SouthAussie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 29,781
- Reaction score
- 181,493
My point is around the specificity of the location of the attack - the police’s information about it happening around the 7km mark of her run. Presumably they know the exact location given the electronic devices SM had. Why not be specific about the location, that was my point. What is the reason? Do they not know exactly where it happened or are they holding back as they know SM died at that location and they want that information in their back pocket?
Yes, I completely got your point. But you also said .... I’m pretty sure the police would be telling the public exactly where they believe it happened in order to try and be more specific to possible witnesses.
Hence my response that I believe the police have been as specific as they need to be, to gain possible witnesses. And they may not want to be more specific in case people think "oh I saw something on Smith Street that day, I guess it isn't related then" and perhaps not tell the police something crucial.
They won't be giving any further information .... 'unless it is determined this will assist the advancement of the investigation'.
I think they do this to protect all aspects of their investigation. The public is given information on a need-to-know basis, and they have told us all that they think we need to know ... at this point in time.
imo
Last edited: