Bachelor 19 - Chris Soules - Discussion - #3

Ash2214 wrote:

mizzoufan wrote: As far as I know alcohol stays in your stystem for days

Correct. Alcohol can be detected in one's system through a urine test up to 3-4 days later, sometimes even longer that that. I don't know when Chris was tested though as I haven't read anything.

Yes, but when it comes to the EtG testing, even if it shows that your body has metabolized alcohol in the past 80 hours, it doesn't tell you when the alcohol was ingested, so it's pretty useless for the purpose of investigating a possible DUI. I'm sure loads of people have had a drink in the last 4 days. That doesn't mean they've driven drunk. If they did indeed perform that test on Chris and there was absolutely no sign of him having had alcohol recently, then obviously that would prove his innocence without a shadow of a doubt, but I'd be surprised if that was the case, since he doesn't strike me as someone who goes several days without a drop of alcohol. And on the other hand, if he did test "positive" for the EtG test, then it could've been because of drinks he had three days prior, so it doesn't really give any answers. That's why I don't know if they would've used that test. I would think their main concern is trying to find evidence of a possible crime, for which purpose that test is useless. JMOAA.

mindless wrote:

Ash2214 wrote:

mizzoufan wrote: As far as I know alcohol stays in your stystem for days

Correct. Alcohol can be detected in one's system through a urine test up to 3-4 days later, sometimes even longer that that. I don't know when Chris was tested though as I haven't read anything.

Yes, but when it comes to the EtG testing, even if it shows that your body has metabolized alcohol in the past 80 hours, it doesn't tell you when the alcohol was ingested, so it's pretty useless for the purpose of investigating a possible DUI. I'm sure loads of people have had a drink in the last 4 days. That doesn't mean they've driven drunk. If they did indeed perform that test on Chris and there was absolutely no sign of him having had alcohol recently, then obviously that would prove his innocence without a shadow of a doubt, but I'd be surprised if that was the case, since he doesn't strike me as someone who goes several days without a drop of alcohol. And on the other hand, if he did test "positive" for the EtG test, then it could've been because of drinks he had three days prior, so it doesn't really give any answers. That's why I don't know if they would've used that test. I would think their main concern is trying to find evidence of a possible crime, for which purpose that test is useless. JMOAA.  

So basically regardless he is guilty? Ok. Good to know.
There are very accurate tests to tell if someone has ingested alcohol. Alcohol screening is reliable. It is up to law enforcement to utilize those tests as needed and under the right circumstances. Was it determined those tests were not run and which ones were?
IMO we are best dealing with the raw facts.

Kashathediva wrote:

mindless wrote:

Ash2214 wrote:

Correct. Alcohol can be detected in one's system through a urine test up to 3-4 days later, sometimes even longer that that. I don't know when Chris was tested though as I haven't read anything.

Yes, but when it comes to the EtG testing, even if it shows that your body has metabolized alcohol in the past 80 hours, it doesn't tell you when the alcohol was ingested, so it's pretty useless for the purpose of investigating a possible DUI. I'm sure loads of people have had a drink in the last 4 days. That doesn't mean they've driven drunk. If they did indeed perform that test on Chris and there was absolutely no sign of him having had alcohol recently, then obviously that would prove his innocence without a shadow of a doubt, but I'd be surprised if that was the case, since he doesn't strike me as someone who goes several days without a drop of alcohol. And on the other hand, if he did test "positive" for the EtG test, then it could've been because of drinks he had three days prior, so it doesn't really give any answers. That's why I don't know if they would've used that test. I would think their main concern is trying to find evidence of a possible crime, for which purpose that test is useless. JMOAA.  

So basically regardless he is guilty? Ok. Good to know.
There are very accurate tests to tell if someone has ingested alcohol. Alcohol screening is reliable. It is up to law enforcement to utilize those tests as needed and under the right circumstances.  Was it determined those tests were not run and which ones were?
IMO we are best dealing with the raw facts.

I did not say anything about him being guilty, just that I personally doubt the tests they performed 5-6 hours later are totally conclusive, but that is just my opinion. It's certainly not my fault he walked off. I was reading about the EtG testing earlier because I was wondering and all the info I read straight up said it's only really used to monitor people who are not supposed to be drinking at all for legal or employment reasons, because it doesn't tell you when the alcohol was ingested, or if it was ingested at all on purpose. Here's some more info: https://www.verywell.com/widely-used-etg-test-for-alcohol-unreliable-80212

I don't claim to be an expert, I was just reading about this stuff earlier today.

mindless wrote:

Kashathediva wrote:

mindless wrote:

Yes, but when it comes to the EtG testing, even if it shows that your body has metabolized alcohol in the past 80 hours, it doesn't tell you when the alcohol was ingested, so it's pretty useless for the purpose of investigating a possible DUI. I'm sure loads of people have had a drink in the last 4 days. That doesn't mean they've driven drunk. If they did indeed perform that test on Chris and there was absolutely no sign of him having had alcohol recently, then obviously that would prove his innocence without a shadow of a doubt, but I'd be surprised if that was the case, since he doesn't strike me as someone who goes several days without a drop of alcohol. And on the other hand, if he did test "positive" for the EtG test, then it could've been because of drinks he had three days prior, so it doesn't really give any answers. That's why I don't know if they would've used that test. I would think their main concern is trying to find evidence of a possible crime, for which purpose that test is useless. JMOAA.  

