Is this Peter faulding guy genuine?

[Morph22010]

He’s the one who was involved in the Nicola bulley search, he’s now involved in the search for the missing boy in the river in Leicester due to public pressure which I totally understand as the family will want to try everything.

however I thought Nicola bulley was found by a dog walker after Peter faulding said she was not in the river or he would have found her. I admit I haven’t watched his recent online interview but people are saying he says he found Nicola bulley within 6 mins of searching and thst the police wouldn’t let his divers do a proper look in that area. Apparently he’s saying it wasn’t highlighted in the inquest as he wasn’t invited to give evidence. People on local fb sites seem to be hailing him as some sort of god and that the police are evil liars but I am quite sceptical as I see he has a book out to promote. Maybe he is just a genuine nice guy and hopefully he will find this little boy with his equipment but there’s just something that doesn’t quite sit right with things he says

I thought he had totally stuffed up the Nicola Bulley search? Not so much because he hadn't found her, but because of all the bluster he spouted about his abilities, but then failed to deliver upon.

I may be wrong.

Yes, he is a real expert

Who is Peter Faulding? Diving expert called in to help with Nicola Bulley | The Independent

Who made a recent, extremely high profile mistake.

Nicola Bulley was found in a reed bed, which sonar can't penetrate. A riverbank and wade search was needed. It was the decision of the Police why that didn't happen, could gave been budgeting etc. Which is fair enough in the search of a body, not person. He quite rightly said that if she was on the river bed, they'd find her, but she wasn't.

Ahhh thanks Ponoka, that makes a lot of sense and of course sounds like something I should have known!

Good question…but you really have to look deeply at everything. Yes previously he has helped out on many police searches, recovered numerous deceased, evidence and involved himself in high profile cases. So he has done some very good deeds in the past.

Last year, he managed to really let himself down badly with his behaviour and tactics. I think the publicity, limelight and self promotion opportunities really got to him. Plus with his friend Mark-Williams Thomas they thought they were almost senior players in the investigation of missing NB. Manufacturing their outlandish theories, manipulating the press, numerous media appearances, social media, book shows. Using various dubious Facebook & YouTube homemade, journalist and amateur detectives to push narratives that simple deceive all those willing to keep their eyes shut. Recently he’s pushed a narrative that he found NB within 6 minutes of searching, the police are corrupt and he is some sort of down trodden saviour. It’s very much an attempt to try and airbrush out his own poor judgement, behaviour and very poor searching last year. I don’t believe the police were without blame, they clearly lost control, allowing an individual such as Faulding to step in a produce his unfortunate misinformation.

So whilst I do believe Mr Faulding does good deeds, the motivation behind them is more about his ego, self promotion and business opportunities. Maybe that’s a good thing for those poor victims families but be aware that his intentions might not be anything to do with those families.

I think he has learnt from last year, he’s taken a team up to this search area, with 4 vehicles, a trailer and full sonar & dive kit. He’s also kept very quiet and allowed the assistant chief to do all the updating on media matters. Well done I say for that. The team he has are all experienced, either ex police, military, emergency services etc, so they aren’t amateurs. As for Mr Faulding, he’s mostly self trained in side scan sonar, is a basic HSE diver but has no forensic, crime investigation training whatsoever. Some of his background claims are quite interesting but that’s another matter. He does refer to himself as a forensic expert and world leading, I think that’s stretching things quite a lot but it’s good for his business.

Anyway good luck to the SGI Rescue guys, I hope you can help this family at least.

@Breezyanus yes that’s exactly the narrative I’ve been seeing lately about finding her in 6 mins/ police being corrupt which I hadn’t heard before now and can understand why the Leicestershire police were reluctant to involve him until public pressure mounted

I would say he was genuine, haven’t the police called him in for another search for the poor little toddler that slipped into the water?

That's not what he said at the time unless he was mis quoted by every news outlet, he said she wasn't in the river, no qualification that he was only referring to the bed

Whatever his qualifications he was extremely foolish to make a definitive statement.

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/23/nicola-bulley-peter-faulding-diving-expert

This is interesting as a reflection

The police didn’t call him in, that’s been misquoted by the press. Basically Mr Faulding approached the family directly, (reasons why, maybe good publicity) the police family liaison officer was then asked by the family if SGI could assist. They refused for whatever reason. Pressure grew and the police then finally agreed. I think it was the correct decision although a hard one by police, they definitely couldn’t justify refusal as it would look quite malicious, especially after Lancashire police’s rebuttal of Mr Faulding in 2023. I can imagine the Leicester police worry about Mr Fauldings previous conduct, but I understand he promised to not engage with the media. Fair enough.

Very good and well respected expert who for whatever reason handled the NB case completely wrong and damaged his credibility. Hopefully he can repair it.

That’s interesting too, Reed bed, it’s not that the sonar can’t penetrate which is true. The side scan sonar is usually towed from the side or behind a boat/vessel. Checking the sides of rivers etc with reed beds is almost impossible, everything gets tangled up. What you do then is identify that area that’s missed and highlight it to be physically searched by personnel and/or divers without any doubt. Otherwise it’s not a through or properly conducted search. It’s like saying you absolutely checked a road without going to the gutters. This simply wasn’t ever done by Mr Fauldings team, for whatever reasons. Nor was it identified to the police as a missed area.

I recall he stated “if she’s in there, I will find her”. You simply never use that type of quote or confirmation ever. You say “ I have searched that area throughly and found nothing suspect” or “ I have searched this area, been unable to search this particular area”. This was the main error in Mr Fauldings search and he knows it or should do. Blaming the police 12 months later and claiming other things happened, just makes you look incredibly dishonest.

However, I do feel his actual team there now are very competent and I salute their efforts and determination.

I've met and interviewed him. And I think he's a genuine good guy who is generally extremely good at his job.

What he says and what the press report are not necessarily the same thing...

"I've met and interviewed him. And I think he's a genuine good guy who is generally extremely good at his job.

What he says and what the press report are not necessarily the same thing..."

I mean, we all heard what he said and it was carelessly worded at best.

Ok, that’s obviously your personal opinion on Mr Faulding, fair enough.

I would say that everything Mr Faulding said was recorded, documented on live TV, Sky, BBC and various other outlets, it’s all over YouTube, twitter, TikTok etc etc. He definitely wasn’t misquoted in those numerous interviews etc etc and was very clear with his words. So the press reporting excuse wouldn’t really fly here I think.

Or he was very clear with his words, very precise, and as far as he was concerned ‘the river’ does not equal ‘the reed bed’. Maybe if he is used to describing things very precisely, more carefully than others, that would be the terminology he would use.

A bit like the Gareth Williams case. The recent reconstruction has been widely reported on and in the most recent reports they repeat that Faulding had said Williams could not have done it - Houdini couldn’t have done it. However what he actually said at the time was slightly, but crucially different (and is evidenced in some reports from the time)

Faulding testified at the Coroner’s inquest and did not definitively rule out that Williams could have somehow locked himself into the bag alone. But he said he could not have done so without leaving evidence

Looks like the search has shifted near to Echo Railway Bridge River Soar and Freemans Meadow Lock, opposite the King Power Stadium. Looking at that location is a natural choke point and locals say that a lot of debris ends up there. Good luck search teams.

But when he said on the Nicola bulley case at the time was “she is not in the river or we would have found her” which at the time because there was speculation anyway about whether she had actually gone into the river at all was seen as meaning she wasn’t in the river full stop. If he’s have said “she’s definately not on the river bed but could be in the reeds” that gives a totally different impression in minds of most people

I would also argue that the reed bed is in the river, so however precise your language (or not) that is an unlikely distinction.

The search has focussed on the Great Central Engine Shed site, near Echo Railway Bridge and Freemans Meadow Lock. A natural choke hold for the River Sour in that area, it’s next to a weir and downstream from the incident area. Locals confirm its debris site for the River. Good luck search teams.