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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the Channel 5 interview PA says something like with Nicki “what you see is what you get, there’s nothing else going on”.

I find myself wondering why he said that if the family have apparently told the police that she had had problems with drink; that it had made things difficult for him and that there had been a recent police visit to their home for NB.

I suspect there’s not much to be taken from it. Perhaps it’s just a turn of phrase, perhaps he didn’t think any of the problems were very serious, perhaps he’s just knackered and emotionally wrought and not thinking straight, perhaps he didn’t want to say anything less than positive. But any thoughts?
I would think that he meant what he said, that she was not secretive or underhand and did not hide her problems with drink, he is family and her family are family and they knew her and her past. He doesn't imply that there are zero difficulties.
 
So back to Ron the dog walker…..

He states that he got at call at 9:33, which was how he knew the time.

His wife was phoning to say ‘Penny’ had fastened the dog. So when did Penny get there? Why did she call his wife? Why didn’t ‘Penny’ call the number on the tag?

‘It was a progression…..WE found out who the couple were’……

I’m sorry to get a bit conspiracy theory here, but this timeline doesn’t sit right with me.

Where did Ron say that, read the article and watched the video but neither stated Ron got a call at 9:33am?
 
Guy is a clown. He would have been told that they believed she'd either jumped or fallen in the water.

Funny enough nobody said she was walking about with a whisky bottle but this is what he is saying be could have looked for.

His story has changed every few days. She couldn't possibly have drowned, she couldn't possibly have got over the weir... oh actually she could have done that and already be out to sea.

There is a reason why they've not called him back to assist searching further.
Even if he wasn't told, it should have been a consideration. I for one went straight to accident, then if not maybe suicide.

With the information we had we weren't allowed to discuss the possibility, but I bet it crossed many others minds too. So it should have crossed his. He turned it into a circus from the get go, claiming she wasn't in the river before he even went there.
 
There is also a huge stigma on suicides. Many people would prefer that their families think they had an accident than know for sure they took their own life. The latter would be far more upsetting.

Replied just to add that it's not just stigma .
It is also viewed ( not saying in this case in particular) as downright sinful for religious people ( of certain religious groups).
Two milleniums of being told " to hell " are not simply going to go away in a couple of libertarian decades , IMO .
 
What makes you believe someone was there before 9:30, aside maybe from Nicola?

From Ron’s interview today. He got a call from his wife ‘around 9:30’. And he goes by on to say that his wife has phoned him, which is how he knew the time and then he goes on to say his wife had phoned because Penny had fastened the dog, so she had fastened the dog and made call prior to 9:30.

 
Sounds like the latter, IMO.
I think their reasoning for it's release is being investigated.
I suspect they did it with the partners consent but not for any investigative reasons. We shall see.
A partner or family should not be allowed to 'sign-off' on this type of release imo, this was Nicola's private information.
 
From Ron’s interview today. He got a call from his wife ‘around 9:30’. And he goes by on to say that his wife has phoned him, which is how he knew the time and then he goes on to say his wife had phoned because Penny had fastened the dog, so she had fastened the dog and made call prior to 9:30.

From your link. He says after 9.30


Reporter - Good to see you. You actually... you saw the phone is that right?

Witness - Yeah.

Reporter - You saw the phone that Friday morning

Witness - Yes.

Reporter - And that was around... was it after half 9?

Witness - I gave a full statement to the police with the exact time because my wife's telephone call had a time on it so, I've given a full statement.

 
From your link. He says after 9.30


Reporter - Good to see you. You actually... you saw the phone is that right?

Witness - Yeah.

Reporter - You saw the phone that Friday morning

Witness - Yes.

Reporter - And that was around... was it after half 9?

Witness - I gave a full statement to the police with the exact time because my wife's telephone call had a time on it so, I've given a full statement.


Yes so the official timeline I would say is the 9:33 timing, based off his phone.

The other person has come across a dog off lead, tethered the dog, phoned this man’s wife about the dog, who has in turn phoned him, it all feels too tight.

I think I’m clutching at straws it’s just uneasy feeling…..that’s a lot of action that been done which it makes the 9:20 window onwards even smaller.
 
People have quite fairly questioned how quickly NB could have moved downstream out of view if she did fall in the water, but it doesn't really sound like Penny or Ron even looked in the river. NB could have been right beneath them, but if they weren't looking they wouldn't see her. The only thing making that unlikely is Willow giving no indication of NBs presence.
 
Ron claimed that the phone was unlocked when he saw it but it was locked when his wife looked at it. Surely someone can determine the time delay of the phone lock and establish when it was left there
They could have accidentally locked the phone IMO if they picked it up for a closer look. I'm not sure if we know what type of phone it is, but on mine the lock button seems to be placed in a spot where anyone who doesn't know the phone will inevitably manage to click it when I hand it to them.
 
Just my observation but the pictures of NB do not appear to show someone who drinks heavily. A 45 year old heavy drinker usually looks like a 45 year old heavy drinker.
Any comments from her parents, sister or friends on her drinking habits?
the odd thing to me is that she lives in a small place- a village. unless she travels away to a larger more urban spot, some one in town would know about her habits- even if she was being secretive, if she were buying alcohol or going to a pub, people would know IMO. ...and no one does seem to have known, unless they are being uncharacteristically tactfully silent.
 
I am angry for NB. None of her private information should have been made public. I'm not sure what kind of picture the police are trying to paint, but I don't like it at all.

IMO, she didn't hurt herself and she did not run away from her old life. She was making plans for the future (the playdate), and still involved in her daily routine (dropping the kids off at school, walking her dog, emailing her boss about a client, logging into a meeting). Furthermore, why would she bring her dog if she was planning either of those things? That doesn't make sense. Wouldn't she leave the dog at home? If she loved her dog (and it seems like she did), she wouldn't put her dog in a position where he/she could get hurt or lost. MOO.
The question is was she in her right mind? The argument being that if not then she was potentially thinking and acting irrationally.

I do however tend to agree with you, her behaviour was seemingly so very normal that morning. I just find it very hard to believe she'd abandon her beloved dog in the middle of a walk.

It makes the disappearance utterly bewildering. I guess this is why it has drawn such attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
67
Guests online
1,855
Total visitors
1,922

Forum statistics

Threads
600,140
Messages
18,104,583
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top