Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #13

[Luxee]

So this is the most recent timeline I can find from the Telegraph (dated 10th Feb), which I have updated with the new information about a call to a vet:

- 8.43am - Nicola walked along the path by the River Wyre, having dropped her children off at school
- 8.46am - Nicola is believed to have arrived here
- 8.50am (approx) - A dog-walker – somebody who knows Nicola – saw her walking around the lower field with her dog. Their two dogs interacted briefly before the witness left the field via the river path
- 8.53am - Nicola sent an email to her boss
- 9.01am - She logged into a Teams call
- 9.10am (approx) | A witness – somebody who knows Nicola – saw her on the upper field walking her dog, Willow
- 9.20am - Nicola’s phone is on the bench
- 9.30am - The Teams call ended but Nicola stayed logged on
- 9.33am - Nicola’s mobile phone and Willow were found at a bench by the river by another dog-walker. Dog-walker also phones local vet for help, but the vet cannot help
- 10.50am - The primary school where Ms Bulley's children attend is notified
- 11am - Police receive a call about the disappearance

What I don't understand is:

1. Why is the lady (let's call her Lady Z) who found the dog and phoned her daughter, who then phoned the school, not in the timeline from the Telegraph?

2. When did Lady Z pass through the scene? From previous discussions, I thought it was 9:30am, but it seems like the 9:30 witness account was not Lady Z.

Is it just me, or is getting a clear version of events very difficult on this?

- 9.33 is the person you are calling Lady Z that found NB’s phone and Willow the dog running free, to my way of reading this JMO

 

[Tanzanite]

Seeing as I feel that most of this is directed at comments I’ve made, I would like to clarify, yet again, that it is just a personal opinion, much the same as you having your opinion, which I respect. Again, having been in a dark place myself, currently with mental health issues that are still very much present, I feel that there is no harm in saying what I personally would and wouldn’t do in front of my dog, with or without children etc etc, when I have repeatedly stressed that this is all opinion and stated that i understand everyone is different. It’s not at all a lack of understanding mental health at all when myself, and many others here, also have mental health struggles - it is in fact, valuable to know what people would/might/may do or not do in a similar situation. Of course nobody is DECIDING on what NB has done. But it is okay to speculate. Detectives frequently put themselves in the victims/mispers shoes to solve a case.

I apologise if my comments made you uncomfortable. However, it isn’t against the rules to speculate what one might do. Nobody is claiming to know what she did/wouldn’t have done. They can only give an opinion. So finally, again, that’s mine

My post wasn't aimed at any particular poster. I would have quoted it if so.

I was commenting generally having read several similar opinions. I couldn't even say if yours was one of them - I rarely clock poster's names tbh, just what people write.

 

[ginnyw]

This line is interesting. We take the first part of it but maybe don't consider the second.

• high – the risk of serious harm to the subject or the public is assessed as very likely

Missing persons – making risk assessment decisions | College of Policing

Long read: Which missing persons come to harm?

www.college.police.uk

 

[JimmyBets]

Vulnerabilities would have to be corroborated by multiple sources in order to be a factor. The sources of that corroboration are the interesting point, not the actual vulnerabilities.

And how quickly could LE corroborate this information from PA in order to have divers in the river 5 hours after the alarm was raised?
NB’s father said she had no health issues when he spoke to press. Now I fully understand the father may not have been aware of any health issues prior to NB‘s disappearance but why would he say that several days afterwards if PA has informed LE of “specific vulnerabilities“ ?

 

[philthesaddler]

- 9.33 is the person you are calling Lady Z that found NB’s phone and Willow the dog running free, to my way of reading this JMO

It can't be, because that is the woman who phoned her daughter, who then phoned the school. If that's the case, why isn't it stated?

 

[pineapple23]

I might have immediately read into the vulnerabilities/high-risk comment above. When the police state "high risk" are they likely meaning that she was a female on her own, by a river? Or is there likely to be much more to it?

Imo if they had meant that they would have stated it - rather than state there were specific vulnerabilities which they couldn't go into.

 

[PS8800]

Anyone know why LE would release this latest info of "high risk" Is there any motivation behind such tidbits of info?

 

[UKjester]

Another thought today. In which direction was the lady who found Willow travelling?
If she had crossed the iron bridge as NB had done or travelled from allotment lane and they didn’t cross paths that can affect the time frame further can it not?

There still seems to be little thought given to entering and then exiting the water. It appears to be assumed there was no way out once entered.
What was the topic of the Teams call and the meeting the prior evening?
We all know the housing market is under strain and mortgage applications have declined.

I still have this niggling worry about PA’s description of that fateful morning that everything was more calm than usual. Almost if everything was planned.

Such a head scratcher, we just all want her home for her family and friends

 

[vchk]

Anyone know why LE would release this latest info of "high risk" Is there any motivation behind such tidbits of info?

