Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
The more I think about NB being a young, fit woman with strong swimming skills and how her dog wasn't wet, the more I am starting to move away from the theory that it's a falling accident. JMO.
This has been discussed many times across the threads. Having strong swimming skills would be in a costume or wetsuit and very different to falling into a cold, wild river in a gilet, winter coat, jeans and wellies.
 
Following on from previous posts about wild swimming I found this:

The crook of the River Wyre proves a tempting wild space to swim. The river starts in the Bowland fells and reaches the sea at Fleetwood, and swimmers have found the spot to be easy to acclimate to, with the water eventually gets deep enough to swim beneath.

How to find it:

Park or walk down Allotment lane, near Wyreside Farm Caravan Park, then walk down towards the river, (PR3 0TZ).

I'm confused. How is this relevant to this case?
 
Hi all. First post. Been following the case and these threads for a few days. My hypothesis, attempting to accomodate many of the points and questions being endlessly debated....

Nicola & Willow are walking back along the river, lower field, towards the bench, taking the same route we know (strava history) she typically followed.

Something in the water attracts her attention. Something odd floating past? Maybe an animal in distress? Could be anything, we don't know. Probably not the ball everyone seems fixated with, but could be that too. Whatever. Let's say she is compelled towards the water for...some reason. We have all done this.

She doesn't want Willow in the water. Doesn't want the dog near...whatever it is. Or just doesn't want the hassle of wet dog in the car. So tells Willow "NO.. STAY." Dog obeys, of course.

Bank is too steep for N to be holding her phone, or even have it in her pocket, she foresees possibility she could slip and end up in the water. So places the phone on the bench. For me this point is telling. If abduction, way more likely perp would want her phone in the water asap imo. Harness is left close by too, either bench or ground, less important.

Internal phone accelerometer will show to the second when the device was placed on bench and stopped moving after that i.e. the last time N touched it. Police seemed certain on these timings. Gyro may also rule out if the phone had suffered any sort of impact drop earlier (i.e if N had been attacked) or indicate if the phone movement that morning remained natural and consistent with her usual walk. GPS data will confirm if she was following her normal path, and also show what other phones were close by to her in the field or not at the time. Fitbit had reportedly not synched for days so useless until they recover the physical unit.

So N picks her way down bank. Gets to water's edge, reaches for something and... falls into water. Or trips and stumbles in before this. Or vertigo after bending down and loses balance. I wouldn't expect to see obvious signs of a slip, recent photos of the bank show it to be way more grassy/weedy than I originally assumed). She is incapacitated. Instant cold water shock, instinctive gasp for air and inhales a lungful of water, no scream. Or maybe sudden cardiac arrest. Or hits head and knocked out. Her clothes hamper her in the water, esp the long wraparound gilet and wellies which would seriously restrict leg movement. Possibly even contributed to her fall. She would not have to drift far to be unsighted from the bank, as it happens there are tight bends in the river at just this spot. We know the water is deep here too (warning signs around the bench, anglers map posted in any earlier thread), and therefore usually faster flowing.

Dog remains in the field as instructed but becomes agitated as N does not come back up. If dog heads towards gate (unclear from reporting) this is probably because this is where the usual walk with N would go, and also where they came in 30-40 mins earlier, so N's scent would still be there. Phone is found on bench. Teams call still connected, N may even still have been listening on airpods as she slipped under....

The ONLY 'evidence' missing from this type of sceanario is the body has not yet been recovered. Which is NOT AT ALL unusual for persons falling into rivers. In MANY cases it is weeks or sometimes months for the water to give up the body, indeed this is normal/expected.

If, on the other hand, we are to speculate third party involvement, then (caveat- all "as far as we know", so far): cctv/dashcam trawls and appeals have drawn a blank; no eyewitness reports of any suspicious individual or vehicle in the area have been reported; no screams heard at the time; no dog barking; no blood found; no torn/discarded clothing or signs of sexual assault found; nothing (perp dna/fingerprints) found on phone; no motive against N in her personal life; any phones in the area from gps likely traced/eliminated.... Etc etc etc. There's literally nothing. You'd have thought there would have to be... something. It just seems so unbelievably strange that there would be zero evidence at all if this was the case.

TLDR: Person goes missing next to a dangerous body of water, circumstances consistent with accident, zero evidence for a more complex/third party explanation, Occam's razor. I am with Team Police at this point.
 
I think this could have been the same person/contact. Meaning I think it is possible the daughter in law worked at the school and either contacted herself or passed the information to a colleague who made the call (such as the teacher of one of the girls or the secretary who usually makes some calls if they have one etc). Small village.


Sorry, I'm not following. How does the area where the phone was found indicate if the husband called said phone or not? It has not been said if the phone had any answered on unanswered calls from the hubby. And I don't think it was out of range?

Normally I'd think that as no phone calls were mentioned that there were none, but with the very scarce factual info in this case, I'm not making any conclusions like that.

I gave my opinion to another poster who asked the question, I wasn’t stating anything as fact. None of us know the facts surrounding most of the things we are discussing here, that is why it is called a discussion.
 
Last edited:
Hi all. First post. Been following the case and these threads for a few days. My hypothesis, attempting to accomodate many of the points and questions being endlessly debated....

Nicola & Willow are walking back along the river, lower field, towards the bench, taking the same route we know (strava history) she typically followed.

Something in the water attracts her attention. Something odd floating past? Maybe an animal in distress? Could be anything, we don't know. Probably not the ball everyone seems fixated with, but could be that too. Whatever. Let's say she is compelled towards the water for...some reason. We have all done this.

She doesn't want Willow in the water. Doesn't want the dog near...whatever it is. Or just doesn't want the hassle of wet dog in the car. So tells Willow "NO.. STAY." Dog obeys, of course.

Bank is too steep for N to be holding her phone, or even have it in her pocket, she foresees possibility she could slip and end up in the water. So places the phone on the bench. For me this point is telling. If abduction, way more likely perp would want her phone in the water asap imo. Harness is left close by too, either bench or ground, less important.

Internal phone accelerometer will show to the second when the device was placed on bench and stopped moving after that i.e. the last time N touched it. Police seemed certain on these timings. Gyro may also rule out if the phone had suffered any sort of impact drop earlier (i.e if N had been attacked) or indicate if the phone movement that morning remained natural and consistent with her usual walk. GPS data will confirm if she was following her normal path, and also show what other phones were close by to her in the field or not at the time. Fitbit had reportedly not synched for days so useless until they recover the physical unit.

So N picks her way down bank. Gets to water's edge, reaches for something and... falls into water. Or trips and stumbles in before this. Or vertigo after bending down and loses balance. I wouldn't expect to see obvious signs of a slip, recent photos of the bank show it to be way more grassy/weedy than I originally assumed). She is incapacitated. Instant cold water shock, instinctive gasp for air and inhales a lungful of water, no scream. Or maybe sudden cardiac arrest. Or hits head and knocked out. Her clothes hamper her in the water, esp the long wraparound gilet and wellies which would seriously restrict leg movement. Possibly even contributed to her fall. She would not have to drift far to be unsighted from the bank, as it happens there are tight bends in the river at just this spot. We know the water is deep here too (warning signs around the bench, anglers map posted in any earlier thread), and therefore usually faster flowing.

Dog remains in the field as instructed but becomes agitated as N does not come back up. If dog heads towards gate (unclear from reporting) this is probably because this is where the usual walk with N would go, and also where they came in 30-40 mins earlier, so N's scent would still be there. Phone is found on bench. Teams call still connected, N may even still have been listening on airpods as she slipped under....

The ONLY 'evidence' missing from this type of sceanario is the body has not yet been recovered. Which is NOT AT ALL unusual for persons falling into rivers. In MANY cases it is weeks or sometimes months for the water to give up the body, indeed this is normal/expected.

If, on the other hand, we are to speculate third party involvement, then (caveat- all "as far as we know", so far): cctv/dashcam trawls and appeals have drawn a blank; no eyewitness reports of any suspicious individual or vehicle in the area have been reported; no screams heard at the time; no dog barking; no blood found; no torn/discarded clothing or signs of sexual assault found; nothing (perp dna/fingerprints) found on phone; no motive against N in her personal life; any phones in the area from gps likely traced/eliminated.... Etc etc etc. There's literally nothing. You'd have thought there would have to be... something. It just seems so unbelievably strange that there would be zero evidence at all if this was the case.

