Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #3

[Taskforce88]

How long did it usually take NB to walk around the path? Is that data available on her walking app? She would spend time at the beachy area I mentioned earlier. Would NB be back at the bench at roughly 09.30?

 

[Cuko]

JMO
I just don't believe she drowned in the river. The last sighting of NB was at 9:10 (approx, could potentially be later). Her phone and Willow were found at a bench 25 minutes later. Presuming this was another walker that found the phone/Willow, what direction were they coming from? If walking up to the gate with the bench on the left, it's plausible they wouldn't have seen NB/Willow by the river.. but walking from the other direction with the bench on the right, they would have had direct sight of the bench for a good few minutes before they approached the bench. All speculation, if that was me I would have scaled the area looking for the owner of the dog, especially next to a river. I don't believe NB would have slipped and travelled so far down the river within 20 minutes and not be seen.

This just doesn't make sense at all. I do not want to draw relevance on this case to that of Sarah Everard, but the police knew the day after what happened to her, they were waiting until they had full evidence to go in and charge.

I remain hopeful this isn't the case.

You make an interesting point re Sarah Everard. However, Lancashire police have specifically stated they have no evidence of third-party involvement/crime. Would they tell what would then be an outright lie?

 

[msmarple99]

Has the partner been out searching?

Yes, all day Sunday

 

[Tanzanite]

Has the partner been out searching?

I strongly suspect that he's constantly by the side of his young daughters. I would be extremely surprised to see him out searching, for several reasons, tbh, but mainly because he is likely right where he is most needed, just trying to get through the next hour.

 

[CarmenSantiago]

I have been reading various comments and seems to be some misunderstanding on MS teams/work calls, for clarity and based on my own experience on this:

- Being on mute with camera off is *not* unusual

- Depending on the agenda, it is very possible that Nicola was not required to speak/contribute and as such could easily walk whilst listening (maybe with ear pods/headphones, or otherwise phone loudspeaker/phone to ear like a normal call)

- if there were visuals shared, she may have been viewing the slides/presentations visually in addition to listening in, e.g looking at phone. If an important topic, this would need some concentration, however if Nicola knew the agenda/it was a more formal meeting, I would assume she wouldn’t have taken the call whilst out at park. This suggests to me, it wasn’t a really important business call- maybe an “end of week” catch up/discussion that week’s numbers/sales

- Even if not required to contribute to discussion as it progressed, e.g listening to a presentation/potentially viewing slides etc. it would still be typical to say hello/introduce self/ask how colleagues are before moving into core meeting. In that case, likely at the call kick off Nicola said hello/brief small talk

-I don’t think anyone logged into meeting would depend solely on EarPods and phone not closeby- reason being if you are required to speak/asked a question, you would need to unmute from the phone device itself. Unless you knew with certainty that there was no chance of you needing to speak at all (this is my personal habit). Or otherwise could reach phone quickly to unmute/speak

- Still being connected to call means, maybe meeting officially ended, but you were still “logged in” to call- can happen by accident, e.g forgot to click disconnect, and continue with work as normal, or you never reached the point in time/were disturbed mid way. Basically when meeting ends it doesn’t automatically cut the attendees and keeps them “logged in” unless they action the disconnect themselves, with that if meeting ended with polite goodbyes/thank you/have a nice weekend chat- I would expect the other attendees would have noticed this.







-

 

[Taskforce88]

Yes, all day Sunday

Cheers

 

[Petrocelli]

The path that leads to the gate looks like the only obvious way to escape unseen from the bench. So why abduct NB from the bench which is in the open when they could just wait for her to walk back down a much less open path and save having to risk a struggle, being seen and carrying her 60m plus.
Seems very unlikely as does every other possibility apart from her being in the river.

 

[PeggyHenry]

Hm. I cannot answer your questions. But the work meeting on Thursday evening must have been important. She met her boss in Garstang and her boss had to drive approx. 55 miles to get there (from Keighley).

<Quote>We took them home, Nicola had had a meeting with her boss in Garstang and she said can you stay a bit later because I have an important client coming in on Zoom. We said 'no problem' and stayed.</quote>

Devastated parents promise to never stop looking for mum-of-two who vanished

Nicola Bulley has been missing from her home in Inskip, Lancs, since Friday morning when she was last seen walking her dog WIllow - her parents exclusively told the Mirror of their conversation with her

www.mirror.co.uk

And then some of her last interactions before she disappeared were that email to her boss and the conference call.

The boss drove quite a way to have a meeting with her considering the availability of zoom and the Friday morning meeting. There must have been an important reason for that meeting.

 

[Lilly b]

The teams call jumps out at me the most. Why would she still be connected? If the meeting had ended, wouldn’t she have disconnected? It’s always the first thing I do. I wouldn’t put my phone down on the bench if the call had ended, without disconnecting first because I’d worry about forgetting it was connected.

So, if it hadn’t ended then wouldn’t the other person have seem/heard something? If she put her phone down for a moment to check something, surely they’d be aware?

