I wouldn't say "Karen is not in the river" because with water movement etc there is no way they could search every inch, unless you know something we don't.
If the police thought Karen was in the water, then they would have given a proper search of the water. I take that as a stand-alone statement of fact and i think it is obvious what that means- that Karen is not in the river.
Now, the police obviously have to make decisions curtailed by money. They probably couldn't just get the full diving squad in to trawl the river on the off chance that her husband killed Karen and dumped her in the river. The point here is that if there is no evidence, then you cannot make claims. Perhaps they cannot rule this other than a missing person because there is no evidence other than it being a missing person- despite the fact that the Herald Sun and 90% of this forum believing it to be a domestic violence homicide. So, if there is no evidence that Karen has been murdered and placed into the river, then maybe cost is prohibitive and a full search cannot be done- despite the fact the thought is seductive that she was murdered by her husband and placed into the river which is RIGHT NEXT DOOR.
So, thinking about things that way, it is no longer obvious that Karen is certainly not in the river, for she very well might be (killed by Borce or not), but the police don't have enough evidence for a full-scale search of the river, which is very costly and requires certain evidence thresholds to be met before large sums of money on proper water searches are spent.
I don't know where this leaves everyone else. But i still think there is zero chance Karen turns up in the river. Sure, it could happen that someone murdered her (Borce or someone else) and then then drove 10km away and still placed her in the Maribyrnong river, but that is not the point. The point is, i think, that Karen was not murdered there and did not enter into the river there, AS FAR AS THE POLICE ARE CONCERNED. That is how i read events, and that is how Andrew Rule is reading things in saying the police did a little sweep for cosmetic reasons. So, Karen is not in the river, in the sense i have just outlined, with the obvious caveats that
1) she might be in the river and the police have no evidence to prove so and cannot therefore launch a full-scale water search, which they have NOT DONE TO DATE; and,
2) TECHNICALLY, she can be in the river 10km away if she was abducted and placed there- not near the Ristevskis house.
Technically, <modsnip> she could have been dumped in the river right behind her property, and the police having no evidence (which i keep on harping on about) just disallows them from launching a full-scale search, despite the fact the cops all feel she is in there. This point, however, sounds like hogwash and if the detectives felt- WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE BUT JUST A HUNCH- she was in the river, then i assume a full-scale water search would have been launched. That it has not been is evidence for the claim she is not in the river.
I hope you have as much fun reading as i had writing LOL. Now that i've used up 3 months worth of posting capacity, i'll see you in 3 months when hopefully there is a resolution.