Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire), Jan 2023 #18

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah maybe so, I wasn't quite clear on that aspect because I was always wondering who 'processed' the dog and the phone? What if someone tried to mug N and there was a physical struggle over the phone, that potential evidence is forever lost. We also never got told whether the police did actually arrive to find the dog tied with string or not - it was stated the dog was moving somewhat agitatedly between the bench and the gate but no formal mention of it being tied.

Surely if N intended to take her own life, she herself would have tethered her dog for various reasons - a) to make sure it was easily found; b) to make sure it didn't follow her; c) to prevent the dog being shot at, as dogs are supposed to be on leash and someone nearby had threatened to shoot dogs off lead due to chicken worrying and sheep worried - as verified by the tripadvisor feedback from the campsite and also the amateur sign nailed to the tree; d) to preserve the life of the dog as it could have been hit by a car or fallen in the river itself; e) because the dog no doubt meant a lot to her daughters.
We cannot say that Nicola didn’t mean to take her own life because of what she did or didn’t do with the dog. Suicidal people are often not thinking in a way consistent with their previous thinking and their priorities are skewed. Many people act out of character, in good or bad ways, towards the end.

That said, absent a note, which most people who take their own life do not leave, I imagine suicide will be impossible to prove and will not be the verdict.
 
For this to be an accident the following needed to have happened
She fell into the river-probability at a Conservative estimate 1 in a thousand
Willow didn't follow her 1 in a hundred
She didn't survive the fall 1 in 10
The people finding Willow didn't see her 1 in 10
Her body has evaded a very extensive search of the area where it was thought she'd fallen 1 in a hundred

I think I've given very conservative estimates there and it comes out about a billion to one chance of an accident at the bench being the cause.
I
For the sake of the family I so hope the police can prove it to be an accident, but statistically I can't see how it is
Your stats are completely plucked out of thin air, though, and your first number crucially doesn’t take into account the simple basic fact NB was found in the river.

The chances of an average person falling into a river they’re walking alongside on an average day, are much less likely than 1 in 1,000, although increased if intoxicated for example, which there is a possibility NB was (I am a recovering alcoholic myself, not casting aspersions — have often been drunk in the morning so am aware it’s possible, that’s all).

However, the chances of a person found in a river NOT having fallen into that river, are much lower given the only other possibilities are jumped (most likely of the remaining answers) or (much less likely) pushed or dumped, therefore a crime involved.
 
Diver who searched for Nicola Bulley ‘struck off National Crime Agency expert list’


To be expected really, you cant be that flagrantly unprofessional. Then be so publicly wrong and expect any service to want to work with you again.

Shittting all over police search efforts and making grandiose claims about her not being in the river the day before she's found in an area you personally searched... Well it's not a good look. Especially when you make some embarrassingly lame excuses rather than shutting up and eating crow.

I'm doubt he will have the self awareness to reflect on his actions though. Will probably sound off again about how terribly hard done by he is.
 
Your stats are completely plucked out of thin air, though, and your first number crucially doesn’t take into account the simple basic fact NB was found in the river.

The chances of an average person falling into a river they’re walking alongside on an average day, are much less likely than 1 in 1,000, although increased if intoxicated for example, which there is a possibility NB was (I am a recovering alcoholic myself, not casting aspersions — have often been drunk in the morning so am aware it’s possible, that’s all).

However, the chances of a person found in a river NOT having fallen into that river, are much lower given the only other possibilities are jumped (most likely of the remaining answers) or (much less likely) pushed or dumped, therefore a crime involved.
In my head what I'm trying to work out which is the most likely explanation for this tragic death and to get there I'm trying to give a probability to all scenarios.
In my view the following exist
1 An accident at the bench
2 A decision to take her own life at an undetermined place
3 An altercation at the bench ending with her being shoved in
4 Abducted and subsequently returned to the water

Out of these in my opinion option 2 is the least improbable although it has holes in that hypothesis as well, but nowhere near as many as the accident theory.

With option 2 I'd be asking the following

Was she carrying suicide notions.

If yes whats the probability of drowning as an option

What's the probability of willow not following her

What's the probability of not being seen

What's the probability of her body not been found

Added together the probability of my most likely option is incredibly low, but much higher than an accident.

Hopefully the Fitbit has been found and provides some answers
 
In my head what I'm trying to work out which is the most likely explanation for this tragic death and to get there I'm trying to give a probability to all scenarios.
In my view the following exist
1 An accident at the bench
2 A decision to take her own life at an undetermined place
3 An altercation at the bench ending with her being shoved in
4 Abducted and subsequently returned to the water

Out of these in my opinion option 2 is the least improbable although it has holes in that hypothesis as well, but nowhere near as many as the accident theory.

With option 2 I'd be asking the following

Was she carrying suicide notions.

