Nicola Bulley, what does everybody think?

[Curious Cat]

These are some of the questions I would have asked at the start:


Was the place Nicola took the dog for a walk a regular or semi regular routine? Was it always at or around that time of day?

At what point during a walk would Nicola take the lead/harness off the dog? Would she let the dog roam while sat on a bench or keep within a certain distance while the dog was off-lead?

Was the work call she took a regularly set meeting on a weekly cycle for that day? Was the work call not regularly set and only arranged to take place within 48 hours before?

Is there a route via the CCTV's blind spot that Nicola could have taken to another spot along the river without being picked up elsewhere at the time? Is there a route anyone else could have taken to enter the area via the CCTV's blind spot without being picked up elsewhere?

[Monty]

Ask the dive team, Monty. They were working on the police theory that Nicola fell in the river accidentally and have said it could have made a difference in those early days to know about her specific vulnerabilities.

What's this new evidence that she fell foul of something sinister? I haven't seen that.

Love,

Caz
X

They are there to search the river, not to conduct the investigation. That is their skill set.

I didn’t state there was new evidence that something sinister has occurred.

Monty

[Monty]

Maybe not, Monty, except that Lancashire Police have now alerted Nicola, in the event she is still out there somewhere, taking time out, to the fact that the whole world now knows about her deeply personal health issues. What effect that could have on her already vulnerable state does not bear thinking about.

The killer of Sarah Everard was known as "The Rapist" among his fellow officers. Is it an unfair or sweeping statement to say the police in general need to clean up their act concerning their attitude towards vulnerable women everywhere?

Love,

Caz
X

Your opinion Caz, and one I wager is based on limited knowledge of Nicola Bulley’s full personal circumstance, and includes her family who are also impacted.

Yes, grossly unfair and, more importantly, incorrect.

Misogyny runs through all of society, to point a finger at one organisation shows a lack of comprehension of that fact. We see it in Westminster, in the work place, here, everywhere, including the police. However to only draw focus on the latter kinda smacks of the blinkered and simplistic agenda ministers would rather the public adopt than the bigger picture in all of this.

If the personal information was withheld to come out at a later stage (which, according to her family, would happen via unscrupulous profiteers), I feel the criticism would have been as equally vehement.

Damed if you do…

Monty

[rjpalmer]

I'm puzzled why she would log into a business call that, by all accounts, did not involved her - she was only listening in, not participating. And, having listened in why put the phone down without logging out, it seems like an open ended thing to do.

Hi Wick.

You should feel very fortunate if you've never worked for a company that required you to log-on to their tedious remote conferences. Some employers expect it.

The drill is simple enough. You log-on but keep the camera and the microphone off so you can gargle, comb your hair, cook breakfast, walk the dog, do the dishes, etc., while a Chief Financial Officer that you've never met and who lives on the far coast drones on about matters that don't even remotely concern you. You just have to pay enough attention to appropriately "log off" again when the meeting is over, and thus you get credit for having "attended" this required meeting. I suspect it was something along those lines.

Setting down the phone during these calls isn't unusual--it's almost guaranteed!

But what you really must be asking is 'why bother'? If someone decided to shuffle off this mortal coil or disappear, why do such a thing?

I am by no means suggesting this applies to the current case, but the chap who broke the 'Enigma' code during World War II was later found dead from cyanide poisoning in his home. Some were convinced it was suicide, others pointed out that he liked to conduct experiments in his home laboratory and were just as convinced that it was an accident. Others felt that he had deliberately staged the death so it would be ambiguous, and thus the people who loved him could give it their own interpretation. Those that wanted to expect the best could do so--and those that didn't, didn't have to.

There's an unintended cruelty to it, perhaps, like buying a round trip ticket to Hammersmith and then ending up at the bottom of the Thames.

I hasten to repeat that this need not apply to the current case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know!

When I saw your post, my first thought was "Oh no! What has some old-school male hack at the DM been spouting off about now after his liquid lunch in the journo pub?"

I was genuinely a bit surprised and very disappointed to see such nonsense coming from a woman.

It sounds like a comment that we might have expected to have heard during the Yorkshire Ripper investigation.

[Ms Diddles]

I’m hardly the worlds most pc man but how can anyone even consider making a comment like that? And as you say, from a woman! Where do they get these people? I’m guessing…the 1970’s.

I know!

When I saw your post, my first thought was "Oh no! What has some old-school male hack at the DM been spouting off about now after his liquid lunch in the journo pub?"

I was genuinely a bit surprised and very disappointed to see such nonsense coming from a woman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was just thinking that the gate and fence is only a few metres away behind the bench. Given that she was on a conference call and it's only a short distance, I just wondered if she could have put the phone down with the intention of coming straight back. Rather than say putting the phone in her pocket, which I doubt she'd do if on a call. It still looks most like suicide IMO but as I said, you'd have thought they have found her or at least turned up a welly by now.

Fair point Wulf. If it was just a short distance and she might have thought that the bench wouldn’t have been out of her site or only for a couple of seconds. Plus having the dog around to possibly bark at a stranger?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Uggggghhh!

I'm always extra disappointed when it's another woman who engages in this sh!t.

Who cares what the senior investigating officer looks like or how she wears her hair?

Short of turning up to the press conference in a posing pouch, I really can't imagine circumstances when anyone would be discussing this if the SIO was a dude.

I hate it when women buy into this misogynistic crap themselves.

I’m hardly the worlds most pc man but how can anyone even consider making a comment like that? And as you say, from a woman! Where do they get these people? I’m guessing…the 1970’s.

