UK UK - Jack O'Sullivan, 22, left friends after night out, last seen Brunel Lock Road/Brunel Way, Bristol at 3.15am, 2 Mar 2024

[JellyBee]

Statistically, it's very unlikely that he will be found now as only around 1% of people who remain missing in the UK for a year or more do turn up eventually.

Sadly I agree. I wonder what the statistics and likelihood is of finding his body in the water after this length of time.

On a side note, regarding the data surge on his phone, could it be possible that the phone lost signal when he fell into the water shortly after his last sighting and then temporarily reconnected further up stream around an hour later as the phone started to fail, causing the location ping & the data surge? I’m thinking emails, comments, likes and notifications that would’ve suddenly come through in one go. This definitely makes the most sense to me, given the timeline.

 

[infohuntah]

One of the many reasons men fall into the water when intoxicated is because they need to urinate and for some reason, choose to do so over waterways. It could be as simple as him navigating the river fine and then needing to go for a wee all of a sudden and accidentally falling in. We also don’t know if Jack had taken any substances that were beginning to take effect as he made his journey home. I am not from the area but from reading the accounts of those who are, the direction he walked suggests some form of confusion

That's very much a cliche and massively, massively overstated. That cliche started off in comedies such as The Simpson which had gag scenes involving drunken mishaps of Withnail and I. I'd seriously take that with a huge lump of salt.

that said, it does happen occasionally but it's very, very rare. Much more rare than movies or cartoons or comedies make it seem.

Additionally, it's a typical lazy police response. You know the kinds of police forces who dont have time, money or resources, so they'll use this reasoning. For the record: it's so rare theres no statistics on it.

Let me say that again: it's so rare, theres no statistics. Not to say it cannot happen, because of course it can, but we'd really be scraping the barrel if we believed Jack suddenly wanted to pee and went to do so in public, near water, fell into the water, drowned, then was never seen again....it's possible but so, so far down on the list of things that couldn't happen i think we should explore other options.

 

[infohuntah]

I see that yesterday was the 2nd anniversary of Jack going missing. Statistically, it's very unlikely that he will be found now as only around 1% of people who remain missing in the UK for a year or more do turn up eventually.

I don't think we know much more now than we did after about 2 months, when the CCTV footage had been collected and reviewed, but it's worth bearing in mind that at least 70% of people who go missing in the UK do so for reasons related to their mental health. The idea that Jack went into the water in the area where he was seen wandering seems to remain many commentators' favourite hypothesis, but I really do think he would have been found by now if he had done so.

The water theory doesn't hold well for me either as I've explained on previous pages.

My main concern at the moment is with the private detectives the family have hired. Of course I've got no connection to anyone involved in the case, but from the outside looking in, what have they done? Im assuming they're getting paid for their work, but I've seen many cases where "private investigators" get paid for cases they know they can't solve and it has left me feeling extremely skeptical.

For example, when the person on a social media website said that he saw Jack getting into a car posted up online, they simply posted a message and asked the poster to contact them.

From their latest news release and telling people that posts will be deleted if theres no value, I hate to say but, I think they're a bunch of phonies who are acting like they can solve it but really, they're relying on social media.

All in all, this case was badly handled by police. It looks badly handled by these private investigators and honestly, I think 2 years on, I agree with the post above that we're looking at a 1% chance of finding Jack now because the time that has passed, combined with cctv issues etc. Ive tried to be positive throughout but it's looking bleak.

 

[rvlvr]

I’m just now catching up on this thread from start to finish so apologies if what I am about to say has already been discussed.

I still am sadly of the opinion that Jack fell into the water, given it is the most likely explanation. As for the phone pings, is it not possible that it being submerged in water could cause it to show incorrect location data? I once travelled across the country and my phone lost signal for an hour and showed me as being in the middle of the sea near to where I had last connected. My friend actually screenshot it and sent it to me, understandably horrified.

I just think the most logical conclusion, given the odd path he travelled and circling back on himself, is that he was extremely intoxicated and fell into the river and then his phone started playing up because it was full of water. It would also explain why it went off a few hours later. I wonder if the general direction of his phone location would align with the tidal movements of the area he would’ve fallen in.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong though as I want his poor family to find him.

I was in Perth yesterday where a guy called Declyn Cunningham went missing a few months ago, near to the River Tay. I was thinking of him, and Jack. Unfortunately I do think in cases like these the likeliest explanation is that sadly the missing person entered the water. Hopefully, as in the case of Aryan Sharma in Loughborough, their bodies are eventually found.

 

[rhino]

That's very much a cliche and massively, massively overstated. That cliche started off in comedies such as The Simpson which had gag scenes involving drunken mishaps of Withnail and I. I'd seriously take that with a huge lump of salt.

that said, it does happen occasionally but it's very, very rare. Much more rare than movies or cartoons or comedies make it seem.

Additionally, it's a typical lazy police response. You know the kinds of police forces who dont have time, money or resources, so they'll use this reasoning. For the record: it's so rare theres no statistics on it.

Let me say that again: it's so rare, theres no statistics. Not to say it cannot happen, because of course it can, but we'd really be scraping the barrel if we believed Jack suddenly wanted to pee and went to do so in public, near water, fell into the water, drowned, then was never seen again....it's possible but so, so far down on the list of things that couldn't happen i think we should explore other options.

Surely it’s near impossible, without video evidence, to collect statistics on exactly why people ended up in bodies of water and drowned?

There’s no denying the statistics of young men ending up drowning after nights out.

Men missing on a night out: Exploring the geography of fatal disappearances to inform search strategies

researchportal.port.ac.uk

And an updated one I hadn’t seen before:

https://mpih.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/missing-on-a-night-out-update_2019.pdf

 

[MelmothTheLost]

The water theory doesn't hold well for me either as I've explained on previous pages.

My main concern at the moment is with the private detectives the family have hired. Of course I've got no connection to anyone involved in the case, but from the outside looking in, what have they done? Im assuming they're getting paid for their work, but I've seen many cases where "private investigators" get paid for cases they know they can't solve and it has left me feeling extremely skeptical.

It's very likely that the PIs are carrying out an independent/fresh eyes review of the evidence and everything the police have done so far. This would be to identify any obvious gaps in the police actions and any additional lines of enquiry. I'm not really following this case actively at present so have no idea of the background of the PIs, but if they are ex-cops (which some are) they will know and understand police procedures and will have an idea of the sort of stuff that gets overlooked or ignored. In high profile cases it's absolutely normal for such fresh eyes reviews to be carried out after a certain period of time and from time to time thereafter. It's also not uncommon for such reviews to be carried out by another police force for the purposes of true independence and transparency.

It's therefore possible, if the Avon & Somerset police's investigation has been thorough, that the PIs will report to the family that they can see nothing that has been overlooked and can identify no new lines of enquiry. In that case, their purpose would be to provide reassurance to the family that everything reasonable or possible has been done.

 

[JellyBee]

Let me say that again: it's so rare, theres no statistics. Not to say it cannot happen, because of course it can, but we'd really be scraping the barrel if we believed Jack suddenly wanted to pee and went to do so in public, near water, fell into the water, drowned, then was never seen again

Obviously with most missing people we don’t know what has happened until they’re found, and even then we don’t always have answers so why they fall in is mostly speculative. I think the urine theory is taken from stories of men who have actually fallen in water and have lived to tell the tale. Again it was just a possible explanation for why he may have navigated the river fine and then suddenly fell in. It all sounds rather ridiculous and impossible but so many men go missing on nights out and end up in the water that it is actually a known phenomenon now

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Obviously with most missing people we don’t know what has happened until they’re found, and even then we don’t always have answers so why they fall in is mostly speculative. I think the urine theory is taken from stories of men who have actually fallen in water and have lived to tell the tale. Again it was just a possible explanation for why he may have navigated the river fine and then suddenly fell in. It all sounds rather ridiculous and impossible but so many men go missing on nights out and end up in the water that it is actually a known phenomenon now

Dunno, but I suspect if you find a man with a high blood alcohol level, his flies open and his todger out drowned in a body of water, it's pretty obvious what has happened.

 

[JellyBee]

Dunno, but I suspect if you find a man with a high blood alcohol level, his flies open and his todger out drowned in a body of water, it's pretty obvious what has happened.

Even if this was the case, I’m not sure the police would release this kind of information. I can’t imagine it would be in the public interest and isn’t very dignified for the victim. It reminds me of how the police told everyone Nicola Bulley was menopausal with alcohol problems - details literally nobody needed, and got them into quite a bit of bother.

I do hope that there is more research and studies done into men missing on nights out. Something seriously needs to change, it is becoming so common

 

[MelmothTheLost]

Even if this was the case, I’m not sure the police would release this kind of information. I can’t imagine it would be in the public interest and isn’t very dignified for the victim. It reminds me of how the police told everyone Nicola Bulley was menopausal with alcohol problems - details literally nobody needed, and got them into quite a bit of bother.

I doubt the police would be as explicit as I was, but I imagine they would tell an inquest that they were confident that the deceased had fallen in while urinating.

I do hope that there is more research and studies done into men missing on nights out. Something seriously needs to change, it is becoming so common

Indeed. I think another posted on this thread provided a link to the results of a research study by Portsmouth University into precisely this phenomenon, but I have no idea whether any similar studies have been carried out for other countries.

 

[rhino]

Dunno, but I suspect if you find a man with a high blood alcohol level, his flies open and his todger out drowned in a body of water, it's pretty obvious what has happened.

Unless bodies are recovered from the water within a few days, then that information may not be available. Moving bodies of water often lead to loss of clothes and tissue.

Indeed. I think another posted on this thread provided a link to the results of a research study by Portsmouth University into precisely this phenomenon, but I have no idea whether any similar studies have been carried out for other countries.

There were several Australian studies into the links between males, alcohol/drugs and risky behaviour around water that I found when trying to find the Portsmouth study. Not quite the same, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[JellyBee]

I am baffled why we are all suddenly thinking he fell into water after peeing

Nobody is actually saying that’s what happened. You asked why he would have navigated the waterways fine and then suddenly fell in and it was just one of many possibilities. He also circled back on himself once already and seemed to be walking aimlessly whilst intoxicated with a possible head injury, so it’s hardly out of the realm of possibility. I think it’s important to not dismiss other people’s thoughts and opinions because it’s not what you believe. That’s how so many people become hyper focused on a theory and miss other leads. Even though I personally think he fell into the water because it’s most likely, I’m not discounting other explanations.

You'll see that the CCTV would have likely picked Jack up if he had ventured back the route he came

My only gripe with this is that the police missed him on one frame and his mother was the one who found the last sighting. It begs the question, did they give her access to all of the cctv? It’s god awful quality which makes me think some of it might not have even picked him up. My old ring camera is of similar quality and makes people look like ghosts floating past when they’re walking past on a night time. You can’t make out any details sometimes.

 

[Centaurus]

After all of the information I provided in the recent pages, I am baffled why we are all suddenly thinking he fell into water after peeing? He navigated around water for over half a mile (maybe more depending on the exact route and we've had mixed reports on the exact route).

Falling into water when peeing CAN happen. Sure. I'm not discounting that. But I just think it's plain lazy and almost ridiculous to suggest that's what has happened here given the circumstances.

Let's rewind and all get back on track. I know we're all desperate for answers, but lets have some facts:

1) Jack went out to a pub with friends
2) He went with those same friends to the house party
3) Tripped/fell/pushed (mixed reports) down stairs and banged his head
4) Attempted to get into a taxi outside the party (according to at least one report)
5) Walked approx 1 mile (again depending on route / measurements etc)
6) Approx 0.5 miles were very close to water - he navigated past all of that without falling in and if you were going to fall in, you're much more likely to fall in before you get to the bridge because the bridge has at least some rails, whereas if you look at Brunel Lock Car Park on a map there's no rails there. Very easy to fall in, in the dark.
7) Bennet Way's sighting makes it even more unlikely (read: unlikely, not impossible) that Jack fell in.

If you look at this post I made: UK - UK - Jack O'Sullivan, 22, left friends after night out, last seen Brunel Lock Road/Brunel Way, Bristol at 3.15am, 2 Mar 2024

You'll see that the CCTV would have likely picked Jack up if he had ventured back the route he came. I've studied the CCTV locations in Bristol and they don't point to him going back towards water. Of course I haven't seen all CCTV and cannot confirm that, but the police have seen all CCTV and if they suspected Jack went backwards (the way he approached the Plimsoll Swing Bridge) then I'm sure they'd have said.