If yes whats the probability of drowning as an option

What's the probability of willow not following her

What's the probability of not being seen

What's the probability of her body not been found

Added together the probability of my most likely option is incredibly low, but much higher than an accident.

Hopefully the Fitbit has been found and provides some answers
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion and the case may not “feel right” to some, plus I can understand having other theories about what happened. However, statistically, it’s impossible to get away from the fact that an accident always was and remains the most likely explanation, and suicide is certainly not less likely to have happened than murder. If we want to say we think the small chance Nicola was harmed by someone else is in play here then I get it (even if I disagree), but it’s not the most likely thing to have happened objectively (and never was).
 
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion and the case may not “feel right” to some, plus I can understand having other theories about what happened. However, statistically, it’s impossible to get away from the fact that an accident always was and remains the most likely explanation, and suicide is certainly not less likely to have happened than murder. If we want to say we think the small chance Nicola was harmed by someone else is in play here then I get it (even if I disagree), but it’s not the most likely thing to have happened objectively (and never was).

I don't agree that an accident is the most likely explanation statistically in relation to this specific case. It may be the case that statistically most people found dead in bodies of water fell in by accident (I'm not sure) but over time it's become quite clear that didn't happen in this case.

As PF stated, if NB had tumbled or slipped into the water, there's no way she wouldn't have been found within the parameters of his searches and the police searches and the way that particular stretch of river works. It was only when a suggestion of suicide or recklessness was introduced to him, he stated that she could be anywhere including beyond the weir and all the way out to sea.
 
I don't agree that an accident is the most likely explanation statistically in relation to this specific case. It may be the case that statistically most people found dead in bodies of water fell in by accident (I'm not sure) but over time it's become quite clear that didn't happen in this case.

As PF stated, if NB had tumbled or slipped into the water, there's no way she wouldn't have been found within the parameters of his searches and the police searches and the way that particular stretch of river works. It was only when a suggestion of suicide or recklessness was introduced to him, he stated that she could be anywhere including beyond the weir and all the way out to sea.
It’s entirely the case that most people who die (or are found dead) in bodies of water died accidentally, the stats are clear and consistent on this around the world — not even close for suicide or murder.

Agree to disagree on NB specifically. I don’t see PF as infallible and I think he simply didn’t find NB. That’s understandable and of course forgivable, but his definitive statements were unhelpful and that’s had consequences for him.
 
Ah maybe so, I wasn't quite clear on that aspect because I was always wondering who 'processed' the dog and the phone? What if someone tried to mug N and there was a physical struggle over the phone, that potential evidence is forever lost. We also never got told whether the police did actually arrive to find the dog tied with string or not - it was stated the dog was moving somewhat agitatedly between the bench and the gate but no formal mention of it being tied.

Surely if N intended to take her own life, she herself would have tethered her dog for various reasons - a) to make sure it was easily found; b) to make sure it didn't follow her; c) to prevent the dog being shot at, as dogs are supposed to be on leash and someone nearby had threatened to shoot dogs off lead due to chicken worrying and sheep worried - as verified by the tripadvisor feedback from the campsite and also the amateur sign nailed to the tree; d) to preserve the life of the dog as it could have been hit by a car or fallen in the river itself; e) because the dog no doubt meant a lot to her daughters.
Re Willow. Dogs can pull backwards to get out of some harnesses, so Willow could have been tied up by NB so that she couldn't follow, subsequently getting free. As the lead wasn't actually mentioned by police until 15Feb, we don't know if the lead was attached to harness or whether the harness was fastened when found on the ground. PA was at the bench before the police arrived, so Willow may not have been still tied up when they got there . I doubt that NB would have left Willow loose deliberately and left the bench area, surely she would have tied the dog up near to the fone to aid ID. All MOO
 
It’s entirely the case that most people who die (or are found dead) in bodies of water died accidentally, the stats are clear and consistent on this around the world — not even close for suicide or murder.

Agree to disagree on NB specifically. I don’t see PF as infallible and I think he simply didn’t find NB. That’s understandable and of course forgivable, but his definitive statements were unhelpful and that’s had consequences for him.

For me, the key thing that PF was getting at is that if a person loses footing, they tumble in a certain way. If NB had lost her footing accidentally it would have been close to where her phone was because nobody rational would leave their phone unattended and logged onto a work meeting on a bench near the gate / entrance that other people used.

The option of whether NB was in a desperate state of either suicidalness or recklessness would have meant she could have absolutely abandoned her phone and walked along some distance and / or taken a running jump or launched herself in to a deeper part with a different current or closer / beyond the weir. That added a whole set of extra dynamics to the search that meant PF felt betrayed by not being informed.

Sure PF ran his mouth off but when he says clearly the water was only two feet deep with very low current at the point where she would have accidentally tumbled into, I personally totally believe him and I do believe the police and divers would have quickly located her there too.

