Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #8

[martinwatts5]

I’m a bit disappointed that Mr Fowlding has not gone further. In my opinion he has said that he has the best equipment and as Nicola is believed to be in the water, a thorough search is surely required.I believe he had all week available but maybe it’s just too expensive to do any more. Saying that, I’m sure everybody following this case is grateful for his efforts.

 

[Piehead]

I've always wondered who put up the "dogs must be on lead" notice by the bench? It's not an official council type notice. Who owns this land? Could there have been a confronatation between somone and NB due to dog being allowed to run free in these fields?

 

[SuzyQ70]

Where is the style in relation to the bench? Sorry if i've missed this in earlier posts

 

[jackal67]

But it may not have been possible for anyone to come immediately, unless told it was urgent, in which case why didn't person who first found willow inform Police instead of a family member. They probably had no reason to think the owner was missing, Quite feasible no one else walked by between 9.33 and 10.50'or they would have come forward by now? MOO

String wouldn’t hold my dog if he wanted to get free, Willow probably broke it.

Exactly. May have only been loosely tied as the finder expected the owner to be around and back soon. The lead and harness not being used could be because the finder couldn't be sure they were Willows? Some people have all sorts of odds and ends in their pockets , strong not so strange IMO.

 

[Mycroft42]

No I think the first witness who found willow was alone. It was the second witness that came through the gate followed by the man.

Pretty sure it was the 9:33 timeline since the man is described as finding the phone on the floor a few feet from the bench.

All probably irrelevant as he doesn't exist in the police timeline.

 

[cottonweaver]

'When Sgt Riley is asked if the bench should have been better preserved for evidence or treated as a crime scene she tells us that as the police arrived so fast the window was too short for anything to happen, so ,no need, effectively. It would detract from the beauty of the area and adversely interfere with the public's leisure time. '

where was that from @Lady Stoddart-West? I missed that comment - was it from an early press conference I didn'tt watch?

 

[PeggyHenry]

Yeah, the meeting she needed to go to at the last minute the night before has always struck me as potentially relevant. Why did they need to meet in person? It could have been that they needed to sign forms or something, of course, but it could have been that they needed to talk in person because of something more sensitive (like work performance).

Yes who knows what warranted the face to face meeting. At least the boss agreed to travel quite a long distance so that she was close to her home ..

 

[JeremyBentham]

A thing I am curious about thinking on it:

If the police have the phone they can surely confirm the phones route that morning. So they can cross reference the sightings vs the phones GPS/Tracking.

They will also be able to see the phones movements between 09:10 and 09:20 so they will know the likely route NB took, assuming the phone was in her possession. They would also be able to see if she took any sharp or unusual movements.

Which makes me curious why they were so curious about that specific 10 minute window of time in terms of tying to get witnesses to come forward if they were convinced she'd entered the water at the bench that would have to have happened at sometime between 09:20 and 09:33.

Unless they were trying to confirm that NB was in possession of the phone for that journey from the upper field to the bench?

LE stated that through telephony data the phone was on the bench at 09:20. Quite precise, so yes, you'd imagine they knew where the phone was at say 09:15, 09:18 and so on, right? I assume 09:20 is significant as that's when the phone became stationary, thus on the bench. But they could still know it's route, which of course we are not privy to.

 

[MollyHarps]

I’m a bit disappointed that Mr Fowlding has not gone further. In my opinion he has said that he has the best equipment and as Nicola is believed to be in the water, a thorough search is surely required.I believe he had all week available but maybe it’s just too expensive to do any more. Saying that, I’m sure everybody following this case is grateful for his efforts.

Whilst I’m extremely grateful for his effort I am also horrified by his conduct throughout.

He has undermined the police at every opportunity - by all means he could raise his concerns to them behind closed doors but I’d expect PF to show a more United front in public.

I feel he should’ve took a step back from the media and allowed the police spokes person to give updates.

 

[Lincoln34]

Nope.