TLDR: Person goes missing next to a dangerous body of water, circumstances consistent with accident, zero evidence for a more complex/third party explanation, Occam's razor. I am with Team Police at this point.

The most sensible thing I’ve read on here in days.
 
This has been discussed many times across the threads. Having strong swimming skills would be in a costume or wetsuit and very different to falling into a cold, wild river in a gilet, winter coat, jeans and wellies.
Oh yes, I realise that, of course. JMO earlier.
 
Ah, how sad has this case become? I wake up every day and go looking to see if there are any updates. Things are troubling me about it all - firstly the fact that Nicola's daily walk route was so regular and so well-documented online for many people to see/study. Also the police saying that there was a 10-minute window where NB wasn't accounted for - it seems to me (JMO) that it might have been more that 10 minutes because of the lack of clarity over who put the mobile phone on the bench and I'm not quite sure how they can be sure it was only 10 minutes. The more I think about NB being a young, fit woman with strong swimming skills and how her dog wasn't wet, the more I am starting to move away from the theory that it's a falling accident. JMO.
Remember police would also have fingerprinted the device!
If Nicola's fingerprints were absent it would suggest a perp would have wiped it and lead to suspicion.
There is nothing to suggest she didn't place it there herself.
The 10 minutes was calculated by the time of the last actual sighting by a human and the estimated time it would take to walk to the bench.

If anything happened, an accidental fall or a perp attack, it would have happened at the bench where there is more than adequate cover for a perp to hide out until she arrived.
 
Hi all. First post. Been following the case and these threads for a few days. My hypothesis, attempting to accomodate many of the points and questions being endlessly debated....

Nicola & Willow are walking back along the river, lower field, towards the bench, taking the same route we know (strava history) she typically followed.

Something in the water attracts her attention. Something odd floating past? Maybe an animal in distress? Could be anything, we don't know. Probably not the ball everyone seems fixated with, but could be that too. Whatever. Let's say she is compelled towards the water for...some reason. We have all done this.

She doesn't want Willow in the water. Doesn't want the dog near...whatever it is. Or just doesn't want the hassle of wet dog in the car. So tells Willow "NO.. STAY." Dog obeys, of course.

Bank is too steep for N to be holding her phone, or even have it in her pocket, she foresees possibility she could slip and end up in the water. So places the phone on the bench. For me this point is telling. If abduction, way more likely perp would want her phone in the water asap imo. Harness is left close by too, either bench or ground, less important.

Internal phone accelerometer will show to the second when the device was placed on bench and stopped moving after that i.e. the last time N touched it. Police seemed certain on these timings. Gyro may also rule out if the phone had suffered any sort of impact drop earlier (i.e if N had been attacked) or indicate if the phone movement that morning remained natural and consistent with her usual walk. GPS data will confirm if she was following her normal path, and also show what other phones were close by to her in the field or not at the time. Fitbit had reportedly not synched for days so useless until they recover the physical unit.

So N picks her way down bank. Gets to water's edge, reaches for something and... falls into water. Or trips and stumbles in before this. Or vertigo after bending down and loses balance. I wouldn't expect to see obvious signs of a slip, recent photos of the bank show it to be way more grassy/weedy than I originally assumed). She is incapacitated. Instant cold water shock, instinctive gasp for air and inhales a lungful of water, no scream. Or maybe sudden cardiac arrest. Or hits head and knocked out. Her clothes hamper her in the water, esp the long wraparound gilet and wellies which would seriously restrict leg movement. Possibly even contributed to her fall. She would not have to drift far to be unsighted from the bank, as it happens there are tight bends in the river at just this spot. We know the water is deep here too (warning signs around the bench, anglers map posted in any earlier thread), and therefore usually faster flowing.

Dog remains in the field as instructed but becomes agitated as N does not come back up. If dog heads towards gate (unclear from reporting) this is probably because this is where the usual walk with N would go, and also where they came in 30-40 mins earlier, so N's scent would still be there. Phone is found on bench. Teams call still connected, N may even still have been listening on airpods as she slipped under....

