Analyst Murtagh: Seized Sample used as Secondary Standard Infrared Test: This same analyst compared an infrared test on sample 991662, exhibit 67, that he had collected on 28/06/99, or 30/06/99 or perhaps 01/07/99, (from the evidence given the correct date is uncertain), with a reference spectrum, exhibit 68, and testified that it was almost a perfect match for methcathinone hydrochloride. He said he compared them visually by looking at the number of peaks in the fingerprint area, their relative size and the exact location of those peaks and differences he put down to a slight difference in calibration of the two machines. The sample and the literature reference were at different scales. He was later to agree that for the sample and the standard to match, the peak numbers would be the same or within a few wave numbers. There was a discrepancy of 26 wave numbers between corresponding peaks for the sample and reference standard and analyst Murtagh put that down to the tests being performed on different machines but did concede that a margin of 26 wave numbers was significantly more than he would expect. He also agreed that all of the major peaks to the left of the fingerprint area were outside the tolerance range and the discrepancies within the fingerprint area he said were minor and offered problems with the calibration of the machine and/or contamination as a possible cause. This analyst did not compare each of the sets of peaks but compared them visually looking at the overall appearance of the peaks. Analyst Murtagh agreed that if both machines were calibrated properly then the difference in peak numbers could indicate a different compound and that he could not exclude that possibility. For an infrared test to be effective, the substance to be tested needs to be practically pure and although this analyst never performed a quantitation test for this sample’ he claimed: “...I’m looking at the GCMS of exhibit 69 and to my eye that does appear to be very close to as pure as you can achieve.” He was later to state: “They are not absolutely pure to the exclusion of all other materials.”  The defense analyst said that an infrared spectrum serves as a unique fingerprint of a specific compound if it is pure or as the AFDL Manual states, practically pure.   GCMS Test: On the same day, 01 July 1999, this analyst also performed a GCMS test on this same sample, which became exhibit 69 and compared it to the Journal of Forensic Science literature standard, exhibit 70, and declared them a match. This same sample that became this analyst’s secondary  standard (exhibit 69), showed a number of ions which he agreed were not found in his standard for methcathinone in particular the 115 and 159 ions and this analyst said they were so small that he “didn’t regard it as necessary to consider their consistency or inconsistency with  methcathinone.” The defense expert said that the 115 ion is inconsistent with methcathinone whilst this AGAL analyst said this did not mean that there was no match, but that these ions may have been the result of an air leak or contamination. However, their reproducibility in several of the other samples run in this GCMS test made him concede that perhaps it was something other than contamination ‘a fragment, breakdown fragment or recombination fragment.’ When shown the Beynon Tables he also agreed that there are 26 substances listed that contain the 115 ion, none of which is ‘methcathinone’. The defense analyst said that when comparing the sample and the literature standard analyst Murtagh would have noticed that the relative ion intensities are at odds with methcathinone, e.g. in exhibit 69, the sample, the second most intense ion is the 56 ion and that’s not true for methcathinone. Analyst Ballard was asked to give his assessment on analyst Murtagh’s tests on this sample and gave his opinions contained within the following statements: “...By looking at that spectra in which you have pointed out  the 51 and 77 the rest of the spectrum is entirely too different to Methcathinone so there is no way I could possibly confuse one with the other.” and a little later: “...Perhaps if I had some sort of a reference to compare it to, I may but, just looking at it I couldn’t give you any idea of what it was.” (Day 62, Pages 3469 - 3470)   Analyst Murtagh said that the major reason for performing the mass spectrum was to obtain a reference retention time to enable him to use sample 991662 as a secondary standard Analyst Murtagh disagreed that on receiving the curator’s standard it would have been prudent to re-test sample 991662, in order to assess its validity as a secondary standard.   TLC Test: On 18 October 1999 this analyst performed a TLC test on an array of samples, including sample 991662 with the methcathinone standard, and under cross examination did agree that he had failed  to mark a solvent front which meant that the retention factor (RF) could not then be determined. Sample 991662 did not give any spot on the TLC plate. The following question and answer were given in relation to the TLC test of this sample: Q: There’s no reason to believe, as it were, that with your experience in setting up TLC plates you would be so inexpert, as it were, as to fail to put a sample on the plate? A: Sadly, I think that is also a possibility. and a little later - Q: Let me put this to you Mr Murtagh that the formal result of this test, as it were, in relation to 991662 is that methcathinone was not shown to be present in 991662, do you agree with that? A: That is a way of reading that result. In a number of tests run by this analyst, sample 991662 was used as his secondary methcathinone standard, e.g. he compared exhibit 69, GCMS test on 991662, with the GCMS test result for sample 991666 and again for exhibit 77, GCMS test result for sample 991665. Further, having received the methcathinone standard analyst Murtagh ran a GCMS test in relation to it on 14/10/1999, he testified that he compared that too with exhibit 69, the GCMS test result for sample 991662.