To JusticeIsServed (aka Forrest Gump):
"Stupid is as stupid does"
Are you even reading the news?
Yesterday the director of the entire state lab 'retired' and today the executive director 'resigned' (press release by Governor Hickenlooper and on other news channels).
Didn't a previous post say there's more to the story?
Tuesday I was forwarded an awesome support letter by a highly degreed and esteemed (clearly out of your league) toxicology professional, in support of Cindy. Yesterday I read 3 letters and today 2 more. Each from highly respected toxicologists.
By the way.. if I'm Cindy, I don't forward letters to myself! HAHAHA!!
I'm leaving this rag for more intelligent interaction.
I am not Cynthia Burbach.
You are a moron.
However, I did get quite a laugh out of your rant and your mistaken conjecture as to my identity.
I am an individual who does has 100% direct knowledge of the entire situation and has all the names of all of the intelligent people I mentioned in my prior post, who also have more knowledge than you do about the situation and Ms. Burbach.
Thank you for posting your ignorant and misguided comments.
It is refreshing to know that that you come from a lower intelligence level, so we should not expect intelligent posts by you.
While KDVR posted libelous statements regarding the report that they linked in their article, at least they have several intelligent posters on that site, who know what they are talking about.
To SexyGirl26 - Do you know Ms Burbach? Do you have inside info? I would guess not. Read CO District Attorney's Council's statement (wonderful and accurate). Are you aware that there are defense attorneys in full support of her, judges, too, highly respected and revered toxicologists and even co-workers? Stay tuned. You're missing parts of this story.
Regarding the comment: "Ms. Burbach retired after being relieved as program manager of a Laboratory whose credibility she destroyed"
How do you know this, Coloradowrits ...aka Vincent Todd?
Does the report specifically state this?
Don't project your own unethical behaviors that got you disbarred in the first place and prohibit you from being reinstated, onto someone else.
Some of your other "facts" are also inaccurate.
Not surprising, given your lack of professional legal status.
Defendents suspected of driving under the influence have 2 blood samples drawn.
That 2nd sample is provided to the individual to be re-tested by an independent lab.
Defense attorneys know that their client has 2 samples and that their client can
have that 2nd sample tested elsewhere.
So, no one's lives are at stake, because a lab didn't attain a higher "voluntary" accreditation.
If people fail to take advantage of their 2nd blood sample for testing at a different lab,
then the fault lies with themselves and their defense attorney.
There are many very simple reasons (not failures) for a lab not reaching the higher voluntary accreditation level.
It only means the lab doesn't put that extra "feather" in their "testing hat."
As long as the lab is still meeting all good laboratory practices and standards, the lab continues to perform testing and testimony and doesn't have to remove their "testing hat."
The only "scandal" that is apparent here is that some defense attorneys might not fully inform their clients of their 2nd sample for testing by an independent lab.
Re: "More to the story..."
You can make up any story you want if you have that mentality, or you can educate yourself:
Clinical toxicology laboratories are subject to federal law including mandated options
for accreditation (CLIA) and forensic toxicology laboratories are subject to varying levels of voluntary (did you catch that word? "Voluntary") accreditation.
The difference being, if a "clinical" lab performing testing for patient treatment, fails accreditation, they can no longer perform clincal lab testing on patients. That is not the case for forensic toxicology labs, where testing is not for patient treatment.
And yet another fact that may need repeating: People retire after lengthy service to their employer (20, 25, 30 years) for a variety of reasons, such as caring for aging family members, spending time traveling, etc. Should tread lightly when making false assumptions and connecting the dots incorrectly. Only makes you look foolish in the end.
Regarding "Shouldn't a failure to gain accreditation indicate a need for new leadership?"
Answer: No. ABFT accreditation by forensic toxicology labs is not required in the state or the USA.
Thanks for sharing the joke, Mr. K!
Appears to apply to disbarred attorney's, too.
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation