Nicola Bulley, what does everybody think?

[Wickerman]

Interesting. I hadn't heard about this case, but after reading the BBC story, I noticed it said the dog's harness and leash were found on the ground by the bench.

This suggests to me that either Ms. Bulley or an unknown person released the dog and set it loose. If it was found in the village, that supports this idea, but doesn't explain why or who did it. It might support the idea that she deliberately disappeared, or could support her being abducted.

That seems to be an erroneous report, a woman did find the dog running loose but she tied it up somewhere close to the bench, and was seen doing this by another witness.

If Nicola had been taken on land the dog would have followed, in my view, and from what we have seen a vehicle cannot get to that bench so she had to have walked or been dragged across a field, so the dog is going to be there right with her until she is bundled into a vehicle, and that would be where the dog would likely stay - but that is not the case here. A genuine three-pipe problem....
For the dog to be found in the area of the bench suggests that is where Nicola vanished, and the dog couldn't follow, not hard to guess why.

[JeffHamm]

That seems to be an erroneous report, a woman did find the dog running loose but she tied it up somewhere close to the bench, and was seen doing this by another witness.

If Nicola had been taken on land the dog would have followed, in my view, and from what we have seen a vehicle cannot get to that bench so she had to have walked or been dragged across a field, so the dog is going to be there right with her until she is bundled into a vehicle, and that would be where the dog would likely stay - but that is not the case here. A genuine three-pipe problem....
For the dog to be found in the area of the bench suggests that is where Nicola vanished, and the dog couldn't follow, not hard to guess why.

Hmmm, I suppose the dog could have been tied up to the bench when she left the area (however that may have transpired), after which the dog got itself loose, at which point it was found.

Some of the odd things are that she logged into a work call, with her camera off and the sound on mute (apparently normal for her), but didn't log out at the end of it. That means she could have left at any point after the start of that call (modified by the witness sightings of course). I think most people know that phones can be tracked, if on, so if she left of her own accord, then leaving the phone on the bench would make sense but it also makes sense if she was abducted (it makes determining the time of her departure/abduction more difficult). If she's on a call, then her attention to her surroundings will be reduced, potentially making her an attractive target, but if she's planning on disappearing, then making it seem like she's engaged in a work related call helps make tracking her more difficult.

Given she didn't log off the call, if she fell into the river (the current police working hypothesis), then it means that for some reason she put her phone down on the bench as she approached the river. From the sounds of it, there's no reason to suspect suicide (though at this point nothing should be dismissed entirely), but barring that line of thinking, given her dog wasn't wet, I can't think of why she would put her phone down during a work call to go over to the river? Also, from the photos, the river isn't one that looks all that conducive to drowning by someone who can swim, even a little (and apparently she could). It's not fast moving at all, so I can't see a body drifting all that far, particularly if the bottom has debris that would catch clothing and hold it in place.

Personally, given the oddity of the situation, the police probably need to start ruling out the various witnesses, particularly the person who found the dog loose and found her phone. Not that there is any strong reason to suspect them, but the first stage is to determine who was in the area but not involved. It is only when it becomes difficult to rule someone out that they start becoming of interest, but the ruling out phase is really just about "de-cluttering" the information space to avoid connecting otherwise random dots.

Also, just saw a report that a "stained glove" was found in the area and handed into the police. Whether or not it has any relation to her disappearance is unknown, and no indication was given as to the nature of the stains. Again, it's either clutter, or it's not, but until that is determined it is unwise to make anything of it either way.

Looking at the map found here, her last sighting is in the upper field (area 5; approximately 9:10), and it appears to be after she had logged into the work call. Her phone is back at the bench (area 3) roughly 10 minutes after that sighting (9:20; not sure how they know that, but presumably it's location was tracked somehow), and it is then found (with her dog) at roughly 9:33 (the work call ended at 9:30).

Considering foul play, if she was abducted, then the upper field (area 5), would be a good alternative place to search for evidence. If she was abducted from there, then I think it would require at least 2 people to be involved, as one would have to take the phone and dog and place them somewhere away from the abduction site while the other removes her from the area (and do this while somehow remaining unseen). I suppose, if she was rendered immobile, then one person could do it, though I would think they would need to hide her from sight in the field first, shift the phone and dog, and return to remove her (again, remaining unseen) - basically this idea all starts to get very complicated if there's only one abductor). Further to this, of course, is that anywhere between the bench and the upper field is a potential "abduction site."

Of course, part of the clutter is the person who knows her and reports seeing her in the upper field (area 5). Here's what I mean by "clutter" and how it leads to chaos if it is not cleared out before one starts to come up with hypotheses.
A) If she's voluntarily vanished, I suppose that person could be helping her (this would entirely depend upon how well they knew each other of course; it would take someone very close to her to assist in such a thing).

B) Alternatively, they could be involved in her abduction somehow.
If either of those is the case then the sighting in area 5 could be mis-information.

C) It's also possible it's a genuine non-involved witness reporting what they saw, making the upper field of interest to the investigation and providing an alternate location for searching.

Just to make it clear, none of these ideas have any basis other than they can be thought of and this is due to the clutter (that we have; the police have probably already sorted this question I would hope). Of course, it would be risky to involve ones' self in the investigation if they are in anyway connected to it (A or B), so the odds are in favour of a genuine witness (C), so it should be easy enough to rule that person out of consideration (and shutting down some of these types of wild speculations that I'm engaging in).

I will be surprised if she's in the river, though. The images I'm seeing of it just don't look like a river where one is at risk of drowning, nor can I think of why she would put her phone down on the bench during a work call to go over to the river in the first place. However, rivers can be tricky, and the surface can mask risks that exist underneath, but the reports are that it's pretty slow moving so if she's in there, she shouldn't be hard to find.

Anyway, I'm just spinning ideas off the top of my head here, and I'm not up on all the details. It's a baffling case for sure though, and I hope, in the end, she's alright and is found ok. It would suggest she's got some issues in her life that she needs to address, but that would be far preferable to the darker alternatives.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hmm, read an article where it says the path she normally followed along the river has CCTV coverage but she isn't on it. There is another one that is/was CCTV blind that she could have used though, so provided the sightings are valid (and we have no reason to suggest they are not - just using cautious phrasing here), it appears she may have done something out of the ordinary. Might mean nothing, of course, but it also might be a pointer to her being aware she would go missing. I would want to know if there was anything that might have influenced this change in her routine that reduces that idea (as in, was the usual path muddy or blocked somehow, etc). Also, how strong was her routine in the first place Was it uncommon for her to use different paths, or did she generally mix it up even if one was the most frequently chosen? If she always took the same path when dog walking, then this change of route needs to be explained. It might, as I say, mean nothing, but it is clutter - until it is cleared or it is not.

- Jeff
P.S. Sadly I didn't note the article, and this just occured to me now.

[Aethelwulf]

In terms of searching a river in winter, conditions have been perfect. The river was low the day she went missing and pretty much all of England has had little more than 1 mm of rain in Feb. Clear water, small river, three weeks of searching. Surely they would have found her by now? Also there is a weir not far downstream of the bench. In a low gradient river like this, flows will be fairly slack/partially impounded for a fair distance upstream because of the artificially raised water level. Considering they dived the reach between the bench and the weir on day one, and given the gentle flows and good conditions, surely they would have found her? I did see a couple of images of the sonar scans of the river bed and the detail is amazing. The scans would also have found her in that area they searched and I can see why the expert was adamant she wasn't in that section of river. Downstream of the weir the river is tidal, but it's a fair distance to the sea and i can't see the tidal range being much at that location and making it possible a body could have moved too far. Rivers are unpredictable though and it could still be possible, but i'm starting to doubt she went into the river.

[String]

Given that the river and area have been searched and there’s no evidence of a struggle the next most likely scenario is that she left under own steam. Either that or it’s Aliens or Chinese weather balloons.

[JeffHamm]

In terms of searching a river in winter, conditions have been perfect. The river was low the day she went missing and pretty much all of England has had little more than 1 mm of rain in Feb. Clear water, small river, three weeks of searching. Surely they would have found her by now? Also there is a weir not far downstream of the bench. In a low gradient river like this, flows will be fairly slack/partially impounded for a fair distance upstream because of the artificially raised water level. Considering they dived the reach between the bench and the weir on day one, and given the gentle flows and good conditions, surely they would have found her? I did see a couple of images of the sonar scans of the river bed and the detail is amazing. The scans would also have found her in that area they searched and I can see why the expert was adamant she wasn't in that section of river. Downstream of the weir the river is tidal, but it's a fair distance to the sea and i can't see the tidal range being much at that location and making it possible a body could have moved too far. Rivers are unpredictable though and it could still be possible, but i'm starting to doubt she went into the river.

Yah, based on the photos I've seen if the river, that's my impression too. But, having fished a fair few streams in my time, I also know that the current can be far stinger than the surface reveals, and if that is the case she could have moved much more than we think But, the divers would know that, and if they found the current to be stronger they would advise searching much further down, etc. By the sounds of it, though, they are also coming to the conclusion she is not in the river.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Abby Normal]

It dosnt appear to be a large fast moving river, so if she went in and drowned im sure the extensive dive/search would have found her or her dog would have at least jumped in and been wet.

if she simply walked away to voluntarily vanish would she leave her phone,car and dog?? I think not.

Im leaning toward foul play. I could possibly see a scenario where the perp parked nearby, knocked her out/dragged her to his car and drives away. The dog returns to the spot where she last was and where her scent (phone and bench) was strongest. her body is not nearby in the park somewhere as thats where they would have found the dog (and her body).

Abduction id say at this point. and i would interogate extensively those last two people in the park who saw her, especially the one who knew her.

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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