I've gone round in circles on this (as we all have!), but overall, IMO she did not enter the water in an accident as per LE's main working hypothesis. I do think something has occurred which is out of the ordinary, possibly 'foul play' by some party, but I do not think she was abducted. I'll try to explain my thinking, apologies in advance for the long post!
Why I think she's not in the water:
- I'm taken by the speed and scale of the initial response (helicopters in the air -presumably with thermal imaging IMO, searches on the banks etc.), and I find it surprising she was not seen/found that afternoon, given it was a low incoming tide
- I'm taken by the fact that she (nor any clothes or belongings) still hasn't been found 13 days of intense searching later. I understand that rivers are complex and finding people in water is hard, but given the intensity of the search in a "known" location, this feels surprising.
- As much as Paul Faulding is a self-serving [expletive] - snipped by me! - (IMO), I do believe he knows his stuff about water searches, so I'm taken by the fact a) he and his team also haven't found anything, and b) his opinion that it would be nearly impossible for NB to end up in the sea. This is supported, perhaps, by the fact of the unfortunate 2yr old drowning victim found on mudflats. If a 2yr old enters the water while it's in flood, and enters right down near the Shard Bridge, but still doesn't end up in the sea, it seems far less likely that an adult does, falling in above the weir, at low tide. IMO.
I'm not saying she's definitely not in the water - of course not. But taken all together, on the balance of probabilities IMO she is not.
Why I don't think she was abducted from the fields/riverside:
- Mainly, I trust LE on this, in that I think they just cannot countenance it with the evidence and information they have. Particularly: the relative lack of suitable exit points (vehicular or otherwise), relative lack of opportunity (I do accept that it only takes a few seconds, but not if the only exit point is down a single track path with a 5 minute walk), and the total lack (apparently) of evidence - at the scene, in follow-up enquiries etc.
By the way, I also extend this to thinking she wasn't attacked in the fields, and I also rule out all the (IMO) far-fetched scenarios around stranger attacks / abductions, including but not limited to: pulled into Rowanwater, kidnapped by boat, etc.
Why I think something 'fishy' might have happened:
- I'm totally unconvinced by the witness statements (or at least what's been released of them by LE). They are inconsistent and unreliable, and have been since the outset. I'm sure this is exacerbated by LE/media sloppiness, but that's not my problem - from what I can read, the witness reports are almost completely unreliable. If there's evidence (such as CCTV) that would support witness statements, I cannot for the life of me understand why LE wouldn't release it. I therefore assume there is none. This by the way is not necessarily to imply any wrongdoing on the part of the witnesses, but to bring in to question the timelines and/or NB's presence in the fields - at the least.
- I think PA's decision to call the police immediately, combined with their decision to react immediately, suggests there is information not yet released (perhaps never will be) which has caused this fast reaction. I won't speculate on what that piece of information may be.
- I'm generally concerned about the lack of video evidence of NB at any time after leaving her home. Again, if it exists I cannot think why it wouldn't have been released, so I am assuming it does not exist. This in itself is not 'fishy' (it's a rural area), but it serves to increase the likelihood that if something fishy has happened, it could have gone unnoticed
- Whilst I don't subscribe to 'woo woo'-type thinking or conspiracies, I do feel that the 'wisdom of the crowd' and the 'gut-sense' that something's off is not to be sniffed at. As humans, we got to where we are by being good at interpreting social cues, pattern recognition, and sensing danger etc. Sometimes this means we get anxious/fearful when we shouldn't, but sometimes it means we're good at 'sensing' when something isn't right. A lot of people 'sense' something isn't right, and I do put some weight on that.
So what does that leave?
Here are my remaining theories, in order of likelihood (IMO) - and I am being careful not to be victim-unfriendly or overly speculative on anyone not a POI.
1. Voluntary exit by NB. Won't speculate specifically why, or where she went, or where she is - the options are numerous. Whatever the specifics, she would have voluntarily left the riverside, and she wasn't seen leaving. Implies she deliberately left her belongings, I won't speculate why.
2. Disagreement with someone she knew, or knew of, that resulted in her leaving the riverside and eventually coming to harm. There are lots of scenarios potential scenarios here, and I won't speculate. In all of them, she's not seen leaving, and her belongings and dog were likely returned to the scene. Exactly when they were returned to the scene would depend on who the third party was - it's either before 9.33, or any point before 10.50.
3. NB was never in the riverside area. Implies, for whatever reason, that she simply did not arrive there after dropping the girls at school, and that witness statements are either deliberately fabricated or mistaken - either is possible, and it kind of depends again on the reason. This scenario implies her belongings were placed at the scene. I give this whole scenario less likelihood because I assume telephony data gives LE more confidence she was there. Unless LE can prove she was there (dash-cam/CCTV), we have to go on witness statement combined with phone data - which together are pretty solid (hence why I think this is the least likely option), but don't completely guarantee NB was there, in person.
