[ltc8k6]

The hair test would have found GHB.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12570228&dopt=Abstract


A controlled human administration of 25 mg/kg to a volunteer demonstrated that a single exposure to GHB is detectable in hair after segmentation. In a case of rape under influence, a clear increase of the corresponding segment (about 2.4 ng/mg) in time was observed, in comparison with the other segments (0.6 to 0.8 ng/mg). This study demonstrates that a single exposure to GHB in a case of sexual assault can be documented by hair analysis when collected about one month after the crime.

[Locomotive Breath]

See prior. THAT'S what I was looking for and could not find. GHB does not wash out of hair. Thanks.

[JLS]

This study demonstrates that a single exposure to GHB in a case of sexual assault can be documented by hair analysis when collected about one month after the crime.

I take this to mean that when he said no tox screen was available, Nifong:

1. was hiding that the was still scrambling for evidence at that late date

2. was hoping to spring a positive date rape drag test on the defense later.

I am a bit surprised they did not have her take the drug and then test positive for it. And a positive test that could not be dated fairly precisely would be meaningless since the drugs in question also have recreational uses.

[JLS]

This study demonstrates that a single exposure to GHB in a case of sexual assault can be documented by hair analysis when collected about one month after the crime.

I take this to mean that when Nifong said no tox screen was available, the hair was still at the lab and he was:

1. trying to hide that he was scrambling to get any evidence still

2. and hoping to spring at date rape drug on the defense at a later time.

I am bit surprised DPD/Nifong did not have her take a date rape drug and then test her hair. Of course since such drugs have recreational uses, a positive would have been meaningless.

[pepperhead]

This study demonstrates that a single exposure to GHB in a case of sexual assault can be documented by hair analysis when collected about one month after the crime.

Alot of these medical test are great but I think this one is begging for someone to abuse it. Someone could claim they were drugged and raped one day, then the next they could go take some GHB. If this got in as evidence in some rape case I hope they have more evidence to go along with it. If not, I don't see how evidence collected a month after the incident could survive a appeal.

[Ken H]

This study demonstrates that a single exposure to GHB in a case of sexual assault can be documented by hair analysis when collected about one month after the crime.

From Mike Nifong's post #322:

Gottlieb was looking for a lab to do testing on 4/27 in his handwritten notes, but - get this - Nifong leads the Newsweek reporter to believe that he had tests showing she had a Date Rape Drug in her system before 4/24, when this piece was printed in Newsweek:

So the Herald Sun was being deliberately misleading when they wrote:

Negative results, he [Dr. Shannon Miller] said, don't necessarily mean no substances were used. That's because some drugs can wash out of the body quickly, he said, also citing the importance of the timing of the test.

Bottom line - the expert was refering to urine samples. A negative hair sample from CGM does indeed mean no date-rape drug was used. The Herald-Sun is busted.