Nicola Bulley, missing persons case

[Checkmite]

Do we know that now?

As far as I'm aware, the idea that she went into the water intentionally is still media speculation.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

My guess has been that she jumped off the bridge. That seems to be the scenario that best matches what is known. Just a guess, though.

If she had drowned near the bench, the body would likely have been there. If she had fallen in, it is not reasonable that she would have swum downstream. The river quickly gets quite shallow where it is not even knee high, which would make swimming essentially impossible.

If she fell in and could not get out and tried walking down the river to find a place to get out, there are areas not too far with banks that are not steep. There were no signs of anyone going into the river near bench or of anyone trying to get out. It is unlikely that she walked a mile downstream.

When a person drowns, usually the lungs fill with water and cause the body to sink very quickly. That would mean her body would be very near the bench if she drowned there. A body could be float on the river bottom. Because the water in the body has a similar buoyancy to the water, the body could be on the bottom in a crouching or kneeling position, depending on the condition of the water and the body. If the river has a swift current, that could move the body along the river bottom. That would be slow and probably would not move more than 100-200 yards before the time the area was searched. The river is also rather shallow at that point and the current was not swift.

It is possible to drown face down. Or a person could die of something else (heart attack, taking a bunch of pills, a severe head injury from a fall, hypothermia) and fall into the river face up. In either of those cases, water does not fill the lungs and the body may float. The problem with that is how the body would get past the weir. I have seen similar structures where I expected a large log to get caught but managed to unexpectedly go over quite easily. But just past the weir it is very shallow with large rocks on the riverbed creating a bit of rapids. It may be possible for the force of the current to push the body past those rocks, but it would probably fill the body with water, taking away the buoyancy.

It is possible that happened, but it would require a series of unlikely events: ending up in a position where the body floats, getting past the weir, pushed past the rocks, and then again somehow ending up in a floating position where it could be carried downstream by the current.

If she had jumped off the bridge, it would eliminate many of those problems. If she suddenly decided to end it all, she leaves the phone and harness and dog at the bench. There is a fence and kissing gate next to the bench where she could go easily leave the dog on the other side running back and forth between the bench and gate, which is how the dog was found.

The path beyond the gate leads back to the bridge past the weir. It can take several minutes to walk there. The phone last moved at 9:20. The woman from the caravan found the empty bench at about 9:33. The dog walker arrived, presumably from the path from the bridge, sometime shortly thereafter. That leaves a window of about 7-10 minutes for her to walk to the bridge without being seen.

The road along the bridge is busy, but not necessarily that busy at that time. A news agency walked the path she would have walked at the same time of day. There were only a few cars on the road. She could have very well walked to the bridge without being seen or at least without being noticed.

The bridge is high enough that it could result in death, although not with certainty. Not a very likely choice for suicide, but a certain state of mind it is possible. It would result in injuries that could likely lead to death by the injuries or hypothermia or drowning. That could result in her being face up or down in the water where the body would still float.

Even with a flow rate of 2 miles per hour, the body could float down to near where it was found in about 20 minutes and then sink. After a body sinks, gasses build up causing the body to resurface. That usually happens in about 48 hours, but that can take much longer if it is cold. On Lake Michigan it is common for winter drowning victims to only resurface in spring when it gets warmer.

Whether she jumped off the bridge (which seems to be the simplest solution) or died in the river near the bench (possibly for reasons other than drowning), I expect the body floated downstream and sank near where it was found. It could have been a bit upstream or even downstream because the river is tidal past the weir. Rising temperatures eventually caused the body to resurface, allowing it to be found.

 

[Nessie]

At least now, after all the criticism of the press, the story has dropped out of the news, rather than continued, with the press speculating about how she ended up in the river and interviewing supposed experts to get their opinion.

 

[Lplus]

At least now, after all the criticism of the press, the story has dropped out of the news, rather than continued, with the press speculating about how she ended up in the river and interviewing supposed experts to get their opinion.

It's the mystery of life or death that keeps the press on the case. Once that's solved they lose interest, as do most of their readers.

 

[Checkmite]

The bridge is high enough that it could result in death, although not with certainty. Not a very likely choice for suicide, but a certain state of mind it is possible.

The fact that the entire river in that area is so small and shallow isn't the only obstacle to the plausibility that she committed suicide but it is a very substantial one. Most people who want to kill themselves aren't going to try to do it in a stream that you can stand up in. We're supposed to entertain the idea that she killed herself by, evidently, wading out into the river and then just bending over and sticking her head under the water or something.

Jumping from a bridge sounds more plausible, but only until you look at the actual bridge. Yes, the river is wider and seems like it could be deeper there, but not so much and the bridge is just not nearly so high that a person looking over the side with suicidal intention is going to be thinking "yes right here, this will do the trick". I suppose anything is possible if she was in a "certain state of mind", but surely it would have to have been a state of mind that also rendered her unable to dress herself or walk in a straight line, IMO.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The fact that the entire river in that area is so small and shallow isn't the only obstacle to the plausibility that she committed suicide but it is a very substantial one. Most people who want to kill themselves aren't going to try to do it in a stream that you can stand up in. We're supposed to entertain the idea that she killed herself by, evidently, wading out into the river and then just bending over and sticking her head under the water or something.

