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

[WAWAW]

Probably because they already had footage, knew they wouldn't get any footage because of the location, or because they consider the witnesses that saw her in the field enough proof.

You have to remember, there wasn't a crime committed and the police thought this from day one. Whilst they had to cover their bases and make sure Nicola hadn't just gone walking out of the woods and gone missing elsewhere, it's redundant if they have enough proof someone was somewhere at a particular time, backed up by other evidence.

Surely though if they had a sighting they believed at 9.10 and the phone being placed on the bench at 9.20,then the appeal for dashcam footage would be from 9.20 onwards and not 9.10.
So much of this whole tragic case makes no sense to me

 

[shinimeggie]

Surely though if they had a sighting they believed at 9.10 and the phone being placed on the bench at 9.20,then the appeal for dashcam footage would be from 9.20 onwards and not 9.10.
So much of this whole tragic case makes no sense to me

Like I said -- it's a good idea to cover all bases. When this appeal was released, it was very early on and it's better to appeal for information ten minutes early than ten minutes late.

It's not like they asked for footage between 7-9am, that would be more confusing. But ten minutes? It's nothing but double-checking you aren't sending your divers down into a river there's no chance a missing person is in.

 

[WAWAW]

Like I said -- it's a good idea to cover all bases. When this appeal was released, it was very early on and it's better to appeal for information ten minutes early than ten minutes late.

It's not like they asked for footage between 7-9am, that would be more confusing. But ten minutes? It's nothing but double-checking you aren't sending your divers down into a river there's no chance a missing person is in.

We'll have to agree to disagree here, this strategy at this moment in time is designed to confirm what they knew about her entering the area, for me the focus needed to be on looking to see if she'd the are either voluntarily or not.
I respect your view, have a good day got to go to work now

 

[CS2C]

Not really.

Even if you're just covering your bases, you want to make sure something didn't happen in the time leading up to the key time so later, when the case is reviewed, you can show you did everything in your power to identify what was going on as soon as you could.

It's hard, but we can't judge by hindsight. We have to remember what the police did/didn't know when they made this appeal, and how some people were acting like rabid animals chasing this case for some reason.

I respectfully disagree. When the press conference took place they already stated that the last confirmed sighting of Nicola was at around 9.10am in the upper field. Her phone then moved towards the bench area at 9.20. Earlier In the very same press conference they appeal for dashcam footage between 9.10 and 9.15am which appears would be a waste of time because there was a confirmed sighting at the furthest part from the road in which they are seeking dashcam footage from at the same time period, plus the phone hasn't even made it to the bench until 10 minutes later, let alone expecting to see Nicola back on Blackpool lane.

 

[falling rain]

With what we know now it does seem odd times to be requesting footage for.
Given they believe no 3rd party is involved and that the phone approached the bench at 9.20 then what are they expecting to see between 9.10 and 9.15.
I'd have thought any footage from 9.20 onwards would be more relevant

It's possible that dashcam footage from the bridge part of that road shows glimpses of the river, and if so it's possible that police had footage of something in the river shortly after 9:20. If so, it would make sense that they were asking for footage from a time when it was known she wasn't in the river - if the something was seen in the river when she definitely wasn't it would rule out the something being her.

 

[guiser]

Probably because they already had footage, knew they wouldn't get any footage because of the location, or because they consider the witnesses that saw her in the field enough proof.

You have to remember, there wasn't a crime committed and the police thought this from day one. Whilst they had to cover their bases and make sure Nicola hadn't just gone walking out of the woods and gone missing elsewhere, it's redundant if they have enough proof someone was somewhere at a particular time, backed up by other evidence.

Exactly
The police are under no obligation to furnish the public with all the clues required for them to "solve the case".
This is not a parlour game.
If LE hold a certain piece of evidence already, they are not obliged to make it public and there would be no purpose in appealing for clarification through witnesses, cctv, dashcams or whatever.
The inquest will reveal why they were confident that NB never left the field, though they didn't discount the possibilty hence the 1km radius land search, 40 detectives following up witness statements etc

 

[ruby925]

But if Willow were tied to the bench in the harness and she pulled free of the harness, the harness would still be tied to the bench, no?

