Found Deceased UK - Nicola Bulley Last Seen Walking Dog Near River - St Michaels on Wyre (Lancashire), Jan 2023 #18

[shinimeggie]

Good spot.does that imply there is nothing to suggest Nicola delivered them to school

I really don't think that's what they mean by changing their words.

 

[Lyndaloo]

Fly zone of unmanned aircraft been introduced over st michaels on Wyre later today, perhaps to hold Nicolas funeral & stop drones filming or something else connected to the case that they don’t want going viral?

https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats/export/sites/default/en/Publications/briefing-sheets/BRIEFING-SHEET-RESTRICTION-OF-FLYING-REGULATIONS-ST-MICHAELS-ON-WYRE-LANCASHIRE-8-MARCH-2023.pdf

 

[Bibitty]

Fly zone of unmanned aircraft been introduced over st michaels on Wyre later today, perhaps to hold Nicolas funeral & stop drones filming or something else connected to the case that they don’t want going viral?

https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats/export/sites/default/en/Publications/briefing-sheets/BRIEFING-SHEET-RESTRICTION-OF-FLYING-REGULATIONS-ST-MICHAELS-ON-WYRE-LANCASHIRE-8-MARCH-2023.pdf

I hope the family and friends are afforded the privacy and dignity they deserve to support their heartbreak.

 

[WAWAW]

I hope the family and friends are afforded the privacy and dignity they deserve to support their heartbreak.

Yes I hope so as well.
I've got to give huge credit to those that knew Nicola, and those involved in the investigation for their steadfast refusal to cash in on the media frenzy.
I'm sure sections of our media will have offered friends of hers, colleagues of hers and those people involved that fateful day considerable sums of money for tales about her, yet nothing has come out and credit to them for that.

 

[Simplistic67]

On the official Facebook page for Lancashire Police dated the 4th of February at 4:09am, they released an update. In this update it states "Nicola, 45, was last seen on Friday morning (January 27th) at around 9.20am on the footpath by the river off Garstang Road".
Are they saying that she was seen by a witness after the phone reached the bench ?

I'm going try and explain something and I do hope you understand what I'm saying. Like I said before, Im not the best at typing what Im thinking...

Has the, in his 70s year old man whom was walking a small white dog changed his account or am I missing something. He stated he saw Nicola in the upper field at 9.10am. It now appears that possibly the same witness spotted her at 9.20 on the path next to the river...I hope this link helps

Last person to see Nicola Bulley on walk shares impression amid alcohol issues

Nicola Bulley went missing last month during a riverside dog walk in St Michael's on Wyre and journalist Isla Traquair said she spoke with a dog walker who had seen her before her disappearance

www.mirror.co.uk

“I also spoke to probably the last person to see her alive – one of the other dog walkers and I asked him how was she?

“They had a little exchange as he was coming along the path about the dog and the lead, etc. He said she was fine.”

Same person or another Male witness ?

 

[shinimeggie]

I'm going try and explain something and I do hope you understand what I'm saying. Like I said before, Im not the best at typing what Im thinking...

Has the, in his 70s year old man whom was walking a small white dog changed his account or am I missing something. He stated he saw Nicola in the upper field at 9.10am. It now appears that possibly the same witness spotted her at 9.20 on the path next to the river...I hope this link helps

Last person to see Nicola Bulley on walk shares impression amid alcohol issues

Nicola Bulley went missing last month during a riverside dog walk in St Michael's on Wyre and journalist Isla Traquair said she spoke with a dog walker who had seen her before her disappearance

www.mirror.co.uk

“I also spoke to probably the last person to see her alive – one of the other dog walkers and I asked him how was she?

“They had a little exchange as he was coming along the path about the dog and the lead, etc. He said she was fine.”

Same person or another Male witness ?

We don't know, and it's not our right to know IMO.

 

[PeggyHenry]

I'm going try and explain something and I do hope you understand what I'm saying. Like I said before, Im not the best at typing what Im thinking...

Has the, in his 70s year old man whom was walking a small white dog changed his account or am I missing something. He stated he saw Nicola in the upper field at 9.10am. It now appears that possibly the same witness spotted her at 9.20 on the path next to the river...I hope this link helps

Last person to see Nicola Bulley on walk shares impression amid alcohol issues

Nicola Bulley went missing last month during a riverside dog walk in St Michael's on Wyre and journalist Isla Traquair said she spoke with a dog walker who had seen her before her disappearance

www.mirror.co.uk

“I also spoke to probably the last person to see her alive – one of the other dog walkers and I asked him how was she?

“They had a little exchange as he was coming along the path about the dog and the lead, etc. He said she was fine.”

Same person or another Male witness ?

