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

[JimmyBets]

Didn't PA infer that someone local must know what happened? I'm not sure how that fits with being deemed vulnerable and high risk.

Totally agree. Also from PA, ‘she’s 100% NOT in the river’.
Yet today we are told by LE that NB had “specific vulnerabilities“ Which PA informed them about. This information led to the rapid response and ‘high risk’ status of the enquiry.

it just doesn’t add up.

 

[Mr X]

This is 100% my line of thinking. If you're in a severely depressed state (speaking from experience), you wouldn't have the brain power/motivation or wherewithal to do these things. Obviously everyone's different but (assuming NB has a history of depression/mental illness), I just can't see someone "acting as normal" like this. One would likely be consumed by brain fog and very distracted by their own thoughts. Again, this is speaking from my own experience and when I've been at my lowest ebb. The idea of logging into a non-compulsory work call is absolutely the last thing I'd want to be doing in that state of mind.

It is not all that obvious but if you know that you are going to be committing suicide it can be incredibly motivating and inspiring.
This sounds counterintuitive but it is known that people who are close to this will suddenly become organised and may even become happier because they are aware that their terrible suffering is soon going to end.

Optimism. People assume that suicide is all about pessimism but in the mind of someone planning to do this there is the joy of escape to a better place.

Sadly.

 

[Mr X]

I've posted about this multiple times, Its a 'deep hole' from a fishing perspective. Not because its an 18ft deep death trap. She didn't go over that weir, its impossible IMO.

So why is there a sign on the tree with red writing on it saying deep water? Surely you would use black writing if you were not trying to say something.

 

[Mr X]

Totally agree. Also from PA, ‘she’s 100% NOT in the river’.
Yet today we are told by LE that NB had “specific vulnerabilities“ Which PA informed them about. This information led to the rapid response and ‘high risk’ status of the enquiry.

it just doesn’t add up.

Threats against the person would add up and possibly cause someone to be vulnerable but I don't understand why someone who was being threatened would be out by themselves with just a dog as company in areas where they would be so easily targeted.

You would change your behaviour.

Only reason I can think of for doing this route if you are under duress would be because you were meeting someone and had no choice but to do this.

 

[vchk]

If NB had left the fields onto the main road then she has to go either left (towards the school) or right (towards The Grapes pub)
Police are sure she didn't walk towards right/green arrow as they have reviewed the CCTV at the Grapes pub.
However there is no CCTV if she walked to left/red arrow - that is where iron bridge is across the river.
and you can see where the weir is - I wonder of NB fell into the river around the ironbridge that would put her below the weir and explains why police were searching towards the sea as

 

[Helechawagirl]

As I understand it, NB was on a work Teams call starting 9am, she joined 9:01am, but muted without video. Believe she was just listening not actively participating.
Yes, phone found still connected to the Teams call. She didn't disconnect.

That is so interesting to me…says she wasn’t planning to be anywhere else. Maybe she had to pee and stepped into the trees, and lost her balance and fell into the water? If another party was involved, they’d most likely destroy the phone unless she left the phone and they didn’t know it was there???? Just speculating…

 

[philthesaddler]

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?

 

[suzyjackson]

Is that legally required? When I had a dog I was advised against putting my phone number on her by someone whose dog was kidnapped.

You're right, name and address are the legal requirements, my error, still a shame they weren't there or this could have had a different outcome

JMO

 

[in2thegate]

If NB had left the fields onto the main road then she has to go either left (towards the school) or right (towards The Grapes pub)
Police are sure she didn't walk towards right/green arrow as they have reviewed the CCTV at the Grapes pub.
However there is no CCTV if she walked to left/red arrow - that is where iron bridge is across the river.
and you can see where the weir is - I wonder of NB fell into the river around the ironbridge that would put her below the weir and explains why police were searching towards the sea as

How about straight over into the other field ? Not covered by CCTV ?

 

[Normanly]

That's the first we've heard of it afaik which means that the collar didn't have the legally required tag with the owner details IMO

I think this part was still unclear. The SIO seemed to stumble over her words and still not explain the actions of the witnesses between 9.33 and 10.50. Phoning the vet was a new piece of information. Legally a dog must have owner name and address on collar tag.

Dog laws UK | Blue Cross

There are over 20 pieces of legislation that apply to dog ownership in Britain including laws around dogs in cars, dog barking laws and dog breeding laws. Read on to find out more.

www.bluecross.org.uk

Collar and tag​

All pet dogs must wear a collar with the owner’s name and address on it when in a public place. The owner's details can be inscribed on the collar itself or on a tag attached to the collar.

Even if your dog is microchipped, they still need to wear a collar or tag. Exemptions apply for some working dogs.

It’s up to you whether or not you put your telephone number on the collar or tag as well, but we recommend you add your mobile number so you can be contacted at any time in case your dog goes missing.