Jumping from a bridge sounds more plausible, but only until you look at the actual bridge. Yes, the river is wider and seems like it could be deeper there, but not so much and the bridge is just not nearly so high that a person looking over the side with suicidal intention is going to be thinking "yes right here, this will do the trick". I suppose anything is possible if she was in a "certain state of mind", but surely it would have to have been a state of mind that also rendered her unable to dress herself or walk in a straight line, IMO.

The bridge hypothesis does have certain problems. The bridge does not have a height that would invoke the idea of suicide. Jumping off looks dangerous, but not deadly. Even climbing to the top of the footbridge would seem less than certain death. It is an unlikely action that would imply a person who is
deranged rather than strictly suicidal.

Committing suicide by drowning at the bench would be very difficult. When someone kills themselves by drowning, they usually go into the middle of large body of water where they will be unable to get to safety or attach weights to their body so that they drown. A person can't really just jump into a river like and expect to drown. If she committed suicide at that location, I would expect that drugs or medications were involved.

There is also the problems that she did not appear at all suicidal that morning. She got up early. Got the kids ready. Took them to school. Took the dog out to the park. Went for a long walk. Chatted with another dog walker. Sent an email to her boss about work. Logged into a work Teams call for at least about 20 minutes. All very normal stuff. This would require a very sudden and very drastic change in temperament without any known cause.

There is also the issue of the phone left on the bench. The harness on the ground. The dog running around. Those are more indicative that something unplanned and unexpected occurred. There is also the missing dog's ball, which lends to the possibility that she went to the river's edge to retrieve the ball and an accident occurred.

Accidental drowning in a small shallow river can seem rather unlikely, and it is...until suddenly it isn't. That can cause panic. Even with a few feet of water a person may not realize that they can stand up. The current can feel much stronger than it appears from the river bank. With the cold and possible injuries, things can get very dangerous very quickly.

I also suggested that she may have died from something else and then fallen into the river. Of course, if she died near the bench, there are the complications of how her body was not discovered and how it ended up so far downstream. Maybe they missed it during the initial search and it later resurfaced and floated down when they weren't looking, but that has certain complication with the timeline of the searches. Or maybe the body did float downstream and then sink despite what appear to be the unlikely odds.

 

[Vixen]

My guess has been that she jumped off the bridge. That seems to be the scenario that best matches what is known. Just a guess, though.

If she had drowned near the bench, the body would likely have been there. If she had fallen in, it is not reasonable that she would have swum downstream. The river quickly gets quite shallow where it is not even knee high, which would make swimming essentially impossible.

If she fell in and could not get out and tried walking down the river to find a place to get out, there are areas not too far with banks that are not steep. There were no signs of anyone going into the river near bench or of anyone trying to get out. It is unlikely that she walked a mile downstream.

When a person drowns, usually the lungs fill with water and cause the body to sink very quickly. That would mean her body would be very near the bench if she drowned there. A body could be float on the river bottom. Because the water in the body has a similar buoyancy to the water, the body could be on the bottom in a crouching or kneeling position, depending on the condition of the water and the body. If the river has a swift current, that could move the body along the river bottom. That would be slow and probably would not move more than 100-200 yards before the time the area was searched. The river is also rather shallow at that point and the current was not swift.

It is possible to drown face down. Or a person could die of something else (heart attack, taking a bunch of pills, a severe head injury from a fall, hypothermia) and fall into the river face up. In either of those cases, water does not fill the lungs and the body may float. The problem with that is how the body would get past the weir. I have seen similar structures where I expected a large log to get caught but managed to unexpectedly go over quite easily. But just past the weir it is very shallow with large rocks on the riverbed creating a bit of rapids. It may be possible for the force of the current to push the body past those rocks, but it would probably fill the body with water, taking away the buoyancy.

It is possible that happened, but it would require a series of unlikely events: ending up in a position where the body floats, getting past the weir, pushed past the rocks, and then again somehow ending up in a floating position where it could be carried downstream by the current.

If she had jumped off the bridge, it would eliminate many of those problems. If she suddenly decided to end it all, she leaves the phone and harness and dog at the bench. There is a fence and kissing gate next to the bench where she could go easily leave the dog on the other side running back and forth between the bench and gate, which is how the dog was found.

The path beyond the gate leads back to the bridge past the weir. It can take several minutes to walk there. The phone last moved at 9:20. The woman from the caravan found the empty bench at about 9:33. The dog walker arrived, presumably from the path from the bridge, sometime shortly thereafter. That leaves a window of about 7-10 minutes for her to walk to the bridge without being seen.

The road along the bridge is busy, but not necessarily that busy at that time. A news agency walked the path she would have walked at the same time of day. There were only a few cars on the road. She could have very well walked to the bridge without being seen or at least without being noticed.

The bridge is high enough that it could result in death, although not with certainty. Not a very likely choice for suicide, but a certain state of mind it is possible. It would result in injuries that could likely lead to death by the injuries or hypothermia or drowning. That could result in her being face up or down in the water where the body would still float.

Even with a flow rate of 2 miles per hour, the body could float down to near where it was found in about 20 minutes and then sink. After a body sinks, gasses build up causing the body to resurface. That usually happens in about 48 hours, but that can take much longer if it is cold. On Lake Michigan it is common for winter drowning victims to only resurface in spring when it gets warmer.

Whether she jumped off the bridge (which seems to be the simplest solution) or died in the river near the bench (possibly for reasons other than drowning), I expect the body floated downstream and sank near where it was found. It could have been a bit upstream or even downstream because the river is tidal past the weir. Rising temperatures eventually caused the body to resurface, allowing it to be found.

Re your argument she may have accessed the river by jumping off the bridge that leads to the bench.

Pros:

• Nicola Bulley had been a diving champion so that might be attractive for her.
• She would know how to enter the water without any fear.
• She would know how to estimated depth - or have a fair idea already.
• She would know how to swim underwater.
• She would know how to keep water out of her lungs.
• She would know how to hold her breath.
• If she jumped feet first, she would know to hold her nose.

Cons:

• Lancashire Police say there is no evidence Nicola ever left the field.
• Was there CCTV footage of the bridge? (Vandals, etc)
• The height of the bridge edge is prohibitive; Nicola was 5'3".
• Modern day bridges are designed to be child and jump-proof.
• From the photos, it is hard to see how she would have got a footing to stand at the top.
• If the impulse was to jump off the bridge, that suggests foresight: would she have removed her coat first?
• Nobody saw her along the river at all. (Maybe she did swim largely underwater.)

Questions:

• How come police have released CCTV images of various people in the area but not one of Nicola?
• If police have no footage of her leaving the lower field (where the bench is, did she leave via the upper field, where she was last physically seen, and where the CCTV was not operational?
• Often police release a pic of the last sighting; why not of Nicola?
• Did she have a bottle in her hand so they didn't want to prejudice things? (Suicides often drink first for 'Dutch courage'.)

 

[Vixen]

The bridge hypothesis does have certain problems. The bridge does not have a height that would invoke the idea of suicide. Jumping off looks dangerous, but not deadly. Even climbing to the top of the footbridge would seem less than certain death. It is an unlikely action that would imply a person who is
deranged rather than strictly suicidal.

Committing suicide by drowning at the bench would be very difficult. When someone kills themselves by drowning, they usually go into the middle of large body of water where they will be unable to get to safety or attach weights to their body so that they drown. A person can't really just jump into a river like and expect to drown. If she committed suicide at that location, I would expect that drugs or medications were involved.

There is also the problems that she did not appear at all suicidal that morning. She got up early. Got the kids ready. Took them to school. Took the dog out to the park. Went for a long walk. Chatted with another dog walker. Sent an email to her boss about work. Logged into a work Teams call for at least about 20 minutes. All very normal stuff. This would require a very sudden and very drastic change in temperament without any known cause.

There is also the issue of the phone left on the bench. The harness on the ground. The dog running around. Those are more indicative that something unplanned and unexpected occurred. There is also the missing dog's ball, which lends to the possibility that she went to the river's edge to retrieve the ball and an accident occurred.

Accidental drowning in a small shallow river can seem rather unlikely, and it is...until suddenly it isn't. That can cause panic. Even with a few feet of water a person may not realize that they can stand up. The current can feel much stronger than it appears from the river bank. With the cold and possible injuries, things can get very dangerous very quickly.

I also suggested that she may have died from something else and then fallen into the river. Of course, if she died near the bench, there are the complications of how her body was not discovered and how it ended up so far downstream. Maybe they missed it during the initial search and it later resurfaced and floated down when they weren't looking, but that has certain complication with the timeline of the searches. Or maybe the body did float downstream and then sink despite what appear to be the unlikely odds.

It is quite normal for those close to suicides that the person concerned appeared lighthearted and gay in the period of time leading up to it. This could be because of a sense of having found a solution to relieve themselves of whatever burden they felt they had.

Partner Paul Ansell made a point of saying that for once everything was sorted that morning, which made me wonder.

She saw her boss the evening before - some say she was sacked but who knows? She had just secured a mortgage deal for a client, according to her mother.

Her parents appear to have moved up from Essex to be near their daughter. When there was some kind of altercation at the family home which saw police and healthcare professionals attend 10 Jan, 17 days before, I wonder whether as an alternative to being 'sectioned', it was agreed some trustworthy guardians could look over her. The parents were there the evening before she vanished and said they stayed on a bit longer because of her workplace overtime.

Whilst I lean towards self-disappearance, nonetheless the coincidence of the body being found just as the search teams had been toned down and at a spot completely opposite to the only layby in Rawcliffe Road, the point the road runs parallel to the river, there is a faint chance of foul play which is why it is disappointing the police didn't cordon off the bench immediately nor the scene where the body was found, as there is always a remote chance of finding key evidence. It doesn't take a minute to put up a few ribbons and a 'keep out' sign.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Still with the speculation about possible use of MHA powers.

S136 was cited earlier, but that isn't applicable here. S 135 might be, but requires other things to have happened, for which we have no evidence.

We still have absolutely no evidence what so ever that the "healthcare professionals" were of the rare types who have MHA powers which can be used in that situation and were not, say, paramedics.

 

[Nessie]

...

• 
  How come police have released CCTV images of various people in the area but not one of Nicola?

• 
  
  They released CCTV of people they wanted to identify and speak to. There was no CCTV of Nicola and the police knew who she was.
  
  

  If police have no footage of her leaving the lower field (where the bench is, did she leave via the upper field, where she was last physically seen, and where the CCTV was not operational?

  
  I don't know.
  
  

  Often police release a pic of the last sighting; why not of Nicola?

  
  The police stated she was not seen on any CCTV that day.
  
  CCTV is often used to drum up interest in a missing person enquiry. There was no need for that in this case.
  
  

  [Did she have a bottle in her hand so they didn't want to prejudice things? (Suicides often drink first for 'Dutch courage'.)

  
  Where do you get the idea she was caught on CCTV that morning? Most CCTV is of poor quality, so it is unlikely a bottle in her hand would be identifiable.

 

[Vixen]

Still with the speculation about possible use of MHA powers.

S136 was cited earlier, but that isn't applicable here. S 135 might be, but requires other things to have happened, for which we have no evidence.

We still have absolutely no evidence what so ever that the "healthcare professionals" were of the rare types who have MHA powers which can be used in that situation and were not, say, paramedics.

I defer to your expertise. I was citing a doctor on Twitter who claimed Lancashire Police were trying to convey to the public why they were treating it as a missing person and not as 'suspicious'; he or she claimed that the police were trying to imply mental health issues.

Here's the Lancashire Police statement of the relevant part:

Sadly, it is clear from speaking to Paul and the family that Nicola had in the past suffered with some significant issues with alcohol which were brought on by her ongoing struggles with the menopause and that these struggles had resurfaced over recent months. This caused some real challenges for Paul and the family.

As a result of those issues, a response car staffed by both police and health professionals attended a report of concern for welfare at Nicola’s home address on January 10th. No one has been arrested in relation to this incident, but it is being investigated.

It is an unusual step for us to take to go into this level of detail about someone’s private life, but we felt it was important to clarify what we meant when we talked about vulnerabilities to avoid any further speculation or misinterpretation.

https://www.lancashire.police.uk/ne...bulley-missing-person-investigation-15022023/

You note they emphasise the challenge was Paul's, implying he was the one who called the police, or at least it wasn't him that was the cause of the call out. I can't help thinking though, that if there is a domestic incident you would call either the police or an ambulance, so it is reasonable to wonder why the police brought along healthcare professionals with them: perhaps an attempt at self-harm related to alcohol abuse. Nicola Bulley was about one third of the size of Paul Ansell and I know that big butch men can be victims of domestic violence just as much as women. It must have been quite serious for both cops and paramedics to turn up.

Anyway we note Mr. Ansell called the police whilst on his way to the scene so he had some idea of the urgency then.

 

[Vixen]

They released CCTV of people they wanted to identify and speak to. There was no CCTV of Nicola and the police knew who she was.



I don't know.



The police stated she was not seen on any CCTV that day.

CCTV is often used to drum up interest in a missing person enquiry. There was no need for that in this case.



Where do you get the idea she was caught on CCTV that morning? Most CCTV is of poor quality, so it is unlikely a bottle in her hand would be identifiable.

Lancashire Police said that they know she didn't leave the lower field (the bench area) that day because of CCTV footage, implying that had she gone back towards her car in the Primary School car park, then CCTV would have picked her up, so surely we can assume the same CCTV recorded her arriving. As a missing person, you'd think there'd be a picture of her last sighting so that people could look out for her. The doorbell dash cam was put out into the public domain by a friend of the family and is not very high quality, with a lot of blue in it. Had Nicola left via the upper field, where she was last seen physically, then there may have been a blind spot there, which is why the police asked for dashcam footage of passing motorists along that busy road. Note the police say whilst Niocla was int he upper field, they can only say her phone moved to the bench. Perhaps the caravan park owner, Penny Fletcher taking it there.

Here's the relevant statement:

Because many of our key witnesses know Nicola, and there is a significant amount of CCTV coverage in this area, we have been able to, from very early on in the investigation, plot Nicola’s movements and significantly narrow down the timings, to focus on a period of time where we need to concentrate our enquiries.

What we have established is that:

Nicola was in the upper field at approximately 09.10
We know that her mobile phone is in the area of the bench at approximately 09.20
At approximately 09.33, a local dog walker finds Willow running around off her lead.
Nicola’s mobile phone is faced upwards on the bench.
Willow’s harness and lead were halfway between the bench and the river.

https://www.lancashire.police.uk/ne...bulley-missing-person-investigation-15022023/


Obviously, Mrs. Fletcher was not to know of the gravity of the situation as of that time.

 

[Darat]

She somehow slipped into the water and drowned. A terrible accident. And that is the beginning and end of it.

 

[Vixen]

She somehow slipped into the water and drowned. A terrible accident. And that is the beginning and end of it.

You know that, how?

I agree the coroner will almost certainly return a verdict of 'misadventure' or at the outside, 'open'.

 

[Darat]

You know that, how?
I agree the coroner will almost certainly return a verdict of 'misadventure' or at the outside, 'open'.

She was beside the river, her body was found in the river. It is a mundane accident that happens all too frequently in the UK.

 

[CompusMentus]

She somehow slipped into the water and drowned. A terrible accident. And that is the beginning and end of it.

Succinctly put. It's up to the Lancashire County Coroner now to put all the facts together and try to ascertain the whys and wherefores of what happened in between.


Compus

 

[Carrot Flower King]

You know that, how?

Errrrrrrrr, far be it for me to ask questions about what is known and what is speculated (by whatever source), but a whole load of this thread is "not known" and folk speculating on the basis of something or other.

Just saying...

 

[Checkmite]

She was beside the river, her body was found in the river. It is a mundane accident that happens all too frequently in the UK.

There is something about accidental deaths in rivers that just makes people disbelieve them. A few years ago there was a whole thing in the city of Manchester by people who were being made to believe by social media hype that a number of individuals who drowned after falling into the town's canals over the decades were in fact all targeted and killed by a mysterious serial killer.

In the US, the same idea-virus regarding local deaths in a couple of locations expanded to eventually declare that seemingly every young adult male who appears to have drowned in a river almost anywhere in the US and even a few foreign countries was really the victim of a massive multinational cult with bureaus in every major city that kidnaps and sexually tortures young men and dumps them in local rivers and then leaves smiley-face graffiti somewhere near the site where the body was deposited (and by "somewhere near", I mean literally any smiley face on a wall or under a bridge within roughly two miles or so of where the body is eventually found counts).

 

[Nessie]

Lancashire Police said that they know she didn't leave the lower field (the bench area) that day because of CCTV footage, implying that had she gone back towards her car in the Primary School car park, then CCTV would have picked her up, so surely we can assume the same CCTV recorded her arriving. As a missing person, you'd think there'd be a picture of her last sighting so that people could look out for her.

CCTV rarely captures a clear image of a person, so they are not used to show the public who to look for. The family are asked to provide what they regard as the clearest, most up to date photo for release to the public.

The doorbell dash cam was put out into the public domain by a friend of the family and is not very high quality, with a lot of blue in it.

There you go, that image was of no use for tracing her.

Had Nicola left via the upper field, where she was last seen physically, then there may have been a blind spot there, which is why the police asked for dashcam footage of passing motorists along that busy road. Note the police say whilst Niocla was int he upper field, they can only say her phone moved to the bench. Perhaps the caravan park owner, Penny Fletcher taking it there.

Here's the relevant statement:

https://www.lancashire.police.uk/ne...bulley-missing-person-investigation-15022023/


Obviously, Mrs. Fletcher was not to know of the gravity of the situation as of that time.

You do know that if you ran the missing person enquiry, people would then ponder why you did things a certain way. You do know the terms armchair expert & whataboutery, don't you?

 

[Vixen]

CCTV rarely captures a clear image of a person, so they are not used to show the public who to look for. The family are asked to provide what they regard as the clearest, most up to date photo for release to the public.



There you go, that image was of no use for tracing her.



You do know that if you ran the missing person enquiry, people would then ponder why you did things a certain way. You do know the terms armchair expert & whataboutery, don't you?

The police made it a public interest case so can't complain if the public then becomes interested in it.

 

[Nessie]

The police made it a public interest case so can't complain if the public then becomes interested in it.

How did the police make this, out of the thousands of missing persons appeals that have happened so far, this year alone, the one that the public should be interested in, over all others?

 

[Nessie]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/peter-faulding-nicola-bulley-diver-proud-of-work/

The diving "expert" Faulding has been dropped from the National Crime Agency list of approved search experts, due to his obvious lack of expertise.

 

[Vixen]

How did the police make this, out of the thousands of missing persons appeals that have happened so far, this year alone, the one that the public should be interested in, over all others?

It is hard to say. It just happens that some stories capture the public imagination more than others. I think it was Senior Investigating Officer Rebecca Smith of Lancashire Police who said in her 29-years, she had never known anything like it.

So many people turned up at the scene they had to issue a dispersal order.

 

[Vixen]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/peter-faulding-nicola-bulley-diver-proud-of-work/

The diving "expert" Faulding has been dropped from the National Crime Agency list of approved search experts, due to his obvious lack of expertise.

I think it was more to do with his giving off the cuff press interviews. When he averred strongly that the body was not in the river it will have served to have had a demoralising effect on those still searching.

 

[Checkmite]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/peter-faulding-nicola-bulley-diver-proud-of-work/

The diving "expert" Faulding has been dropped from the National Crime Agency list of approved search experts, due to his obvious lack of expertise.

