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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe that’s why they are trying to get data from her Fitbit? As I mentioned yesterday was the route NB took that day different from her usual route(time/distance?)

Well as they don't have the fit bit device which presumably is still with her then they are bit stuffed on that front.
The fitbit will sync with the phone and then upload the data from the phone to the cloud. We were told somewhere that the fitbit last sync'd the Tuesday prior to her disappearance. So that will be the last data available to them.
Until they find the fitbit and resync it with the phone or forensically extract the data from it they are kebbabbed (from what it appears to me)
 
If she was on a teams call from 9am, then I think she would of done, it's rather difficult to listen to your phone on loudspeaker whilst walking a dog, you would need to be carrying it in your hand, if it was in your pocket you wouldn't hear it
But the police never mentioned she was wearing EarPods, and that would be essential as it would mean she
If she was on a teams call from 9am, then I think she would of done, it's rather difficult to listen to your phone on loudspeaker whilst walking a dog, you would need to be carrying it in your hand, if it was in your pocket you wouldn't hear it
i can’t imagine anyone having their phone on loudspeaker and putting it in their pocket: what’s the point if that?!

I disagree that it’s difficult listening to your phone on loudspeaker whilst walking - it’s not much different to taking a call in your car when driving. In fact, it can be easier to hear and talk in that mode.

Nikki was carrying the phone in her hand as witnesses saw, so it obviously wasn’t difficult for her to walk whilst talking on loudspeaker. And maybe she wanted to listen whilst sat on the bench so she could concentrate better sat still.
 
Surely though the slip mark would be easier to see than a footprint

Here’s a question—what was the ground like, by the river? Could she have stepped on the edge of her coat, tripped over Willow, or some such things, fallen, and rolled over and over down the hill without making any particular marks on the ground at all?
 
There’d be signs of a struggle in the mud if someone attempted to pull Nikki off the bench and push her down into the river. Besides which, unless you’re an absolute murderous mad person why would anyone do that?! And why would they bother to even think of tying the dog to the bench? None of that makes sense.

Furthermore, don’t you think the police have taken fingerprints and DNA from the lead, harness and phone?

Going further, when Nikki was listening in to her works call no one could possibly know she wasn’t on an ordinary call and would be heard attacking Nikki.

Why are people coming up with such impossible ideas when the police have said they firmly believe Nikki fell into the river and that’s why they’re spending thousands on searching it.
Firstly, I appreciate what you are saying, it all does sound like impossible ideas and more than likely she has accidentally fallen in the river as a result of a freak accident, which is what I also believe by the way.

However:

1. I never said NB was pulled off the bench.
2. If someone had pushed her in the river and NB sort of 'flew' as a result and into the river, that would perhaps explain the lack of skid marks.
3. I do believe the police has taken fingerprints from the lead, harness and phone. BUT if we end up with an unreliable witness who then ends up being a suspect, whose story involves them handling those items...
4. NB is said (by friends) to be listening on calls on loudspeaker. She could be holding her phone and walking, not having it against her ear. I often do the same and with my winter clothing, gloves, bag, etc I don't think it is particularly noticeable that I am holding and using my phone.
5. The impossible ideas are as a result of exploring all avenues, some more plausible than others, in the hope that maybe, somehow, something might end up helping in this truly heartbreaking story.
 
Last edited:
But gilet means sleeveless. This photo is a below-knee parka coat, not waist-length as police said. An ankle-length gilet would be far more noticeable description for potential witnesses imo.
It's a below knee, hooded gilet (look at the images of her wearing it on her own FB page, its exactly the same) with another long sleeved coat underneath. The only part of the police description that is wrong imo is that the gilet is ankle length, because it's clearly knee length.
 
Because unfortunately there is no evidence to suggest she went in that river. Just like there is no evidence to suggest none of anything else happened. IMO

Our options are to discuss what we know and possible scenarios or all just accept the fact she has fell in the river, discussing nothing.
Thank you so much for this.
 
If you look on NB's own facebook page, there are photos of her in the gilet and it's clear she's wearing the same one in the CCTV images, there's also photos of her wearing the wellies with green socks and jeans/leggings tucked in. They are the sort of wellies that are short and look a bit like chelsea boots, but definitely welly material.
They look quite tight fitting so if she did fall in the river I doubt they would have filled up with water but I also doubt they would have slipped off so pretty heavy footwear to try and swim in. JMO.
 
They look quite tight fitting so if she did fall in the river I doubt they would have filled up with water but I also doubt they would have slipped off so pretty heavy footwear to try and swim in. JMO.
Definitely, the socks were thick walking type socks too, which would have made them tighter on her feet. I actually thought the socks were a knitted cuff on the boot initially, took me a minute to work out what was what.
 
