Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Wanted: Professional opinion on suspect "evidence"

Wanted: Professional opinion on suspect "evidence"

Pages: 1 2

MrBlank1 - 1-11-2014 at 19:58

Hi all, the title says it all really. Over 400+ samples, meth found in a very select few, like in urine with no amphetamine metabolyte, standard fare I should imagine, anyhow...

Was wondering if someone with some forensic or analytic chem background could give me a fresh opinion on these few samples? Thanks in advance to all who respond

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

I Like Dots - 2-11-2014 at 08:01

You want to send samples for someone to analyze?
Can you be more specific, are they random powders, urine, pills...?

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 08:10

sorry, to be more clear- samples refers to "samples of artifacts/evidence stated properties, etc". For instance, any observations on this example? -

184A - a glass vial containing a sample of a brown liquid - Meth, Ephedrine/pseudoephedrine and tramadol detected. volume was 12.0ml. Consistent with urine, no further analysis.

Oxirane - 2-11-2014 at 08:38

Someone's going to get pissed off through mail soon..

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 08:58

Not yet, why do you say this?

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

gardul - 2-11-2014 at 09:22

Are you Law enforcement? I find it rather odd if so you would come to us asking for help.

blogfast25 - 2-11-2014 at 09:27

What is your purpose with all this?

Why do you refer to 'suspect "evidence"'? What is suspect about it and who generated this evidence?

If there is a legal angle to this there's no one here that should be able to help you. Interpretation of forensic evidence is a matter for legally assigned forensic scientists, not by proxy and not by some Dick, Tom or Harry you've met on the Tinkerwebs. How do you know whether any advice given here is 'professional' or not? Hint: this site is about amateur science, even though some of us are professional scientists...

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by blogfast25]

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 10:02

Firstly, my goal was to get an unbiased, "off-the-records" opinion on some evidence that pertains to myself. Trying to eliminate "confirmation bias" in terms of my deductions. Not looking for legal help(unless offered), my psych says I have valid, publishable research and is willing to appear as witness. Over here, to get a chemical sample held for court and not destroyed, $50 per sample before costs of analyst etc, so I'm trying to justify to myself the expense to do so versus just disputing the five pieces of evidence "on paper".

I was vague so as to not influence anyone's opinion. As a defendant, and put in the words of a friend, "I'm looking for ANY innocent explanation, to deny the obvious".

Not a cook, but not a responsible-enough amateur, acting in then-and-now belief of lawful allowance, trying to be both vindicated by and held to account for reality. If any distrust my motive, please stay silent and let those who want to aid be heard (not a rebuke to the above poster in any way). Sorry all(for what i think this post may start), and thanks in advance to any replies

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 10:12

for above example per say :

is it possible for PSE to oxidise in an appropriate solvent (urine,water) if exposed to atm. conditions, leaving Methcat to falsely identify as meth?

or likely that this ( and not others ) sample had no diffrention tests done?

is false positive caused by l-meth,etc?

Did I miss anything? (Please don't say the obvious guys!)

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

Metacelsus - 2-11-2014 at 11:24

What is PSE?

All stereoisomers of controlled substances are, to my knowledge, also controlled. Thus, l-methamphetamine is just as bad as d-methamphetamine from a legal standpoint.

But really, find a forensic chemist. All I can do is speculate. GC-MS would be helpful, however.

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 11:36

Australian law.

PSE = pseudoephedrine, sorry for shorthand slang.

To be put simply but cautiously : There is no honest, earthly reason why meth should have shown up in this lab. Trying to rule out nefarious human means by grasping at chemically feasible ones.

More directly : My govt. lawyer doesn't know what a mantle is. I'm trying to get in front of any "weaselly excuses" for what ( I see ) is obvious, with-in my financial means.

Any persons opinions at this point are warranted/appreciated, I'd say

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

I Like Dots - 2-11-2014 at 12:47

You will be more likely to receive help if you can tell us exactly what is going on in a clear, and concise way.

So to me, it sounds like you are a defendant in a case. You either had a lab, and you got busted, I say this because you were talking about a heating mantle. And they had over 200 samples.
Or you got drug tested, and meth/mcat showed up in your system, now you are trying to find an excuse saying that PSE gave a false positive.

So just be honest with us. You were either cooking or using meth. If you were cooking meth, you knew the risks, you got busted. Meth cooks are a blemish on chemistry. If your were using meth, you knew the risks and got busted. Although I believe the government should not regulate what we put in our bodies, you really have no defense here.

Yes, psuedoephedrine can give false positives on a urine test, but if the gov breaks out the big guns, the GCMS, your screwed. The judge does not want to hear some bullshit about metabolites and false positives. He's not an idiot. I won't give advise without further information.

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 13:03

I was performing legit research into akabori-type rxns. I was not making OR a user of meth. My "lawful entitlement" to synthesise category 1 chemicals ( ephedrine/pseudoephedrine/ppa ) is to be determined by a judges' interpretation of the legislation, and to the opinion of my psychologist, valid.

My concern is the search warrant for "meth,glassware,pseudo,powders and liquids", a charge of attempt to manufacture meth with intent to sell or supply, and most importantly,AS THERE IS NO HONEST,EARTHLY REASON FOR METH TO APPEAR IN MY LAB, the origins of said substances ( which I believe, BUT DO NOT CLAIM, are introduced post-raid )

My aim was not to come here crying over my poor choices ( I knew what the perception would be if this situation arose ), but to get independent, unbiased opinions on what I see as being "suspect".

Honestly, I think I'm just being too naive to accept the truth. Long before I got this lab data, but after my raid, my former lawyer told me of a concept called "parallel construction". I was at the point where I trust(ed) the investigating officer more than my lawyer, due to disparity in said 2 parties degree of knowledge. My psych is helping with rectifying this, but I still (kind of) hope I'm mistaken, and the LE claims of 'integrity' be upheld. The alternative is very frightening, hence my grasping at any "honest" answer

I am VERY cautious about what I say regarding evidence adhering to police version of "stated material facts", as the chemist/(s) who has written/signed the report (SIGNED&DATED 6 MONTHS BEFORE MY RAID???), is deserving of the same level of respect as any uni educated member here. Namely, not having one such as myself speak in contradiction of their findings/assertions without SOLID proof otherwise.

If I have gone about this wrong, I apologize.

If the general consensus is I am not legit, I ashamedly withdraw my request, and will delete all post/thread accordingly.

If those who I deem my peers ( here ) do not identify with me, or believe I am not deserving or entitled to make such impositions, please speak so I may again withdraw my request, earnestly and abashedly.

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

I Like Dots - 2-11-2014 at 13:59

Then ask for the samples to be tested further! I highly doubt the state snuck meth in the samples they found.
If you have never made meth, there is no reason there would be any in the lab.
However, in the USA, ephedrine/pseudoephedrine/ppa are enough to convict you on manufacture or intent to.

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 14:13

Quote: Originally posted by I Like Dots

I highly doubt the state snuck meth in the samples they found.
If you have never made meth, there is no reason there would be any in the lab.

I 100% agree.

Now, I ask you not to believe, but imagine a scenario in which both apply :
1. You 100% HONESTLY KNOW that you are responsible only for what you do or know, and DO NOT KNOW why ACTUAL meth would appear in evidence.
2 You KNOW that the integrity of police is 100% WITHOUT DOUBT.

Any insight on how you would proceed, lacking funding to get "everything" gc'ed etc, is appreciated.

Edit : Mods, please lock this thread, this is too embarassing. Will request deletion in 24 hrs. Sorry for the trouble

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

WGTR - 2-11-2014 at 16:34

Some of the word choices and grammar usage in this thread are confusingly ambiguous. That's not intended to be a flaming criticism; it's understandable that perhaps you don't want to say too much.

Are you saying that you synthesized ephedrine, and then consumed it (for whatever reason)? And now you're testing positive for "meth", and don't know why? I suppose you have already checked to see if any of the samples from your "batch" tested positive, right (samples from non-consumed product)? If those results are negative, then perhaps more extensive testing on the urine samples will clear you. If I understand what you are saying correctly, then it is only the urine samples that are testing positive, and that there are no other positive results from anywhere on the premises of your lab.

It would be useful to determine what kind of tests were done. This would help identify the types of chemicals that could interfere with the results. For example, people used to get caught on drug tests if they often ate bread with poppy seeds. This became less of a problem once the threshold for a positive result was raised.

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 16:55

racemic ephedrines were synthesized, never anything in my lab ever consumed by human/animal, all (as I see it) "proper" evidence has a gc test certificate signed by one proper analyst...

The "meth evidence" is just field spot/stain tested, no "certificate of analysis", and an analyst instead to appear in court.
Present are samples with results that show that Meth and the primary amine ARE being differentiated.

My impression of the previous listed "urine evidence", IF NOT ERRONEOUS, shows meth in urine with no metabolyte = Meth added to urine by human hand, not by kidney.

I'm fairly certain the sample came from the local hospital; where I was eventually coerced into giving a urine sample, more than 12 hours post raid, and told I tested positive to tramadol (which I rarely take, never in the lab, 20 doses or less over 6 months, or approx 1 day in 9).

A different, "real" urine sample gave Amphetamine ( ADHD meds ), p2p ( metabolyte? ), Cotinine, and caffeine. I rarely abstain from caffeine, and never nicotine.

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

j_sum1 - 2-11-2014 at 17:09

Sounds like you need a lawyer more than an opinion from online chemists. If there are obvious inconsistencies in the results -- meth but no metabolytes then you need someone who can present that information properly. With clearly presented evidence the court will be able to get to the bottom of it.
A lawyer will also be able to advise on getting some samples retested. And you will have the freedom to speak openly within the bounds of client confidentiality.
Good luck.

Bert - 2-11-2014 at 17:26

First- You need a lawyer, not an amateur chemistry forum.

Second: Law enforcement related labs are famous in my country for 2 things: Lack of uniform, critically peer reviewed standards in their practice, and cross contamination of samples.

Third: Have your lawyer read this

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 17:42

Thank you very much for your seriously appreciated opinion. I do have a lawyer, the best state-funded private lawyer I could find, but they have little experience, let alone knowledge, in representing legitimate, amateur hobbyists ( No firms in this state specialize ). The funding agency gives advice as to self representation in district(serious) court, due to not funding "Not Guilty Pleas in District or Supreme court". My lawyer is therefore helping with the "legal formalities" aspect, whilst my psychologist ( long term treating doctor, with court experience ) informs me I'll have to ask "leave to question" the prosecution "experts", as my lawyer will be unable to do so.

Every sample I want further analyzed, is at my immediate expense, at $50 per "Request to hold sample for analysis" form, and then costs of analyst travel/labor etc, at my cost, not covered by legal aid. Pricey, and although a family member has a home property to fund loans, I wish to avoid any extra expense than is strictly necessary.
I believe my "paper case" presentation is quite tight, and was sort of looking to eliminate "easy out" excuses for the evidence, eg false positives etc.

Thank you very much for the assistance thus far guys. I understand that...

I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.

... All reasonable skeptics are appreciated.

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 17:52

Bert : I have a set of similar documentation, current location and year specific, published by local government, that first assured me my beliefs were valid, and not "tin-foil hat material". I did not think to forward it to my lawyer to support my soon-to-be made claims. It will be done, thanks so very much for that catch.

Edit: you've helped point me toward local govt documentation that supports a "overworked resources, resulting in honest errors" explanation to some ( much/most? ) concerns, and suggested changes etc. I feel re-assured that "the man" is incompetent, not malevolent. I am genuinely thankful to you, Bert.

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

WGTR - 2-11-2014 at 18:33

It is times like these that one must consider how much freedom is worth to oneself. I would discourage trying to save money by doing this on the cheap.

Here in our U.S. criminal system, the opinion of a prosecution's expert witness can be very authoritative. The defense needs expert witnesses of its own to assist in cross-examinations. Once chemistry jargon starts getting tossed around, the discourse will probably go over the heads of the judge and everyone else in the room. Unless the defendant has sufficient credentials, personally cross-examining the prosecution's expert witness can be risky. All the witness has to say is that the defendant is not an expert, and doesn't know what he's talking about. Since no one else knows what either one of you are talking about, the witness' word would stand by virtue of his credentials. This is my opinion of the U.S. system, though.

My point is, it's important to find a lawyer who knows drug cases, and who has access to expert witnesses who know more than you do. This way they can formulate an effective legal strategy, and prevent you from making costly mistakes of your own.

Chemosynthesis - 2-11-2014 at 18:39

1. Definitely avoid slang terms (PSE, methcat, etc.). This is an amateur chemistry forum and the rules state that chemical nomenclature should be used. Most chemists may not be aware of pharmaceutically oriented properties such as metabolites, as this is more of a pharmacology/toxicology/forensic issue, both in pharmacokinetics and assaying. You will likely need to find literature or a chemist familiar with standard lab condition oxidation and compare with metabolic kinetics applicable to your specific (urin?)alysis, which should be verified by someone such as a forensic toxicologist. These can be very complicated as there is surprisingly more than one way to back calculate pharmacokinetics from urine, and many types of analytical instruments for confirmatory testing. You will likely need to explain all the data to a professional without being coy. If they disbelieve you, it is what it is. Wildly speculating on reactions and false positives is a waste of your time.

2. Nowhere do you state the type of testing used. Testing for substances varies widely. You need your lawyer to familiarize them self with qualitative presumptive vs. analytical/quantitative confirmatory testing. The type of testing will determine sensitivity, limit of quantitation, error, signal-to-noise and false positives.

3. Do not post about this online. I have no idea what a "psych" has to with interpreting legality of precursor manufacture, (psychologist? psychiatrist? It might make a difference), but you admitted to synthesizing a compound that is scheduled (3) in your country as well as a known precursor leading to your current troubles. This could be used against you in court against your legal advice. Never post about ongoing cases in online forums. It isn't about what you can prove, but ultimately about what you can convince a judge or jury.

MrBlank1 - 2-11-2014 at 19:05

Thank you very much, above two posters. This will be my last post for a bit, in accordance with above advice.

One final note, on LE arrival, I informed them of my activities, not confessed them, as I did ( and do ) believe I was/am legally entitled. The whole truth at the very beginning will be my saving grace. For me to predict which evidence would be gathered in advance = impossible

""Boom, raid. You're making meth"
"No, racemic ephedrines buddy, no 'meffs' here!"
"We'll see about that" whilst meth charge stands.
8 months go by ...
"Ah, OK, we accept you were making ephedrines, not meth" New charges applied, prosecution not informed of my evidence of lawful entitlement yet

6(3) A person does not commit a crime under subsection (1) or a
simple offence under subsection (2) by reason only of his
having in his possession or manufacturing or preparing a
prohibited drug if he proves that he had possession of or
manufactured or prepared the prohibited drug only for the
purpose of —
(a) delivering it to a person authorised —
(i) to have possession of the prohibited drug by or
under this Act, by or under the Poisons Act 1964 or on and in accordance with an authorised prescription;

13(2) This Part does not apply to or in relation to the possession or
supply of a category 1 item or category 2 item if the item is in
the possession of, or the supply is by, a person employed or engaged by an education institution or a research institution
acting in the ordinary course of the person’s occupation and the
possession or supply is solely for educational or research
purposes.

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

blogfast25 - 3-11-2014 at 10:22

Quote: Originally posted by Bert

Law enforcement related labs are famous in my country for 2 things: Lack of uniform, critically peer reviewed standards in their practice, and cross contamination of samples.

Wow. Way to go: a 'conviction happy' police force backed by careless forensics. Frightening...

macckone - 3-11-2014 at 10:55

Don't try to do defense on the cheap. Spend whatever it takes to get samples properly analyzed. Find a good attorney that specializes in drug cases with an emphasis on forensic evidence. A spot test is practically useless in correctly identifying drugs. I have attached a document about false positives.

Specifics as it relates to your case, note this is not legal advise:
1) Methamphetamine is converted to amphetamine in the body and is a primary metabolite. So if you were taking ADHD medication then it is unlikely that there is no methamphetamines metabolites in you urine only that they were eleminated as possible amphetamine metabolites during testing. If there are truly no metabolites in your urine then it is evidence of tampering or contamination with contamination being more likely.
2) Pseudoephedrine is readily oxidized to methcathinone and is not readily reduced to methamphetamines in the body. That isn't saying both are not possible only that you need an expert in metabolites.
3) Some ADHD medications contain methamphetamine, a good lawyer will argue the pharmacist could have given you the wrong one.
4) If you were producing actual drugs, rather you had a prescription or not, you really need the best lawyer you can get. Arguing points of law in the court room seldom goes well with a judge or a jury but may be workable on appeal.
5) most of the people in the forum are not in your country, so legal advice other than hire the best lawyers and experts you can is not likely to apply to your case.

Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

Attachment: falsepositives.pdf (8.2MB)
This file has been downloaded 589 times

AJKOER - 3-11-2014 at 11:05

I believe a statistical discourse supported by biochemistry is a good approach here.

For the screening test employed, there are associated Type I and Type 2 errors. I would spend some time determining these and explaining the results to non-statisticians.

Here is a link to more fully grasping these errors http://onlinestatbook.com/2/logic_of_hypothesis_testing/erro... .

Note, in sampling theory, the size of the sample can at times be suggested based on standard deviation of the attribute under examination and the proscribed acceptable Type I error (Stein's method for sample size determination, see http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3172610?uid=3739808&am... ).

Now, as to why there are these statistical errors, the reason could relate to possible compounds (producing random exposure in your human test population) that frequently induce false positives. Or, there could be variations in genetic makeup itself among people that enhance susceptibility to false positives. As to the precise mechanics of how there interfere, that is the field of biochemistry. As to the frequently of these compounds occurring, that is a matter of research and/or field testing.

Good luck.

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by AJKOER]

macckone - 3-11-2014 at 11:28

After rereading the thread I can answer one question definitively as I have had it happen to me.

Pseudoephedrine is metabolized in the body to methcathinone.
In a spot or stick test (not MS-GC) methcathinone can show positive for methamphetamine. A GC-MS will clear up the difference in urine analysis.

I would assume the same would apply to pseudoephedrine not in pill form exposed to air as it is easily oxidized. And a field test would likely not differentiate between methcathinone and methamphetamine. For that matter pseudoephedrine itself may show positive in a field test.

A GC-MS test will clear up such differences very easily.

aga - 3-11-2014 at 12:25

There always exist Other possibilities.

For example, the field test for meth is a crude test for *any* secondary amine, as far as i know.
If that's true then there are probably some amines around in your medicine cabinet, or even medicines for your pets.

Currently only one 'scene' exists, in which you're a cook, and the cops have you nailed because they have Evidence in the form of test results.

You need to build an opposing scene in which most of the same Evidence fits a non-meth lab.

