Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Disgusting cover-up Attempt - READ THIS

un0me2 - 27-7-2010 at 01:41

Ok, I have previously mentioned the 3 individuals (one of whom was a qualified pharmacist = ie.B.Pharm) who were raided by police in Australia and despite claiming they were engaged in making Sidenafil(?) or something legal, they were held WITHOUT BAIL for nearly 2 years (by the end of the trial) on the say so of police & their analyst.

The whole saga is dealt with here: http://www.thetroublewithjustice.com/

Put simply, the Barrister for two of the Accused had the benefit of a Junior with a Major in Chemistry, so He disregarded the "Presumed Validity" of the Analysts Certificate and had the presumption to challenge the same. To cut a long story short, the "seized sample" and the so-called "reference sample" both showed multiple spots on TLC, which is kind of strange (Read fucking impossible) given that one was the sample seized from the illicit lab and the other 'supposedly' a library reference sample, as pure as the driven snow. Trouble was, the library sample didn't actually match, so the analyst used some of the SEIZED SAMPLE as the reference and guess what? IT MATCHED the seized sample, suprise sur-fucking-prise...:o

Not only this, but the other analyst couldn't manage to get the seized sample to fit in the kind of restricted window (used to establish the identity of a substance) using GC-MS, so he kind of, sort of, well.... Opened the window up until it matched what he had already said the substance was....

All of this was admitted under oath, during cross-examination and also in evidence in chief. The Chief Justice of NSW was appalled at the level of Prosecutorial Misconduct, yet some scumbag has written an article (attached) suggesting that it was the defence that told lies (despite the defence being under no obligation to disclose ALL INFORMATION, unlike the Prosecution which chose not to - that was the major problem after all), that the defence analyst was unprofessional in his conduct and that the defence Barrister acted improperly...

It is quite probably the MOST DISGUSTING "ATTEMPTED"* COVER UP I've ever yet seen, the suggestion that the analysts involved made small mistakes, that 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing? FUCK ME DEAD, these pricks lied, deliberately, repeatedly and sold-out any claim they had to ethical/moral candor when they did what they did and didn't disclose it.

* I say attempted, I have personally (since becoming aware of the article) provided it to several of the parties named, suggesting that they take whatever legal action they see fit to take to remedy this crap.

Attachment: Accred. Qual. Assur., 2003, 8, p. 179.pdf (122kB)
This file has been downloaded 1720 times

JohnWW - 27-7-2010 at 01:54

Have you not already heard that the Pigs in New South Wales (and also Queensland, Victoria, and West Australia, and the Australian Federal Pigs) are as corrupt as hell? All savvy Australians know it. One prominent drug-smuggler of the late 1970s, the late Terry Clark, boasted that he could bribe a New South Wales Pig for the price of an hamburger.

psychokinetic - 27-7-2010 at 02:28

Zomg, the sample looked like itself.

Shocking.

Where would we be without the legal system?

un0me2 - 27-7-2010 at 04:43

Fucking incredible innit? Suppose we should be thankful that he managed to get the sample to match itself - given the incompetence of these assholes that was truly a triumph of science.

As for being able to bribe them for the price of a hamburger - they'd want fucking low-fat, soy mochachinos now....

What truly fucking scares me, ANYONE on this forum (from Oz at least), could quite feasibly spend 2 years in jail waiting to show that the analyst is a dodgy fucking cunt. There goes the house, the marriage, the career, etc. simply because these unprincipled dogs are presumed (wrongly) to be acting in the interest of justice.

I'm not at all frightened - not one bit:o

And people put shit on me for not wanting to get on the local Gestapo's "to do" list by purchasing chemicals... I've been in a similar situation to the people mentioned above purely as a result of owning/possessing chemicals & equipment, totally lawfully, but until I proved that I was facing, potentially, decades in prison.

The mere fact I "HAD" glassware was sufficient per se to negate my presumption of innocence apparently

Makes ya think don't it?

quicksilver - 27-7-2010 at 06:47

I know nothing of the laws in AUS or NZ but to hold someone without bail for a crime (excluding murder or related threat to public via violence) is pretty fucking serious. That sounds like the wonders of the Mexican Judicial System. Is this the norm in a Commonwealth Nation?

unionised - 27-7-2010 at 09:59

Can anyone explain why the analyst can't be charged with perjury and jailed?