I don't think it's because he lacks expertise.

According to the article, he's a dive expert. His job, ostensibly, was to search a certain part of the river, which he did. And he didn't find the body in the part of the river that he searched. All that's fine and good.

But he didn't stop there, and that's the real problem. He didn't find the body so he had to go on TV and declare that she definitely wasn't in the river and start openly speculating that her phone was a "decoy" and announcing his own little side investigation where he planned to start searching the woods for a shallow grave; and then he had to publicly criticize the police for not giving him more information about the case that would've been outside his scope of actual involvement.

And I suspect all that is the real reason he was removed from the list. I'm sure the police would like the be able to hire a dive expert who will then be a dive expert and do dive expert things and not suddenly decide he's Sherlock Holmes.

 

[theprestige]

Even Sherlock Holmes would rush off and solve the case, before the press even knew what he was up to.

 

[Nessie]

It is hard to say. It just happens that some stories capture the public imagination more than others. I think it was Senior Investigating Officer Rebecca Smith of Lancashire Police who said in her 29-years, she had never known anything like it.

So many people turned up at the scene they had to issue a dispersal order.

So, you have no evidence to back up your claim that the police were responsible for this missing person capturing the public interest, like no one else since Madeleine McCann. If you look at the earliest police press releases, they were no different to any other missing persons appeal.

You are just yet another who seeks to blame the police for what was the fault of the public and press, to deflect from their often dreadful behaviour.

Of course, the only group presently holding an enquiry are the police, of themselves. The public and press just walk away pretending they did nothing wrong.

 

[Nessie]

I think it was more to do with his giving off the cuff press interviews. When he averred strongly that the body was not in the river it will have served to have had a demoralising effect on those still searching.

His failure to communicate that he did not think reeds at the side of the river, were part of the river and that it was others who were responsible for that search, is likely why he is ditched as a search expert. He was wrong and he caused the public and media to believe the river had been properly and fully searched when it had not. He may have also deceived the police.

 

[Nessie]

I don't think it's because he lacks expertise.

According to the article, he's a dive expert. His job, ostensibly, was to search a certain part of the river, which he did. And he didn't find the body in the part of the river that he searched. All that's fine and good.

But he didn't stop there, and that's the real problem. He didn't find the body so he had to go on TV and declare that she definitely wasn't in the river and start openly speculating that her phone was a "decoy" and announcing his own little side investigation where he planned to start searching the woods for a shallow grave; and then he had to publicly criticize the police for not giving him more information about the case that would've been outside his scope of actual involvement.

And I suspect all that is the real reason he was removed from the list. I'm sure the police would like the be able to hire a dive expert who will then be a dive expert and do dive expert things and not suddenly decide he's Sherlock Holmes.

He had expertise in one thing, sonar searches of open water. His later comment that reeds are not part of the river, was utter nonsense. His assertions she was not in the water fuelled the speculation and unfair criticism of the police. I genuinely hope he goes out of business, which would be a good deterrent to other supposed experts.

The media constantly paraded so-called experts, who were nothing of the sort. None of the ex-police commenters were POLSA trained. They made comments that showed they had not been involved in any search for years, if ever. A probationary cop, who has been likely working on missing persons every day of their career so far, would be able to make more informed commentary that those idiots. Jackie Malton, the cop whose career the drama Prime Suspect was based on, tweeted that she and other senior cops she knew had been approached by the press, specifically to criticise the police search. Sky News turned off comments from one of their tweets, where Peter Fahy, former CC of Greater Manchester, said the police were doing what is normally done for any missing persons search, but under extraordinary circumstances.

The press will always make this about supposed failures by the police, to hide their epic failures and disgusting behaviour.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Can I give loads of upticks to Nessie's last 3 posts?

 

[Vixen]

So, you have no evidence to back up your claim that the police were responsible for this missing person capturing the public interest, like no one else since Madeleine McCann. If you look at the earliest police press releases, they were no different to any other missing persons appeal.

You are just yet another who seeks to blame the police for what was the fault of the public and press, to deflect from their often dreadful behaviour.

Of course, the only group presently holding an enquiry are the police, of themselves. The public and press just walk away pretending they did nothing wrong.

What? I didn't say anything about Madeline McCann. All in your mind.

The problem with the police is the way they treat women's issues. Lancashire Police had a severe rap on the knuckles by the 'watchdog' for failing a suicidal woman three months before. The earlier woman was a victim of domestic abuse (recent studies show that women in this category are statistically three times more likely to commit suicide). Her brother desperately tried to get the police to locate the woman's car but sadly they acted with unfortunate delay and she killed herself, leaving a note saying she hopes other women don't have to go through the same thing.

