Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley, 45, last seen walking her dog on footpath by the river, Inskip, Lancashire, 27 Jan 2023

[Grouse]

Yes this is how I understand it also. I feel the phone and leash/harness must have been found by this person, maybe the ID on willow only had NB details on and maybe that is why the school never contacted NB and why PA never called/text NB because they all knew the phone wasn’t with her. Maybe this was the urgency.

I thought the police found the phone? So that was after the 999 call was made. If it was on silent though they may have all tried to ring her to no avail.

 

[Edinlass]

I thought the police found the phone? So that was after the 999 call was made. If it was on silent though they may have all tried to ring her to no avail.

Did they? Oh I am so confused now. Not sure it has been confirmed who found what.

 

[Grouse]

Did they? Oh I am so confused now. Not sure it has been confirmed who found what.

From the Sun article "Cops arrived at the scene around 10.30am and found Nicola’s mobile phone on the bench with her work call still active, along with Willow’s leash."

 

[Grouse]

If the dog-finder found Willow near the bench, she would surely ring NB/PA before contacting the school. Using either the number in her own phone because she is friends with them or using the number on Willow’s ID disc.

So she should hear NB’s phone ringing on the bench near her (unless on silent ring mode) and find the phone & harness, or she should get through to PA’s phone. So why involve the school?

Am I confusing this?

Would Willow have been wearing an ID disc if the harness was on the bench? Think you may be right about silent mode though, could explain the urgency if people were trying to call her.

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

It seems 'some people' have the harness off as per usual when in that area.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02X7absq1AQmJajjStJ41J35fyprGrtxWui41ph6i11puFt3Uukqrs3RehaWp2kb3Kl&id=6149699161

Going over it now, my thoughts have changed again. NB lets dog off, sits down on bench, engages in the phone, then maybe suddenly she sees the dog attracted by a bird on the water or something and is about to go after it, she calls it back but doesn't pay attention, so puts down phone, dashes to river edge, in so doing slips on the wet mud and grass and goes in, is dragged down by weight of clothes and can't get a purchase on anything to pull her up, meanwhile dog scampers back and waits near bench for her.

 

[elliefant]

Would Willow have been wearing an ID disc if the harness was on the bench? Think you may be right about silent mode though, could explain the urgency if people were trying to call her.

My dogs’ discs are on their collars so that they are wearing the discs even without the harness. IME that is quite usual, but I don’t know for sure for Willow of course.

 

[Edinlass]

Photo from NB FB of willow with harness/leash on.

 

[Grouse]

My dogs’ discs are on their collars so that they are wearing the discs even without the harness. IME that is quite usual, but I don’t know for sure for Willow of course.

OK thanks, hadn't heard mention of a separate collar but sounds sensible to do that (I guess when at home without harness on if the dog escapes from the garden or something)

 

[WhoIsThatGuy]

A few more thoughts.

All it would have taken is for NB to log on to the conference call and be seen on video or heard audibly to change the perception of what has happened. How many people have similar zoom / virtual meetings. Even if you are not on video, it is common business courtesy to say good morning collectively and a little ice breaker. NB allegedly logged on to this call at 9.01am, suggesting it had a start time between 9am – 9:15am. If the meeting was to start at 9am, by that point NB had been 1 minute late. May seem minor, but her last alleged sighting was 9:15am, leaving a 14 minute window, where it is believed she was not seen or heard on the call once.

NB phone and dog lead are later found at bench with dog.

There is as much evidence for NB being in the river as there is for a spaceship beaming her up on the spot off of the bench. There is equally as much evidence for her being abducted or being attacked. There is equally as much evidence as NB ever being on or taking the dog for a walk in the first place, other than her phone and dog being physically present.

NB and her allegedly logging on to that work meeting at 9:01am, at least on the face of it, and how it would look to the police early in the investigation, combined with an alleged witness sighting, would indicate to the police that NB was, at the very least, alive between 9:01am and 9:15am.

I think there is a massive issue with this for the following reasons. There is no evidence whatsoever that NB was ever where her phone, dog and dog lead were found. There is no evidence whatsoever that it was actually NB who logged on to that work meeting. I think the police really need to zoom on these two things, and until they can prove either true or false either way, it really needs looking at more closely.

There are many problems with potential witness sightings, too many to list.

A few examples:

• Witness is elderly
• Witness has any vision impairment
• Witness has any drug issues
• Witness is associated with someone the police suspect has involvement

The Police need dashcam, doorbell or CCTV footage ASAP in my opinion to prove NB was ever there in my opinion.

 

[Becky53]

Both my hoonds have discs on collars and harnesses but that’s besides the point they still probably wouldn’t go to you if they didn’t know you that well.

Aquaintance saw Willow running free and couldn’t see Nicola around and to me they knew this was unusual so telephoned school as they knew her children went there.

 

[Suspicious S]

I can only guess that someone grabbed her and dragged her somewhere, forcing her to leave her phone and her dog. The area she was going on these regular walks in looked very desolate and with wooded areas someone could lurk behind waiting for an unsuspecting victim, then drag said victim into undergrowth. Then of course there is all of the water surrounding it. These are NB's own photos posted on Facebook where she herself even described her walk as "spooky". I get a very unsettling air about these photographs. Also, if someone had been stalking her online, they may have got to know her routines this way and lay in wait for her. I hope she is OK but it doesn't seem likely she will be found alive at this point in time.

 

[tedtink]

A few more thoughts.

