Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire), Jan 2023 #19

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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
WAWAW said:
You are correct, but what I did with this is convert this via Google into how many yards this is
Click to expand...
Google won't know because stride length is different for different people, based on their size but also on how they are walking (ie I've discovered that my stride length is different on the treadmill than when walking outdoors). Running is entirely different stride length than walking. IMO I don't think yards is useful here.


WAWAW said:
That's a very good point and could well explain the steps.
One point coming from that though is what would cause it to stop recording at 9.30 as there'd still be movement after then?
Click to expand...
Either she stopped struggling (ie lost consciousness) or her body moved into the flow of water and stopped bumping things with enough force to trigger the fitbit, or her arm became less mobile (walking in a grocery store gets me fewer steps when my fitbit arm is grasping the shopping cart handle instead of swinging freely) or the fitbit stopped functioning (maybe from being submerged, maybe from becoming damaged, maybe something else I haven't thought of)
 
Blondiexoxo said:
She had bruising to her knees and to the inside and outside of her upper arms. Remember that dead bodies can’t bruise, so these injuries must have been sustained before she died. The bruising to her knees could be consistent with the rocky surface of the river bed, but I have no idea how she could have sustained bruising to her upper arms. I think that bruising should have been questioned more but then we don’t have the information the coroner has.

Unless as has been suggested above she literally went flying in head first after tripping on a rock or something sticking out the ground, I have no idea how she ended up in there and from the coroners summing up, he doesn’t either. The bruising to her arms aswell as the lack of the sound of willow even barking seems to be an unlikely combination if Nicola tripped and fell. I understand willow may not have gone into the river but from what I understand about dogs, especially ones as loyal to their owners as willow (she is described as their 3rd child) had willow been alone I find it unlikely that she wouldn’t have been barking continuously to Nicola or to get attention of someone to come and help. Unless there was someone already there who quickly tied Willow up and calmed her, or Willow may not have witnessed Nicola falling which could mean she wasn’t in the immediate area at the time which then begs the question of the harness. It must have been a very unfortunate and unlikely series of events that led to Nicola falling into the water for all these things to have occurred at once and for Nicola to have injured her arms somehow in the fall.

I don’t like wondering out loud out of respect to her family, I don’t want to come across as insensitive or insincere because I really do sympathise with the enormity of their grief. The only facts other than drowning being the cause of death that suggest IMO an accidental fall are Nicola turning the volume up on her phone and the positioning of Willow’s harness on the ground. But I am a member of the public like we all are and have no access to additional information. They both suggest she left the bench to attach willows harness, but then wouldn’t willow have seen Nicola fall in and been barking for someone to come and help? Who exactly found the harness and the phone? Were they both found at the same time as willow?

All MOO
Click to expand...
Some excellent points there thank you. Unfortunately the inquest has thrown up some awkward questions, a good example from your post is the bruising.
If she passed as instantaneously as indicated, then how come so much bruising.
It all feels that the conclusion reached was needed to help the immediate family with the grieving process, and to allow the Police to indicate they were correct all along.
Time will tell if this proves to be a mistake, to date the people of st michaels have been hugely commendable with the lack of comments coming from then, I'll watch with interest to see if this changes over the next few months as the stories of a few key witnesses could sell for some decent money now
 
WAWAW said:
Some excellent points there thank you. Unfortunately the inquest has thrown up some awkward questions, a good example from your post is the bruising.
If she passed as instantaneously as indicated, then how come so much bruising.
It all feels that the conclusion reached was needed to help the immediate family with the grieving process, and to allow the Police to indicate they were correct all along.
Time will tell if this proves to be a mistake, to date the people of st michaels have been hugely commendable with the lack of comments coming from then, I'll watch with interest to see if this changes over the next few months as the stories of a few key witnesses could sell for some decent money now
Click to expand...
the people of St Michaels seem solidly behind the family :)
 
Auntie Cipation said:
Google won't know because stride length is different for different people, based on their size but also on how they are walking (ie I've discovered that my stride length is different on the treadmill than when walking outdoors). Running is entirely different stride length than walking. IMO I don't think yards is useful here.



