carbuff
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 29,783
- Reaction score
- 72,960
SW itemization commonly includes for collection of impression record from specified objects discovered in specified locations based on the assumed crime: with an abduction / kidnapping scene it is reasonable to assume footprint and/or tire print evidence and that reasonable assumption is enough to satisfy warrant requirements. The phrase included in the Golder SW was entirely unnecessary for to obtain approval so why was it included?
...."may be similar to those found at the crime scene."
AFAIK, LE had never publicly revealed an abduction (or other) crime scene location (excluding the recent remains discovery location) but the phrase in the SW seems to suggest otherwise.
The closest to a potential crime scene is the reported location of the last known sighting of LB: on Maple, between 6th and 5th Streets. There are no sidewalks in the location so we may safely assume LB was last seen walking on the street asphalt, possibly leaving footprints along the way... mixed in with all other footprints, tire, bicycle and motorcycle tracks. If the "last known sighting" location is the assumed crime scene, any impression evidence collected from that particular scene would do little to bolster a case for conviction... too many footprints and other tracks to be used for valid comparisons.
View attachment 135570
Again, we're left with: where was the crime scene and what was discovered within?
Yeah, it strikes me as an odd thing to mention in the first place and an odd way to phrase it unless they do know where she was taken, or some other connection to the crime.