You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
🗑️ TrashfireMNPublicRecords 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.
Apologies if this has been addressed somewhere but I was looking at the satellite imagery of his property and was having trouble understanding the scenario.
Where is the second house in relation to the main house? There doesn’t appear to be another house on the same lot. Is it the house directly adjacent to the main road, on the lot to the north?
Apologies if this has been addressed somewhere but I was looking at the satellite imagery of his property and was having trouble understanding the scenario.
Where is the second house in relation to the main house? There doesn’t appear to be another house on the same lot. Is it the house directly adjacent to the main road, on the lot to the north?
People in your random small town church tend to not get involved with your business because there's the general 'keep it to yourself' small town stance that means you gossip like fuck but only privately.
For multiple people to think he had such critical issues they had to go to the authority figure to air their concerns (in this case the pastor and/or cops) it means it was DIRE.
Sorry for the phone posting…
What I’m asking specifically is if the house circled in red is the rental house in question. I understand Nick’s house to be the yellow one.
It seems odd to me that you’d have different ownership for the red/blue houses, given their proximity, that’s all.
Sorry for the phone posting…
What I’m asking specifically is if the house circled in red is the rental house in question. I understand Nick’s house to be the yellow one.
It seems odd to me that you’d have different ownership for the red/blue houses, given their proximity, that’s all.
Typical bullshitters trick. Exaggerated strawman and then attack the strawman.
The only members of Nicks audience that are still scrubbing the Balldo are fucking dumb and gullible enough to believe it without question.
Sorry for the phone posting…
What I’m asking specifically is if the house circled in red is the rental house in question. I understand Nick’s house to be the yellow one.
It seems odd to me that you’d have different ownership for the red/blue houses, given their proximity, that’s all.
Are you thick? Have you tried typing the address into Maps and using the satellite image layer at the same time?
The one on the bottom (that conveniently matches his address in the OP) is the current house and the one on the top is the old house (that conveniently matches his old address in the OP).
Sorry for the phone posting…
What I’m asking specifically is if the house circled in red is the rental house in question. I understand Nick’s house to be the yellow one.
It seems odd to me that you’d have different ownership for the red/blue houses, given their proximity, that’s all.
@Watching Rekieta posted a screenshot of the GIS parcel containing the old house (the rental house). The new house is a couple of properties down, although it shares a property line due to the oddly-shaped parcels, the parcels in-between indeed being owned by different people.
(The parcel immediately behind his new property is owned by US Fish & Wildlife Service, not an individual)
edit: the buildings you circled in red and blue are both located on the property to the south of Nick's driveway, parcel 27-805-0020 in my screenshot.
Dont know if this was the procedure in Rackets case but they say after a positive, it passes through a confirmatory stage:
The first step involves an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test, which is a rapid screening method.
"If the ELISA test produces a positive result for a particular substance, a technician will retest the hair sample using confirmatory chromatographic testing, such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), to help rule out false positives." https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325013#what-is-it
Interesting new matter of public record attached. There's a quite a few notable tidbits in there but one oddity especially stood out: considering that the state in their June 26th "Initial Disclosure" (previously here at post #111,393) had disclosed to the Rekietas something described as "Children - segmented hair tests" already, wouldn't this July 5th "Supplemental Disclosure" to the Rekietas of "hair test - children" seem rather redundant? Or could it be that it's not redundant at all, because new results from the long-awaited retest came back and need to be disclosed? But surely that can't be the case, because then surely Nick would now be busy waving around that proof of a prior false positive to own the haters, would he not? Unless...
One wonders why this specific phrase appeared in. . .documents.
I'm sure we just don't know anything because we're morons and Nick has humongous facts that show we're morons to think he actually exposed his daughter to cocaine. He'll go to the wall where he's shot to bloody rags saying the same thing, I'm sure. And I don't mean in Minecraft, I mean in a perfect world. Because we're not living in that world.
One wonders why this specific phrase appeared in. . .documents.
