Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #15

[JennieM]

I've just joined, after reading most of the threads on an ongoing basis, and as a lurker I'd like to compliment a few members on their good sense. There's some in particular, but I won't name them, as that might be in breach of the rules, for all I know.

What I mostly wanted to add, though, was my thoughts about the January 10th incident, because I'm fairly familiar with these types of situations where police respond in the way they did. i.e. with health professionals, and the various situations that come under the 'concern for welfare' heading. Basically a 'concern for welfare' can stretch from a person not being seen/failing to respond to knocks and calls, to someone sitting on the roof and threatening to set themselves on fire. But if the response comprises health professionals embedded with the police response team, this is generally because someone has called the police for assistance because there is some sort of a crisis going on, and where one of the involved people is 'not themselves/irrational' for any number of reasons.

I won't speculate as to why they responded in this case; and the exact circumstances don't matter. What does seem to matter is that someone from the press had got wind of the incident, and (I'm surmising here, based upon the few things I've heard about how the press operates) asked the police if they wished to comment regarding a story they intended to publish within a short time-frame. I'd surmise that the story was going to merely say WTTE 'police called to house on January 10th because NB was doing xxxxyyyzzz whilst drunk'.

I get the impression that the whole 'brought on by the menopause suffering' was intended (by the family, I'd say) to try to remove any suggestion that NB was a full-blown-never-sober-out-of-control-drunk.

I'm also of the opinion that in this case her state of mind, and any problems she'd had, including any problem drinking that had occurred, soon turned out to be not relevant to her disappearance. Though obviously it would have taken a couple of days and a lot of searching, etc, to get a clearer idea on that. It's my opinion that the thing most probable event - as said in the very first LP press conference, is that she plonked the phone on the bench (my words) to start getting the harness back on the dog, and that one way or another she ended up stumbling/tripping over and falling in the river. If so, she wouldn't have landed on the stones at the shallower edge in a neat standing-up landing pose (like PF kept talking about). She'd have ended up more on her backside/side, potentially even with a twisted ankle. With a good deal of her anatomy in water that was nearly 0c, and maybe having some splashed in her face and mouth, she wouldn't, sadly, have been capable of doing anything much to help herself.

All of the above is my opinion only, and sorry it's such a long ramble. With the exception of the Jan 10th matter, which we learned only yesterday, I've kind of held onto these thoughts for nearly three weeks in silence!

Great first post!

 

[jackal67]

Oh of course. You could have a point there!

we also do not know if she had gone missing before during her relationship with PA. MOO

 

[Cluella DeVille]

Yes. The LP timeline and sequence of events is very vague and contradictory when compared with witness statements released in the press.

Are we even sure which gate they are referring to when talking about the 9:33 witness finding Willow. One presumes it is the kissing gate but could also be the bigger gate to Allotment Lane or even the stile behind the bench.

If the kissing gate, there isn't much distance for Willow to be 'running between the gate and the bench' it's only a few metres. And if 9;33 witness was walking down the River Path towards the kissing gate, maybe Willow was running to her rather than trying to signal NBs whereabouts?

There doesn't appear to be any real certainty (for us outsiders at least) what went on once she entered through the kissing gate. She did supposedly exchange pleasantries with someone and their dogs interacted, but even the 9.10 final sighting was a bit of distance away but I believe it is accepted this was her though the exact time had a question mark and I don't know if it was firmly verified?
The narrative follows that her phone was at the bench area at 9.20 but there is no visual confirmation she was carrying it and put it there herself.
The arrival of who, when and how exactly Willow/harness/lead/phone were found has been very confusing. Did the lady who was apparently first on the scene have a dog of her own, was she just out walking or was she on her way to an appointment? Did she approach Willow from the towpath or through the kissing gate? Sometimes a man with a dog is mentioned who spotted the phone on the ground, then you hear it was on the bench, then there's no man mentioned at all. Man with a white fluffy dog...who was that? The man spoken to this morning had a little black dog.
PA says he was contacted sometime after 10.30 as he was leaving the house, he alerted LE en route sometime around 10.50-11.00 depending on where you've sourced the info.
I'm not sure there's anything definitive, so if you're confused I think it's very safe to say you are not alone

 

[jackal67]

I've just joined, after reading most of the threads on an ongoing basis, and as a lurker I'd like to compliment a few members on their good sense. There's some in particular, but I won't name them, as that might be in breach of the rules, for all I know.

