Nicola Bulley, what does everybody think?

[caz]

so bizarre. i think the police are implying that due to her "vulnerabilities" she was high risk for suicide? and that she committed suicide by jumping in the river? they clearly still think she drowned. amd yet her boyfriend is adamant that she didnt drown and its foul play. the police need to be more clear what they mean by these vulnerabilities, it could actually help solve it, if the public knew. here in the states when police start talking about a persons high risk and vulnerabilies etc, it means they are drug related, prostitution which points towrds foul play. they need to clear it up asap.

Hi Abby,

Well, drowning is what the police are saying is their main theory, but they also remain open to the possibility of an abduction or a voluntary disappearance. They may well be following other leads they can't talk about while they are ongoing, and may be pushing the drowning theory in the hope of someone disproving it, or giving away some clue if anyone else was involved. Whatever Nicola's partner told the police about her when she first went missing may have led to certain enquiries of a difficult or delicate nature, which they need to keep tight lipped about for the benefit of all concerned.

The police are under no obligation to 'clear it up' publicly before they are good and ready, nor are they there to satisfy public curiosity. It has to be their decision what information to release and what to keep to themselves until further notice.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

The police said explicitly the vulnerabilities were private and out of respect for the family they would not share the nature of those vulnerabilities.

It’s easy to speculate this must be code for some kind of depression issues or mental illness. Which speculating again may suggest suicide.

I am convinced she entered the water one way or another.

Have they said whether she could swim or not Ero?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I read somewhere about a caravan park nearby..whats that? like an trailor park, or camper parking?!? that needs to be checked out. talk about a mobile bolt hole!

It’s impossible to know which caravan park they’re talking about Abby. These places can either be caravans for hire or places where people can park up their own or pitch tents. The police did mention a tatty red camper van but I don’t know if there’s been any further mention of it. You’d think that it would stand out like a sore thumb?

[erobitha]

It would depend on the precise nature of the vulnerabilities, but the police have said they have revealed much more than they would otherwise have done, due to the unprecedented media speculation. If it was just the general vulnerability of any missing female that made Nicola 'high risk', as I previously wondered, the police could have said so from the outset. So it does now appear a bit more complex than that, despite their main theory still being an accidental fall into the river.

I can't work out how any existing "specific" vulnerabilities, described to the police by Nicola's partner, could have any bearing on her ending up in the river, when he is so sure that didn't happen. What's the connection we're not getting?

Love,

Caz
X

The police said explicitly the vulnerabilities were private and out of respect for the family they would not share the nature of those vulnerabilities.

It’s easy to speculate this must be code for some kind of depression issues or mental illness. Which speculating again may suggest suicide.

I am convinced she entered the water one way or another.

[caz]

Yes, it’s very unclear about the nature of special vulnerabilities. Anyone going missing in these circumstances would be vulnerable and especially a lone woman but do these ‘special’ vulnerabilities come from information received? And why weren’t they mentioned sooner?

It would depend on the precise nature of the vulnerabilities, but the police have said they have revealed much more than they would otherwise have done, due to the unprecedented media speculation. If it was just the general vulnerability of any missing female that made Nicola 'high risk', as I previously wondered, the police could have said so from the outset. So it does now appear a bit more complex than that, despite their main theory still being an accidental fall into the river.

I can't work out how any existing "specific" vulnerabilities, described to the police by Nicola's partner, could have any bearing on her ending up in the river, when he is so sure that didn't happen. What's the connection we're not getting?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hello Jeff,

Fair points as usual. Without going as far as speculating whether any abductor might work for the security company who viewed the camera’s (giving him knowledge of cctv blind spots) I’m unsure how easy it would have been to discover any blind spot? These camera’s are usually on street lamps or the sides of buildings I believe but I don’t think that you can tell when one isn’t actually working unless it’s obviously damaged (and even then it would follow that it wasn’t working I would have thought) Obviously the police would have checked all of the nearby cameras and, unless they haven’t mentioned it for some reason, you would have thought they would have spotted anyone loitering around or acting suspiciously in any way.

If she was abducted it’s not impossible of course that the abductor was just lucky.

https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-bu...e-say-12810969

The police appear to ‘firmly’ believe that she ended up in the river but they haven’t said what specific reasons made her ‘high risk,’ after speaking to her boyfriend. So are there underlying issues which haven’t been revealed?

This is the fisherman story that Wulf mentioned.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/u...ermen-26239988

so bizarre. i think the police are implying that due to her "vulnerabilities" she was high risk for suicide? and that she committed suicide by jumping in the river? they clearly still think she drowned. amd yet her boyfriend is adamant that she didnt drown and its foul play. the police need to be more clear what they mean by these vulnerabilities, it could actually help solve it, if the public knew. here in the states when police start talking about a persons high risk and vulnerabilies etc, it means they are drug related, prostitution which points towrds foul play. they need to clear it up asap.

there were reports of two fishermen acting suspicious. they need to be found. I read somewhere about a caravan park nearby..whats that? like an trailor park, or camper parking?!? that needs to be checked out. talk about a mobile bolt hole!

i saw from the video the place is surrounded by fields, small woods and also what looks like housing, and town houses surrounding a pond. Id be all over that as if its someone who lives nearby... no need for a car. and id search that little pond.

that video at the end, I caught that the dog was found running from a gate/fence area behind the bench back to the bench. did the abductor take her through that gate? where does that lead to?

also, im under the impression the police are focusing on drowning, and her not leaving the park, because the cameras havnt caught anything. they need to give that up. the area is huge there is no way there are cameras that cover all the possibilities, especially if it someone who lives nearby walking distance and can cut across the fields and open areas. they might even know where the cameras are. and not all the cameras may be working properly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nicola's partner, who would know if she had any specific vulnerabilities before she walked off into thin air, has said he is 100% certain she didn't go in the river, which implies he has some other theory about where she went and why.

I'm more puzzled than ever now. Nothing is making sense.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, that level of confidence that she didn’t end up in the river tends to imply that he might have a good reason for believing an alternative explanation. Big mystery Caz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The police have just revealed that detectives judged Nicola to be at high risk when she was reported missing, due to "specific vulnerabilities" they were made aware of.

This is apparently normal with missing person cases, so it may simply mean that this was a female out walking alone in a relatively quiet area when she was last sighted. The problem is that the wording here will no doubt give rise to all sorts of new speculation about the nature of these specific vulnerabilities, including whether they relate to her life before her sudden unexplained disappearance.

And here we are, the radio news has just reported that she was considered to be at high risk due to vulnerabilities at the time she went missing, which could be read in two ways. More clarity is surely needed.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, it’s very unclear about the nature of special vulnerabilities. Anyone going missing in these circumstances would be vulnerable and especially a lone woman but do these ‘special’ vulnerabilities come from information received? And why weren’t they mentioned sooner?

[caz]

Nicola's partner, who would know if she had any specific vulnerabilities before she walked off into thin air, has said he is 100% certain she didn't go in the river, which implies he has some other theory about where she went and why.

I'm more puzzled than ever now. Nothing is making sense.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

So many possibilities, and abduction is one line to consider. I've been wondering about that, and the lack of CCTV footage would mean, if she was abducted they had to have taken her out through the blind spot. Ok, sure. But how would one know where the blind spot was? Is it that obvious? I admit, I don't know how "common knowledge" fits in to things like where CCTV blind spots are - I recognize that it would be useful to the criminal element to know such things, but just because it would be useful to me to know the next winning lottery numbers doesn't mean it's possible for me to get that information. So, where would they get their information from? Are the cameras so obvious that one can work it out if they have a mind to? How sure can one be that "walking this route means we're not recorded"?

