Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
what news of her car keys? Were these actually found anywhere? She had parked and then walked hadn’t she? So she must have had her car keys on her?
 
Really interesting and informative contributions from tallmansix, Mr X and just-a-random-girl on the river theory. MOO if an abduction, it would seem sophisticated. I wonder what sort of a character profile could be drawn for the sort of person who could do this?

In my opinion, an abduction would be someone who knows her or is acquainted with her, knows her routine, realises her partner will come looking for her if she's late home. If, under this theory, it was a person who knew her (for example a villager) it would make sense to leave the phone so the police don't look *elsewhere*. Other than accidental drowning, though, I'm more inclined to think there was an incident of some sort rather than a planned abduction...
 
I'm not sure you are understanding how rivers work?

There is a constant flow towards the sea where the river is above sea level. The speed of that flow might be 1mph or up to about 15mph for a fast river but it is never static as that would defy the laws of physics.

And regardless of whether it is a rubber duck, body or a boat - if it floats the river will move the object, the size and weight are irrelevant, just the relative density.

Assuming the same flow rate of water, where a river is deep/wide the water will move more slowly versus where it gets narrow/shallow where it moves more quickly - but within a given stretch, the same volume of water will move per second, just at different speeds depending on the size and shape of the river.

At the place NB disappeared the river is deep and wide - a lot of water will be flowing by volume but relatively slowly. At just 1mph (slow compared to walking speed of 3-4mph) the body would move 110 metres in just 10 minutes - well out of sight in the small window that this incident occurred in.

The flow doesn't need to be strong to move a body, the relative buoyancy of a body is approx the same as the water itself.

For example barges on canals weighing a hundred tons will drift when not tethered despite hardly any water flow - because they are buoyant. Drop a 100-ton metal weight into the water and it won't move - buoyancy is the factor, not the size or weight.
I don’t know what deep and wide means in this context. The Thames in central London is deep and wide, this is neither.

The deepest part near the area is currently approx 6 foot deep according to the divers.

Round the corner there’s an area shallow enough to walk through - ankle to knee deep according to locals.

Then you’ve got to factor in that a body dragging along the bottom will get stuck on reeds, roots, rocks, sandbanks and meanders which will impede its progress. (Indeed that may be why they can’t find her).

Then you have the problem of the weir - how does a sunk body dragging along the bottom get over a weir. If it were floating, possibly - likely to get stuck as sheep do - but possible, but she’s clearly not floating or she would have been seen.

Finally you have to factor in the tide - while it runs out it also runs back in again. That will slow down the progress of any object.

Back to the Thames: a rowing coach drowned in the Thames near me and despite the fast current and the tides, he was found 5 weeks later very near where he went missing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are a lot of posts saying how deep the water was where she may or may not have gone in.

Prove that the water was high on that day and at that time?

"He [Peter Faulding] shows me a picture on his mobile phone of how shallow the water is at the spot where Nicola’s mobile phone was left, and where the police believe she might have entered the river.

‘It’s even more shallow now but on the day it would have been around two feet deep, if she slipped she would have gone in and hit rock very quickly and been up to her thigh, that’s all,’ he says. ‘This is not drowning territory.’

He also disagrees with the suggestion that she might have hit her head on a rock and lost consciousness, and that her body could have been washed round the river bend to the nearby weir...."


 
Call me cynical (JMO) but I wondered if PF ended the river search "dramatically" so he could be live in the studio for that Channel 5 programme...

