Nicola Bulley, what does everybody think?

[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.

[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?

[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 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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi RJ
Funny as you mention it my company did require it's employees to log-on from home to complete monthly training - question & answer sessions, but I can't imagine me logging-on for a final session just minutes before I commit suicide.

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?

Yes, that is precisely what I meant - it wasn't the putting down the phone that was unusual, it was what was going to happen next - if she intended to end her life within the next hour - why bother logging on in the first place?

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.

When you say 'later', you mean like a decade later?
He died in the mid 1950's.

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.

Wasn't Turing harassed due to his sexual preferences?

Anyway, on reflection I wonder why the police dismissed Paul so quickly, I know they say he was sending emails. I don't think they should rest on their laurels on that score. My email has a 'send from different email address' feature.
But wouldn't we expect police to know all about this?

[rjpalmer]

When you say 'later', you mean like a decade later?
He died in the mid 1950's.

Yes, I mean a decade later. I wasn't implying there was any connection to his codebreaking. Later, merely as in later.

Wasn't Turing harassed due to his sexual preferences?

Whether the unwanted police attention explains his death is a matter of conjecture. Many believe it did, while one sympathetic biographer claims that he remained cheerful, and it was like water off a duck's back.

I read that his own mother doubted the suicide theory. She refused to believe it.

Anyway, my only point is that there are often odd details that are never resolved. And in the current case, we don't even know if Ms. Bulley is dead.

[Dickere]

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.

There wouldn't have been a woman leading, or probably even on, the team in the 1970s. There may have been a decent looking one doing the reconstruction though. That doesn't seem to happen anymore though, in general, does it ?

[String]

It’s turning into a zoo

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nicola-bulley-disappearance-tiktok-detective-b2285189.html

[Ms Diddles]

There wouldn't have been a woman leading, or probably even on, the team in the 1970s. There may have been a decent looking one doing the reconstruction though. That doesn't seem to happen anymore though, in general, does it ?

More's the pity, Dickere.

And I don't mean the lack of good looking actresses participating in reconstructions!!

I'm confident that some of those testosterone-filled incident rooms would have benefitted immeasurably from the input of a few smart women.

[Joshua Rogan]

Police search underway downstream of the site she disappeared,, apparently after tip off from dog walkers. Looks like this may be coming to an unhappy resolution soon.

[Joshua Rogan]

Sadly confirmed that a body has been found.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-64697300