Find further evidence to support your version, such as your written logs, inventory of chemicals, articles published/shared, recent chems made and the reasons Why etc etc.

Establish that, then the 'facts' that don't fit can be cast into doubt as errors (deliberately introduced or otherwise), seeing as all the other facts fit Both versions.

If you can build a strong enough case, and end up with more of the facts supporting your version, then the court will have to stick it's neck out to go with the cops' version, and they're not Risk Takers, mostly.

As has already been said, re-mortgage the House, cash in all your chips, sell any meth left over from the bust, and spend wisely on legal help, along with forensic GC/MS analysis.

The alternative is prison for a long time.

Assuming that you're not a meth cook, it would be interesting to hear how you arrived at this point, as in, what happened ?

Edit:

Quote:

"stated material facts", as the chemist/(s) who has written/signed the report (SIGNED&DATED 6 MONTHS BEFORE MY RAID???)

If it's correct, and you have a hard copy of that, then All of the signed-off evidence is null and void.

Get a better lawyer if they have not spotted that already.

You still need to build your case, with evidence.

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by aga]

blogfast25 - 3-11-2014 at 12:52

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Assuming that you're not a meth cook, it would be interesting to hear how you arrived at this point, as in, what happened ?

Here:

Quote: Originally posted by MrBlank1

I was performing legit research into akabori-type rxns. I was not making OR a user of meth. My "lawful entitlement" to synthesise category 1 chemicals ( ephedrine/pseudoephedrine/ppa ) is to be determined by a judges' interpretation of the legislation, and to the opinion of my psychologist, valid.

Although I'm still miffed as to what prompted the raid...

[Edited on 3-11-2014 by blogfast25]

aga - 3-11-2014 at 14:50

That's the juicy bit that i should have asked for more explicitly.

Tell us How it all happened, please.

MrBlank1 - 3-11-2014 at 15:55

Without further proof, all I can say is:

A) a search warrant for "Methamphetamine,glassware,pseudoephedrine,powders and liquids" was served on me, before I was dragged into the street in my underwear at 10:30 am, where I voluntarily remained for 6 hours to ensure the safety of officers entering my lab, by being present to identify if necessary. any hazardous chemicals. 72 hours later, search is aborted.

B) where no Methamphetamine should turn up, taken from 400+ items, was over 600 samples. 5 turned up positive to the above, all five "suspect" samples EACH being the SOLE sample to support the FIVE elements of said search warrant,

C) all my sales records were seized on-site, but never turned up in evidence logs. Years ago, I knew this would come to pass, and kept a copy of these off-site ( I could kiss my paranoid brain, somehow )

D) It was determined that my lab was too large ( over $40 000 of glass alone), and therefore much evidence was presumptive tested, then destroyed on-site.

E) at least one police officer statement on paper essentially says "I was present for '-' part of safety assessment pre-search. The camera was not running for this part of search".

Basically, had their way with my lab for hours before the camera went on for the first time. Took great care to tell me more than once they would have to start smashing my glass at scene. After they found some of my chromatography glass (vac flow adapter), they realized that their error was going to be costly. That was the moment they realized they had the wrong place.

After it's settled in court, I'll post newspaper link to raid. As long as no-one makes fun of my underwear colour

macckone - 3-11-2014 at 16:06

Sounds like they tested everything and the false positives document should prove useful as the field tests are not very accurate. I am surprised that only 5 samples turned up something out of 400+. Anything that tested positive should have a GC/MS run on it. The $250 or so that you suggest it would cost is more than worth it.

Did they destroy/sieze all of your chemicals and glassware or just some of it?

MrBlank1 - 3-11-2014 at 16:06

Drug lab officers of 20 years have never seen anything like it. Follow me slowly on this one ...

If drug lab investigators have never encountered a home lab like it, MAYBE it wasn't a drug lab. Or am I just nutty?

I plan on calling EVERY officer that was there as witness, for their personal "impression" of me, my conduct, and the scene. Let's just say, even in the lab squad there at scene, my "case" divided and polarized opinion. I'm certain at least a couple of officers were "approachable"

It's almost as though, across 72 hours, one at a time, they've chucked their TLC test kit aside with disgust(on umpteenth neg result), saying " This is bullshit man, I not doing this to this guy"

"I, as a (alleged) meth cook, call to my aid, as esteemed witnesses ........ The police who investigated me!".
"Help me, cops!". Textbook, meth cook defense?. rofl

Wonder how that goes down?

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 3-11-2014 at 16:15

All of it mate. All of it. Why did I have so much glass, being on a 'x' pension?

Well, they were right about me being addicted, but not to drugs. Damn you ebay, and your affordable at $50 a piece, $600AUD-local-value RBF's. I was like a bower bird at the end. Anyone care to work out what my $40 000 will cost 'em in "current market value" compensation? That must be domestic market value, right?

On a side note, my male lawyer was the first canadian I ever met. Nothing restores your confidence like - "This is bullshit, eh. In canada, you'd be working for the government, eh"

Love the accent, so disarming.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

chemrox - 3-11-2014 at 17:52

@blank1
"2 You KNOW that the integrity of police is 100% WITHOUT DOUBT."
This IS sarcasm?? I can only hope...

MrBlank1 - 3-11-2014 at 18:04

Not so much sarcasm, but a truth I will currently concede, until I can show otherwise. I do know that the EVIDENCE lacks integrity, and plan on getting an "expert" to "own" each apple on paper, before I show it to be rotten, using references more "expert" than the credentials.

I know it would be bad form for me to question the veracity of any experts' claims, without having solid proof showing a problem exists. Same applies to the LE officers. I plan to attack the falsely portrayed facts, not those presenting them.

After I show the opposition has defective "truths", I will then bring to bear my unprovable but valid "truths". I know that the opposition cannot fault or reproach my truth telling. I mean, as I've said the whole time " The chemistry doesn't lie ". Nor should the chemist.

diddi - 3-11-2014 at 18:20

aussie cops will lie before supporting your side.

get your samples reanalysed, and get access to a university online journal subscription somehow. then start reading. what you find you then need to direct to your solicitor. it is then possible to subpoena the authors of the papers to defend your case.

MrBlank1 - 3-11-2014 at 18:25

Quote: Originally posted by diddi

aussie cops will lie before supporting your side.

One can only hope that they act so predictably

To borrow a theme from GTA2 to phrase a metaphor : I'm going to chase them at gun-point up the ramp, and let them choose to jump in the giant meat-grinder

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

Tdep - 3-11-2014 at 19:15

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-31/south-australia-first-...

?

j_sum1 - 3-11-2014 at 19:35

@Tdep
Synthetic cannabis ≠pseudoephedrine
Not the same case although it sounds like there are similarities.

MrBlank1 - 3-11-2014 at 19:37

you are right, not me, wrong state, and year. Respectfully to all, please read previous posts, and no guesses. If you can guarantee to NOT disclose ANY of it's content, I will provide a link to my raid. Otherwise, not until acquittal, to protect my chances of impartial trial, and the reputations of those associated with me ( like this very community! )

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

j_sum1 - 3-11-2014 at 19:40

Don't post it. Keep yourself safe. It matters little if a bunch of people are trying to guess.

Tdep - 3-11-2014 at 21:29

Ok, not trying to disrupt your trial or anything. It was just the 'I have an obsession for glassware bit' that made me remember this case, and it just seemed similar in the timing of it, the age of the chemist, the 'something the police hadn't seen before' and the fact that police were on the property for several days.

But sure different drug. Hope all goes well with the lawyers and all that, and thanks for talking about this where you can, it's relavent to many of us.

Edit: I obviously don't know your age and all, but you did say you were on a pension which seemed to fit this case. I'll stop making assumptions now

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by Tdep]

MrBlank1 - 3-11-2014 at 21:46

pension = disability(psychiatric/psychological & 100% T.P.I), not aged.

In interest of being fully critical of my own actions, IF I should be held to account legally, it should be under the Poisons Schedule 1964, under something titled accordingly to fit :

" professional misconduct amounting to non-willful negligence by an amateur/hobbyist 'academic' "

eg.in theory, even a SINGLE unlabelled 'poison', or empty container that had contained a poison, could constitute the basis of the above offence.

The punishments are MUCH greater under this. The implications of this acknowledgement DEEPLY shaming (hence my not wanting to involve people here too much). It DOES more accurately/justly represent the REALITY of the situation. AT NO STAGE has it been my intent to conceal this in order to misrepresent the situation.

I acquiesce humbly and in embarrassment.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 4-11-2014 at 00:42

The penny just dropped. In my mind, I had some of the 5 dodgy evidences attributed to the wrong 5 elements of the warrant. Re-order the elements, and CLICK ....

Now I see how that fits, eg. Glassware on warrant, 1 single piece of lab glass out of over 400 items (sep funnel, ? size) field tests as "traces of pseudo/ephedrine and meth". Destroyed on site.

Apply five times [1 in 400 chance]. Any statisticians in the house?

The assisstance of all here is emphatically appreciated. I am very confident in my ability to defend these charges now. I really just needed to have in my mind that my knowledge of how to look where was right ( $$$ ), and my/the truth was able to stand up to almost the highest scrutiny. If my learned peers can see validity in my assertions, surely so can an educated judge.

MrBlank1 - 4-11-2014 at 00:52

can anyone tell me if 1.12 grams of pseudoephedrine is soluble in 700ml of pH 10 water? I'd test myself, but, well you know...

From my experience, it may look like it does, but should show SOME pecipitate with a few hours settling. Anyone care to confirm/disprove? I can't find, and had taken, any solid figures on this.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

blogfast25 - 4-11-2014 at 05:34

I'd like to say it's unbelievable that this can happen in a 21st Century country of law and order. Unfortunately it is not. The few dealings I've had with police point to serious incompetence of some of them.

While they allegedly 'Serve and Protect' it often remains a case of 'you watching us while we're watching you'.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by blogfast25]

Chemosynthesis - 4-11-2014 at 20:09

Quote: Originally posted by MrBlank1

can anyone tell me if 1.12 grams of pseudoephedrine is soluble in 700ml of pH 10 water? I'd test myself, but, well you know... From my experience, it may look like it does, but should show SOME pecipitate with a few hours settling. Anyone care to confirm/disprove? I can't find, and had taken, any solid figures on this. [Edited on 4-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

Precipitate? Estimating from Henderson-Hasselbach, you have pH 10=pka 10.25-logX. The ratio of protonated to unprotonated pseudoephedrine is 1.78ish. Check to see if I used the correct equation. Assuming no intermolecular interactions and that we are at standard lab conditions, multiply each species mass by the percent composition from your calculated Keq term X. Set one mass as a numerator over your volume. I suggest using the protonated species. See if this complies with publicly accessible solubility data for a pseudoephedrine salt of choice as your protonated value, then check the additional percentage remaining unprotonated with whatever residual water is not solvating the protonated form, which is very water insoluble as an oil.

The stats on their positive test results are impossible to calculate/interpret without knowing what their instrumentation was (presumptive test type and reagent lot numbers for field testing), and may be explained by claiming you only had residue on those items. You will need a professional to look into that. If they performed a presumptive, qualitative field test and then destroyed evidence without saving any for quantitative confirmatory testing, that is extremely poor procedure, and you should be able to get out of all charges if your burden of proof is anything like the U.S.
Locally, here we use two separate confirmatory tests just to substantiate that illicit chemicals are what is claimed in court, along with purity etc. Presumptive tests are almost worthless, and essentially serve to hold you as a suspect and flag possible samples for real testing, rather than run a bunch of garbage and solvents through your instruments for no reason, calibrate, etc.

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

MrBlank1 - 5-11-2014 at 04:41

@above
Now I recognize why proper nomenclature is the norm. I'll try hard to remember do so here on.
please excuse my ignorance, by pseudoephedrine, I meant in it's freebase form, which I was under the strong impression was a flaky,oily powder.
Please be patient with me, but am I missing something?

@tdep
I wont identify what state branch of LE this MAY apply to in his case ...
warn that guy, he has a raid coming in 6 months, with a warrant different from the 1st time(to prevent or detect an offense), no other proof than "I believe", and it'll be open ended (anytime in 28 days, any place or other place or vehicle or person or other thing what so ever,any force necessary[but no more than is reasonably necessary]). [] = ONLY SA APPLICABLE.

He had some decent glass that would cost heaps to replace if they were wrong.

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 5-11-2014 at 08:23

@Chemosynthesis - let me be more direct, so as not to waste your time.
a) The previous urine sample was found in my lab, not a test done on me. Due to tox screen properties, I'm quite sure it should match the urine sample given at hospital [12 hours post raid sans, methylamphetamine]. Nurse was weird(plucking at my jocks under my boxers at the belt line after glimpsing "something coloured"). What surprises me is lack of cannabis found in any samples of urine, be it from my lab or hospital.
b) I present to you the only piece of evidence that has *CMP (by context, i assume they mean "nazi/modified birch by-product").

2 layered liquid.
The top layer was opaque, orange liquid. The bottom layer was clear, yellow liquid - Ephedrine,Pseudoephedrine and Meth detected in top layer. Vol was 1820 mLs. Contained total approx 0.55g ephedrine,1.82g pseudo and 0.73g meth. Ph 7, toluene identified as a component.
Ephedrine,Pseudoephedrine, CMP* and Meth detected in bottom layer.Vol 700mLs. Contained total approx 0.98g ephedrine,1.12g pseudo and 1.26g meth. Ph 10, water identified as component.

I thought on paper, the solubility looked wrong. But once again, I'm only seeing my side(truth). I still need to rule out/see the honest error POV's, and the alternate reality "I'm a cook" POV.

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 5-11-2014 at 08:40

'x' glass jar containing a clear liquid and white powder. - Not analysed, volume not determined. 'x'A is sub-sample
'x'A - Traces of methamphetamine, pseudoephedrine and paracetamol. Volume of liquid was 15mL. Contained 0.02mg/mL of meth. Toluene identifyed as component of liquid.

According to prosecution forensic chemist report, indicates that methamphetamine has been synthesized from OTC preparations

Over more than 5 years, prescription for allergic rhinitis was written by 1 reputable GP, filled at 1 chemist, on all scripts my medicare number written, ALWAYS for 60mg Sudafed brand tabs. This was done because my liver needs no extra abuse with me being on so many otc prescriptions, and so if I have no pain, why should I take panadol/codeine with my decongestant?. And in conjunction with the previous sentence, i NEVER accepted any substitute in terms of active ingredient profile.

So the bloke with scripts for "pure pseudoephedrine tabs" and "high purity?" racemic ephedrines was cooking up from boxes, and couldn't even steam distill?.

Allegedly, my 20.2ish grams of ephedrines was able to make over 22.7ish grams of 80% methamphetamine. I'm not so good with math, any takers?

edit - not real figures. They are higher, but not by a magnitude of anywhere near half of 25x , if it matters at this point.

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 5-11-2014 at 08:58

7 months after first raid, came a second...

My computer again seized with all my defense material on it, the first ones returned, both broken(forced into rather than opened, warped case and boards), with my phone containing 2 VERY odd messages on it, and RAID arrays relative to 2 pc's gone(software).

My new machine?
"Waiting on lab results to come back from 2nd raid(less than 20 samples like an oven/meat thermometer in the oven, and the few bits of lab/glass missed,being a 24/40 vac take-off still head and a 90 degree hose adapter to fit,and any missed chems/filter papers etc from before), before sending it up-stairs unnecessarily, so the same damage does not occur". After 2 officers sat at it for 9 hours reading/photographing my emails

Strangely, overhead stirrer, vac pump array, bunsen and gauze stands, and both stir rods (incuding a 600mm) were all left behind, both times. Guess whos got their lunch order ready for next time?

If I told the whole truth from beginning to end, I could very well be accused for "embarassing the commonwealth", regardless of legality.

Here's a tricky one. I know an ex police/military officer(fix his PC every 2 years or so), who I've been to afraid to contact. Am I at a point where I can show a skeptic of that degree the truth, and would the implications be considered offensive by me presenting this to him?

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

Chemosynthesis - 5-11-2014 at 12:15

Quote: Originally posted by MrBlank1

@above
Now I recognize why proper nomenclature is the norm. I'll try hard to remember do so here on.
please excuse my ignorance, by pseudoephedrine, I meant in it's freebase form, which I was under the strong impression was a flaky,oily powder.
Please be patient with me, but am I missing something

Ah, you just very reasonably expected me to get the stereo chemistry correct. I wasn't being very attentive to detail when I consulted Google rather than my CRC or Lange's.

aga - 5-11-2014 at 16:38

Irrespective of you disproving the cops' Story, you Must build an alternative Story as to how and why all this came about, and incorporate as many of the Facts as they are already established.

It isn't correct that being able to Prove that the cops' entire story is a Lie will be enough to get you off.

Even if you succeed in totally demolishing their evidence, what is the Story ?

Meth cook, clever one, mashed the evidence, but is a meth cook. Guilty.

Establish Your Story to prevent that being the only Story the jury has in mind.

Jury then has to decide between Meth Cook and Home Scientist working on X that may save the Planet.

Mesa - 5-11-2014 at 17:10

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Irrespective of you disproving the cops' Story, you Must build an alternative Story as to how and why all this came about, and incorporate as many of the Facts as they are already established.

It isn't correct that being able to Prove that the cops' entire story is a Lie will be enough to get you off.

Even if you succeed in totally demolishing their evidence, what is the Story ?

Meth cook, clever one, mashed the evidence, but is a meth cook. Guilty.

Establish Your Story to prevent that being the only Story the jury has in mind.

Jury then has to decide between Meth Cook and Home Scientist working on X that may save the Planet.

Unless I'm mistaken, the burden of proof is still on the prosecutors.

[Edited on 6-11-2014 by Mesa]

aga - 6-11-2014 at 01:07

Quite right.

However, the Jury's decision is what matters, and they will be normal people dealing with a contentious topic.

MrBlank1 - 6-11-2014 at 01:34

I was thinking maybe judge only, closed court, to protect the interests of the community, as a show of faith. It would not be good for -

a) monkeys to find out that this is possible (some OZ posts here call it a myth)
b) the public to see such rank ineptitude in their public services
c) monkeys to think that I was a "lucky cook"(?), and try to "get away with it" or "beat the rap".
d) the court seeing a "loophole", the closing of it effecting other civilians.

I also thought a jury of simpler people can be tricked by the prosecution into thinking the lie be real, but just one not stupid judge would see through any BS.

MrBlank1 - 6-11-2014 at 02:40

And my alternate reality in place of the shown to be defective one is? ............ (drum roll)

This here current(real) one. I have a right to protect my intellectual property, a reputable psychologist(notary public) who has seen my data and is willing to testify I possess IP, and my receipts that show my claims as to my chemical aquisition/usage solid. In the words of my lawyer...