(Incidentally, I am an analyst and so I really don't like tit when my profession is brought into disrepute this way)

psychokinetic - 27-7-2010 at 13:17

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver  
I know nothing of the laws in AUS or NZ but to hold someone without bail for a crime (excluding murder or related threat to public via violence) is pretty fucking serious. That sounds like the wonders of the Mexican Judicial System. Is this the norm in a Commonwealth Nation?


Perhaps oddly enough, but this is what most people in Commonwealth Nations think of the US legal system.

Though to be fair, they're all becoming screwed up. Title post in point.

un0me2 - 27-7-2010 at 16:15

The analyst(s) were protected under the protection afforded witnesses - they were immune to civil suit, why they were never charged with perjury and/or conspiracy to pervert is beyond my knowledge.... Let's just say it is unlikely they personally will ever be made to pay for their actions, and are still employed at the lab by the Commonwealth.

Sleep well if you have glassware, two fucking years without bail on remand on lies as blatant as this, pity they weren't making drugs isn't it? Then at least they'd have the money to have the grubs dealt with:mad:

JohnWW - 27-7-2010 at 18:16

The laws are much more oppressive in most Au$tralian states than they are in New Zealand, especially where possession of chemicals and laboratory apparatus is concerned, due to an even greater extent of right-wing politicians pandering to the tiny but vociferous "law 'n' order brigade" for what they think is an easy way of catching cheap votes.

len1 - 27-7-2010 at 22:47

I think the point here is to do with a fallacy that sometimes plagues the minds of those in the justice system:

The police are not unbiased selfless enforcers of the law.

They are always on the look-out to stick some crime on anyone they come in contact with. If it becomes obvious to them that no crime will stick, they lose interest. That is because there are no promotions, kudos etc associated with innocent people. Their role is in fact is consistent with the prosecution.

And when you have forensic scientists in matey relations with the police, they also become prosecutors. Therefore a conflict of interest develops between their job as objective evaluators of what their instruments tell them, and the role they play in the real world.

Forensic scientists evaluating samples should never see the police, they should never attend crime scenes, they should be on 9-5 jobs in their labs with specimens arriving in mundane bags with nothing attached to them but a number, so they dont know the particulars of what they are investigating. Moreover they should be periodically sent samples of known substances to keep them honest. And of course all tests should be preformed with witnesses present. None of this applied in the present case, hence the miscarriage of justice.

un0me2 - 28-7-2010 at 06:12

I suspect the same has happened in the instance under discussion as happened to myself, the fact that there was "REAL" glassware involved, the fact that at least one participant had some idea what they were doing (unless UTS is handing out B.Pharm's nowadays)... All of it, that despite the fact that one of the three was a Lawyer (and a practicing one at that), was not sufficient to overcome the inherent bias that they were obviously up to something odd - read ILLEGAL. Obviously the analysts have approached the case the same way as police, they assumed illegality then set out to prove their conclusion (scientifically invalid for a start, let's not even begin to discuss the problems with the legality thereof).

I take issue with the suggestion that any of the roles you point out are consistent with that of the Prosecution, the role of the Prosecution is unlike pretty much any other - they decide whether or not, based on the evidence to hand, given the problems with it (and the effect of disclosing ALL of those gaps), and the likelihood of success, whether it is in the interest of Justice to proceed. The altering, the mistatement, the hiding and the falsification of evidence - in order to secure a conviction at any cost - have NO CONNECTION with the role of the Prosecutor, nor in our Countries Legal System.

The fact that these "Analysts" remain in the positions of power & trust they demonstrated so clearly they do not deserve to occupy, troubles me intensely. The defendants in the case under discussion were all professionals, thus they could afford "REAL" legal assistance (22 week trial = megabucks). How many people are in jail now due to the perjured or invented testimony of these pair, because they could not afford the defence necessary to avoid conviction?

quicksilver - 28-7-2010 at 06:44

Quote: Originally posted by psychokinetic  
[
Perhaps oddly enough, but this is what most people in Commonwealth Nations think of the US legal system.
Though to be fair, they're all becoming screwed up. Title post in point.


Well, yes & no.
In the US, one has the right to a speedy trial. If the defendant's lawyer (barrister) wants to wait till they have all the necessary defense evidence ready, etc the trial would be postponed.
However if one is assigned bail & cannot meet that financially and has no resources for a bail-bondsman, one would stay in jail pending trial. Bail is often assigned based on several criterion: the type of offense, the history of the defendant, the risk of flight, the risk to the public, etc, etc.

