Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #10

[poirotoupierrot]

The sort of men who walk dogs are probably too intimidating to approach.

Especially 6ft 3 ones with bulldogs.

 

[cottonweaver]

It’s enough for me that the family and friends of Nicola seem adamant she hasn’t fallen into the river… trust them

I have the luxury of not being in their awful position so it's different for me

 

[WestLondoner]

Are you saying that drowning victims do not have water in their lungs when recovered?

Usually not, IIRC. There is a book called The Perfect Storm which goes into some detail about what happens when someone drowns. I don't recall the percentages, but that author said that most who drown do so with no water in their lungs.

I said a few threads back, and others have said likewise, that the only way you could use mannequins would be in a sort of Monte Carlo way. Monte Carlo is a just a financial modelling term that means "simulate it a very large number of times and see what happens most often". The trouble is that doing so would take time, the more time elapses the more outcomes there are, and by the time you've got your Monte Carlo answer, all it tells you is where she was however long ago you did the exercise. If you somehow did it in real time to see where she gets to in two weeks, by the time you've established this two more weeks have passed so all you know is where she probably was two weeks ago.

The comparison with plastic ducks isn't valid IMO. Yes they end up all over place, but they're hardly in the water at all, they're on it rather than submerged, they can't go aground, most of them is exposed to wind, rain etc which are going to have a greater effect on a small thing than on a body, and in that photo, some will shelter others from the wind. But for practicality reasons I don't think it can work.

 

[karakuchi]

Btw we have definitive confirmation here, that the CCTV black spot is the gate at the bridge,
where Nicola turned right onto the path.

"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1623982445962878976

">February 10, 2023</a>

A map of where this video was filmed:

 

[Mr X]

Even though there is zero evidence or witnesses to say she was anywhere near the river or her dog. Any evidence could of been tidied up or compromised in the first few days especially the 1 hour and 20 mins unaccounted for

IMO it is interesting consider dog behaviour.

If the dog owner were to tie the animal up and go away and do something else how long would the animal have before it forgot about the incident.

I know the whole scent thing was discussed but IMO it seems possible the dog would forget and when it eventually ends up untied by someone else it runs around the general area looking confused.

Different breeds will vary I suppose.

Has a thorough land search been carried out as well as the water?

I haven't been watching it as don't have telly or anything but presumably a full search of the area has been carried out with everything found being retained and examined.

 

[poirotoupierrot]

I can only think it may be anecdotal from members of her family. Maybe it is health related from medical sources. However, I struggle to think of anything that should prevent them from looking at third party foul play. But I am sure they haven’t completely discounted third party foul play… although they do emphasise they don’t believe there is a third party involved. It is quite strange really

They have to act on evidence. If they don't believe witnesses or feel info is incomplete, they can speculate in private but it doesn't help to do so in a press conference. Better to appear to fall for an attacker's cover-up, whoever that might be (and I'm not implicating anyone who saw Nicola or found the dog - I just always thought it was a false 'window').

 

[PeggyHenry]

Serious question. How can a van look suspicious? What made the witnesses think it was suspicious.

What was meant, I assume, is that it looked out of place, unusual or had never been seen before. Maybe there is rarely a vehicle left there and in this case, it was there around time if disappearance.
So the van is not suspicious itself, just the fact it was there, unfamiliar, at the time she disappeared

 

[cottonweaver]

Agree. They're holding onto hope, and who wouldn't want that vs. the alternative .

Is it also possible that they rationally believe that, not only is she not in the river/sea but also that she is perfectly unharmed somewhere?
Do they think there's any chance she has voluntarily gone missing?

(often families will make a plea ' whoever is holding her, or if anyone is with her, can I ask you ....' do you know what I mean?)

 

[ginnyw]

Paul Ansell - "100% convinced she is not in the river" "The partner of missing mother-of-two Nicola Bulley has said he is "100 per cent convinced" she did not fall into the river."

From this link posted on BBC news just now:

Nicola Bulley: We are going through hell, says partner Paul Ansell

This is all pretty weird. He's 100% convinced she's not in the river. That's a very firm assertion. What is leading him to be so sure? It sounds far more certain than the police and their working hypothesis that she is, indeed, in the river. They seemed to have strong reasons to state that she was in the water. He's right at the opposite side of that belief. VERY strange things going on here. IMO. JMO.

 

[Allabouttrial]

Is it also possible that they rationally believe that, not only is she not in the river/sea but also that she is perfectly unharmed somewhere?
Do they think there's any chance she has voluntarily gone missing?

It's certainly a thought that can't be discounted!

 

[poirotoupierrot]

Usually not, IIRC. There is a book called The Perfect Storm which goes into some detail about what happens when someone drowns. I don't recall the percentages, but that author said that most who drown do so with no water in their lungs.

I said a few threads back, and others have said likewise, that the only way you could use mannequins would be in a sort of Monte Carlo way. Monte Carlo is a just a financial modelling term that means "simulate it a very large number of times and see what happens most often". The trouble is that doing so would take time, the more time elapses the more outcomes there are, and by the time you've got your Monte Carlo answer, all it tells you is where she was however long ago you did the exercise. If you somehow did it in real time to see where she gets to in two weeks, by the time you've established this two more weeks have passed so all you know is where she probably was two weeks ago.

The comparison with plastic ducks isn't valid IMO. Yes they end up all over place, but they're hardly in the water at all, they're on it rather than submerged, they can't go aground, most of them is exposed to wind, rain etc which are going to have a greater effect on a small thing than on a body, and in that photo, some will shelter others from the wind. But for practicality reasons I don't think it can work.

Most SOCCO teams probably already have this info as part of their training.

 

[OrlandoJames]

It’s enough for me that the family and friends of Nicola seem adamant she hasn’t fallen into the river… trust them

Her family are going through unimaginable torment and deserve a huge amount of empathy, but this does not make them experts in the matter of what actually happened to Nicola. If they accepted that she fell into the river, they'd be admitting there is no hope. Other explanations are therefore more attractive to them. This is completely understandable, but it does not mean we should trust their view over those of the professionals who are actually investigating this case.

 

[vchk]

This is all pretty weird. He's 100% convinced she's not in the river. That's a very firm assertion. What is leading him to be so sure? It sounds far more certain than the police and their working hypothesis that she is, indeed, in the river. They seemed to have strong reasons to state that she was in the water. He's right at the opposite side of that belief. VERY strange things going on here. IMO. JMO.

my guess is because police and PF has done extensive searching and didn't find any !

 

[SteelyGlint]

A ruse wasn't suggested - my point is that by witholding info about the case they can gain on a killer - who may be panicking. If there is one, I really hope they are.

Indeed. Also, of course people do die accidentally, for example during arguments/physical confrontation. The involved may panic and when they should call emergency services, they sometimes don’t, at least not immediately. They do stupid things. With a scenario like this, in such a high profile case, carrying colossal guilt, there would surely be huge internal conflict between covering all tracks versus fessing up…

 

[I wonder]

BBM

Willow was found between the bench and the gate. In perspective of the immediate area, this is as far away from the water as it is possible to be.

There’s been numerous discussions on here about Willow being able to get through the gate. I think it possible for hm to do so had he/she really wanted to.

I suggest that he didn’t, because he hadn’t seen Nicola go back through it. Had Willow felt very anxious and upset, I believe he would have gone in that direction and followed the trail back to the car. If he couldn’t get through the gate, I’d have expected him to be by the gate in something of a frenzy.

He wasn’t found further along the trail. He remained by the bench and gate, which incidentally appears to be where the police seem to think she went into the water.

As for being as far away as possible from the water, we don’t know exactly where he was. Dogs have good hearing, so he’d have heard people approaching, so I would expect him to be nearer the gate, when he could have been nearer the river before.

Obviously Willow’s behaviour isn’t proper evidence, but I think it’s something to bear in mind.





JMO MOO

 

[russeverton]

That charade was done by the guy, not by the police.

This is all pretty weird. He's 100% convinced she's not in the river. That's a very firm assertion. What is leading him to be so sure? It sounds far more certain than the police and their working hypothesis that she is, indeed, in the river. They seemed to have strong reasons to state that she was in the water. He's right at the opposite side of that belief. VERY strange things going on here. IMO. JMO.

Because there is no evidence she went in and no body after 2 weeks of searching. The only thing the police are going on is a phone dog and harness placed not far from the river. They presumed she left them there which imo is a major error

 

[cottonweaver]

This is all pretty weird. He's 100% convinced she's not in the river. That's a very firm assertion. What is leading him to be so sure? It sounds far more certain than the police and their working hypothesis that she is, indeed, in the river. They seemed to have strong reasons to state that she was in the water. He's right at the opposite side of that belief. VERY strange things going on here. IMO. JMO.

Another option ( instead of the ones I just posted upthread ) could it possibly be he's been influenced by Peter Faulding conversations?

( If you think back to what Peter said in the past when he was also talking in absolutes and ' impossibilities' etc etc)

edited to add:
Just remembered that on the day that it was agreed that Faulding's SGI company would go up & assist, Emma was also interviewed and said she was hoping that Faulding would be able to eliminate Nicola having ever fallen in. So it's probably more likely that they held this view quite early.

 

[markoid]

This is all pretty weird. He's 100% convinced she's not in the river. That's a very firm assertion. What is leading him to be so sure? It sounds far more certain than the police and their working hypothesis that she is, indeed, in the river. They seemed to have strong reasons to state that she was in the water. He's right at the opposite side of that belief. VERY strange things going on here. IMO. JMO.

Interestingly LE disagree with him.

The reality is he should not have stated that, as it is entirely feasible for a body to have floated within the timescales. So, it's entirely feasible that a body was not in areas PF searched, but still in the river somewhere. He never searched the entire river.

 

[Davieson]

I can only think it may be anecdotal from members of her family. Maybe it is health related from medical sources. However, I struggle to think of anything that should prevent them from looking at third party foul play. But I am sure they haven’t completely discounted third party foul play… although they do emphasise they don’t believe there is a third party involved. It is quite strange really

How about evidence ?
Police cannot declare a crime scene without some evidence to that effect.

 

[Mr X]

IMO you can never say 100% unless you remove everything from the bed of the River. This is almost impossible to do.

You could say "highly probable" etc but anyone saying something is 100% is not credible. JMO.