I’ve only just recently started to follow this case, as I live in California and it hasn’t been reported about much here. Now I understand why it’s generated so much consternation, to put it mildly.
My understanding from the beginning was that LP believed Nicola slipped into the river accidentally and drowned. That’s apparently what they told the press and, critically, the leader of the aquatic search. It struck me as odd that a healthy woman might drown from that, but not knowing the river hydrology, bank accessibility, water temp, etc., I supposed it seemed possible.
But now come to find that LP instead believed from the beginning that this was a missing persons case, and a “high risk” one at that because LP was aware of the January 10 home visit… well, I just don’t know what on Earth to make of that.
Here in California, we have far too many missing persons reports. When state-of-mind or other factors place the missing person at “high risk,” that is reported from the outset. It creates a sense of urgency to find the person before they are harmed. The reasons for high risk might be dementia, a young person possibly manipulated by someone older, depressed or mentally ill individuals, among others. The point is, reporting the fact that someone is high risk gets people out there looking for them, often in odd places.
An example - a few weeks ago I received a text alert from my town’s PD about an elderly person with dementia who had wandered from her house not far from mine. Without anything better to do, I got in my car and drove around for nearly two hours, through neighborhoods, out into the country, cruising parks, looking for her and trying to judge how far she could have walked since the time she went missing. It turns out she managed to get on a bus that took her to San Francisco, and she was safely found a few days later.
I understand the sensitivities around reporting a high risk individual, and reporting it 3 weeks late makes absolutely no sense to me. But at the time of disappearance, that seems to be critical information.
Can anyone with LE experience help me understand whether in certain missing persons cases informing the public (or even the search team) that a person is high risk is not advised? I believe LP must have been following a logic that I don’t have the knowledge to see.