Chicago54
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2017
- Messages
- 685
- Reaction score
- 7,129
That’s not how I read the article. I only copied a small piece per the 10% rule.BBM
I may be wrong, but I don't think it was a matter of the divers not looking in the right place. The divers weren't there for much of the search and when they were there, I don't think it was "to look for" anything.
I think the divers were there to recover stuff that other methods of detection had already found. For example, a metal detector might locate a submerged gun or maybe a phone (although it's always been unclear to me what good it would do to find a phone that spent weeks submerged in water or even exposed to weeks of rain.) Or the divers might have been called on to recover a suspected submerged body cadaver dogs found or a suspected submerged body shown on some sort of sonar. I don't think the divers were just diving anywhere that looked promising. I'm also not sure if "diving" is quite the right word. Even 1-2 ft of water could make areas largely inaccessible but that amount of water doesn't support diving.
JMO
I think it would be reasonable to assume they searched the area and frequently used trail which CL had been telling LE about since the beginning, as per SB. As it was widely reported to be underwater until the reserve reopened, and apparently not re-searched, I wonder if the “divers” “ searched that area.