Is it not unusual for the police to give such an almost certain hypothesis, that she fell/entered the water
and that there are no suspicious concerns and in all probability, she is still in the river or out in the bay?
I know they are eager to squash rumours of the possibility of a predator still in the area, however, I still
thought it was unusual to commit to x1 hypothesis? I thought they usually prefer to keep all options in
play? The reason stated was that its due to all the exits having either been locked or covered by cctv &
cctv doesn't show her leaving the area. The Superintendent didn't actually confirm there was cctv at all
the locked exits though? I've read elsewhere that police have previously placed erroneous information
out in statements so as to try to get a suspect to make a mistake thinking they are not under suspicion.
After the police statement, the first question was around confirmation that the lady was wearing a fitbit.
The reporter eluded to the tracking capability & had this been followed up? I didn't make out the reply?
I'm sure they don't have the capability of an aeroplane black box but it would be interesting to know any
data the police have available, if any.
If the hypothesis is correct, unless the body has been significantly snagged underwater by clothing for
example. I believe at some point, it then move upwards to the surface & floats? The temperature of the
water alters time that this is likely to happen & the warmer the water, I believe the quicker the process?
Obviously, it's February and the water is cold, so this may take sometime yet. I know its gruesome but
if this aspect means her body is found earlier then the family receives some closure at earlier time too?