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

[philthesaddler]

Can anyone clarify as I'm still confused and found todays press statement wasnt really any clearer explained than the last presser with regards the 08.33 to 10.50 segment of the timeline . The person(s) who found the dog/phone/ harness who was originally in a rush to attend a meeting/appointment so tied the dog up with string/rope/the dogs leash(unclear) to bench despite dog found running agitated between gate and bench before her ringing her dil who rang the school who alerted PA. Now includes further statement to include they also rang a vet (who couldnt help )prior to contacting dil ?

This is exactly what I am querying.

Is this the same person? Or have they amalgamated 2 different witness statements to 1) protect their identity and 2) because of the confusion over timings? See my previous post where there is a 10:15am witness account.

 

[themagiceye]

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“ ?

For her to be high risk they would have to have corroboration early on. The interesting bit is who corroborated what - there's a huge difference between a corroboration from a medical professional and a friend/colleague/whatever.

 

[Coach]

Given what was said in the press conference this morning re vulnerabilities and high risk elements, I think it would be very interesting to know what state of mind she was in that morning - was she happy, feeling down, calm, upset, was there any friction the night before or the morning she disappeared, an argument or something upsetting her.

 

[vchk]

See screenshot below (from a Daily Mail article a few days after the disappearance), which implies there were 2 separate witness accounts of the dog alone and harness on the bench

View attachment 403060

i wouldn't give dailymail any more importance than a toilet roll

 

[supersleuth123]

1- why do they need to release all the cctv of her? What does it add if she's seen walking past a neighbours address or driving? What does it add? She was seen and spoken to at school and in the field by independent people.

2- the abduction theory would need so many things to go exactly to plan that it just would be so unlikely to happen. How is someone managing to get away with a body and not be seen by others in a reasonably busy area.

She had possessions found next to a river, this is the most likely place she has went. Cctv has shown she didn't leave most of the exits and they've requested dashcam for the others.

To voluntarly make yourself missing requires planning and money. Bank accounts will be checked to see if she was doing anything prior to going - withdrawing money, moving money elsewhere. Her face is out there and someone would have recognised her by now.

Providing exact reasons why they think she went in the river could be hurtful for family to see in public. You do not need to know this, the family will have been told but you have no right or need to know this other than to satisfy yourself. May sound harsh but it will not affect your life by knowing or not knowing this other than to satisfy a nosiness.

The simplest solution is usually the correct one. This is not an Agatha Christie novel, or a knives out film (for those much younger)


3- anyone who knows anything about missing persons could tell she was graded high risk given the number of officers involved. The public became involved early (some became far too involved) so no, it wouldn't have made any difference. If the police had given reasons for saying high risk then it's hurtful for her family and friends to have this released, the police will very rarely release anything specific as unfair to the individual (if they are found) and also for family.

The police tried to push the public away from speculation by speaking about her partner not being involved but it still didn't stop, it didn't stop people digging up reviews of the caravan park, or of folk stalking Nicola on Facebook, starva etc. I very much doubt they regret waiting to release this information, probably more likely that they regret that they have had to release it at all as it will be distressing for family and friends. Family will have had the investigation explained to them but they will understandably be hoping that she turns up safe and well.

1. Showing CCTV of her (if they had it) will be more likely to jog people's memory. For example, if people saw her car they might remember it. Other people at the school who didn't talk to her might think, "oh yeah, I did see her actually, she was doing XYZ." It would also confirm the time stamps. There are numerous reasons to release the CCTV if they have it. In most cases, the latest public CCTV would be released, and it is IMO rare to only show the person's own Ring doorbell (given it isn't in a public place). So I just want to clarify; if no CCTV exists that would be useful to *know* (but I am not implying anything untoward about that being the case).

2. I don't think she's been abducted, I have never suggested that. I'm pointing out a frustrating inconsistency in police comms in which they're basically saying "there's no evidence of X, so it must be Y" when in fact there's no evidence of Y either. For what it's worth, I think she left the area voluntarily.

- CCTV may show she didn't leave by most of the exits (as you have said), but unfortunately it doesn't show she didn't leave by THE exit, the exit that she entered by, uses regularly, and is expected to use.

- I'm not trying to make this an Agatha Christie novel. Like I said before, I think it's most likely she left the area voluntarily and IMO the evidence/lack of evidence supports this more than it does the river theory.

