Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Security

The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap 384

Posted by kdawson
from the keeping-his-nose-clean dept.
dwrugh writes "The drummer for the seminal punk band The Germs, Don Bolles, was arrested in Orange County because a field-test kit indicated his bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap contained GHB, the date-rape drug. (Here is an interview with Bolles.) Using the same test kit, available on the web for $20 for a pack of 10, according to Bolles' attorney on NBC this morning, other soaps tested positive for GHB. But of course since it's just soap, when you test it in a real crime lab it comes back negative. Makes you wonder what other common household products also test positive, and how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap

Comments Filter:
  • Lexicon Devil (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bryan Ischo (893) * on Sunday April 22, 2007 @03:52PM (#18833751) Homepage
    The Germs. Heh. Haven't listened to them since high school. You can only play G.I. (their only good album) so many times until the lead singer's grating voice just becomes completely unbearable. Great music though.

    On a tangent only marginally related to the topic ... does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words? I don't follow modern music too much but have seen some music videos here and there and it cracks me up how all these new bands play this completely cheesepuff light rock ballad crap and have faux-hawks and punk-ish clothing and slam around like they're belting out hardcore. It's just so silly to see a bunch of guys jumping around acting like they're so tough and like the music is so raw all the while playing Justin Timberlake-esque fluff. I just couldn't do that with a straight face, I wonder how they manage it.

    The Germs were the REAL DEAL, the lead singer would spread peanut butter on his naked chest while cutting himself with a broken bottle on stage. They didn't just looked the part, they sounded the part too, with some of the rawest late-70's-hardcore-punk around.

    Now to the topic at hand - so what. Not every test is 100% reliable. False positives exist. This is a headline story for what reason exactly?

    And for the obligitary Slashdot tongue-in-cheek comment: I don't see how having GHB in soap is helping anyone. If you've already convinced your date to take a shower with you the GHB is kind of redundant ...
    • by mochan_s (536939) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @03:59PM (#18833809)

      ... does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words?

      It's called getting old.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Yoooder (1038520)
        Just because trends and styles change doesn't mean they always change in the right direction. The way I see it is that a few years ago there were metrosexuals, pop-punk bands, and emo bands. They realized that individually they were weak, but together they could hold their own (with the exception of the emo's, they're still looking all sad in the corner.
    • by X43B (577258) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:07PM (#18833881) Journal
      "does anyone else find today's breed to pseudo-punk-acting bands just too funny for words? .....
      The Germs were the REAL DEAL, the lead singer would spread peanut butter on his naked chest while cutting himself with a broken bottle on stage."

      Yeah spreading peanut butter on your naked body while cutting yourself makes you really anti-establishment. :) I bet no one was laughing at that.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by symes (835608)
      Completely agree with your sentiments on 'real' versus 'pseudo' punk. Punk, as I remember it, was partly a reaction against mainstream... mainstream music ("All that phoney beatlemania has bitten the dust", The Clash), authority, etc.. These days, being a bit anti is the new mainstream so modern punk, if it sticks to the founding philosophy, is, by definition, mainstream. Or something like that.

      Now to the topic at hand - so what. Not every test is 100% reliable. False positives exist. This is a headline story for what reason exactly?

      There's going to be some varience here - some tests are better than others. I guess the problem is where yo

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I wouldn't say the germs are the real deal anymore, since their old drummer got caught with soap.

      But seriously, there are real, awesome punk bands out there now... but of course you have to look for them.

      And some old-ish bands never broke up, like Raw Power and Gauze.
    • It's called "pop punk" (which should be an oxymoron, but isn't). It's basically pop music with a very thin veneer of pretend-punk thrown in.
      • Re:Pop punk (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ethicalBob (1023525) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @06:09PM (#18834763)
        No, it's called music (from beethoven to beatles to the circle jerks) - it's all composed of notes, rhythm, chords, etc. And you either like that particular sound (or individual group, or piece) or not - Genres are for those who only feel comfortable dealing with convenient labels, usually to site a close-minded preference "my genre is better than yours"...

