Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis
by RajT88 on Thursday October 20, 2022 @10:03PM
(#33283492)
I know guys who smoked a lot of pot when they were younger. Would even fly with a small stash.
Never got caught or had a dog alert on them. They also didn't look like stoners. Whatever your stereotype is of how a stoner looks (and there are a few).
The 9/11 attackers were all clean shaven and dressed in business casual.
Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis
by AuryGlenz on Saturday October 22, 2022 @10:39PM
(#33304088)
While I've seen roaming dogs in airports this was in customs and she passed by everyone. I'd certainly tell those friends to not try that on an international flight judging by that experience.
Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis
by RajT88 on Monday October 24, 2022 @04:56PM
(#33322586)
My one friend came from an English family so mostly flew to the UK.
As I understand it, buying drugs there is not a problem. No need to fly with them.
Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis
by kwhitefoot on Friday October 21, 2022 @05:02AM
(#33286054)
> immediately identified her.
How many others were "immediately identified" but were not carrying bulbs?
Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis
by AuryGlenz on Saturday October 22, 2022 @10:36PM
(#33304072)
0. The handler even immediately asked if we had tulip bulbs - though I'm guessing that was just because she knew where we came from.
That said Iām sure even without training them to do so they look to their handlers for cues.