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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.

Her friend is spot on, until there is evidence she went in that water all other avenues must continue to be explored and open.

I fear the police botched this from the beginning, at the very least they should have cordoned the path way leading to gate and bench area where they believe NB entered the water. 8 days on and IF foul play was in play the whole area is contaminated. So sad.
JMO - perhaps the police were misled from the beginning?
 
I'm a newbie, having followed this story from the start.

I'm leaning towards her having fallen in the river, as it seems the most simple explanation. There is one thing that others me though. I can totally get on board with the cold shock scenario but if you fell into the river, even a tumble down the bank at speed, you wouldn't end up far from the bank at all. Looking at the pictures of the police in the river, that area wasn't deep at all. If you fall in water fully clothed with two layers of padded coat/gilet, they won't become water logged immediately (most coats have a minimal amount of water resistance) you would have a few seconds to right yourself and potentially stand up or take a layer off.

Also, the padding of the coat and gilet would protect your body from the initial cold, the water wouldn't get to your torso until it had waterlogged all the layers, again giving you time to stand, shout, scramble out.
She was wearing boots which would have become very heavy filled with water, making it difficult to place them down, plus the running current below the surface would also cause her trouble. I believe she also had one of those long coats on that covers part of your legs, restricting her movements even more.

Add to that cold shock and panic and the weeds, undergrowth in the river anything could have stopped her righting herself or coming up for air.

There are so many variables. One person could fall in and come up straight away and get out. Another might never be seen again.
 
Hang on a minute. Just watching Sky News and reporter Martin Brunt is giving the timeline and saying at 8.47 NB was seen by red coat lady, that they knew each other and their dogs interacted before red coat lady left the area.
I thought in other reports red coat lady was baffled as to why the police wanted to speak to her as she had already told them she didn’t see NB???
View attachment 400088
I give up.
 
Not cordoning off the area.
Giving the wrong street names which is crucial in this case to find out if NB left through that exit, which is a blind spot for cctv.
Timings of when the police arrived to when they were called (10:30am / 10:50am) still not clarified.
The list goes on. And I’m not trying to rubbish the police in anyway, hopefully in the background they are continuing to explore other avenues but going by NBs friends reactions on MSM this morning they also are feeling frustrated IMO

yes I just noticed - in the last few minutes - that LE had given the Garstang Road name incorrectly but as for the cordon, are we sure that they didn't initially cordon that specific area between bench and water as soon as she was categorised as MISPER- but before the media got there?
I hope a reporter asks that at the next conference

( remembering the Sarah Everard case and the Met cordoning off the abduction spot as soon as it was indetified. The tape and forensics teams did that search within hours before removing all signs that they'd done that meticulous search)
 
yes I just noticed - in the last few minutes - that LE had given the Garstang Road name incorrectly but as for the cordon, are we sure that they didn't initially cordon that specific area between bench and water as soon as she was categorised as MISPER- but before the media got there?

( remembering the Sarah Everard case and the Met cordoning off the abduction spot as soon as it was indetified. The tape and forensics teams did that search within hours before removing all sign that they'd done that meticulous search)

Maybe but if they had I would have expected MSM to report on it and they didn’t. News reporters were literally standing at the bench, sitting on the bench and touching the bench whislt reporting on the case the night/day after her disappearance.

And no disrespect to Sarah Everard but her initial disappearance was a far cry to this in terms of a mystery. CCTV nailed that .

We have a lone dry dog, a phone on a conference call, a harness and a lead and no sign of owner but lots of people around.
 
Last edited:
Hang on a minute. Just watching Sky News and reporter Martin Brunt is giving the timeline and saying at 8.47 NB was seen by red coat lady, that they knew each other and their dogs interacted before red coat lady left the area.
I thought in other reports red coat lady was baffled as to why the police wanted to speak to her as she had already told them she didn’t see NB???
View attachment 400088
I think the reporter must be getting confused with the witness who actually saw her and said they had a laugh and the dogs played for a bit. That was not red coat lady
 
Maybe but if they had they didn’t say so. News reporters were literally standing at the bench, sitting on the bench and touching the bench whislt reporting on the case the night/day after her disappearance.
Not good!
( Haven't been following the case since the outset, unlike many members here)
 
Yesterday, I posted the possibility that NB trod on the edge of that long gilet while bending down to the dog/tinker with harness, stood up, and immediately lost her balance. By coincidence, I did something very similar this morning - I bent down to fasten my daughter's footie boot, and as I stood back up, I'd managed to stand on the back of my dress. When you're moving with normal speed and momentum, it can really catch you off balance. I guess it's something that more women might experience than most men.

I grabbed a stair post, righted myself, was obviously fine. By a riverbank, nothing to grab, bunched up in winter clothes, I can see, fairly vividly, how NB could have done this very thing and fallen over - possibly backwards - but into the water. The swiftness and slight element of projection - rather than just slipping or sliding - might account for no obvious slipping marks on the bank.

Once in the water, although not deep, a silty, slimy riverbed (a poster mentioned upthread about the weir creating silt) could be very hard to stand up on. Add in the cold, shock, being weighed down with water, and a tragedy might happen.
 
yes I just noticed - in the last few minutes - that LE had given the Garstang Road name incorrectly but as for the cordon, are we sure that they didn't initially cordon that specific area between bench and water as soon as she was categorised as MISPER- but before the media got there?
I hope a reporter asks that at the next conference

( remembering the Sarah Everard case and the Met cordoning off the abduction spot as soon as it was indetified. The tape and forensics teams did that search within hours before removing all sign that they'd done that meticulous search)
The police stated that they did forensics at the bench early on. There was some outcry that they hadn't cordoned it off.
 
The police mentioned in a heir press conference that it was usually for Willow to be off the lead and the harness. So, why was the harness on the ground between the bench and the river? I wonder if Willow was on the edge of the riverbank, sniffing or looking like he wanted to jump in. Nicola didn’t want the dog in the river, it was too cold or it took ages to get him out the river and she didn’t want to stay much longer - she did have a hat and it was cold, or she had things to do, or she didn’t want to have to give him a bath later, or she didn’t want a dirty car.

She called Willow, got nowhere with that and finally realised she’d have to go and fetch him. She took the harness with her, then realised she couldn’t put it on at the same time as dragging the dog away, so dropped the harness en route or threw it towards the bench. Throwing it could have mean she wobbled enough to fall it. Try pretending to throw hard, you wobble back.

She missed sliding down the bank and fell in backwards, getting a mouthful of water as she went under. The freezing water shocked her heart, this makes you take a big breath, possibly inhaling more water, she couldn’t get a footing as the bottom was so slippery and she was panicking. The sheer cold doesn’t leave her much time to get out, before she’s essentially paralysed.
 
FACTS:Lancaster 27th January. 87.7% humidity. 0.8mm precipitation.
Wind 26.3 Km/h

3C(37.4F)
...average 1C (with that speed of wind = freezing)

So... wet enough to rain? Yes (so cold it would have been almost snow)
Humid enough to create dew on grass. Yes

Ever seen a dog walk across grass and not get wet underneath? No.

And people keep sayingthe dog was dry.
Lancaster historical past weather | Weather25.com
 
Last edited:
Totally this. Can't emphasise this enough, from personal experience too.

But what we can't comprehend is how it got to her falling in?

She fell in, how?

The dog didn't go in the river.
Her phone didn't go in the river.

She'd walked down there several times a week, she wasn't silly. Accidents do happen, but I don't think this was one.
 
FACTS: Lancaster 27th January. 87.7% humidity. 0.8mm precipitation.

So... wet enough to rain? Yes
Humid enough to create dew on grass. Yes

Ever seen a dog walk across grass and not get wet underneath? No.

And people keep sayingthe dog was dry.
Lancaster historical past weather | Weather25.com
I did wonder about the dew.

It was stated that the dog was 'bone dry' and that has been taken to mean it wasn't soaking wet after being in the river.
 
FACTS: Lancaster 27th January. 87.7% humidity. 0.8mm precipitation.

So... wet enough to rain? Yes
Humid enough to create dew on grass. Yes

Ever seen a dog walk across grass and not get wet underneath? No.

And people keep sayingthe dog was dry.
Lancaster historical past weather | Weather25.com

You’re discussing a dog with wetish legs and tummy. The rest of the world is linking being dry, with not being soaked from being in the river.
 
IMO - Dog shook itself dry. They do that.
People CAN assume it was a little wet (and incorrectly dismiss it) due to the morning dew on the long grass. <modsnip>
Dogs don't shake themselves dry. When my dogs have been in the water, even with a rub down with a towel back at the car, it still takes a long time back home for them to dry off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO - Dog shook itself dry. They do that.
People CAN assume it was a little wet (and incorrectly dismiss it) due to the morning dew on the long grass. <modsnip>
Disagree
Our spaniels do a circuit and the river is 20 mins from getting home. If the dogs have swum you can tell when they get home. It was stated dog was bone dry .. it would have still been damp I think
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My springer spaniel gets very excited if there is a ball in the vicinity. He never takes his eye off the ball, he’ll jump & spin but won’t get under my feet. He’ll justwait for me to release the ball. Spaniels are very clever, they are bred to find & retrieve, many can retrieve balls with the command fetch it or find it, thus meaning the owner doesn’t have to. Mines also is a swimmer & doesn’t dry for hours after a swim, even with a drying coat on it still takes hours. I think what I’m saying is, if Nicola went near the water I can’t see that it’d be because of the dog.
Previously on the thread there’s a link where her family says she had stopped taking the ball on walks for the very reasons you mention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
1,865
Total visitors
2,038

Forum statistics

Threads
600,121
Messages
18,104,095
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top