        No real punkers call themselves punk - it's the attitude, not the music.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22, 2007 @03:53PM (#18833755)
    Best. Headline. Ever...
  • by GregPK (991973) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @03:54PM (#18833763)
    A very slippery situation. :)
  • by geekinaseat (1029684) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @03:55PM (#18833769) Homepage
    Dropping the soap
  • by MaelstromX (739241) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @03:58PM (#18833795)
    Editors, I wish you'd take five seconds to review what you are putting up. TFA is from April 11 (that's eleven days ago), and since then he has been released [starpulse.com]. A discussion of the faultiness of field testing methods might be in order but you need to properly set the stage for said discussion, otherwise it gets derailed when people get alarmed about the fact that somebody is sitting in jail right now for a mistake and then somebody (in this case me) has to come and point out that the whole thing has actually been resolved.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fermion (181285)
      So, according the parent, it is perfectly acceptable to put someone in jail on faulty evidence. I like this thinking. We can use all our resources arresting and holding persons with no intent of committing a crime, while allowing alleged terrorist to walk free. [suntimes.com] After all the most important thing to make people feel like the government is protecting them, not provided verifiable protection.
      • by MaelstromX (739241) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @05:35PM (#18834545)
        Sorry, while this story is upsetting, I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested, as long as they are not falsely convicted, and as long as the basis for the arrest was honest and without any malice or impropriety. I certainly would like to see the number of innocent people arrested minimized, and in that sense maybe we can learn something about how field testing methods can be less than reliable, and maybe in certain cases their findings should have to be corroborated before they can be used to arrest somebody. I was just kind of annoyed that the detail of "this person's situation has been totally resolved" was not included in the writeup.

        By the way, it looks like this all fell down on him because he consented to a search of his vehicle. Take note, Slashdotters: you will never benefit by forfeiting your 4th amendment right to not be searched without a warrant, and the fact that you're not knowingly breaking any laws shouldn't make you feel like there's no way you can get arrested. Clearly, we've seen this is not the case.
        • by jimicus (737525) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @05:51PM (#18834649)
          Sorry, while this story is upsetting, I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested, as long as they are not falsely convicted, and as long as the basis for the arrest was honest and without any malice or impropriety. I certainly would like to see the number of innocent people arrested minimized, and in that sense maybe we can learn something about how field testing methods can be less than reliable, and maybe in certain cases their findings should have to be corroborated before they can be used to arrest somebody. I was just kind of annoyed that the detail of "this person's situation has been totally resolved" was not included in the writeup.

          Technically, you're correct. But mud sticks.

          What if he wasn't a drummer with a band? What if he was an IT geek with a day job in a "respectable" office like a large percentage of /. readership? Would our collective employers be pleased to know that someone they employed had just been arrested on suspicion of carrying a date-rape drug?

          In many parts of the world, my guess is you'd come home from your short involuntary stint in prison to find yourself out of work with little hope of a reference or of redress. The police "acted properly" by arresting you when they thought you'd committed a crime, and released you when it became apparent you hadn't. Not their fault your employer dropped you like a hot potato.

          What it does do is highlight that some of these tests need to be drastically improved.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by SirSlud (67381)
          Re-read the writeup. Its pretty clear that it was a wrongful arrest, and that the charges didn't (or at the least, were not going to) stick. As for consent: I disagree, although its more an issue of whether you think that forcing their hand to get a warrant is more likely to cause them to want to stick you with something you didn't do. I have a hard time believing that wrongful convictions are not sometimes the result in non-cooperative suspects. If they had a warrant, you have no choice, but in your scenar
          • by zerocool^ (112121) on Monday April 23, 2007 @12:02AM (#18836891) Homepage Journal

            As to the warrentless searching of a car... In the US at least, this is all a moot point if you're a teenager. Despite that a lot of teenagers I know, especially ones who are in their final year of high school and are taking "US Government", probably know as much about the law as many cops, being a teenager is proof of guilt.

            Case in point: I have a friend who has never in his life smoked a cigarette, done a drug, and the only alcohol he's consumed is when he visited an exchange student in Estonia (appearantly, said exchange student's uncle's thought it was funny to make the American toast the old Soviet Republic and drink Vodka). He is now 27.