I cannot post the link because it might violate the websleuth rules, but there's a lot of people looking into this case and comparing the PI's to "Inspector Cluseau" (intentional misspelling, if you google that you might find the thread I'm talking about) and they're convinced the PI's are selling snake oil.

Quote from the thread: "Personally, I think the combination of him heading away from the water, his phone pinging for hours afterwards, and the Find My Friends location all point to the same thing... it's no coincidence that he appears to have made his way back to the Hotwells area. It seems like he was circling back to where he started. What I can't work out is at what point he would have entered the water, particularly given that he was seen crossing Bennet Way heading away from it. Too many people and the police seem to have jumped straight to the assumption that he randomly slipped in. The investigation has been badly mishandled through sloppy police work. None of this is conclusive on its own, but it does seem to undermine the theory that he simply fell into the water."

And I agree with this. There's too much evidence to suggest he fell into water. As the above quote reads: it looks like he was circling back to where he started. Why? No idea. But Granby Hill is and was significant. The fact his brother lives(d) near the top of Granby Hill is also no coincidence. Was Jack going to his brother's after not being able to find a taxi?

We've discussed (on previous pages) the phone being submerged in water and if that was the case, it's highly unlikely it would ping. More evidence points to the phone being on land, which ties into the CCTV footage and direction. Again, I don't believe Jack fell in the water, peeing or otherwise. I think he was either snatched/grabbed, hit by a car or something happened near his brother's place.

Honestly, Occam’s Razor. Falling in the water is the only thing that makes sense. His body may never be found. I can’t tell you how many cases I’ve seen over the years of intoxicated individuals ending up in the water. Looking at the map, where he was walking, there is literally water everywhere.

I don’t think there is any big mystery here at all.

 

[infohuntah]

My only gripe with this is that the police missed him on one frame and his mother was the one who found the last sighting. It begs the question, did they give her access to all of the cctv? It’s god awful quality which makes me think some of it might not have even picked him up. My old ring camera is of similar quality and makes people look like ghosts floating past when they’re walking past on a night time. You can’t make out any details sometimes.

Well this is the weird thing about the case. Jack went missing in the lead up to sunrise. In fact, 6:52am was the time the sun rose on the morning of the disappearance.

The last sighting was 3:39am~. The last phone ping was 5:40am on Granby Street. I've used iPhones extensively (and I mean, extensively whilst working in law enforcement and personal research) and I do not believe that the phone will be that far out (location-wise). It might not be exact, but it wont be far away.

Having been to Bristol many times, the sunrise times are always earlier than apps/online data says, and so with the last sighting time, plus the sunrise data, plus the GPS data, it all leads me to believe Jack himself, (or at least) Jack's phone was on-land.

The chances of him going missing in the lead-up to sunrise (6:30am~ onwards) seem slim. So the critical hours are 3:39-5:40am.

We can narrow that down some more. We know it took Jack 46 minutes to walk from the party at Hotwell Rd to Bennet Way (approx 0.8 miles). So he was walking approx 1.04 mph.

An average person walks (approx) 3-4 mph. This is critical and gives us some level of indication as to Jack's overall well-being. To put it into context, Jack was walking roughly 3x slower than an average person. His walk should have taken him just 16 mins (give or take), not 46 mins.

So where am I going with this? Well, this begs the question: if someone is walking 1.04mph between 3:39-5:40am, how far can they walk? and the answer is: 2.1 miles (if you assume he walked for another 2 hours 1 minute.

Now you begin to see how unlikely it is that Jack walked much further than the last CCTV sighting, because if he went 2.1 miles in any direction, he would have been picked up on CCTV, or there is likely to have been some witness who saw him walking. We've got none of that.

In short: the data points to him going missing shortly after 3:39am and the biggest lead is that the phone was still active 2 hours 1 minute later on Granby Hill which is just 8 mins away. Then we have to ask ourselves, how long would it take Jack to walk 0.3 miles at 1.04 mph? Answer? 17 minutes.