Whilst the Lancashire Police did a fine job on the whole and pulled out all of the stops, nonetheless there remains the following reservations:

• they took the partner at his word that Nicola Bulley was mentally unstable
• Because of the previous occasion two weeks before of a presumed MHA incident when cops and medical professionals were called out, the Police assumed a self-harm or self-disappearance attempt.
• Whilst that might be statistically probable it means the police failed to seal off the area or treat it as any way suspicious at all.
• Whilst it is most probable Ms. Bulley had a mental health crisis it was still possible there was foul play being a lone woman in a remote area.
• The police to deflect public and press criticism released confidential medical information to strongly convey Ms. Bulley's fragile mental stability.
• SIO Rebecca Smith spoke in almost fond terms of partner Paul Ansell, when there was a possibility Nicola was a domestic abuse victim, statistically.
• Lancashire police put out a statement covertly expressing sympathy with the 'challenge' Nicola had placed on partner Paul with her menopausal and past 'significant' alcohol issues.
• This was prejudicial to the public perception of Ms. Bulley and also revealed a misogynist mindset of the Lancashire Police (mad hysterical woman must have 'gone into the river').
• It gave the impression the police were trying to do a PR exercise on their public image at the expense of Ms. Bulley's.
• Their prime hypothesis of self-accident was not consciously or overtly negative to Nicola Bulley, but based on past experience; however, nonetheless, LP could have been more sensitive and aware of the issues involved.

I can't see the press did anything wrong. They did what they normally always do, chase the story and highlight issues of public interest. ITV and Sky breached the privacy of the family but I can't see why the Lancashire Police were acting as their spokesmen in regard to this, given the police should have remained independent and not taken sides until we know the full outcome of all of the issues: the inquest, the three investigations now ongoing re the 10 Jan issue, the Home Office issue, the external review by another police force, the ICO data protection breach issue.

Of course, police have to express sympathy and support for the family affected by the tragedy but to have assumed the fault was entirely Nicola Bulley's was not objective enough on their part IMV.

 

[Vixen]

His failure to communicate that he did not think reeds at the side of the river, were part of the river and that it was others who were responsible for that search, is likely why he is ditched as a search expert. He was wrong and he caused the public and media to believe the river had been properly and fully searched when it had not. He may have also deceived the police.

To be fair to Mr. Faulding, he does claim the police failed to give him key information.

 

[Darat]

...snip...



...snip...

Thought I'd address the facts in your post rather than your fantasies but then realised there was nothing bar your speculations and fantasies in your post!

Sorry no there was one fact I noticed "... the police failed to seal off the area..." yeah that does seem a dropped clanger.

 

[Nessie]

What? I didn't say anything about Madeline McCann. All in your mind.

The problem with the police is the way they treat women's issues. Lancashire Police had a severe rap on the knuckles by the 'watchdog' for failing a suicidal woman three months before. The earlier woman was a victim of domestic abuse (recent studies show that women in this category are statistically three times more likely to commit suicide). Her brother desperately tried to get the police to locate the woman's car but sadly they acted with unfortunate delay and she killed herself, leaving a note saying she hopes other women don't have to go through the same thing.

The last time a missing person had this much exposure, was Madeleine McCann. Your attempt to blame the police for causing some missing persons to get massive exposure is wrong.

Whilst the Lancashire Police did a fine job on the whole and pulled out all of the stops, nonetheless there remains the following reservations:

Based on what? You are an armchair expert who has never searched for anyone.

[*]they took the partner at his word that Nicola Bulley was mentally unstable

How do you know that? You cannot know that is what was happening behind the scenes, in the enquiry control room.

[*]Because of the previous occasion two weeks before of a presumed MHA incident when cops and medical professionals were called out, the Police assumed a self-harm or self-disappearance attempt.

Which is a reasonable working assumption, along with the other possibles that the police enquired into.

[*]Whilst that might be statistically probable it means the police failed to seal off the area or treat it as any way suspicious at all.

They have limited resources and the initial priority was the river, due to survivability in water. The question of why she went missing is not an immediate priority.

You also do not know if the police were not treating this as potentially suspicious, you are again pretending you know what was going on behind the scenes.

[*]Whilst it is most probable Ms. Bulley had a mental health crisis it was still possible there was foul play being a lone woman in a remote area.

Correct, but that does not change the immediate priority, which is to find her.

[*]The police to deflect public and press criticism released confidential medical information to strongly convey Ms. Bulley's fragile mental stability.

The police were put under intense pressure to release details and then it became apparent those details were being touted for sale to the press. They were put in an impossible situation, where no one is criticising the person who tried to sell that information and how the press will buy such information.

[*]SIO Rebecca Smith spoke in almost fond terms of partner Paul Ansell, when there was a possibility Nicola was a domestic abuse victim, statistically.

Quote her doing that. Prove your claim.

[*]Lancashire police put out a statement covertly expressing sympathy with the 'challenge' Nicola had placed on partner Paul with her menopausal and past 'significant' alcohol issues.

Quote that statement and show its source.

[*]This was prejudicial to the public perception of Ms. Bulley and also revealed a misogynist mindset of the Lancashire Police (mad hysterical woman must have 'gone into the river').

Suicide was one of numerous possibles. It remains the most likely. You are the one using emotive language to discredit her. You then try to blame the police for your disgusting words.