            When he was 16, he drove a wee little nissan, had long hair, and was in a punk band. He got pulled over on suspicion of being a teenager (as best he could tell, they never did tell him), and they asked to search his car. He said "No way, I know my rights, if you don't have a warrant, you can't search". Know what the cops told him? The fact that he didn't want his car searched was enough suspicion to get probable cause to secure a warrent, and that he'd have to sit on the road side with the cops for 45 minutes while they made out a warrent and got it authorized before he could leave.

            Welcome to the land of if you're young, you're fucked.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sunderland56 (621843)
          I'm not really outraged when somebody is falsely arrested

          You mean, you're not really outraged when someone else is falsely arrested.

          If you were falsely arrested, I bet you'd be extremely outraged.
    • Resolved?! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana (662181) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @05:20PM (#18834435)

      otherwise it gets derailed when people get alarmed about the fact that somebody is sitting in jail right now for a mistake and then somebody (in this case me) has to come and point out that the whole thing has actually been resolved.

      #1, I'm alarmed about the fact that he was arrested, period.

      #2, I'm alarmed that these false positives have been happening for a while, and #3, that it is still presented as valid evidence in criminal cases despite knowledge that it has a high false positive rate. Follow-up tests should be automatic, not a matter of the defendant having money to pay for it.

      How did the cop even get to the point of being able to search the car? Oh, cute. The old "broken taillight" routine:

      Bolles, 51, was arrested on April 4 after being pulled over for having a broken brake light

      The officer got permission to search the vehicle and a field test on a bottle of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap showed positive for GHB, Sailor said.

      Never, never, NEVER agree to a search of your vehicle. Say, "I'm sorry, officer, I do not consent to a search" [youtube.com], and if he says he's going to get a search warrant, LET HIM TRY. It's a scare tactic; if they had a legitimate, constitutional right to search you and your car, they already would have done so- and they certainly wouldn't need your permission.

      Similarly, if you ARE stupid enough to allow a search (or they have a valid reason to search) and find something, SHUT UP. Don't say anything except, "I wish to speak to, and be represented by, an attorney." I don't care HOW much the cop says he'll "go easy" or who he'll "talk to". IT IS A LIE.

  • huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @03:58PM (#18833803)
    What's this "soap" thing you're talking about?
  • by Tatisimo (1061320) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:02PM (#18833831)
    That must be great publicity. This incident will give that brand a reputation as a true, non-failing, anti-Germ soap.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:02PM (#18833833)
    Field kits have to be cheap. You need a fair lot of them. And they're prone to false positives because governments usually want to err on the wrong side (i.e. it's better to have innocent people jailed than having a guilty one run free).

    As long as the labs still use more reliable testing methods, it can at least be cleaned up later. I just hope this doesn't change at least.
    • by geoff lane (93738) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:15PM (#18833943)
      GHB is rare. The use of GHB is rare. Suppose the test kits are 99% accurate. In 1000 tests, there will be 10 false positives. In 1000 people there is probably zero actually carrying GHB. So when some cops jump to a conclusion based on the supposed effectiveness of the test, they are almost always going to be wrong.

      It seems that the test kits are a lot less reliable than 99% in some environments which makes them useless.

      In situations where the event is rare, the failure mode of the test will dominate the effectiveness of the action taken.

      The same faulty thinking is common in anti-terrorism procedures. Actual terrorists are rare and almost every action taken to detect or prevent terrorist acts has a very high false positive rate that makes it useless for the purpose.

      • by hankwang (413283) *

        Suppose the test kits are 99% accurate. In 1000 tests, there will be 10 false positives.

        I understand what you're trying to say here, but I don't think it is meaningful to talk of a false-positive rate for this type of test. It would make sense for a test that specifically tests for the presence of a compound in blood or some other well-defined substance. But how would you define it for a test that is supposed to be used on any material? If the police only uses it for testing soap, the FP rate would be 50%.