What I mostly wanted to add, though, was my thoughts about the January 10th incident, because I'm fairly familiar with these types of situations where police respond in the way they did. i.e. with health professionals, and the various situations that come under the 'concern for welfare' heading. Basically a 'concern for welfare' can stretch from a person not being seen/failing to respond to knocks and calls, to someone sitting on the roof and threatening to set themselves on fire. But if the response comprises health professionals embedded with the police response team, this is generally because someone has called the police for assistance because there is some sort of a crisis going on, and where one of the involved people is 'not themselves/irrational' for any number of reasons.

I won't speculate as to why they responded in this case; and the exact circumstances don't matter. What does seem to matter is that someone from the press had got wind of the incident, and (I'm surmising here, based upon the few things I've heard about how the press operates) asked the police if they wished to comment regarding a story they intended to publish within a short time-frame. I'd surmise that the story was going to merely say WTTE 'police called to house on January 10th because NB was doing xxxxyyyzzz whilst drunk'.

I get the impression that the whole 'brought on by the menopause suffering' was intended (by the family, I'd say) to try to remove any suggestion that NB was a full-blown-never-sober-out-of-control-drunk.

I'm also of the opinion that in this case her state of mind, and any problems she'd had, including any problem drinking that had occurred, soon turned out to be not relevant to her disappearance. Though obviously it would have taken a couple of days and a lot of searching, etc, to get a clearer idea on that. It's my opinion that the most probable event - as said in the very first LP press conference, is that she plonked the phone on the bench (my words) to start getting the harness back on the dog, and that one way or another she ended up stumbling/tripping over and falling in the river. If so, she wouldn't have landed on the stones at the shallower edge in a neat standing-up landing pose (like PF kept talking about). She'd have ended up more on her backside/side, potentially even with a twisted ankle. With a good deal of her anatomy in water that was nearly 0c, and maybe having some splashed in her face and mouth, she wouldn't, sadly, have been capable of doing anything much to help herself.

All of the above is my opinion only, and sorry it's such a long ramble. With the exception of the Jan 10th matter, which we learned only yesterday, I've kind of held onto these thoughts for nearly three weeks in silence!

Great post

 

[Enigmacode]

Others from the UK, can you explain to me the difference between Next of Kin and registered Powers of Attorney in this setting? Like obviously PoAs don't have to be kin, but can you legally delegate your preferred NoK in a separate process to your health and finance PoAs? If a person had registered PoAs before they disappeared would the police contact them in this case, or only NoK?

LPA (Lasting Power of Attorney) doesn't have to be NOK, nor even an attorney. But, designating LPA can only be done by someone who is not missing, obviously. No one can take over your affairs, financial or otherwise, if you (NB?) are in absentia.
Same with NOK, they can't do anything with her independent finances, etc.
However, if a person is missing for a period of time, then they can apply for that person to be presumed 'unalive', going to probate I believe and then control can be taken. But it's a very lengthy process and evidence needs to be produced.

 

[jackal67]

Not that I have seen. Many of the details of that check are undisclosed, vague details.
Who called for the check to be done?
Who was involved and found at the property during the check?
What were the reasons for the WC?
Potential 'arrest', but who, what potential crime/charge/warrant?

yes exactly. No details released whatsoever. Only those involved would know this and of course LP.

 

[Mandalas]

So if the papers were unable to


Under GDPR and the DP Act there is a principle of vital interests - basically releasing personal data to save a life - also health and medical data is sensitive personal data and has additional special rules. So it would of course be permissable to say someone has a medical condition/allergy etc to a first responder or emergency services as this information could be life changing.

IMO to release information about the menopause struggles and "significant problems with alchohol" to prevent harm to her family/others locally - absolutely no justification for that one - I can't see how a court would rule that would be appropriate and proportionate at all when it would be sufficient to give general information eg: - ongoing health/mental health/medication issues that mean someone is vulnerable to harm either themself or others.

And if that information was necessary to be released, it should have been released on DAY ONE - not 3 weeks later.

My own opinion - the details were released to justify the police handling of the case.

Thanks for responding to my comment.

So in your view, there is no valid justification for the release of this information by the police as a decision taken to avoid it being released (possibly even more insensitively) instead/ahead of the press? I mean in terms of safety (eg. Nicola's psychological safety)? Bearing in mind we do not have all the information that they will have.

I have to believe there is validity in the actions of the police, but am also not ignoring the fact they could have made an error in judgement (aside from the legal issue, and my own personal views).

 

[Allabouttrial]

There doesn't appear to be any real certainty (for us outsiders at least) what went on once she entered through the kissing gate. She did supposedly exchange pleasantries with someone and their dogs interacted, but even the 9.10 final sighting was a bit of distance away but I believe it is accepted this was her though the exact time had a question mark and I don't know if it was firmly verified?
The narrative follows that her phone was at the bench area at 9.20 but there is no visual confirmation she was carrying it and put it there herself.
The arrival of who, when and how exactly Willow/harness/lead/phone were found has been very confusing. Did the lady who was apparently first on the scene have a dog of her own, was she just out walking or was she on her way to an appointment? Did she approach Willow from the towpath or through the kissing gate? Sometimes a man with a dog is mentioned who spotted the phone on the ground, then you hear it was on the bench, then there's no man mentioned at all. Man with a white fluffy dog...who was that? The man spoken to this morning had a little black dog.
PA says he was contacted sometime after 10.30 as he was leaving the house, he alerted LE en route sometime around 10.50-11.00 depending on where you've sourced the info.
I'm not sure there's anything definitive, so if you're confused I think it's very safe to say you are not alone

Most of that information was confirmed in the police's latest press conference.

 

[ginnyw]

Which point in the clip?

I only heard her reference the 17th continuing on from the other guy who said the 10th - I think she misspoke IMO

At 2 minutes 49 she says 'and a medical team went to the house on the 17th' just after the other presenter mentions the visit on the 10th. Definitely sounds like two visits.

 

[sceawian]

I don't understand the relevance of this question with regard to Nicola's disappearance?

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm still half trying to get it straight it my head.

Normally when someone disappears / is a victim of crime, you hear that their Next of Kin has been informed / kept up to date. As Nicola and PA weren't married, presumably Nicola's legal NoK are her parents, rather than him.

1) I'm curious about how police communication and interaction may differ with Next of Kin, vs., in this case, a long-term partner who is a close loved one but presumably not Next of Kin. It seems police have a duty to inform NoK, but what is their duty towards informing other loved ones, or PoAs etc.?

2) Is there a legal process to confirm your preferred Next of Kin in the UK? E.g. a way Nicola could have had PA legally listed as Next of Kin, instead of, or alongside her parents? As far as I'm aware, I've only been asked about Next of Kin in a medical setting, it's not official / registered with the government etc.

3) Conversely, Power of Attorney, for health or finance, is something official that is registered with the government. For example, it could well be that PA could be Nicola's registered Power of Attorney even if he wasn't her next of kin, or someone else could be, like her sister, or a friend etc. In a missing persons case like this, would a being Power of Attorney (someone who has a legally established right to make medical or financial decisions when a person is "unable") supersede Next of Kin in terms of being informed / in contact with police, would there be an expectation that both NoK and PoA would be kept informed, or would being a PoA not hold any weight at all here, in terms of police communication, because it's less about legality and more about "loved ones"?

Hope that isn't as clear as mud

EDIT: multi-quote

A Next of Kin is used to refer to a relative (or relatives) who you have the closest relationship with. ...(snip)


Power of Attorney can give a person peace of mind that someone that is trusted by you is in charge of your affairs.

LPA (Lasting Power of Attorney) doesn't have to be NOK, nor even an attorney. But, designating LPA can only be done by someone who is not missing, obviously. No one can take over your affairs, financial or otherwise, if you (NB?) are in absentia.
Same with NOK, they can't do anything with her independent finances, etc.
However, if a person is missing for a period of time, then they can apply for that person to be presumed 'unalive', going to probate I believe and then control can be taken. But it's a very lengthy process and evidence needs to be produced.

Thanks guys! Really the overarching idea was wondering how being kept in the loop by police during a case is affected by legal requirements vs. social bonds. And how that may influence whether Nicola's parents or PA may be the primary point of contact for the police / what they may be told.

 

[Woodburnbay]

LPA (Lasting Power of Attorney) doesn't have to be NOK, nor even an attorney. But, designating LPA can only be done by someone who is not missing, obviously. No one can take over your affairs, financial or otherwise, if you (NB?) are in absentia.
Same with NOK, they can't do anything with her independent finances, etc.
However, if a person is missing for a period of time, then they can apply for that person to be presumed 'unalive', going to probate I believe and then control can be taken. But it's a very lengthy process and evidence needs to be produced.

Claudias Law deal with this.
Introduced after lobbying by Claudia Lawrence when she disappeared and she has been missing not found for over a decade.

 

[guiser]

I get the impression that the whole 'brought on by the menopause suffering' was intended (by the family, I'd say) to try to remove any suggestion that NB was a full-blown-never-sober-out-of-control-drunk.

