Nicola Bulley, what does everybody think?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Sadly some people who have had/are struggling with alcohol dependency will try their hardest to hide it. My mother who was a recovering alcoholic [ she thankfully didn't touch a drop for the last thirty years of her life ] would, when dependent hide bottles of Vodka. I don't like saying this but there may be a possibility that Nicola hid some alcohol down by the riverbank just below or above water surface.

Darryl

[Ms Diddles]

Oh crikey, it looks like the police are trying to justify their 'no third party' position, using alleged problems Nicola was recently having with the menopause and alcohol in that regard. If so, it's an absolute disgrace, and is not evidence that she went into the river - especially as her partner is so sure that something else has happened to her.

Just heard there was a welfare check made at their home, two weeks before Nicola's disappearance.

I still think the police were wrong to make any assumptions - particularly in public - based on a complete lack of physical evidence to explain what happened to the poor woman.

Love,

Caz
X

Agreed Caz!

The introduction of "specific vulnerabilities " was always going to fan the flames and add to the speculation.

It's entirely up in the air as to whether or not these "vulnerabilities" have any bearing on whatever has happened.

Who knows?

I suppose this could be seen as slightly increasing the possibility of a breakdown / voluntary disappearance which (although still very sad and disturbing) is probably the most positive (or least awful) of the potential outcomes.

[Abby Normal]

Oh crikey, it looks like the police are trying to justify their 'no third party' position, using alleged problems Nicola was recently having with the menopause and alcohol in that regard. If so, it's an absolute disgrace, and is not evidence that she went into the river - especially as her partner is so sure that something else has happened to her.

Just heard there was a welfare check made at their home, two weeks before Nicola's disappearance.

I still think the police were wrong to make any assumptions - particularly in public - based on a complete lack of physical evidence to explain what happened to the poor woman.

Love,

Caz
X

seems like she was having some mental/health issues---police going to a home to do a welfare check is surely an indicator of it being at least somewhat serious. and of course points toward possible suicide or voluntarily missing.

Its why i asked in my first post if she was having mental issues.

Knowing all this now, I would say a better chance she committed suicide in the river (and they simply havent found her body), but I still lean toward abduction.

[Bridewell]

The "specific vulnerabilities" would, I think, have to relate to her personal circumstances. A physically healthy 45 year old woman wouldn't be immediately classified as "high risk" just because she was last seen walking her dog alongside a river. In terms of the police investigation, the only thing I would take issue with is the failure to seal off the bench and surrounding area because you should always assume the possibility of foul play until that has been categorically ruled out. That's basic routine and it should have been done. The SIO spoke of various tests having been done with regard to the mobile phone. If the scene had been properly secured that could have included fingerprint analysis but I suspect that the failure to preserve the scene has lost any forensic evidence there may once have been.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She was described as a strong swimmer some time ago.

Cheers Colin. I missed it.

[Bridewell]

Have they said whether she could swim or not Ero?

She was described as a strong swimmer some time ago.

[caz]

Alternatively, the police may simply have wanted to justify their own position, of not suspecting anyone else's involvement, and wrongly imagined that mentioning Nicola's existing "vulnerabilities", without further qualification, would suffice. If so, I think that was a mistake.

Oh crikey, it looks like the police are trying to justify their 'no third party' position, using alleged problems Nicola was recently having with the menopause and alcohol in that regard. If so, it's an absolute disgrace, and is not evidence that she went into the river - especially as her partner is so sure that something else has happened to her.

Just heard there was a welfare check made at their home, two weeks before Nicola's disappearance.

I still think the police were wrong to make any assumptions - particularly in public - based on a complete lack of physical evidence to explain what happened to the poor woman.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Although it's confusing and frustrating for us, the police evidently don't think it will help at this stage to elaborate. I'm not sure why they said anything, because it was bound to create more public speculation, but they presumably have their reasons.

The thing is, Nicola is not here to confirm or deny these unspecified, but supposedly 'specific' vulnerabilities, so the police will have needed to know who else knew about them, among her friends, work colleagues, other family members or medical professionals, before assessing their potential relevance to her disappearance. What we don't yet understand is why this aspect has only been made public now, and in such a cryptic and ambiguous fashion. If her vulnerabilities are of a private nature, known only to her partner, that would only add to the mystery. It's possible that the police are hoping someone will come forward with details about her life that have not been made public, and could confirm or contradict the information they already have to work with.

Alternatively, the police may simply have wanted to justify their own position, of not suspecting anyone else's involvement, and wrongly imagined that mentioning Nicola's existing "vulnerabilities", without further qualification, would suffice. If so, I think that was a mistake.

Love,

Caz
X

of course it is. if they werent going to elaborate , they should have just not said it. specific vulnerabilities, high risk.. could mean anything from the general a woman alone in a park to that she was having mental issues, to she was an online sex worker. or many other different meanings. all which imply very different scenarios for her disapearance. they need to clear it up what they meant asap.

and again it may help solve it if the public knew.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I suspect that the poor wording is all my own!!!

Not at all, Ms D! I keep reading it in all the reports.

I can't recall the exact phrase which the police used, but it stood out to me how they almost immediately downplayed the possibility of someone else being involved.

IIRC it was a while before they came out and stated that they believed Nicola was in the river, but they seemed to favour voluntary disappearance or suicide from the very outset.

That implied to me that they had significant information which was not in the public domain.

