The Park she’s lost in is Rainbow Bay
Google map of the location
I’m not sure about this. It seems plausible but I wonder. She altered her travel plans to have a ‘road trip adventure’ with what would perhaps be described more as acquaintances than friends. She went jogging, an unusual activity for her, and she got tired but the male persisted in jogging while she returned on her own to a starting point with which she was not truly familiar? Doesn’t sound quite right. I guess I can’t say that it didn’t happen that way, but it just doesn’t sound quite right.
A lone footprint has been discovered. I do not think they are certain if its hers or not. The area is hilly and bushes are thick. What sort of a man would let the girl head back alone? A ‘fireman and friend from a Christian church group’? If the terrain is so rugged that a search dog and its handler got lost, what sort of a Christian let the inexperienced camper go jogging back? I know the article says no foul play is suspected. Perhaps I’m just too jaded, but I sure suspect foul play!
I agree that something seems odd here FG. “Fireman christian” does not jive well with “heading back alone in the brush” but is even less compatible with the profile “murderer”.
I’d still suggest that she got injured and/or lost.
Well, its actually only a fireman wannabe.
Ontario Provincial Police have had several SAR missions recently. It is a very rural area and the terrain is rugged. Getting lost seems easy. The problem is that if the terrain is so rugged and the vegetation so dense, how could she travel all that far?
OPP is now allowing untrained civilians to join the search efforts but only in limited areas that are deemed less hazardous due to lack of sharp cliff faces or lack of forrests wherein visibility is limited to a few feet.
Canine units still being used to some degree. OPP having originally banned volunteers not only for safety reasons but also to avoid confusing K9 units.
Temperatures starting to fall a bit but real problem is exposure to mosquitoes and blue flies.
I’d think there would be a way to structure volunteer help safely and effectively. As with the Kim Search there is a lot of (legitimate) concern about keeping volunteers safe. However this detracts / distracts from ability of professionals to search.
I think the solution might be to establish a corps of what might be called quasi-volunteers: they are not members of the public responding to newscasts but they are not full-time regulars either. People whose skills are known, who have some training, some rudimentary equipment of their own, some familiarity with prior searches, an insurance policy, etc.
In the current search in Thunder Bay its now into the 9th day and the terrain is such that mainly police and military are being used. Family members who brought gps equipment are banned. Its a hard line to walk: protecting the inexperienced but well-meaning searchers or relying on full time well trained personnel who are expensive, few in number and probably needed elsewhere.
An added detail is that the woman has balance problems so the divers will be used to search pools of water near a prominent waterfall that is in the park.
Although trying to downplay the significance, it is clear there is a new police tack involving more intensive interviewing of all who where in the park or near the park that day. Searching continues unabated.
Searching is now an intensive grid search seeking a non-responsive person.
17-day search “suspended”. No further efforts.
The problem with excluding family members from the search efforts is:
The OPP has officially responded to comments made by the aunt of Christina Calayca who raised some serious questions about her niece having had a foot injury that would have prevented her from disappearing while jogging.
Constable Pam Higham says the investigation is still being treated as a missing person’s case and that there is no evidence to suggest Calayca was not jogging.
The OPP have not as yet revealed the results of dna tests conducted on a sock and have not explained how there can be ‘no evidence of the missing woman not having been jogging’ when her aunt’s statement clearly constitutes evidence of the woman not having been jogging. It may be weak evidence it may be utterly spurious but so far that has not been proven. I might harbor some doubts about the aunt’s statements myself but I have no basis on which to utterly reject them and the OPP if it has such evidence has not mentioned what it is.
Family members continue to have a bifurcated viewpoint: Abducted while jogging and abducted but did not go jogging. While OPP continue to consider it as ‘got lost while jogging’.
No additional evidence or analysis has been presented by anyone.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *