3 ms·
I suppose it depends on the terrain, but I'd agree. Another possibility is that something in the behavior of the townsfolk during questioning does not suggest,
by rossdavidh 8y ago
I suppose it depends on the terrain, but I'd agree. Another possibility is that something in the behavior of the townsfolk during questioning does not suggest, to the police, actual ignorance of what happened. Which wouldn't mean the police are necessarily correct, of course.
- duxup 8y agoYeah looking at what photos there are the terrain there is pretty open and you'd think you'd find someone, but "rules out" just sorta doesn't sit well with me there.
- dmurray 8y agoIt's "impenetrable head high thick scrub" according to the article, which makes it sound like the kind of place a body could be hidden trivially. But that might just be nonsense - I don't believe the Australian desert can support impenetrable anything.
- emmelaich 8y agoThat stood out for me too. There is no such thing as impenetrable in an area that dry. Confirmed by the pictures.
- duxup 8y agoYeah that got me too, but looking at pics it just looks arid and fairly clear land. Maybe they meant impenetrable.....as in walking too far off the road won't get you anywhere..... otherwise it seems pretty hikeabke.
- erikb 8y agoAltogether such kind of searches are probably more about calming people's mind than actually finding something. Especially in this case where the human AND THE DOG went missing without traces. It's super unlikely that they both had an accident and not one of them was still alive enough to at least try to get help. Dogs and humans, due to different physics, should likely have different patterns of dangerous accidents.