3. I totally disagree with you on that. By not giving the important information that NB was high risk and vulnerable, lots of people (not me, for the record) implied foul play. The police have stated themselves that the speculation has been a distraction (dodgy fisherman, the 'abandoned house', the red van, the stained glove, the TikTok slethsteurs etc etc.). IMO, all of this would have been far less likely to have happened had the public known the police's perspective for their river theory, which is that NB was vulnerable. IMO, a big mistake.

 

[Coach]

For her to be high risk they would have to have corroboration early on. The interesting bit is who corroborated what - there's a huge difference between a corroboration from a medical professional and a friend/colleague/whatever.

The way I understood it from the PC this morning was that on receiving the first call about her going missing, on the information provided by PA re her vulnerabilities, they deemed her high risk. This could also explain why the Police were quite quick on the scene.

 

[jojojaja]

University of Portsmouth pdf which informs of the different categories of missing persons.

https://pure.port.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/1548080/Attitude_to_the_risk_assessment_process_final.pdf


I think some people are confusing her being vulnerable with High Risk and coming out with highly vulnerable and therefore having mh issues. Please don't assume what you don't know, vulnerability can mean health conditions, it can mean she has to take regular medication for something, it can mean many things that add up to being vulnerable. Most people who have talked about her describe a happy person who was in good spirits and happy about a good outcome regarding her mortgage. The police will have checked her texts, emails, social media messages, talked to her family and friends as well as finances to see if there was anything that may have been bothering her, if she has issues with anyone, some bad news, a health scare, loss of loved ones, anything to get an idea of her state of mind.

Also can we be more careful with the talk of suicide, it can be triggering to people and you may be nudging vulnerable members who do have mh issues into a low.

 

[PeggyHenry]

The police were informed she had a number of specific vulnerabilities.. does that mean they take it as a given? I’m hoping that whilst they would take this information into account that they get that backed up medically or from a number of sources. I remain firmly of the belief this was not a tragic accident.
This is a physically fit mother who is able to take care of her appearance and hold down a job.

 

[Deleted member 320164]

@Inquisitive_Jen

Speaking from experience, I have found myself by a river on a couple of occasions. One after taking some tablets as an act of self harm. And another time after a horrific meeting with my boss and my route home took me directly along a river bank (not dissimilar to the Wyre). I felt strongly compelled to walk in or jump, I was wandering about in a confused circle. A friend found me by pure chance but I was so distracted and hysterical at that point in time I could easily have walked in as a reaction to a circumstance - entirely unplanned in broad daylight. I was not thinking about friends, family or my dog at home.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience. My feeling is that to consider self harm you have to be in quite a wound up state, people are generally quite lost in their own thoughts and emotions, and yet she apparently had normal interaction with other dog walkers that morning (as well as her own family) as well as her family. Nothing indicates that she was preoccupied with inner concerns.

 

[BensonP]

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“ ?

Why would LE have to corroborate from multiple sources? If the partner told them of vulnerabilities then that intelligence would be good enough surely imo. There is a lot going on in peoples lives that elderly parents or others would not be told about.

 

[PeteG85]

on the timeline there is an entry for 8.50am (approx)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1625815434153934849

On the release for todays press conference, there is no mention on it for 8.50 witness.
Sorry I wasn't clearer but I couldn't find a way to link the twitter post

 

[Enigmacode]

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?

Yes, the timeline has been a bit tricky, I like the Telegraph for it's timeline because it says 'approximate' re witnesses as they can't be 100% sure of the time, few mins discrepancy here and there is normal. Whereas logging onto Teams calls, sending messages will be exact on the timeline. The latest presser had a timeline also, I've attached the doc here. They omitted the detail about the witness at 08:50am, witness who saw her and the dogs interacted, which was a bit odd.

 

[Deleted member 320164]

University of Portsmouth pdf which informs of the different categories of missing persons.

https://pure.port.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/1548080/Attitude_to_the_risk_assessment_process_final.pdf


I think some people are confusing her being vulnerable with High Risk and coming out with highly vulnerable and therefore having mh issues. Please don't assume what you don't know, vulnerability can mean health conditions, it can mean she has to take regular medication for something, it can mean many things that add up to being vulnerable. Most people who have talked about her describe a happy person who was in good spirits and happy about a good outcome regarding her mortgage. The police will have checked her texts, emails, social media messages, talked to her family and friends as well as finances to see if there was anything that may have been bothering her, if she has issues with anyone, some bad news, a health scare, loss of loved ones, anything to get an idea of her state of mind.

