| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
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 693 times
|
|
|
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
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
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
That's the juicy bit that i should have asked for more explicitly.
Tell us How it all happened, please.
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 2961
Registered: 18-1-2007
Location: UTM
Member Is Offline
Mood: LaGrangian
|
|
@blank1
"2 You KNOW that the integrity of police is 100% WITHOUT DOUBT."
This IS sarcasm?? I can only hope...
"When you let the dumbasses vote you end up with populism followed by autocracy and getting back is a bitch." Plato (sort of)
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 723
Registered: 23-9-2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Fluorescent
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
National Hazard
Posts: 519
Registered: 31-1-2013
Location: Laser broken since Feb 2020 lol
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD is done! It isn't good but it's over lol
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-31/south-australia-first-...
?
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
@Tdep
Synthetic cannabis ≠pseudoephedrine
Not the same case although it sounds like there are similarities.
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
Don't post it. Keep yourself safe. It matters little if a bunch of people are trying to guess.
|
|
|
Tdep
National Hazard
Posts: 519
Registered: 31-1-2013
Location: Laser broken since Feb 2020 lol
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD is done! It isn't good but it's over lol
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
@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]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