The ONLY 'evidence' missing from this type of sceanario is the body has not yet been recovered. Which is NOT AT ALL unusual for persons falling into rivers. In MANY cases it is weeks or sometimes months for the water to give up the body, indeed this is normal/expected.

If, on the other hand, we are to speculate third party involvement, then (caveat- all "as far as we know", so far): cctv/dashcam trawls and appeals have drawn a blank; no eyewitness reports of any suspicious individual or vehicle in the area have been reported; no screams heard at the time; no dog barking; no blood found; no torn/discarded clothing or signs of sexual assault found; nothing (perp dna/fingerprints) found on phone; no motive against N in her personal life; any phones in the area from gps likely traced/eliminated.... Etc etc etc. There's literally nothing. You'd have thought there would have to be... something. It just seems so unbelievably strange that there would be zero evidence at all if this was the case.

TLDR: Person goes missing next to a dangerous body of water, circumstances consistent with accident, zero evidence for a more complex/third party explanation, Occam's razor. I am with Team Police at this point.

Welcome! Great first post by the way.
 
Hi all. First post. Been following the case and these threads for a few days. My hypothesis, attempting to accomodate many of the points and questions being endlessly debated....

Nicola & Willow are walking back along the river, lower field, towards the bench, taking the same route we know (strava history) she typically followed.

Something in the water attracts her attention. Something odd floating past? Maybe an animal in distress? Could be anything, we don't know. Probably not the ball everyone seems fixated with, but could be that too. Whatever. Let's say she is compelled towards the water for...some reason. We have all done this.

She doesn't want Willow in the water. Doesn't want the dog near...whatever it is. Or just doesn't want the hassle of wet dog in the car. So tells Willow "NO.. STAY." Dog obeys, of course.

Bank is too steep for N to be holding her phone, or even have it in her pocket, she foresees possibility she could slip and end up in the water. So places the phone on the bench. For me this point is telling. If abduction, way more likely perp would want her phone in the water asap imo. Harness is left close by too, either bench or ground, less important.

Internal phone accelerometer will show to the second when the device was placed on bench and stopped moving after that i.e. the last time N touched it. Police seemed certain on these timings. Gyro may also rule out if the phone had suffered any sort of impact drop earlier (i.e if N had been attacked) or indicate if the phone movement that morning remained natural and consistent with her usual walk. GPS data will confirm if she was following her normal path, and also show what other phones were close by to her in the field or not at the time. Fitbit had reportedly not synched for days so useless until they recover the physical unit.

So N picks her way down bank. Gets to water's edge, reaches for something and... falls into water. Or trips and stumbles in before this. Or vertigo after bending down and loses balance. I wouldn't expect to see obvious signs of a slip, recent photos of the bank show it to be way more grassy/weedy than I originally assumed). She is incapacitated. Instant cold water shock, instinctive gasp for air and inhales a lungful of water, no scream. Or maybe sudden cardiac arrest. Or hits head and knocked out. Her clothes hamper her in the water, esp the long wraparound gilet and wellies which would seriously restrict leg movement. Possibly even contributed to her fall. She would not have to drift far to be unsighted from the bank, as it happens there are tight bends in the river at just this spot. We know the water is deep here too (warning signs around the bench, anglers map posted in any earlier thread), and therefore usually faster flowing.

Dog remains in the field as instructed but becomes agitated as N does not come back up. If dog heads towards gate (unclear from reporting) this is probably because this is where the usual walk with N would go, and also where they came in 30-40 mins earlier, so N's scent would still be there. Phone is found on bench. Teams call still connected, N may even still have been listening on airpods as she slipped under....

The ONLY 'evidence' missing from this type of sceanario is the body has not yet been recovered. Which is NOT AT ALL unusual for persons falling into rivers. In MANY cases it is weeks or sometimes months for the water to give up the body, indeed this is normal/expected.