I'm sure we just don't know anything because we're morons and Nick has humongous facts that show we're morons to think he actually exposed his daughter to cocaine. He'll go to the wall where he's shot to bloody rags saying the same thing, I'm sure. And I don't mean in Minecraft, I mean in a perfect world. Because we're not living in that world.
It says segmented hair tests, it sounds from that like they aren't simply re-testing the hair, they are cutting it down in segments to be tested individually, probably to try to determine whether the positive result was a result of a single "accident" or not.
It says segmented hair tests, it sounds from that like they aren't simply re-testing the hair, they are cutting it down in segments to be tested individually, probably to try to determine whether the positive result was a result of a single "accident" or not.
This is probably why Nick is desperately trying to hide these things. He knows the segmented hair tests would make him look exactly like he is, a dude who allowed his 9 year old daughter, who he called his favorite, to have access to cocaine for an extended period of time. Why did he do that? Why does he insist he has evidence to prove he isn't what he obviously is, despite the fact that allowing his daughter to be exposed to cocaine for a lengthy period of time makes him look like an absolute monster?
There is no sane explanation for this. Nick is, in fact, an absolute monster.
This is probably why Nick is desperately trying to hide these things. He knows the segmented hair tests would make him look exactly like he is, a dude who allowed his 9 year old daughter, who he called his favorite, to have access to cocaine for an extended period of time. Why did he do that? Why does he insist he has evidence to prove he isn't what he obviously is, despite the fact that allowing his daughter to be exposed to cocaine for a lengthy period of time makes him look like an absolute monster?
There is no sane explanation for this. Nick is, in fact, an absolute monster.
It says segmented hair tests, it sounds from that like they aren't simply re-testing the hair, they are cutting it down in segments to be tested individually, probably to try to determine whether the positive result was a result of a single "accident" or not.
In the interests of fairness to Rekieta, IF it is possible for contact contamination to produce a GC-MS/LC-MS positive for metabolites which according to the study linked by Dyn, referenced here by trash cat it would be
Unless examining specifically the ratios of second order metabolites like para-hydroxycocaine and para-benzoylecgonine, a segmented test is no better at disambiguating contamination from use than a full section test. If you smear cocaine on the hair you should expect it to be found on a patch of hair, not just in a short segment, which on a segmented test would indicate a long period of use.
This is the only study any user has put forth so far which actually investigates the difference in metabolite ratio between external contaminant cocaine and cocaine use, and its results seem suggest there can often be ambiguity between the two IF working by the pre-2021 Society of Hair Testing guideline which suggests confirmation by ratio of BE/COC which this study indicates is actually one of the least definitive metabolite ratios.
As you can see while the averages differ there's huge overlap, the statistical analysis indicates specificity (proportion of true negatives) of 0.1 on this ratio i.e. only 10% of contamination cases examined on this ratio will be identified correctly as contaminations. This rises to 0.57 at a cutoff of 0.1 but that's not the cutoff the old standard used and is still not very good.
The study recommends para-hydroxycocaine and para-hydroxybenzoylecgonine as more definitive because in the cohorts examined, analysis of these ratios had a sensitivity (proportion of true positives) and specificity (proportion of true negatives) of 1.0, i.e they correctly identified uses from contaminations in 100% of examined cases.
The question is whether Minnesota Monitoring has updated their methodology to respond to relatively recent literature, or they are still using the BE/COC standard. If they use the BE/COC standard I think Nick could get a relatively cheap expert witness (read: not charging the lying fee) to come into court and confidently state that external contamination is highly plausible in this case based on current literature.
As I type that I realize it's weasel wording so I'll come out and say it, I believe based on this study that external contamination is highly plausible given the facts of this case. Allowing Nick the benefit of the doubt that he is a sloppy coke fiend who smears drugs in his 8 year old daughter's hair, it's very possible based on the information we have access to that his 8 year old daughter did not ingest coke.
Unless somebody wants to go in and interview a representative of MM Inc. on their exact testing methodology for the cocaine hair GC-MS/LC-MS assay, we can't be sure at this time that they're using a method which gives consistent negatives for contaminated hair samples.
bish, just lie and/or create exaggerated versions of events and extremist versions of alog narratives, you unnahstan bish?
