Rhett Hammerton/AAP

‘1930s policing’: the tactics police used in the hunt for Alice Springs girl Kumanjayi Little Baby 

In the hours since the story was first published, a body believed to be that of the missing girl has been found. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains the name of a person who has died. The family has asked for her to be referred to as Kumanjayi Little Baby.

On Saturday night, a five-year-old girl – whose family has asked be referred to as Kumanjayi Little Baby – was allegedly abducted from a home in a town camp and is still missing.

Northern Territory Police allege she was abducted by Jefferson Lewis. The 47-year-old had only been released from prison several days earlier and was staying at the same address as Kumanjayi Little Baby.

It is already “one of the biggest” manhunts in recent NT history and made even more difficult by the fact Lewis doesn’t have much of a digital footprint.

So, what police tactics are available in these situations?

‘Going back to 1930s policing’

Northern Territory Police Commissioner Martin Dole said police believed there are people in the local community who may know of Lewis’ whereabouts. Police said Lewis was not on bail or subject to any conditions when the alleged abduction took place.

Understand how AI is changing society, with our weekly newsletter

Police found several personal items at a crime scene at the town camp, which were sent for forensic testing.

Dole said the hunt was “the biggest one I can recall in a very long time”. He added:

We’ve got specialist sections here, we’ve got assistance from interstate, we’ve had offers from interstate all over the other jurisdictions, we’ve got inquiries happening in other jurisdictions, and we’re pouring every available resources down here to assist. And overwhelming support from the community as well.

Making the hunt for Lewis significantly more difficult is the fact he doesn’t use much modern technology.

NT Police Assistant Commissioner Peter Malley said:

It’s like we’re going back to 1930s policing without a digital footprint – this man doesn’t have a telephone, he doesn’t have a bank account, he doesn’t have a car, so some of the usual practices that we do in 2026 aren’t applicable, hence the amount of resources we have on the ground.

Searchers are enduring tough conditions, Malley said:

(The search conditions are) pretty difficult – long grass, soft sand, rocks, large trees, it’s really overgrown, so it’s a tough slog out there for the people searching.

A trickier search than normal

Technology ties a person to a time and place. For example, When someone uses a phone, it logs their location. If they use an ATM, there may be facial recognition that captures their image.

Not using technology blinds police.

Despite there being little-to-no electronic footprint of Lewis, police still have tactics to locate people who exist off the grid. While a person’s use of technology does aid police, this does not mean they are untraceable if they don’t.

Police will be relying heavily on the local community, given the remoteness of the search.

They will also be calling on the expert knowledge of Indigenous Elders whose local experience in the reading of Country will be crucial – their skills represent knowledge that technology can’t replicate.

Searchers will be looking for:

footprints that might note stride length and depth (indicating pace and load)
crushed or bent vegetation, broken branches at body height and disturbed bark on trees
compression signs where someone sat, rested, or lay down
drag marks, blood trails, or disturbed leaf litter
clothing fibres snagged on thorns, hair, or fingernail marks on rocks.

Searchers will also be looking for sheltered areas: rock overhangs, dense scrub, or behind fallen logs.

They will also look out for disturbed animal behaviour such as flushed birds (birds that take flight when scared) or silent zones (an area where normal background sounds of nature are absent or noticeably reduced) which can indicate human presence.

Then there is technology.

The power of police technology

A distinctive element of a police search is AI imagery analysis.

All aerial footage from drones and helicopters gets compiled and analysed. The high-definition, digitally enhanced images are catalogued, including every heat signature of a “grid” of terrain.

This can identify livestock, wildlife, carcasses or a human figure.

This AI analysis can also identify every human and non-human item that may or may not have a heat signature across a geographic area.

But underlying all these different strategies is the age-old practice of map reading.

Map reading can include:

sweep/line searching – people spread out at intervals and advance in a line
grid searching – the area is divided into sectors, with each systematically cleared
spiral searching – teams move outward from a last known point in an expanding spiral
contour searching – following natural terrain features like ridge lines and creek beds.

These centuries-old practices are still relevant today in trying to find someone.

Bushcraft and persistence

Dole said on Thursday he feared the “timeframe of survivability” was coming to an end for Kumanjayi Little Baby, after consulting with survival experts.

Police will continue to explore all avenues in the hope of finding her safely.

While some technology will be used by searchers, the hunt will likely rely on old-fashioned bushcraft skill and human persistence.