All it would have taken is for NB to log on to the conference call and be seen on video or heard audibly to change the perception of what has happened. How many people have similar zoom / virtual meetings. Even if you are not on video, it is common business courtesy to say good morning collectively and a little ice breaker. NB allegedly logged on to this call at 9.01am, suggesting it had a start time between 9am – 9:15am. If the meeting was to start at 9am, by that point NB had been 1 minute late. May seem minor, but her last alleged sighting was 9:15am, leaving a 14 minute window, where it is believed she was not seen or heard on the call once.

NB phone and dog lead are later found at bench with dog.

There is as much evidence for NB being in the river as there is for a spaceship beaming her up on the spot off of the bench. There is equally as much evidence for her being abducted or being attacked. There is equally as much evidence as NB ever being on or taking the dog for a walk in the first place, other than her phone and dog being physically present.

NB and her allegedly logging on to that work meeting at 9:01am, at least on the face of it, and how it would look to the police early in the investigation, combined with an alleged witness sighting, would indicate to the police that NB was, at the very least, alive between 9:01am and 9:15am.

I think there is a massive issue with this for the following reasons. There is no evidence whatsoever that NB was ever where her phone, dog and dog lead were found. There is no evidence whatsoever that it was actually NB who logged on to that work meeting. I think the police really need to zoom on these two things, and until they can prove either true or false either way, it really needs looking at more closely.

There are many problems with potential witness sightings, too many to list.

A few examples:

• Witness is elderly
• Witness has any vision impairment
• Witness has any drug issues
• Witness is associated with someone the police suspect has involvement

The Police need dashcam, doorbell or CCTV footage ASAP in my opinion to prove NB was ever there in my opinion.

Forensics would have been through her phone. I guess we could assume that if she unlocked her phone with her fingerprint at 9am, they can say, BARD, that it was her on the conf call. But like you say, we have no evidence, but can only speculate on what we've been told.

 

[MsMiniSleuth]

Her poor children. It must be absolutely devastating.

Search teams looking for missing dog walker searched abandoned house

 

[WhoIsThatGuy]

Forensics would have been through her phone. I guess we could assume that if she unlocked her phone with her fingerprint at 9am, they can say, BARD, that it was her on the conf call. But like you say, we have no evidence, but can only speculate on what we've been told.

1. Phone may not have required fingerprint to open phone.
2. Phone could have had a code to unlock the phone.
3. Phone may not have had any security procedeure required to unlock phone.
4. If NB was never in that vicinity in the first place as per my theory, the phone, dog and lead would have deliberately left there to misdirect the police in the ensuing investigation and provide the perp with an alibi that, at the very least, NB was still alive at 9:01am, as indicated by the her being on the call.
EDIT: 5. Someone may have known said code to unlock phone.

Just a few thoughts as I said.

 

[tedtink]

1. Phone may not have required fingerprint to open phone.
2. Phone could have had a code to unlock the phone.
3. Phone may not have had any security to unlock.
4. If NB was never in that vicinity in the first place as per my theory, the phone, dog and lead would have deliberately left there to misdirect the police in the ensuing investigation and provide the perp with an alibi that, at the very least, NB was still alive at 9:01am, as indicated by the her being on the call.

Just a few thoughts as I said.

So what's your theory?

 

[WhoIsThatGuy]

1. Phone may not have required fingerprint to open phone.
2. Phone could have had a code to unlock the phone.
3. Phone may not have had any security procedeure required to unlock phone.
4. If NB was never in that vicinity in the first place as per my theory, the phone, dog and lead would have deliberately left there to misdirect the police in the ensuing investigation and provide the perp with an alibi that, at the very least, NB was still alive at 9:01am, as indicated by the her being on the call.
EDIT: 5. Someone may have known said code to unlock phone.

Just a few thoughts as I said.

So what's your theory?

I think two things:

1. She isn't in the river
2. She wasn't even there in the dog walk/park/woods/green area in the first place.

Until she was even definitively proven to be there, I cannot entertain or use energy to think about her potentially being in the river.

 

[JuicyLucy]

Yeah it's the jump to ringing 999 straight away...it doesn't seem a normal reaction to someone finding their dog loose. Something bigger going on imo

I don't necessarily have a problem with this, assuming good faith on the part of the person who found the dog. If the person on the spot made an assumption that NB had gone into the water, the information that drove the 999 call would have been of a possible drowning in progress rather than a missing report. The nature of the emergency - as reported - would then account for why the police sprang into action so much more quickly than is usual for a report of a competent adult being temporarily unaccounted for.

JMO

 

[geddis]

I share your scepticism over NB ever being near the river but that carries a couple of problems. First of all her children can presumably confirm that she dropped them off at school around 8.45am, as reported in the Daily Mail. If her phone and the dog were planted at the scene within half an hour, that means any person wishing her harm had to do so within a very short time frame without being seen, then still find time to lay a false trail.

 

[Officer Dibble]

In this PC, she says she is not sure how NB got from her home in Inskip to St Michael’s - so we don’t know if she took the car, if she got a lift or if she took public transport. The police maybe do know but are not letting the public know at the moment as it may form part of the investigation. JMO.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1620063232273653761

She said NB had ankle length wellies on. They are quite slippery in mud. Also would fill with water quickly if went in water. JMO MOO

 

[geddis]

Further to my earlier post, we only know that her dog was spotted around 10.15am so any false trail being laid could in theory have happened within a 90 minute period. But if it transpires NB was not a victim of falling into the river- and we can assume the surrounding woodland has been well searched- then it's hard to see how any person involved in foul play would have the ability to remove her effectively from the scene and then take the chance of returning there with a dog laying a false trail.