Yes, you are right, but it was never made clear whether the harness was still attached to the lead, or whether the lead was found tied to the bench, or whether the 'permanent long lead' at the bench was used.

 

[MusicalMonkey]

Apologies I lost track of this one after Nicola's body was found.

Has this one been signed and sealed as an open and shut case now? I presume the autopsy has been carried out.

 

[rhino]

Apologies I lost track of this one after Nicola's body was found.

Has this one been signed and sealed as an open and shut case now? I presume the autopsy has been carried out.

Post mortem carried out and body released. Inquest opened, currently scheduled to be heard on June 26th.

 

[Shadowplayed]

I am sure this is nothing, but on 15th February, the time line on the Lancs Police website changed to state "Nicola’s children start school", rather than "Nicola drops the children off at school". Always thought that a bit odd

• 08:26hrs - Nicola leaves her home address.
• 08:40hrs - Nicola’s children start school.

Lancashire Constabulary - Nicola Bulley Missing Person Investigation

The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabulary

www.lancashire.police.uk

Previously shown as this on 10th February:

8.26am - Nicola leaves her home address with her children
8.40am - Nicola drops the children off at school and has a brief conversation with another parent.

Lancashire Constabulary - Latest update in search for Nicola Bulley

The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabulary

www.lancashire.police.uk

 

[Telltale]

Also vice versa, an attending medic for example a paramedic first responder who may be working solo, or an ambulance crew, can request for police assistance for a variety of reasons - if they have reasonable grounds to think a crime has taken place, if they think a crime is about to take place, if they feel at any type of risk or threat in the environment where the person needs urgent medical attention, or if they need to break and enter a premises to get to a person... many reasons.

There are also situations where attending police are legally obliged to remove a person 'to a place of safety' and this may involve the need for an emergency section under the Mental Health Act if the person is unwilling or unable to comply voluntarily. The laws on who can 'section' a person have been changed in the recent past - since temporary amendments under the Coronavirus Emergency Legislation Act March 2020 and this can now be conducted differently but does require the opinion on at least one health professional sufficiently qualified to comment.

I am speaking in general terms, not relating to the case of NB in any way whatsoever.

The police cannot section someone in their own home. It is considered a place of safety and is not covered by section 136 of the mental health act (which gives police that power.) Usually in situations where a person needs to be forcibly removed from their own home for mental health treatment, paramedics go through their own processes to take away capacity under 135.

In my experience, when it comes missing persons enquiries, one of the police's first tasks (aside from obviously looking for them) is always searching that persons home address. Even if that's not were they vanished from. A few reasons for this. One, more people than you think just end up back at home, and it's a big waste of resources to put up the helicopter when they're obliviously eating biscuits at their kitchen table. Two, for clues of where they have gone and what their intentions were. Did they leave a note? Take money? Pack a bag? Is there signs of a struggle? Did they have a heart attack behind the potting shed and need an ambulance? Etc etc etc. That information is needed as early as possible to direct search efforts effectively.

NBs husband was sent back home because he was needed there. Not only for his daughters, but to let officers in, find a picture of her, approve media releases, tell them if anything was missing or wrong in the house, to be a point of contact for anyone they know who might call him with information. He needed to be available because police needed his personal insight and contacts to direct the search efforts effectively. Better trained people were doing the searching.

Him running about shouting her name might have made him feel better but it would have hindered the search significantly. Staying put and drumming up leads was vital. He did exactly what was needed of him, even though it undoubtedly went against any partners natural instincts. IMO

Lastly a concern for welfare is just that. They were checking welfare because somebody had called the police with potentially dangerous or time critical concerns about someone in the household (hence calling police and not family/doctors etc)

<modsnip - this statement is not in MSM>

 

[JennieM]

Footage request from school walk to field would be important also. It was never asked for. There is absolutely nothing IMO

Sorry Simplistic, what do you mean 'there is absolutely nothing'?

 

[Simplistic67]

On the official Facebook page for Lancashire Police dated the 4th of February at 4:09am, they released an update. In this update it states "Nicola, 45, was last seen on Friday morning (January 27th) at around 9.20am on the footpath by the river off Garstang Road".
Are they saying that she was seen by a witness after the phone reached the bench ?