The enigmatic case of Sharon Granites has long haunted the public imagination, serving as a grim reminder of the complexities inherent in modern forensic science and the persistent shadows of unsolved mysteries. For years, the narrative surrounding the tragic discovery of her remains was tethered to a single point on a map, a desolate stretch of terrain that investigators believed held the key to her final moments. However, recent developments have sent shockwaves through the legal and scientific communities as forensic experts have reportedly identified a second DNA match that fundamentally alters the trajectory of the investigation. While official statements remain sparse, the emergence of Jefferson Lewis as a central figure linked to two distinct locations has sparked a firestorm of speculation and a renewed demand for justice.

The initial breakthrough in the case came when advanced sequencing techniques allowed technicians to recover minute biological samples from the primary crime scene where Granites was discovered. These samples provided a definitive link to Jefferson Lewis, a discovery that at the time seemed to provide the missing piece of a devastating puzzle. Prosecutors argued that the presence of his genetic material at the site was incontrovertible proof of his involvement, leading to a narrative of a localized crime committed in the heat of a singular moment. Yet, as the laboratory work continued into the secondary evidence collected during the initial sweep, a more complex and disturbing picture began to emerge.

Sources close to the forensic team suggest that a second location, previously considered a tangential point of interest, returned a matching DNA profile for both the victim and the suspect. This site was not a secondary dump site or a transit point as many had theorized, but rather a location that defies the conventional logic of the original investigation. While the specific nature of this second location remains under a strict gag order, theories have begun to circulate among those following the case. Some suggest that this site could represent a point of prior contact or a hidden environment where the two individuals crossed paths in a way that had never been documented by friends or family.

One prevailing hypothesis suggests that if the DNA match at the second location is indeed as significant as leaked reports imply, it might indicate a level of premeditation or a pre-existing relationship that was carefully concealed from public view. In this scenario, the second location might have served as a private meeting place or a residence that Lewis had access to without it being officially tied to his name. The presence of forensic evidence in such a space would suggest that the events leading up to the tragedy were not a random act of violence but the culmination of a more intricate and perhaps prolonged interaction. This would explain why the location was not where anyone expected, as it would sit outside the known social circles and daily routines of both Granites and Lewis.

Another possibility involves the potential for forensic transfer or a more complex environmental explanation. If we consider the hypothesis that the DNA was moved from one site to another, the second location might actually be the true point of origin for the crime, making the discovery site a carefully orchestrated diversion. Forensic experts often grapple with the concept of secondary transfer, where genetic material is moved via clothing, tools, or vehicles. If Lewis’s DNA was found at a location that he had no logical reason to visit, it forces a re-evaluation of his movements during the critical window of the disappearance. This would imply a level of logistical planning that contradicts the image of a spontaneous encounter, painting a much more calculated portrait of the individual currently in the crosshairs of the law.

The emotional weight of these findings cannot be overstated, particularly for the family of Sharon Granites who have endured years of uncertainty. The revelation of a second match brings with it a paradoxical sense of progress and renewed grief. It suggests that the truth is both closer than ever and more complicated than they were led to believe. For the community, the “second location” has become a symbol of the hidden layers of the case, representing the parts of Sharon’s life or her final hours that remained invisible to the naked eye. The heartbreak is compounded by the realization that if this location had been identified sooner, the path to resolution might have been significantly shorter.

As the legal proceedings move forward, the focus will undoubtedly shift to the validity and interpretation of this dual DNA match. Defense attorneys are expected to challenge the integrity of the samples, raising questions about potential contamination or the methods used to link Lewis to the second site. Meanwhile, the prosecution will likely lean into the statistical impossibility of two separate matches being a mere coincidence. The battle in the courtroom will be as much about the science of genetic markers as it is about the narrative of human behavior. If the hypothesis of a concealed relationship or a premeditated plan holds water, it could lead to a conviction that finally brings a measure of peace to a case defined by its many twists and turns.

The broader implications for forensic science are also significant. The Granites case serves as a landmark example of how “cold” evidence can be revitalized by new technology, uncovering truths that were literally microscopic for decades. It underscores the importance of revisiting unsolved cases with fresh eyes and updated tools, as the smallest fragment of skin or a single hair can now bridge the gap between a mystery and a closed file. However, it also highlights the ethical and procedural challenges of dealing with sensitive genetic data and the impact that leaks and speculation can have on the right to a fair trial.

In the absence of a full public disclosure, the world is left to wonder about the true nature of that second location. Was it a place of work, a forgotten childhood home, or perhaps a rental property used under an alias? Each theory adds a layer of intrigue to the story of Jefferson Lewis and Sharon Granites. Until the court hears the full testimony and the forensic reports are laid bare, the truth remains a fragmented mosaic, with the second DNA match serving as the most provocative and baffling piece yet. The search for justice continues, driven by the hope that the science which linked these two individuals across two disparate locations will finally speak the words that Sharon Granites cannot.