I think this is the one thing that drives me crazy in these discussions.:banghead: People will allow for a kidnapper despite any concrete evidence pointing to one. People will allow for a benelovent abductor, despite the odds that children are very rarely abducted and kept for altruistic purposes.
Some of those same people seemingly refuse to allow the possibility of more than one hit (or more than one dog verifying the same hit) because it is not explicitly spelled out in the search warrant. We know the warrant was written after at least one HDR hit, we know the FBI is involved (with all their resources), we know they were looking for a body when the warrant was served, we know LE wanted the warrant sealed. We know there are policies and procedures to follow. Those policies and procedures become even more critical when investigating a possible death of an baby. Verifying the HRD hits would be high on the priority list for this case, one would think. I don't see how you can look at all of those things and automatically conclude "only one" hit.
LE does not have to lay out their entire case to get a judge to sign a search warrant. Why would they do so in this case? For those that conclude "only one" hit, do they expect to see every hit listed in the warrant if there are multiple hits? I have to leave the possibility open that there was more than one hit or multiple verifications of the same spot. I can conclude we were told about one hit, I simply do not see enough information to conclude there was ever only one hit. YMMV.