| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Others
Posts: 264
Registered: 2-7-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quite simply: how can any Evidence be claimed when the Evidence was destroyed ?
Is that 'standard practice' in your country ?
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
I'm a reasonable guy, I'll let them keep the racemic ephedrines, my urine, and the effluent disguised as a lab report.
AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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]
AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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]
AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse
|
|
|
j_sum1
Administrator
Posts: 6320
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: At home
Member Is Offline
Mood: Most of the ducks are in a row
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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]
AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse
|
|
|
MrBlank1
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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.
AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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.
AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| 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
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
@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?
AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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]
AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse
|
|
|
macckone
Dispenser of practical lab wisdom
Posts: 2168
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
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
Hazard to Self
Posts: 96
Registered: 5-2-2013
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inadvertantly aloof?
|
|
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.
AAAAA = Australian Association Against Acronym Abuse
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