In my understanding there were always reported to be two witnesses during the walk. The one who saw her in the lower field before 9am and had a brief exchange with her and the witness who observed her from a distance walking in upper field.

I assumed the first witness was female as I am sure the media report referred to the witness as a she…. The second saw her from a distance.

Why is this so unclear? If, as the police say, there is no third party then the witness info should be very clear. There is so much confusion, almost as if there is a deliberate intent to muddy the waters

 

[Davieson]

In my understanding there were always reported to be two witnesses during the walk. The one who saw her in the lower field before 9am and had a brief exchange with her and the witness who observed her from a distance walking in upper field.

I assumed the first witness was female as I am sure the media report referred to the witness as a she…. The second saw her from a distance.

Why is this so unclear? If, as the police say, there is no third party then the witness info should be very clear. There is so much confusion, almost as if there is a deliberate intent to muddy the waters

Police asked for witnesses. Witnesses came forward.
Why should anyone expect to know more?
The inquest will no doubt clarify matters

 

[pineapple23]

DBM double post

 

[pineapple23]

In my understanding there were always reported to be two witnesses during the walk. The one who saw her in the lower field before 9am and had a brief exchange with her and the witness who observed her from a distance walking in upper field.

I assumed the first witness was female as I am sure the media report referred to the witness as a she…. The second saw her from a distance.

Why is this so unclear? If, as the police say, there is no third party then the witness info should be very clear. There is so much confusion, almost as if there is a deliberate intent to muddy the waters

Personally I would put any inconsistencies down to human error. For me, a 'deliberate attempt to muddy the waters' is a step too far into conspiracy land. I'm reassured that this case will be gone over with a fine tooth comb and anything glaringly wrong will be picked up. JMO

 

[shinimeggie]

<snipped for focus>

Why is this so unclear? If, as the police say, there is no third party then the witness info should be very clear. There is so much confusion, almost as if there is a deliberate intent to muddy the waters

Who would be doing that? Why? How?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

In my understanding there were always reported to be two witnesses during the walk. The one who saw her in the lower field before 9am and had a brief exchange with her and the witness who observed her from a distance walking in upper field.

I assumed the first witness was female as I am sure the media report referred to the witness as a she…. The second saw her from a distance.

Why is this so unclear? If, as the police say, there is no third party then the witness info should be very clear. There is so much confusion, almost as if there is a deliberate intent to muddy the waters

I’m quite sure the police aren’t confused. They will know the movements and timings of all the witness; what they saw and where they walked and also what they didn’t see. Not everything is suspicious or a mystery. Not every death is a crime.

 

[Telltale]

I'm not sure why you quoted my post in what you've posted here but just to clarify, the police can't 'section' anybody anywhere, they aren't qualified to do so. There is a part of police procedure which is called 'removing someone to a place of safety' and is not the same as sectioning someone.

https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/police-and-mental-health/sections-135-136/#:~:text=Section%20136%20allows%20the%20police,household%20has%20access%20to%2C%20AND

Well it gets called sectioning (or 136ing). Probably because what usually happens is an officer says "I am sectioning you under 136 of the Mental Health Act." Then proceeds to deprive that person of their liberty and cart them off to 'a place of safety' be seen by MH professionals while they fill out paperwork. - they consultant a MH professional first - if it is practicable to do so - if it ain't, they retain the full power to make that determination themselves

I mean, if you want to get really semantic, nobody gets 'sectioning powers' because 'sectioning' someone is an entirely informal term and is not used at all in the Mental Health Act. - Well apart from for the sections of course.


I was generally clearing up some misconceptions I had seen being picked up on the thread. Your post was quoted because it was the easiest way to 'clarify' that in a situation where a welfare check was done in a hypothetical home/dwelling, the police would have no powers to remove a person suffering from a MH crisis then and there. A home is considered a place of safety. If needed, Police usually call ambulance who have so such restrictions.

Though I did make a mistake. Paramedics do not use section 135, (which does allow police to remove someone from a home, but requires a magistrates warrant.) They use their powers under the Mental Capacity Act which is it's own involved process (and not suited to one ride along MH practitioner to manage themselves.) Police of course can provide the backup if the 'sectioned' person is potentially violent on the cartride up.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Well it gets called sectioning (or 136ing). Probably because what usually happens is an officer says "I am sectioning you under 136 of the Mental Health Act." Then proceeds to deprive that person of their liberty and cart them off to 'a place of safety' be seen by MH professionals while they fill out paperwork. - they consultant a MH professional first - if it is practicable to do so - if it ain't, they retain the full power to make that determination themselves

I mean, if you want to get really semantic, nobody gets 'sectioning powers' because 'sectioning' someone is an entirely informal term and is not used at all in the Mental Health Act. - Well apart from for the sections of course.


