I'm sure there are just excellent reasons, and the authorities are holding highly sensitive cards close to their chest while carrying out their full investigative process.
But (all that follows JMO...) the more I read about this whole situation, the more I feel that the area is being treated differently to how they would a more densely populated area. Is it because of the police-described "low crime, close knit nature" of the community? Is that not taking an immediate presumptive approach to an investigation?
Suggestion of criminality has been heavily downplayed like the suggestion it could happen in this area being treated as beyond reproach.
The scene seemingly being open and heavily tampered with since, with press walking about the area undeterred, the language flying around from local police that has gone as far as ruling out NB leaving the area, seemingly based on just word of mouth, some of which could only approximate the time they witnessed NB... the timeline just feels full of holes and strange circumstances regarding her found belongings and pet.
OF COURSE, the authorities are right that the river remains the most likely outcome... but we are talking about a very open rural area with multiple marked or unmarked route opportunities, blind spots on the main roads and a very large window of opportunity between last sighting of NB herself and the partner/police being called (at what would have been an increasingly quiet time of the day for walkers as they filter off to work and... appointments).
Maybe it is as simple as a direct fall into the river with NB missing the mud bank, but as has been said hundreds of times before on here: Something feels off.
I'm glad friends and family of NB are pushing for more open minds, even if the authorities appear less inclined to do so currently.