Monday, May 21, 2007

Hearing - Mon Meier-Augenstein II

As started before, the good Doktor is a large man, who appears to have consumed enough Guinness to result in a large belly hanging over his loose jeans, which are held up by suspenders. A belt would not do the job, only squeeze them down. He has receding grey hair that sticks up in a stiff crew cut.

During the break, he's behind the court reporter, helping her correct technical terms in the official transcript.

BRUNET: Welcome back.


BARNETT: exhibit numbers?

[ YOUNG and BARNETT will take any opportunity to interrupt the flow ]

q: on this slide, why did you circle these points.
a: if you can look at the same time time. sometimes sometimes the mass spec 2/1 trace is not good enough to rely on exclusively. If you have a peak with similar composition as background, you need other data. Similarly, the 44 trace is the same; you need all the data.

YOUNG: slide?

SUH GDC 1313, p 147 148

[ Landis is awake, with eyes wide open ]

Q: 44/45 trace cited by brenna is the reason we shouldn't have co-elution. Does this paper show that isn't enough?
a: the previous slide shows the chormatogram has peaks, but nothing in the 2/1 trace.

[ slide illustrating background subtrationc impacd C13 delta values. "The software will not separate your peaks, and neither will manual processing" ]

a: case 1, overlaps lead to inaccuracy; case 2 baseline slope; case 3, isotope skew with manual processing. If both were really -25, you could appear to get -24 and -26 for adjacent peaks.

BARNETT: slideshow as exhibit?
SUH: yes.
BARNETT: exhibits were due earlier
BURNET: can we get copies in 15 minutes.
BARNETT: complains about note to Weiss.

q: in your opinion, does LNDD BG sub lose carbon isotope information?
a: her's an example from a paper by Dr. Brenna.

YOUNG: [ interrupts over identification ]

slide "the tail of the leading EMG function extends into the second peak, leading to erronesous abundance and isotope ration" (from Brenna)

q: what's happening here?
a: the correction for baseline is cutting away peak information.

BARNETT: [ interrrupts again on ex number ]

q: did you see if these problems exist in other chromatograms

BARNETT: I've never seen direct like this! Improper direct, cites should be present in slide show.

CAMPBELL: you're eating your time.



Anonymous said...

is this document finding objection just a time stall tactic?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

At about 32 minutes into the testimony, Barnett essentially asked for a chain of custody when one of Landis' attorneys went to get copies and Barnett asked to know for information as to their content. Important for his business, but not important for a lab?

Dennis Burton

Brian said...

I keep hearing how Floyd's team is really good, and that they are tearing up the witnesses, but today they look horrible. I am not a lawyer, but if I went to my boss without page numbers on my documents, he would kick me out of his office. Floyd's team is making 1st year law school mistakes here, and using up a ton of time by searching for page #'s during the direct.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

for anon 9:28

Then you are not following the good Dr. comments about the baseline subtraction eating away at the peak and skewing the numbers. The wandering baseline is a huge issue. The GC is very important for the IRMS. and the GC from LNDD is bad so is their IRMS.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sara said...

What is the reason for the recess again? Im having very bad video here..

Anonymous said...

It seems as if things are falling apart for Landis' team, which is not surprising. I think that if I was Landis I would fire my team, start all over (i.e. CAS trial).

Anonymous said...

I hear in the back ground a fat lady finishing her warm up ! She will now start singing bye bye mr American pie .This public hearing is unavailable om line . Its killing the public opinion . Will , you threw more cow pie in the face of Floyd than usada did over the last 10 months ! I hope you burn in hell . Its starting to look like maybe the third place guy from last year will be in yellow in July . the whole sport is crumbling in front of our very eyes .

Anonymous said...

When are Barnett and Young told to sit down and shut up?

Anonymous said...

dont blame will too much, if he is alkoholic, he cant help himself... he is sick. just weird that floyd didnt know about his problem. but stress can make it worse..

Anonymous said...

Dear Rational and Objective Readers,

Ignore the trolls. They pose opinion as fact and play on emotion rather than reason. They thrive on overreaction. Tapping out their hate, while accusing others of being "evil". They have nobody in their lives willing to pay attention to them so they come here to spout unfounded absolutes [i.e., "Floyd has been proven guilty!"] and not-too-subtle hypocrisy ["Will is an evil creep and I hope he burns in hell" (I mean, wow.)].
It's important to learn to spot the trolls early and simply scroll down.