Host can record the call - push record - but you have to notify everyone on the call that is happening.

 

[wens67]

This is what has really concerned me all along ie the 10 minute window gap BUT it isn't a 10 minute window gap is it? If they know her phone was at the bench at 9.20 and it wasn't found until 9.33 that's 13 minutes and a lot of time if someone wanted to hit her over the head and carry her somewhere. It's also obvious now not many people pass that way if Willow was tied up at 9.33 at wasn't attended to again until 10.50am. So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone had a great deal of time to abduct her, especially if it's someone who has planned it. Maybe they also know how quiet the area is at that time of day so not much chance of being seen.

I find it strange that the person who found Willow at 9.33 just so happened to have a piece of string to tie Willow up with and if they saw the lead why they didn't use that.

In my opinion someone could easily have carried NB somewhere, laid low and then moved at the night time. For instance I don't think any Police searched inside any houses on that day because they weren't going down the criminality route. I also got the impression yesterday at the press conference that they were saying they hadn't looked in lots of properties other than where they had permission because they, would have to be looking at a crime to carry out forcible searches, by the same token no car boots etc will have been searched.

I also noted yesterday when asked about searching the sides of the river they seem to have relied on the general public and anglers etc to have been doing this further up the river. Surely if they think she has gone in the water they could at least have had organised searches further up the river looking for items NB was wearing etc.

 

[ginnyw]

Faulding's search of the river and his conclusions, along with that updated timeline from TA, have really changed the tone of our discussions this afternoon IMO. I feel that this case is going to take a very sudden and dramatic, possibly entirely unexpected turn over the next few days. JMO based upon an uneasy gut feeling and a sense of things gathering pace towards some sort of unwelcome conclusion. I don't think I have ever been quite so consumed by a case. Or certainly not for a long time. I remember vividly the Suzy Lamplugh case and that was similarly baffling, although I often think that if there had been CCTV in those days, the case would have been solved.

 

[LastSeenWearing]

That‘s exactly right. Was it a phone call or text message that she had shortly before logging on to the Teams call? Also, was it the night before she went missing that she had a meeting?

She emailed her boss just before the Teams meeting. I wonder if it was her boss the one she met in Garstang the night before she vanished who was conducting the Teams meeting. I don't think it's been stated who was doing the meeting or whether he was on the call too. I imagine police must have interviewed her work colleagues in their lines of enquiry.

 

[Tanzanite]

I think (respectfully) you need to go back to the other threads and read peoples reactions to the CCTV pictures. it’s IMO that’s exactly what ‘picking apart and outfit’ means. Arguing over the length and colour, socks tucked into jeans, people claiming she wasn’t wearing wellington’s etc. that is picking an outfit apart.

Respectfully, and IMOO, when someone says posters were 'picking apart her outfit,' it implies something rather different to identifying discrepancies between the LE description and the CCTV footage, and why it's relevant to the investigation.

The wording sounded a little reductive of those posters' efforts. But we've both clarified our thoughts, so onwards.

 

[Davieson]

If somebody in my family came home and mentioned that a familiar dog was distressed and alone down by the river, I'd be down there pronto, not because I'd suspect anything initially but just to see if the dog was OK. But then there are other people who wouldn't perhaps care as much about a dog.

Might depend on what you were doing at the time. If working from home it might be difficult to leave straight away, particularly to attend to something that isn't really your responsibility.

 

[MrsWatson]

Here is a handy link to the rules regarding posting information from social media, like Facebook.

Rules - Social Media - Facebook, Twitter, etc.

ALLOWED SOCIAL MEDIA PAGES Individuals Victim (missing or murdered person) Suspect (as officially named by LE) Links may be used to direct members to posts made by a victim or a suspect. Paraphrasing is okay, but direct quotes, copying/pasting, screenshots from these pages is not allowed...

www.websleuths.com

From the link:

Social media pages of family members and/or friends of either a victim or a suspect, and most any other individual are OFF LIMITS.

