Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire) #12

[kittythehare]

I’ve never had cause or desire to do a search on public land as there’s no need.

But getting back to the River Wyre, which is tidal and runs into the Irish Sea, the riverbed of all tidal rivers (i.e. where a river meets the sea and is affected by the tide) is owned by the Crown.

So, it is not owned by a single person or the caravan site.

Types of searches – Wyre Council

Types of searches

www.wyre.gov.uk

So I think it comes under Common Land and Village Greens.
You were right, it is actually the local authority that holds these records.
The actual search is pay only but is No22 on the link..

 

[Belleville]

Tbh don't need to give a press conference until they have something worthy of saying. As for not needing public help, the police only appeal to the public if they have concrete proof like something on the CCTV (ie the lady in the red coat and the lady pushing a pram). They have over 500 lines of inquiry and won't be asking the public for help and just get down to business. What is happening with the public making statements to the media is not the norm because normally witnesses just tell the police and keep things to themselves, now everyone wants their 15 mins of attention. From Peter Faulding, Emma White, some former detective, the witness who saw 2 fishermen the day before etc Its just getting silly,

Whats wrong with her friend Emma being on camera?

 

[Mr X]

The Crown would have built the weir to control the water levels.

No reason for them to do that.

All it does is make the area below very shallow and adds a bit more water to the area around the Old House.

It is only my opinion and slightly awkward to prove it but I'm convinced it was the land owner as there are several reasons why this would be beneficial to them.

It is not a Weir you can use to control levels it is a fixed barrier to remove the tidal effect and make the river partly tidal which is not therefore tidal which can therefore be claimed as private under riparian ownership rights.

 

[EyeSpyU]

The river is not tidal in this location. The construction of the stone Weir has caused it to become partly tidal which is not the same as it being tidal.

That is the whole point of the Weir.

You’ve answered your own question: the weir was built as the river is tidal and it was built to prevent water levels rising with the ride. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with people using it or going into it. It’s owned by The Crown and is essentially part of the Irish Sea.

Who do you think owns the sea?

 

[nite]

Wyre Day Ticket Adult – St. Michaels Angling Association
re: 'deep hole' near bench...the sonar guy said it's "side to side sonar", wonder if he got it in the hole here or just the normal river bed. If it is a 'hole'? Read somewhere up to 7m deep.

 

[Mr X]

The stone weir was not put there for the reason you’re saying - weirs are built to control water levels.

That one isn't. There are no sluices anywhere on it. It is to break the effect of the tide, provide deeper water above possibly for good fishing sport, prevent boat access upstream from the tidal section, create shallows below the weir to make access more difficult and other reasons why a wealthy land owner would do this. It makes an awful lot of sense.

 

[Mr X]

You’ve answered your own question: the weir was built as the river is tidal and it was built to prevent water levels rising with the ride. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with people using it or going into it. It’s owned by The Crown and is essentially part of the Irish Sea.

Who do you think owns the sea?

We'll have to agree to differ.

Strange fluke isn't it that the water around the fabulously large expensive Old House just happens not to be tidal. Very handy.

It doesn't really stop a lot of water. Only about 2ft as far as I can see. Not going to stop a flood or a storm surge.

 

[EyeSpyU]

We'll have to agree to differ.

Strange fluke isn't it that the water around the fabulously large expensive Old House just happens not to be tidal. Very handy.

It doesn't really stop a lot of water. Only about 2ft as far as I can see. Not going to stop a flood or a storm surge.

<modsnip>

As for the old house, that was probably built long after the damn was built. For all you know the house itself could be owned by aristocracy or a minor Royal. Whoever does own it doesn’t seem interested in occupying it or maintaining it, so I’d imagine they’re extremely wealthy. Believe it or not, many rich people abandon properties they have no desire to live in or maintain as it’s the land that’s worth more than the bricks and mortar. Some old derelict houses are bought for millions, just so they can demolish them and build shiny new riverside apartments or houses for a massive profit.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I just did a search of the Land Registry, and whilst it isn't possible to see all the details without paying for them, what does appear to be the case in this area of the river is that there are many easements and restrictions, suggesting the ownership and right of access etc. is quite complex and shared amongst a number of different people.

 

[WAWAW]

I’ve read conflicting reports to his. Actually, I believe he said it was 3ft deep at the side, but it obviously goes deeper otherwise they wouldn’t have signs warning of deep water. Depths also vary according to the time/day and weather - plus it’s a tidal river. Even if it’s only 3ft deep at the very edge there’s gagged ricks there which could knock you out if you crashed into one headfirst, plus it probably deepens suddenly, hence the danger sign.

Besides that, a professional marine instructor said even if you were to suddenly fall into just a few feet of water, when it’s as cold as the river was that day, the shock to the body would cause an involuntary gasp and you’d inhale water…people have drowned in just inches of water. Accidents happen.

What you are saying is correct and supports the police theory. However, what I don't understand then is the person who found the dog and phone will surely have looked in the river and presumably saw nothing to point to this scenario. From day one the Police have gone all in on a tragic accident and if they are wrong then chief superintendent Riley will be collecting her pension, for her to be right your theory needs to be what happened, for your theory to be true then the person finding the phone and dog didn't look in the water as she'd still be there and I really struggle to see anyone not thinking to look there

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Been thinking…
If this case hadn’t blown up the way it has, would our opinion be that Nicola sadly fell into the river as is the outcome of many missing persons cases where water is involved?

I’m wondering if the public and media hype around Nicola’s disappearance has made us over think the circumstances and come up with theories that are unlikely when compared to an accident near water.

I know I’ve been suspicious and believed that there could be some foul play involved. But when you sit back and look at the facts, it does point more to a simple accident than to a third party coming along and harming or abducting Nicola in broad daylight when a dog walker could pass by at any moment.

It could have been something as simple as Willow being near the water, Nicola going to put the harness on ready to walk back to the car and stumbling or tripping, Willow could have then dropped the harness so that being on the ground does not seem too suspicious to me.

I feel like public speculation may have blown this all out of proportion and encouraged even more gossip and theories. If this case wasn’t in the media and we were just discussing it on WS then we’d most likely be of the opinion that Nicola is in the river. We know from other cases that bodies can be discovered months later so then not finding her doesn’t really mean that she isn’t there.

We’ve followed many cases over the years where the media get carried away and encourage public speculation when the outcome is really the most likely. And also followed cases similar to this one that don’t get much media attention, which end up being a tragic accident.

There are some parts of this story I find strange and possibly suspicious. However, for the most part it appears more likely to be a lady who took her dog a walk after the school run and sadly ended up in the water after a fall or medical episode. If we ignore the media hype and just look at the initial circumstances, are they really that suspicious? Or have we built it up in our minds to be criminal after media and social media have made it into something nefarious?

All MOO

 

[WAWAW]

I'd like to ask a couple of questions of people to try and improve my understanding of human behaviour and to increase my knowledge of rivers and specifically of bodies in them and what happens to them in shortish timescales.
It in no way infers guilt on anyone, it is intended to question the hypothesis that this is an accident.
Question 1
If you found Willow and the phone that day with no owner in sight would you check the river
Question 2 is more difficult for me due to lack of knowledge
If you checked the river would you expect to see a body if it had entered the water in the last 13 minutes

If the answer to the second one is yes then I can't see the police hypothesis is right

 

[Cranky]

Further upstream there is a big brick wall between some of the Rowan water site and the river path. There's also the matter of the bridge which looks like it may be for someone to use to get to the other side but not the general public. The storm drain also looks much bigger up close. I did post a link to the river bank from google maps further back but I can post it again if anyone wants to see. You can only see the edge of the brick wall in this photo. There are more benches too. Thought photos might help in the riverbank/path discussion

 

[EyeSpyU]

What you are saying is correct and supports the police theory. However, what I don't understand then is the person who found the dog and phone will surely have looked in the river and presumably saw nothing to point to this scenario. From day one the Police have gone all in on a tragic accident and if they are wrong then chief superintendent Riley will be collecting her pension, for her to be right your theory needs to be what happened, for your theory to be true then the person finding the phone and dog didn't look in the water as she'd still be there and I really struggle to see anyone not thinking to look there

The last confirmed sighting of NB was at 09:10

The police know by having had technical specialists inspect her phone that she was on that bench and put her phone on that bench shortly after that.

She would have been throwing sticks or suchlike to keep Willow entertained whilst listening in to her work call. At around 09:20 something occurred which caused her to stand up. The most obvious cause would be Willow. She either went inside some bushes or too near the water. Whatever, that’s the approximate time she IMO tumbled into the river and went under. Thirteen minutes later the caravan park lady passed by and noticed Willow distressed. She may well have glanced at the river, but she wouldn’t have seen NB if she’d drowned as she’d have been under the water on the riverbed, not moving, and being dressed in dark blue and black clothing there’d be no sight of her beneath the dark muddy river.

IMO this is the most obvious scenario.

The scenario some people talk of, saying maybe she was abducted by a man, maybe two men, would mean when they supposedly bundled her off, struggling, screaming and Willow frantically barking, the caravan lady who was right in the vicinity never saw then, never heard screaming, never heard shouting, never heard frantic barking, never heard footsteps - and never saw a thing. And all in broad daylight. And there was no traces of a struggle, drag marks, blood stains, phone cutting off, no forensics of strange fingerprints, footprints, hairs, fibres, unknown phone signals, no cctv of an abduction, and not one single other person saw or heard anything violent, either….

 

[Sillybilly]

26 posts removed because the OP didn't provide a link, didn't provide a link when asked, and a whack of responses refuting the OP didn't include links either. This all could have been avoided if the OP had included a link or the first member to refute had included a link.

IF YOU STATE SOMETHING AS FACT YOU MUST PROVIDE A LINK. NO LINK, NO POST !!

 

[Blondiexoxo]

Also have noticed that there are lots of people on social media and online in general who don’t usually follow cases the way we do here at WS and therefore are less likely to understand how many disappearances with similar circumstances have no criminal involvement atall.
Some of the outrageous theories and accusations I’ve seen are disgusting imo.

These people are bashing the police but they deal with missing persons cases every day, they know what indicates suspicious circumstances and what doesn’t imo.

Any time there’s a high profile case all the expert detectives come out the woodwork and create drama. Not everything is something out of a Netflix documentary. Majority of the time occams razor applies and especially when a person disappears near water in a small window of time in broad daylight, the most obvious theory is probably the correct one MOO.

 

[Emmalt]

I'm sure it has been mentioned and also searched, but the area she was last seen by a witnesses (the older couple) in the upper field, Nicola's dog was barking at the trees which is how the couple noticed her being there, has this area been searched? What was willow barking at? Did she see/hear something? Obviously, she may be a very vocal dog and we don't know, but dogs generally bark to alert you to something.



I'm just not sure she got any further from this field as she wasn't seen again from this point. I'm not sure how open the field is where she was last seen, but it looks pretty secluded in some places. I don't know how far it is to get back to the bench area or if she would have taken a different exit, but she wasn't seen on the route back from the top field. I know with her phone and dog being found at the bench, this is where the search started, but after witnesses came forward to say where they saw her, why didn't they move the search to the upper field? Maybe they did?

 

[EyeSpyU]

Types of searches – Wyre Council

Types of searches

www.wyre.gov.uk

So I think it comes under Common Land and Village Greens.
You were right, it is actually the local authority that holds these records.
The actual search is pay only but is No22 on the link..

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Cranky]

I'm also wondering in light of the PSPO that was posted regarding the riverbank - maybe the caravan park owner has been of the receiving end of some aggro or a visit from the police advising her that guest's dogs must be kept on a lead? That could explain her questions when booking relating to dogs? We had a very friendly labrador that loved finding fishermen and having a rummage through their tackle boxes for bait or their packed lunch. As soon as we saw anyone fishing in the distance he went straight on the lead.

To add to the dog in the water debate ours did jump in the canal but only once. He couldn't get out and I had to lie on the floor and pull him out by the collar. He never jumped in again even though he loved water so obviously they remember things like getting stuck.

 

[Mr X]

I agree with the scenario about her simply slipping down the River bank and ending up in the deep hole. If it was frosty it would have been like a ski slope. No chance and probably no marks left either. If she fell into deep water which according to the fishing map is to the right side looking from the bench then it would be very serious. Perhaps this is why the writing on the sign is in red.

IMO most likely and the PF sonar guy said this as well but also said it had been searched.

I think if searching somewhere like that you have to get everything out. Completely clear the deep area with grappling hooks. Nothing left behind.