Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would she be injured far from the camp site if she didn't go after the dog?
Indeed, that's a good question. It's just strange that, in that case, she must have put the dog down unleashed although it was capable of trotting off briskly enough that she would be unable to quickly recapture it, and so poorly trained that it wouldn't come when called. An experienced hiker and dog owner wouldn't do that. I can only think of unlikely scenarios: it was leashed, but the leash broke...she thought she had tied the dog to a tree while she went off to pee, but the knot came undone... Again, an experienced owner would take the tiny dog with her everywhere, never leaving it alone.
Yeah, and it took 12 pages to arrive to that glaringly obviously conclusion.
Conversely, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once wrote (as I recall it): "When all the probabilities have been eliminated, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the solution!" Those are corner-cases, though, I strongly suspect.
Guessing no one who has answered thus far is a detective, or knows a detective. It's not a profession for geniuses, more Blue Collar, because really it's common sense and observation of the details around crime scenes and knowledge of human behavior. Observe enough of those scenes, witness and partake in enough interrogations, listen closely for a few years to your mentors, the overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence leads to the same inescapable conclusion:
"all things being equal, the right solution is usually the simplest," i.e. what you wrote.
Sweat him down properly, he'll crack probably. Waterboard him, he'll tell you he started the Great Chicago Fire, though. Modern effective interrogation is a closely guarded art by intelligence agencies and police forces world-over.
He killed his wife, okay. He released their dog into the wilderness....WHY? And why didn't the dog simply follow him back to the road?
Hmmm...I'm thinking she put the dog down to go potty, stupidly didn't have it on a leash, and it ran off. She chased it, got lost and she's somewhere out there lost. Either that or this is an intricate murder plot by the husband, I don't buy the bird theories - at all.
Indeed, that's a good question. It's just strange that, in that case, she must have put the dog down unleashed although it was capable of trotting off briskly enough that she would be unable to quickly recapture it, and so poorly trained that it wouldn't come when called. An experienced hiker and dog owner wouldn't do that. I can only think of unlikely scenarios: it was leashed, but the leash broke...she thought she had tied the dog to a tree while she went off to pee, but the knot came undone... Again, an experienced owner would take the tiny dog with her everywhere, never leaving it alone.
I'm envisioning more of a scenario where the dog was loose or got loose somehow and then snuck away without her realizing it in time to catch him. More like she couldn't find him to catch him than she couldn't outrun him. She went looking for him and got further and further away from the camp. Of course, the bad part of that scenario is that finding the dog may not give them a clue where she is if she and the dog went in different directions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