 
Fiddleneck is part of the river she walks . The creepy thing is thats written as a comment under one of Nicolas FB pics by some guy :( Prophetic?
and as can be seen on the map, it's pretty close to the bench spot but further upstream

and we already know, police have acknowledged that even if she went in the river, they can't be sure whether she went in at the bench spot or further upstream, so they searched a stretch upstream in the last few days. ( Faulding searched it too)

So all the stuff about ' it's not deep enough at the bench spot' amounts to very little.
St Michaels Angling Association told the Times it's 'notorious' - the whole stretch
LE have said that 'a mass ' could easily go over the weir ( river becomes tidal from there)
 
Last edited:
Where the case of Nicola Bulley is concerned there is at least three possible theories in my opinion ;
1. She deliberately went off of her own volition,
2, She was abducted and
3, She fell into the river.
I believe she fell into the river and while the expert from SGI seems adamant Nicola is not in the river I believe it is possible something was missed. The clothing she was wearing coupled with the cold water shock would have brought her under, possibly without a sound as she may have already been in shock after entering the river given the freezing temperature of the River.
I don't believe she left of her own volition as I doubt very much she would have left her children.
I believe that if she was abducted there would have been some evidence on the ground or someone would have heard something, a scream or cry.
The key here is her dog, Willow, who stayed by the water and was not wearing a lead or harness, if Nicola had been taken then the dog would have followed.
I am surprised the police did not cordon off the bench and the immediate area, even if they believe she entered the river and had recovered her body then it would have been appropriate to have a cordon to afford some dignity to the deceased and stop on lookers, not putting a cordon was a mistake.
The key to all this is her dog who stayed by the river and bench despite having no lead or harness on.
I didn't think it was helpful from the expert from SGI to say to the media he is 100% certain she is not in the river, I don't think anyone or any piece of equipment is that infallible, there is always room for error.
In the words of Arthur Conan Doyle, '' 'Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.'
My thoughts are with Nicola's family and I hope they find closure soon.
 
Because NB's partner, knowing her habits/behaviour had dialled 999 to alert the police to the fact that NB not being with the dog and phone was an emergency. Whereas the finder of the dog had no such insights or fears, may have checked the river, but could not possibly know that this was an emergency that needed a 999 call, and could have thought that the owner would soon turn up or be found.
The finder of the dog was perhaps not trained to think like the police and did not have the benefit of PA's insights at that point because no-one knew that NB was missing.

A dog off the leash, a discarded harness, and a phone dialling into a call already mean that someone is missing from the scene. It would be a remarkably bizarre situation to stumble across. I am wondering why the first local person on the scene didn't even think to ring the non urgent local police number to report this strange finding. Also, they clearly didn't consider anyone had fallen in the river at all - to me that makes me think it's not a likely option.
 
He also disagrees with the suggestion that she might have hit her head on a rock and lost consciousness, and that her body could have been washed round the river bend to the nearby weir...."

I'm not saying if she did hit her head or not but the adult niece of one of my friends banged her head getting into the bath and drowned while her mum and dad watched tv downstairs totally unaware of what was happening.

There can also be unknown problems - my mum banged her head and died because an aneurysm that she'd had in her brain (probably since birth the consultant said) burst - death due to brain haemorrhage. I on the otherhand fell down our stairs and came to rest with my head against the wall at the bottom. Yes it hurt but I was ok. The point that I'm making (I think...) is that what can be lethal to one person may just cause another a bit of pain or discomfort. He can't possibly know if someone falling into the river could have banged their head (maybe even just on the ground) on the way in.
 
Sadly I cannot conceive of a realistic scenario where Nicola is still alive after 16 days. The best case scenario that fits with her still being here would be if she left of her own accord, which would be near on impossible to do without being spotted at this point. Also knowing how close she is to her children and the rest of her family makes it even more improbable. Some might say she could have been abducted, but we are talking very small time windows along with lots of other factors that make her adbuction going unnoticed highly improbable. Ultimately the most devastating aspect of this situation is that every scenario where she could be alive is extremely unlikely, and it is this of course which the family are desperately clinging to as you would expect. Two young children left without a Mum who love her as much as she loves them, along with her husband, sister and parents. It's just devastating.
 
If anyone can research the incident of Elizabeth Rawcliffe falling into the river in 1926 it seems to be similar to the police working theory. It happened at "Fiddler's Neck", do we know where this is and if it is the same location? Maybe previous colloquial name? She was spotted and the person who waded in to help said it was deeper than expected. She disappeared under the water in front of the rescuer but she stuck an arm out and he managed to grab it.

