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.

[Lubby Smith]

If CPS and the DA are solid on the test results, the Child Charges will be raised to felonies. No question.

I doubt it. Minnesota's neglect and endangerment felonies require "substantial harm to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health."

There's likely no way of showing physical harm and prosecutors aren't eager to put 9 year olds on the stand to testify about how cocaine use affected their mental and emotional health.

In some states it's a felony to put kids at a substantial risk of serious harm, and it's used all the time in situations like this. But this is Minnesota, a state so pozzed that it's only a misdemeanor for a parent to knowingly permit the sexual abuse of their kid.

 

[Atomic Ant]

GC (gas chromatography) is ALWAYS (99% sure) hot as fuck, and MS is at best a giant shitshow. Not that it's inaccurate, just that you answers look like this

GC is the method by which the chemicals are separated and MS is the method by which their weights are measured. It's the best method for trace detection that chemists have (and is interestingly still beaten by a hound dog's nose by a factor of about 100). It should be no surprise that GC/MS would pick up (the weights of) both chemicals if she had cocaine in her system and probably there are tabluated ratios for how much of each chemical you would expect post-metabolism.

edit: its good for this purpose to think of GC/MS graphs as giving a 'fingerprint' of a certain substance. Any one peak on the graph represents the weight of a fragment of a molecule. But when you're testing for cocaine metabolites (or anything of this nature) what youll find is a bunch of telltale fragments of related parts of molecules, all in an expected ratio.

 

[Desktop User2]

There's likely no way of showing physical harm

I think the high dosage of cocaine would be characterized as physical harm...

 

[Spycrab]

Agreed.

And, honestly, if that information comes to light, then 25 years in prison isn't enough for Rekieta.

Really hope that sexual abuse charge was a mistake but at this point..

 

[Lorne Armstrong]

I doubt it. Minnesota's neglect and endangerment felonies require "substantial harm to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health."

Feeding his 8 year old daughter enough coke to test not just positive but 10x the cutoff sounds substantial to me.

 

[S1apSh0es]

Is it possible it could have stayed since January?

I’m no expert, but my roommate was a chemistry major and the other was a bio major.

As they explained it to me is like this: if you shave your head, then do drugs once, and then grow your hair out much longer (like that of a girl), only the ends of your hair (the oldest) will test positive for drugs. The higher up (newer hair) will test clean.

The stereotype is that convicts, addicts and parolees often shave their heads to avoid hair frug tests.

 

[Redhook]

I don't think CPS is a branch of the criminal justice system. If the tests are correct, it really doesn't matter if Nick is convicted. The environment is still unsafe.

CPS cases are handled through the courts.

 

[feral cat #6385]

I doubt it. Minnesota's neglect and endangerment felonies require "substantial harm to the child's physical, mental, or emotional health."

There's likely no way of showing physical harm and prosecutors aren't eager to put 9 year olds on the stand to testify about how cocaine use affected their mental and emotional health.

In some states it's a felony to put kids at a substantial risk of serious harm, and it's used all the time in situations like this. But this is Minnesota, a state so pozzed that it's only a misdemeanor for a parent to knowingly permit the sexual abuse of their kid.

it's a wonder lax laws like that don't prompt an extrajudicial response.

 

[McSneaks]

kill yourself

This is a guy that hasn't had cocaine. Calm down and just enjoy your 9-5 squaro

 

[JustStopDude]

I’m no expert, but my roommate was a chemistry major and the other was a bio major.

As they explained it to me is like this: if you shave your head, then do drugs once, and then grow your hair out much longer (like that of a girl), only the ends of your hair (the oldest) will test positive for drugs. The higher up (newer hair) will test clean.

The stereotype is that convicts, addicts and parolees often shave their heads to avoid hair frug tests.

I do steel mills, oil refinery, and other industrial work.

They take the sample from our arm pits.

 

[Faggitory]

Would anyone care to ask Nick's most ardent defenders why it was OK for a nine-year-old to test positive for cocaine?

She didn't just test positive, but way hot. 500mg was the cutoff on that hair follicle test. Audryrose's level was over 5000. She just turned 9 years old last week, BTW.

I'll never understand how people like Nick aren't so ashamed of themselves that they either change their lives for the better by themselves, or pay money to have people fix them. I used to like Nick, but my god, he's fallen.

 

[Redhook]

My first thought was that the kid might have been present in the room when mum and dad were smoking crack. That'd leave deposits on the hair.

Is hair testing kids a normal thing in the USA? Hair testing is an expensive and slow procedure. I'd have expected them to urine test the kids first, and then hair test them if a positive result showed up.


I believe they can do both. If they find the drug in the absence of metabolites, that's an indication of external contamination rather than consumption.

https://resolution.org.uk/the-review/archive/the-review-issue-214/hair-drug-testing-untangled/

There wasn’t any crack or crack pipes in the house and Nick wouldn’t be caught smoking a drug that poor people use. He prides himself on getting the purest cocaine available in MN.

