JMO. MOO.
So we are being asked to believe the following:
PA is fully aware of NB’s struggles. There was a serious incident at the home address on Jan 10th.
Since NB dissapeared, PA has repeatedly said NB is not in the river. PA was however happy for PF to search even though he said NB is not in the river.
Also from PA, “I am sure someone in the village knows what happened to NB”
why? Why ? Why? Those 2 solid assumptions given that PA knew what Nicola was going through?
I also recall this from Nicolas parents very soon after she had gone missing, “Her parents made a point of saying from the start to the press what a good headspace she was in, how happy she was”
With hindsight I believe the parents were trying to preempt what they suspected would be said by PA.
This also fits the narrative of what a lot of the local ‘chat’ has been saying.
Are we witnessing coercive control here, both domestically and of the investigation itself?
1 more point. Below is the quote from LE today. Even though they thought necessary to release NBs private struggles, why would they feel the need to include the last sentence which has been BBM?
As a result of those issues, a response car staffed by both police and health professionals attended a report of concern for welfare at Nicola’s home address on January 10th. No one has been arrested in relation to this incident, but it is being investigated.