Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #10

[Kassanddra]

Any confirmed searches taking place today? I imagined there would be further searches around the mouth of the river but can’t find anything online. Wondering is anyone else has seen anything/any locals know more?

Police search under bridge 7 miles from where missing Nicola Bulley vanished

Nicola Bulley, 45, was last seen walking her dog Willow after dropping her daughters off at school in the small village of St Michaels on Wyre, Lancashire on January 27

www.mirror.co.uk

7.5 miles away shard bridge. Today

 

[todders]

Definitely another camera - both pointing inwards covering both angles out

Have a look at the link i have provided there is a picture if you scroll down to the lower part of the page which shows the CCTV in question. IMO

Nicola Bulley cops probe mystery 2-hour gap between disappearance and first call

 

[Night Shift]

It does seem strange that no other people passed through that area during that time, or if there were they haven't made themselves known and were not caught on any cctv. But I can't see any reason why they wouldn't have come forward.

Police seem confident NB is or was in the water. They must have evidence to support that theory, as I can't imagine their theory is purely based on the facts that no one else was seen coming or going, and there's no sign of abduction, so must be an accident in the river.

Police I am sure are following all lines of enquiry, but are relying on something new (cctv, dashcam etc) to confirm other scenarios, as there's zero evidence to the contrary.

They believe Nicola went into the water because in the absence of any other evidence it's the most likely scenario in their judgemnet. I agree with them.

Additionally, it's quite normal for nearby water courses to be searched during a missing persons inquiry and especially so in this case because some of Nicola's immediate possessions were beside the water.

Even when foul play is suspected, nearby water will still often be searched to try and locate any weapons or other incriminating evidence that a suspect may have discarded.

 

[Destroyer]

The baffling 10 minute window shrouding Nicola Bulley’s disappearance in mystery

The baffling 10-minute window shrouding Nicola Bulley’s disappearance in mystery

We map out the rough radius where the 45-year-old could have walked and driven in those unaccounted minutes

www.aol.co.uk

 

[rebel123]

Rebel123
Yes I posted a couple days ago, the police should have carried out a reconstruction, with a weighted mannequin, made allowances for anomalies, then carry out calculations, this is so easy to do. They have computer models that do this sort of stuff.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishwick
Wouldn’t tell you anything. Don’t have a certain entry point. The river is never the same at two different times and a mannequin doesn’t behave like a human struggling.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebel123

It would tell you plenty, you know the entry point within a few feet. Unless you think she fell 20 meters or further. Of course the river is never the same at two different times, but they don't need to be exactly the same. She was a swimmer, by all accounts, the area near the bench isn't that deep, it's hard to believe she would struggle to get out. A weighted mannequin would provide so much information, potential the direction of travel.

 

[Destroyer]

Friends & Family of Nicola Bulley hold roadside appeal

Nicola Bulley: Friends and family of missing Nicola Bulley hold roadside appeal

The 45-year-old went missing while walking her dog in St Michael's on Wyre, Lancashire, on Friday 27 January. Her phone was found on a bench, still connected to a Microsoft Teams call.

news.sky.com

 

[philthesaddler]

They must have evidence to support that theory

What though?

We know they don't have any clothing or belongings.

There's no sightings.

There's no circumstantial evidence such as flatten grass, slip marks on the bank - if there was, the police would say, surely?

There doesn't appear to be any historical cases similar, no history of people falling in at this location, it's not a drowning hotspot.

The environmental evidence doesn't back it up either - a very slow moving, non tidal stretch of river, shallow enough to stand up in near the banks, with a weir less than half a mile away.

In cases like this, the tiniest bit of evidence of what happened is usually shared, both to encourage the public to help if they can and prevent conspiracy theories allowing the police to focus.

<modsnip - no link statement made as fact, rumors, disparaging LE>

 

[Just-a-random-girl]

Definitely another camera - both pointing inwards covering both angles out

So if the Wyreside cameras were both still up and working, those cameras would roughly cover the area I've highlighted in yellow?

Obviously there are other cameras but still IMO plenty of exit options through bushes or fields.

 

[OrlandoJames]

I've been questioning this gap in timings since the first few days.

It seemed very odd to me from day 1 why a clearly very strange situation, (i.e a dog running free with a lead and phone nearby) would a) not be seen by anyone else in the near 2 hour gap and b) why those who had seen the situation did not go back to help any sooner.

