Trashfire MNPublicRecords CHIPS file on Rekieta's 9-year-old testing positive for cocaine - All parties are assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[Al from Dadeville]

>4+ track marks
>9 year old female child tested 5,000 pg/mg for cocaine with a positive cutoff of 500 pg/mg
>all the other degeneracy+neglect
Best case scenario his kid was stealing his coke. Worst case and he ain't doing too good in jail. Sorry Nick, it might be time to reincarnate as a dog in China or cat owned my a menhara Japanese girl.

It's Ball-dover Rekeita kings..

Is he trying to look like an extra from the Shawshank Redemption?

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Is he trying to look like an extra from the Shawshank Redemption?

Could see him asking the guard "Do you Balldo your wife?" and getting chucked off the roof with no beer for the crew.

 

[ddlloo]

Groomers commonly give drugs to the children they're grooming. They're not trying to knock them out. Cocaine makes you horny but even drugs that don't make your horny are still used by pedos to groom children.

The 9 year old lives in a house with 4 other kids. They're going to pick up on it if her father was grooming her into being another one of his personal coke sluts. CPS has had the kids a long time. They have interviewed the kids. Multiple times. One of them would have spoken up about it if the 9 year old's behavior had rapidly changed (which it would if she was constantly being dosed with coke and sexually active).

The grooming, molesting, and pimping fantasies some people in this thread keep coming up with are beyond fanciful. Not to mention gross.

I'll eat humble pie (and throw it up) if he ends up being charged for any of that crap, but the odds of that happening are staggeringly low.

 

[AnOminous]

Nick's bathroom breaks would also be a lot shorter if he had a container of pre-measured coke that he could just snort and return.

He also had to cater to at least two crack whores.

The lack of cocaine around the house, and amount and frequency of use indicated by the hair sample just doesn't support the idea of a 9 year old girl regularly finding misplaced cocaine and using it.

People keep obsessively focusing on this "regularly" bullshit when a single large overdose could easily result in similar test outcome. Just because the results are consistent with regular use doesn't mean there aren't other ways you could get such results.

Theoretically coke should help with dealing with ADHD symptoms, the same way other stimulants do

Their pharmacological effects are totally different. Source: was prescribed Ritalin. Hated it. Absolutely no pleasant effect, although my handwriting instantly improved and I became more docile. I got off it as soon as I could, having actually learned how to study in a normal way while on it. This also happened when I tried meth as an adult. Absolutely no pleasant effect and I went to sleep in less than an hour, while everyone else was wired. Cocaine though had absolutely the same effect as it has on anyone else.

Anecdotes are not data, but there's a reason they don't prescribe cocaine for ADHD.

 

[NicoFountaine]

View attachment 6101576
WTH!!!! IS THIS TRUE!??!?!

If this is true, I hate Nick and Kayla so fucking much. They deserve the rope. I feel sick.

This is not a cope, I believe Nick is a degenerate and he better starts working on fixing himself because those children deserve better. I do believe the kid used cocaine but the value read on the test is bogus.

People who OD with cocaine usually have around 250 mg/L, but that's blood concentration levels. If you do cocaine, whatever concentration you find in your hair was probably a higher concentration in your blood. Remember that the tests look for a metabolite product of your own body trying to get rid of it, but it can only do so fast. That's why you can do a lot of heroin throughout your life, but having too much too fast can kill you. One thing is the irreparable damage the substance causes to your body while it gets metabolized, but there's also the fact that our blood is a very delicate solution whose balance is quite fragile. Having too much of anything in it at any given time causes your organs to fail and leads to death, even water, oxygen, nutrients, glucose, or proteins floating freely in it. So for such a young child to have so much of the metabolite in her hair sounds like she should have been to the ER first.

A cutoff value in this equipment usually means "do not trust any value above or below this threshold," and to understand why, it is necessary to explain how we get the information we want from the analyzed samples. DISCLAIMER: I am not a qualified expert on this subject.

The principle of operation consists of irradiating the processed sample present in a medium. This is not a test where you fire a laser at a molecule and depending on how it reflects, it raises a flag and a variable bool iscocaine = true;. You are not really grabbing the metabolite of interest and putting it on a scale; what you get is a concentration—how much of it there is in the sample. Since you know the initial sample mass, adjusted by some additive noises in the processing itself (more on that later), you can make a rough estimate of the actual mass. But you are not directly measuring it.