For me, logic completely rules out an accident and only leaves 'misadventure' (due to feeling reckless or suicidal or being under the influence) -or- foul play. If NB had taken her phone with her, I'd personally include a whole load of other theories but she didn't, unless she *did* and it was then taken from her and staged back at the bench which can then only revert back to foul play.

JMO MOO
 
Re Willow. Dogs can pull backwards to get out of some harnesses, so Willow could have been tied up by NB so that she couldn't follow, subsequently getting free. As the lead wasn't actually mentioned by police until 15Feb, we don't know if the lead was attached to harness or whether the harness was fastened when found on the ground. PA was at the bench before the police arrived, so Willow may not have been still tied up when they got there . I doubt that NB would have left Willow loose deliberately and left the bench area, surely she would have tied the dog up near to the fone to aid ID. All MOO

Was PA at the bench before the police? Do we know that for sure?

It has been stated the harness and lead were found on the grass on the floor a little way from the bench. But if NB had tethered Willow and she broke free, the lead would have still been tied to the bench when found. Also there's no way Willow would have broken free from both the harness AND being tied, it would be one or the other. I've had a dog that could back out of her harness if she really tried.
 
Was PA at the bench before the police? Do we know that for sure?

It has been stated the harness and lead were found on the grass on the floor a little way from the bench. But if NB had tethered Willow and she broke free, the lead would have still been tied to the bench when found. Also there's no way Willow would have broken free from both the harness AND being tied, it would be one or the other. I've had a dog that could back out of her harness if she really tried.
Its entirely possible that Willow was backing out of the harness when it broke free of the bench and Willow subsequently shook the harness the rest of the way off.
 
Accident scenario:
She's on the work call and needs the loo, but isn't able to go at the campsite and is too far from home.
She leaves her phone behind, drops the harness, and quickly looks for a bush or undergrowth she can hide behind, away from the path and closer to the river.
Before, during (while squatting), or after (washing her hands), she slips or loses balance and falls into the river.

Reasoning:
- <modsnip: no source link>
- She left her phone on the bench or near because she didn't want her colleagues to accidentally hear, or to touch her phone without washing her hands first.
- Loss of balance - 50% of menopausal people have vertigo as a symptom, or Willow could have knocked her. Plus, it's a steep bank.
- She could had gone some distance up or down river before finding somewhere with enough coverage to crouch behind.
- No one saw her entering the water, as she was disguised by whatever she chose to hide behind. Ditto her body, and any signs of a struggle.
- If her clothes were disarranged, they would limit her ability to save herself in the water. (The PM may verify this.)
- Even if she were fully clothed, she could have fallen while washing her hands.
- She could have gone over the weir before the river levels dropped in the hours and days after she disappeared.


My background: former investigator (some search experience but mostly paper-based), post-menopausal, current wild swimmer (river, lake and sea), dog walker in countryside (UK).

Along with a myriad other symptoms, I had vertigo during my menopause. I've fallen over myself while crouched.
Once, I fell backwards down into a ditch. My backpack stopped me rolling to the side - I was stranded like a turtle. I'm very lucky it was nettles rather than water I landed in, as the effort to eventually get out (an inclined sit up) was enough to badly strain my stomach muscles. Could I have done that in water? Probably not.
Did my dogs come in with me? No, they sat by the side of the ditch.

Cold water shock is something most wild swimmers are aware of. We often discuss what we can to avoid accidents around areas such as the Wyre (steep sides and cold hands are not a good combination). Identifying where we can safely get out, judging the currents, depths, and other safety aspects is crucial. I also spend a lot of time looking at rivers to see if I could safely swim in them.
That week, I was tracking the local river level every day (a friend isn't keen on the sea when it's either rough or polluted). It easily dropped by over a foot and decreased flow rate in a few hours or day after NB went missing. Rivers do when there's little rain.
I've been lucky enough to avoid cold water shock - the closest I came was entering the river too quickly last winter - my chest was exceedingly tight and I felt short of air.
When younger, I fell off my pony into three feet of swollen, wintry river, but someone was with me and I managed to stand up, eventually climb out and get home. I can't recall the clothes being a massive burden in that depth.
IME, the shock would have only disabled her that if the clothes were incredibly waterlogged in a deep section of river, or she had gone in head first, in a position she couldn't escape, or unconscious.

For me, in the above incidents, the holes in the cheese didn't quite line up.

For NB, it appears the holes in the cheese tragically did line up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did think she may have needed to go to the loo and gone behind a tree or bush but not the boggy and unstable edges of the river which would not provide any cover. Unlike the trees and bushes just outside the gate she could have gone behind but why leave her phone it was on mute and you wouldn't leave it for rich pickings or an accident to befall?

To me if she went in the river accidentally, leaving her phone, then it's off the back of a dispute that escalated and 'something' has occurred.
 
