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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Destroyer said:
I thought she said she saw he 10 minutes before & the two dogs acknowledged each other
Click to expand...


Another setback for Nicola's family as they appeal for help to 'get her home': 'Lady in red' who police hoped might hold crucial information tells officers she DIDN’T see the missing mother-of-two walking her dog before she vanished a week ago​



www.dailymail.co.uk

Woman who police sought over Nicola Bulley's disappearance saw nothing

Police issued a public appeal for a woman seen in CCTV wearing a red coat on River Wyre around the time Ms Bulley vanished last Friday morning.
www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Last edited:
HeatherErica said:
Thinking about it, surely they would be able to locate her earphones at her home/car etc to determine if she did not have them on her that morning? It would be quite an easy way to rule it out and IMO is why they haven't mentioned the possibility of her having them on her persons that day
Click to expand...
Hopefully the family would know with certainty how many sets she owned, though this seems unlikely to me.

If I were on an outdoor walk and also listening in on a work call, I would carry some form of earbuds/headphones even if I thought I could listen on speaker, because you never know when it might suddenly get loud outside and I'd then need them to be able to hear the call.

So I'm guessing she had some with her, in her pocket as backup if not actually used during the call.

MOO
 
My theory was that the dog may have become bored by the MP doing the online conference thing and may have started to seek a play toy. It isn't impossible that a dog harness could be used as a toy. This is a bit out of the ordinary type of systemising but to me it seems plausible the harness was thrown for the dog as a retrieval toy of some sort. It ended up in the water and the owner put the phone down on the bench to go and get the harness back.

I feel it is important to take into account the fact the MP was doing something with the phone. This takes attention away from the dog. I've had dogs in the past (lurchers not spaniels) they do like attention.

There was also a report of the MP being in a jovial mood when seen by a witness. This could be to do with having a good time playing with the dog.

All MOO and just theories.

Of course if the police could confirm the status of the harness when found my theories can be discounted easily. As far as I know there has been no mention of this detail.
 
SpursGyal said:
The police have no information from the Fitbit it and not synced with the phone for 4 days.

They have given that 10 min window because they say she was seen at 9:10, they believe she was at the bench at 9:20 because of phone gps, and someone found the dog around 9:30 with no sign of Nicola
Click to expand...
In my opinion the phone being at the bench at 9.20 doesn’t mean Nicola went to the bench. The person finding the phone at 9.33 doesn’t mean she had already gone into the water. Surely they would not be giving this 10 minute window based on just guesswork?
 
PS8800 said:
Because mis-adventure is a hard pill to swallow...it always feels majorly avoidable and is just a little "Final Destination"
Think of similar cases of misadventure that were confirmed as such that could have ended SO differently had there been one small difference. It's tough to accept, so we reach.
Click to expand...
it's hard to accept we could die at any time due to a split second decision or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We want it to make sense in our minds. Feel like we have control over our destiny unfortunately we don't. They need it to be the "bad guy" or similar.
 
Mr X said:
My theory was that the dog may have become bored by the MP doing the online conference thing and may have started to seek a play toy. It isn't impossible that a dog harness could be used as a toy. This is a bit out of the ordinary type of systemising but to me it seems plausible the harness was thrown for the dog as a retrieval toy of some sort. It ended up in the water and the owner put the phone down on the bench to go and get the harness back.

I feel it is important to take into account the fact the MP was doing something with the phone. This takes attention away from the dog. I've had dogs in the past (lurchers not spaniels) they do like attention.

There was also a report of the MP being in a jovial mood when seen by a witness. This could be to do with having a good time playing with the dog.

All MOO and just theories.

Of course if the police could confirm the status of the harness when found my theories can be discounted easily. As far as I know there has been no mention of this detail.
Click to expand...
No mention of harness being wet.I would be surprised if harness used as a toy JMO
 
Firstsnow4 said:
Hmmmm…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1623016479984693253
Click to expand...

interesting

a few days ago he said that LE were remiss not to have cordoned it off as a crime scene and now he seems to appreciate that as it's being approached as a MISPER ( not criminal) he appreciates why they haven't sealed it off ( even though LE did a forensic search that morning NB went missing)

edited to add
on his point about not being privy to details involved in the entire investigation. Does he really think that staff on North West Police Underwater team ( partner agency for 5 police forces) are privy to details involved in the entire investigation?
 
GTB72 said:
Garstang Lane is the riverside path leading to the inner/upper field it's not a road. You won't find it on Google Maps. That's the mistake I was making. But if you listen to SI Riley she clearly said Garstang leading to A 586. Garstang Lane is the red dotted line on the screenshot provided.
Click to expand...
thank you
 
In my opinion it was interesting to hear that when asked about the distance searched in the press conference, ‘the point’ of entry was mentioned. Are there any thoughts on how they know the exact point other than guessing that somebody would not move too far away from their phone?
 
Is this a case where satellite imagery could help? Images are taken around every 15 minutes, right? Usually it is not used by LE because it cannot tell one person from another. However, as the misper is thought to have been the only person in the immediate area, depending on when exactly the images were taken it could show her near the waters edge or in the field etc?
 
Dougal said:
Why did PA check ivy dene building before meeting at the village hall for the search ?
Click to expand...
I wonder this. And was he accompanied to do so? Seems a random place to go and search in an entirely different area to where she was seen, abandoned house or not, you’d have to have very local knowledge to know that was there unlike the one over the river. So if he thinks this is a good place to look, why haven't police as well…
 
Mr X said:
My theory was that the dog may have become bored by the MP doing the online conference thing and may have started to seek a play toy. It isn't impossible that a dog harness could be used as a toy. This is a bit out of the ordinary type of systemising but to me it seems plausible the harness was thrown for the dog as a retrieval toy of some sort. It ended up in the water and the owner put the phone down on the bench to go and get the harness back.

I feel it is important to take into account the fact the MP was doing something with the phone. This takes attention away from the dog. I've had dogs in the past (lurchers not spaniels) they do like attention.

There was also a report of the MP being in a jovial mood when seen by a witness. This could be to do with having a good time playing with the dog.

All MOO and just theories.

Of course if the police could confirm the status of the harness when found my theories can be discounted easily. As far as I know there has been no mention of this detail.
Click to expand...
Maybe the dog dumped the harness in the river or dangled it half in.
 
What I don’t quite understand is the talk of this case being particularly “baffling” and that she should have been found by now if she were in the river and that after X days the body should float…

…and yet it seems very common for people who have drowned in rivers, and canals even, not to be recovered for numerous weeks.

So what makes this case different? Is it because there’s such a strong indication of the location should would have fallen in, and that the search started quickly? Or is it really not that different to other cases where it has been difficult to recover a body and talk of it being “baffling” are exaggerated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 206 more.
Total: 2,687 (members: 207, guests: 2,480)

Online statistics

Members online
207
Guests online
2,480
Total visitors
2,687
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,343
Messages
18,003,270
Members
229,371
Latest member
Dayzee
Back
Top