Light is nothing but little packets of electromagnetic energy. Because of the curious property of electrical charges themselves, an electrical charge is like a weight over an extended blanket. It extends its influence all over the field and is stronger the closer you are to it, much like planets and gravity, but the charges themselves react to the presence of other charges by attracting or repelling them. Moving charges imply applying some sort of mechanical energy, much like slapping still water. Those waves carry and dissipate the energy of your slaps through the medium. That's literally what light/radiation is, and Maxwell's equations describe how those waves interact in the medium. Essentially, the disturbances of the electrical field due to moving charges induce orthogonal magnetic fields, which through space induce an orthogonal electrical field, and so on, carrying some of the energy being dissipated through the field indefinitely, losing energy as it dissipates through space like an expanding sphere that gets weaker at a 1/r³ rate. Atoms are nothing but packets of charges that react to these disturbances, and in the end, the charged particles in the atoms exchange energy through photons like this. Given that scientists know exactly how these interactions occur, they theoretically know "if you irradiate this particle with this, it should emit photons of these characteristics (frequencies)." So you know exactly how much energy it would reflect back, giving a very specific power spectrum signature, which you use to identify the molecules you are looking for. But it is not like you can sense this power spectrum signature; you pass that light through a lens, focus it on a photosensor, which transduces that into an electrical voltage we can make sense of and due to properties of waves you can mathematically split the signal into an infinitely sum of sinusoidal waves with different frequencies, each one of these sinusoidal signals is a base and by doing a point product between the base and the signal you obtain the portion in which these frequency components project over the base, so you get a scalar coefficient that lets you know how much of that frequency exist on your signal, and by sweeping through all the bases you can map your signal into a frequency spectrum through a Fourier transform and obtain a continuous (or discrete, if the signal analyzed is periodic) frequency spectrum. But since this sum of component signal bases is infinite, you can't really map your entire signal space to a frequency space because you are limited in bandwidth, and this limitation in an on it's own subtract from the frequency spectrum we intent to analyze to identify substances on the medium, this is an information loss, think of it as compression with loss, because you transform a series of time signal samples into a series of coefficients that correspond with one frequency on your frequency map and due to how these things between continuous and discrete domain works, you would need an infinite number of samples, for all time the signal existed (and even before, due to some anti causal properties of signals) which gets you an infinite number of coefficients, each one corresponding to a frequency of a fraction of the frequency you are sampling that signal to (more on that later) so if you theoretically used every frequency your samples mapped, calculated how much of each frequency there is in your sample space added those waves back properly scaled by the coefficient (and phase) you just extracted from the transform you would be able to reconstruct the original signal but with an error, the more samples you get the lower this error is going to be. The point of it, it's this processing itself adds noise to the data you are trying to interpret.

That electrical voltage reacts to the interactions of light in the medium where you perform the test containing the substances you care about. Because of these self-inducing interactions between fields and how waves get absorbed or reflected by other molecules in the medium, their black body radiation itself will send light that will affect the sensor. What's problematic is that the influence of how these fields interact induces and destroys each other, producing reactive effects. Much like slapping the water once, even when you are not applying energy to the system, the energy you introduced continues to influence it until it dissipates into irrelevance. Here, those reactions can interfere because they get added to what you are trying to read. This is the challenge that engineers and scientists designing this equipment face.

Making sense of all that noise is not trivial, and this is where information theory and statistical analysis come to the rescue. What you have here is a communications channel, much like radio systems or a sonar blasting sound through a medium trying to make sense of the reflected noise to map a surface. Here, you are trying to blast a known spectrum of energy (preferably an impulse, like a controlled EMP that has all the frequencies, so you get to know how the medium reacts in every frequency, but that's theoretically impossible) to characterize the medium and the materials you care about and how they behave through time. As it is impossible to extract exactly what we care about, we instead create a model utilizing the statistical characteristics of the information you measured and use that. These are stochastic processes carrying information we care about swimming in an ocean of noise. On top of that, the signal has to be sampled so we can understand it with computers.