It's because it's an app on your phone, many people I work with look like they are active, but they aren't, if you don't use teams, then it seems wierd, but it's not

 

[todders]

Based on what we know so far has any of the witnesses actually spoke to NB when they have seen her on the dog walk ? Or have they just identified the dog only. Not sure where iam going with this yet. IMO

 

[daisychain01]

You make an interesting point re Sarah Everard. However, Lancashire police have specifically stated they have no evidence of third-party involvement/crime. Would they tell what would then be an outright lie?

Sarah Everard: Timeline of 33-year-old’s disappearance

Human remains that were found in Kent woodland have been confirmed as those of Sarah Everard, who went missing from South London last Wednesday.

www.lbc.co.uk

"Detective Chief Inspector Katherine Goodwin stresses they have “no information at this stage to suggest anything untoward may have happened to Sarah” and thanks locals for coming forward with information"

And we all know how this ended.

I'm not relating NB to SE, merely speculating on police timelines.

 

[vivienbee]

Looking at the update on the daily mail it is suggested she arrived at the bench at 8:56. She was then spotted by a witness further east at 9:10.
To me this suggests she was either returning to the car and arrived at the gate nearer 9:30 or someone placed her items on the bench to conceal the fact she had actually travelled further east.

They are referencing her previous Strava maps so made me wonder if she owned a smart watch or other tracking device? Perhaps her phone would show the location and route Prior to being placed on the bench. If there was something sinister I cant understand why they didn’t destroy the phone or throw it into the river.

I tend to believe that the 08:46 time on the Lancashire Police timeline is a more accurate time for arriving at the bench. I think it's possible that she sat down for a few minutes to write the email to her boss -- depending on how in depth this was, it's much easier to be still when typing IMO -- (08:53) before flipping on the Teams call and walking the field to the next sighting of her (approx 09:10). I'm not sure which direction of the circuit she was doing but based on this timing I would assume she would have circled back to the bench area at about 09:20/30, making the window even smaller than prev. discussed.

 

[Taskforce88]

You make an interesting point re Sarah Everard. However, Lancashire police have specifically stated they have no evidence of third-party involvement/crime. Would they tell what would then be an outright lie?

The police said something similar with regard to Sarah Everard.

Police will say what they need to say for the benefit of the case.

 

[Firstsnow4]

Based on what we know so far has any of the witnesses actually spoke to NB when they have seen her on the dog walk ? Or have they just identified the dog only. Not sure where iam going with this yet. IMO

I think the dogs mingled with the first witness and she was just seen by the second witness although they are not sure on the exact timings for the 2nd.

Lancashire Constabulary - Search continues for Nicola Bulley as potential new witness is sought

The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabulary

www.lancashire.police.uk

 

[vivienbee]

Based on what we know so far has any of the witnesses actually spoke to NB when they have seen her on the dog walk ? Or have they just identified the dog only. Not sure where iam going with this yet. IMO

8:50am (approximately) - A dog-walker – somebody who knows Nicola – saw her walking around the lower field with her dog. Their two dogs interacted briefly before the witness left the field via the river path

(Lancashire Police timeline)

 

[geddis]

However, Lancashire police have specifically stated they have no evidence of third-party involvement/crime. Would they tell what would then be an outright lie?

Having 'no evidence' is likely the truth.
But that does not mean that the police do not now suspect third party involvement or suspect that a crime has been committed.

What has baffled a few of us on here has been the police's reluctance to consider the possibility of foul play from the outset. Failure to initially 'rope off' a potential crime scene seemed odd.

 

[Sjöberg]

- Even if not required to contribute to discussion as it progressed, e.g listening to a presentation/potentially viewing slides etc. it would still be typical to say hello/introduce self/ask how colleagues are before moving into core meeting. In that case, likely at the call kick off Nicola said hello/brief small talk

It is said that she joined the meeting at 9.01.
IMO, I think it is likely that the meeting started at 9.00 and she was a tad bit late - easy to happen if you're distracted by the dog or other people or just walking. In that case, it is possible someone was already talking ("Okey, seems like we are mostly here, so let's start." Etc) and therefore she never even said a word.
(Not that it's of importance as there is a later sighting of her.)

 

[Taskforce88]

However, Lancashire police have specifically stated they have no evidence of third-party involvement/crime. Would they tell what would then be an outright lie?

Having 'no evidence' is likely the truth.
But that does not mean that the police do not now suspect third party involvement or suspect that a crime has been committed.

What has baffled a few of us on here has been the police's reluctance to consider the possibility of foul play from the outset. Failure to initially 'rope off' a potential crime scene seemed odd.

The police probably did consider foul play from the get-go hence making the national news so early on.

But you are right about the failure to close off possible crime scenes.

 

[CarmenSantiago]

It is said that she joined the meeting at 9.01.
IMO, I think it is likely that the meeting started at 9.00 and she was a tad bit late - easy to happen if you're distracted by the dog or other people or just walking. In that case, it is possible someone was already talking ("Okey, seems like we are mostly here, so let's start." Etc) and therefore she never even said a word.
(Not that it's of importance as there is a later sighting of her.

Yes potentially, I think 1 minute likely not to disturb flow of chat, but true technically “late” and meeting/presentation may have “kicked off” in full. This is assuming of course meeting did start at 9am as opposed to 8.45 etc.

 

[Lord Peter Flimsy]

Could NB swim? Could you be so scared of being in water that you go into some form of shock?