You were right, and we know that now because of her 'high risk' status from the start.

My first thought was that conference call but it could also be mental health, personal circumstances or a million other things.

To me "specific vulnerabilities" sounds like much more than simply being a lone woman walking her dog in a quiet place.

The above would make some kind of sense if the police favoured an abduction, but as they are backing the river theory it doesn't add up.

Little about this case does.

Indeed. That's why I wondered if the police are really backing the river theory, or if this is a red herring, dangled in the hope of someone slipping up or revealing something new.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

the police need to say what the hell they meant by vulnerable. it could help solve the case if the public knew. all its doing is causing confusion and wild speculation.

Although it's confusing and frustrating for us, the police evidently don't think it will help at this stage to elaborate. I'm not sure why they said anything, because it was bound to create more public speculation, but they presumably have their reasons.

The thing is, Nicola is not here to confirm or deny these unspecified, but supposedly 'specific' vulnerabilities, so the police will have needed to know who else knew about them, among her friends, work colleagues, other family members or medical professionals, before assessing their potential relevance to her disappearance. What we don't yet understand is why this aspect has only been made public now, and in such a cryptic and ambiguous fashion. If her vulnerabilities are of a private nature, known only to her partner, that would only add to the mystery. It's possible that the police are hoping someone will come forward with details about her life that have not been made public, and could confirm or contradict the information they already have to work with.

Alternatively, the police may simply have wanted to justify their own position, of not suspecting anyone else's involvement, and wrongly imagined that mentioning Nicola's existing "vulnerabilities", without further qualification, would suffice. If so, I think that was a mistake.

Love,

Caz
X

[Darryl Kenyon]

Nicola may not have fallen into the river where her phone was. The dog could have ran off chasing a cat say, Nicola could have chased after and slipped/fallen in further down the river . Do we know how far the weir was from the bench ?

Regards Darryl

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Ms D,

Sorry to meet again under such sad circumstances.

I'm not sure it's helpful for the police to keep saying they do not suspect any 'third party' involvement. I assume this is just poor wording, when they mean they suspect no 'second' person was involved, but it could be a bit misleading.

I'm sure the police will have examined all the phone evidence, in connection with the 'specific vulnerabilities' they were informed about, but we may only learn more if their enquiries lead anywhere.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I suspect that the poor wording is all my own!!!

I can't recall the exact phrase which the police used, but it stood out to me how they almost immediately downplayed the possibility of someone else being involved.

IIRC it was a while before they came out and stated that they believed Nicola was in the river, but they seemed to favour voluntary disappearance or suicide from the very outset.

That implied to me that they had significant information which was not in the public domain.

My first thought was that conference call but it could also be mental health, personal circumstances or a million other things.

To me "specific vulnerabilities" sounds like much more than simply being a lone woman walking her dog in a quiet place.

The above would make some kind of sense if the police favoured an abduction, but as they are backing the river theory it doesn't add up.

Little about this case does.

[Ms Diddles]

who sends an email to their boss and joins a conference call if they are planning an immediate suicide??

Agreed Abby!

That's why I'm curious about the content of that call.

Did something transpire which resulted in the disappearance?

It's rather a vague theory I know!

[caz]

I feel somewhat voyeuristic speculating, but I still think it's likely that there was something in the content of that conference call that could have prompted the disappearance (either through suicide or simply prompting a breakdown / walk away due to stress) which also caused the police to describe Nicola's circumstances as "vulnerable".

Almost as soon as the disappearance was announced the police stated that they did not suspect any third party involvement, which I thought was strange.

To me that implied that from the offset they had much more information than was in the public domain.

I'm sure I read of texts sent prior to the conference call, sent to a friend which appeared completely normal and involved scheduling a playdate for their kids (or similar).

I know that's far from definitive proof that all was well prior to the conference call, but it could support that notion.

I'd be really interested to know the content of that conference call, as it's possible the answer is in there somewhere.

Hi Ms D,

Sorry to meet again under such sad circumstances.

I'm not sure it's helpful for the police to keep saying they do not suspect any 'third party' involvement. I assume this is just poor wording, when they mean they suspect no 'second' person was involved, but it could be a bit misleading.

I'm sure the police will have examined all the phone evidence, in connection with the 'specific vulnerabilities' they were informed about, but we may only learn more if their enquiries lead anywhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

That would be speculating, Abby. The police are implying nothing specific so, for all we know, Nicola could have been vulnerable due to the behaviour of some other person or persons. Did she have any enemies for instance? Was she being bullied, threatened or stalked by someone - either a stranger online or someone she knew? Had a previous partner been making trouble? Granted, all these situations would cause mental stress and could even lead to suicide in extreme cases, but they would also make a woman physically vulnerable to the individual concerned.

If she was mentally unstable or had suicidal thoughts for no external reasons, how could her partner possibly be so certain that wherever she vanished to, it wasn't the river? And why are the police implying that the man who knew her best is most likely wrong? They are still saying they have no evidence of anyone else being involved. But I'm seriously beginning to wonder how a strong swimmer would expect to be able to drown herself in that particular part of that river, and why her body has still not been found if she did. An overdose of pills and a note left for her family would seem a kinder and more likely way out of a mother's despair.

Love,

Caz
X

the police need to say what the hell they meant by vulnerable. it could help solve the case if the public knew. all its doing is causing confusion and wild speculation.