Search results

After a 2nd (slightly different) records request - I received a phone call today from the GHC DC - Saying they'd already responded to the first request .. Which i never received. It seems it was uhm lost in the mail or something.

This is the second article in recent memory that one might summarize as just *****ing. There's increasingly little good that comes from it. Complaints should be addressed internally. Not using (a) local paper as some type of forum.

Maybe this helps shed light on what the locals trying to help deal with.

We went to several dump sites today that were in just ridiculous condition. Multiple+ carcases at each one. Just sitting right off the road. Abundance of trash. All quick pull off areas. I don't understand how they are just left that way. Nothing about any of the sites were legal or easy to just...

scandi: the update was the inserted line "Article originally published on September 25, 2009." (a correction) - As far as them also stating it was mistaken.. the article itself isn't mistaken .. the republishing & date was. Expecting them to mention error on their own part outside of the updated...

I filled out, mailed & faxed that to them on the 16th. Nothing so far

Still waiting on an official response to records requests. I believe it's somewhere between being rejected & the shredder.

I wanted clarify my use of the word 'hit' The handler did not give his dog Lindsey's scent. I'd directed him (per instruction) to the area to be searched. I was with him @ the beginning of the search & trailed for a little while. I was not with him when his dog found (what turned out to be)...

^- :/

I believe that News Tribune article is from Sept & for some reason had a date/time stamp error.

I thought i'd add some follow up on the HO report. Enough time has passed that i'm comfortable mentioning it. Whether or not his dogs were following a legitimate or correct scent i'm not sure. I'd visited the location of the marked scent/s several times. He'd left physical tags at...

No need to defend my post. Knox is correct. It was not entirely appropriate. I will delete it. Knox and i have a question in common: We're both asking the same question yet refer to different information. One must have a benefit.

The original story (which btw i tend not to believe) did not include the 'chucking a pot into the ocean part though. It had a different swing to it. It attempted to tie in the HO report.

The timing of that (edit: original hit & run) story fell right in line with another (somewhat associated) story & wild chase some of us had been sent on. I recall the source of both being of the same.

It's my opinion & recollection that the original hit & run story came from person(s) who run in opposition of support of the family &/or search center.

I guess i can't speak for others but i believe i'm not alone in wondering if some haven't been intentionally misleading the investigation. From quite early on actually.