Depending on how fast you take those samples, energy faster than your sample rate would continue to contribute to the signals you measure because from the digital world, that's how it looks to you. You are too slow, and the signal is changing faster than you can capture it. It is like footage of helicopters in sync with the camera's sample rate that looks like the rotor is going very slow or not moving at all. That's aliasing, and you will find it whenever you process streams of data that change through time, like a video buffer rendering a video game. In a spectrometer, it is not a cool effect; it is noise and annoying. On top of that, how many bits of information (resolution) the data itself has, how many "levels" it can have also adds noise because having too few levels (bits) filters the number of signals from the real world you can reproduce. Quantifying the data limits the signal bandwidth, meaning your information loses a lot of power to the noise. This is quantified as a signal-to-noise ratio. This is why we cared about bits in video games before; because this gets perceived by you as audible background noise, little colors, etc. That's why we stopped caring about bits after 32 because audio and video at 24 bits generally cover the limits of our perception (I said generally). Since instruction sets tend to be smaller, having instruction buses of more than 64 bits wastes space, so modern architectures often use a special co-processor for vector processing.

The challenge is to understand the signatures of the sample. Due to discrete mathematics, what is continuous in time is discrete in frequency and vice versa. The number of samples you keep at any given time limits you in frequency. Remember, this causal situation has old samples getting added to new samples, and that’s how you do digital filters. The more samples you keep, the more information from the signal you preserve. In continuous time, your signal is limited by bandwidth, but in discrete time, it is limited by memory.

The point here is to grab that sample memory and perform a series of mathematical transformations to extract the information we care about. If you do a digital fast Fourier transform, you perform an extremely complex series of multiplications and additions on the samples in a beautiful butterfly configuration, obtaining the frequency spectrum, which is just doing a base signal change over that signal space and throws back a mathematical function that maps the coeficients I mentioned earlier (this is also sort of how mp3 works, a similar process occur when compressing a WAV which is heavier because it's all a WAV is, samples of an audio waveform, much like vinyls, where the audio wave itself is engraved on a surface where we can reproduce it that's why it's much more efficient just to use the disk space to manage a file system and store files with those coeficients in it and let the mp3 player to remember what waves each coefficient correspond to so we can reconstruct the original audio signal through a speaker ) According to your test, every characterized substance in the medium peaks at different frequencies. But it is not that easy because those signals continue reacting with themselves and the medium, and they are not perfectly linear. Time signal-dependent noise is extremely difficult to filter. Performing all the operations and stimuli to get the best range and resolution at the best cost for your equipment leaves only so many ways it can make sense. Noise is present in all frequencies, including those associated with the substance you are looking for. Even if the sample has no cocaine, the system running by itself with no sample will still show some energy in the spectrum. It is up to your digital signal processor to identify it as noise. In doing this, you continue to distort your original information, affecting the linear operational range. After some concentration level, the data might be useless because it doesn’t tell you anything useful anymore. If the channel is too saturated, the metabolite sample won’t let you register other substances, making you believe you have more of it than you do.

Due to all this uncertainty,, you also need to characterize a typical sample from a human not exposed to the metabolite and establish a threshold. Using some math, you declare, "beyond this point, the chances of it being just noise are less than 5%, so consider it positive." This is the statistical anomaly threshold failsafe, this is were all of these sources of noise I described (plus tons of others I ignore for the sake of not driving myself insane or your with such a long post, I'm sorry guys, hopefully you will find it informative) , coalesce into an additive component to the sample you are taking from the sensor, which in turn is a realization of the random variable you know the statistical characteristics off (that being how these realization behave when taken from human samples of people we absolutely know have no cocaine on their system) most of the noise is uniformly random in nature which means that for every additive contribution by the noise there might be another subtracting from it in equal measure, and by understanding how much signal power density is over the noise you get a pretty good idea of how much your measured samples stray off the real value in you are trying to read in average, that's why these equipment specify an error of any given percentage because it's an statistical mean, but it does not mean that at any given moment, any given sample might have a huge error without you noticing. This is why, when processing statistical information, you discard values too far from the center of mass, because there is a very real but unlikely chance, that all these sources of noise add or subtract constructively resulting in a very large error. Therefore, on these type of signal processing, it’s generally a good idea to distrust values too low or too high. Additionally, there is the OSI Model Layer 8 Factor: human operator being retarded. A botched or contaminated sample could explain an anomalous reading. That's why it is a good idea in situations like this to take 3-5 samples just in case. This is what I believe happened: the kid did use cocaine, but the sample was mishandled, they probably used too little of it resulting in a bogus reading.

I know there's an argument that if that was the case, they would have reordered a test, but these are government workers. They get existential dread at the mere thought of doing their job. Much less would they move a finger if it could benefit the man they are trying to pressure into a plea deal to avoid a trial. and this effectively puts Nick on a double bind, because if he wants to dismiss this as evidence he would have to challenge it in the court system which probably ( I don't know) would imply explaining all this shit to a judge, who may or may not get it, or getting a credited expert witness that can convince him of it. Or I guess he could convince the Jury this was the case and given how complex this shit is may not even be worth it because this is just one little component to the child endangerment charges and even if you manage to convince the jury this results is bogus or even prevent all of this by getting a retest only to generate new court admissible evidence that the kid indeed does cocaine which would fuck him over even more all the while there is an ocean of evidence Nick also has to challenge too, so might not be worth it at all. On the other hand contesting this could mean the difference between doing some real hard time or just getting off lightly with little hard time, a suspended sentence and probation.

tl;dr, Nick is fucked, but there is probably an error on that cocaine test.

 

[Goku 1000000 O]

For the ten millionth time, you don't use fucking cocaine to diddle a 9 year old. I swear some of you are actively retarded.

You can use any addictive drug to create dependency and torque the kids mind.

My thing for why I think there could’ve been diddling is that the Rekietas (really Kayla the most) have a poor sense of boundaries.

We can see that with the polycule bed, how quickly she got close to Aaron, and the suggestion of moving both families in together.

Its fucking weird, and not a safe line of thinking. Add drugs in there and inhibitions get increasingly lowered.

We also don’t what exact personality disorder Kayla has, thats another thing that can create unsafe thinking for kids.

 

[Desktop User2]

People keep obsessively focusing on this "regularly" bullshit when a single large overdose could easily result in similar test outcome. Just because the results are consistent with regular use doesn't mean there aren't other ways you could get such results.

There are probably 2 or 3 people on this thread that can translate the amount reported into consumed or exposed cocaine. There´s also to ponder method of consumption/exposure, time past since the fact, not to mention which type of metabolite was found on the test - the CPS report only cites cocaine, the metabolite talk came from Nick that probably been thoroughly researching a way to weasel out of this one. This devolved into absolute dimwitted speculation and mega ass rape fantasy.

 

[Not A. Yankee]

If Nick can't raise a 9 year old daughter with ADD properly without getting her addicted to Cocaine then how the fuck is he gonna handle an actual Crack Baby?
I really hope for the sake of everyone Involved that April is on some type of birth control.

April's birth control is Nick's ED and the balldo.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

People keep obsessively focusing on this "regularly" bullshit when a single large overdose could easily result in similar test outcome. Just because the results are consistent with regular use doesn't mean there aren't other ways you could get such results.

Right, and differences in metabolism can produce variances in what is detected after exposure to a substance. A 9-year-old girl has some major physiological differences from an adult man or woman.

With alcohol this is especially difficult because some people simply don't produce significant amounts of ETG and the levels detected are independent of the amount of alcohol consumed. Cocaine is more straightforward.

All we know is she was exposed to a sufficient amount of cocaine at some point to have test results like this.

 

[AnOminous]

There are probably 2 or 3 people on this thread that can translate the amount reported into consumed or exposed cocaine. There´s also to ponder method of consumption/exposure, time past since the fact, not to mention which type of metabolite was found on the test - the CPS report only cites cocaine, the metabolite talk came from Nick that probably been thoroughly researching a way to weasel out of this one. This devolved into absolute dimwitted speculation and mega ass rape fantasy.

Indeed, and the posts of those who seem to know what they're talking about have said they actually can get a longitudinal view of patterns of use by snipping multiple hair samples, separating them out by how old the hair is, going down to the follicle, and separately testing them, but that doesn't appear to have been done here. It probably isn't economical to do that unless there's a really important reason to know the specifics. So "consistent with regular use" could very well also be "consistent with one very large dose" if they just obliterated the entire hair sample to see what it contained.