"Wheres the money, wheres the drugs, wheres the property, who do you associate with or know.?"
-None,none,none, no-one and no-one. I'm a social recluse

"These weren't ordinary detectives. This was "x" squad . They. think. that. you. are. a. gangster. Who do you talk to?"
-I burst out into a loud, hyena like laughter of incredulity with my face going red with embarrassment. I owned only one potential weapon. A very well stocked lab with an average or better intellect. No gats or fedoras.

After calming down he asks about illicit drugs other than meth and it being the primary common link between me and my pals. I say
"most of my friends are (x degree)users of (x type/s) drug/s".
"ALL of them have some form of diagnosed mental/psychiatric disability".
Tries to say to me something about self medicating when I cut him off ...
"BS. People with mental disability aren't druggies, and responsible drug users aren't mentally ill [although, that hypothesis would explain a bit]

[Edited on 6-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 6-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 6-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 7-11-2014 at 15:15

To everyone who will listen...

Say nothing when they knock, except where you must by law. To paint you as untruthful, all that needs to be done is to show ANY of your truths false. EG. I dont use meth = meth in urine shows mistruth. It doesn't need to ACTUALLY BE meth, just close enough so they can claim it was, and show it was a "mistake" if you catch em out.

The more you say, the more they have to attack, before you even get to court.

Evidence gained via self-incrimination is usually seen as VERY compelling,so it is your right to claim silence due to this, USE IT!.
And remember you have to say that you are exercising that right. Otherwise you are actually failing to exercise your right to silence by not saying so. Repeat after me..

"I HAVE (NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT/NO WORLDLY KNOWLEDGE OF) THAT WHICH YOU SPEAK. I WANT (MY/ANY) LAWYER CONTACTED (IMMEDIATELY/ASAP). I AM NOW INVOKING/CLAIMING MY RIGHT TO SILENCE FROM HENCEFORTH"

or "Statement?. It is "Don't talk to me. I got nothing to say. Take whatever you want. Then f*** off, I'll see you in court."

[Edited on 8-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

aga - 7-11-2014 at 15:18

Reality Check.

Accused of X, with Evidence items a,b,c proving you being guilty of X.

Disprove a,b,c and all that remains is X.

Get a Y story prepared to show that a, b or c could have come about in the Y scenario.

It's crap to just say no, no, no to their Story even if you're Right !

If you have an alternate Y Story, where a, b but not c fit, then you have a chance.
Having to Hide parts of the Y story on grounds of Intellectual Property is great, yet you must cave in and provide details under a court order, or you'll lose any credibility you gained whilst denying access to the info.

Not bothering with a Y story to oppose their X story will just cost you more in the end.
If you want it to all turn on points of Law, be aware that Juries are normal people, mostly.

Focus on the main aim: stay Free, and spend as little as possible to remain so.

MrBlank1 - 7-11-2014 at 18:46

The proof of chemistry society i am member of, and the NDA I have between me and 'X', are both valid and available. If a judge orders that info be told, so be it. Just so long as I have tried to meet my obligations to others [reasonably+10%], no one can fault me for breaching that duty. But they haven't even asked for proof.
Once again, the 'meffs' is NOT mine, and IF the law squad is kocher, MUST be explainable by feasible scenarios. But ANY and ALL of those samples can be explained as PSE oxidizes readily in air into methcathinone, which is known to cause false positives in the field.

If I can show the evidence meets parallel construction criteria, that lack of proper chain of custody and video evidence procedures has been followed, and evidence that solely constitute proof of an offence are not tested and therefore misrepresented as sole proof of above offence, where none would normally exist. Is this enough to say, no cameras since that morning, no valid lab report, no valid chain of custody = anybody could have introduced that into evidence, excluding any other honest answer.? And is it fair to say that the lead investigator is responsible for his squad, and the validity of the evidence?. Incompetence or Malevolence?
If thats prosecution, and my, tools to use for trial, how can this be fair trial?.

What do you think?

aga - 8-11-2014 at 00:33

I doubt that the word 'Fair' applies in the way that people generally use it.

What is 'fair' is that the case will ultimately be judged on the facts, and how the Law applies to those facts.

If the documented chain of custody is flawed, then it would be possible to have their evidence thrown out on the grounds that it could have been contaminated (plenty meth in THEIR labs) or indeed be the results from different items altogether.
If that can be achieved, you're left with the field tests and explaining why they were +ve.
Having 100s of negative results will be helpful.

Beware of accusing the LEOs of tampering with evidence/framing you.
It would appear desperate and vindictive, and be unlikely to help you get the charges dropped.
If you do get off the hook, pursue that angle later if it pleases you.

The lack of GC/MS analysis is remarkable, and now impossible, seeing as the samples are no longer verifiably those taken from your lab.

MrBlank1 - 9-11-2014 at 17:15

aga : too true, it's easy to take it personally, and lose sight of the goal. Thanks for the reminder to keep a cool head.

On a more humorous note, since 'meffs' was 'found' in my lab, I looked back through everything, looking for flogistin too. No sign of any yet

j_sum1 - 9-11-2014 at 19:07

Quote: Originally posted by MrBlank1

looking for flogistin too.

You're just not looking hard enough!

aga - 10-11-2014 at 10:10

That's Finland.
Strange that an entire country can be made up of just one element.

j_sum1 - 10-11-2014 at 14:44

Crap! I think you're right.
If they find that in his urine, he's Finnished!

MrBlank1 - 11-11-2014 at 15:32

@ above two posters : rofl. These guys, lol, these guys.

Side note, would you deem this post to be of benefit or detriment?

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=14326&...

MrBlank1 - 11-11-2014 at 23:29

@Chemosynthesis - sorry to persist, but am I correct in assuming that pseudoephedrine is practically insoluble in ph 10 H2O?

MrBlank1 - 11-11-2014 at 23:53

Quote: Originally posted by aga

Reality Check.

Accused of X, with Evidence items a,b,c proving you being guilty of X.

Disprove a,b,c and all that remains is X.

Get a Y story prepared to show that a, b or c could have come about in the Y scenario.

It's crap to just say no, no, no to their Story even if you're Right !

If you have an alternate Y Story, where a, b but not c fit, then you have a chance.
Having to Hide parts of the Y story on grounds of Intellectual Property is great, yet you must cave in and provide details under a court order, or you'll lose any credibility you gained whilst denying access to the info.

Not bothering with a Y story to oppose their X story will just cost you more in the end.
If you want it to all turn on points of Law, be aware that Juries are normal people, mostly.

Focus on the main aim: stay Free, and spend as little as possible to remain so.

+1.

aga, chemrox, and too many to mention, sincere gratitude to you in this time of need. If I walk away from this with my glassware(what's left), it will be donated here, as I no longer wish to risk practicing this hobby. Thanks all, will update when it's over, which may be a bit yet.

Chemosynthesis - 12-11-2014 at 03:05

Quote: Originally posted by MrBlank1

@Chemosynthesis - sorry to persist, but am I correct in assuming that pseudoephedrine is practically insoluble in ph 10 H2O?

Yes, I believe that is a very safe assumption. It's fairly insoluble in pure water at either pH 7 or physiological 7.4, so alkaline water is even less likely to protonate or solvate it.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 12-11-2014 at 17:04

Good luck to you. It would be a crying shame if you got screwed for doing legitimate research. Over field tests, too?

macckone - 13-11-2014 at 20:41

Probably the worst field test in the world is Marquis Reagent.
It is commonly used as a presumptive test even though its
results are subject to interpretation, is it the right shade and
did it take the right length of time. And it also has a very large
number of false positives.

Mesa - 14-11-2014 at 10:41

You said a few posts ago something along the lines of "the cops use "x" field tests with positive results, after which both the sample and test were disposed of."

I assume you've been given a brief of evidence, how is the positive test being presented in that? The officer's statement alone?

MrBlank1 - 16-11-2014 at 07:45

Essentially, yes. It first lists the 7 methods of analysis used in said report, then lists each item with :
1. an item number that corresponds to the relevant entry in the "unified material log"(evidence description,location,qty or lack of measure, box number, "i.m.s" number, action taken)
2. Box Number, corresponding entry on the conveyance form applicable
3. Internal Management System Number
4. Description of item/chemical/sample container, visually
5i. A "result". eg, the solid was 'consistent' witj 'x', 'y' was 'identified' as/or as a component of the liquid.
5ii (also in result box sometimes) Ph was 'x',vol was 'x', concentration was 'x' mg/mL
5iii (most of the results is 1 of these 2) No illicit drugs detected, or ephedrine and pseudoephedrine detected, approximate quantity 'x'

Thats all. No entry field for 'analysis(s) 1-7 used'. And the samples came from mostly non-quantified sources, that were destroyed on-site. One of the sample readings for 'pana-meffs' was stupidly low, see top of page 3 of this thread.

Now, testing-wise, is this relevant? (thanks Chemosynthesis again, for healing my blindness )

Methylamphetamine = N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine
*CMP = 1-(1',4'-cyclohexadienyl)-2-methylamino-
propane
Pseudoephedrine = (S,S)-2-methylamino-1-phenylpropan-1-ol

I'm pretty sure they just whipped out the "trusty ol'" marquis and simon's, p/blundered about for a bit in my lab, then called it a day. The only things that got methods 1-4 done, are my personal use weed+nbombe+dmt+modafinil+add meds+etc. No data, but certificate stating that either GC-MS and/or FTIR and/or Raman etc, was used on drug to confirm. Proper cross-selection of techniques from what I can see, confirming that 'x' I said I use/had and surrendered, was confirmed to be what I already knew. No argument there, money and time well spent/wasted. The other tests are not mentioned, being Visual Identification or Spot Test, and I assume were used on the rest "in the field".