 

[grey345]

If NB lets Willow off lead in that field almost every day, and there's a 'dogs on lead' sign by the bench, AND the nearby (adjoining?) campsite has a very strict rule about dogs on leads, I can see this being very relevant and a potential point of conflict. When considered alongside the fact that both the 9.33 and 10.50 witnesses were the campsite owners/family.

People get agitated about off-lead dogs, in my experience. Especially if they have their own dogs or livestock e.g. chickens. JMO.

 

[kev4pe]

What if NB fell into the river and was abducted? "How?" do I hear you say? Well, imagine the following….

1. NB somehow ended up in the river. She could have tripped or lost balance for whatever reason as has already been discussed multiple times on here.

2. NB climbed out of the river and was standing in shock wondering what to do when a 3rd party arrived on the scene, possibly after hearing a splash and or a scream.

3. The third party could have easily gone to NB with no ill intention, simply wanting to help, saying “here come with me, let’s get you somewhere warm and sort you out”

4. NB would have been in shock and likely not remembered or been bothered about her phone and would have likely welcomed the assistance, walking away from the bench without concern.

5. NB would have not been clear where she was going and could have simply thought to leave Willow in the field saying “Dont worry, I’ll be back in 5 minutes”. She also would have been so cold she may not have been thinking to clearly about her dog. She could also have tied the dog up but she broke free later.

6. NB could have been led to a nearby property for a change of clothes or similar. It could be at this point that the 3rd party made a play for NB that could have been rejected, or sensed an opportunity to take advantage of NB in this state.

7. NB could be held captive and then moved from the property at a later date, or is still there.

I feel this theory is as possible as any. Most say that a planned abduction would be unlikely as it’s not a particularly easy place to do it. However if someone came across NB in this vulnerable state a crime of opportunity could have occurred as I’ve outlined above, with plenty of slightly alternate versions also possible.

Just thought I’d post this as it makes a change from non stop bickering about whether the phone was on the bench or next to it.

All this is just my opinion, and I’m simply presenting an alternate theory that I don’t believe can be ruled out based on the evidence at hand

String is v odd!

I agree, who carries string around with them? Unless he found it on the gate/fence

 

[wackyw]

This is what has really concerned me all along ie the 10 minute window gap BUT it isn't a 10 minute window gap is it? If they know her phone was at the bench at 9.20 and it wasn't found until 9.33 that's 13 minutes and a lot of time if someone wanted to hit her over the head and carry her somewhere. It's also obvious now not many people pass that way if Willow was tied up at 9.33 at wasn't attended to again until 10.50am. So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that someone had a great deal of time to abduct her, especially if it's someone who has planned it. Maybe they also know how quiet the area is at that time of day so not much chance of being seen.

I find it strange that the person who found Willow at 9.33 just so happened to have a piece of string to tie Willow up with and if they saw the lead why they didn't use that.

In my opinion someone could easily have carried NB somewhere, laid low and then moved at the night time. For instance I don't think any Police searched inside any houses on that day because they weren't going down the criminality route. I also got the impression yesterday at the press conference that they were saying they hadn't looked in lots of properties other than where they had permission because they, would have to be looking at a crime to carry out forcible searches, by the same token no car boots etc will have been searched.

I also noted yesterday when asked about searching the sides of the river they seem to have relied on the general public and anglers etc to have been doing this further up the river. Surely if they think she has gone in the water they could at least have had organised searches further up the river looking for items NB was wearing etc.

I think the "10 minute timeframe" is to exclude Nicola promptly walking out of the area of her own volition/under duress. Once that's done, then the investigation focusses on other possibilities.

 

[Italia]

https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/people/nicola-bulley-lancashire-police-warn-against-unacceptable-speculation-about-disappearance-and-appeal-for-dashcam-footage-4014687

There are a few interviews to be seen here and one tends to feed into the other.