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion and the case may not “feel right” to some, plus I can understand having other theories about what happened. However, statistically, it’s impossible to get away from the fact that an accident always was and remains the most likely explanation, and suicide is certainly not less likely to have happened than murder. If we want to say we think the small chance Nicola was harmed by someone else is in play here then I get it (even if I disagree), but it’s not the most likely thing to have happened objectively (and never was).
We'll have to agree to disagree, I hope you're correct though as it's probably less painful for the family if it's an accident
 
I did think she may have needed to go to the loo and gone behind a tree or bush but not the boggy and unstable edges of the river which would not provide any cover. Unlike the trees and bushes just outside the gate she could have gone behind but why leave her phone it was on mute and you wouldn't leave it for rich pickings or an accident to befall?

To me if she went in the river accidentally, leaving her phone, then it's off the back of a dispute that escalated and 'something' has occurred.

Why does it have to be off the back of a dispute?

Most accidents don't have writing for them that you'd find in 'Casualty' or 'CSI'. Accidents are mean and they're sad, but they do happen. People go tit over teakettle all the time. Unfortunately, there doesn't need to be anything deeper than that.

She probably left her phone there because she felt it was safe. We're all guilty of doing that occasionally when we're following a routine, even outside of our own homes. Being mentally distracted can also make someone more likely to absently leave their phone somewhere and more likely to end up doing something careless or risky that could end up with them in harm -- but most people survive to mutter to themselves what an idiot they are and that they'll never do xyz again.
 
I did think she may have needed to go to the loo and gone behind a tree or bush but not the boggy and unstable edges of the river which would not provide any cover. Unlike the trees and bushes just outside the gate she could have gone behind but why leave her phone it was on mute and you wouldn't leave it for rich pickings or an accident to befall?

To me if she went in the river accidentally, leaving her phone, then it's off the back of a dispute that escalated and 'something' has occurred.
I believe you could be right, I think she's either wandered off further down the river or there was an altercation at the bench.
Most days after work I take my dog for a walk around the local lake and the chances of me falling in, my dog not being wet if I did, me not being able to get out and my body not being found are incredibly slim. I'm not suicidal so that can be ruled out. However in all the times I've done this walk I've had one altercation which got nasty (4 youths throwing stones at Swans) and that could have led to me being shoved in so entirely possible that could have happened but again like all theories very unlikely
 
Why does it have to be off the back of a dispute?

Most accidents don't have writing for them that you'd find in 'Casualty' or 'CSI'. Accidents are mean and they're sad, but they do happen. People go tit over teakettle all the time. Unfortunately, there doesn't need to be anything deeper than that.

She probably left her phone there because she felt it was safe. We're all guilty of doing that occasionally when we're following a routine, even outside of our own homes. Being mentally distracted can also make someone more likely to absently leave their phone somewhere and more likely to end up doing something careless or risky that could end up with them in harm -- but most people survive to mutter to themselves what an idiot they are and that they'll never do xyz again.
Can I ask a simple question.

If I go for a walk along my local river today with my dog and I'm found in there 23 days later. Would you say that is more likely than suicide if I let you know I had suicidal feelings (I haven't)
 
Can I ask a simple question.

If I go for a walk along my local river today with my dog and I'm found in there 23 days later. Would you say that is more likely than suicide if I let you know I had suicidal feelings (I haven't)

If you said you had suicidal feelings?

Having been there, I would still actually probably put misadventure first, then suicide.

I took some big risks when I was suicidal but not because I planned to die in such a way -- just because I didn't care, or didn't think, or was distracted by my mental health/substance abuse.

But if I hadn't been there myself and was just looking at the data, I would probably say that you committed suicide if you had expressed suicidal thoughts as you say in the hypothetical.
 
I don't agree that an accident is the most likely explanation statistically in relation to this specific case. It may be the case that statistically most people found dead in bodies of water fell in by accident (I'm not sure) but over time it's become quite clear that didn't happen in this case.

As PF stated, if NB had tumbled or slipped into the water, there's no way she wouldn't have been found within the parameters of his searches and the police searches and the way that particular stretch of river works. It was only when a suggestion of suicide or recklessness was introduced to him, he stated that she could be anywhere including beyond the weir and all the way out to sea.



Here are some U.K. stats. Roughly 400 people drown by accident and another 200 take their life by drowning.

So it would seem that when any fatality is discovered in water 1/3 or 1 in 3 chance is suicide.

Seems significant enough.

Overlay with

age/gender (45-49 peak age for female suicide

addiction

MH issues

Recent welfare check.

That’s all ‘we’ know - there will be much more information that the police know that will add or reduce the ‘risk’ in this specific case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
1,951
Total visitors
2,010

Forum statistics

Threads
602,490
Messages
18,141,159
Members
231,409
Latest member
relaxininaz
Back
Top