Started By
Message

re: UPDATE: Body found in Brian Laundrie search

Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:08 pm to
Posted by Rebel80
Member since Sep 2016
262 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:08 pm to
Supposedly not far at all.. across the creek
Posted by WuShock
Metairie
Member since Aug 2018
1403 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:09 pm to
quote:

Supposedly someone saw him getting gas in Wyoming at 11pm august 30th


I appreciate the clarification. For some reason I thought I had seen that was the 29th for that. But if it was the 30th, then the driving timeline is definitely questionable! Appreciate it!
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
75025 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:10 pm to
quote:

people were saying somebody was out in a field?

It is highly unlikely what people think they are seeing in that video is someone with a shovel digging a hole.
Posted by Gravitiger
Member since Jun 2011
12424 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:10 pm to
quote:

Using dogs to locate a body is fine as you actually find evidence.
No, it's not. It's just an end-run around PC that you can't get via actual reliable investigative methods.

Finding evidence on the back end does not justify an unlawful search (except for inevitable discovery).
This post was edited on 9/19/21 at 8:11 pm
Posted by LSUgirl4
Member since Sep 2009
39501 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:11 pm to
quote:

Those dogs
what do you mean “those dogs” … hm? german shepherds?
Posted by BuckyCheese
Member since Jan 2015
57778 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:11 pm to
quote:

A dried out snow melt creek may be a little more conducive than typical ground around there. Probably terrible still but a little easier.




With all the rock in the soil a pick would do more good than a shovel.
Posted by Vegas Eddie
The Quad
Member since Dec 2013
6063 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:11 pm to
quote:

No, it's not. It's just an end-run around PC


Can you show us where the dog inappropriately touched you ??
Posted by thermal9221
Youngsville
Member since Feb 2005
15097 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:12 pm to
Enough about the dogs.
JFC
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
39203 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:12 pm to
quote:

quote:
I’m confused. You’ve never smelled marijuana?

Nope. Never.

Now, I need you to prove that I have.

No I need to prove that you didn’t. And you are a trained law enforcement officer whose testimony is subject to cross examination.
Posted by GreenRockTiger
vortex to the whirlpool of despair
Member since Jun 2020
60508 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:12 pm to
quote:

There is no way for an officer to prove in the court of law that he smelled something. Using that as probable cause is just bullshite.


Just like a cop who says you’re speeding and doesn’t have the radar gun out.
Posted by TigersSEC2010
Warren, Michigan
Member since Jan 2010
38440 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:12 pm to
All of you take your police gripes to a different thread.
Posted by Barstools
Atlanta
Member since Jan 2016
11805 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:13 pm to
Different incidents.

A witness called in that he saw the couple fighting, not on video.

The cops find the van and see it hit a curb where she admitted to hitting him, on video.
This post was edited on 9/19/21 at 8:14 pm
Posted by GeauxldMember
Member since Nov 2003
5687 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:13 pm to
quote:

Probably aiding and embedding a known fugitive.




Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
39203 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:14 pm to
quote:

Finding evidence on the back end does not justify an unlawful search (except for inevitable discovery).

A search of a creek bed is an unlawful search?
Posted by BuckyCheese
Member since Jan 2015
57778 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:14 pm to
quote:

Using dogs to locate a body is fine as you actually find evidence.
No, it's not. It's just an end-run around PC that you can't get via actual reliable investigative methods.

Finding evidence on the back end does not justify an unlawful search (except for inevitable discovery).



My example was talking about finding an actual dead missing body out in the woods. Like in this case.

Thought that was pretty clear.

Claiming a "hit" in the van with no body would be bullshite.

I also agree with you that the typical walk the dog around the car to gain entry to the car to be bullshite and an illegal search.
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
75025 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:14 pm to
quote:

what do you mean “those dogs” … hm? german shepherds?

Black Labs Matter.
Posted by tgrbaitn08
Member since Dec 2007
148031 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:15 pm to
quote:

what do you mean “those dogs” … hm? german shepherds?



Not all of them are German Sheps
Posted by ItTakesAThief
Scottsdale, Arizona
Member since Dec 2009
10731 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:15 pm to
Those creeks are full of rocks.

There may be a shallow sand bar here and there, but mostly alluvial rock.
Posted by LegendInMyMind
Member since Apr 2019
75025 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:16 pm to
quote:

No I need to prove that you didn’t. And you are a trained law enforcement officer whose testimony is subject to cross examination.

I need you to prove to the thread that you smelled apple pie on the third of August of last year.
Posted by Pisgah Pete
Buncombe County
Member since Feb 2021
602 posts
Posted on 9/19/21 at 8:17 pm to
Her body was found within 100 ft, maybe 100 yds of their camp site.

Spread Creek was a popular spot, so busy that the YouTube family who caught the white van on video couldn't find a spot.

Obviously if her body was not buried it would have been ripe after a week and you would think someone would have smelled it and reported it.

How deep would you have to bury a body to mask the decomposition stank?
Jump to page
Page First 162 163 164 165 166 ... 549
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 164 of 549Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram