4 ms·

How hard would it have been to insert a random cross check in to the system? So every 300 tests, the sample is retested by another lab? There's no motivation o

How hard would it have been to insert a random cross check in to the system? So every 300 tests, the sample is retested by another lab? There's no motivation or incentive whatsoever to structure the process to decrease convictions, that is one of the unspoken but defining features of our legal system. There is an ideal that two sides are arguing something in a neutral setting, but one side is the government, and literally everyone who should be acting impartially is also employed by the same government. How can that create a balanced process? Only in a naive and delusional imaginary world.

interstitial 13y ago
Add some "parallel discovery" courtesy of the NSA and you've got a recipe for tyranny.
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  Parallel construction is the NSA informing local cops of crimes that they actually have evidence for, albeit obtained illegally. This is just straight lying. Trading hundreds of years of others' lives for a modestly higher paycheck.
sigstoat 13y ago
> How hard would it have been to insert a random cross check in to the system? So every 300 tests, the sample is retested by another lab? the states are barely willing to pay for this sort of testing in the first place, let alone having it performed repeatedly. defendants are generally able to get the evidence retested themselves. very hand wavily, that sort of thing will tend to cost $100-$1000.
ryanhuff 13y ago
Or even inject some known negatives and see if they turn out positive. Seems pretty simple.
makomk 13y ago
Not that hard, but it costs money, and in any case she had evidence to the actual samples and intentionally contaminated them with real drugs.
DontGiveTwoFlux 13y ago
Well, it wouldn't necessarily preclude tampering with the evidence. The article seemed to indicate that it wasn't just reports that were falsified. For instance, in the marijuana weight issue mentioned in the article, she could have slipped in some extra to put it over the weight limit before sending it off to another lab. Maybe cross checking would help, but systemic changes would probably be better.
- sigstoat 13y ago
  fwiw, to be a DEA registered lab, and thus, have known marijuana (or other controlled substances) just hanging around, you've got to keep it locked up such that it requires two people to access it, and you've got to track it (very precisely) by weight. and the DEA can check your records any time. they have caught at least some people (who were "diverting" cocaine up their nose) with this.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    I may be talking out of my ass here, but I was under the impression that for weighting, the transport or container will be considered. For things like LSD, this is really idiotic, as the transport (like paper) will weight many, many, times any prohibited substance. If the same rules are used for all drugs, then adding weight might not require any prohibited substances. Also, a record of something going up in weight may be odd, but probably is less interesting than it going down in weight. Not that it negates your point. She may have just written down false weights on the data they sent to court.
    - sigstoat 13y ago
      there should be super careful weighing with, and without the packaging. i'm too lazy to ask my wife who'd know, but i believe that for tracking purposes they include the paper. for sentencing purposes they sample the paper in a couple of places, work out average concentration, and then math math back from there to whatever number is necessary. going up in weight (by more than the uncertainty of the scales' measurement) is going to be a hell of a lot more interesting to anybody who actually cares, since that can't happen in the normal course of testing. certainly going down is what implies diversion, but it is also necessary for testing purposes.
kubiiii 13y ago
A simpler validation process would be to compare the positive/negative ratio a chemist in a similar position produces. This would only involve sharing very small datasets between labs.

interstitial 13y ago

Add some "parallel discovery" courtesy of the NSA and you've got a recipe for tyranny.

drjesusphd 13y ago
Parallel construction is the NSA informing local cops of crimes that they actually have evidence for, albeit obtained illegally. This is just straight lying. Trading hundreds of years of others' lives for a modestly higher paycheck.

sigstoat 13y ago

> How hard would it have been to insert a random cross check in to the system? So every 300 tests, the sample is retested by another lab? the states are barely willing to pay for this sort of testing in the first place, let alone having it performed repeatedly. defendants are generally able to get the evidence retested themselves. very hand wavily, that sort of thing will tend to cost $100-$1000.

ryanhuff 13y ago

Or even inject some known negatives and see if they turn out positive. Seems pretty simple.

makomk 13y ago

Not that hard, but it costs money, and in any case she had evidence to the actual samples and intentionally contaminated them with real drugs.

DontGiveTwoFlux 13y ago

Well, it wouldn't necessarily preclude tampering with the evidence. The article seemed to indicate that it wasn't just reports that were falsified. For instance, in the marijuana weight issue mentioned in the article, she could have slipped in some extra to put it over the weight limit before sending it off to another lab. Maybe cross checking would help, but systemic changes would probably be better.

sigstoat 13y ago
fwiw, to be a DEA registered lab, and thus, have known marijuana (or other controlled substances) just hanging around, you've got to keep it locked up such that it requires two people to access it, and you've got to track it (very precisely) by weight. and the DEA can check your records any time. they have caught at least some people (who were "diverting" cocaine up their nose) with this.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  I may be talking out of my ass here, but I was under the impression that for weighting, the transport or container will be considered. For things like LSD, this is really idiotic, as the transport (like paper) will weight many, many, times any prohibited substance. If the same rules are used for all drugs, then adding weight might not require any prohibited substances. Also, a record of something going up in weight may be odd, but probably is less interesting than it going down in weight. Not that it negates your point. She may have just written down false weights on the data they sent to court.
  - sigstoat 13y ago
    there should be super careful weighing with, and without the packaging. i'm too lazy to ask my wife who'd know, but i believe that for tracking purposes they include the paper. for sentencing purposes they sample the paper in a couple of places, work out average concentration, and then math math back from there to whatever number is necessary. going up in weight (by more than the uncertainty of the scales' measurement) is going to be a hell of a lot more interesting to anybody who actually cares, since that can't happen in the normal course of testing. certainly going down is what implies diversion, but it is also necessary for testing purposes.

kubiiii 13y ago

A simpler validation process would be to compare the positive/negative ratio a chemist in a similar position produces. This would only involve sharing very small datasets between labs.