best worker they ever had

**govtstatistic** · 09-29-2012, 06:52 PM

best worker they ever had
praised for doing 3x's the amount of work then any other worker

Former Chemist Annie Dookhan Arrested In State Drug Testing Lab Scandal

the only thing is that this happened 9 years ago and they knew about it for 6
sandusky 2.0

**enyo** · 10-01-2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by govtstatistic

best worker they ever had
praised for doing 3x's the amount of work then any other worker

Former Chemist Annie Dookhan Arrested In State Drug Testing Lab Scandal

the only thing is that this happened 9 years ago and they knew about it for 6
sandusky 2.0

This makes you wonder how often stuff like this really goes on. Its pretty F'd up and
really is just one more reason we need to get practical about the "Drug War"

Maybe Toxigal can answer this...

Do lab techs typically test more than once to rule out false positives? From the sounds of this case
it sounds like people's freedom might hinge on only one drug test which is pretty scary.

**toxigal** · 10-01-2012, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by enyo

This makes you wonder how often stuff like this really goes on. Its pretty F'd up and
really is just one more reason we need to get practical about the "Drug War"

Maybe Toxigal can answer this...

Do lab techs typically test more than once to rule out false positives? From the sounds of this case
it sounds like people's freedom might hinge on only one drug test which is pretty scary.

it doesn't happen that often. the majority of people working as forensic scientists are ethical and live in fear of making a mistake. the thought of falsifying results never (Seriously) enters their minds.

yes, the legal burden of proof in drug chemistry and toxicology generally requires duplicate analysis using two different analytical techniques (in some cases the same technique is repeated twice if it is the only available best, but in this case it must be a specific test that has been highly validate to ensure it's specificity). usually a qualitative technique to identify drug class and then a second, specific technique on a second aliquot to identify (and sometimes quantify) a specific drug. but if you have an unethical analyst, they can just make up results for both of these (somehow, i'm a big unclear how she actually did this). However, i do think most labs employ a secondary review where a different person comes behind and reviews all the work before the report is released. When i first read the story i calculated how many cases she would have done a month and it came out to be >300. For comaparison, my quota when i was workign drug chemistry was 90 cases a month. depending on the type of case i probably could have done about 125-150 if i didn't have any other job duties.

as the OP said, the real horrendous part of this case is how long it took the agency to take action. When i was a bench chemist i underwent blind proficiency testing on a regular basis. these were samples that looked like everyday evidence, but were being submitted to 1) make sure i could correctly identify the presence of absence of drugs and 2) to ensure i wasn't stealing evidence.

Now, i recently learned that in parole and treatment cases, they often do not do confirmation testing. this is appalling to me. If they get a positive screen they confront the individual. no confirmation testing is done unless the person requests it. i repeat, this is absolutely appalling to me and i can't even fathom why it is legal.

**BeardScraper** · 10-01-2012, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by enyo

This makes you wonder how often stuff like this really goes on. Its pretty F'd up and
really is just one more reason we need to get practical about the "Drug War"

Maybe Toxigal can answer this...

Do lab techs typically test more than once to rule out false positives? From the sounds of this case
it sounds like people's freedom might hinge on only one drug test which is pretty scary.

most labs will test 2x to "confirm a positive" with drugs like opiates, benzos, pcp, and amphetamines, and cocaine. so i guess the answer is yes. the lab that my agency uses does not test 2x on marijuana because the get an actual level on thc in the system, not just a + or -.

**toxigal** · 10-01-2012, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by BeardScraper

most labs will test 2x to "confirm a positive" with drugs like opiates, benzos, pcp, and amphetamines, and cocaine. so i guess the answer is yes. the lab that my agency uses does not test 2x on marijuana because the get an actual level on thc in the system, not just a + or -.

for toxicology (drugs in biological fluids) the amount present is often (But not always) reported. Ms. Dookhan was a drug chemist, not a toxicologist. for drug chemistry (identification of drugs in a pill or powder) qualitative results are generally sufficient. The laws are written to say "any mixture containing", so the amount of cocaine in the powder is not important, all that matters is if the powder contains any cocaine.

**govtstatistic** · 10-01-2012, 04:22 PM

our local metro (city paper)use to have some interesting articles as well., about how the L&I commisioners were signing off paperwork
& I remember the dept of L&I going over there and reading them the riot act

this whole thing smells of politics
oh well
czars anyone
anyway back to story
so all the people who they sent to jail
that's ok ? ? ?
and all the legal costs for inept prosecutions is ok also ? ?
and it does seem like John Auerbach: chief
has total immunity
good thing he resigned
huh?

**govtstatistic** · 12-29-2012, 05:00 PM

Review of FBI forensics does not extend to federally trained state, local examiners

same elite FBI team whose members gave misleading court testimony about hair matches and later taught the local examiners to follow the same suspect practices, according to interviews and documents.

None of the local cases is included in the federal review. As a result, legal experts say, although the federal inquiry is laudable, the number of flawed cases at the state and local levels could be even higher, and those are going uncorrected.