All very strange and I feel the police have wasted days and days on a theory that, no pun intended, holds no water whatsoever. If the police had a shred of evidence she'd fallen in the river, then share it, otherwise it's wild hypothesis based purely on the fact this all happened near a river, therefore she must have fallen in the river.

If somebody disappears next to a body of water, her belongings are found close by and her dog is in a distressed state near the water, it is not a ‘wild hypothesis’ that she went into the water. It is a reasonable assumption based on the known facts. And it still makes far more sense than any other theory out there, many of which are so implausible they border on lunacy.

Your comment that the police have ‘wasted days and days’ on the assumption that Nicola went into the water implies they haven’t considered any other explanation, which is a massive assumption on your part. Obviously they will be actively looking at other lines of enquiry too, but that doesn’t change the fact that the most likely explanation is still that Nicola went into the water

 

[infinit]

Rebel123
Yes I posted a couple days ago, the police should have carried out a reconstruction, with a weighted mannequin, made allowances for anomalies, then carry out calculations, this is so easy to do. They have computer models that do this sort of stuff.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishwick
Wouldn’t tell you anything. Don’t have a certain entry point. The river is never the same at two different times and a mannequin doesn’t behave like a human struggling.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebel123

It would tell you plenty, you know the entry point within a few feet. Unless you think she fell 20 meters or further. Of course the river is never the same at two different times, but they don't need to be exactly the same. She was a swimmer, by all accounts, the area near the bench isn't that deep, it's hard to believe she would struggle to get out. A weighted mannequin would provide so much information, potential the direction of travel.

This has been covered a few times.

It's near freezing water.
The banks are very steep.
It was deep enough for this diver in an area by the bench to be able to submerge himself up to his head: Police divers search for missing Nicola Bulley
There are so many variables, one reconstruction is entirely pointless, you'd need to run a series of Monte Carlo simulations in effect.

JMO.

 

[todders]

It does seem strange that no other people passed through that area during that time, or if there were they haven't made themselves known and were not caught on any cctv. But I can't see any reason why they wouldn't have come forward.

Police seem confident NB is or was in the water. They must have evidence to support that theory, as I can't imagine their theory is purely based on the facts that no one else was seen coming or going, and there's no sign of abduction, so must be an accident in the river.

Police I am sure are following all lines of enquiry, but are relying on something new (cctv, dashcam etc) to confirm other scenarios, as there's zero evidence to the contrary.

I have also questioned how there was nobody else through that area in nearly two hours but like you say they must of already come forward and beem eliminated from the enquiry. If there was other people which seemed quite a popular walking place i wonder how many stopped and thought the situation strange with a tied up dog and a phone on the bench. Something is not quite right about this time period
but it could just because we are looking for an answer out of the ordinary. IMO

 

[philthesaddler]

IMO the absence of evidence is evidence in itself that a third party is involved - someone has gone to great lengths to bamboozle the police. IMO.

 

[JeremyBentham]

Rebel123
Yes I posted a couple days ago, the police should have carried out a reconstruction, with a weighted mannequin, made allowances for anomalies, then carry out calculations, this is so easy to do. They have computer models that do this sort of stuff.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishwick
Wouldn’t tell you anything. Don’t have a certain entry point. The river is never the same at two different times and a mannequin doesn’t behave like a human struggling.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebel123

It would tell you plenty, you know the entry point within a few feet. Unless you think she fell 20 meters or further. Of course the river is never the same at two different times, but they don't need to be exactly the same. She was a swimmer, by all accounts, the area near the bench isn't that deep, it's hard to believe she would struggle to get out. A weighted mannequin would provide so much information, potential the direction of travel.

I think something like this would be useful. Maybe not a mannequin, but a tracking package dropped in the river on day 1. Its movement can then be analysed after a few hours, 1 day etc to see how far and fast it moves in the current conditions, just to give an idea of how far something could travel in those first few hours and days. Maybe they can do already do this.

 

[Destroyer]

Can anyone confirm as I read somewhere the person that found the dog & tied it to the bench with the string was the owner of the caravan park ?

 

[philthesaddler]

If somebody disappears next to a body of water, her belongings are found close by and her dog is in a distressed state near the water, it is not a ‘wild hypothesis’ that she went into the water. It is a reasonable assumption based on the known facts. And it still makes far more sense than any other theory out there, many of which are so implausible they border on lunacy.

Your comment that the police have ‘wasted days and days’ on the assumption that Nicola went into the water implies they haven’t considered any other explanation, which is a massive assumption on your part. Obviously they will be actively looking at other lines of enquiry too, but that doesn’t change the fact that the most likely explanation is still that Nicola went into the water

I wouldn't say it's an assumption.