Without GC/FTIR/MS data, it's all less than nothing, if I'm seeing this clearly. EG: alot of chances for the above three to get mixed up etc, with them sharing all those similar "groupings of atoms". Anyone care to affirm/dissent?.

PS. I feel sorta sorry for them now.
10 Start with 'x' 1
20 Let 'x' = 'x' + 1
30 "Spot test 1of2... POSITIVE, and test 2of2 is.... Negative! Dammit! Next one maybe".
40 If 'x' = 600 Then 'home time' Else Goto 20

[Edited on 16-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 16-11-2014 at 08:28

And with the above *CMP example we come to a claim and a simple fact.

It was located in my facility, in 'a square plastic container, approx 1/4 full'

I was lazy, but not negligent. If it came from a 20L metal drum(toluene), it went into glass, and was put back into either one of it's empty twin, or into a 20L HDPE HCl Drum/Jerry Can that met cartain "A/S" standards, and sealed, before being put aside with others, to await transfer to the waste disposal plant in my town. All said waste containers met that criterion, with minimal but adequate "head-space", and were stored in a small tin shed erected solely for that purpose. Usually, but not always, after titrating and flocculating.

So, it has been found in a container I am ignorant of, an amount pseudoephedrine in the aqueous@ph10 layer that is inconsistent with literature/experience, but has both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, to go with it's *CMP and 'meff' hits. *CMP is caused by excess alkali metal (no calculations) and a proton source(R-OH) or (H2O "quench"), or so it is claimed.

Are they trying to say that I don't know how to do math, run a reaction properly shielded, or read original works for that matter?. NH4Cl is the proper method I believe. Wouldn't using the H2O be basically begging for an -OH grouping to "free-up" and react?

I'm no expert on this, so any corrections are appreciated in advance.

[Edited on 16-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

Mesa - 16-11-2014 at 09:15

Wait... They found/confiscated DMT on your premises? A schedule 1 compound with one of the lowest thresh holds for a "manufacturing commercial quantity" charge*
I understand you wanting to give out as little info as possible which the case is ongoing but that is kinda relevant isn't it?

*I believe it's 5g. Under Australian law any weight of plant matter used in the production of a scheduled drug is counted as if it were the pure substance.
The above info is based off research I did at high school about 6 years ago so it may be inaccurate.

MrBlank1 - 16-11-2014 at 10:07

Possession exceeding minimum threshold, "gives rise to the presumption" of possessing (W)ith (I)ntent to (S)ell/(S)upply, with the burden now on the owner to "satisfy, to the balance of all probabilities" that they were not. 0.5g of MDA is on that limit. I was charged with having 1.85g of mda, but no intent to sell/supply. None was packaged, except my next 2 doses, no messages/phonecalls about dealing drugs, and never been charged with dealing in the past. As somebody who is a substance user, I don't sell it, I leave my home but once every 3 weeks for 20mins (standing GP visit), and keep my social circle small, and "addict-free". Not a chance in hell they can pin any selling charge on me, unless I get caught going halves with a mate in a foil (US-dime bag?) of weed.
And as for dmt, as I have said before;

lab rule no 1. - never work alone.
lab rule no 1. - label everything.
lab rule no 1. - DO NOT EAT or DRINK things in/from the lab.

The above no's is not a typo. If I was to consider illicit drug manufacture, 0% chance I'd foul up lab glass for it. Some cheap, throw away beakers/erlinmeyer's would be the go, no chance of missing trace evidence. Or, if the owner of my quantity of glassware , it's just simpler to not do it.

To clarify, 1st raid was at home/lab, I am NOW charged(xCounts) with posession, not w.i.s.s of - 1x3.0g weed(x1),2x25nbombe 'tabs'(x1), 1.85g mda(x1), 100mg mda/mdma(x1), 100mg mda(x1),4x5mg dextroamphetamine tabs(non-methyl&gov-approved maker,)(x1), implement for weed(x1), and, without lawful excuse or authority possess various equipment(x3), glass(x2), and chem(x2) charges to total 14, plus manufacture pseudoephedrine(x1), added to attempt to manufacture meth w.i.s.s(x1), which was the only charge for 8 months, until after 2nd raid.

It went from attempt to manufacture meth on day 1, to w.i.s.s @4 months in, written on first bits of evidence, then after 2nd raid(below), the rest in 2 piles of 15 & 5 respectively.

8 months later, 2nd raid to "detect or prevent" an offence, netted 1.5g dmt(x1), 43x modafinil(x0), ?weed(x1), implement for weed(x1), 20?x 5mg dextroamphetamine sulfate(x1),chems(x1).

But really, now it's all mixed in together in words, but my lab was in my lab, and my drugs in my drug drawer with my meds. I paid for my drugs, i used my drugs, OR worked my lab alternatively, not BOTH.

Also, you might notice a theme in that selection of used compounds. Psychedelics/hallucinogens, prescriptions without (current) authority, but no "street speed", no "methyl-substitution". So, Desoxyn=no, And if mda was made in govt labs here, then illicitly produced mda=no.

And thats why I'm not bitching about my treatment. I knew I would be judged on the perception, not my actions, when the "cooks" got out of hand locally around 2-3 years ago. So I checked the laws again, then went back to "minding my own business" & "swirling my flasks". Aside from my vices, all I can do is be in compliance with the law as I know it, and account for my own actions and vices. Same with computer security in '95. Or energetics post 2001.

Lesson number 1. If you use drugs, and have a lab/brain, if you get a visit, the assumption of "drug user and chemistry= drug maker" is not unreasonable to hold. Then, add my straddling the "prohibited/controlled" "drug/cat1 item" "lawful/criminal" line.

[Edited on 16-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 16-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 16-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 16-11-2014 at 10:22

I had a theoretical amount of ephedrines between 240-2000 grams, in over 40 different solutions. No more than 40g in any 1 place, and almost all of it in solution, not isolated, in drums, as waste in storage. 100's of litres of waste, with some concentrations reported at mg/L.
I possessed at least 5 pathways to 'meffs' that I'm aware of, probably more. My benzaldehyde was stored with my essential oils, my nitroethane was stored apart from it, amongst my MoO3, triethanolamine, and all of my nasty citric&stearic acid, and a vast quantity of other chems. Indeed, they took the betadine from the med's cabinet, but left me my methylene blue. Weird. Considering the second raid, they took our meat thermometer, I'm assuming due to meat sounding like meth, I suppose.

I hope they kept lots of sample for each item, as the first test I want done? A 10 gram tube test, done thrice and average taken.

, jk, could you imagine the crest-fallen look on their faces as it becomes apparent that they did not take "sufficient samples to allow independent analyst to test satisfactorily?.

[Edited on 16-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

aga - 16-11-2014 at 14:25

The puzzling thing for me is that Material Evidence was 'Destroyed on Site'.

That is insane, and counter to any means of Fair Trial, as the Evidence ceases to be Evident, as it no longer exists, and cannot be examined further by either the Prosecution or the Defendant, or by a third party.

On that basis alone, the entire process is flawed.

Edit:

It is tantamount to saying that you're a Murderer, as they found a body and a murder weapon on-site, plus a CCTV video showing you murdering someone, and then They promptly destroyed the body, weapon and video recording, yet that is sufficient evidence ?

[Edited on 16-11-2014 by aga]

[Edited on 16-11-2014 by aga]

MrBlank1 - 16-11-2014 at 15:08

Or, kept blood as proof of who I killed, scraping of knife to show the material of object, and video evidence of a "possible altercation" has been viewed by an expert, then destroyed, to be certified by expert as evidence of "an ambush with malice and extreme prejudice"

To lighten the mood:

Lesson 2 - By eating food from dented tin cans, you can simulate a gunshot wound to the stomach, with-out actually being fired upon.

[Edited on 16-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

aga - 16-11-2014 at 16:18

Quite simply: how can any Evidence be claimed when the Evidence was destroyed ?

Is that 'standard practice' in your country ?

MrBlank1 - 16-11-2014 at 17:33

Since they ran out of clan lab evidence storage space, and passed these amendments in 2010, I'm probably the first that actually chose to fight the "bum rap". Coming soon, to a democracy near you....