I think it was mentioned before by police probably in the very first conference - someone did point out here.

its not a new news - however people and media doesn't have anything new to talk about so emphasizing on this point

 

[wallaby]

Anyone know why LE would release this latest info of "high risk" Is there any motivation behind such tidbits of info?

They seem to be trying to stop the public from acting as vigilantes/harassing locals. They have been inferring things all along but are spelling it out more and more because people aren’t listening. IMO only!

(The reaction so far doesn’t seem to be what they were hoping for, yet again.)

 

[philthesaddler]

<modsnip> The police certainly had reason to believe she was in the river without a few hours of her disappearance - that seems VERY strange to me, given very little physical evidence, or indication she was suicidal.

Even if suicide, it's a very strange way to attempt it - regardless of how deep a body of water is it's quite hard to intentionally drown yourself, so did she take an overdose?

Even so, it doesn't explain the complete lack of evidence in the river, no clothing, no body, no nothing. I don't for one second believe the police or the other search group would have missed the body.

<modsnip: bashing LE>

 

[Luxee]

It can't be, because that is the woman who phoned her daughter, who then phoned the school. If that's the case, why isn't it stated?

It’s a timeline, focused and brief information on known events. Succinct, rather than everything in detail as in a report? JMO

 

[Bastardo]

The zoom call feels like a pertinent bit of information. Mid meeting and phone is set down. What happened in that meeting and why the need to meet with her boss the night before? All points that family may not be privvy to.

A “set” of vulnerabilities speaks to recent events rather than ongoing state of mind. JMO.

 

[Italia]

Anyone know why LE would release this latest info of "high risk" Is there any motivation behind such tidbits of info?

Yo support /explain why they have focussed on river as main theory

 

[vchk]

The zoom call feels like a pertinent bit of information. Mid meeting and phone is set down. What happened in that meeting and why the need to meet with her boss the night before? All points that family may not be privvy to.

A “set” of vulnerabilities speaks to recent events rather than ongoing state of mind. JMO.

it may be nothing but I wish someone had asked these during q&a !

 

[philthesaddler]

It’s a timeline, focused and brief information on known events. Succinct, rather than everything in detail as in a report? JMO

Fair enough - but it was mentioned originally and it does the police no favours if they appear to be chopping and changing the timeline to suit their lack of progress.

 

[kittythehare]

Anyone know why LE would release this latest info of "high risk" Is there any motivation behind such tidbits of info?

It was always known that it was high risk category.
What was not known was that information received by police from next of kin contributed to placing the case in this category.

 

[PS8800]

By grading someone "high risk", an investigation is granted "focused attention and significant resources" by police, Assistant Chief Constable Peter Lawson explained.

Nicola Bulley was 'high risk' missing person due to 'a number of specific vulnerabilities', police say

Detectives said there is "no evidence of third party involvement" in the mother-of-two's disappearance.

news.sky.com

 

[thirdrateamywinehouse]

High risk of course doesn't mean "suicide" is more likely, it might mean that it makes it more likely to have a fall or more likely to get lost which seems to me more likely why you would fixate on the river. If the phone/ dog/ car had been found by a bridge, or the sea, then yes obviously, but by a river that she knows, I would be more inclined to think the high risk pointed to accident.

 

[abcd123]

LE believe NB had vulnerabilities that made her an immediate high risk misper. These vulnerabilities would have likely been communicated by PA. So why does he think that NB isn't in the river and the police investigation is flawed? Possibly because he believes the two things can coexist: NB had known vulnerabilities, but they were not causative of her disappearance. The possible reasons for that are myriad, and are probably strongly linked to hope, hope, hope... not wanting to believe that she's gone.

I feel uncomfortable reading comments saying how NB couldn't have left her dog, that they couldn't possibly do xyz, because they love their dog too much. As well the comments about, well, she arranged a play date, so she wasn't planning to self harm. Not all suicides are planned. Some happen in a flash, in a perfect storm of THIS MOMENT, for a hundred reasons that no one noticed. Some are absolutely inexplicable, because the one person who could have explained is not there anymore. What is categorical - for me anyway - is that choosing self harm is NOT about how much you love your family or dog.

Anyone in the grips of mental illness, or wanting to self harm, is not to be placed on someone else's sliding scale of 'how much do they love their loved ones.' It feels uncomfortably judgemental and lacks understanding about mental health issues.

My own view is what I started with - via thinking it was an accidental fall - is that NB walked downstream, maybe beyond the weir and entered the water there. She would have been out to sea before the searches were extended. I assign no importance whatsoever to her failure to tie up the dog, against the enormity of this.

My heart aches for PA, her children and family. I cannot comprehend their pain, especially facing it all in this media clamour. I don't blame them one bit for wanting to turn in whatever direction a bit of hope comes from.




I think there is some wisdom in this.

If she entered below the weir then she wouldn’t necessarily have been out to sea before the searches started.

If she entered the water around 9:30 am the tide was just after low, and on the push.

The river below the weir is tidal, so the flow would have been upstream until high tide some 5 hours later. Afaik police were searching with helicopters much earlier that 5 hours. JMO