 

[JennieM]

I am sure this is nothing, but on 15th February, the time line on the Lancs Police website changed to state "Nicola’s children start school", rather than "Nicola drops the children off at school". Always thought that a bit odd

• 08:26hrs - Nicola leaves her home address.
• 08:40hrs - Nicola’s children start school.

Lancashire Constabulary - Nicola Bulley Missing Person Investigation

The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabulary

www.lancashire.police.uk

Previously shown as this on 10th February:

8.26am - Nicola leaves her home address with her children
8.40am - Nicola drops the children off at school and has a brief conversation with another parent.

Lancashire Constabulary - Latest update in search for Nicola Bulley

The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabulary

www.lancashire.police.uk

What do you surmise and what do you find odd?

 

[JennieM]

The police cannot section someone in their own home. It is considered a place of safety and is not covered by section 136 of the mental health act (which gives police that power.) Usually in situations where a person needs to be forcibly removed from their own home for mental health treatment, paramedics go through their own processes to take away capacity under 135.

In my experience, when it comes missing persons enquiries, one of the police's first tasks (aside from obviously looking for them) is always searching that persons home address. Even if that's not were they vanished from. A few reasons for this. One, more people than you think just end up back at home, and it's a big waste of resources to put up the helicopter when they're obliviously eating biscuits at their kitchen table. Two, for clues of where they have gone and what their intentions were. Did they leave a note? Take money? Pack a bag? Is there signs of a struggle? Did they have a heart attack behind the potting shed and need an ambulance? Etc etc etc. That information is needed as early as possible to direct search efforts effectively.

NBs husband was sent back home because he was needed there. Not only for his daughters, but to let officers in, find a picture of her, approve media releases, tell them if anything was missing or wrong in the house, to be a point of contact for anyone they know who might call him with information. He needed to be available because police needed his personal insight and contacts to direct the search efforts effectively. Better trained people were doing the searching.

Him running about shouting her name might have made him feel better but it would have hindered the search significantly. Staying put and drumming up leads was vital. He did exactly what was needed of him, even though it undoubtedly went against any partners natural instincts. IMO

Lastly a concern for welfare is just that. They were checking welfare because somebody had called the police with potentially dangerous or time critical concerns about someone in the household (hence calling police and not family/doctors etc)

<modsnip - this statement is not in MSM>

Thanks for your rational response!

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The police cannot section someone in their own home. It is considered a place of safety and is not covered by section 136 of the mental health act (which gives police that power.) Usually in situations where a person needs to be forcibly removed from their own home for mental health treatment, paramedics go through their own processes to take away capacity under 135.

In my experience, when it comes missing persons enquiries, one of the police's first tasks (aside from obviously looking for them) is always searching that persons home address. Even if that's not were they vanished from. A few reasons for this. One, more people than you think just end up back at home, and it's a big waste of resources to put up the helicopter when they're obliviously eating biscuits at their kitchen table. Two, for clues of where they have gone and what their intentions were. Did they leave a note? Take money? Pack a bag? Is there signs of a struggle? Did they have a heart attack behind the potting shed and need an ambulance? Etc etc etc. That information is needed as early as possible to direct search efforts effectively.

NBs husband was sent back home because he was needed there. Not only for his daughters, but to let officers in, find a picture of her, approve media releases, tell them if anything was missing or wrong in the house, to be a point of contact for anyone they know who might call him with information. He needed to be available because police needed his personal insight and contacts to direct the search efforts effectively. Better trained people were doing the searching.

Him running about shouting her name might have made him feel better but it would have hindered the search significantly. Staying put and drumming up leads was vital. He did exactly what was needed of him, even though it undoubtedly went against any partners natural instincts. IMO

Lastly a concern for welfare is just that. They were checking welfare because somebody had called the police with potentially dangerous or time critical concerns about someone in the household (hence calling police and not family/doctors etc)

<modsnip - this statement is not in MSM>

I'm not sure why you quoted my post in what you've posted here but just to clarify, the police can't 'section' anybody anywhere, they aren't qualified to do so. There is a part of police procedure which is called 'removing someone to a place of safety' and is not the same as sectioning someone.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/police-and-mental-health/sections-135-136/#:~:text=Section%20136%20allows%20the%20police,household%20has%20access%20to%2C%20AND