[*] It gave the impression the police were trying to do a PR exercise on their public image at the expense of Ms. Bulley's.

All sorts of false and baseless accusations were thrown at Lancs Police. People like you are now trying to deflect from your behaviour.

[*]Their prime hypothesis of self-accident was not consciously or overtly negative to Nicola Bulley, but based on past experience; however, nonetheless, LP could have been more sensitive and aware of the issues involved.

Their prime hypothesis was she went into the water. There was no prime hypothesis as to why that happened.

I can't see the press did anything wrong. They did what they normally always do, chase the story and highlight issues of public interest. ITV and Sky breached the privacy of the family but I can't see why the Lancashire Police were acting as their spokesmen in regard to this, given the police should have remained independent and not taken sides until we know the full outcome of all of the issues: the inquest, the three investigations now ongoing re the 10 Jan issue, the Home Office issue, the external review by another police force, the ICO data protection breach issue.

Of course, police have to express sympathy and support for the family affected by the tragedy but to have assumed the fault was entirely Nicola Bulley's was not objective enough on their part IMV.

1 - The press whipped up a frenzy, to make more money as the public got more interested in the case.

2 - Some, in particular ITV and Sky, treated the family terribly.

3 - They all repeatedly interviewed experts who were not experts, fuelling a false narrative. Why did they not find actual search experts?

4 - Two female journalists even attacked the clothing worn by the lead female detective. Again, they were on a feeding frenzy, where all they wanted to do was whip up the public discourse, to make money.

5 - They have shown no acceptance of the mistakes they made, or need to change how they report missing persons.

 

[GlennB]

To be fair to Mr. Faulding, he does claim the police failed to give him key information.

????

He has eyes and he knows his equipment won't cope with reeds. He had no business claiming "The body is not in that river" (or whatever words he used precisely). There's nothing "to be fair" about here. He'll be looking for a new line of work, I imagine.

 

[Nessie]

To be fair to Mr. Faulding, he does claim the police failed to give him key information.

What, like the reeds in the river, are part of the river?

His job was to repeat searches by the police, because the police know finding missing people is done by repeated searching, because the police know how easy it is to miss things, especially underwater.

I was talking to a former cop a few days ago and he remembers repeated searches of a river after a girl jumped off a bridge. Her body was eventually found trapped under a log about 30 feet from the bridge. Searching water is like looking for a need in a haystack, in poor visibility, where the needle and haystack can move.

The public and press think such searches are easy and will find what is there first time. The same people forget the last time they lost their keys, or wallet and how hard it was to find, if at all.

 

[Nessie]

Thought I'd address the facts in your post rather than your fantasies but then realised there was nothing bar your speculations and fantasies in your post!

Sorry no there was one fact I noticed "... the police failed to seal off the area..." yeah that does seem a dropped clanger.

The police know that searches are often concluded by the public. The public actually find a lot of missing people. To seal off the area would be both a waste of manpower and a loss of search resources.

Sealing off the bench was possibly a mistake, but what was to be found there? The police had the phone and dog. Any DNA could easily be explained away by the bench being in a public place. A visual examination straight away revealed nothing of any evidential value, as to where she went, or what had happened.

 

[Vixen]

Thought I'd address the facts in your post rather than your fantasies but then realised there was nothing bar your speculations and fantasies in your post!

Sorry no there was one fact I noticed "... the police failed to seal off the area..." yeah that does seem a dropped clanger.

You appear to have the same problem with the police that the public and various posters here have. The police are quite correct to have estimated that if a person has a serious attempt at suicide once (possibly the 10 Jan incident) then statistically there is a strong possibility they will attempt it again. Obviously, it cannot explicitly state this as this is for the coroner and the insurance companies to ascertain and the police cannot prejudice a case in this manner, hence their careful wording 'went into the river'.

Given Nicola Bully was an accomplished swimmer and diver, and her friends say she was too sensible to walk anywhere near the river's edge (let alone try to retrieve a cheap 10p tennis ball), IMV it is unlikely to have been an 'accident' given how shallow and relatively calm that stretch was on that day, although of course, it is possible there was a medical episode and for whatever reason she moved downstream outside of the search range of Mr Faulding's team.

In this matter, I can see why police assessed the situation as they did.

If the coroner and pathologist can find any reason to state accidental death then they will, if only for the sake of her children, given the stigma of self-harm.

That is why there is an inquest, because the death is 'unexplained' as of the date it was recovered so we shall have to wait and see.

I understand your resistance to the idea that it was not an accident.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Removed all your speculations and fantasies about me and once again left with a post with nowt. Nothing you posted addressed anything in the post of mine that you quoted.

 

[Nessie]

You appear to have the same problem with the police that the public and various posters here have. ...

One of the biggest problems faced by the police, was the sheer arrogance of many members of the public and press, who genuinely believed that their uniformed opinions carry any weight. It was staggering how many people genuinely believed they knew better than the police.

Many of the so-called problems people had with the police, were based on their ignorant, unfounded beliefs in how missing persons enquiries are conducted.

Edited by jimbob: 

rule 12 snipped