      • When you tune your bias towards having fewer false positives you almost necessarily have more misses.

        With drugs I agree that false positives may be more harmful than misses. However in the case of anti-terrorism it is desirable to have false positives at the expense of having fewer misses, because a miss is fatal.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by plasmacutter (901737)

          With drugs I agree that false positives may be more harmful than misses. However in the case of anti-terrorism it is desirable to have false positives at the expense of having fewer misses, because a miss is fatal.

          my what an interesting double standard.. innocent until proven guilty.. except in places of potential loss of life.. so if i accuse you of murder and youre wrongfully imprisoned it will be perfectly ok as long as i'm getting the murderers the other 99% of the time? enough of the "freedom for secu

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by g2devi (898503)
        > In 1000 tests, there will be 10 false positives.

        This isn't necessarily bad. You just need to use the right tool for the right job.

        Imagine, you have three tests.
        Test 1 is cheap and quick, but gives 1% false positives (almost no false negatives).
        Test 2 is moderately priced and a bit bit slower, but gives .1% false positives (almost no false negatives).
        Test 3 is pricey and gives a turn-around time of 1 day, but gives .0001% false positives (almost no false negatives).

        You're in charge of security. You care
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fishbowl (7759)

          >You're in charge of security. You care about letting innocent people free just as much as you care about punishing the guilty and you
          >care about customer service, finances, and efficiency of processes. What do you do?

          I hire people who are intelligent enough to realize that a substance saturated into Dr. Bronners' Soap is not going to be a very useful tool for assault. I also hire people who are responsible enough not to accuse someone of a crime (apparently the thoughtcrime of sexual assault, if you
  • by jameseyjamesey (949408) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:03PM (#18833839) Homepage
    When I was in high school, I would have poppy seed bagels for breakfast every morning. When I turned 16 and started applying for jobs, I failed a few drug test even though I had never done any illegal drug. It caused a lot of stress in my family and was quite embarrassing. Even though my parents believed me, I could always sense it nagged them in the back of their minds. A few months ago I saw an episode of myth busters which proved having just one poppy seed bagel can cause you to fail a drug test. I downloaded the show and sent the DVD to my parents to clear my name.
  • by Joebert (946227)
    This explains why my nympho girlfriend has 5 billion bottles of soap in her bathroom.
  • by sokoban (142301) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:04PM (#18833849) Homepage
    I guess that's for the times when Axe brand shower gel and body spray aren't enough.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The punk group was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and is credited with popularizing mohawks.

    Whoa, whoa, WHOA! B.A. Baracus popularized mohawks, FOOL! That and welding.
  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:11PM (#18833915)
    the mainstream media just can't comprehend the fact that he "really" loves his soap ^_~.
  • by kc8jhs (746030) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:12PM (#18833919)
    This isn't exactly shocking for a county where our local Government, won't issue ID cards for those who have been prescribed medical marijuana. This county loves to be the uptight puritan neighbor to Los Angeles. The state says its okay, but the county is claiming that since the federal government says no, they can't risk getting sued. States rights? Ha. This county is known for its unbelievable government and law enforcement. Recently an inmate was killed in the county jail after the staff told other inmates that he was a suspected child predator. The Sheriffs department insists they did no wrong in this, and there pat answer is more or less, "Who cares, he was a child predator?" and "You can't listen to criminals to tell you the truth, they're people who do things that are wrong anyway." All local press fails to point out that he was never even convicted.

    I don't mind a conservative government, and all, but here it's like being conservative just for the sake of being conservative, instead of any real reason behind the decisions of the local government. Law enforcement in Orange county seems to me, to serve mostly to harass the public, in hopes of catching some illegal immigrants along the way.

    So yeah, this really isn't surprising.

    P.S. In OC, if it had been a 30 y/o MILF in an SUV, she could have had the soap, had it tested positive for GHB, heck she probably could have had pure GHB and pot in the car, and still been able to drive off.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rhizome (115711)
      The Sheriffs department insists they did no wrong in this, and there pat answer is more or less, "Who cares, he was a child predator?"