Also can we be more careful with the talk of suicide, it can be triggering to people and you may be nudging vulnerable members who do have mh issues into a low.

I agree. High risk simply means:

“The risk posed is immediate and there are substantial grounds for believing that the subject is in danger through their own vulnerability; or [as a] victim of serious crime; or...the public is in danger”.

(Quoted from the link).

As I said before - the label may simply have been applied because the circumstances in which she disappeared indicated that she was not intending to go missing thus could be “victim of a serious crime”. (Or indeed otherwise come to harm unintentionally)

 

[SteelyGlint]

I was quite interested by the gaugemap data for a place further up the Wyre at Garstang.

The levels do go up and down. If this is not the tide then it must be extraction or rain. Seems regular which makes me think extraction is happening. Possibly a reservoir feed IMO.

It is only a few inches up and down but there is a regular up and down happening. View attachment 403000


Gaugemap for Garstang (I cropped the image)

Full page image

[View attachment 403001

Want to add some more to this - the local fishing club blog has the following post:

Bailiffs walk about – St. Michaels Angling Association

stmichaelsaa.co.uk

referencing this area of river and the statement : “Although this part of the river Wyre is not tidal, backflow from the tide causes the river to rise, which can be fairly high with spring & neap tides”

 

[steelo]

For her to be high risk they would have to have corroboration early on. The interesting bit is who corroborated what - there's a huge difference between a corroboration from a medical professional and a friend/colleague/whatever.

It was likely to have been PA as she was classed as high risk immediately and he was the first contact with the police.

 

[PS8800]

This is an insightful read about the classification for high risk mispers and categories that make them potentially high risk

What are Nicola Bulley’s ‘specific vulnerabilities’ as police reveal new details

Lancashire Police said they were made aware of the mother of two’s ‘specific vulnerabilities’ after speaking to her partner, Paul Ansell

www.independent.co.uk

"committing or assisting in the commission of crimes"

Interesting

 

[markoid]

2. I don't think she's been abducted, I have never suggested that. I'm pointing out a frustrating inconsistency in police comms in which they're basically saying "there's no evidence of X, so it must be Y" when in fact there's no evidence of Y either. For what it's worth, I think she left the area voluntarily.

- CCTV may show she didn't leave by most of the exits (as you have said), but unfortunately it doesn't show she didn't leave by THE exit, the exit that she entered by, uses regularly, and is expected to use.

- I'm not trying to make this an Agatha Christie novel. Like I said before, I think it's most likely she left the area voluntarily and IMO the evidence/lack of evidence supports this more than it does the river theory.

3. I totally disagree with you on that. By not giving the important information that NB was high risk and vulnerable, lots of people (not me, for the record) implied foul play. The police have stated themselves that the speculation has been a distraction (dodgy fisherman, the 'abandoned house', the red van, the stained glove, the TikTok slethsteurs etc etc.). IMO, all of this would have been far less likely to have happened had the public known the police's perspective for their river theory, which is that NB was vulnerable. IMO, a big mistake.

LE have clearly stated today (and again) that NB did not leave the area. And that no other persons entered the area. I struggle with how that could not be any clearer? They have admitted that they'll keep other lines of inquiry open, but are still working on the basis NB did not leave the area, ergo is in the water.

 

[Coach]

Regardless of how well friends and family know someone, no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors in a relationship apart from the people themselves. On the exterior, a couple or family can appear so happy ever after on the outside to friends, an over glossed lifestyle often trying to keep up with others but on the inside, cracks appear and relationships crumble. I do wonder what state of mind she was in the night before and the morning she went missing. Someone who is perfectly fit and healthy could easily be deemed vulnerable and high risk if they had just received some bad news or had a shock, an intense argument or a marriage breakdown for instance.

 

[BensonP]

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.

Police have explained it is an ongoing, live investigation. This means information will be constantly changing and they will review their working hypothesis. When new information is coming in hour by hour, the case is continually updated.

 

[Mr X]

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

It is also very shallow below the weir.

Want to add some more to this - the local fishing club blog has the following post:

Bailiffs walk about – St. Michaels Angling Association

stmichaelsaa.co.uk

referencing this area of river and the statement : “Although this part of the river Wyre is not tidal, backflow from the tide causes the river to rise, which can be fairly high with spring & neap tides”

There were spring tides and the highest one was on the 24th January.

I did put this in a much earlier thread on this topic and suggested body may have moved inland rather than in the expected direction .