Either she stopped struggling (ie lost consciousness) or her body moved into the flow of water and stopped bumping things with enough force to trigger the fitbit, or her arm became less mobile (walking in a grocery store gets me fewer steps when my fitbit arm is grasping the shopping cart handle instead of swinging freely) or the fitbit stopped functioning (maybe from being submerged, maybe from becoming damaged, maybe something else I haven't thought of)
Click to expand...
It is very odd this. If the recording of steps from her moving her arms after 9.22 then she clearly didn't pass at that time as indicated.
Conversely if we agree that a fitbit will continue recording steps from arm movement as she moves through the water hitting obstacles, then what could explain the lack of steps recording after 9.30.
We know it lost charge 4th February, so she must have came to rest somewhere that caused no further records to show, but this doesn't sit with the conclusion reached on the body floating down the river and over the Weir.
I'd just like them to confirm the time her last heart beat recorded as this could stop all the speculation if it is confirmed to be 9.22,i don't understand why they are prepared to share the time period her last steps recorded, and the exact time her heart beat registered it's highest amount (9.22) so why not tell us her last recorded heart beat to shut all the speculation down
 
WAWAW said:
It is very odd this. If the recording of steps from her moving her arms after 9.22 then she clearly didn't pass at that time as indicated.
Conversely if we agree that a fitbit will continue recording steps from arm movement as she moves through the water hitting obstacles, then what could explain the lack of steps recording after 9.30.
We know it lost charge 4th February, so she must have came to rest somewhere that caused no further records to show, but this doesn't sit with the conclusion reached on the body floating down the river and over the Weir.
I'd just like them to confirm the time her last heart beat recorded as this could stop all the speculation if it is confirmed to be 9.22,i don't understand why they are prepared to share the time period her last steps recorded, and the exact time her heart beat registered it's highest amount (9.22) so why not tell us her last recorded heart beat to shut all the speculation down
Click to expand...
because people will simply demand to be told something. Its pretty obvious that she would likely be gone before 9.25
 
UK Girl said:
because people will simply demand to be told something. Its pretty obvious that she would likely be gone before 9.25
Click to expand...
I hope you are right, that's the result I'd like but until this is confirmed I'll continue to be dubious of the conclusion reached
 
MrsWatson said:
Why would what is said to a tabloid instead of what was said by LE, by the family, and by the witnesses during the inquest be more trustworthy?

What is there to "blow wide open"?
Click to expand...
Quite simply questions could be asked that either haven't been asked or for which the answers haven't been reported.
Here's a few relevant to the case.
What route did you take?
What timings related to question 1
When and where did you see Nicola
Did you talk to her and how did she sound
How well did you know nicola
To the best of your knowledge did she have any arguments with any locals about dogs being off leads
You've indicated you saw 2 other people in the area, did you know them
What direction were they walking
What time did you see them
What direction did they come from
Did they seem irritated
Where they leaving the area of the field when you saw them
Can you describe the dogs they had with them
How well did you know willows behaviour
If Nicola entered the water would Willow go in after her or bark to raise help
In your honest opinion do you believe Nicola fell into the water, or was the victim of an altercation

By the coroners own admission he can never exactly confirm why she entered the water. Some will believe it was an accident, some will believe she was shoved in and some like me would like more information before coming to an opinion. Unfortunately I'll never get the questions answered that I'd like and which I think should have come from the coroners report so I'll be left with my existing thoughts until additional information is introduced and if this needs to come via a tabloid paper then so be it but it isn't how I'd like to get the information.
 
Seattle1 said:
Seems to me there's some misconception about the purpose and function of an Inquest.

INQUESTS - nidirect

It is not for the Coroner to decide, or appear to decide any question of criminal or civil liability or to apportion guilt or attribute blame.

A date for the inquest will be arranged when a Coroner’s investigation is complete. Inquests are open to the public and the media.

Coroners decide who should take part to give evidence as witnesses at an inquest. Witnesses will first be questioned by a Coroner, and there may be further questions by ‘properly interested people’ or their legal representatives. This can include:

  • relatives of the deceased
  • the executor(s) of the deceased’s will or person appointed as the deceased’s personal representative
  • solicitors acting for the next of kin
  • insurers with a relevant interest
  • anyone who may, in some way, be responsible for the death
  • others at some special risk or appearing to a Coroner to have a proper interest
The findings of an inquest will record the essential facts about how the person died.
Click to expand...
I think that might be from northern ireland, it might be the same on the mainland but I know from first hand experience some of their laws are different
 
WAWAW said:
Quite simply questions could be asked that either haven't been asked or for which the answers haven't been reported.
Here's a few relevant to the case.
What route did you take?
What timings related to question 1
When and where did you see Nicola
Did you talk to her and how did she sound
How well did you know nicola
To the best of your knowledge did she have any arguments with any locals about dogs being off leads
You've indicated you saw 2 other people in the area, did you know them
What direction were they walking
What time did you see them
What direction did they come from
Did they seem irritated
Where they leaving the area of the field when you saw them
Can you describe the dogs they had with them
How well did you know willows behaviour
If Nicola entered the water would Willow go in after her or bark to raise help
In your honest opinion do you believe Nicola fell into the water, or was the victim of an altercation

By the coroners own admission he can never exactly confirm why she entered the water. Some will believe it was an accident, some will believe she was shoved in and some like me would like more information before coming to an opinion. Unfortunately I'll never get the questions answered that I'd like and which I think should have come from the coroners report so I'll be left with my existing thoughts until additional information is introduced and if this needs to come via a tabloid paper then so be it but it isn't how I'd like to get the information.
Click to expand...
What makes you believe you are entitled to information that does not exist?

A lot of good people have put massive resources and love into this investigation.
Take it from The Coroner if not from me?


'The coroner said one purpose of the inquest was to "allay rumour and suspicion" and he would rely only on "reliable sources" and not explore the "theories advanced by those who contribute to social media fora".'

www.bbc.com

Nicola Bulley's death was an accident, coroner rules

There is no evidence the 45-year-old had "any desire" to take her own life, a coroner concludes.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
WAWAW said:
I think that might be from northern ireland, it might be the same on the mainland but I know from first hand experience some of their laws are different
Click to expand...
Thank you for pointing that out. Nonetheless, from England, the gest is the same:

What can I expect from an inquest?

The purpose of an inquest, the way it is run, and the limits of what it sets out to accomplish, are all set down in law.

We may find ourselves frustrated at the end if we do not realise:

▪ Not all of our questions may be answered. It is the coroner who controls the proceedings and decides the extent or limit of the evidence to be considered.

▪ The inquest is not going to blame anybody. We may feel that a person or organisation was to blame for our child’s death, but the inquest may not examine these issues.

An inquest is entirely fact-finding, establishing the identity of the deceased, where, when and how (medically) they died.

The inquest is not held to establish any criminal or civil liability, it cannot blame individuals for the death, and the coroner and/or the jury must not name anyone in delivering their conclusion.

 

At the end of the Inquest, the Coroner can give the following Conclusions about the death: • Natural causes • Accident or misadventure • Suicide • Narrative, which enables the Coroner to describe briefly the circumstances by which the death came about
• Unlawful killing (or lawful killing) • Alcohol • Drug related • Industrial Disease • Road Traffic Collision • Neglect (usually contributing to another conclusion, eg natural causes) • Open, meaning that there is insufficient evidence to decide how the death came about – the case is left open in case further evidence appears. The Coroner can combine some of these conclusions together (for example, "natural causes, aggravated by neglect"). "Neglect" is a very narrow legal concept, and is not the same as negligence. If "neglect" is likely to be relevant to a death, legal representation is usually advisable. The Coroner’s conclusion can only be challenged by a Judicial Review in the High Court. Some Inquests have a "narrative" conclusion – a brief, factual description of how the person died, without anything to suggest blame.

The Coroner, in this case, ruled Nicola Bulley's death to be an accident.

Not open, not narrative, not suicide, not murder, not natural causes or any of the above.
Just one.
ACCIDENTAL DEATH.
 
kittythehare said:
What makes you believe you are entitled to information that does not exist?

A lot of good people have put massive resources and love into this investigation.
Take it from The Coroner if not from me?


'The coroner said one purpose of the inquest was to "allay rumour and suspicion" and he would rely only on "reliable sources" and not explore the "theories advanced by those who contribute to social media fora".'

www.bbc.com

Nicola Bulley's death was an accident, coroner rules

There is no evidence the 45-year-old had "any desire" to take her own life, a coroner concludes.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
With the greatest of respect those questions I've listed should (and possibly have) form part of the investigation into whether this was an accident or altercation. If they want to stop people questioning their decision then share this information with us.
We can't live in a world where we have to accept everything the authorities say (well I won't anyway)
 
There are hundreds of cases on websleuths where users disagree with the conclusion reached. In those cases we can have discussions and put our opinions forward. The conclusion reached may have been reasonable to some and not to others. That doesn’t mean those who wish we had more information are looking for a conspiracy or purposely trying to prolong a family’s pain. There’s plenty of cases where people disagree with the findings and the conversation doesn’t just end because the official conclusion has been reached. This case was high profile so there are going to be differences of opinion. We aren’t entitled to answers to many of the questions obviously but surely we can discuss amongst ourselves whilst remaining compassionate?