I believe Jack went missing between 3:39am-3:56am and was either grabbed, knocked down, invited into a house nearby.

This is all my 2 cents of course. I've got no horses in the race. I'm just using the data we have. If there's data we haven't got, then I can't make a more educated guess without it, so this is my objective opinion.

 

[infohuntah]

Honestly, Occam’s Razor. Falling in the water is the only thing that makes sense. His body may never be found. I can’t tell you how many cases I’ve seen over the years of intoxicated individuals ending up in the water. Looking at the map, where he was walking, there is literally water everywhere.

I don’t think there is any big mystery here at all.

Occam's razor means nothing though. Occam's razor is a lazy detectives best friend. I've covered this in a previous post but I'll happily cover it again.

OR (i'll save myself typing it over and over) is a misleading, frequently misused term and can actively harm reasoning in everyday thinking. The concept of OR is "the simplest answer is usually right". This is so, so, so flawed. Why? Because what counts as "simpler" depends heavily on who is looking.

For example, to humans born in the year 1 AD, they might see rain as some kind of god crying when something bad happens. Whereas someone in the year 2026 knows that water vapor in the atmosphere cools and condenses into tiny droplets, forming clouds. When these combine and get heavy enough, gravity pulls them down which equals: rain.

OR is supposed to be used as a "don't add assumptions you don't need" kind of thing. But, no one here is doing that. We are using data that we know: e.g times, gps, cctv etc.

Just because it seems simple (to you) doesn't mean it's simple (to me) and certainly doesn't mean it's right.

Let's look at the Golden State Killer (also known as the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker). Anyone who looked at that case said: "occams razor!" and they looked for people with the profile of a young, disorganized drifter or loner with obvious mental illness.

The truth was eventually they got to Joseph DeAngelo, a former police officer who had worked in two of the exact jurisdictions he terrorized. He lived an outwardly normal life for decades: married, kids, grandchildren, living a quiet life in a retirement home. Occams razor is frequently wrong and really shouldn't be applied to cases because it misses evidence because it doesn't consider that there might be more evidence.

I'm alarmed that we've had some outstanding conversations on the previous pages and we've came back to: "he fell into water". I don't get it. Yes, he walked near water. It doesn't mean he fell in.

(I'm not attacking anyone here, I'm trying to provide logical reasoning)


Please remember you can't discuss blurred posts

 

[JellyBee]

Let's look at the Golden State Killer (also known as the East Area Rapist / Original Night Stalker

Totally understand what you’re saying as I hate Occam’s Razor being used as an explanation too, but Joseph DeAngelo was committing crimes in the 70s when police really only had stereotypes and previous experience to work on. Advancements in DNA testing is what caught him, and would’ve caught him back then if it was available too. Nowadays, police shouldn’t (and hopefully wouldn’t) use offender stereotypes to focus on particular groups of people when looking for a suspect.

My own example of Occam’s Razor being completely wrong is Leah Croucher’s case. Everyone, including her own family, believed she was murdered by the married man who was having an affair with her. He was plastered over every Facebook page with all kinds of allegations although I can understand why but again purely based on stereotypes. It was also no secret that police believed she had ran away or taken her own life. Nobody ever thought she would’ve actually been murdered by a wanted sex offender in the immediate vicinity to where she vanished, or that her body would just be laying there waiting to be discovered in someone else’s house.

All that being said, I think we have to apply this logic to Jack’s case just because of his proximity to the water, his level of intoxication based on what you have just stated, and the statistics of men missing on a night out. It absolutely shouldn’t be the only investigative avenue and I’m disappointed if this is all the police have focused on, if what his family has stated is true. But I can also see why so many people think that is the likely outcome

 

[infohuntah]

All that being said, I think we have to apply this logic to Jack’s case just because of his proximity to the water, his level of intoxication based on what you have just stated, and the statistics of men missing on a night out. It absolutely shouldn’t be the only investigative avenue and I’m disappointed if this is all the police have focused on, if what his family has stated is true. But I can also see why so many people think that is the likely outcome

100% agree. My example was more-so of a complex case than anything else.


I admit, the water theory is very possible (and it does seem likely) but it's just all so odd. The party (and Jack's brother's place) aren't near water. So if he did fall in somehow, it just seems like the most avoidable thing ever.

I often wonder how severe the bang to the head was. We're led to believe it wasn't too bad, but... I wonder..?

 

[JellyBee]

The party (and Jack's brother's place) aren't near water. So if he did fall in somehow, it just seems like the most avoidable thing ever.

It’s so strange I agree. To be honest, all of these water deaths seem confusing and avoidable to me.

It reminds me of a young man who disappeared a few years ago called Lewis Penfold-Roche, not sure if you ever followed his case? He was last seen miles away from the river tees in Billingham, and was found well over a month later in Tees Barrage. It was determined that he was intoxicated (alcohol and cocaine) at the time of his death, however his family have now stated that there was no evidence of drowning on his autopsy so they believe he must’ve died before he fell in. Regardless, the police were adamant that he died from falling into the river and didn’t investigate further. I have no idea what’s happening with that now but nobody can explain how or why he would’ve entered the water

At this point I believe some laws or regulations need to be changed about railings and river access, because it is becoming such a regular occurrence it is clearly a massive risk to life

 

[rvlvr]

Honestly, Occam’s Razor. Falling in the water is the only thing that makes sense. His body may never be found. I can’t tell you how many cases I’ve seen over the years of intoxicated individuals ending up in the water. Looking at the map, where he was walking, there is literally water everywhere.

I don’t think there is any big mystery here at all.

It certainly makes more sense than the idea someone snatched a grown man off the street (who would do this, and why?) and while I can see some merit in the idea he was struck and killed and that his body was then taken as part of a cover-up the issue with this is there’s just no evidence that that happened. Jack’s mum said how even in the small hours you’d have expected someone to see something, if something nefarious did indeed happen. Yet apparently no one did.

 

[infohuntah]

It’s so strange I agree. To be honest, all of these water deaths seem confusing and avoidable to me.

It reminds me of a young man who disappeared a few years ago called Lewis Penfold-Roche, not sure if you ever followed his case? He was last seen miles away from the river tees in Billingham, and was found well over a month later in Tees Barrage. It was determined that he was intoxicated (alcohol and cocaine) at the time of his death, however his family have now stated that there was no evidence of drowning on his autopsy so they believe he must’ve died before he fell in. Regardless, the police were adamant that he died from falling into the river and didn’t investigate further. I have no idea what’s happening with that now but nobody can explain how or why he would’ve entered the water

At this point I believe some laws or regulations need to be changed about railings and river access, because it is becoming such a regular occurrence it is clearly a massive risk to life

Haven't seen that case but I will take a look. There are many, many cases of people found in water and their autopsy shows they likely died before entering the water. Once you read one of those cases, it really changes how you view these things. So admittedly, I could be looking for something that isn't there with Jack's case. I just don't know since I didn't know him personally and can only go with the information that's available to the public. If I had some kind of inside knowledge, I'm sure the police have some more evidence that we'll probably never see. I sometimes wish that cases like this were a bit more open to the public because once the police stop investigating, the cases just sit there and gather dust in a drawer somewhere.

It certainly makes more sense than the idea someone snatched a grown man off the street (who would do this, and why?) and while I can see some merit in the idea he was struck and killed and that his body was then taken as part of a cover-up the issue with this is there’s just no evidence that that happened. Jack’s mum said how even in the small hours you’d have expected someone to see something, if something nefarious did indeed happen. Yet apparently no one did.

I think the family (unfortunately) have latched onto the phrase "someone knows something" and it may or may not be the case. That's another phrase I dislike and I totally understand that families latch onto a coping mechanism, but it's possible that no one knows what happened. And likewise, if there is a perpetrator on the loose, only that person knows and if they haven't told anyone in 2 years, they probably wont.

The other thing is, I think sometimes as true crime fanatics and websleuths, we always want to have a "why" answered. But there might be no rational, sane reason, I mean, what reason could there be to harm someone and be behind their disappearance? If someone did something to Jack, then that person is clearly not fit to be in the community and needs punishment under the law. But as you say, we just don't know. A very sad case.