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

[EyeSpyU]

You’re basing your whole theory on evidence which doesn’t to any ones knowledge exist. No evidence she was there. People who passed by what couod only have been a brief time later heard nothing, no dog barks, no screams, no shouts etc but found the items on the floor. A phone on a bench that apparently another dog Walker put there after finding it on the floor about two feet from the bench… one found the lead and harness, another found the phone if the reports in the press are correct. The police also changed what they said - it is found in the area of the bench. Not on. For reference here is a pic of said bench with a phone from a newspaper article. I wonder who took this…

Do you have a link please for where it said the phone was found on the floor?

 

[I wonder]

Lots of conflicting reports. First-person on the scene - a local business owner - found the phone on the bench but left it.

The police superintendent said the phone was in the bench.

A witness says two people saw it on the ground. This has been discussed repeatedly on here, including in this thread.

Nicola Bulley was 'laughing and joking' just minutes before she vanished

"They say she was laughing and joking with them as she went by"

www.lancs.live

 

[Mycroft42]

One witness who actually knows her spoke to her face to face as their dogs interacted…

The police timelines only have the two witnesses seeing her walking - neither are noted to have spoken to her.

There was an earlier press report that had her 'laughing and joking' so that would imply someone was speaking to her, or she was on the phone.

 

[I wonder]

I suggest we trust the briefed statements from the police, rather than an early news report based on a comment from someone who was not the person who found the phone.

This statement is very clear. Two people saw it on the ground. Two witnesses.

 

[todders]

It is confusingly worded, for sure. I think he simply gets mixed up with his words at one point. If SGI are sonar-scanning back upstream from the weir for a distance of two miles, then by definition they will be scanning the area already searched by police.

Yes I agree it would make no sense not to search from the weir and go upstream.IMO

 

[San111]

Yes 'two feet' is a very specific detail

 

[mrjitty]

I agree with him. I do think that IF she is in the water it was not where the bench is. Hopefullywe shall find out today.

Right.

Since the first day, high probability, obvious options have been eliminated until we only have low probability options. But one of the low probability things must be correct, because they are the only things left.

PF essentially eliminated a low probability chance that Police somehow missed NB downstream. Today he will triple check.

So then the next most likely thing is she actually went in significantly upstream from her phone - which is odd based on the scene.

 

[JeremyBentham]

The phone being on the ground does change the perception for me. But then maybe the dog knocked it off in the panic, sniffing around. Possible.

I don't think someone would place it on the ground as a decoy. More likely to be placed on the bench to be a decoy, which seems more normal to me.

To be dropped by NB would suggest she saw something so important to her that she dropped her phone, or was running from something.

 

[EyeSpyU]

The original reports said it was found on the floor, it was spotted by a man who came through the gate.

Missing mum of two seen 'laughing and joking' moments before she disappeared

Nicola Bulley, 45, disappeared while out on a dog walk last Friday morning after dropping her children at school in St Michael's-on-Wyre, Lancashire, before police launched a major search operation

www.mirror.co.uk

You can’t take newspaper articles as gospel, especially in the beginning of a case as they often get facts mistaken.

The Chief Superintendent said the phone was found ON the bench, and had it really been found on the ground this would have gone a whole different route immediately.

 

[DazN]

This statement is very clear.

It's also from an unnamed third party who wasn't actually there. MOO

 

[Dougal]

Has PF started today's search yet.. or have aliens taken him !

 

[LuluR38]

… the police do not state it was found on the bench. “Sorry not found on the bench…” which implies it was found elsewhere.

Fingerprints on the phone may be able to confirm if someone held it / picked it up and put it on the bench, unless they had gloves on of course. Fingerprints also will confirm if the business owner picked it up (the screen was locked according to one report) unless there were gloves and of course also if police have treated the phone as evidence and recovered them all from the device to see who exactly has handled that phone and to corroborate what they know from whatever witnesses they have as to the device …

 

[ginnyw]

The phone being on the ground does change the perception for me. But then maybe the dog knocked it off in the panic, sniffing around. Possible.

I don't think someone would place it on the ground as a decoy. More likely to be placed on the bench to be a decoy, which seems more normal to me.

To be dropped by NB would suggest she saw something so important to her that she dropped her phone, or was running from something.

A phone could be dropped in fright. Or fall from a hand/pocket. Lots of possibilities along with the ones already suggested.