And others pointed out that while they test for metabolites, the violent process of destroying the sample to examine its contents also obliterates actual cocaine, resulting in many of the very same compounds that are metabolites. I'd assume there's some difference in the proportions, but I have no clue what those would be.

But as far as I know, every hypothesis is still on the table, from "cocaine on the hair" to "a single large dose" (you know because nursing your nine year old over a cocaine overdose is just something that happens "when you're a dad"), to the more extreme and ridiculous ideas of a nine year old diving nose first into a mountain of cocaine like Tony Montana, or Nick being such an absolute fucking mongoloid that he thinks cocaine would work for ADHD or teething pains or whatever.

Is he trying to look like an extra from the Shawshank Redemption?

He's trying to look like one of the "Sisters" who raped Andy Dufresne.

I'll eat humble pie (and throw it up) if he ends up being charged for any of that crap, but the odds of that happening are staggeringly low.

That's why I'm not even going to speculate on that. First, I just don't even want to go that direction and it's pretty creepy if someone does, but second, if it did happen, it's coming out. It would be inevitable.

 

[Desktop User2]

Indeed, and the posts of those who seem to know what they're talking about have said they actually can get a longitudinal view of patterns of use by snipping multiple hair samples, separating them out by how old the hair is, going down to the follicle, and separately testing them, but that doesn't appear to have been done here. It probably isn't economical to do that unless there's a really important reason to know the specifics. So "consistent with regular use" could very well also be "consistent with one very large dose" if they just obliterated the entire hair sample to see what it contained.

And others pointed out that while they test for metabolites, the violent process of destroying the sample to examine its contents also obliterates actual cocaine, resulting in many of the very same compounds that are metabolites. I'd assume there's some difference in the proportions, but I have no clue what those would be.

But as far as I know, every hypothesis is still on the table, from "cocaine on the hair" to "a single large dose" (you know because nursing your nine year old over a cocaine overdose is just something that happens "when you're a dad"), to the more extreme and ridiculous ideas of a nine year old diving nose first into a mountain of cocaine like Tony Montana, or Nick being such an absolute fucking mongoloid that he thinks cocaine would work for ADHD or teething pains or whatever.

Yeah, the main relevant point is his daughter was exposed directly or indirectly to cocaine and that´s UNDENIABLE. All this talk about false positive, mistaken identity or whatever is moot. He didn´t ask for a new test - I dont even know if he could - or else he would be parading his huge W over the gooberment, CPS wont care to do it since they already have conclusive results from the first one and this thing will only become legally relevant again if his child endangerment charge gets upped to a felony as you said.

Edit: *exposed directly or indirectly to cocaine above the detection threshold

 

[Dyn]

Yeah, the main relevant point is his daughter was exposed directly or indirectly to cocaine and that´s UNDENIABLE.

All the most innocent scenarios are off the table but I still think there is a massive difference between his kid getting a little cocaine in her hair at some point and his kid actually ingesting a significant amount of it, both in terms of his apparent fitness to parent her and his potential criminal liability.

 

[Desktop User2]

All the most innocent scenarios are off the table but I still think there is a massive difference between his kid getting a little cocaine in her hair at some point and his kid actually ingesting a significant amount of it, both in terms of his apparent fitness to parent her and his potential criminal liability.

That´s what I said, it will be relevant again when it comes time for his criminal trial. The "never happened" scenario is out of the window since he doesn´t have a counter test or else he would have mentioned to Null instead of talking about metabolites and that sample is already gone. He can never credibly say his daughter was not exposed to relevant amounts of cocaine.

 

[darkprince56]

He was full of righteous indignation in Tuesday's stream huffing about not owing anything to anyone because he hasn't done anything requiring an apology.
The only people he owes an apology & explanation to are his children, but that would require something he seems to be incapable of: remorse, humility & accountability.

 

[Himedall All-seeing Waifu]

April's birth control is Nick's ED and the balldo.

With the revelation that April told Aaron that Nick has to 'take breaks' during intercourse 'because of his heat allergy', I just know there is a joke there for this natural birth control strategy...

Coitus interruptus infernatus or maybe Coitus interballdocus?

 

[IAmTheBooky]

"Let me get a baby so he has to take care of me for the next 18 years" is so obvious even a crackwhore can figure it out.

If she is smart enough for that logic, she should be smart enough to see the future legal costs Rackets will have on top of the 100K bond and the pedo lawsuit.
The real logical solution is to jump ship and go have crack babies with someone that can actually keep the coke in her nose and not inside of a child.

 

[Gorbus]

When I was talking about this case with the friend I mentioned previously, who has relevant career experience in these kind of cases, and they immediately brought up grooming, just based on the one kid pinging for cocaine and consistent drug use in the house. I'd not even mentioned anything about Drexel, Nick's weird resentment about his parents not being sexual enough with him, the sex dungeon situation, the association with Dick Masterson.

I am still not sure that I believe he's molesting his kid or anything, but before that conversation it wasn't even something I'd considered.

I think the most likely story (if the test is accurate) is still that he was doing balldo medicine magic on his kid's ADHD. But idk that I'd consider the other option to be completely off the table either. I hope it fucking is though.

 

[Mourning_Cloak]

My "skitzo theory" if you could even call it that, is that the person who leaked the court document here is an extremely and understandably infuriated Rekieta relative (bio or in-law) that is also a Farms lurker.

 

[Balldo]

tl;dr, Nick is fucked, but there is probably an error on that cocaine test.

Well, that was quite a text wall, guess we know what happened to Rekieta's hidden coke stashes! Or maybe somebody is trying to train an AI system to have Downs Syndrome?

But as far as I know, every hypothesis is still on the table, from "cocaine on the hair" to "a single large dose" (you know because nursing your nine year old over a cocaine overdose is just something that happens "when you're a dad"), to the more extreme and ridiculous ideas of a nine year old diving nose first into a mountain of cocaine like Tony Montana, or Nick being such an absolute fucking mongoloid that he thinks cocaine would work for ADHD or teething pains or whatever.

Yeah, in the purest statistical, theoretical sense, "cocaine on the hair" is still a possibility. However, keep in the mind that the only reason we are still discussing the "daddy pat with coke-encrusted hands" theory 133 pages in is because people early on didn't understand that hair tests are just part of a normal procedure and they thought that coke was visibly spotted on the hair and that is why the testing happened on the hair. As I said in my previous post, they should be proud of not knowing how any of this works as it indicates their limited exposure to hard drugs. But we came at this entire premise in an ass-backwards manner with the "test disrespectors" not even understanding what a hair test is or that it wasn't specifically being used to test coke visibly found on the girl's hair.

Sure, in an extreme theoretical scenario, a kid COULD absorb enough through their scalp to test that high. But that would be a LOT of coke! Coke that would be more enjoyable for Rackets if he snorted it right off his fingers. So, yeah, still "on the table" but at a tiny fraction of likelihood compared to the "kid got into the stash" or "coke is great for kids with ADHD" theories.

Also, just wanted to Imholte my own personal anecdote about kids and coke that I shared and dribble out a few more details. When I was 10, I hung out with a couple brothers who would sneak pinches from their mom's coke stash. They would rub it on their lips and called it "the Freeze". I did it one time with them and thought it was neat. It felt like on the level of kids learning about helium balloons. The idea of snorting it never occurred to us. I never did it again, but I know they did it other times. The main regulating factor keeping them from being hopeless addicts? Fear of their mom finding out that they were snaking her stash. She was a violent woman who would hit them for much smaller offenses. Luckily they moved away at the end of the school year and I never saw them again. Heard that the older one (my best friend at the time) later became a gang member. (since this is Kiwi Farms and assumptions will be made, Race=Italian)

So let's stop with the idea that an 8/9 year old kid (daughter of a parent who was once smart enough to pass the bar and have a successful media career) could not a) figure out that "coke is fun" b) learn how to do a "freeze" or worse, figure out that snorting is even more fun c) be smart enough to know that using too much would draw attention from the four crazed junkies living in her home and end her party. If the two brainlets I knew could figure it out, then his daughter could also figure it out.

 

[MrShekelstein36]

Hard disagree. If an option exists to permanently take out bad individuals, you take it. Getting rid of bad people so they can't present future problems for others is always worth it.

See, that is where I disagree. The reason being, death is for pedos, rapists, and murderers. Those who make children suffer deserve to suffer worse than whatever they inflicted on the children. They deserve to know the fear, sadness, and pain they caused to the kids. Hopefully leading to a slow and painful death.