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

[Oscardog]

If somebody in my family came home and mentioned that a familiar dog was distressed and alone down by the river, I'd be down there pronto, not because I'd suspect anything initially but just to see if the dog was OK. But then there are other people who wouldn't perhaps care as much about a dog.

Exactly, unless she rushed off to her appointment and only told the family member when she got home later. The family member could have rushed straight there as soon as she was told. All very strange though

 

[cottonweaver]

Supt Riley said officers have searched derelict riverside properties with the permission of owners.

She added: ‘Because there is no criminal element yet identified, and we don’t expect there to be in this inquiry, then we’re not starting to go into houses because that’s not where the inquiry is leading us.’

To me that’s directly contradictory. “We have searched riverside properties.” “Because we believe it’s not criminal, we’re not going into houses”. Huh???

If there are any nearby properties not searched, derelict/empty or otherwise, that’s not good enough IMO.

There’s at least a 10 minute window NB could have been drugged and taken to a building. Possibly a 70-minute window if NB was nearby but out of sight of the 9.33 witness (eg undergrowth/other end of field).

I don’t really get the polices actions with this.

Also what about Paul searching a derelict house on day 3? I wonder what made him do that? With that specific property? Could NB have been working with the owner to do with her mortgage advisor career? JMO.

If she’s not in the river - she is somewhere!

IMO she meant that they have searched riverside abandoned, empty and under renovation properties with permission of the owners but are not going to start demanding entry to houses under a search warrant - not on the evidence they have to date

Search warrants wouldn't get signed -off without sufficient evidence


Superintendent - Well, there are some properties along the riverside which are empty or derelict and whilst it may be well-intentioned that people think that that could be a line of enquiry, I would ask them to desist from doing that. In some cases it may be criminal if they're breaking in and causing damage or committing a burglary. We have gone into derelict property, including ones on the riverside, any under renovation that are empty, with the permission of those owners and their knowledge. We have searched houses matching that sort of profile on the riverbank, including the grounds. Because there is no criminal element yet identified and we don't expect there to be in this enquiry, then we're not starting to go into houses, because that's not where the enquiry is leading us. Thank you.

Found Deceased - UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #7

No. I should apologise here. I am new to this forum and I failed to add IMO after the statement. I have no knowledge about this whatsoever and my suggestion the dog harness may have been in the River was speculation. Sorry if it appeared to be factual. I did not intend this and will be more...

www.websleuths.com

eaxmple, picked at random, first hit on Google:

'When we apply for a search warrant, we need to demonstrate to a magistrate that there are reasonable grounds to believe that: a crime has been committed and. evidence of that offence will be found on the premises being searched.'

https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/your-options/search-warrant

 

[Redgreen]

I'm sure the police have spoken to all the other call attendees, if the content of the presenter had anything to do with the disappearance they would know that
Is that what you mean?

Yes

 

[Beginnersleuth]

Tying up a dog takes about 10 seconds. Most dog walkers (and it was said to be dog walkers that found Willow) would easily tie a dog up using the lead and harness alone - why the need for string (if there was indeed string used)?

Yeah string seems weird, how much string would you need. I used to be a dog walker and if I had my own dog and an agitated spaniel I’d struggle for it to take less than a few minutes to get a hold and tie up etc.

 

[Mycroft42]

I think the dog being agitated between the bench and the stile (assuming the stile is the kissing gate), when found, is fairly critical.

Why assume the stile is the kissing gate?

Stiles and gates are very different. There is a stile right by the bench.

 

[jackal67]

I don't understand why it took so long for the family of the first person to discover Willow, to come down and attend to her. Also it's quite lucky that the mobile phone was still on the bench (IMO) and hadn't been stolen. I think that the one line which really stands out for me and has done all along is (and I know I can't directly quote it) the line about Willow being found all het up between the bench and the stile. NOT the bench and the river. IMO this is deeply significant.

But it may not have been possible for anyone to come immediately, unless told it was urgent, in which case why didn't person who first found willow inform Police instead of a family member. They probably had no reason to think the owner was missing, Quite feasible no one else walked by between 9.33 and 10.50'or they would have come forward by now? MOO

 

[hedgetog]

The police may have witnesses from that time period, I expect even without a direct appeal for that 0933 to 1050 timeframe people have come forward- if it's not deemed as relevant ie they also just saw the dog or didn't notice anything that suggests NB wasn't there which is the crucial bit I suppose perhaps they wouldnt see it helpful to release.

The family member scenario could be as simple as ah I'm popping out later I'll check on my way back to see if it's still there. At this point personally I wouldn't expect urgency necessarily as it wouldn't have been clear whether someone had run to a bush for a wee or whatever; in a small village with little crime I doubt many would jump to something nefarious, they'd have surely phoned the police off the bat if they thought so. Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing and I appreciate many would perhaps be more startled by this discovery.

