Search
  • Stephen Biss

Response Drifts Over Time


Purpose:

To establish that the hypothesis by the ATC/CFS, that any drift in instrument response (what Hodgson describes as significant drift in accuracy and precision over time) will always be caught by a single point control test, is not supported by any empirical study.

To establish that there is no study abstracted in Wigmore on Alcohol that establishes the ATC/CFS hypothesis empirically.

To confirm that the new calibration curve created after a re-calibration compared with the old calibration curve prior to recalibration can move up, move down, move sideways, or rotate in either direction around an axis that may or may not be at 100 mg/100mls.

Q. Mr. Palmentier, did you find any other scientific literature that we should be looking at? A. I didn’t. I just thought about it a lot, and so what can happen with the calibration curve whether it’s a breath testing instrument, or a instrument that’s used in our lab for measuring concentrations of drugs, the calibration curve can shift either up or down, left or right, or as you said, it could potentially pivot around an axis point or any axis point. But once the calibration is set, it’s fixed and doesn’t changed. So for the Intoxilyzer 8000C, right, you – the manufacturer, as you said – described, would run a series of standards and then run the program to get the calibration curve and then that is fixed. That doesn’t change. That doesn’t drift. But what does drift is the response of the instrument and that’s what you’re measuring when you’re doing the calibration check, the stand-alone calibration check, is you’re checking to see whether or not the instrument response has changed over time because again, there’s never been anything shown that the calibration shift – the calibration shifts in any kind of direction, but that the response of the instrument could potentially shift and so the issue is that you’re checking it with that standard. And again, in addition to that, during the diagnostic checks the instrument runs what’s called an I-T-P, and internal test procedure which is an electronic internal check of the calibration of the instrument. So, you have an external standard which has been certified by the Centre of Forensic Sciences, as being accurate for use for checking the calibration of the instrument, plus you have the instrument’s own internal

electronic check of the calibration. And if it’s outside of the acceptable range, then again, it fails and won’t allow testing to proceed. Does that cover? Q. I think so. A. Okay. Q. Um, I can tell you that – do you know this book Wigmore on Alcohol? A. Yes.

Q. All right. Mr. Wigmore’s a very respected scientist for many years at the Centre of Forensic Sciences? A. Yes, he was there when I... Q. And elsewhere. A. ...first started, yes. Q. All right. A. I’ve even written papers with him. Q. The – I just want to show you the inscription of the book at the front. A. Okay. Q. You can read it if you want. A. “To Steven Biss, everything you wanted to know about alcohol, Wigmore on Alcohol, courtroom toxicology, Jim Wigmore, C-L-A Conference, Toronto October 30th, 2015.” Q. Yes. But as far as you know, there’s nothing in this book of an empirical study talking about what you described. A. Correct. There’s never been any presentation presented nationally or internationally with respect to the calibration of either the Intoxilyzer 5000C or 8000C shifting. Q. Right. Now, you just talked about.... A. With time. It’s a hypothetical but it’s never, ever been....

#calibration #linearity #crossex

0 views

© 2019 Allbiss Lawdata Ltd. All rights reserved. This is not a government web site.

 

 

For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: Allbiss Lawdata Ltd., 303-470 Hensall Circle, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5A 3V4, 905-273-3322. The author and the participants make no representation or warranty  whatsoever as to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.  WARNING: All information contained herein is provided  for the purpose of discussion and peer review only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from a properly retained lawyer or attorney. 

WARNING: Please do not attempt to use any text, image, or video that you see on this site in Court. These comments, images, and videos are NOT EVIDENCE. The Courts will need to hear evidence from a properly qualified expert. The author is not a scientist. The author is not an expert. These pages exist to promote discussion among defence lawyers.

 

Intoxilyzer®  is a registered trademark of CMI, Inc. The Intoxilyzer® 5000C is an "approved instrument" in Canada.
Breathalyzer® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc., Breathalyzer Division. The owner of the trademark is Robert F. Borkenstein and Draeger Safety, Inc. has leased the exclusive rights of use from him. The Breathalyzer® 900 and Breathalyzer® 900A were "approved instruments" in Canada.
DrugTest® 5000 is also a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc.. DrugTest® 5000 is "approved drug screening equipment" in Canada.
Alcotest® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc. The Alcotest® 7410 GLC and 6810 are each an "approved screening device" in Canada.
Datamaster®  is a registered trademark of National Patent Analytical Systems, Inc.  The BAC Datamaster® C  is an "approved instrument" in Canada.