| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
@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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
'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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quite right.
However, the Jury's decision is what matters, and they will be normal people dealing with a contentious topic.
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Online
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
You're just not looking hard enough!
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
That's Finland.
Strange that an entire country can be made up of just one element.
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Online
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
Crap! I think you're right.
If they find that in his urine, he's Finnished!
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
@ 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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
@Chemosynthesis - sorry to persist, but am I correct in assuming that pseudoephedrine is practically insoluble in ph 10 H2O?
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
| 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
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
Good luck to you. It would be a crying shame if you got screwed for doing legitimate research. Over field tests, too?
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