Although it sounds cruel the police don't share everything with family and friends if there's good reason not to. Not suggesting in this case they haven't or suggesting any reasons, but it can be the case that the police are being truthful as are those making comments that don't align.

 

[Tanzanite]

If I came across a dog and a mobile phone with nobody around I would wait and see if anyone appeared and if not at least phone 101 to report it. Nearby river or not.

I don't think the phone would have necessarily been particularly visible to the average wanderer-by though? I'm not hugely observant, I admit, but I would have just seen a dog waiting for its owner to come back and the back of a bench. If I walked back again and the dog was still there, however, I'd spot the phone and act.

 

[Mycroft42]

I’m glad you mentioned about the ‘man that came through the gate after her’ - I was sure I had read that somewhere but now can’t think where. I also thought that was at 9.33am so glad you have cleared that up for me too!

Wait. It was at the 9:33 timeline - not the 10:50 one. Though since the only sources we have are third or even 4th party there could well be some discrepancy - so much so that the police don't even mention him now.

So, was the 'man that came through after her' following the 9:33 lady who was first on the scene, or was he following the daughter-in-law of 9:33 lady and he arrived at 10:50?

 

[JeremyBentham]

Why not just tie him to the bench with the lead and harness that she also found?! IMO.

Someone posted earlier that may not have wanted to touch the lead in case they thought it might be important, finger prints, where it was placed etc, but as also said it's contrary to then heading off for your meeting, if you think it's important enough not to touch. I don't know. I'm not sure what I'd do. Not sure I'd use the string though, even if I happened to have any.

 

[steelo]

All thats been said is that the dog was found between the bench and the river, the phone was found on the bench along with the lead and the harness was on the floor.
The person that found the dog may well have used the lead to secure the dog to the bench. I don't think there has been any specific information given as to how the dog was secured or by what means, but nothing has been said that the lead or indeed the harness weren't used. Only that the harness was dry.

 

[londoncat]

Tying up a dog takes about 10 seconds. Most dog walkers (and it was said to be dog walkers that found Willow) would easily tie a dog up using the lead and harness alone - why the need for string (if there was indeed string used)?

Maybe they didn’t notice the lead / harness until after they had tied up the dog?

 

[WSA01]

A thing I am curious about thinking on it:

If the police have the phone they can surely confirm the phones route that morning. So they can cross reference the sightings vs the phones GPS/Tracking.

They will also be able to see the phones movements between 09:10 and 09:20 so they will know the likely route NB took, assuming the phone was in her possession. They would also be able to see if she took any sharp or unusual movements.

Which makes me curious why they were so curious about that specific 10 minute window of time in terms of tying to get witnesses to come forward if they were convinced she'd entered the water at the bench that would have to have happened at sometime between 09:20 and 09:33.

Unless they were trying to confirm that NB was in possession of the phone for that journey from the upper field to the bench?

 

[MrsWatson]

DBM

 

[rosieposie121]

Maybe they didn’t notice the lead / harness until after they had tied up the dog?

That's what I thought

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/people/nicola-bulley-lancashire-police-warn-against-unacceptable-speculation-about-disappearance-and-appeal-for-dashcam-footage-4014687

There are a few interviews to be seen here and one tends to feed into the other.

A few things:

THE BENCH ANOMALIES

1. The Bench - the narrative is very convoluted here with some anomalies - all quotes from televised interviews not conjecture:

• Sgt Riley says cordoning off the bench with a physical cordon would 'detract from the beauty of the area and be difficult to do'. Also states one for the 'local authority'​
• Sgt Riley is asked by interviewer: 'So no evidence would have been lost by this [bench] not being isolated or sealed off?'​
• Sgt Riley replies 'Ah you are talking about the Police cordon not the physical cordon' 'Well, the police officers were altered after that first call at 10:50am, the school and her family were told that a phone and a dog had been found and the police officers were very quickly on the scene afterwards. In that short window I am NOT concerned and am led by the enquiry team that anything would have been lost in that short time'​
• 'She [NB] remained dialled in at 9:30am. She could have left the phone on the bench to go and deal with something involving the dog. It does not mean anything suspicious in itself & the fact that other witnesses have not seen anyone suspicious in the area...'​
• Interviewer 'the bench wasn't kind of isolated and protected at first, is that something that is regretted at all? Or was that the right thing to do at the time'?​
• Sgt Riley, 'well this is a beautiful, rural area, isn't it, to fence off every hazard would be practically impossible, people come here on their holidays and they walk their dogs and they enjoy their leisure time so I think that would be a very difficult task. It would be a very difficult task for the police and certainly for the local authorities. It would be difficult to do and may detract from the beauty of the area'​
• Earlier interviews: (0:16 time stamp): Nicola's phone was NOT found on the bench. Found at 09:33am.​
• 09:20am believed to be found on the bench​
• Sgt Riley states not a criminal not a suspicious but a tragic case'​

Who was at the bench, when and why? Recollections seem to vary and narratives seem to alter.

Of course this is to be expected as more information comes through and presumably things are clarified.

When Sgt Riley is asked if the bench should have been better preserved for evidence or treated as a crime scene she tells us that as the police arrived so fast the window was too short for anything to happen, so ,no need, effectively. It would detract from the beauty of the area and adversely interfere with the public's leisure time.

On 5th May, three days ago, Sgt Riley was adamant that 'no third party' was involved 'as our investigation has looked at SO MANY lines of enquiry'. She's reassuring everyone that she's confident it is safe in the area. Which is good news for those of us that live not too far away, etc.

What is a takeaway re: above? The bench is the anchor point here, where the evidence was found, a starting point for any search. Was the phone on the ground first or on the bench all the time? Sgt Riley says both at different times. This may well be as new data came in so she could be more precise. It is interesting to note that early on, she is very clear and corrects herself that it was found on the ground and not the bench in one interview.

All the activity at the bench led to the school being contacted, followed by the family at 10:50am.

Sgt Riley is genuinely impressive and clearly shouldering a lot, an incredibly difficult job that I think she's doing exceptionally well. She says this is 'TRAGIC' not 'CRIMINAL'. I suspect these circumstances are exceptionally challenging for her. What is the clear and correct narrative at the 'bench'?

To add:

1. PF and others have stated if she fell in there, close to bench, for whatever reason, she'd have been almost certainly found.

2. There is ' the 10 minute' window 9:10am to 9:20am to account for, but presumably minutes of that would be taken by walking between A to B. Why is this not equally 'too short a window for anything to happen' [asking quite genuinely]

3.'Other witnesses have not seen anyone suspicious in the area...' so we can be confident for that reason, and others, re: no nefarious third party involvement. Surely, NB could have been observed/heard etc falling in the river and/or having a medical event for the same reasons? [again asking genuinely, what are we missing?]

I

 

[Firstsnow4]

Wait. It was at the 9:33 timeline - not the 10:50 one. Though since the only sources we have are third or even 4th party there could well be some discrepancy - so much so that the police don't even mention him now.

So, was the 'man that came through after her' following the 9:33 lady who was first on the scene, or was he following the daughter-in-law of 9:33 lady and he arrived at 10:50?

No I think the first witness who found willow was alone. It was the second witness that came through the gate followed by the man.

 

[lvbut]

If somebody in my family came home and mentioned that a familiar dog was distressed and alone down by the river, I'd be down there pronto, not because I'd suspect anything initially but just to see if the dog was OK. But then there are other people who wouldn't perhaps care as much about a dog.

I once found two dogs tied up to a post right outside my property one morning. I went STRAIGHT out there. So quick my joggers were inside out, pockets flapping around, my unbrushed bed hair made me look crazy. I was just checking they hadn’t been abandoned and if they needed food/water. When the guy came back from the shop, he thought I was stealing his dogs.

I did exactly the same thing, a few months later, with a different dog. (Clothes the right way this time.) Owner soon came back from the shop.

I’d immediately rush to check even in a non-emergency looking scenario just so I can pet the pooch.

But yeah, I’d be checking into a phone, dog, and harness… minus human.

 

[Casseus]

People weren't 'picking apart her outfit.' That implies something rather different to what was actually posted. Posters were commenting on the police description of what NB was wearing. It didn't match the images disclosed. The length of the gilet was a factor in several theories about the mechanics of an accident or NB's ability to get out of the water. The discrepancy in how NB looked that morning might also be a factor in appealing to witnesses.

I don't think that a dog tied to a bench would cause any great reaction in many people. Most passers-by would only clock it for a short time as they passed by. I might assume a parent distracted by/with a young child (needing the bathroom or something), or something along those lines. I wouldn't assume anything suspicious unless I was there for longer and no one returned.

The point of note is that no one apparently passed by in that window (or at least who have indentified by LE).

I think (respectfully) you need to go back to the other threads and read peoples reactions to the CCTV pictures. it’s IMO that’s exactly what ‘picking apart and outfit’ means. Arguing over the length and colour, socks tucked into jeans, people claiming she wasn’t wearing wellington’s etc. that is picking an outfit apart.

 

[wackyw]

snipped

Also what about Paul searching a derelict house on day 3? I wonder what made him do that? With that specific property? Could NB have been working with the owner to do with her mortgage advisor career? JMO.

snipped

I simply wondered if that's where he chose to park, it's convenient. do we really know he searched it ?