Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #5

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

LE are asking people not to speculate as to what has happened to NB as it may cause harm or distress to the family.

Yet.

LE saying NB has fallen into the river appears to be causing the family more distress as the family appear to be sceptical as to that outcome and must be racking there mind with all kinds of thoughts and theories themselves.
I think maybe one issue is some of the more lurid speculation and indeed downright accusations - additional stress they don't need right now.
 
The police ideally need to ask the owners of this property at least.

3 houses up from the entrance to Allotment Lane there is a house with possibly three cameras.

Possible ring doorbell, and 2 IP Cameras fixed to the front and corner of the property.

Highlighted here. Source: Google Street View - Blackpool Lane
High quality version here
Great find
 
It’s definitely between 15 & 16ft deep at the part where the bench is. The police have confirmed this, as does the warning sign on the tree by the bench, which says “DANGER DEEP WATER” and that’s up all year round.

The pictures you’ve seen of police divers wading are wading further along the river. However, even a depth of just 17 inches can carry a person away in a tidal river. But this part is 16ft deep, hence the rubber dinghy’s.
Where have they posted that it’s 15 feet at the bench? It’s not tidal above the weir either. Have you ever actually seen the river Wyre?
 
Please correct me if I’m wrong there are so many reports now I can barely keep up and the threads are moving at lightning speed!

Would it be reasonable to assume that after unnamed witness found Nicola’s phone etc and willow at approx 9.33am, did they then tie willow up and go off to their appointment and the next people at the scene arrived at 10.50am? So is there over an hour time gap when there was no one at the scene with willow? Was she left alone for that time or did the witness raise the alarm about the situation straight away? Just wondering if anyone was around during that hour or so? Also, was Willow confirmed to be dry at 10.50am when the police were called or was she already dry at 9.30 when found?

I’m confused as to what this witness did after discovering willow and Nicola’s phone. Did they take the phone or leave it on the bench? We’re others called straight to the scene and it took time for them to work out who’s dog Willow was, and school and then Paul to be contacted?

Would the witness’ first thought to be check if Willow was dry? If they still went to their appointment, then can we assume this witness wasn’t immediately alarmed by the scene? I’m wondering the state of urgency at the scene. How long did it take for the witness to raise the alarm? I’m sure I’ve seen 10.50am mentioned in the timeline I’ve seen, was that when police arrived at the scene or when the clam was made? Who was at the scene with willow while waiting for police to arrive. Who else handled Nicola’s phone before police got there?

I have about 203846 other questions, this is all so strange as IMO all avenues of possibility lead right back to the start again.
Is it possible for both to be true, could there have been a confrontation with another dog walker over something like willow being off the lead that ended up in her being pushed backwards, stumbling and falling into the river. All MOO
 
Just watched it and she never mentioned a ball?

What’s more, I can’t understand how a friend would categorically know Nikki was no longer letting Willow play with a ball on walks? If Nikki said that to her frIend it could have been in jest as nearly all dog owners allow their dogs toys when out for walks. The whole thing gets crazier…

<modsnip - no source link to verify information posted as fact>
it was mentioned by her in an interview with Sky News, I've seen it, will try to find
 
A few people have asked about this. Given the speed that searchers were in the scene and the distance of the weir from the possible falling in place, and also the low level of the water, it seems unlikely to me too, and more likely that the weir would act as an obstacle to the body.
But I am no expert in river body recovery.
A young lad went missing near me after a night out. They believe he ended up in the river close to where last seen on cctv. If so he ended up past two weirs and multiple bends in river, round an ox bow to the place most wash up with another weir. It took two weeks and he was found approx a mile away. That despite SAR and canoeists, rowing teams all in that river. Multiple dog walkers walk those banks several times a day.
 
Last edited:
This Thursday evening meeting with her boss bugs me.F2f & he had to HAVE

80 miles round trip?? What was reason?
Me too .. why not by zoom / phone / teams.

I don’t think NB went on her usual walk. I think she met up with someone either pre arranged or not. I think she did a different walk away from her usual territory for privacy. Not necessarily to hide anything but just to have privacy for discussion
 
So to clear up a point with regard to the business owner.

1. She spots the dog and the phone while out for a walk.

2. She is supposedly in a rush so ties the dog up and leaves the phone.

3. But she has time to locate and speak to her daughter-in-law about the dog and phone.

4. Daughter-in-law who knows who the dog belonged to then phoned the police.

Meanwhile, another person has come along and taken the dog to try and find the owner? Or is that no longer the case?

Business owner:

"I saw the dog and I recognised it, but I suddenly couldn't think whose dog it was."

"There was a mobile phone on the bench and there was also something between the bench and the river so I went and looked, and it was a dog harness. The dog looked worried so I tied her up and rushed home as I had to go to an appointment.

"I then went and spoke to my daughter-in-law and she immediately knew who the dog was, alerted the woman's partner and that was it - the police were on it."

 
Has it just got to be phone it’s in range of OR any other Bluetooth device the Fitbit has ever been connected too? Seriously I need to get tech savvy this is confusing me?
It's a great question and I honestly think the police have more info on this that they aren't disclosing.

If you rewatch the presser from Friday, it's mentioned that the Digital forensics team are doing a superb job.

This is a link to the Sun where they describe what they are trying to achieve:


And this is a link to the insider which reports on the technical side of it :


Pure speculation on my behalf, but I believe they are confident NB went in the water due to having the phone unlocked and in their possession.

The two articles are basically telling us that even though the Fitbit wasn't synced, if it's within a particular range, they'll have been able to get comms with it until its battery died.

My working theory is that the forensics lot have been able to get some form of ping from the Fitbit so they've effectively been able to triangulate it to a particular proximity. There's also the possibility they could get further info directly from the apps she has the Fitbit synced too (looks like Strava but I have mine synced with more than one).

The only problem with this theory is it makes the assumption that NB still has it on her wrist and it wasn't thrown in there.

IMO this explains why the police are so confident she hasn't left the area.
 
New to this thread, have tried to read as much as possible but apologies if I’ve missed anything.

Knowing the topography of the river seems crucial. Obviously there could have been a series of very unfortunate events that meant NB could have fallen in and drowned even at a very shallow point in the river. ( I suspect this remains the most likely conclusion - that river bank looks very steep / slippery and hard to climb out of in wet clothes).

However, it would be interesting to know how’s shallow it was around the banks of the river, and how quickly it gets deep. Has anyone seen any specific information on this?
 
I walk my dog along river paths. If I found a phone, lead and a harness nearer water, and no owner in sight, and a distressed dog, I'm not walking away. In short, I don't believe her. That she tied up the dog suggests possibility dog was tied up to stop it interfering. I can't get my head around anyone coming across that scene and then doing what she did
But you are a dog owner. I got the impression from one of the articles that she was just a walker, rather than a dog walker. Not everyone has experience with dogs and knows the best thing to do.
 
I think it’s quite possible that on the way she chatted with a couple of people, but I think she deviated from her usual walk. I think that’s why nothing makes sense. Otherwise it would… we’d see a damp Willow.
 
It's a great question and I honestly think the police have more info on this that they aren't disclosing.

If you rewatch the presser from Friday, it's mentioned that the Digital forensics team are doing a superb job.

This is a link to the Sun where they describe what they are trying to achieve:


And this is a link to the insider which reports on the technical side of it :


Pure speculation on my behalf, but I believe they are confident NB went in the water due to having the phone unlocked and in their possession.

The two articles are basically telling us that even though the Fitbit wasn't synced, if it's within a particular range, they'll have been able to get comms with it until its battery died.

My working theory is that the forensics lot have been able to get some form of ping from the Fitbit so they've effectively been able to triangulate it to a particular proximity. There's also the possibility they could get further info directly from the apps she has the Fitbit synced too (looks like Strava but I have mine synced with more than one).

The only problem with this theory is it makes the assumption that NB still has it on her wrist and it wasn't thrown in there.

IMO this explains why the police are so confident she hasn't left the area.
Great explanation and really interesting.

If this was the case though, it would give a precise location. Mine knows even what side of the road I ran on.

Why haven’t they found her? Or it?

It’s baffling.
 
Her car was in the school car park where she’d left it.
8:43 was time ( if I remember the press conference correctly?) she was seen at Iron Bridge? So in MO she had done school run prior to this time. Was this the usual time for her doing the school run?
 
I was looking into facts around falling into open water...

MYTH #1: Falling into cold water kills you because your wet clothes pull you down.
Fact: Wet clothes only weigh you down when you’re getting out of the water. This concept that clothes aren’t heavy in the water is often difficult for people to understand unless they have experienced it themselves. Advanced lifesaving training and some military training involves learning to stay afloat and swim for long periods of time fully clothed, including shoes. My experience in doing that proved to me that my clothing and shoes actually helped me to float, as long as I didn’t use any swim strokes above the water surface. Of course, wearing a life jacket increases your chances of surviving even more.

MYTH #2: People drown because they don’t know how to swim.
Fact: Most people think that swimmers never drown, but research proves that most people who drown were perceived to know how to swim. Falling into cold water causes an involuntary gasp reflex and you could possibly inhale water and drown. Also, it’s a struggle to gain control of your breathing. Hyperventilating in this first stage of cold-water immersion can cause you to blackout and drown. To survive after falling into cold water, you must remain calm, avoid panicking, and stop hyperventilating within the first minute. There is a technique that may help prevent hyperventilation and it involves breathing out through pursed lips. The first minute after you fall into cold water can be challenging, even for strong swimmers.

See more at...


I think it is obviously a possibility that she did unfortunately fall in. But with multiple witnesses having seen her, and more than one who knew her at least knew of her, I find it really surprising that:

1. She could've drowned so quickly without anyone noticing. Although a secluded area it was obviously a popular walking spot.

2. Say she has sadly drowned, perhaps if she was unconscious before going in... It's even more surprising that after more than a week there has been no evidence of her falling in. Not even her wellies have been found after extensive searches by highly trained water search teams who know where to look and where they would expect a missing person who has fallen in the river to end up. I can only imagine the turmoil her family are going through going over and over every possibility.
They’re excellent points you’ve made and as Nikki but as Nikki never had advanced swimming training in the military (from what we know) she wouldn’t have known how to react - especially if in panic.

Also, not all people who drown in rivers are found quickly. Bodies can take weeks to resurface. There was a young fireman who drowned a few years ago in Lewes, but his body didn’t resurface for about a month many miles away near to the sea.

It would be wonderful if it transpired that Nikki hadn’t fallen into the river and was found alive somewhere, but heartbreakingly the chances of that are terribly low.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
154
Guests online
3,449
Total visitors
3,603

Forum statistics

Threads
604,321
Messages
18,170,626
Members
232,383
Latest member
Justice for Brenda Goudge
Back
Top