The family clearly believe that is the case, so does the expert diver.

Also, the fact reporters were allowed to sit on the bench in the immediate aftermath of her disappearance suggest they didn't consider that the bench could hold other clues.

Also - I don't agree. It's not a reasonable assumption to assume someone is in a river, just because they disappeared near one. In the wild cliff edges of the Grand Canyon, perhaps, but not on a popular dog walking route in north Lancs.

 

[jackal67]

Thread is open.

thank you

 

[JimmyBets]

If somebody disappears next to a body of water, her belongings are found close by and her dog is in a distressed state near the water, it is not a ‘wild hypothesis’ that she went into the water. It is a reasonable assumption based on the known facts. And it still makes far more sense than any other theory out there, many of which are so implausible they border on lunacy.

Your comment that the police have ‘wasted days and days’ on the assumption that Nicola went into the water implies they haven’t considered any other explanation, which is a massive assumption on your part. Obviously they will be actively looking at other lines of enquiry too, but that doesn’t change the fact that the most likely explanation is still that Nicola went into the water

BBM

Willow was found between the bench and the gate. In perspective of the immediate area, this is as far away from the water as it is possible to be.

 

[infinit]

The mannequin idea is statistically pointless, look up river rubber duck races. They end up literally all over the place having been released at the same time (which wouldn't be the case after the fact.) Imagine you just put one duck in and assume that's where every duck would end up.

 

[Kaykedi]

On a different note, I did a bit of sleuthing the other night, and I noticed something odd on Google Maps.

There is a property about a mile north of the riverside walk where NB went missing which has some odd features:

1. It has an elaborate suspended footbridge over the river, closed off to the public.
2. A large plot of land with very tall gates and "private property" keep out signs
3. It shares a very well built and neat retaining wall with parts of the Rowanwater development
4. The plot of land has access to a track that runs besides the river. This track pretty much runs all the way down to the point where NB was last seen.

Things I find odd about this:

a) It's a very elaborate bridge for it to be a private bridge. If it's there for a simple purpose, why is it so elaborate? It suggests it wasn't always private and possible once upon a time part of a public path. It's now gated off (see pictures) to prevent people accessing what is private land. It's not a bridge for vehicles, so it would never have been for farming or anything like that. There's a footpath on the other side of the river - so my hunch is that originally this bridge was put in place to serve as a crossing point for people walking beside the river - at some point the land has been bought and the footpath closed off.

b) It's a large plot of land, and the shared retaining wall with Rowanwater suggests there is some kind of link between the owners of the house/land and the owners of Rowanwater. Are they the same people? Was the land that Rowanwater is built on previously owned by the people who own the house?

c) The track/pathway appears to be private solely because there don't appear to be any public access points to it - but it would surprise me if you couldn't access this path from the 'upper field' near where NB was last seen. The path/track appears to be well trodden from satellite imagery both both foot and vehicles. The only vehicular access to the track is from the property mentioned above. At a certain point, the track appears to turn in to a slipway in to the river (highlighted in blue). Look at the track/path - they are clearly regularly used by vehicles.

View attachment 401839

View attachment 401840
View attachment 401844

Excellently sleuthed philthesaddler. Thank you for this

 

[philthesaddler]

I have also questioned how there was nobody else through that area in nearly two hours but like you say they must of already come forward and beem eliminated from the enquiry. If there was other people which seemed quite a popular walking place i wonder how many stopped and thought the situation strange with a tied up dog and a phone on the bench. Something is not quite right about this time period
but it could just because we are looking for an answer out of the ordinary. IMO

They might have been eliminated from the enquiry as you say, but they've not been added to the timeline. If someone did pass through at say 9:50am, didn't see anything odd, didn't see the dog tied up, didn't see anything odd at all - would they add this to the timeline or ignore it?

On the contrary, if someone did pass through around 9:50am and corroborated the witness statement by the lady who tied the dog up, that would be useful on the timeline, no? "Yes officer, I came through around 9:50am, saw the dog tied up, but thought nothing of it and continued on my way"... would be useful information. Would they include it on the timeline though?

My problem with it is that they are basing their whole time-frame on a single witness statement which doesnt appear to have been corroborated by anyone independent, only the daughter who received the call and the partner who came to the scene later. That's a red flag for me - I'd hope the police are trying to bottom that out, because without independent corroboration - the time-frame is more like 9:10-10:40.

All my opinion of course.