Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #4

[Tyzer]

I still believe she was taken. She wouldn't have heard someone if she had been on teams call. She could have been dragged to a car in the caravan park and away in less than 10 minutes.

I presume that her phone screen was unlocked to show the call.

Say NB was abducted, how would the person know that she was muted etc? They'd have been taking a very big chance.

 

[msmarple99]

I think for Nicolas sake we must continue to look at other possibilities.
I can’t understand why the police are trying to say they are almost certain she is in the river but they have no evidence to suggest so & they have an exit 6-7 minutes walk away with no cctv.

Look at how well she knew the area, how many times has she been around that bench, she would know to be careful and if she had an accident where are the marks?
I’m not buying it.
She’s such an attractive lady too, which to me perhaps not rightly so but to me makes it even more likely someone has become obsessed with her & knows exactly when she will be there, they could have been waiting days/weeks for an opportunity when nobody was around.

<modsnip - voluntary disappearance discussion is off limits>

The thing is there were ppl around though

 

[themagiceye]

I still believe she was taken. She wouldn't have heard someone if she had been on teams call. She could have been dragged to a car in the caravan park and away in less than 10 minutes.

An abduction by a random stranger at that time of day, in such a public place, is probably very unlikely, or at least at the lower end of the probability list. Something sinister happening in a moment of sudden escalation with someone she knows is more likely.

 

[SuzyQ70]

I presume that her phone screen was unlocked to show the call.

Say NB was abducted, how would the person know that she was muted etc? They'd have been taking a very big chance.

Unless someone who knew her really well was aware she'd be muted on the call, just a thought.

 

[Deleted member 240694]

no the police have said the phone only, they don't know where NB was at this point

Correct, LE don't know where NB is at this point, so they are putting all the eggs in one basket & simply guessing that she must be in the river, although, as I understand it, they have no way of proving this.

 

[msmarple99]

I presume that her phone screen was unlocked to show the call.

Say NB was abducted, how would the person know that she was muted etc? They'd have been taking a very big chance.

Possibly attack by Willow to protect NB

 

[themagiceye]

I presume that her phone screen was unlocked to show the call.

Say NB was abducted, how would the person know that she was muted etc? They'd have been taking a very big chance.

Anyone attacking or abducting someone who has a live call on their phone would be taking a huge risk. I've thought from day one that the phone was planted. The call being live, and the placement of the phone (right next to the river) specifically intended to point towards a tragic accident.

 

[Tyzer]

Unless someone who knew her really well was aware she'd be muted on the call, just a thought.

I have multiple Teams calls a week, I never know in advance if I can get away with muting myself so would NB? Even if she knew she'd be muted, how would anyone else?

 

[jackal67]

Seems like she just changed her privacy settings? I've done it myself when I've randomly realised about it. <modsnip - comments from SM are not allowed>

me too

 

[vivienbee]

The gilet might 'officially' be knee length, but NB isn't a tall woman - it could be mid-shin on her. I'm now imagining her kneeling down close to the water to attend to the dog/harness/lead. She then tried to stand up, the hem of the gilet trapped under her foot, and it's enough to send her off balance, unable to regain her footing. It would be nothing away from a river bank, but an awkward stumble next to a river is another thing.

There should be signs of slipping/similar, however, but that goes for most attempts at an explanation. Poor, poor Nicola.

This post has been lost in the volume of other comments but I think this is the most likely explanation.

I definitely think this is the gilet in question - even if you search "ankle length gilet" on google, most are slightly below the knee.

I think it's possible that NB was putting Willow's harness back on (note the "dogs must be on leads" sign at the tree, as prev. discussed) facing the bench with her back to the river. She puts the phone on the bench to make it easier. She steps on the tail of the coat and falls back, hitting her head. She tries to get up, disoriented, and steps backwards, losing her balance and staggering/going backwards into the river. JMO.

As someone who frequently wears knee length cardigans, the amount of times I've stepped on the back of them by accident is ridiculous. On one occasion, I was zipping up my niece's coat, tried to stand back up and smacked my head on the kitchen tiles (earning myself a concussion). It is easily done.

 

[Aliceinwonderland1234]

Anyone attacking or abducting someone who has a live call on their phone would be taking a huge risk. I've thought from day one that the phone was planted. The call being live, and the placement of the phone (right next to the river) specifically intended to point towards a tragic accident.

Hmm.
It’s all very odd isn’t it.
But only a couple of people I assume would know how to join that meeting.

 

[kittythehare]

New member here. The hypothesis of NB falling into the water seems to be based more on the fact that there is no evidence suggest she left the area, as suggested by LE on this afternoon's update. They did, however, mention that there was one route that they are yet to retrieve/ analyse relevant footage. But given their confidence in the water hypothesis, presumably they don't expect this to throw up any new, compelling leads?