The inquest has clearly raised some questions so aslong as discussion stays within TOS then I don’t see the problem?

I don’t agree with some of the more outlandish theories involving Nicolas body not being in the water the entire time etc, but I do wonder if there was enough evidence for the eventual accidental death ruling when the coroner even stated that he could not say why Nicola ended up in the water. But that’s JMO.
MOO
 
Blondiexoxo said:
There are hundreds of cases on websleuths where users disagree with the conclusion reached. In those cases we can have discussions and put our opinions forward. The conclusion reached may have been reasonable to some and not to others. That doesn’t mean those who wish we had more information are looking for a conspiracy or purposely trying to prolong a family’s pain. There’s plenty of cases where people disagree with the findings and the conversation doesn’t just end because the official conclusion has been reached. This case was high profile so there are going to be differences of opinion. We aren’t entitled to answers to many of the questions obviously but surely we can discuss amongst ourselves whilst remaining compassionate?

The inquest has clearly raised some questions so aslong as discussion stays within TOS then I don’t see the problem?

I don’t agree with some of the more outlandish theories involving Nicolas body not being in the water the entire time etc, but I do wonder if there was enough evidence for the eventual accidental death ruling when the coroner even stated that he could not say why Nicola ended up in the water. But that’s JMO.
MOO
Click to expand...
to be fair how could he say why she ended up in the water when there were no witnesses? but third party involvement was ruled out several times. Ofc it was unreasonable for some as for some weird reason they would rather she had been murdered but there is NO reason to think she had been,
 
UK Girl said:
to be fair how could he say why she ended up in the water when there were no witnesses? but third party involvement was ruled out several times. Ofc it was unreasonable for some as for some weird reason they would rather she had been murdered but there is NO reason to think she had been,
Click to expand...
I for one would absolutely not rather she had been murdered atall. I just wanted to discuss some of the points that were mentioned which I found interesting. I don’t think disagreeing with the findings automatically means people would rather she has been murdered, that would be disgusting if people actually feel that way!

I just like to analyse things and probably over think at times, but given how high profile the case was, how fast moving the threads were at one point, it seems strange to just stop discussion and not talk about what we made of the statements given. Lots of people spoke so it’s just interesting for me how we all interpret things differently, I don’t want it to come across disrespectfully atall. But we’re websleuths, analysing and discussing is what we do!

MOO
 
Blondiexoxo said:
There are hundreds of cases on websleuths where users disagree with the conclusion reached. In those cases we can have discussions and put our opinions forward. The conclusion reached may have been reasonable to some and not to others. That doesn’t mean those who wish we had more information are looking for a conspiracy or purposely trying to prolong a family’s pain. There’s plenty of cases where people disagree with the findings and the conversation doesn’t just end because the official conclusion has been reached. This case was high profile so there are going to be differences of opinion. We aren’t entitled to answers to many of the questions obviously but surely we can discuss amongst ourselves whilst remaining compassionate?

The inquest has clearly raised some questions so aslong as discussion stays within TOS then I don’t see the problem?

I don’t agree with some of the more outlandish theories involving Nicolas body not being in the water the entire time etc, but I do wonder if there was enough evidence for the eventual accidental death ruling when the coroner even stated that he could not say why Nicola ended up in the water. But that’s JMO.
MOO
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I think the difference here is that most of the WS cases under discussion involve police declaring they suspect foul play, and the case being treated as a criminal investigation which invites us to put forth ideas and theories.

We had none of that here. Police/Investigators were firm from the beginning that the evidence pointed to NB being lost to the water.

While it is true the Coroner could not provide why or where NB entered the water, they had sufficient evidence to know NB manually turned up the volume on her phone at 9:18 AM, and at about 15 minutes later, she was nowhere to be seen, and her much-beloved pet left alone. And no third-party involvement in those unexplained 15 minutes was also explained. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 115 more.
Total: 1,817 (members: 116, guests: 1,701)

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
1,701
Total visitors
1,817
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,269
Messages
18,184,971
Members
233,288
Latest member
Justicefornicky
Back
Top