What can happen if I break this law?​

Owners can be fined up to £2,000.

Law: Control of Dogs Order 1992

 

[Tanzanite]

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.

It is not all that obvious but if you know that you are going to be committing suicide it can be incredibly motivating and inspiring.
This sounds counterintuitive but it is known that people who are close to this will suddenly become organised and may even become happier because they are aware that their terrible suffering is soon going to end.

Optimism. People assume that suicide is all about pessimism but in the mind of someone planning to do this there is the joy of escape to a better place.

Sadly.

I think there is some wisdom in this.

 

[Themac101]

So why is there a sign on the tree with red writing on it saying deep water? Surely you would use black writing if you were not trying to say something.

You will find those type of signs on what essentially amounts to a puddle. Its arbitrary because kids can drown in inches of water, there's a drainage ditch close to me with multiple deep water signs and its not a foot deep. I posted days after she went missing that I've waded the river when it was higher/faster than this. I totally agree with what PF said, the way weirs work mean its as close to impossible as you can get that a body would flow over the top of it.

 

[Italia]

I think this part was still unclear. The SIO seemed to stumble over her words and still not explain the actions of the witnesses between 9.33 and 10.50. Phoning the vet was a new piece of information. Legally a dog must have owner name and address on collar tag.

Dog laws UK | Blue Cross

There are over 20 pieces of legislation that apply to dog ownership in Britain including laws around dogs in cars, dog barking laws and dog breeding laws. Read on to find out more.

www.bluecross.org.uk

Collar and tag​

All pet dogs must wear a collar with the owner’s name and address on it when in a public place. The owner's details can be inscribed on the collar itself or on a tag attached to the collar.

Even if your dog is microchipped, they still need to wear a collar or tag. Exemptions apply for some working dogs.

It’s up to you whether or not you put your telephone number on the collar or tag as well, but we recommend you add your mobile number so you can be contacted at any time in case your dog goes missing.

What can happen if I break this law?​

Owners can be fined up to £2,000.

Law: Control of Dogs Order 1992

Defo some fudging over details of who/when alerted /the chain of people etc , prob doesn’t want to bring them into spotlight again.
Re: specific vulnerabilities- so something(s) That could either lead to someone choosing to go in the water or putting her at risk of harm from others , a ‘vulnerability’ that could lead to either, police think it is former as no other evidence, parterre thinks latter coz she would never leave everyone behind etc , but a die if I thing potentially relevant for both outcomes.
For example : Mental health - only one, stalker etc- the other

 

[JimmyBets]

I’m intrigued as to what The family’s and /or PA’s response will be to todays press conference.
Following the previous 2 they have directly contradicted LE.

 

[kev4pe]

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.

This all sounds very plausible especially with the police so adamant that she went in the river. I guess we just have to wait and see now.

 

[themagiceye]

At this moment, about 10 pages of this thread have been posted since this morning’s press conference. The vast majority of posts center on the nature of the “specific vulnerabilities” that immediately classified N’s disappearance as high risk. Exactly what LE asked people not to question at the press conference. And 100% predictable.

Why on Earth mention the vulnerabilties? Apparently it was an attempt to justify why they think she’s in the river. While some may be placated by the explanation, FAR more people are now wondering what was going on behind the scenes.

How could they not know they’d get the exact opposite reaction from what they wanted.

That poor family.

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.

 

[Normanly]

Defo some fudging over details of who/when alerted /the chain of people etc , prob doesn’t want to bring them into spotlight again.
Re: specific vulnerabilities- so something(s) That could either lead to someone choosing to go in the water or putting her at risk of harm from others , a ‘vulnerability’ that could lead to either

Yes probably to protect them but not being clear will continue speculation unfortunately

 

[Liverpool86]

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.

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

 

[Italia]

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.

Yes, that is what I meant also - the 2 things can coexist , just partner doesn’t believe possible but police thinking - well actually yes it is possiblility.

 

[wrpd]

When asked about the vulnerabilities, the Det Supt said (at 25:50)

"I'm not going to go into the details about those individual vulnerabilities, I've asked you to respect the family who are going through unimaginable pain and distress at this moment. But those vulnerabilities based our decision making in terms of erm grading Nicola as high risk and have continued to form part of my investigation throughout"

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=528436422711183

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?


"A person is recorded as missing every two minutes in England and Wales, with over 300,000 missing person reports created by police each year (Fyfe and others, 2015). The College of Policing authorised professional practice (APP) states that going missing ‘should be treated as an indicator that the individual may be at risk of harm’ and bases the risk grades on the likelihood of this harm happening. Risk grades are described as:

• high – the risk of serious harm to the subject or the public is assessed as very likely
• medium – the risk of harm to the subject or the public is assessed as likely but not serious
• low – the risk of harm to the subject or the public is assessed as possible but minimal"

Taken from: https://www.college.police.uk/article/missing-persons-making-risk-assessment-decisions