In the article I read above, I believe the idea put forth was that she entered the area via a route she didn't normally take, and it just so happened that the camera on that path was not working (probably only one camera at the entrance I'm assuming). I don't know if they have CCTV of her deeper into the area (which would at least confirm she really was there, which in turn would allow one to evaluate the witnesses, and if all the ducks are in a row then we can start to remove some clutter from the picture).

Anyway, another article I read just a short time ago involved her partner, who said that on the day she went missing the morning was unusually "peaceful" (meaning, normally their mornings are very hectic getting the kids ready for school, etc, but that morning it was all very smooth sailing - again, like the idea she may have changed her dog walking route habit, something seems a bit "foreshadowing", but of course, the above could also be retroactive editing of his memory - of course it was calm when you compare it to the storm that followed! And, it helps to make the memory of that day a bit less painful.

I don't know, but then, trying to peer into an investigation through the edited lens of the press can lead one to very distorted ideas.

Apparently there will be a police press release today around mid-day (maybe earlier?). I don't think there's any major announcement (doesn't sound like it, but then, it wouldn't would it?) but it's presented as to "clear up some misinformation that has been circulating". Might be worth keeping an eye out for. Keep in mind, it is sometimes in the best interest of an investigation for the police to be the one's throwing about a bit of disinformation. Helps detect the cranks - so removes clutter.

- Jeff

Hello Jeff,

Fair points as usual. Without going as far as speculating whether any abductor might work for the security company who viewed the camera’s (giving him knowledge of cctv blind spots) I’m unsure how easy it would have been to discover any blind spot? These camera’s are usually on street lamps or the sides of buildings I believe but I don’t think that you can tell when one isn’t actually working unless it’s obviously damaged (and even then it would follow that it wasn’t working I would have thought) Obviously the police would have checked all of the nearby cameras and, unless they haven’t mentioned it for some reason, you would have thought they would have spotted anyone loitering around or acting suspiciously in any way.

If she was abducted it’s not impossible of course that the abductor was just lucky.

https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-bu...e-say-12810969

The police appear to ‘firmly’ believe that she ended up in the river but they haven’t said what specific reasons made her ‘high risk,’ after speaking to her boyfriend. So are there underlying issues which haven’t been revealed?

This is the fisherman story that Wulf mentioned.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/nicola-bulley-investigation-calls-fishermen-26239988

[caz]

The police have just revealed that detectives judged Nicola to be at high risk when she was reported missing, due to "specific vulnerabilities" they were made aware of.

This is apparently normal with missing person cases, so it may simply mean that this was a female out walking alone in a relatively quiet area when she was last sighted. The problem is that the wording here will no doubt give rise to all sorts of new speculation about the nature of these specific vulnerabilities, including whether they relate to her life before her sudden unexplained disappearance.

And here we are, the radio news has just reported that she was considered to be at high risk due to vulnerabilities at the time she went missing, which could be read in two ways. More clarity is surely needed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Aethelwulf]

Had the press conference on in the background while I've been working this morning and can see why the main theory is the river. The area is well covered by CCTV, apart from one blind spot (I thought there were more than this) near the main road, there is no sign she left. However, one thing that struck me as anomalous is that these two fishermen who were at the river the day before, and one of them apparently tried to hide his face, cannot be found on CCTV. They sound like genuine fishermen, had rods etc, but if someone innocent can be missed by CCTV, what else could be missed? The other points I noticed were that the dogs harness was found away from the bench towards the river, which makes the falling in option sound a bit more likely. Also, the police mentioned special vulnerabilities a few times. The press asked about this but the police rightly didn't elaborate.

[Wickerman]

In the early reports of this stained glove they never said it belonged to Nicola, nor what the stains were.
Against the idea of a voluntary disappearance, in my view is (obviously) leaving her children - almost unthinkable for most women, and the fact she didn't tie up her dog so it wouldn't follow her.
I have to wonder if the police can show the two women dog-walkers captured on CCTV along her route, why have they not shown Nicola?
We are told Nicola was a creature of habit, that she walked the same path, the same route, at the same time, every day.
Against the idea she may have drowned, we have reports that she was a strong swimmer, plus the weir will retain anything solid that drifts up against it, because the river was not in flood at the time.

