Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #8

[markoid]

One thing that could be highly relevant, and that the police may not disclose, is her personal work situation and/or the wider content and context of the conference call.

Indeed. There are a number of areas that would be kept out of the public domain. Her health, personal life etc.

 

[Coach]

One thing that could be highly relevant, and that the police may not disclose, is her personal work situation and/or the wider content and context of the conference call.

That‘s exactly right. Was it a phone call or text message that she had shortly before logging on to the Teams call? Also, was it the night before she went missing that she had a meeting?

 

[markoid]

IMO, the issue with PF is not that his skills and team are/could be beneficial in the search for Nicola/answers/clues/pointers but the way his is conducting himself outside of that regards the media and the way he is constantly courting the media all the time rather just doing his job and applying his certain field of expertise. It cancels the the benefits his work is adding to the case if hes presenting theories, opinions and changing them on the hop all the time. There are a lot of other professionals involved in this working alongside the police force in question yet none of them are acting the same way at all. He is at risk of turning into a liability for the case if he continues apparently fanning the flames of the social media circus the way he keeps voicing opinions and theories/definite outcomes as facts then doing a 360 on that and presenting the opposite. He needs to just do his job and leave the media courting out of it. On SM people are treating him like an touchstone of truth and dismissing the police professional search/diving teams that have worked the case longer and are privy to far more undisclosed (to the public) facts than him. I hope he changes tact and just employs his skills via searching.

Indeed! It’s fair game to critique one of the key facets of the search. It doesn’t help with LE telling us he doesn’t have all the evidence and him saying he does!

The reality is that any search team could miss a body. We’ve got plenty of precedent on that front. His public bafflement isn’t particularly helpful.

 

[kittythehare]

To me it seems like the police are being too reactive rather than proactive. It's like they are just waiting for evidence to fall on their laps. If she has been taken it is likely that is was planned to ensure no evidence was left.

This is not evidence from a reactive police force.
just look at all they work they have completed-
there isn't a single aspect of waiting for anything to fall into their laps. They had divers in the water a couple of hours after she disappeared.. there was no delay.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Firstsnow4]

IMO the police give the answers in the video a PP posted upthread. It seems to be sadly, simple. Highly sensitive and as they say, they are in a very difficult position as can't yet fully explain, even to Peter F, why they want to look closer to the sea.

They acted immediately, faster than usual. NB was seen in the area of the bench and they are carefully checking to see when she might have exited, as the explain, by looking at all the data they can get from cars passing by in a specific time window. The river can be accessed from different points.

They will give context and any relevant back story, etc, just not yet. They have to be respectful and sensitive, keep confidentiality until an appropriate time.

I appreciate what you are saying but how could Nicola have exited Garstang lane path between 9.10-9.15am when she was in the upper field at 9.10am and the phone was at the bench at 9.20am. That would imply it can only be third party with someone else placing the phone & Willow at the bench because NB could not have been there with the phone at 9.20am and exiting Garstang lane path at 9.10-9.15am. It doesn’t fit the timeline unless foul play involved. IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

While I understand and agree that Rivers frequently do not give up their dead for weeks or months (see Hamburg's mighty Elbe, or the oft quoted Libby Squire case, i feel there are some significant differences here.

Especially this is a smaller river, and huge resources were invested early. There is a weir which makes it unlikely a body can get to the tidal area. The tides leave large flats which would reveal a body. It's been double and triple checked.

It seems to me to be now very unlikely (though possible) NB is (still) in the river.

So what now?

 

[Bluesleuth66]

Some considerations I have had with the time line of events for each of the different possible scenarios.


1. The police are correct and she entered the water and has sadly passed away.

If I am understanding correctly, NB arrived at the gate/bench first at roughly 08:46, then she was seen on the upper field at 09:10 which would mean it took her 24 minutes roughly to reach that point of the field. Yet her phone is back on the bench 10 minutes later, which means she is making a much quicker pace back than she was when she went out.

Can anyone tell from her strava account what her usual timing and route was, is it usual for her in terms of time spent, would there be a reason for her to make a much quicker pace on the route back than the route out, where did she have to be next/what did she have to do next, where was she heading if her day had carried on as normal.

Was it routine for her to stop at the bench?

To support the police theory of accident with no third party involvement, reasons for the quicker pace could have been she was feeling unwell or as suggested in an earlier thread, needed the loo. Both of these could have been reasons for a fall/slip that account for the dog not being wet and no signs of a slip (because she didn't slip/lose her footing but lost balance near the edge of the water)

Another theory as to why the dog could dry would be, NB has sat on the bench to finish her call. Lost concentration for a second, the dog has headed towards the water but not gone in but from NB's line of sight from the bench is hidden by the bank, NB walks over to the edge of the river to try and see where the dog has gone and the dog playfully bounds up and knocks NB off balance and into the water.

These are all ways to make the police hypothesis make sense that seem plausible but if nothing is discovered in the river then it seems unlikely.

Question would be: I think I read if she had entered the water and died she likely wouldn't have been washed out to sea but could there be a possibility that she did survive the entry to the water couldn't get herself out at that point but as a strong swimmer she didn't immediately die and then tried to swim down stream with the currents in order to find somewhere where exiting the water was much easier? how would that have effected her final location and where they are searching? could in that scenario she have accidentally swam out to sea or at least made her way much further down the river than anticipated ?

"...could in that scenario she have accidentally swam out to sea or at least made her way much further down the river than anticipated ?..."
Unlikely (IMO) - that's a 13 mile swim!

 

[Mr X]

I did wonder if moving the sonar search team out of the area was a way to reduce the audience size at the site of interest. There seems to be a lot of celebrity type activity around it which IMO does not help.

It really seems terrible to me that people would go and stand around watching something like this. Different if it is outside your door but you don't take the kids to a park to watch police and divers looking for a corpse. You just don't do that.
Yes it is ok for the public to get involved with a search of the land areas in organised teams but stand around gawping?

What is wrong with people? Clear off!

 

[Belleville]

I do think that PA and the police acted extremely quickly to events after PA called them to report her missing. I can well believe there is some personal context which explains why they were on red alert from the get go and sprang into action. I thought it weird that PA didn’t even go down and check what was going on down at the river but was immediately concerned enough to call the police.

I thought he did. There isn't much said about this part of the timeline.

 

[Firstsnow4]

IMO no third party involvement, just the recent police actions show that it's thought a potential exit from bench area via road and possibly a different initial entry point to the river. They have sensitive context and back history that may well explain just that. Sadly, IMO they may find Nicola around here.

I appreciate your point of view but as stated before how could Nicola have exited Garstang lane path between 9.10-9.15am when she was in the upper field at 9.10am and the phone was at the bench at 9.20am. That would imply it can only be third party with someone else placing the phone & Willow at the bench because NB could not have been there with the phone at 9.20am and exiting Garstang lane path at 9.10-9.15am. It doesn’t fit the timeline unless foul play involved. Or unless the witness at 9.10 is wrong with their timing. IMO.

 

[Mamamerced]

I always wonder too if a perp from any case has been found to be lurking on WS

I believe many do, along with LE and attorneys, both defense and prosecutors.

 

[kittythehare]

Indeed! It’s fair game to critique one of the key facets of the search. It doesn’t help with LE telling us he doesn’t have all the evidence and him saying he does!

The reality is that any search team could miss a body. We’ve got plenty of precedent on that front. His public bafflement isn’t particularly helpful.

They are saying they have more information because of course they have more information, have and continue to investigate it fully and thoroughly and more manpower resources and personnel, more qualified to put forth and justify their hypothesis.
Their divers had been in the water for over a week when he showed up. it was not a tit for tat response. it came across from Supt Riley as factual and honest.
It makes absolute sense.
There is no point in putting their procedures in the public domain to untrained eyes, we're not qualified without training to understand. They are. That's their territory. i respect it.