It's a below knee, hooded gilet (look at the images of her wearing it on her own FB page, its exactly the same) with another long sleeved coat underneath. The only part of the police description that is wrong imo is that the gilet is ankle length, because it's clearly knee length.
They (police) also said 'black jeans' and it is now (Telegraph and photos just published) 'navy leggings'. That's quite a wrong description. IMO.
 
Just a rules refresher for those in doubt regarding rumours and such. Saves a thread getting shut down and extra work for the mods..

MOD NOTE:

Welcome to all our new members who have joined the discussion. We were all new once and it takes a while to learn all the ins and outs, become familiar with our Terms of Service, and generally how Websleuths rolls. New members MUST read The Rules that they agreed to upon registering at Websleuths.

Multiple posts have been removed or snipped for violating various rules. Please keep the following in mind when discussing Nicola's case:

1. Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing known victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is known to be relevant to the case. Do not victim blame or shame or make judgmental comments about them.

2. No sleuthing or insinuations/accusations against anyone who is not officially named a POI/suspect by LE. At Websleuths every family member, every parent, friend, etc. is considered a victim unless they are an officially named POI or suspect. Do not sleuth people or make inappropriate comments about them.

3. Members can not bring “comments” by the general public into this discussion. What you "heard somewhere" or "read somewhere" "think you heard", etc. is NOT an approved source. If you can't link it, you can't post it. They are considered rumor and your post will be removed and members may face a temporary or permanent loss of posting privileges.

4. Information stated as fact must be supported by a link to a mainstream media or law enforcement source (or other WS approved source) to substantiate the fact, otherwise the post will be removed, along with all responses to it. If you aren't sure if a source is approved, please use the Report feature to ask for approval before discussing any of the content.

5. All images, including screenshots, require a link to an approved source. If you can't provide a link from MSM, LE or another approved source, don't post it.

6. STOP replying to obvious violations of TOS. If you do, then we have to moderate the original post, and your post, and anybody who replied to your post, and so on and so forth. Report, don't reply to TOS violations.

Thank you.

 
<modsnip - quoted post removed>

IMO, there was no cctv at the school. At least that was stated on that very thread a while back.
I actually don't think there is any CCTV of NB ,perhaps no cameras on the routes she used. There would be No good reason for LE to withhold it ,in fact it would help the case of they had it
 
I actually don't think there is any CCTV of NB ,perhaps no cameras on the routes she used. There would be No good reason for LE to withhold it ,in fact it would help the case of they had it
Maybe not on the route but I would think that the school would have CCTV for security reasons, so it's odd they haven't shown any footage of her leaving her car there.
 


Reporter - Can you just explain to me why you're so sure she didn't leave the riverside? Are there no kind of cross county routes? No other route, at all, that could have been taken?

Superintendent - Yes, several of the exits from the riverside area are either locked, or they're covered by CCTV. So we've been able to look at that CCTV and negate Nicola leaving the local area. The areas that are not covered by CCTV is where we've been particularly interested in dashcam footage. So that's Garstang Lane leading to the A586. If we can definitively cover off that 10 minute window, in particular, and a few minutes either side, then we will know definitively that she has not left the area because of the lack of footage or footage showing that she didn't pass by, but we are as sure as we can be that Nicola did not leave the area.



Link
 
From police press conference:

They are an ankle-length black quilted gilet jacket, a black Engelbert Strauss waist-length coat which was worn underneath the gilet, tight-fitting black jeans, long green walking socks tucked into her jeans, ankle-length green Next wellies, a necklace and a pale blue Fitbit.

"It’s really important that the public pay heed to those very specific clothing descriptions please, because factual sightings of those items would be very useful to us."

Really important - but if friend‘s pic from the day is correct it was neither a waist length coat nor ankle-length gilet, surely? A gilet being sleeveless. I hope police clarify.
 
Here’s a question—what was the ground like, by the river? Could she have stepped on the edge of her coat, tripped over Willow, or some such things, fallen, and rolled over and over down the hill without making any particular marks on the ground at all?
IMO if NB did fall n the river I’d expect to see Willow’s prints somewhere close to the edge JMO
 
Having trouble keeping up so apologies if this has been mentioned but I can't believe it's taken this long to release the cctv footage of her. Also, the police kept referring to an 'ankle length' gilet. It comes to her knees in those pictures!
Should have been released earlier. It was a friend that released the images to the media.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
1,451
Total visitors
1,533

Forum statistics

Threads
605,837
Messages
18,193,249
Members
233,584
Latest member
elementpro
Back
Top