[Aethelwulf]

The kind of tactic Bundy used. My only point against that suggestion Wulf is that I’m a 57 year old bloke and I wouldn’t leave my phone on a park bench so I just find it difficult to believe that a woman of Nicola’s age would have done it although it’s not impossible of course. It may have been left by an abductor to avoid tracking but why would he go back to the bench and put it there rather than chuck it into the bushes or even better, into the river. I haven’t a clue what happened but the phone might be the strongest pointer to her either ending up in the river or simply walking off as a result of her mental health issues? And it might not of course.

I was just thinking that the gate and fence is only a few metres away behind the bench. Given that she was on a conference call and it's only a short distance, I just wondered if she could have put the phone down with the intention of coming straight back. Rather than say putting the phone in her pocket, which I doubt she'd do if on a call. It still looks most like suicide IMO but as I said, you'd have thought they have found her or at least turned up a welly by now.

[Ms Diddles]

A Daily Mail reporter making an idiotic comment (again)

https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-bu...ntury-12813782

Uggggghhh!

I'm always extra disappointed when it's another woman who engages in this sh!t.

Who cares what the senior investigating officer looks like or how she wears her hair?

Short of turning up to the press conference in a posing pouch, I really can't imagine circumstances when anyone would be discussing this if the SIO was a dude.

I hate it when women buy into this misogynistic crap themselves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A Daily Mail reporter making an idiotic comment (again)

https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-bulley-ex-police-watchdog-chief-criticises-media-coverage-of-detective-leading-case-this-is-the-21st-century-12813782

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder if it is suicide it's not at the river. Apparently if you go back along the river path and turn left there is no CCTV, that is why the police were asking for dash cam footage on the main road. It's odd that she hasn't been found in the river, given they've had three weeks of totally benign weather to work with. If this is a crime, it could be that someone has called to her under some false pretense 'i need help/i'm lost can you help'. She puts the phone down and goes over.

The kind of tactic Bundy used. My only point against that suggestion Wulf is that I’m a 57 year old bloke and I wouldn’t leave my phone on a park bench so I just find it difficult to believe that a woman of Nicola’s age would have done it although it’s not impossible of course. It may have been left by an abductor to avoid tracking but why would he go back to the bench and put it there rather than chuck it into the bushes or even better, into the river. I haven’t a clue what happened but the phone might be the strongest pointer to her either ending up in the river or simply walking off as a result of her mental health issues? And it might not of course.

[Aethelwulf]

I'm puzzled why she would log into a business call that, by all accounts, did not involved her - she was only listening in, not participating. And, having listened in why put the phone down without logging out, it seems like an open ended thing to do.
It's that minor point that suggests to me she was interrupted. Did someone speak to her, and she intended to return to the call but put the phone down momentarily to respond to whomever came up to her.
Or, did she see something she had to respond to immediately, and put the phone down for a second?




And yet, suggesting rational solutions will not solve it, is also applying rational thinking.

I'm becoming more inclined to think this is a planned disappearance, or it is a crime and that there was a third party involved somehow.

I wonder if it is suicide it's not at the river. Apparently if you go back along the river path and turn left there is no CCTV, that is why the police were asking for dash cam footage on the main road. It's odd that she hasn't been found in the river, given they've had three weeks of totally benign weather to work with. If this is a crime, it could be that someone has called to her under some false pretense 'i need help/i'm lost can you help'. She puts the phone down and goes over.

[Abby Normal]

Don't really think it's weird. If you know anyone who has been traumatized by the sudden suicide of a loved one, there's a shedload of guilt attached to the survivors. Like "How did I not know, why didn't I see it, why didn't I stop it, why didn't I do something". There's also the outward blame that people will put on him, "How did you not know your wife/partner was that desperate?" Many people who are left behind with sudden suicides would FAR rather believe that it was a murder, than something their loved one "chose" to inflict on their family. Which is not a rational response, but I've seen it play out, even when circumstances are clear. No, it wasn't suicide, it was an "accidental overdose". No it wasn't suicide, they "shot themselves while cleaning their gun". Or, "No, it was murder".

People are more comforted by something they can "understand" than something senseless. A violent predator, strange as it may sound, is probably more comforting than, "The person I lived with just up and decided to jump in the river". I am not saying she did commit suicide, there's no evidence one way or another, but I totally understand the loved ones not wanting to believe it, even if it's obvious to everyone else. Those closest to you, aren't always the most neutral reporters on what you are likely to do as their own emotional biases will influence what they are willing to accept as "true".

ahh. got it. never thought of it that way. thanks!

[Ally]

but whats so bizarre is that then why is the one closest to her-her boyfriend-so adament that she did not commit suicide and isnt in the river!?!
so wierd.

Don't really think it's weird. If you know anyone who has been traumatized by the sudden suicide of a loved one, there's a shedload of guilt attached to the survivors. Like "How did I not know, why didn't I see it, why didn't I stop it, why didn't I do something". There's also the outward blame that people will put on him, "How did you not know your wife/partner was that desperate?" Many people who are left behind with sudden suicides would FAR rather believe that it was a murder, than something their loved one "chose" to inflict on their family. Which is not a rational response, but I've seen it play out, even when circumstances are clear. No, it wasn't suicide, it was an "accidental overdose". No it wasn't suicide, they "shot themselves while cleaning their gun". Or, "No, it was murder".

People are more comforted by something they can "understand" than something senseless. A violent predator, strange as it may sound, is probably more comforting than, "The person I lived with just up and decided to jump in the river". I am not saying she did commit suicide, there's no evidence one way or another, but I totally understand the loved ones not wanting to believe it, even if it's obvious to everyone else. Those closest to you, aren't always the most neutral reporters on what you are likely to do as their own emotional biases will influence what they are willing to accept as "true".