- Joined
- Sep 4, 2019
- Messages
- 922
- Reaction score
- 6,201
But its rubbish - they should proofread all of this!typo obviously.
But its rubbish - they should proofread all of this!typo obviously.
That is not what it says.
8.26am- Nicola leaves her home address with her children
8.40am- Nicola drops the children off at school and has a brief conversation with another parent.
8.43am – Nicola walked along the path by the River Wyre towards the gate/bench into the lower field, having dropped her children off at school
8:47am (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
8.53am – She sent an email to her boss
8.59 am- She sent message to a friend
9.01am – She logged into a Teams call
9.10am (approximately) – A witness – somebody who knows Nicola – saw her on the upper field walking her dog, Willow. Work is ongoing today to establish exactly what time this was.
9.20- Her phone was back in the area of the bench
9.30am – The Teams call ended but Nicola stayed logged on
9.33am (approximately) – Nicola’s mobile phone and Willow were found at a bench by the river by another dog-walker.
it also now says knee length gilet !! Not ankle length!!It does say it in the opening few paragraphs if you read it all (9th para):
Nicola was last seen on Friday morning (January 27th) at around 9.20am on the upper field by the river off Garstang Road where she had taken her Spaniel Willow for a walk after dropping her children at school in the village.
I honestly find that so bizarre, not just that they wouldn't search without a warrant, but they couldn't get one. MOOQuite a few people have said something like "surely XYZ place will have been searched" (e.g. referring to the caravan site). IMO, and going on the words of the presser where the police SIO Riley said the search "included open ground, empty buildings and their gardens". Here's the key point, the police simply cannot and will not search a private property (which includes the caravan site) without a warrant. Given that the police appear very confident this was as accident, have never mentioned a suspect, I think it is highly, HIGHLY unlikely that any private property has been searched.
Where are you seeing 9.20 on the upper field? It's still saying 9.10 from that link.Update statement from the police - if you read the whole statement - the 9th paragraph down, it says last seen at 9.20am on the upper field now! When are they going to get it right!
![]()
Lancashire Constabulary - Missing Nicola Bulley - latest update
The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabularywww.lancashire.police.uk
Edited to add - what I gather from this is they are missing cctv footage from the area circled on the map (which is where she entered the path on the morning).
They've added in the text message at 8:59am now too, as well as correcting the length of her coat so it agrees with the footage of her.This is the missing link.
Our enquiries now focus on the river path which leads from the fields back to Garstang Road – for that we need drivers and cyclists who travelled that way on the morning of January 27 to make contact. We have already done a lot of work around this, but every piece of footage helps us build up a picture of movements on that morning.
![]()
Lancashire Constabulary - Missing Nicola Bulley - latest update
The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabularywww.lancashire.police.uk
If you read the whole statement it says (9th para):
Nicola was last seen on Friday morning (January 27th) at around 9.20am on the upper field by the river off Garstang Road where she had taken her Spaniel Willow for a walk after dropping her children at school in the village.
This lack of consistency worries me, even if it is a typo. Any info on a police statement surely needs to be accurate. The description on that statement still says she is wearing 'black jeans' and it does not refer to the pony-tail we saw her wearing in the images taken by her doorbell-cam. To me this is really slapdash (JMO).If you read the whole statement it says (9th para):
Nicola was last seen on Friday morning (January 27th) at around 9.20am on the upper field by the river off Garstang Road where she had taken her Spaniel Willow for a walk after dropping her children at school in the village.
9th paragraph down in the first part of the statement.Where are you seeing 9.20 on the upper field? It's still saying 9.10 from that link.
Screenshot taken from link.
The latest press release states empty caravans have been searchedI honestly find that so bizarre, not just that they wouldn't search without a warrant, but they couldn't get one. MOO
Yes I agree - shouldn’t it be proofread?! IMO.This lack of consistency worries me, even if it is a typo. Any info on a police statement surely needs to be accurate. The description on that statement still says she is wearing 'black jeans' and it does not refer to the pony-tail we saw her wearing in the images taken by her doorbell-cam. To me this is really slapdash (JMO).
![]()
Lancashire Constabulary - Missing Nicola Bulley - latest update
The latest news and information for Lancashire Constabularywww.lancashire.police.uk
That's confusing me also.They've added in the text message at 8:59am now too, as well as correcting the length of her coat so it agrees with the footage of her.
I'm still confused over which path they are on about though as "We can say with confidence that by reviewing CCTV, Nicola has not left the field during the key times via Rowanwater, either through the site itself or via the piece of land at the side." seems to contradict "Our enquiries now focus on the river path which leads from the fields back to Garstang Road."
I think the exit to Garstang Road by the river path is the one that goes alongside Rowanwater, or is this not the case?
Yes but it’s still not good really. They should proofread these things - the timing is critical. IMO.I think that's just a typo, still says 09:10 in the timeline
Edited by me. I see it in the body of the text now. Apologies.Where are you seeing 9.20 on the upper field? It's still saying 9.10 from that link.
Screenshot taken from link.
Thanks. I see it now.9th paragraph down in the first part of the statement.
It’s here I think - the path she entered on. IMO.That's confusing me also.