      I guess now even the Sherriff is exercising Bill O'Reilly logic by ignoring the concept of presumed innocence, since the guy had not been convicted.
  • Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    But of course since it's just soap, when you test it in a real crime lab it comes back negative. ... how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves.

    You mean how many couldn't defend themselves before the lab cleared them?

  • IT topic? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by antdude (79039) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:19PM (#18833979) Homepage Journal
    How is this story related to IT? "IT: The Germs' Drummer Arrested For Carrying Soap" ... Did I miss something?
  • Bronner, not Bonner (Score:5, Informative)

    by ktakki (64573) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:24PM (#18834029) Homepage Journal
    The late E. H. Bronner [wikipedia.org] was a rather eccentric man, but he made damn good soap. Each bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap would be covered with tiny text extolling the virtues of the product along with "healthy Hunza food" and somewhat off-beat religious proclamations.

    Absolute cleanliness is Godliness! Who else but God gave man Love that can spark mere dust to life! Poetry, uniting All-One! All brave! All life! Who else but God! "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!

    Basically, Dr. Bronner's is the Time Cube [timecube.com] of soaps.

    k.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      " "Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One! "

      Compare with Deut 6:4
    • All-One! (Score:3, Funny)

      by tverbeek (457094)
      "Don't Drink Soap! Dilute! Dilute! or Wet Skin Well! OK!"

      In other words, when used as directed, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap cannot be effective as a date-rape drug.
  • Mainstream media is laughable, really. Maybe the little gem at the end is why the story was posted in the "It's Funny. Laugh" department:

    The punk group was formed in Los Angeles in the late 1970s and is credited with popularizing mohawks.

    I've been in the punk scene for ten years now, ever since I was a Wee Little Dissident, and I've never, ever heard this. It's actually rather stupid, when you consider that The Germs were a U.S. band, and the prevailing opinion is that the mohawk as a counterculture
  • A bit off topic, but if anyone hasn't yet tried any of the Dr. Bonner soaps, they really should give them a try. I grew up in a household where handmade soaps (for washing clothes, personal use, etc.) were the norm. As a kid, I thought my parents were weird and chalked it up to being poor. It wasn't until years later that I discovered we were using what others bought as over-priced specialty products from from specialty stores, that's after they became fashionable. It's difficult to describe how good th
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:32PM (#18834095)
    Why they'd test the soap for anything is just plain stupid. Several different soaps, bleaches, and other common household items are used in the military to simulate chemical contamination because they will cause the test kits to go positive.

    Any police getting fooled like that, or even bother to test soap is either an idiot, hasn't even the most basic training in using the kit properly, or is trying to frame someone. (Possibly to get a more expansive search warrant. Assuming they still need one...)

    Doesn't matter if this happened a couple weeks ago and the guy has been released. Kind of like getting arrested for being black in a Benz, and later released with no charges. That #### isn't supposed to happen in the first place and is a major issue. (To put it politely)

     
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ogive17 (691899)
      Soap gets tested because it's quite easy to disguise a dangerous substance as soap.
  • Have you ever seen a bottle of Dr. Bonner's soap? I can see how someone might confuse someone carrying it with some sort of religious fundamentalist. ;)
  • Soap == Napalm (Score:3, Informative)

    by mangu (126918) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @04:42PM (#18834155)
    Basically, soap is the result of treating oils with a strong alkali.


    If you mix coconut oil (palmitic acid) with caustic soda, you get what in German is known as "natrium palmitat", or NaPalm for short.


    Mix that with gasoline and you get something that burns very hot and sticks to the skin. Nasty!

    • If you mix coconut oil (palmitic acid) with caustic soda, you get what in German is known as "natrium palmitat", or NaPalm for short.

      If one were so inclined.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If you mix coconut oil (palmitic acid) with caustic soda, you get what in German is known as "natrium palmitat", or NaPalm for short.

      Ummm, napalm was originally a mix of coprecipitated aluminum salts of naphthenic and palmitic acids.

      Modern napalm is composed primarily of benzene and polystyrene, but the name remains in common use.
  • The Slashdot write-up implies that Dr. Bonner's Soap is known to test positive for GHB, but that's not what the actual referenced article says at all.