27. Disposal of prohibited drugs and prohibited plants
(1) If, in the case of a relevant thing which is seized or acquired and
detained under section 26 —
(a) a police officer is satisfied that no person will be tried
with the commission of an offence in relation thereto,
and it has not been destroyed under subsection (4), the
police officer shall —
(i) cause that relevant thing to be destroyed in
accordance with the regulations; or
(ii) if a person who is authorised by or under this
Act, by or under the Poisons Act 1964 or, in the
case of a prohibited drug, on and in accordance
with an authorised prescription to have
possession thereof is entitled to have possession
of that relevant thing, release that relevant thing
to that person;
or
(b) a person is tried with the commission of an offence in
relation thereto and it has not been destroyed under
subsection (4), the court which so tries the person shall,
whether or not the person is convicted of that offence
and after having given any other person (in this
paragraph called the claimant) claiming to be authorised
by or under this Act, by or under the Poisons Act 1964
or, in the case of a prohibited drug, on and in accordance
with an authorised prescription to have possession
thereof and to be entitled to have possession of that
relevant thing, an opportunity to show cause why that
relevant thing should be released to him, order that that
relevant thing —
(i) be released to the claimant; or
(ii) be destroyed; or
(iii) be forfeited to the Crown.
(2) If, in relation to any relevant thing seized under section 26, the
Commissioner is satisfied that —
(a) it is not reasonably practicable (for whatever reason) to
detain the thing until it is dealt with under
subsection (1); and
(b) sufficient samples have been taken of or from the thing,
the Commissioner may direct that the thing (apart from the
samples) be destroyed before it is dealt with under that
subsection.
(3) A direction shall be in writing in the prescribed form.
(4) If the Commissioner directs under subsection (2) that any thing
be destroyed, a police officer shall as soon as practicable cause
the thing to be destroyed in accordance with the regulations.
(5) The Commissioner may in writing amend or revoke a direction
before effect is given to it.
(6A) If —
(a) a court convicts a person of an offence under this Act
that involved the possession or use of a relevant thing;
and
(b) the relevant thing was destroyed under this section,
the court may order the person to pay the costs reasonably
incurred by the State in destroying the thing, other than costs
relating to the employment of police officers or the use of
equipment or facilities under the control or management of the
Commissioner.
(6) In this section —
relevant thing means a prohibited drug, prohibited plant or
dangerous substance or a thing contaminated with a dangerous
substance;
sufficient samples means —
(a) in the case of a thing that has already been analysed or
examined by an approved analyst or an approved
botanist, sufficient samples to enable any further
analysis or examination that might be required under
section 27A; or
(b) in any other case, sufficient samples to enable —
(i) analysis or examination by an approved analyst
or an approved botanist; and
(ii) any further analysis or examination that might be
required under section 27A.

[Section 27 amended by No. 44 of 1995 s. 8; No. 44 of 2010
s. 7.]

27A. Analysis at request of accused
(1) If a direction is given under section 27(2) for the destruction of
any thing, any person charged with an offence in relation to the
thing may apply to have a sample of the thing analysed or
examined by an analyst or botanist chosen by the person.
(2) An application shall be made to the Commissioner or a
prescribed person within the prescribed period.
(3) The application shall be in writing in the prescribed form and
shall specify the analyst or botanist who is to carry out the
examination or analysis.
(4) The analyst or botanist specified shall not be an approved
analyst or an approved botanist.
(5) The specified analyst or botanist may, within 21 days after the
application is made, analyse or examine a sample of the thing.
(6) This section applies whether or not the thing the subject of the
direction has been destroyed.
(7) In this section —
specified means specified in the application.
[Section 27A inserted by No. 44 of 1995 s. 9.]

28. Compensation for destroyed seized property
(1) In this section —
seized property means a dangerous substance, or a thing
contaminated with a dangerous substance, seized under
section 26.
(2) This section does not apply to or in respect of any seized
property that has been forfeited to the Crown.
(3) If any seized property is destroyed —
(a) under section 27(1)(a)(i); or
(b) under an order made under section 27(1)(b),
a person who was entitled to possession of it when it was seized
is entitled to recover from the State (if necessary, by action in a
court of competent jurisdiction) compensation equal to its
market value at the time it was seized.
(4) If under section 27(4) any seized property is destroyed and —
(a) in the 12 months after the date on which the property
was seized no person is charged with an offence that
involved the possession, use, sale or supply of it; or
(b) a person is charged with such an offence but is
acquitted, whether at trial or on appeal, and any appeal
against the acquittal is concluded,
any person who was entitled to possession of the property when
it was seized is entitled to recover from the State (if necessary,
by action in a court of competent jurisdiction) compensation
equal to its market value at the time it was seized.

[Section 28 inserted by No. 44 of 2010 s. 8.

7. Destruction of prohibited plants etc., manner of (Act s. 27(1) or (4))
(1A) In this regulation —
relevant thing means a prohibited drug, prohibited plant or dangerous substance or a thing contaminated with a dangerous substance.
(1) If under section 27(1) or (4) of the Act a police officer is required to cause a relevant thing to be destroyed, it shall be destroyed —
(a) by fire or water or by such other means as will ensure the complete destruction of that relevant thing; and
(b) in the presence of 2 witnesses from 2 of the following classes of persons (but not so that the 2 witnesses are persons from the classes referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (iii)) —
(i) a police officer who is a commissioned officer appointed under the Police Act 1892 section 6;
(ii) a justice of the peace or a registrar of the Magistrates Court, other than a registrar of the Magistrates Court who is a police officer;
(iii) a police officer appointed under the Police Act 1892 section 7 nominated in writing by a police officer referred to in subparagraph (i);
(iv) an approved analyst or an approved botanist.
(2) Each witness referred to in subregulation (1)(b) shall certify in writing that he has witnessed the complete destruction of the relevant thing concerned and shall sign that certificate.

7A. Directions by Commissioner of Police for destruction of seized prohibited drugs etc., form for (Act s. 27(3))
For the purposes of section 27(3) of the Act, a direction shall be in the form of Form M.D. 8A.
[Regulation 7A inserted in Gazette 2 Jul 1996 p. 3197.]
7B. Analysis etc. at request of accused (Act s. 27A)
(1) In this regulation —
chosen analyst means the analyst chosen by the relevant applicant under section 27A of the Act;
chosen botanist means the botanist chosen by the relevant applicant under section 27A of the Act;
drug movement bag means a special bag used by police officers for the conveyance, free of contamination, of dangerous substances, prohibited drugs or prohibited plants;
investigating officer means the police officer in charge of any investigation concerning a thing, sufficient samples of which are dealt with under this regulation;
prescribed person means the prescribed person referred to in subregulation (2)(a);
sufficient samples has the meaning given by section 27(6) of the Act.
(2) For the purposes of section 27A(2) of the Act —
(a) a person who is the police officer for the time being in charge of the Organised Crime Squad is a prescribed person; and
(b) the prescribed period is 28 days; and
(c) an application must be accompanied by a fee of $50.
(3) For the purposes of section 27A(3) of the Act, an application must be in the form of Form M.D. 8B.

http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtit...

[Edited on 17-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 16-11-2014 at 18:01

38. Certificate of approved analyst or approved botanist
(1) An approved analyst or an approved botanist may give a
certificate in the prescribed form relating to any analysis or
examination carried out by the approved analyst or approved
botanist.
(2) In any proceedings against a person for an offence, production
of a certificate purporting to be signed by an approved analyst
or an approved botanist stating in relation to any thing —
(a) that the thing was obtained or received by the analyst or
botanist for analysis or examination; and
(b) how the thing was obtained, or when and from whom
the thing was received; and
(c) a description, and the quantity or mass, of the thing
obtained or received; and
(d) that the thing was analysed or examined by the analyst
or botanist; and
(e) the method of analysis or examination; and
(f) the results of the analysis or examination; and
(g) any other matters relating to the analysis or examination,
is sufficient evidence of the facts stated in the certificate.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), proof is not required —
(a) of the signature of the person purporting to have signed
the certificate; or
(b) that the person is an approved analyst or an approved
botanist.

macckone - 16-11-2014 at 23:04

The short of all that seems to be they can take a sample from lab equipment as long as they take a large enough sample to be analyzed by the accused person's analyst and then destroy the equipment. And then if you win in court they have to compensate you. GC/MS takes a very small sample so they can basically destroy anything. The interesting part is that anything not found to be part of the 'crime' has to be returned or compensated.

MrBlank1 - 17-11-2014 at 00:08

I'm a reasonable guy, I'll let them keep the racemic ephedrines, my urine, and the effluent disguised as a lab report.

MrBlank1 - 17-11-2014 at 01:34

you guys like coincidence? Here in wa, new legislation introduced this year in June replaces the Poisons act and amends the Misuse drugs act, right at the back, secret squirrel nuggets everywhere, like

174. Section 14 amended
(1) In section 14(3) delete “Poisons Act 1964 ” and insert:
Medicines and Poisons Act 2014
(2) Delete section 14(4) and insert:

Does that apply retroactively?, coz theu dang deleted my lawful entitlement, yo

And as for most of my glass, my entitlement will probably be assessed from after the charges are dropped. Motherfuckers!

I hate being the guy that has that sorta bad "luck"
[Edited on 17-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 17-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 24-11-2014 at 02:23

Sorry to bump this, but...

Field testing-wise, is this relevant to spot test and/or 'raman' results?

Methylamphetamine=N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine
*CMP =1-(1',4'-cyclohexadienyl)-2-methylamino-propane
Pseudoephedrine =(S,S)-2-methylamino-1-phenylpropan-1-ol
acetaminophen =N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide

edit: above changed to conform to IUPAC naming
note: Fairly sure Marquis, Simons and Chens are the color tests used

Am I seeing this clearly? EG: alot of chances for the above three/four to get mixed up if spot testing, with them sharing all those similar "groupings of atoms/functional groups".
Anyone care to affirm/dissent please?.

Update - Am at the point where I have been asked (by my lawyer) to form queries for the "expert chemist" in regards to my facts. Basically, having them either admit "possible doubt in evidence" or "affirm false truths."

[Edited on 24-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

j_sum1 - 24-11-2014 at 03:37

I can't comment on your technical question.

Sounds like your lawyer is giving some good advice. Keep your questions for the expert witness simple -- simple in the sense that they have clear straightforward answers and you already know what those answers will be.

MrBlank1 - 24-11-2014 at 04:13

Thanks very much for the reply. It helps with the nerves, knowing that my lawyer doesn't need to know chemistry, to represent me well. Trying to answer the question "What would a person use a condenser for other than make drugs?" almost popped my brain. Six hours later, I realize the question is actually "What would you personally distill with said condensers, excluding drugs?". It's easy to get overwhelmed, and your support is most appreciated.