Update - just seen that the Rowanwater site refers to accessing the "Fiddle Neck" in its site rules so could be the same place.
Nicola Bulley search: Real detectives vie with amateur sleuths in Lancashire village river meanders through a stretch known locally as Fiddleneck then over a fast weir that runs into he tidal stretch of the Wyre.

Link above, so that stretch is above the weir, and sounds rather dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Where the case of Nicola Bulley is concerned there is at least three possible theories in my opinion ;
1. She deliberately went off of her own volition,
2, She was abducted and
3, She fell into the river.
I believe she fell into the river and while the expert from SGI seems adamant Nicola is not in the river I believe it is possible something was missed. The clothing she was wearing coupled with the cold water shock would have brought her under, possibly without a sound as she may have already been in shock after entering the river given the freezing temperature of the River.
I don't believe she left of her own volition as I doubt very much she would have left her children.
I believe that if she was abducted there would have been some evidence on the ground or someone would have heard something, a scream or cry.
The key here is her dog, Willow, who stayed by the water and was not wearing a lead or harness, if Nicola had been taken then the dog would have followed.
I am surprised the police did not cordon off the bench and the immediate area, even if they believe she entered the river and had recovered her body then it would have been appropriate to have a cordon to afford some dignity to the deceased and stop on lookers, not putting a cordon was a mistake.
The key to all this is her dog who stayed by the river and bench despite having no lead or harness on.
I didn't think it was helpful from the expert from SGI to say to the media he is 100% certain she is not in the river, I don't think anyone or any piece of equipment is that infallible, there is always room for error.
In the words of Arthur Conan Doyle, '' 'Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.'
My thoughts are with Nicola's family and I hope they find closure soon.

Re the dog, we literally don't know this. The person who found the dog initially has claimed they tied the dog up from the time of the initial finding to the time that the others arrive was well over an hour of the dog being tied and on this matter we have zero info as none has been released. Some people have discussed that the first person had string in their pocket and tied the dog up with string but AFAIK this has not been formally disclosed.
 
and as can be seen on the map, it's pretty close to the bench spot but further upstream

and we already know, police have acknowledged that even if she went in the river, they can't be sure whether she went in at the bench spot or further upstream, so they searched a stretch upstream in the last few days. ( Faulding searched it too)

So all the stuff about ' it's not deep enough at the bench spot' amounts to very little.
St Michaels Angling Association told the Times it's very dangerous - the whole stretch
LE have said that 'a mass ' could easily go over the weir ( river becomes tidal from there)
In my opinion she would not have left the phone on the bench if she was moving far away from it - so if she went in accidentally I would expect it to be a spot near the bench.
 
There are a lot of posts saying how deep the water was where she may or may not have gone in.

Prove that the water was high on that day and at that time?

"He [Peter Faulding] shows me a picture on his mobile phone of how shallow the water is at the spot where Nicola’s mobile phone was left, and where the police believe she might have entered the river.

‘It’s even more shallow now but on the day it would have been around two feet deep, if she slipped she would have gone in and hit rock very quickly and been up to her thigh, that’s all,’ he says. ‘This is not drowning territory.’

He also disagrees with the suggestion that she might have hit her head on a rock and lost consciousness, and that her body could have been washed round the river bend to the nearby weir...."


He has been a massive source of misinformation for over a week.
It's not only that he claims stuff which is risible, it's that he contradicted himself over and over due to shooting from the hip and - presumably - was unable to remember what he'd said to one channel in the morning vs another channel in the afternoon.

About 5 threads of WS has been dominated by having to debunk many of those things.

eta
Re the past cases which @Just-a-random-girl has found, many of the newspapers reporting today, also have their own searchable archives and could probably check themselves for drownings in the Wyre ( Or tidal river drownings where bodies not found for weeks, or drownings in the South which Faulding has worked but was unable to be successful. If we can find & paste them on WS, they can. )
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
2,641
Total visitors
2,797

Forum statistics

Threads
603,059
Messages
18,151,365
Members
231,638
Latest member
C_Plus_Detective
Back
Top