When Laci Peterson disappeared, roughly 20 years ago, there were numerous tips and sightings of her up and down the West coast long after she was lying at the bottom of the ocean. The tips were not confirmed.
Does that mean that she was in those places and at the bottom of the ocean at the same time, or does it mean that the sightings were not credible?
They remained credible (and police continued following up on some of them) until she was found. Laci is actually a really good example of police going back, again and again, to various places where there seemed to be concentrations of sightings (and there was a woman who resembled her, who often walked her dog, not far from where Laci lived). So, in this case, one would think that the RCMP would treat this with enough credibility to at least continue monitoring the area and thinking about what might happen next.
You cannot say something is not credible until facts regarding the whereabouts of missing persons/fugitives are known. Think about Madeline McCann. Was it credible to think she was in Morocco/Algeria? Was she? Was it pointless to go look?
You can't prove a negative. And again, perhaps we differ on our basic approaches to how humans operate in the world. I am going to give the residents of York Landing some benefit of the doubt. They did not hoax the RCMP until there is proof that they did. The person who saw two figures at the dump saw something. IMO.
If I were in a conversation with the RCMP, I certainly would put forward that idea that, having shown up one time in a remote location, clearly running out of resources, these suspects will show up again. Be ready. They haven't been seen for quite a while. RCMP should also be prepared for more unconfirmed sightings, but they should continue to treat tipsters with respect and investigate each one.
Because, you know, if they don't, if people go directly to "those three witnesses are not credible," then there will be far fewer witnesses willing to call in. AFAIK, LE is calling the tip "credible" but "unconfirmed." I think they are also realizing that they can't search the entire area between YL and G, or even a fraction of it. FLIR flyovers are costly, risky, and more useful when a smaller area is known. The aircraft are loud and give time for suspects to go to ground. At this point, there are budgetary constraints, which is why RCMP are pulling out of G.
It would be very sad if even one witness to the whereabouts of these two refrained from contacting LE due to being thought "not credible" after the tip. It was credible all along, and should be (two figures at a dump in that region, matching the overall description, is credible).
