Just-a-random-girl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2023
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 813
If somebody disappears next to a body of water, her belongings are found close by and her dog is in a distressed state near the water, it is not a ‘wild hypothesis’ that she went into the water. It is a reasonable assumption based on the known facts. And it still makes far more sense than any other theory out there, many of which are so implausible they border on lunacy.
Your comment that the police have ‘wasted days and days’ on the assumption that Nicola went into the water implies they haven’t considered any other explanation, which is a massive assumption on your part. Obviously they will be actively looking at other lines of enquiry too, but that doesn’t change the fact that the most likely explanation is still that Nicola went into the water
IMO without evidence she went in the water the likelihood is just 50/50. People go missing in mysterious circumstances not next to water and accidental drowning cannot be ruled in becuase there isn't water. If there was water, those serious murder/abduction enquiries would probably never happen. Certainly not initially. This would make abduction/murder next to water in isolated places the perfect crime.
Look at the case of Lindsay Birbeck, if she'd gone for a walk along a riverbank it would have been handled completely differently.