The same emailer who looked at chromatograms with us a few weeks ago has looked at the peak identification question, and finds himself unsatisfied with LNDD's eyeballs.
UPDATE: Retracted due to error. The author concludes:
Yes, nevermind. I thought I had found the simple, but overlooked. It is time for me to shut up and listen.
We leave it around as a reminder to be careful.
If you like, pass on these simple spreadsheets and graphs. It is my understanding that the log of the retention time should be compared on an isothermal GC.
[Ex 84 sample 85424 spreadsheet; and Ex 86 sample 85428 spreadsheet]
I think these graphs should show a straight line fit through the best peak assignments. If so, it appears that the LNDD peak assignments may be more likely wrong than correct.
Of course, we have already shown a lack of consistency in peak heights between the two machines, and peaks moving around relative to each other.
Time didn't permit further investigation across other samples, but please let me know if this is useful.
Look in Ex84 (References to handwritten page numbers)
1. Page 70 [LNDD 707] identifies the compounds in Mix Cal Acetate 001C to include 5b Androstanol and 5a Androstanol AC
3. Page 68 [LNDD 705] identifies the retention times on F3. The peak at 1265.6 is ignored. Peaks at 1329.1 and 1359.1 appear to be identified as 5b and 5a, respectively.
4. This is very convincing evidence that the peaks are mis-identified. Notice that if the F3 peaks at 1265.6 and 1329.1 are the real 5b, and 5a peaks respectively, the retention time more closely matches the cal-acetate than does the F3 peaks LNDD appears to call 5b and 5a at 1329 and 1359. Also notice the similarity in the difference between the 5b and 5a peaks.
Thus, if these observations are correct, and apply to all samples, this is very convincing evidence that Landis is truly innocent.
This observation is consistent with your earlier overlays related to the Retention Times discussions, and my graphs from yesterday.