• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Nicola Bulley, missing persons case

Nessie

Penultimate Amazing
Nessie
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
16,020
The news and social media has exploded over the disappearance of a lady Nicola Bulley, who was walking her dog next to the river Wyre in England, 9 days ago and has not been seen since. The dog, its harness and her phone were found at or next to a bench, next to the fast flowing, deep river. There is a ten minute gap between the last sighting of her and her going missing.

The police are being criticised for concentrating on searching the river and supposedly not looking for her elsewhere, though it is clear that after 9 days, with all the publicity and no witness, dash cam or CCTV sightings, that she is unlikely to have walked off elsewhere, leaving her dog and phone behind.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-64522796

That leaves she has faked her disappearance and kidnapping left, but there is no evidence for either. I think it is reasonable for the police to concentrate all resources on searching the river.
 
Did I not read that she was on a work conference call while walking her dog? She had switched off her camera and microphone and was (presumably) just listening to the discussion. When they found her phone it was still connected to the call.

My feeling is that she sat on the bench to concentrate on the call. Then what? A sudden attack of suicidality and she jumped in the river? Someone came along unseen by and CCTV and pushed her in? Or abducted her?

Alien abduction using an invisible flying saucer?
 
Leaving her phone on the bench is odd. There is speculation that the dog got into trouble in the water, she tried to help and got into trouble herself. This could explain the phone. Also, the dog's harness was off, suggesting she was expecting it to go for a swim.

I'm guessing they'll find her body in the river.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
How do they know?
Click to expand...

Last sighting vs. the time the phone was found?

Not "the nearest minute" for sure, but nobody's claiming that.
 
Last edited:
From what I read, she called into a work conference call at 9.01 and was seen by witnesses in the park while the call was still going. The call ended at 9.30 but she didn't sign out of the meeting. Her phone was found on the bench and her dog wandering around at 9.35. Therefore she went missing between the witnesses seeing her during the call and the call ending, although I thought that was 20 mins because the account I saw stated the last witness sighting was at 9.10.


The theory the police seem to be favouring is that she fell in the river, perhaps while trying to retrieve her dog's ball.
 
If you look at the thread about the disappearance of Suzanne Pilley (in Trials and Errors) you'll see the sequential CCTV sightings of her in Edinburgh city centre, right up to her approaching the entrance door to her office, except she never made it as far as her desk. That's an even tighter time window, and it nailed the murderer.
 
zooterkin said:
What’s so strange about it?
Click to expand...

The way it's phrased.

She was last seen at time X

At X+1, she was not seen.

At X+2, she was not seen.

At X+3, she was not seen.

...

At X+15, she was not seen.

At X+25, she was not seen.

Etc.

How does one go about deciding which arbitrary X+n moment marks the moment when she goes from "not seen" to "missing"? Especially if you haven't seen her for several minutes.

It's not like they asked her dog, and he said, "well, she was here at X+9, and gone at X+11, so I guess it was around X+10 that she went missing."
 
theprestige said:
The way it's phrased.

She was last seen at time X

At X+1, she was not seen.

At X+2, she was not seen.

At X+3, she was not seen.

...

At X+15, she was not seen.

At X+25, she was not seen.

Etc.

How does one go about deciding which arbitrary X+n moment marks the moment when she goes from "not seen" to "missing"? Especially if you haven't seen her for several minutes.

It's not like they asked her dog, and he said, "well, she was here at X+9, and gone at X+11, so I guess it was around X+10 that she went missing."
Click to expand...

The time she became 'missing' was when the dog, harness and phone were found. She went missing in the window between last sighting and that. Nobody is claiming a precise minute in this case.
 
theprestige said:
How does one go about deciding which arbitrary X+n moment marks the moment when she goes from "not seen" to "missing"? Especially if you haven't seen her for several minutes.

It's not like they asked her dog, and he said, "well, she was here at X+9, and gone at X+11, so I guess it was around X+10 that she went missing."
Click to expand...


They mean, she was seen without any sign of a problem at time X. At time Y it was discovered that she was not where she should have been if there was no problem.

It's the same with Suzanne Pilley. She was last seen at time X walking towards the front door of her office, exactly as we would have expected her to be doing at that time. At time Y she was not at her desk, although she had plenty of time to get from the front door to her desk.

In each case, we know nothing was wrong at time X, and we know something was wrong at time Y. So something happened between X and Y.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Nessie literally claims a precise minute.
Click to expand...

Nessie has just phrased it slightly awkwardly. The time she went missing can't possibly be identified in this case, unless someone noticed her dematerialising. She was known to be missing 10 minutes after the last sighting, that's all.

I'd go so far as to say it's daft to say Nessie has made the claim you attribute to him/her.
 
She was apparently wearing a Fitbit, but I've seen no statement as to whether that provides any information about her location or health at any point.

Also slightly odd, she signed into a Teams call at 9:01, but no mention of whether she was heard to speak during it and, if so, when.
 
Elaedith said:
From what I read, she called into a work conference call at 9.01 and was seen by witnesses in the park while the call was still going. The call ended at 9.30 but she didn't sign out of the meeting. Her phone was found on the bench and her dog wandering around at 9.35. Therefore she went missing between the witnesses seeing her during the call and the call ending, although I thought that was 20 mins because the account I saw stated the last witness sighting was at 9.10.


The theory the police seem to be favouring is that she fell in the river, perhaps while trying to retrieve her dog's ball.
Click to expand...

Was the dog wet?

What were the nearby conditions of the river?
Depth, current?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
She was apparently wearing a Fitbit, but I've seen no statement as to whether that provides any information about her location or health at any point.

Also slightly odd, she signed into a Teams call at 9:01, but no mention of whether she was heard to speak during it and, if so, when.
Click to expand...

I saw a report (I think on the BBC) saying that she was muted but her camera was on during the call. That seemed bizarre since there was no mention of what her colleagues saw during the call. It might have been a mistake in the report, unless the police are keeping something back.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Was the dog wet?
Click to expand...

Not according to this report.

Shortly before 9am on the day she disappeared, Bulley emailed her boss and then logged into a Microsoft Teams call. That meeting ended at 9.30am, but she remained logged on.

Roughly five minutes later, on a bench by the riverside about 150 metres away from the Wyreside Farm caravan park on the edge of the village, a fellow dog walker found Bulley’s phone and Willow, alone, dry.

...
Willow was described as a brown-coloured spaniel, who was found close to where police believe Bulley was last seen. They said Willow was dry when found, apparently ruling out the possibility she went into the river after her dog.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sad case (and and a bit close to home for me). Even sadder is the way the media are playing off some family members’ social media refusals to accept the police theory. Nothing wrong with clinging onto hope, I just hope those people don’t become entangled with the inevitable internet sleuths who’ll never have any answers.
 
GlennB said:
Nessie has just phrased it slightly awkwardly. The time she went missing can't possibly be identified in this case, unless someone noticed her dematerialising. She was known to be missing 10 minutes after the last sighting, that's all.

I'd go so far as to say it's daft to say Nessie has made the claim you attribute to him/her.
Click to expand...

I was just repeating what various media sources have said, about a 10 minute window in which she went missing. The timings reported in the press are really specific, due to certain known times and how long it takes to walk the short distances she went.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...news-update-timeline-dog-walker-b2275686.html

"8.43am – Nicola walked along the path by the River Wyre, having dropped her children off at school

8:50am (approximately) - A dog-walker – somebody who knows Nicola – saw her walking around the lower field with her dog. Their two dogs interacted briefly before the witness left the field via the river path

8.53am – She sent an email to her boss

9.01am – She logged into a Teams call

9.10am (approximately) – A witness – somebody who knows Nicola – saw her on the upper field walking her dog, Willow. Work is ongoing today to establish exactly what time this was.

9.30am – The Teams call ended but Nicola stayed logged on

9.35am (approximately) – Nicola’s mobile phone and Willow were found at a bench by the river by another dog-walker."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-of-10-minute-window-in-which-she-disappeared

"There is only a 10-minute window during which police cannot account for her whereabouts that morning."
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Was the dog wet?
Click to expand...

No, but, I do not know if the dog could maybe have entered the water, but merely to paddling depth, so when found, it would not be seen to be wet.

What were the nearby conditions of the river?
Depth, current?
Click to expand...

The bench where her phone was found is next to bank above the river, which is fast flowing and deep. She could have slipped down the bank into the river.
 
Nessie said:
I was just repeating what various media sources have said, about a 10 minute window in which she went missing.
Click to expand...

I get that completely. theprestige latched on to the way the o/p phrases it in order to say that you were pinning it down to the minute, i.e. the very end of that window.
 
Nessie said:
No, but, I do not know if the dog could maybe have entered the water, but merely to paddling depth, so when found, it would not be seen to be wet.
Click to expand...

Really?

My question was somewhat rhetorical, but I believe it's been promoted..

Has the breed of the dog been mentioned?

I'm not familiar with the ones that float high enough in the water that their torso does not become immersed.

The bench where her phone was found is next to bank above the river, which is fast flowing and deep. She could have slipped down the bank into the river.
Click to expand...

Then that would seem to rule out a retrievable ball, or even suggesting that the dog would be allowed to go for a swim.
 
Last edited:
I’m surprised she hasn’t been found yet if she had fallen into the river. We have a couple of people a year around here that fall into the Thames and drown, which is very deep and very wide in places yet I don’t think it’s ever taken more than 48 hours to find a body once they start to look.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Really?

My question was somewhat rhetorical, but I believe it's been promoted..

Has the breed of the dog been mentioned?

I'm not familiar with the ones that float high enough in the water that their torso does not become immersed.



Then that would seem to rule out a retrievable ball, or even suggesting that the dog would be allowed to go for a swim.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a language issue, paddling used as Nessie is using it means it would gone in up to its “ankles”.
 
This was a spaniel-type. Having had one of these myself, I think I can say it would have been obvious if the dog had gone into the water even to a few inches. The "feather" on the legs would have been wet, and also possibly the belly hair.

Occam's Razor is saying an accidental slip into the river, I suppose.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Really?

My question was somewhat rhetorical, but I believe it's been promoted..

Has the breed of the dog been mentioned?

I'm not familiar with the ones that float high enough in the water that their torso does not become immersed.



Then that would seem to rule out a retrievable ball, or even suggesting that the dog would be allowed to go for a swim.
Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paddle

"paddle
3 of 3 verb (2)
paddled; paddling
intransitive verb
1 : to move the hands or feet about in shallow water"

Have you never been in a beach and seen people walking up to their ankles in the water?
 
Steve said:
Paddling is a particularly British term. The American equivalent is wading.
Click to expand...

Really? Wading implies deeper water that takes more effort to move through. Paddling would be where the water is lower than the knees.
 
zooterkin said:
Really? Wading implies deeper water that takes more effort to move through. Paddling would be where the water is lower than the knees.
Click to expand...

Yes really. What it implies to a Brit is not necessarily what it implies to a north American. Paddling, as it relates to walking through water, is not a term many North Americans would recognize.

ETA As a person born in England and raised in Canada by English parents (and grandparents) with an extensive English family and a large number of ex-Brit friends of my parents I am quite familiar with the usage of both terms in both countries.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Yes really. What it implies to a Brit is not necessarily what it implies to a north American. Paddling, as it relates to walking through water, is not a term many North Americans would recognize.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm a norteamericano and to me "paddling" means actually swimming, but feebly: it's being immersed in water but not seriously attempting to swim at speed or with skill. "Wading" is walking through water, but implies a depth to the water that requires some degree of effort- I'd never use "wade" for anything lower than mid-calf height. I don't even have a term for walking in water lower than that.
 
Steve said:
Yes really. What it implies to a Brit is not necessarily what it implies to a north American. Paddling, as it relates to walking through water, is not a term many North Americans would recognize.
Click to expand...

This Californian grew up with using/hearing paddling all the time, so I think your assumption might be regional.
 
Why is it, I wonder, that someone going missing sometimes becomes a story of great public interest, like this case has, whilst in most cases it attracts little or no media attention.

Assuming the person hasn't done it deliberately, whether their disappearance is explained quickly, eventually or never usually depends on the amount of evidence that can be gathered in the first few days. My guess in this case is that she went in pursuit of her dog for some reason, slipped and fell into the river. Unless she (or her body) turns up we may never know exactly what happened. That sucks, especially for her family, but it's nobody's fault.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
This Californian grew up with using/hearing paddling all the time, so I think your assumption might be regional.
Click to expand...

Might be. I have only ever heard it in this context from Brits and ex-Brits. But I have lived a rather sheltered life :D.

Anyway, this side track is rather trivial. I think it has been determined what Nessie meant by the term "paddling".
Edited by sarge: 
removed FMF content
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nessie said:
No, but, I do not know if the dog could maybe have entered the water, but merely to paddling depth, so when found, it would not be seen to be wet.

The bench where her phone was found is next to bank above the river, which is fast flowing and deep. She could have slipped down the bank into the river.
Click to expand...
Maybe her dog got caught in some brambles on the bank or something. It didn't need to have actually been in the water for her to have fallen in herself whilst trying to retrieve it from whatever trouble it had got itself into.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom