mombomb
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,437
- Reaction score
- -3
9:18-9:19
SIDEBAR # 2
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MADELINE MONTGOMERY BY JB:
A forensic toxicologist with the FBI for 15 years. BS in chemistry from George Washington University and has taken graduate level courses there. She has received FBI training.
Forensic chemistry is a very broad subject. Forensic toxicology is the detection and study of drugs and poisons in people. More than half of her work supports state and local LE doing tests they can't do.
She has published between 10 and 20 journal articles. She is an active member of SFC and ISSFC..
Scientific working group of Forensic Toxicologist is a group that gathers information to set standards to equalize things across the field.
She has testified 11 times in numerous State, Federal and military courts.
Witness tendered as expert in forensic chemistry and toxicology with no objection by JA.
She received a hair sample to test (Q-59 hair mass) - State's Exhibit 271.
Instruments used to test hair - looking for chemicals in hair - they break apart the hair with liquid nitrogen. This turns dust into a hair and then it is placed into a solvent. They then do purification and make an extract and then compare to known like hair and control samples. This is called a liquid CMS.
She tested for alprazolam (xanax) clonazepam. The testing was negative. They had a method that tested for 9 other drugs - so she tested again. Valium, ruffies (date rate drug), and other benzos - also ketamine. All negative.
Hair testing after limited exposure - they are not always able to test the drug in the hair. All she can say is she did the tests and they came back negative.
CROSS EXAM BY JA
The drug could have been given and not shown up in the hair. A negative result does not answer whether a person had been given the drug.
Length of hair allows someone to look at the length of the hair for prior drug use.
If someone had died immediately after exposure - it would not show in hair.
They could not test for chloroform.
She has no expertise in drowning.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB
She did not feel her work is meaningless.
They don't look for cloroform in hair samples.
Had a sample, did a test, results came back negative.
Witness is excused.
SIDEBAR # 2
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MADELINE MONTGOMERY BY JB:
A forensic toxicologist with the FBI for 15 years. BS in chemistry from George Washington University and has taken graduate level courses there. She has received FBI training.
Forensic chemistry is a very broad subject. Forensic toxicology is the detection and study of drugs and poisons in people. More than half of her work supports state and local LE doing tests they can't do.
She has published between 10 and 20 journal articles. She is an active member of SFC and ISSFC..
Scientific working group of Forensic Toxicologist is a group that gathers information to set standards to equalize things across the field.
She has testified 11 times in numerous State, Federal and military courts.
Witness tendered as expert in forensic chemistry and toxicology with no objection by JA.
She received a hair sample to test (Q-59 hair mass) - State's Exhibit 271.
Instruments used to test hair - looking for chemicals in hair - they break apart the hair with liquid nitrogen. This turns dust into a hair and then it is placed into a solvent. They then do purification and make an extract and then compare to known like hair and control samples. This is called a liquid CMS.
She tested for alprazolam (xanax) clonazepam. The testing was negative. They had a method that tested for 9 other drugs - so she tested again. Valium, ruffies (date rate drug), and other benzos - also ketamine. All negative.
Hair testing after limited exposure - they are not always able to test the drug in the hair. All she can say is she did the tests and they came back negative.
CROSS EXAM BY JA
The drug could have been given and not shown up in the hair. A negative result does not answer whether a person had been given the drug.
Length of hair allows someone to look at the length of the hair for prior drug use.
If someone had died immediately after exposure - it would not show in hair.
They could not test for chloroform.
She has no expertise in drowning.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY JB
She did not feel her work is meaningless.
They don't look for cloroform in hair samples.
Had a sample, did a test, results came back negative.
Witness is excused.