Thankfully, to the above and all other post's authors, MrBlank1

Update 2 - Is it "improper" of me to ask (i)what/which/how analyses were done?. Or (ii)for the relevant hard copies of data. eg.
(i)What 'type'(color spot,raman), which(Mecke,portable), how(norms,variables).
(ii)GC table/graphs/etc, raman "read-out", which tests applied where

It just feels wrong to presume anything about anothers work, with-out asking for clarification first.
And would phrasing a question(s) as the following be proper?
"Were all relevant guidelines/regulations adhered to in the collection, analysis and storage of samples?"
"Is the sample 'x', with 100% certainty, evidence particular to my case?"
"Are you familiar with the accuracy/deficiencies of 'x' analysis method?"
"Were both qualitative & quantitative analysis performed, allowing for reasonably certain identification?"
"If 'x,y,z' are true, is it feasible/plausible that 'x' was, reasonably/understandably but erroneously/prematurely, perceived or identified otherwise?"

[Edited on 24-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

MrBlank1 - 24-11-2014 at 11:48

NOTE TO MODERATOR

Much of this thread has moved off-topic, away from the chem questions, and accordingly, should be moved to the "Legal&Societal Issues" category.

Chemosynthesis - 24-11-2014 at 12:06

Quote: Originally posted by MrBlank1

Sorry to bump this, but...

Field testing-wise, is this relevant to spot test and/or 'raman' results?

Methylamphetamine=N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine
*CMP =1-(1',4'-cyclohexadienyl)-2-methylamino-propane
Pseudoephedrine =(S,S)-2-methylamino-1-phenylpropan-1-ol
acetaminophen =N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide

edit: above changed to conform to IUPAC naming
note: Fairly sure Marquis, Simons and Chens are the color tests used

Am I seeing this clearly? EG: alot of chances for the above three/four to get mixed up if spot testing, with them sharing all those similar "groupings of atoms/functional groups".
Anyone care to affirm/dissent please?.

Update - Am at the point where I have been asked (by my lawyer) to form queries for the "expert chemist" in regards to my facts. Basically, having them either admit "possible doubt in evidence" or "affirm false truths."

[Edited on 24-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

There is not enough information for anyone to deduce whether chemicals named above were determined with any particular test(s).

IR and Raman spectroscopy do not distinguish between optical isomers, so depending on what specific laws are applicable, you may find some loophole or credibility attack there, depending on whether it was used to verify pseudoephedrine content... however, it is very conclusive for an isomer, so if isomers are regulated and confirmed to be present, you will have trouble.

MrBlank1 - 24-11-2014 at 12:30

Thanks for the reply...

So really, I need to ask which methods of analysis were employed for the samples of concern(not concerned about the "benzylic alcohol"), before I can go any further?.
Would this be a request that is reasonable, or should I request a "Certificate of Analysis" (if one exists)?.

On a side note, can you recommend a decent text for a beginner to learn how to adequately draw molecules? ( I sort of see things mentally as letter-function groupings , not lines denoting bonds etc. )

Thank you once more for your patience and assistance.

Chemosynthesis - 24-11-2014 at 12:55

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis

2. Nowhere do you state the type of testing used. Testing for substances varies widely. You need your lawyer to familiarize them self with qualitative presumptive vs. analytical/quantitative confirmatory testing. The type of testing will determine sensitivity, limit of quantitation, error, signal-to-noise and false positives.

It's expected to be given the exact type(s) of testing used to determine chemical identity where I live, and is in fact a source of pride in the local crime labs. When you will be allowed access (discovery) might depend on your legal system, so I have no idea how reasonable any requests are in your situation, but a decent lawyer should theoretically attempt to get all information at the earliest possible moment. They should confer with a witness for expert forensic/analytical testimony, then craft a defense around this. You need to confer with a regional lawyer who will represent you instead of us generally on an anonymous forum.

Any organic textbook should devote time to IUPAC nomenclature, possibly dispersed throughout the collectivity. Understanding nomenclature is predicated on learning functional groups. You shouldn't need to worry about this anyway, since a star witness with forensic credibility is an impartial authority and usually a legal standard.

aga - 24-11-2014 at 13:12

The field tests are Very broad spectrum tests.

A question should be 'Did the field test results Positively identify sample X to be Exactly substance Y beyond any doubt or possibility of error ?'

Then you add in what your research objective is/was and what reagents/intermediates you were regularly using in your lab, and if they said 'Yes', ask them precisely that same question again, having added in that bit of info.

It might be an idea to make up a Field test or two for a demo to the Jury.

I knocked up some Libermann's reagent (1g KNO3 + 10ml 98% H2SO4) and it showed some random Ibuprofen tablets to be Cocaine.

MrBlank1 - 24-11-2014 at 13:46

@Chemosynthesis & Aga : thanks again for your time.

I think I might see another lawyer for a 2nd opinion, as there is a communication barrier between myself and my solicitor, which would be a lot easier to break through with an independent expert/chemist to help.

In relation to the court forensic chemist, is it reasonable to assume that their testimony, etc, will be impartial in presentation?. And what I see as 'errors' may actually be, for lack of better wording, 'tools'?. It certainly seems as though the paper evidence is presented in a way that lets both sides work with it. In short, should I view the expert as an impartial evidence presenter, or a "chemist of the cops"?

I realize what you say is true, I thought telling my lawyer the story and pointing out the false assertions was all I needed to do, but it is not so. I will get another solicitors' take on this. Truly grateful for your time.

@ aga : Thanks man, I didn't even think of same question twice. I was visualizing a flow chart of questioning paths. What you say fits my lawyers request neatly, instead of me trying to convert the facts into questions. Sometimes I'm too 'narrow-thinking', I appreciate the alternative perspective.

Ibuprofen as cocaine : wow, i'm very ignorant here, but they seem so very unrelated. Tells me that mechanism of rxn is more important than any shared similarites in structure, i suppose?

aga - 24-11-2014 at 14:18

You're Inside the problem/situation, which always makes it harder to be Objective.

The lawyer may not be the problem, however it is always good to deal with someone who has dealt with this kind of case before, simply as they will have experience of the specifics.

It is always wise to ask for opinion from more than one Lawyer anyway.

Whether the Expert Witness is on the cops' side, you must consider them to be impartial, especially in questioning.

Asking pertinent questions to which they Must give the answer that chemistry and physics prescribe will allow you to use Their expert witness to support Your case, and at their cost.

If it were Me, i would do something like this :-

Q1. Would a GC/MS show within a very small margin of error that Evidence item X is illegal substance Y ?
A1. Yes

Q2. How many other samples of substance Y are likely to be in the testing lab ?
A2. Dunno exactly. 50 maybe ?

Q3. Given that the paperwork is confused, would that not make it possible that Evidence item X was confused with one of the other Evidence items, and that the chance that These results are actually from Evidence item X collected from the scene are precisely 50:1 odds ?
A3: Not enough info to comment.

Q4. Having seen the photos of the Lab (shows photos) would you describe this lab as being Organised, and conducting manufacture of a single Product, or small set of related products ?
A4. (many possible answers) It's messy, yet appears to be organised, and makes 1 product.

Q5. If only 1 product is made, how is it possible that only 4 positive test results were obtained from 400 samples ? Surely there would be detectable Products present in many places ? (point out examples)
A5: Er

Q6: Given that the lab was using Z-type reagents, could they possibly give a positive reaction to the Field Tests ?
A6: Yes [if indeed they could - i dunno myself]

Q7: Can you give an estimate, based on what you have seen, as to the potential Volume of illegal product Y this lab could produce on a weekly basis ?
A7: No (press harder) ... Maybe up to a Kilogram a Day.

Use the answer to that to press on matters like the low number of field test results etc.

All stuff like that.

Use their Impartial witness to prop up parts of your case where you can.

MrBlank1 - 25-11-2014 at 02:52

Update 1 : contacted another lawyer (anonymously) to get 2nd opinion. Opposite direction from 1st two, is a "gangster" lawyer, & to quote him "No legal aid, you get what you pay for. No free gum'mint lawyers here".
Upon asking if any "gear" was found in my lab, I say "Illicit compounds?. No, but they think different. Urine+meff+no metabolyte mea..." and I trail off as I hear loud, honest laughter. I'll probably keep my current lawyer, out of loyalty, but the 2nd opinion was crucial, I'd say.

@chemosynth & aga - I think I see why this lab report is lacking.
What I have is just the "summary of report" that will be supplemented with "full report?". I'm assuming that I am going to get a "proper, detailed" report, full o' juicy data/read-outs/findings. Shouldn't my lawyer have done this already, rather than give me this "summary"?. I'm really not comprehending the purpose of "the process" being drawn out like this. After a 1 year wait for summaries and defective forms, I see now why the legal system is in a state of "broken but functional".

[Edited on 25-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 25-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 25-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 25-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

[Edited on 25-11-2014 by MrBlank1]

macckone - 25-11-2014 at 14:09

The summary says it will take 12 weeks to produce the full report. That means they haven't run confirmatory tests yet.
Looks like they don't start that until a trial date is set.

MrBlank1 - 26-11-2014 at 03:49

In case the perception prevails in court, and in the name of completing the primary objective, is anyone willing to evaluate my "work" regarding synthetic ephedrines, and if it is of worth pursuing, do so?. I just don't want everything to be for naught.

Nicodem gets first choice, due to his posts being the inspiration for my work/goofing off.

Pages: 1 2