[JeffHamm]

reposting this as it looks more and more like my original speculation on abduction is probably correct.and she was probably abducted while she was on the call near the bench.

Hi Abby,

It sort of feels that way to me too, but I also have a niggling idea that she might have chosen to disappear. There's a lot against that idea though - it doesn't sound like there was any issue in her relationship, and it sounds like she was very close to her kids, etc. But, for some people, the stress of family life can be overwhelming, especially if they are perfectionists or high achievers (those used to controlling things). If she was batteling some private deamons ...

Just to be clear, I place that at quite a distance behind abduction. I can't dismiss the "fell into the river" idea either, really, but it is looking like that's not the case as I'm sure they would have found her by now. I suppose if they locate her closer to where the river empties into the sea the mystery was just that the river currents are stronger than we realised. If they don't find her, I think either abduction (most likely) or voluntary flight (less likely, but still needs consideration), are the two lines to follow.

Sadly, my instinct is like yours, that she's been taken by force, and given the amount of time that has passed, I fear the worst. Fortunately, I've been wrong often enough that there's a good possibility this is one of those cases.

Oh, and by the way, I should mention, if she's voluntarily taken a brief holiday (to put it nicely), it may be that the press attention is what has kept her from quietly returning. She may feel even more trapped than before!

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

If she was taken, was it the case that the killer had been watching her? She walked her dog there every day and the fact that no one was caught on cctv might indicate that the killer was aware of the camera blind spot, so maybe an indication of planning? And if she was taken then her phone being left shows that a bit of thought might have gone into this. I don’t know if they’ve found the tatty red van that was seen around? Perhaps she knew her killer to some extent?

Hi Herlock,

So many possibilities, and abduction is one line to consider. I've been wondering about that, and the lack of CCTV footage would mean, if she was abducted they had to have taken her out through the blind spot. Ok, sure. But how would one know where the blind spot was? Is it that obvious? I admit, I don't know how "common knowledge" fits in to things like where CCTV blind spots are - I recognize that it would be useful to the criminal element to know such things, but just because it would be useful to me to know the next winning lottery numbers doesn't mean it's possible for me to get that information. So, where would they get their information from? Are the cameras so obvious that one can work it out if they have a mind to? How sure can one be that "walking this route means we're not recorded"?

In the article I read above, I believe the idea put forth was that she entered the area via a route she didn't normally take, and it just so happened that the camera on that path was not working (probably only one camera at the entrance I'm assuming). I don't know if they have CCTV of her deeper into the area (which would at least confirm she really was there, which in turn would allow one to evaluate the witnesses, and if all the ducks are in a row then we can start to remove some clutter from the picture).

Anyway, another article I read just a short time ago involved her partner, who said that on the day she went missing the morning was unusually "peaceful" (meaning, normally their mornings are very hectic getting the kids ready for school, etc, but that morning it was all very smooth sailing - again, like the idea she may have changed her dog walking route habit, something seems a bit "foreshadowing", but of course, the above could also be retroactive editing of his memory - of course it was calm when you compare it to the storm that followed! And, it helps to make the memory of that day a bit less painful.

I don't know, but then, trying to peer into an investigation through the edited lens of the press can lead one to very distorted ideas.

Apparently there will be a police press release today around mid-day (maybe earlier?). I don't think there's any major announcement (doesn't sound like it, but then, it wouldn't would it?) but it's presented as to "clear up some misinformation that has been circulating". Might be worth keeping an eye out for. Keep in mind, it is sometimes in the best interest of an investigation for the police to be the one's throwing about a bit of disinformation. Helps detect the cranks - so removes clutter.

- Jeff