| Pages:
1
2
3
..
5 |
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
Wanted: Professional opinion on suspect "evidence"
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 69
Registered: 10-4-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: frisky
|
|
You want to send samples for someone to analyze?
Can you be more specific, are they random powders, urine, pills...?
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 92
Registered: 19-9-2014
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Someone's going to get pissed off through mail soon..
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
Not yet, why do you say this?
[Edited on 2-11-2014 by MrBlank1]
|
|
|
gardul
HAZARD TO TEH CATZ!
Posts: 256
Registered: 18-10-2014
Location: Under the Sun in a beaker
Member Is Offline
Mood: Vivified!
|
|
Are you Law enforcement? I find it rather odd if so you would come to us asking for help.
I just made you read this very pointless signature. How does it feel?
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 2531
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 69
Registered: 10-4-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: frisky
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 69
Registered: 10-4-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: frisky
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 971
Registered: 29-9-2013
Location: Online
Member Is Offline
Mood: Outline
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Administrator
Posts: 6218
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Unmoved
Member Is Offline
Mood: Organised
|
|
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
Super Administrator
Posts: 2821
Registered: 12-3-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: " I think we are all going to die. I think that love is an illusion. We are flawed, my darling".
|
|
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
Rapopart’s Rules for critical commentary:
1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it
that way.”
2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Anatol Rapoport was a Russian-born American mathematical psychologist (1911-2007).
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 971
Registered: 29-9-2013
Location: Online
Member Is Offline
Mood: Outline
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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...
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
..
5 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