 

[Mourning_Cloak]

I know Minnesota is pozzed but is the State really gonna come down hard on whoever leaked this (if they can find them) if they won't even take away Nick's driver's license?

 

[HTTP Error 404]

I'll never understand how people like Nick aren't so ashamed of themselves that they either change their lives for the better by themselves, or pay money to have people fix them. I used to like Nick, but my god, he's fallen.

Why would he be ashamed of himself? He's literally perfect. If you think he did something wrong, or there's something wrong with him, then obviously you're in error, because he's literally perfect -- and you aren't.

 

[Daddy's Angry Juice]

I'll never understand how people like Nick aren't so ashamed of themselves that they either change their lives for the better by themselves, or pay money to have people fix them. I used to like Nick, but my god, he's fallen.

refer to the last 900 posts that call him a sociopath, thats not a joke thats what it is, like it or not.

 

[eDove]

refer to the last 900 posts that call him a sociopath, thats not a joke thats what it is, like it or not.

It takes a certain type of person to become a lawyer in the first place.

 

[Taser Confetti]

Isn't the fact that she's ten times the detectable minimum indicate this was habitual usage? I don't see how this doesn't indicate she wasn't being intentionally dosed by adults.

 

[TheClappening]

Yeah. According to Nick nobody ever envisioned that people who broke a law could be charged and convicted of having done done so in any court.

This is sovereign citizen thinking. That US courts have no jurisdiction over individuals. That the idea of criminal courts themselves is either illegal or unconstitutional.

Nick has moved past libertarian thinking all the way to crazy town.

I don't completely disagree with him.

Criminal courts are bringing the almost unlimited resources of the government to bear on a single individual, with the aim of taking away that individual's liberties. It's why the state has so many things stacked against it: They are presumed wrong (defendant is presumed innocent), they must follow strict rules, like preserving constitutional rights and Brady evidence, and they have the high burden of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's why it slightly irks me when you have a defendant accused of some heinous crime (i.e. kid diddler, mass shooter) and people mock the defense attorney, saying something to effect of "wow, how can you defend a pedo/murderer?"

That's the wrong way to look at it. The defense isn't there because he would love to see a child toucher get let off. He's there because he's making sure the government is crossing their Ts and dotting their Is.

If you let the government play fast and loose with someone else's rights, it means they can do the same to yours.

 

[David Brown]

Any one peak on the graph represents the weight of a fragment of a molecule.

Well, the mass to charge ratio anyway. Which is why it's a spectrum.

edit: fuckin colon followed by the letter c is an emote lol
AND ALSO A COLON FOLLOWED BY PARENTHESIS FUCK

 

[trash cat]

https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/43/7/543/5423761

View attachment 6103835

Somebody who understands science better than me should look over the whole thing, they've narrowed down the metabolite ratios that suggest ingestion vs contamination, but if you get coke in your hair I'm gonna go ahead and guess that a bath probably won't get it out.

The study you linked is fascinating. Thanks fren.

I can do a deep dive later, but the gist of the study is that a lab was able to "fool" a hair test by having people rub cocaine in their hair and leaving it untouched for 48h.

Surprisingly the scalp and hair produced some cocaine metabolites that are typically only produced in the liver. Even more surprisingly these cocaine breakdown products persisted for up to eight weeks.


Note that the BE/COC ratio actually climbs (!!!) from below the 0.1 ratio cutoff (negative) at week one to above the 0.1 ratio cutoff (positive) three weeks after cocaine powder was applied to participants hair. Wild.

Could accidental cocaine contamination be what happened with Nick's daughter's hair? According to this study, yes it's possible. My own personal opinion is I think she ingested it , but if this study is valid, then hair contamination is a scientific possibility, however remote.

She would have had to have rubbed something like 20mg powder cocaine in her hair, and left her hair unwashed 48 hours or more.

There is a way, conveniently provided by the study authors, to differentiate between a contaminated hair sample and an authentic cocaine ingestion hair sample.



Note the highlighted lines containing cocaine metabolite ratios with extremely high sensitivity ( >0.98 ) and especially specificity ( =1.0 ). These ratios are definitively predictive of cocaine ingestion and can easily distinguish any contamination.

This poweful statistical prediction is achieved by calculating the following three cocaine metabolite ratios and comparing them to the cutoffs provided in the table.

• p-OH-COC/COC

• p-OH-BE/COC

• m-OH-BE/COC

These three metabolic ratios will give a fully definitive answer, because each one's specificity is so high (1.0), and therefore false positives are nearly impossible by definition.

My challenge to Nick Rekieta is if he believes the government test is in error, that Nick immediately commission an independent hair test, and publish these three key metabolite ratios (p-OH-COC/COC, p-OH-BE/COC, and m-OH-BE/COC), along with all other concentration data and lab results to clear his family's name.

However , I think Nick knows or suspects his daughter ingested cocaine, so he won't commission and publish an independent test with this state-of-the-art information.