If, on the other hand, we are to speculate third party involvement, then (caveat- all "as far as we know", so far): cctv/dashcam trawls and appeals have drawn a blank; no eyewitness reports of any suspicious individual or vehicle in the area have been reported; no screams heard at the time; no dog barking; no blood found; no torn/discarded clothing or signs of sexual assault found; nothing (perp dna/fingerprints) found on phone; no motive against N in her personal life; any phones in the area from gps likely traced/eliminated.... Etc etc etc. There's literally nothing. You'd have thought there would have to be... something. It just seems so unbelievably strange that there would be zero evidence at all if this was the case.

TLDR: Person goes missing next to a dangerous body of water, circumstances consistent with accident, zero evidence for a more complex/third party explanation, Occam's razor. I am with Team Police at this point.
Yep, me too. Good post.
 
Remember police would also have fingerprinted the device!
If Nicola's fingerprints were absent it would suggest a perp would have wiped it and lead to suspicion.
There is nothing to suggest she didn't place it there herself.
The 10 minutes was calculated by the time of the last actual sighting by a human and the estimated time it would take to walk to the bench.

If anything happened, an accidental fall or a perp attack, it would have happened at the bench where there is more than adequate cover for a perp to hide out until she arrived.
The 10 mins is calculated from the last actual sighting of NB (9.10) to the time they have confirmed from phone data that the phone was on the bench (9.20)
 
Police were called at 10:50am by PA (consistent narrative throughout) having been contacted by either school or daughter-in-law of lady who found willow roaming free (not known which one contacted him for sure). Phone was found at bench area so unless she had an additional phone I think we can discount he called her, jmo.
Ah, thank you.

I obviously misread as I thought the school contacted Nikki’s partner at 10:50am?

So did he go to the river himself to look for Nikki before calling the police?
 
Hi all. First post. Been following the case and these threads for a few days. My hypothesis, attempting to accomodate many of the points and questions being endlessly debated....

Nicola & Willow are walking back along the river, lower field, towards the bench, taking the same route we know (strava history) she typically followed.

Something in the water attracts her attention. Something odd floating past? Maybe an animal in distress? Could be anything, we don't know. Probably not the ball everyone seems fixated with, but could be that too. Whatever. Let's say she is compelled towards the water for...some reason. We have all done this.

She doesn't want Willow in the water. Doesn't want the dog near...whatever it is. Or just doesn't want the hassle of wet dog in the car. So tells Willow "NO.. STAY." Dog obeys, of course.

Bank is too steep for N to be holding her phone, or even have it in her pocket, she foresees possibility she could slip and end up in the water. So places the phone on the bench. For me this point is telling. If abduction, way more likely perp would want her phone in the water asap imo. Harness is left close by too, either bench or ground, less important.

Internal phone accelerometer will show to the second when the device was placed on bench and stopped moving after that i.e. the last time N touched it. Police seemed certain on these timings. Gyro may also rule out if the phone had suffered any sort of impact drop earlier (i.e if N had been attacked) or indicate if the phone movement that morning remained natural and consistent with her usual walk. GPS data will confirm if she was following her normal path, and also show what other phones were close by to her in the field or not at the time. Fitbit had reportedly not synched for days so useless until they recover the physical unit.

So N picks her way down bank. Gets to water's edge, reaches for something and... falls into water. Or trips and stumbles in before this. Or vertigo after bending down and loses balance. I wouldn't expect to see obvious signs of a slip, recent photos of the bank show it to be way more grassy/weedy than I originally assumed). She is incapacitated. Instant cold water shock, instinctive gasp for air and inhales a lungful of water, no scream. Or maybe sudden cardiac arrest. Or hits head and knocked out. Her clothes hamper her in the water, esp the long wraparound gilet and wellies which would seriously restrict leg movement. Possibly even contributed to her fall. She would not have to drift far to be unsighted from the bank, as it happens there are tight bends in the river at just this spot. We know the water is deep here too (warning signs around the bench, anglers map posted in any earlier thread), and therefore usually faster flowing.

Dog remains in the field as instructed but becomes agitated as N does not come back up. If dog heads towards gate (unclear from reporting) this is probably because this is where the usual walk with N would go, and also where they came in 30-40 mins earlier, so N's scent would still be there. Phone is found on bench. Teams call still connected, N may even still have been listening on airpods as she slipped under....

