRID for help on this matter? AFIP published their results. Probably the FBI didn’t much like that.
And the FBI chief scientist, Dwight Adams, has admitted, under oath, that there were key details concerning the nature of the attack anthrax that he witheld even in confidential briefings to senators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
In late 2002 Senators Daschle and Leahy called in the FBI to explain the Washington Post story “FBI’s Theory On Anthrax Is Doubted”, Washington Post, October 28, 2002. This was later on reported in “Anthrax Powder — State of the Art?”[25] . The latter article described how Dwight Adams, chief FBI scientist, told Senators Daschle and Leahy that there were no special additives in the senate anthrax and that the silica was “naturally occurring”. However, Adams admitted that there was scientific information concerning the nature of the anthrax organism that was deemed by his superiors too sensitive to share with Senators Daschle and Leahy:
Connolly: Earlier you testified that regarding the scientific aspect of the investigation there was information that was simply in your view too sensitive to share to the public about the particular characteristics of the organism sent in the mail. Is that correct?
Adams: In so many words, yes, sir.
Connolly: I don’t want to mischaracterize it. If you think I’ve mischaracterized it in any way then, please, put your own words on it.
Adams: No, that’s fine.
Connolly: Did you feel like you had the same restrictions in informing the senate, congress, or their staff in terms of what it is you would reveal to them about the particular characteristics of the organism that was sent?
Adams: As I’ve already stated there was specific information that I did not feel appropriate to share with either the media or to the Hill because it was too sensitive of the information to do so.[26]