It IS possible that the defendant could stay in jail if they had no resources what so ever and the offense was a substantial risk to the public. However the Prosecution needs to show that this exists & the weight of risk for the specific defendant is substantial. If the defendant stays incarcerated, they often receive credit for time served. These situations are often met in cases of violent crime.

In non-violent crime, bail is often associated with flight risk alone and bail bondsmen assume a bail for generally as low as 1/10th of the actual bail amount. Therefore even a fairly poor individual could get bail for non-violent crimes associated with minimal public risk (possession of drugs, receiving stolen goods, etc).
Languishing in jail before trial is not too common for a non-violent offense & if the individual has any resources what so ever. This is even more probable if the offense is a first time phenomenon. The majority of jails are simply too crowded with violent offenders for space to be used for offenses with low public risk.

Mexico has much more judicial discretion and a judge has substantially less binding guidelines; thus an enormous amount of power in what takes place.

IrC - 28-7-2010 at 09:54

"In the US, one has the right to a speedy trial. If the defendant's lawyer (barrister) wants to wait till they have all the necessary defense evidence ready, etc the trial would be postponed."

Except for the fact that by executive order any US citizen under suspicion of terrorism can be held with no trial and no bail forever. Which home chem lab in today's climate is NOT going to be considered "terrorism"?

MagicJigPipe - 28-7-2010 at 12:08
Quote:

The majority of jails are simply too crowded with violent offenders



I'm sorry quicksilver but I just had to laugh just a bit at that. I think you meant to say that the majority of jails are too crowded with non-violent drug offenders, right?

Source: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/62

Not sure how reliable the site is but the numbers make sense to me.

quicksilver - 29-7-2010 at 07:43

Actually the US incarcerates more people than many people could even imagine: we put away an enormous number of people. Conceptually, I meant to explain the priority issue but it sounded awkward.... We only have so much space; so the priority is to put away violent offenders but since we put away so MANY people, the "priority beds" NEED TO go to those [who are violent offenders]. Additionally remember that many violent offender convictions use up that space on a fairly permanent basis.

I think I understand where you're coming from and it's true; non-violent drug offenders have taken up space in Hell {As you can tell I feel strongly that some simple possession case should never be subjected to jail or prison.}
SUPPOSEDLY, this issue is being addressed; but it's a state by state agenda. I should have elaborated on that a bit.
The direction most states WANT to go via incarceration is toward violent offenders but - since this may be a permanent use of the bed: that space is gone.
A home-invasion robbery with rape & mayhem is generally a permanent imprisonment. What may have been a burglary becomes a violent offense & life sentence use of space.

Of "drug possession" convictions the figures are lower. But generally the prosecution easily turns a possession case into a possession with intent to distribute. {This is very significant because the prosecution will generally attempt to "upgrade"a case where possible as it increases their statistics.}

There is a real problem with this however. There is appropriate pressure to slam the white-collar criminal as they are perceived as walking on crimes that those who have minimal resources get slammed for. There is a GREAT deal of pressure to lock up those who steal identification and ruin lives financially. There is a powerful lobby to lock up various welfare, charity, or public asistence cheats, those who victimize the elderly or infirm, & fraud artists of various types. And you see, once a non-violent incarceration has been sustained it makes it easy to incarcerate a possession conviction IF there are circumstances where it has emotional impact.... >The offender was in charge of taking care of children, thus endangering them, the defendant was arrested a dozen times, the defendant was sharing needles, the defendant was publicly intoxicated at a Pre-school, the defendant was in charge of dangerous equipment, the defendant was in a position of public trust or authority....& on and on.... The emotionally extraneous issues don't have to provide a separate conviction if the"slam-dunk" possession beef will suffice! ....That's real life in the Courtroom.

So the intent is selective; with actual "simple possession" cases being low.....HOWEVER, if someone smokes marijuana and to them a quarter pound will see them through several months; the law sees that as distribution weight and prosecutes beyond a possession beef. Therefore if we get sticky about definitions, the state can say; "we don't put simple possession through incarceration agenda" -- "but we DO put dealers in prison".