    The company, which is used to law enforcement issues because one ingredient is hemp oil -- and field tests sometimes show positive for THC -- hired Margolin, The Times reported.

    Further, the "soap" was in a wooden ("stash") box that Bonner attempted to conceal. Is one's "stash" box normally where one keeps "soap"? Just askin...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ray-auch (454705)
      Look, the guy is in a vaguely (in)famous punk band (now re-formed).

      Of course he is going to hide the fact that he has soap in his luggage.

      What has happened now is exactly what he would have feared. A drug bust would have been par for the course, in tune with the image... but now he is all over the media for being busted with _soap_. Gonna need some serious PR to rebuild his image after that.
  • Wait... (Score:2, Funny)

    by kbox (980541)
    ... When did people in punk bands start washing?
  • Screening tests. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sjames (1099) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @07:34PM (#18835347) Homepage

    The test in question is a screening test. That is, a test that is designed to quickly eliminate the possability of a substance so you don't have to perform the more expensive and time consuming confirmation test. So, a negative result means the substance is not present, positive means it MIGHT be. If the police and/or courts don't understand that, they shouldn't be using the test at all.

    Unfortunatly, apparently the test is marketed for use much as the police used it in this case.

    The other problem in this case is that Bronner's is obviously soap. Just how did they imagine that GHB would even be (ab-)useful after mixing it into soap? What would have even lead them to believe the bottle contained GHB in the first place?

  • by Skreech (131543) on Sunday April 22, 2007 @08:43PM (#18835717)
    Cops look for a reason to arrest. If they "just know" that some civilian is guilty of "something," then obviously they can make a field test return a positive result with soap to give them more time to search or whatever. There's probably a short list of somewhat common materials people may have with them that tests positive on some specific test.

    It's along the same lines as pulling someone over and asking the driver ten different times the basic question "Is it okay to search your car?" In progressively more confusing and convoluted ways because all the driver has to do is slip up once. Then the cop can get on with his job of figuring out what you're guilty of.

    It's like developing a field test for explosives and then being able to arrest someone because their gasoline tank tested positive for highly flammable material.
  • by DynaSoar (714234) * on Sunday April 22, 2007 @10:03PM (#18836157) Journal
    "Makes you wonder what other common household products also test positive; and how many others have been arrested based on faulty test kits who didn't have the resources to defend themselves."

    Drug urinanalysis tests are notorious for false positives as well as true positives for common food stuffs which do carry the drug(s), but in minute quantities. I recall an entire class of substance abuse counselors in training being given surprise urinalysis so they'd know how it feels. They all tested positive, in testing and restesting. The culprit was poppy seed muffins supplied by the organization presenting the class. This was figured out by the instructor. Had it not been, or had this been one or more individuals really being tested for whatever reason, the samples would have been retained and passed to a lab for mass spectrometry. This test is many orders of magnitude more accurate. It absolutely identifies molecules present. It does not indicate the source. They'd have been considered positives, which is guilt by fairly irrefutible evidence, but not considered false positives due to circumstantial evidence. How many? I have no idea, in general. I do know that I, and those I worked with in substance abuse treatment, did inquire into possible sources, knowing of the above. All that I supervised admitted using, after giving bad excuses. I knew of the possible other sources -- they didn't. But then I worked for a facility which was owned by a medical corporation. They had potential liability and so expected us to be careful like this. Testing done by law enforcement and similar organizations are not considered as liable, as they themselves cannot be held as accountable. They can and do jail based on initial testing, even probable false positives and obvious ridiculous positives (how was he going to get the supposed intended victim to ingest enough soap?). However, they can be held accountable, especially in the press. Sad as the case is, this is probably the best chance the individual has for getting just due. With popular knowledge and support, any case would go more his way, and law enforement tends to go Tango Uniform when faced with the prospect. He could get damages if he pressed it. I hope his roasts the bastards.

The first Rotarian was the first man to call John the Baptist "Jack." -- H.L. Mencken

Working...