[www.abcactionnews.com]


Mr. Atwater almost gets what’s going on. He attributes the lab’s problems to a lack of documentation. That was part of the problem, and was the reason that for 5 years, the ASCLD-LAB assessors failed to see the erroneous methods. They were never written down.

The other part of the problem, and the real heart of the matter, is the lab’s use of invalid methodology to identify gasoline. Here is the most damning quote from the ASCLD-LAB assessment team’s report:

The laboratory’s approach of using distorted extracted ion profile ratios coupled with an abbreviated selection of target compounds for identification of gasoline in case data dominated by the sample matrix, as described by analysts in interviews and alluded to in the data provided in the case files reviewed, is not accepted in the scientific community.

And later,

…the issue is that the interpretation methodology being employed by the laboratory is an undocumented, unvalidated protocol that is not generally accepted in the scientific community.

The lab chief’s response to the report was that the assessment team was simply being “too conservative.”

The Appeal Board found this argument unpersuasive.

John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[www.firescientist.com]