[Edited on 29-7-2010 by quicksilver]

un0me2 - 30-7-2010 at 06:15

No drug laws would mean the single most massive reduction in "crime", both "real", violent crime and "manufactured" drug related crime ever seen. As we already license and regulate outlets to sell the two most dangerous drugs in our societies, why can't we do the same with the others?

Quite frankly, without the taxes on alcohol and tobacco, no budget in the "free" world would come close to balancing. If we put the same taxes on the sale of drugs, and recouped the money wasted on police (there are plenty of jobs for heroes who want to carry guns, Afghanistan for instance needs lots more), then the increase caused by the removal of the massive drain on our resources (that come in part from funding the Taliban) that is the "War on Drugs" coupled with the bounty that would come from taxing the same, personal and/or company tax could be reduced dramatically.

On top of that, the young "wannabee" chemists, those kids who ARE NOT out playing with thermite, making dodgy fireworks, etc. will never experience the fun-part of chemistry. Without that, who in god's name would choose to go through the non-fun parts of it? I have kids, they love science, because I am not scared to show them things that are fun and interesting. How many parents nowadays are game to do so? So where will our next generation of Scientists come from? People with no real "love" of the art, but from those seeking only a career? Ever noticed that the chemists who invent things don't come from THAT group? Something to think about

quicksilver - 30-7-2010 at 06:42

One of the more complex aspects of this subject is that many of our "drug enforcement" elements are actually double duty agencies. The DEA (& Customs, Coast Guard, etc - to a lesser extent) are actually intelligence agencies of a sort, gathering information that goes beyond the curbing of drug importation, production, & sales.
So to pull the plug on those agencies or to re-route their efforts impacts a source of information that may have value to a broader spectrum then would superficially appear.
So quite frankly, I don't think any deep changes would occur. What's more, the level of bureaucracy (& government jobs) are in the tens of thousands. The intelligence provided is wide ranging; in that an agency like the DEA can operate domestically & on foreign soil. It's scope is vast & it's sources are significant & have a global political impact. There are complexities here that go far beyond the superficial "war on drugs" because the level of money that drug trafficking yields easily changes national leadership, alliances, & issues of national security.

franklyn - 31-7-2010 at 12:47

Modern reality is that only someone the like of
the " unabomber " can remain under the radar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
It's 25 years after 1984 , Big Brother is everywhere

http://my.earthlink.net/article/tec?guid=20100730/94e7f9dd-3...

.

Chainhit222 - 1-8-2010 at 12:28

next guy to go crazy should attack people he does not like with a halberd so chemistry does not continue to get difficult to perform due to bombs and poisons.

zed - 3-8-2010 at 14:14

So, government witnesses lie. That's nothing new.

Sometimes folks are prosecuted for attempting synthetic routes that are virtually hopeless. In the US., apparently, intent is a crime. Regardless, of the impossibility of success.

Technically, if a lunatic was mixing dirt and water together with a stick, and he were to state that he was making meth.....Well, by God, he could be in a lot of trouble.

Still, it appears that the environment in the US, is a moderate, compared to OZ.

Usually, when US prosecutors come up empty, the case quietly disappears.

Faking lab results is a big no-no. When even one incidence of faking is detected, there is Hell to pay.

Every case, that the responsible government witness has testified in, becomes subject to appeal. Good chance it's a career ender.

In my jurisdiction, we have a number of law enforcement types, that are perpetually doomed to desk duty. The local judges have determined that these characters are not credible witnesses, and they are not allowed to testify in court.



un0me2 - 3-8-2010 at 14:44

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver  
One of the more complex aspects of this subject is that many of our "drug enforcement" elements are actually double duty agencies. The DEA (& Customs, Coast Guard, etc - to a lesser extent) are actually intelligence agencies of a sort, gathering information that goes beyond the curbing of drug importation, production, & sales.
So to pull the plug on those agencies or to re-route their efforts impacts a source of information that may have value to a broader spectrum then would superficially appear.
So quite frankly, I don't think any deep changes would occur. What's more, the level of bureaucracy (& government jobs) are in the tens of thousands. The intelligence provided is wide ranging; in that an agency like the DEA can operate domestically & on foreign soil. It's scope is vast & it's sources are significant & have a global political impact. There are complexities here that go far beyond the superficial "war on drugs" because the level of money that drug trafficking yields easily changes national leadership, alliances, & issues of national security.


