This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 25 comments

[–]p710gav 23 points24 points  (1 child)

"xanabars"

[–]honestlyimeanreally 10 points11 points  (0 children)

From Zanzibar

[–]FapNowPayLater 3 points4 points  (4 children)

The couple has since bonded out of East Baton Rouge Parish Prison.

lucky for them.

that place is darker and scarier than Zambizi

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

"Parish Prison"

Wow you seriously can't make this shit up... What a time to be alive

[–]jortiz682 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Just think of parish as a synonym for county.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Had to look it up

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parish

I guess it is a synonym for county in Louisiana

[–]jortiz682 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, some states still use weird terminology (parishes/commonwealth etc.) but nothing nefarious in the name.

[–]Theeconomist1 5 points6 points  (5 children)

This is good stuff. Yeah I wonder if this is DNM related. I don't know of any vendors that ship out of that area, but you never know. So I had also replied to someone's reply and curious what the thinking is (I hate that you can't rely on a journalist's use of English these days). When I first read the article I thought it was saying that suspicions were aroused b/c they were sending a lot of packs and USPS got suspicious. Upon a second reading, I realized that this may not be the case - it says that the postal worker "noticed something suspicious about a number of packages" (emphasis mine). The way the sentence reads is that there was at least one pack that had something about it that aroused suspicions. In other words, it wasn't the volume of packs received but rather at least one had something suspicious about it. At least that's the way its written. I know that we can't rely on a journalist phrasing things correctly these days so they could certainly actually mean that they simply got a shitload of packs, but as written, this isn't the case. At least one pack was poorly stealthed. Its an important distinction - to us at least. People often ask if the number of packs they get is suspicious (honestly, either way I imagine you've gotta be getting A LOT to even register on radar). BUT, it goes to show that it just takes ONE pack to undo you.

I also believe there is more to the story. They could very well have been tipped off. This couple involved their neighbor - in fact, it seems like the neighbor KNEW they were getting marijuana. It also goes to show that doing funky things to get your pack doesn't insulate you. People often talk about shipping to vacant homes, using previous tenant's names, etc. So I think its one of two things - one pack the couple got was very poorly stealthed (odor, leakage, etc) and the employee reported it. Interestingly it implies that they did let the suspicious packs go through. OR, the cops got a tip and monitored the mail stream. This couple used their neighbor's house - why in the hell? I'd like to think that vendor's wouldn't make this kind of mistake. Wrong on many levels but mainly involving someone else. I'll have to keep track of this story, very interesting but I think there is way more to it how it was discovered.

[–]Theeconomist1 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Makes sense. The post office is used for a lot of drugs outside the dnms so from a probability perspective you are probably right - coupled with a lack of reporting about bitcoin and mailing supplies. A lot of busts I've read about lately dealing with the mail don't seem to have a dnm link.

[–]We_Are_Never_Safe 0 points1 point  (1 child)

-comment overwritten-

[–]Theeconomist1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I got that it could be a dnm buyer reselling but I do think that given mail is used for drugs outside of the markets quite a bit, and maybe even more than dnms in bulk, it wouldn't surprise me if its not dnm related. Or it could be. it probably doesn't matter a whole lot either way. The biggest thing of interest I think is how USPS sniffed this out

[–]d4nk1st -1 points0 points  (0 children)

you also have to consider that its most likely a very small area so their LE may not even know what bitcoins or DNM's are

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

It could also be parallel construction.

Possible that LE used some other method they don't want to talk about and used the "suspicious postman" as an alternative mechanism.

[–]dandycabbage -1 points0 points  (2 children)

The report never mentions where she was arrested. If they grabbed her immediately, the home may not have been searched at all. 8 lbs of herb might require a pretty large box, especially if its quality. Probably too large for a PO Box. Couple that with with the alleged volume of packages involved.

I hope nobody is dumb enough to leave the house with that much shit (baggies?), but lets face, peoples do be stupid.

Im just speculating here, but the details ( $$ n drugs AND firearms all at once!) conjure up images of a couple fucktards just begging for this shit to happen to them.

Assuming this shit IS accurate, a tip from an employee at the post office sounds like a personal touch, as in one person catching on to the kinds of things The Machine cant.

[–]XanaxBaratheon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My impression was that they got busted for not following the "DO NOT BE AN IDIOT" rule.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I know there is a lot of stuff shipped outside the DNMs. This could have just been some random friend shipping 8 lbs of weed that reeked.

[–]bowlingin45 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I wonder how many packages were delivered until it was suspicious. 30-50?

[–]Theeconomist1 7 points8 points  (5 children)

So the way the phrase is meaning actually implies something different. It didn't say they were suspicious due to the number of packs sent. It said they were suspicious on a number of packs. The meaning would mean that some of the packs were suspicious or had suspicious characteristics. So the way it reads it's not the sheer volume of packs that was the trigger but that at least one pack was suspicious - like bad stealth, odor, etc.

Now it could be a journalist with a bad command of the English language but as its written it's not the number of packs but that some were poorly stealthed

[–]bowlingin45 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You're right, I read it as "the" number of packages, not "a" number of packages.

[–]Theeconomist1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah I did as well initially. I re-read the article and found that distinction. BUT, I also don't trust journalists these days and they've shown that they are often sloppy with their phrasing - esp in a place where they don't feel its all that important (b/c let's face it, only our group would actually care about this distinction). So while it does read a certain way, I'm not 100% certain that the jounralist wasn't just plain sloppy with their writing. The journalist could have easily meant "the" number but was sloppy, so who knows.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was how I read it also

[–]Mister_Ent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are correct that it was a few suspicious packs and not the number of them

[–]brokeShop 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm thinking it was maybe not the stealth, but the buyers' fault.

By "suspicious" they were probably using someone else's name (as well as address) and did it several times. The USPS worker noticed it and reported it.

It could've very well been smell/opsec but was most likely something to do with the addressing or residence.

[–]radium_fire 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh man the guns really gonna top off the charges.

reddit gold

In Summation

Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

By purchasing Reddit Gold, you agree to the Reddit User Agreement.

  • make my gift anonymous
  • include a message

Please select a payment method.

Give gold often? Consider buying creddits to use, they're 40% cheaper if purchased in a set of 12.

Would you like to learn more about giving gold?