I was generally clearing up some misconceptions I had seen being picked up on the thread. Your post was quoted because it was the easiest way to 'clarify' that in a situation where a welfare check was done in a hypothetical home/dwelling, the police would have no powers to remove a person suffering from a MH crisis then and there. A home is considered a place of safety. If needed, Police usually call ambulance who have so such restrictions.

Though I did make a mistake. Paramedics do not use section 135, (which does allow police to remove someone from a home, but requires a magistrates warrant.) They use their powers under the Mental Capacity Act which is it's own involved process (and not suited to one ride along MH practitioner to manage themselves.) Police of course can provide the backup if the 'sectioned' person is potentially violent on the cartride up.

I agree with you but when the police remove someone to a place of safety it can be for scores of reasons that have nothing to do with someone's mental health and they can for example bring that person to a lock up cell or take them to A&E or back to their home or go to a relatives house etc. That is a police power governed by UK legislation and PACE.

However, when a mental health professional works together with other agencies (one of whom may be the police), then the mental health professional can now section someone under the mental health act in a way that far swifter and relaxed than in the past (where previously it took the opinion of two doctors). The laws on how this can be conducted and by whom were so dramatically altered during covid times that one would need to check what the current situation is. That is a medical power governed by the Mental Health Act 1983 (updated 2007) and is nothing to do with the powers of the police although often the police do need to assist.

Very rarely do medical professionals nowadays wish to section someone under the mental health act, they prefer to ask someone to voluntarily comply and regardless even if someone is really ill they don't have bed space in wards or treatment centres. So usually the Crisis Team would be triggered if someone's in a mental health crisis and they'd visit or telephone several times per day.

 

[Simplistic67]

We don't know, and it's not our right to know IMO.

But if it is the same person then they wouldnt be a credible witness IMO. Im just trying to figure out how the Police are absolutely 100% sure Nicola went into the water.
Those 10 minutes are the most important part of this, IMO mystery...
The wording of the phone "approaching" the bench at this critical time is also, IMO mysterious

 

[shinimeggie]

But if it is the same person then they wouldnt be a credible witness IMO. Im just trying to figure out how the Police are absolutely 100% sure Nicola went into the water.
Those 10 minutes are the most important part of this, IMO mystery...
The wording of the phone "approaching" the bench at this critical time is also, IMO mysterious

The fact she was found in the water is a huge clue.

I also believe the police know what they're doing as far as witnesses are concerned, including credibility, as well as understanding the timeline and the movement of the phone.

It's just not information we're fully told about, as it shouldn't be -- especially when it involves other people. We've already heard of witnesses shown in grainy CCTV being tracked down and being annoyed -- in the politest term -- online by random people.

 

[HelenK]

On the official Facebook page for Lancashire Police dated the 4th of February at 4:09am, they released an update. In this update it states "Nicola, 45, was last seen on Friday morning (January 27th) at around 9.20am on the footpath by the river off Garstang Road".
Are they saying that she was seen by a witness after the phone reached the bench ?

This is perplexing. It's stated generally in the paragraphs above the definitive timeline, but not in the timeline itself. I'm inclined to think that it's simply a mistake. As such, though, it's a fairly significant one.

 

[Nikynoo]

But if it is the same person then they wouldnt be a credible witness IMO. Im just trying to figure out how the Police are absolutely 100% sure Nicola went into the water.
Those 10 minutes are the most important part of this, IMO mystery...
The wording of the phone "approaching" the bench at this critical time is also, IMO mysterious

I am just specualting here, but I would imagine that the PM would have given an indication how long the bosy had been in the water.

If you post means 'how did the police know at the time the investigations started' - then I would suggest that it is because of what they found at the scene. I suggest this because that was the correct theory as NB was found in the river.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

The wording of the phone "approaching" the bench at this critical time is also, IMO mysterious

The phone's GPS is what shows it "approaching" the bench, it can't be more precise than that, the bench isn't something that has exact data like a street etc. MOO that is how my tracking and my Fitbit tracking work also.
It would seem that no one on WS has access to all of LE's investigation and witness statements. I don't think LE is concerned with (or able) to provide the minutia of information that would satisfy those that not trust the investigation.

 

[JennieM]

Like another poster said the police is not confused. LE is satisfied with the information it has and the eye witnesses' accounts. All of which support LE's original working hypothesis that Nicola entered the water. Whether accidental or intentional, it is none of our business! She has been found, which is what we all wanted. Let's let her rest in peace.

LE has made it clear there is absolutely nothing to suggest 3rd party involvement. As far as LE is concerned there is no mystery.

We are not privy to all the information the LE has and nor should we be.