It's a tiny window, is all.
They are conducting a very thorough investigation and I'm really confident about saying that and believe me if I thought otherwise I'd be saying that.
I don't like their conclusions but I have no reason to doubt them.
They may need to update their website to reflect what Supt was actually saying, I see no other anomalies
except the dog but that is pretty significant and I think it is for them too.
The dog and the non cctv exit are the ONLY 2 crumbs we get to work with.
We have been flat out at it all week and every stone we could find was turned several times..
That's the process.

What they did not say but I think is safe to assume is that they pulled every record of every person known to be in the area at the time and analysed each one..

But maybe one sneaked in there, aware of the lack of CCTV cos stalking.. maybe he was an accomplished criminal. But what was his motive? Why would he have left the phone when he could so easily have chucked it in the river? How did this hypothetical criminal or person of evil intent get her out of there to where her own dog couldn't find her? Why ? They will have micro analysed her phone, computers everything by now, they clearly saw nothing nefarious.
And where as the hypothetical one could have superman abilities to move like a monkey, unseen and fast , what would have been in it for him? I don't see a gain for him unless he just liked doing it...
I'm at a wall now.

 

[Taskforce88]

This post has been lost in the sea of other comments but I think this is the most likely explanation.

I definitely think this is the gilet in question - even if you search "ankle length gilet" on google, most are slightly below the knee.

I think it's possible that NB was putting Willow's harness back on (note the "dogs must be on leads" sign at the tree, as prev. discussed) facing the bench with her back to the river. She puts the phone on the bench to make it easier. She steps on the tail of the coat and falls back, hitting her head. She tries to get up, disoriented, and steps backwards, losing her balance and going backwards into the river. JMO.

As someone who frequently wears knee length cardigans, the amount of times I've stepped on the back of them by accident is staggering. On one occasion, I was zipping up my niece's coat, tried to stand back up and smacked my head on the kitchen tiles. It is easily done.

Yea, that's my direction of thinking now.

 

[themagiceye]

I have multiple Teams calls a week, I never know in advance if I can get away with muting myself so would NB? Even if she knew she'd be muted, how would anyone else?

It could be a regular weekly call, on that day of the week at that time of the day. If so, it may be known to a person or persons that she always took that call on her dog walk, with audio and video muted.

 

[Cranky]

Yes I know I was with you on this one. But very risky crossing a field with someone else’s dog in broad daylight and planting them, plus in a very short period of time.

No, if they knew her it would be easy. If they were stopped they could just say they'd found NB's dog, had the other person seen her MOO

 

[SuzyQ70]

I have multiple Teams calls a week, I never know in advance if I can get away with muting myself so would NB? Even if she knew she'd be muted, how would anyone else?

Fair enough. I'm not in a job where i use Teams so not sure of what the protocol is.

 

[Taskforce88]

No, if they knew her it would be easy. If they were stopped they could just say they'd found NB's dog, had the other person seen her MOO

And where is NB at this point?

 

[SuzyQ70]

It could be a regular weekly call, on that day of the week at that time of the day. If so, it may be known to a person or persons that she always took that call on her dog walk, with audio and video muted.

That was my thought too

 

[themagiceye]

It's a tiny window, is all.
They are conducting a very thorough investigation and I'm really confident about saying that and believe me if I thought otherwise I'd be saying that.
I don't like their conclusions but I have no reason to doubt them.
They may need to update their website to reflect what Supt was actually saying, I see no other anomalies
except the dog but that is pretty significant and I think it is for them too.
The dog and the non cctv exit are the ONLY 2 crumbs we get to work with.
We have been flat out at it all week and every stone we could find was turned several times..
That's the process.

What they did not say but I think is safe to assume is that they pulled every record of every person known to be in the area at the time and analysed each one..

But maybe one sneaked in there, aware of the lack of CCTV cos stalking.. maybe he was an accomplished criminal. But what was his motive? Why would he have left the phone when he could so easily have chucked it in the river? How did this hypothetical criminal or person of evil intent get her out of there to where her own dog couldn't find her? Why ? They will have micro analysed her phone, computers everything by now, they clearly saw nothing nefarious.
And where as the hypothetical one could have superman abilities to move like a monkey, unseen and fast , what would have been in it for him? I don't see a gain for him unless he just liked doing it...
I'm at a wall now.

You're assuming whoever is responsible is a stranger.

 

[sitaford1]

It could be a regular weekly call, on that day of the week at that time of the day. If so, it may be known to a person or persons that she always took that call on her dog walk, with audio and video muted.

Even so it's very easy to unmute yourself, and put your camera and audio back on.