I always thought they used the menopause as some kind of excuse or justification for the alcohol issue, as if they felt it necessary for there to be a 'respectable' reason for her 'bad' drinking.
Trouble is, some people don't believe addiction is an illness anymore than they believe in the struggles the menopause can bring with it.

Great post.
Welcome!

 

[ayrshireguy]

National Police Air Service Eurocopter G-POLC over the River Wyre

 

[Simplistic67]

I am still struggling to understand why a Detective Superintendant would be attached to the case if they are confident she went into the river...

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks for sharing, very interesting.

I work in crisis and emergency management education in the UK.

Under 'Duty of Care', and Data Protection law, personal information can be shared if it is deemed to protect an individual from harm.

"Under the GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 you may share information without consent if, in your judgement, there is a lawful basis to do so, such as where safety may be at risk." (Source: attached)

Somewhat unrelated, but for context, under the Civil Contingencies Act, Category 1 responders (which includes police) have a legal obligation to safeguard members of the public (physiological and psychological) and keep them safe from harm.

Duty of Care in Policing

Presumably, if the police are following due process, they have made the decision to release the information to prevent further harm to NB or her family, or indeed others living locally, rather than to 'save face' or play media tennis ie try to trump them. One would hope.

Intrigued to hear more on this.

Do we have any lawyers here who can clarify?

It's going to be interesting to see the IOPC report on this one. ( self referral)
If they did release it under pressure from media I'd liked to read about that in the report too ( Mark William's Thomas call to LP to release what he'd scooped about the police call to the home)

If Home Sec wanted to she could ask for a full review from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary - I bet she doesn't.
I hope that the lower ranks won't get the blame and have their career's affected because that U turn was clearly made over the head of the SIO

 

[ayrshireguy]

I am still struggling to understand why a Detective Superintendant would be attached to the case if they are confident she went into the river...

Attached from day 3. It was clear to LP this was a big case.

 

[Allabouttrial]

---

17TH FEB.

Nicola Bulley's dad says the family are waiting for a "breakthrough" as today marks three weeks since she went missing.

---

E Bulley, 73, says "every day is a struggle" as the family are desperate for answers.

---

It comes one day after, Nicola's family released a heartbreaking directly appealed to the mum, saying to "not be scared" as her girls "want a cuddle".

It comes after Nicola's sister shared a sunny snap of herself with Nicola and their mum D, 72 on her Facebook wall today.

She wrote: "Three weeks today without you home. We all miss you so much, time to come home now."

---

Nicola Bulley dad says 'every day is a struggle' as he hopes for 'breakthrough'

Lancashire Police launched a massive search for Nicola Bulley, using drones, dogs, and specialist divers and expanding more than 13 miles to Morecambe Bay in the last three weeks

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[ayrshireguy]

Police helicopter having a good look at the River Wyre

 

[cottonweaver]

Local (to me) news. So they are still searching Cumbrian volunteer groups called in for Nicola Bulley search - cumbriacrack.com

This is great - all volunteers again - hope they get some credit

 

[guiser]

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I'm still half trying to get it straight it my head.

Normally when someone disappears / is a victim of crime, you hear that their Next of Kin has been informed / kept up to date. As Nicola and PA weren't married, presumably Nicola's legal NoK are her parents, rather than him.

1) I'm curious about how police communication and interaction may differ with Next of Kin, vs., in this case, a long-term partner who is a close loved one but presumably not Next of Kin. It seems police have a duty to inform NoK, but what is their duty towards informing PoAs etc.?

2) Is there a legal process to confirm your preferred Next of Kin in the UK? E.g. a way Nicola could have had PA legally listed as Next of Kin, instead of, or alongside her parents? As far as I'm aware, I've only been asked about Next of Kin in a medical setting, it's not official / registered with the government etc.

3) Conversely, Power of Attorney, for health or finance, is something official that is registered with the government. For example, it could well be that PA could be Nicola's registered Power of Attorney even if he wasn't her next of kin, or someone else could be, like her sister, or a friend etc. In a missing persons case like this, would a being Power of Attorney (someone who has a legally established right to make medical or financial decisions when a person is "unable") supersede Next of Kin in terms of being informed / in contact with police, would there be an expectation that both NoK and PoA would be kept informed, or would being a PoA not hold any weight at all here, in terms of police communication, because it's less about legality and more about "loved ones"?

Hope that isn't as clear as mud.

NOK would be her parents unless she had nominated PA but I suspect the police have effectively treated her partner of 12 years as NOK in all but name.

I doubt if POA is relevant in this case as we can assume that as neither PA or NB have any issues with mental capacity to make their own decisions (financial or medical) they probably wouldn't have ever addressed the matter.