 

[NextSprint]

I'm not sure why you quoted my post in what you've posted here but just to clarify, the police can't 'section' anybody anywhere, they aren't qualified to do so. There is a part of police procedure which is called 'removing someone to a place of safety' and is not the same as sectioning someone.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/police-and-mental-health/sections-135-136/#:~:text=Section%20136%20allows%20the%20police,household%20has%20access%20to%2C%20AND

That’s semantics though; the relevant “sections” of the Mental Health Act refer to powers to take or keep you against your will either for assessment or treatment. The police do have powers under sections 135 and 136, including to remove you to a place of safety or to keep you in your own home.

Those are section powers. Not the same as a hospital section (either the short of long one), but a section power nonetheless.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I am sure this is nothing, but on 15th February, the time line on the Lancs Police website changed to state "Nicola’s children start school", rather than "Nicola drops the children off at school". Always thought that a bit odd

• 08:26hrs - Nicola leaves her home address.
• 08:40hrs - Nicola’s children start school.

Lancashire Constabulary - Nicola Bulley Missing Person Investigation

The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabulary

www.lancashire.police.uk

Previously shown as this on 10th February:

8.26am - Nicola leaves her home address with her children
8.40am - Nicola drops the children off at school and has a brief conversation with another parent.

Lancashire Constabulary - Latest update in search for Nicola Bulley

The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabulary

www.lancashire.police.uk

Good point, Shadowplayed. I wonder what the reason is why LE would change the wording on the details of activities in the timeline that morning, unless they lacked proof about her leaving home (at a certain time), with or without her children, and dropping them off and having a brief conversation with another parent.

Maybe they could find no CCTV/video surveillance showing her leaving that morning, nor dropping the children off at school, and the "other parent" never materialized or they were interviewed and some aspects of the earlier wording on the timeline was contradicted?

As an aside, it has always bothered me just a smidge that LE worded their notice about her disappearance this way (BBM):

"Have you seen Nicola Bulley, who has gone missing from home in Inskip?" Have you seen Nicola Bulley, who has gone missing from home in Inskip?

Unless they knew she had been missing since she left home so she was truly "missing from home" (and her whereabouts since leaving home were unknown), I would think they would have said something like "... gone missing after dropping her children off at school and/or while walking her dog by the River Wyre".

I understand "missing from home" could have been a generic term used to convey she was "last seen at home by her husband" and it's "just semantics", but something about it just seems presumptuous or unclear, unless it is wording LE typically uses when the person is considered "at risk"?

JMO

 

[PeggyHenry]

I am sure this is nothing, but on 15th February, the time line on the Lancs Police website changed to state "Nicola’s children start school", rather than "Nicola drops the children off at school". Always thought that a bit odd

• 08:26hrs - Nicola leaves her home address.
• 08:40hrs - Nicola’s children start school.

Lancashire Constabulary - Nicola Bulley Missing Person Investigation

The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabulary

www.lancashire.police.uk

Previously shown as this on 10th February:

8.26am - Nicola leaves her home address with her children
8.40am - Nicola drops the children off at school and has a brief conversation with another parent.

Lancashire Constabulary - Latest update in search for Nicola Bulley

The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabulary

www.lancashire.police.uk

Good spot.does that imply there is nothing to suggest Nicola delivered them to school

 

[Grouse]

I respectfully disagree. When the press conference took place they already stated that the last confirmed sighting of Nicola was at around 9.10am in the upper field. Her phone then moved towards the bench area at 9.20. Earlier In the very same press conference they appeal for dashcam footage between 9.10 and 9.15am which appears would be a waste of time because there was a confirmed sighting at the furthest part from the road in which they are seeking dashcam footage from at the same time period, plus the phone hasn't even made it to the bench until 10 minutes later, let alone expecting to see Nicola back on Blackpool lane.

I suspect too much is being made of this "dashcam footage between 9.10 and 9.15am" thing. In reality I doubt whether all the footage they received would have been painstakingly edited by those who sent it in to just include that 5 minute period and nor would that have been expected IMO.

Probably just a minor slip like there were a few of on those early pressers - Garstang Rd vs Garstang Lane and socks tucked into jeans etc.