So basically regardless he is guilty? Ok. Good to know.
There are very accurate tests to tell if someone has ingested alcohol. Alcohol screening is reliable. It is up to law enforcement to utilize those tests as needed and under the right circumstances.  Was it determined those tests were not run and which ones were?
IMO we are best dealing with the raw facts.

I did not say anything about him being guilty, just that I personally doubt the tests they performed 5-6 hours later are totally conclusive, but that is just my opinion. It's certainly not my fault he walked off. I was reading about the EtG testing earlier because I was wondering and all the info I read straight up said it's only really used to monitor people who are not supposed to be drinking at all for legal or employment reasons, because it doesn't tell you when the alcohol was ingested, or if it was ingested at all on purpose. Here's some more info: https://www.verywell.com/widely-used-etg-test-for-alcohol-unreliable-80212

I don't claim to be an expert, I was just reading about this stuff earlier today.

What I was saying is from your statement

he doesn't strikes me as someone who goes several days without a drop of alcohol.

he appears to be guilty of drinking whether he was or was not, regardless of testing.
I used to do both alcohol and drug screening testing for pre-employment screens, rehabs, etc. It's very accurate depending on test and what it's looking for.  I can't imagine a police department or law enforcement doing less, but maybe.

Well I don't think anyone's "guilty of drinking" if they have a beer at the end of the day as long they're not driving while having it. There's nothing to be guilty about in that scenario, yet it can still give a positive result on an EtG test the following day. That was my point, not that Chris is some alcoholic. I hope they did do some tests that conclusively showed he wasn't drinking at or right before the time of the accident. I was just talking about the EtG test because it was brought up in the thread.

Considering law enforcement would want to see if alcohol was involved with this accident since that would be crucial information, I would assume he was tested very, very shortly after they got a hold of him those 5-6 hours later once they got the search warrant.

I stated what I did because simply, the article states no alcohol was found in his system. The more in depth tests can show alcohol in the system up to 3-4 days later and traces of alcohol can't be completely wiped out of your system in just a few hours. If he was drinking then the tests, whether it was the EtG or another one, would have shown that he was. I really only brought this up since I saw comments about us not really knowing if he was drinking since he avoided law enforcement for a few hours. JMO

The recent articles are all quoting a document filed by Chris's attorneys rather than the actual report by the Iowa DCI, which is why I'm not taking every word as the absolute and whole entire truth. Not to say that they're lying, just that the words they used are their interpretation of the report and carefully selected, I'm sure. "The DCI conducted thorough toxicology testing on two separate samples — his urine and blood — and conclusively determined no detectable amounts of alcohol or drugs were in either specimen." could just mean that there was no ethanol in his blood or urine at the time of testing. EtG tests a metabolite of alcohol rather than ethanol itself, so strictly speaking you could still say there were no detectable amounts of alcohol in the specimen even if the EtG test was positive. I'm sure this seems like I'm purposely finding fault, but I just don't trust the media or lawyers at this point, especially with the whole BIP mess going on, so I'd rather hear everything from the horse's mouth so to speak. According to this article "A representative for the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation wasn’t immediately available for comment Friday afternoon. Neither were any representatives for the Buchanan County Attorney's Office." so no such luck I'm afraid.

I think i'll take their word for it, no offense.

This is one where I will keep my opinions to myself. But, having grown up in a small town with a well-established family....he will walk. **JMO**

I wonder if him making them wait for a warrant 'helped' him.

IMO, if his attorneys are correct in their statement and that no alcohol was found in his system and he was tested through both a urine sample and a blood sample then those 5-6 hours wouldn't have made a difference. Even with the most basic urine tests, alcohol can be detected in one's system 12-36 hours later depending on how much alcohol was consumed.

IMO, If Chris was drunk, the only thing those 5-6 hours might have done for him would have been to put him in a clearer state of mind if he was consuming water and food. It wouldn't have wiped out every single trace of alcohol in his system IMO.

With my limited knowledge of these tests due to working in a school district with an excellent social work system, you can even check through a salvia swab and that's usually good for up to 10 or so hours.

It will be interesting to see what more comes out. So sad all around.

His big shot attorney already got his past misdemeanors taken off the plate - so the jury can only judge him for this one accident. He has a History. Whatever.
ETA just my opinion.