The ONLY 'evidence' missing from this type of sceanario is the body has not yet been recovered. Which is NOT AT ALL unusual for persons falling into rivers. In MANY cases it is weeks or sometimes months for the water to give up the body, indeed this is normal/expected.

If, on the other hand, we are to speculate third party involvement, then (caveat- all "as far as we know", so far): cctv/dashcam trawls and appeals have drawn a blank; no eyewitness reports of any suspicious individual or vehicle in the area have been reported; no screams heard at the time; no dog barking; no blood found; no torn/discarded clothing or signs of sexual assault found; nothing (perp dna/fingerprints) found on phone; no motive against N in her personal life; any phones in the area from gps likely traced/eliminated.... Etc etc etc. There's literally nothing. You'd have thought there would have to be... something. It just seems so unbelievably strange that there would be zero evidence at all if this was the case.

TLDR: Person goes missing next to a dangerous body of water, circumstances consistent with accident, zero evidence for a more complex/third party explanation, Occam's razor. I am with Team Police at this point.
That's a great post.

I've been thinking about this scenario for a few days, but where NB makes her way down the bank, stands on the stone steps at the bottom but willow has ran down excitedly after her and NB has lost her balance and ended up in the water.

Pure speculation on my behalf but it seems like the only scenario where no marks are left on the top of the bank.
 
Hi all. First post. Been following the case and these threads for a few days. My hypothesis, attempting to accomodate many of the points and questions being endlessly debated....

Nicola & Willow are walking back along the river, lower field, towards the bench, taking the same route we know (strava history) she typically followed.

Something in the water attracts her attention. Something odd floating past? Maybe an animal in distress? Could be anything, we don't know. Probably not the ball everyone seems fixated with, but could be that too. Whatever. Let's say she is compelled towards the water for...some reason. We have all done this.

She doesn't want Willow in the water. Doesn't want the dog near...whatever it is. Or just doesn't want the hassle of wet dog in the car. So tells Willow "NO.. STAY." Dog obeys, of course.

Bank is too steep for N to be holding her phone, or even have it in her pocket, she foresees possibility she could slip and end up in the water. So places the phone on the bench. For me this point is telling. If abduction, way more likely perp would want her phone in the water asap imo. Harness is left close by too, either bench or ground, less important.

Internal phone accelerometer will show to the second when the device was placed on bench and stopped moving after that i.e. the last time N touched it. Police seemed certain on these timings. Gyro may also rule out if the phone had suffered any sort of impact drop earlier (i.e if N had been attacked) or indicate if the phone movement that morning remained natural and consistent with her usual walk. GPS data will confirm if she was following her normal path, and also show what other phones were close by to her in the field or not at the time. Fitbit had reportedly not synched for days so useless until they recover the physical unit.

So N picks her way down bank. Gets to water's edge, reaches for something and... falls into water. Or trips and stumbles in before this. Or vertigo after bending down and loses balance. I wouldn't expect to see obvious signs of a slip, recent photos of the bank show it to be way more grassy/weedy than I originally assumed). She is incapacitated. Instant cold water shock, instinctive gasp for air and inhales a lungful of water, no scream. Or maybe sudden cardiac arrest. Or hits head and knocked out. Her clothes hamper her in the water, esp the long wraparound gilet and wellies which would seriously restrict leg movement. Possibly even contributed to her fall. She would not have to drift far to be unsighted from the bank, as it happens there are tight bends in the river at just this spot. We know the water is deep here too (warning signs around the bench, anglers map posted in any earlier thread), and therefore usually faster flowing.

Dog remains in the field as instructed but becomes agitated as N does not come back up. If dog heads towards gate (unclear from reporting) this is probably because this is where the usual walk with N would go, and also where they came in 30-40 mins earlier, so N's scent would still be there. Phone is found on bench. Teams call still connected, N may even still have been listening on airpods as she slipped under....

The ONLY 'evidence' missing from this type of sceanario is the body has not yet been recovered. Which is NOT AT ALL unusual for persons falling into rivers. In MANY cases it is weeks or sometimes months for the water to give up the body, indeed this is normal/expected.

If, on the other hand, we are to speculate third party involvement, then (caveat- all "as far as we know", so far): cctv/dashcam trawls and appeals have drawn a blank; no eyewitness reports of any suspicious individual or vehicle in the area have been reported; no screams heard at the time; no dog barking; no blood found; no torn/discarded clothing or signs of sexual assault found; nothing (perp dna/fingerprints) found on phone; no motive against N in her personal life; any phones in the area from gps likely traced/eliminated.... Etc etc etc. There's literally nothing. You'd have thought there would have to be... something. It just seems so unbelievably strange that there would be zero evidence at all if this was the case.

TLDR: Person goes missing next to a dangerous body of water, circumstances consistent with accident, zero evidence for a more complex/third party explanation, Occam's razor. I am with Team Police at this point.
It's a really interesting theory with lots to think about. The one thing I can't quite grasp is what on earth would be so compelling in the river to cause somebody to put their phone down unguarded, leave their dog, pick their way down a slippery river bank on a freezing cold day etc. That bit I can't quite see.
 
I apologize if these have been asked and answered, the thread has taken off since I last posted. It doesn't look to me that the river is swift, fast moving where the bench/phone were found, and that one would be able to climb out if they were able bodied? Does anyone know how deep it is there where the bench is? In the article linked further back up the thread, her mum said she was a strong swimmer. Am I missing something, the river doesn't look that treacherous if she fell in?
 
Ah, thank you.

I obviously misread as I thought the school contacted Nikki’s partner at 10:50am?

So did he go to the river himself to look for Nikki before calling the police?

No you are correct, I looked back at the presser transcribe and Sally said school and family (assume PA) were contacted at 10:50am -

‘Therefore, the time that we are particularly interested in is between 9:10 - the last confirmed sighting and at 9:20, when Nicola's phone was found on the bench... sorry, not found on the bench, Nicola's phone was on the bench believed to be on the bench found at around 9:33. The witness made numerous enquiries to try and find the owner of the phone, not knowing whose phone it was and, indeed, whose dog it was. That lead the witness to meet up with other people, who did recognise the dog as Nicola's and the school to which Nicola's children go was alerted at 10:50, as was her family.’


I don’t know if he went for definite as there have been many conflicting stories. One was stated as saying he made way for the river the minute he was contacted and then called police and others were he called 999 straight after receiving the call to say dog was found etc. but without the police giving us an exact time that part is guess work unfortunately. JMO
 
I apologize if these have been asked and answered, the thread has taken off since I last posted. It doesn't look to me that the river is swift, fast moving where the bench/phone were found, and that one would be able to climb out if they were able bodied? Does anyone know how deep it is there where the bench is? In the article linked further back up the thread, her mum said she was a strong swimmer. Am I missing something, the river doesn't look that treacherous if she fell in?
It mostly comes down to the cold, and that whilst she was a strong swimmer, I imagine that's in a swim suit and a swimming pool. Not in a near freezing river with currents, dressed in multiple layers and a knee length coat.
 
I think this could have been the same person/contact. Meaning I think it is possible the daughter in law worked at the school and either contacted herself or passed the information to a colleague who made the call (such as the teacher of one of the girls or the secretary who usually makes some calls if they have one etc). Small village.


Sorry, I'm not following. How does the area where the phone was found indicate if the husband called said phone or not? It has not been said if the phone had any answered on unanswered calls from the hubby. And I don't think it was out of range?

Normally I'd think that as no phone calls were mentioned that there were none, but with the very scarce factual info in this case, I'm not making any conclusions like that.
The reason I asked about the timing and phone calls is,
I apologize if these have been asked and answered, the thread has taken off since I last posted. It doesn't look to me that the river is swift, fast moving where the bench/phone were found, and that one would be able to climb out if they were able bodied? Does anyone know how deep it is there where the bench is? In the article linked further back up the thread, her mum said she was a strong swimmer. Am I missing something, the river doesn't look that treacherous if she fell in?
I read that the river at that spot by the bench is 15/16ft. There is a sign on the tree behind the bench warning “Deep water”, so it definitely is deep, for sure. Don’t forget the water would have been extremely cold causing shock if you fell in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
485
Total visitors
577

Forum statistics

Threads
625,638
Messages
18,507,388
Members
240,828
Latest member
inspector_gadget_
Back
Top