Tests used in Analysis: a) Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometry (FTIR) b) Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) c) Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) d) Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)   The Science: Analyst Murtagh: Procedures Ignored 1: Police applied for warrants they knew to be illegal under the Listening Devices Act, and their illegality was conceded by the crown on day one of trial - the illegality concerned the use of an integrated audio/video device and the trial judge allowed them into evidence at his discretion. The significance of the warrants here is the date they were executed. Government analyst Vincent Murtagh accompanied police in the execution of these warrants dated 29/06/1999, something he had been doing over a period of eight or nine years. Later in evidence he produced results of an Infrared test (IR) on a substance (sample number 991657) purportedly collected under the warrant and this was computer dated 28/06/1999 -an entry in his workbook confirmed that date. As the trial judge noted in his summing up to the jury, this analyst claimed: “...that the machine which produced the documented analysis (exhibit 65), had a problem with times and dates and he had made comments at AGAL about this several times”. However no written record of these comments was produced and his notebook for that date was blanked out. The Director of AGAL, at the time, Zoran Skopec, supplied a written statement in which he claimed that AGAL computers and instruments were serviced and maintained regularly, he made no mention of computers printing wrong dates. This test was not produced by Mr Murtagh at the committal hearing nor did he issue a certificate of identification for this sample. Further this test result was not supplied to the defense and was in fact obtained when, via the Legal Aid Commission, I was supplied with a Bench Copy of the brief of evidence in error. Analyst Murtagh did agree that the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) standards require documentation in relation to times and dates. Further, an entry in the police case officer’s diary on the 28/06/1999 mentions PIP which was the opinion given by this analyst as to his IR test when compared with a literature standard on that date. Coincidently, a police officer involved in surveillance activities for the period 27/06/1999 to 30/06/1999 failed to mention his observations for that period, with particular emphasis on 28/06/1999. His explanation for that omission was: “Because sir, I had prepared another statement in respect of all my surveillance activities concerning this matter which I am now informed has gone missing.” The original annexure, the original photographs and the tape recording attached to the above mentioned statement all went missing. The following transcript from the trial further muddies the waters, as it were, concerning the 28 June 1999:- Defense Counsel: Do you remember what you wrote in your report to the authorised justice on 29 June? Det. Scholtes: No Defense Counsel: You said: “Chemicals consistent with those used in the manufacture of the prohibited drug methcathinone were located along with a typed recipe for same. Also located were a number of items of scientific glassware and equipment consistent with those used in the manufacture of prohibited drugs. Nil property seized apart from small samples taken there, three chemicals.” Do you remember that? Det Scholtes: Yes. Defense Counsel: The word methcathinone at that stage, when there had been no preliminary analysis and as I understand it you had no real information to be able to make such a categorical statement? Det Scholtes: I based that upon the advice given by Mr Vincent Murtagh.   2: Analyst Murtagh took custody of the suspect substance from the Castle Hill police station at about midnight on 02/07/1999 and was accompanied to the AGAL laboratory at Pymble by Detective Senior Constable G. Ballard. The detective gave evidence that he parked at the front door of the laboratory building and that he did not enter the building only that, “Mr Murtagh took the exhibits inside and entered them as he would do.” The following excerpt from the transcript is from Detective Senior Constable G. Ballard’s evidence-in-chief: Crown Prosecutor: So, after you went inside with him, what did you do? His Honour: I’m sorry? Crown: You went inside with Mr Murtagh. His Honour: Did you go inside? A: No. As I said, I parked out the front door. Mr Murtagh took the exhibits inside and entered them up inside the laboratory. Crown: How do you know that?  A: Well, Mr Murtagh left the car with the exhibits in his possession, he went inside the laboratory and came out without exhibits and we finished our duties. Crown: Did you go into the laboratory that night at all? A: From memory I didn’t, no. Crown: You can’t recall whether you did or not now?         His Honour: He said he didn’t. (Day 48 - Pages 2546/2547)   3: This analyst, under cross examination, conceded that some of his activities with the investigating police had gone outside what was normally expected of a forensic analyst but also claimed his assistance to police was in accordance with standard practice. Whether the problems concerning the date, 28/06/1999, were a coincidence, or a conspiracy is unknown but it must be noted that analyst Murtagh moved to the employ of the NSW Police Forensic Services Group approximately six months after our arrest. Whilst his joining the police service in itself is not a problem, it, together with those matters mentioned above, muddy the waters, as it were, as to the independence of this analyst.   4: In direct contradiction of the AGAL manual, analyst Murtagh issued certificates of analysis for samples on which he relied in court that were undated, unsigned and unwitnessed. e.g. certificate for sample numbers 991659-991667 that became MFI 51 was tendered in evidence and he was unable to give an explanation as to why. This analyst deemed it unnecessary to produce a certificate for sample number 991657 / exhibit 65, because:  “...I believed those items importance was superceded by a later seizure of other items...” Those items to which this analyst refers are the seized substances later analysed by the AGAL analyst Ballard. Coincidently, this sample 991657 is the test result computer dated 28/06/1999 mentioned previously.   5: Analyst Murtagh stated that there was only a slight difference between the so called Russian recipe and the Castle Hill/Parke Davis recipe. When comparing the two recipes, analyst Murtagh failed to note that the Parke Davis recipe had been amended to effect an aldol reaction thus creating a different substance. The following is an excerpt from the cross examination of analyst Murtagh: Q: There is one major difference isn’t there? A: I cannot see it. Perhaps you could draw my attention to it and I might then be aware of it. The Merck Index states that an aldol reaction is a reaction of ketones where a ketone reacts with itself to form another material. Once an aldol reaction occurs it cannot be reversed, that is the end products would be different compounds.