A few things:

THE BENCH ANOMALIES

1. The Bench - the narrative is very convoluted here with some anomalies - all quotes from televised interviews not conjecture:

• Sgt Riley says cordoning off the bench with a physical cordon would 'detract from the beauty of the area and be difficult to do'. Also states one for the 'local authority'​
• Sgt Riley is asked by interviewer: 'So no evidence would have been lost by this [bench] not being isolated or sealed off?'​
• Sgt Riley replies 'Ah you are talking about the Police cordon not the physical cordon' 'Well, the police officers were altered after that first call at 10:50am, the school and her family were told that a phone and a dog had been found and the police officers were very quickly on the scene afterwards. In that short window I am NOT concerned and am led by the enquiry team that anything would have been lost in that short time'​
• 'She [NB] remained dialled in at 9:30am. She could have left the phone on the bench to go and deal with something involving the dog. It does not mean anything suspicious in itself & the fact that other witnesses have not seen anyone suspicious in the area...'​
• Interviewer 'the bench wasn't kind of isolated and protected at first, is that something that is regretted at all? Or was that the right thing to do at the time'?​
• Sgt Riley, 'well this is a beautiful, rural area, isn't it, to fence off every hazard would be practically impossible, people come here on their holidays and they walk their dogs and they enjoy their leisure time so I think that would be a very difficult task. It would be a very difficult task for the police and certainly for the local authorities. It would be difficult to do and may detract from the beauty of the area'​
• Earlier interviews: (0:16 time stamp): Nicola's phone was NOT found on the bench. Found at 09:33am.​
• 09:20am believed to be found on the bench​
• Sgt Riley states not a criminal not a suspicious but a tragic case'​

Who was at the bench, when and why? Recollections seem to vary and narratives seem to alter.

Of course this is to be expected as more information comes through and presumably things are clarified.

When Sgt Riley is asked if the bench should have been better preserved for evidence or treated as a crime scene she tells us that as the police arrived so fast the window was too short for anything to happen, so ,no need, effectively. It would detract from the beauty of the area and adversely interfere with the public's leisure time.

On 5th May, three days ago, Sgt Riley was adamant that 'no third party' was involved 'as our investigation has looked at SO MANY lines of enquiry'. She's reassuring everyone that she's confident it is safe in the area. Which is good news for those of us that live not too far away, etc.

What is a takeaway re: above? The bench is the anchor point here, where the evidence was found, a starting point for any search. Was the phone on the ground first or on the bench all the time? Sgt Riley says both at different times. This may well be as new data came in so she could be more precise. It is interesting to note that early on, she is very clear and corrects herself that it was found on the ground and not the bench in one interview.

All the activity at the bench led to the school being contacted, followed by the family at 10:50am.

Sgt Riley is genuinely impressive and clearly shouldering a lot, an incredibly difficult job that I think she's doing exceptionally well. She says this is 'TRAGIC' not 'CRIMINAL'. I suspect these circumstances are exceptionally challenging for her. What is the clear and correct narrative at the 'bench'?

To add:

1. PF and others have stated if she fell in there, close to bench, for whatever reason, she'd have been almost certainly found.

2. There is ' the 10 minute' window 9:10am to 9:20am to account for, but presumably minutes of that would be taken by walking between A to B. Why is this not equally 'too short a window for anything to happen' [asking quite genuinely]

3.'Other witnesses have not seen anyone suspicious in the area...' so we can be confident for that reason, and others, re: no nefarious third party involvement. Surely, NB could have been observed/heard etc falling in the river and/or having a medical event for the same reasons? [again asking genuinely, what are we missing?]

I

The cordons here are getting confused. I think at first Riley thinks the interviewer is asking about why the bench area does t have a cordon for safety with respect to the river , as in a permanent fixture on the path for general public. Obviously the interviewer is asking about the police cordon following this incident. Which Riley then responds to. That’s why she references the beauty of area and also misunderstanding continues with interviewers reference to it being isolated area.