 

[mrjitty]

It is confusingly worded, for sure. I think he simply gets mixed up with his words at one point. If SGI are sonar-scanning back upstream from the weir for a distance of two miles, then by definition they will be scanning the area already searched by police.

I saw a GB news interview this morning he was specifically asked 'wouldn't it be weird for the body to be upstream when objects can only drift downstream" and he said they wanted to eliminate the possibility she went in upstream of the bench despite the phone location

 

[EyeSpyU]

"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"

From the transcript:

Reporter - How was the phone known to be on the bench at 9:20 exactly?

Superintendent - Through telephony enquiries that we've done, relative to the phone itself, rather than through a witness.

Reporter - So it wasn't (inaudible)?

Superintendent - No.


They don't ever say it was definitely found ON the bench.

The Superintendent said the phone was found on the beach at 09:20 “Through telephony enquiries that we've done, relative to the phone itself, rather than through a witness.”

So, it was found on the bench at 09:20

 

[Atoz]

JMO:
Is a potential assailant really going to leave a phone behind on purpose? It only makes sense to me if it were dropped on the ground by accident.

I'd have thought it would make a lot more sense to lob it in the river.

 

[Markepson]

Problem is that we don’t know all the facts from the investigation. It’s possible the police looked over some things when they believed initially it was an accident( such as falling in the water) as far I am aware they didn’t cordon off the area for forensics which is a shame and that leaves so many what ifs. Unless you have walked the scene yourself and checked everything that might have been missed we are just guessing based on media coverage which in my opinion is a minefield of possibilitys. Many things could have happened or been missed. For example close to the bench is a small outbuilding, it’s an obvious place to look first if your leading the search, but suppose said building is padlocked, then it’s possible that a Bobby on the beat would rule it out as it’s secure and instead search the hedgerows etc Now if she was indeed attacked / abducted as some suggest that would be a ideal place to hide her in plain sight as it’s close to the place she was sat.You just replace the padlock before hand for one of your own and there you go. Too many what ifss

 

[Nikynoo]

Right.

Since the first day, high probability, obvious options have been eliminated until we only have low probability options. But one of the low probability things must be correct, because they are the only things left.

PF essentially eliminated a low probability chance that Police somehow missed NB downstream. Today he will triple check.

So then the next most likely thing is she actually went in significantly upstream from her phone - which is odd based on the scene.

Yes. UNLESS, someone placed all of the items on or around the area of the bench. We have similar where I walk my dog - sort of like a lost and found area. However, a phone that is actively on a call is unlikely to be left on a bench (unless found and left by someone who is not au fait with the workings of mobiles - which narrows it down quite a bit, if you get my drift).

If the phone was found on the floor/ground the 'two feet' quote makes it unlikely that the phone fell off the bench due to vibration (e.g. incomming calls), so it may have been dropped. The only scenario I can think of that places N at that bench is if she threw the phone in the air as she fell, but it seems strange that it was found close to the lead and harness.

I too am baffled.

 

[Mexx]

Re. Police comments that it's an isolated area - this may be so compared to a city, but compared to where I live it looks crowded ....campsites, pub, houses, council concreted footpath/bridge, A roads apparently surrounding the area etc.etc.
IF someone had been looking for an opportunity to snatch a woman walking alone, it looks like a pretty accessible spot to find one.

 

[Mycroft42]

In the latest LP update the aerial picture they use to illustrate points has the 9:10 sighting marked at "Sighting 3..." yet there are only two sightings on their timeline and neither of the other two (or is it one?) sightings are marked.

Are they referring to the witness who describes seeing NB 'laughing and joking' as sighting 1, the lower field witness as sighting 2 - if so, why is sighting 1 not on the timeline?

More confusion?

[Edit: In the timeline on 3rd Feb there are three sightings specifically mentioned :-
8:43 a.m. - Nicola was seen on the river path
8:47 a.m. - She was seen in the lower field with her dog
9:10 a.m. - She was seen in the upper field

So these will be the 3 sightings and the first one is probably the 'laughing and joking' sighting.

On the latest update (6th Feb) there are only two sightings mentioned, the 8:43 on now just says
8.43am: Nicola walked along the path by the River Wyre

and the other two are now
8:47am (approximately): A dog-walker – somebody who knows Nicola – saw her walking around the lower field with her dog
9.10am (approximately): A witness – somebody who knows Nicola – saw her on the upper field walking her dog

Transcription errors or intentional changes? If the latter, why?]