Yeah, but without the money from drugs, the job of intelligence agencies would be easier by several orders of magnitude. The reduction in the assets required for surveillance alone would save millions (if not billions). The pool of suspects would empty quicker than water through a funnel, why? The absence of criminal activity (or the veritable absence in comparison to the criminal activity taking place merely to support habits) would be the issue though. Without that, there would be no money for Police/DEA/FBI/etc. There would be no votes for the law & order brigade.

Call me cynical, but that is why this is continuing, because without it, a lot of careers would be ended. Continuation of the status quo purely for the furtherance of ones own aims, in concert with others, may not be criminal per se, but I contend that it IS corrupt. Dewey would never have got to be Governor of New York without prohibition, the same can be said of the current state of affairs.

starman - 3-8-2010 at 18:19

I think that the wider Australian community at large could be quite interested in the fact that 'expert witnessess' for the crown apparently enjoy immunity from criminal or civil prosecution,even in cases where evidence has been deliberately falsified and great harm has resulted to individuals.

Lets face it.Our obscure hobby is never going to produce the numbers to generate a successful lobby group.No amount of elegant logic will turn the tide of public opinion or government policy regarding substance use and abuse.

These particular laws however seem to apply to all 'expert witnesses',not just forensic chemists.The fact that someone can stand up at trial,lie,destroy your life.Later to be proven to have lied and to be exempt from consequences is something the average person in the street would be outraged at and perhaps could be persuaded to add their voice to a call for change.

quicksilver - 4-8-2010 at 06:22

Quote: Originally posted by un0me2  
[

Call me cynical, but that is why this is continuing, because without it, a lot of careers would be ended. Continuation of the status quo purely for the furtherance of ones own aims, in concert with others, may not be criminal per se, but I contend that it IS corrupt. Dewey would never have got to be Governor of New York without prohibition, the same can be said of the current state of affairs.


Gut-level, I agree w/ you. It's a staus-quo, tens of thousands of gov jobs issue.
One could add to that all sorts of issues, both political, social, etc but cutting that many jobs would impact so many other things (including some of the above mentioned agenda) that the fall-out would be too great.

chief - 4-8-2010 at 07:10

CIA == "Cocaine Import Agency" ... : Making a lot of money wiht it ...; same goes probably for DEA etc. ...
==> .. all corruptive and rotten including the roots

Afghanistan is right now the worlds largest heroine-exporting region ...
==> Who do you think does probably the trading ... ?

=========

Besides: Trading drugs is part of the commonwealth-history: Even the Queen prifited from Opium-money, during the "opium-war" against China ... where the country there was beeing made weak by importing the drug ... ... so the british could colonialize it ...



[Edited on 4-8-2010 by chief]

quicksilver - 4-8-2010 at 11:33

If you get too cynical about he issue you lose sight of the objective. The political fall-out from having our young men fight over there and having some 3-letter agency directly involved would turn the world upside down. And if that was the case; they would get caught; it's too high exposure.
The greatest likelihood is that some agency has control over the go-between(s) so as to rake in some over-flow money. That money is extremely important so as to fund operations with no Congressional oversight.
But listen to me, I sound like a conspiracy nut..... It's most likely a Tom Clancy novel. It couldn't happen in real life, right?

JacFlasche - 21-8-2010 at 16:50

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver  

So the intent is selective; with actual "simple possession" cases being low.....HOWEVER, if someone smokes marijuana and to them a quarter pound will see them through several months; the law sees that as distribution weight and prosecutes beyond a possession beef. Therefore if we get sticky about definitions, the state can say; "we don't put simple possession through incarceration agenda" -- "but we DO put dealers in prison".



Damn and my cannabis using friends bitch about the fact that they can only legally own two pounds of buds unless their doc says they need more.

cnidocyte - 26-8-2010 at 03:43

Is that part about the TLC plates true? If so this is a fuckin disgrace and this analyst deserves to be locked up and never allowed to work in LE again. I've heard many stories about legitimate chemists being raided in Australia but this one takes the cake. They allowed an analyst that didn't know how to read a TLC plate on the case? Stories like this inspire me to think about getting into forensic chemistry once I've got my BSc. so I can do my part to ensure people stop getting prosecuted for crimes they didn't commit. I know very little about GS or MS but since I've done a bit of TLC myself I can see how insane it is that they tried to cover that up by saying it was a legitimate mistake on the part of the analyst.

[Edited on 26-8-2010 by cnidocyte]