Madeline Montgomery testimony (FBI Lab)

Discussion in 'Witness Testimonies and Closing Arguments' started by mombomb, Jun 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mombomb

    mombomb New Member

    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:

    SIDEBAR # 2


    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.


    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.


    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.
  2. Loading...

  3. wenwe4

    wenwe4 Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:

    JB w/Madeline Montgomery - forensic toxicologist w/FBI lab in Quantico - 15 yrs...bach science chemistry, grad level courses in forensic chem & toxicology...received train by FBI and instrument venders...contin ed .....forensic chemistry very broad subject from arson testing to explosive residue test....forensic toxicology look @ blood, urine, hair, brain that not all LE has....we support FBI investigations all across US...published articles between 10-20 peer reviewed published member of multiple forensic toxicology professional groups.

    scientific working groups for toxicology....try to gather all quality assurance all testers for DUIs....testified for State, Fed and Military court - expert witness for forensic toxicology & of 3/13/09 -

    received items to test - hair sample to mass Q-59 from Caylee...stipulation between prosecution and defense - item in evidence....SA #271 .... instruments use

    hair is biologically complex...chemicals in the hair itself...incorporated as it grows....liquid nitrogen - cold/brittle breaks into dust.....purification solvent - further with known samples....liquid chromotograph mass spectrometer...test for alprazolam - Xanex .....clonasapam - Klonipin.....benzodiazapenes - help calm them down or help sleep....testing done for the drug in hair sample was negative.....

    look for a drug.....9 other drugs method superior to method we were using....timing worked out include 8 benzodiazpense - valium, roofies, series of other ones - chemicals for what breaks down....ketamine used in club scene for hallucinagenic .....results were all technique even more sensitive that normal use....10X more other drugs tested for......

    in this report concerned didn't test any other items.....can't testify to anything outside of tests you do....can't guess how much use required before this drug will show up in much exposure test after limited exposure ...even if someone given a known amount of a drug - doesn't always show up in their hair ....can't say if 1 time or 20 times when it will show up in .....all can say did test and came back negative...correct

    cross JA- in summary the negative result is forensic meaningless...doesn't mean the person has never been given the drug or doesn't answer the question doesn't give you chronic use of drugs? if you look @ length of hair - chronic user of certain this case had to look @ hair in bulk as one sample....if use was done closely to time of death wouldn't be able to it tell if this child drown? I have no other expertise in that area...

    JB - what other meaningless work is done in your lab?
    I don't feel work is meaningless!

    do you have knowledge if work done by another scientist (object X3 - sustain X2)

    reason test is to search for evidence - we test to search for evidence'

    witness excused

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice