Mr X
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2023
- Messages
- 291
- Reaction score
- 1,456
He can't. It is a statistical impossibility he can be 100% sure about that.
It is statistically possible.
He can't. It is a statistical impossibility he can be 100% sure about that.
That is consistent.*We continue to look at all the potential scenarios to eliminate them. We are reviewing our decisions regularly. Based on all the work we have done up to now, our belief remains that Nicola may have fallen into the river for some reason*
C&P from that LE Twitter. There seems to be a change in tone here. That's not a criticism, and it's inevitable at this stage, I guess.
And depends if she was using loudspeaker or earphones (..and where are they if she was using them)She was muted and had her camera off but if they were on a con call presumably there were people speaking. I'm not saying they knew it was a teams call but they may have heard someone speaking.
Ours end, they have a little count down and then they "end" and the recording stops and you get a normal teams chat screen, then if you don't log out (because hypothetically you might have wandered to the fridge to get a snack) you are still connected to the room, but its just you in there.9.30am – The Teams call ended but Nicola stayed logged on
9.33am (approximately) – Nicola’s mobile phone and Willow were found at a bench by the river by another dog-walker.
I doubt the teams call ended at 9.30 exactly, the same way the 9.33 is approximate. I mean it's possible it was scheduled to run til 9.30 but when do meetings end bang on time?
If she was listening on loudspeaker as her friends have said she usually did, there is IMO obviously a chance that when the person discovered the phone the teams call was still going on and they would have heard it through the loudspeaker.
I'm not sure that tells us anything extra, but that it was definitely something untoward if you'd come across it. Just speculating that the times could have feasibly crossed over.
It was the police who stated that, not the witness. IMO (but Google should give you that link)Muted and camera off. How would a witness possibly know it was in a conference call ?
Agreed but I read (can't remember the source) that she usually took calls on loudspeaker. Plus there has been no mention of headphones.And depends if she was using loudspeaker or earphones (..and where are they if she was using them)
we actually had a similar scenario a few weeks ago- lady didn’t answer her phone one evening , police swarmed the fields the following morning 10 minutes after they were rang with search dogs etc-her dog found wandering on their usual route- an hour later woman found lying in a ditch. Luckily she survived. If the ditch had been a river she would have gone. She just misplaced her feet.All I said was she was out walking her dog. I'm trying to think of any men who have disappeared recently in the middle of the day whilst out walking their dog. Nope. Drew a blank there.
In one of the first threads there was talk of and angler association names for each spot of the river as well so maybe fisherman expected.I disagree. Hindsight is 20/20. My world is populated by busy parents and toddlers, parks, walks, dropped toys, forgotten baby change bags, etc etc. If - in a busy little dog/walking route like that - I spotted a dog and phone on a bench, I would NOT immediately think I should ring the police.
My first thought would be that a busy parent had taken a child off to the bushes because they couldn't wait for the bathroom, or that someone was chasing a toddler or something.
Most people would clock it for a matter of a minute or so, wandering past. Unless you were waiting there for a period of time, you'd have no idea how long the owner was gone for. If a period of time elapsed, yes, my thoughts on it would change, and I'd take appropriate action. Walking past and just seeing a dog and phone? Nope. I would not immediately call the police.
To say that someone is a idiot or dimwit for not 'connecting the dots' is full-strength Hindsight 20/20, IMO.
I never walk alone anywhere in a wooded area / country park, etc. Tend to stick to residential areas, yet look at poor Sarah Everard.Well I haven't been out walking on my own since Nicola disappeared. It was the same when Sarah Everard disappeared. I don't get why women can disappear in the middle of the day and things don't get solved in time. We have so much technology, so much tracking, but CCTV isn't maintained and attitudes don't change. I respect the police for their efforts, and I hate the media storm for the investigation and Nicola's family - it's way out of control. But I also hate that these things can happen when a woman is just out walking her dog.
I disagree. If I found a dog running loose and an unattended mobile phone there, I would 110% be concerned and make sure everything was alright. Mobile phones are not something that people leave lying around on public benches while they take their kid for a wee. It wouldn’t take long in a quiet area like that to ascertain that a person who owns a mobile phone and a dog is seemingly missing from the vicinity and not just “chasing their toddler”…..the fact it’s right next to a river would concern me even more.I disagree. Hindsight is 20/20. My world is populated by busy parents and toddlers, parks, walks, dropped toys, forgotten baby change bags, etc etc. If - in a busy little dog/walking route like that - I spotted a dog and phone on a bench, I would NOT immediately think I should ring the police.
My first thought would be that a busy parent had taken a child off to the bushes because they couldn't wait for the bathroom, or that someone was chasing a toddler or something.
Most people would clock it for a matter of a minute or so, wandering past. Unless you were waiting there for a period of time, you'd have no idea how long the owner was gone for. If a period of time elapsed, yes, my thoughts on it would change, and I'd take appropriate action. Walking past and just seeing a dog and phone? Nope. I would not immediately call the police.
To say that someone is a idiot or dimwit for not 'connecting the dots' is full-strength Hindsight 20/20, IMO.
Probably his mind can't process that she went out with the kids and the dog on an ordinary day and disappeared - possibly for ever. If she's in the river, that's it. So he's holding on to the belief that there must be another explanation.I just don't know how he can tell Ch.5 that he's "100% certain she didn't go in the river"
There's an informative video on the BBC news website that shows an excellent visual perspective on the area Nicola went missing: Home - BBC News. Might only be viewable to those in the UK.
"Reporter Nick Garnett looks at where the mother-of-two could have gone, and what happens with the search now."
He states:
"This is St Michael's on Wyre. As you can see it's not very big. That's why the disappearance of Nicola Bulley is so puzzling. And the police think that she fell down into the river and drowned but it's a theory; there's no actual evidence for it...
So if she's not in the river, where could she be?
So this is the only path out of this whole area that's not covered by a CCTV camera.
So if she came out of this way, where did she go at this point. If you turn 'round and look here, it's a busy road. Hundreds of cars were going past here at 9 o'clock on a Friday morning.
And in the other direction there's not that much empty space and no other way out.
But that hasn't stopped people speculating...
Two weeks have past since Nicola Bulley's disappearance and there's still no sign of her at St. Michael's on Wyre. The search has been widened down stream. But instead of a small meandering river, the Wyre estuary, well it's huge.
From here the river becomes the sea. The police are now tasked with searching the inlands and marshland."
It's just his opinion, it's not a court of law. He can say whatever he wants.Probably his mind can't process that she went out with the kids and the dog on an ordinary day and disappeared - possibly for ever. If she's in the river, that's it. He is holding on to the belief that there must be another explanation.
Because she is likely to be slated for doing exactly that as some people read nasty aspersions into everything.I wonder why Emma didn't say with Paul too. She mentions girls and Willow and happy story. Bit strange to miss Paul out of the happy story. Maybe she just forgot. Being interviewed by reporters is stressful on top of everything else.
I can only speak for my own dog (Jack Russell terrier). I think she’d be confused and wary, and might well try to run away from whoever it was.If a dog is unsettled because either they have seen their owner fall in the water or their owner has just disappeared, how would they react if a stranger came along and tried to tie them to a bench?
Thanks! I guess the dogs didn't come up with any particular direction or make a beeline for the river's edge then!Sniffer / search dogs were used extensively at the start of the investigation as well as specialist water search dogs later.
Agree and to lose hope, acccept they were gone without proof, would be akin to giving up on your loved one. I had family in ITU before they died (was not expected) and when there’s nothing else you can do except believe then you believe as hard as you can.Imagine Nicola was your mum/wife/sister/daughter. I think very few of us would accept that she’s dead with apparently no evidence, not just to prove it, but to even indicate that she did fall in the river and drown.
I certainly wouldn’t and I don’t think this is being delusional. I think it’s very understandable to feel like this. Add to this the fact that believing her to be dead feels almost a betrayal, as though you’ve given up on her.
In this country we all understand the importance of evidence. We don’t put people in prison without evidence and many decisions we make as individuals are made on the basis of evidence.
Asking people to accept the horrifying death of someone you love, based on a phone on a bench near a river, is too much, particularly as she hasn’t been missing for months or years.
Hope isn’t just the thing with feathers, it’s what sustains us through the bleakest and most frightening of times. It’s all they have. Little wonder they are clinging onto it. I would be too.
"There's an informative video on the BBC news website that shows an excellent visual perspective on the area Nicola went missing: Home - BBC News. Might only be viewable to those in the UK.
"Reporter Nick Garnett looks at where the mother-of-two could have gone, and what happens with the search now."
He states:
"This is St Michael's on Wyre. As you can see it's not very big. That's why the disappearance of Nicola Bulley is so puzzling. And the police think that she fell down into the river and drowned but it's a theory; there's no actual evidence for it...
So if she's not in the river, where could she be?
So this is the only path out of this whole area that's not covered by a CCTV camera.
So if she came out of this way, where did she go at this point. If you turn 'round and look here, it's a busy road. Hundreds of cars were going past here at 9 o'clock on a Friday morning.
And in the other direction there's not that much empty space and no other way out.
But that hasn't stopped people speculating...
Two weeks have past since Nicola Bulley's disappearance and there's still no sign of her at St. Michael's on Wyre. The search has been widened down stream. But instead of a small meandering river, the Wyre estuary, well it's huge.
From here the river becomes the sea. The police are now tasked with searching the inlands and marshland."
thought that tooI wonder why Emma didn't say with Paul too. She mentions girls and Willow and happy story. Bit strange to miss Paul out of the happy story. Maybe she just forgot. Being interviewed by reporters is stressful on top of everything else.