And I promise I do not say this about every police force.
I only say it rarely.
Side scanners are great but they have limitations, they can't see through mud and divers are required for deep pools..
There is no magic bullet in search operations.
It is the saddest thing that all the technology in the world will still bring misses.
The best dogs, the most diligent and highly trained SAR teams will miss.
We have to wait it out.

 

[Colorado303]

.

I do think that PA and the police acted extremely quickly to events after PA called them to report her missing. I can well believe there is some personal context which explains why they were on red alert from the get go and sprang into action. I thought it weird that PA didn’t even go down and check what was going on down at the river but was immediately concerned enough to call the police.

If someone told my husband (or any of my close friends) they found my phone and especially my dog running loose they would probably call the police right away too. It’s entirely possible I might accidently leave my phone behind. But my dog—never.

 

[Sara11272]

I appreciate what you are saying but how could Nicola have exited Garstang lane path between 9.10-9.15am when she was in the upper field at 9.10am and the phone was at the bench at 9.20am. That would imply it can only be third party with someone else placing the phone & Willow at the bench because NB could not have been there with the phone at 9.20am and exiting Garstang lane path at 9.10-9.15am. It doesn’t fit the timeline unless foul play involved. IMO.

Foul play or collaboration. JMO.

 

[Mollie123]

Can anyone remember the name of the empty property PA was said to have gone to search on the first day NB was missing

 

[kittythehare]

I appreciate your point of view but as stated before how could Nicola have exited Garstang lane path between 9.10-9.15am when she was in the upper field at 9.10am and the phone was at the bench at 9.20am. That would imply it can only be third party with someone else placing the phone & Willow at the bench because NB could not have been there with the phone at 9.20am and exiting Garstang lane path at 9.10-9.15am. It doesn’t fit the timeline unless foul play involved. Or unless the witness at 9.10 is wrong with their timing. IMO.

She could have exited after 9.20 am.
This is the only exit for which they never had CCTV.
They have covered all the other exits and they know she did not leave .
This is the last possible- 700 motorists tracked and contacted.... seriously determined investigation.
And if none of them have dashcam or saw anything there will always be a question there... she could have left that way, left Willow at other side of gate..

 

[Blamhappy]

I'm pretty sure that the detective said that they have more information than we do because there is so much speculation and conspiracy theory as to third party involvement. In each case I've followed, the police reveal to the public only what they need to. Everyone wants to know everything, but we don't need to know everything because we aren't investigating. I don't think she's alluding to anything and I think it's likely that they're still considering it a probable accident.

 

[kittythehare]

Can anyone remember the name of the empty property PA was said to have gone to search on the first day NB was missing

I don't believe it was ever named, just described as an abandoned building on his route to join the Sunday search party.
It was not on the day she went missing.
It was an organised search with friends on Day 3.

 

[SpursGyal]

I appreciate your point of view but as stated before how could Nicola have exited Garstang lane path between 9.10-9.15am when she was in the upper field at 9.10am and the phone was at the bench at 9.20am. That would imply it can only be third party with someone else placing the phone & Willow at the bench because NB could not have been there with the phone at 9.20am and exiting Garstang lane path at 9.10-9.15am. It doesn’t fit the timeline unless foul play involved. Or unless the witness at 9.10 is wrong with their timing. IMO.

They won’t just be looking for her leaving, they’ll also be looking to see if there were people in the area they haven’t yet spoken to. Hence the wider time frame. IMO

 

[GTB72]

She could have exited after 9.20 am.
This is the only exit for which they never had CCTV.
They have covered all the other exits and they know she did not leave .
This is the last possible- 700 motorists tracked and contacted.... seriously determined investigation.
And if none of them have dashcam or saw anything there will always be a question there... she could have left that way, left Willow at other side of gate..

Indeed. She could have exited after 9.20am. But how then do you explain the Police timeline of 9.10-9.15am in the recent press conference. So many seeming contradictions.