So, feeding off of your post, I want to know if I'm understanding it correctly... What you're saying is that hunters know or have the capability of finding out which land they can hunt on vs not hunt on. Right? If so, then is it safe to say that a person that doesn't hunt wouldn't know which land hunters frequent bc they don't have that experience, knowledge. Furthermore, is it then safe to assume the perp responsible for the remains (bones) found off of Tidewater could have very likely been a hunter (or had hunting knowledge) and dumped the body there bc he knew it wouldn't be found quickly since that area isn't used for hunting?
I think that would be a great assumption.