The man/witness the police were looking for yesterday who they said, last night, had been found and was being spoken to. He's supposed to be the same man that the woman who found the dog spoke to. Why didn't he make himself known to police earlier? He must know about this situation from local news, why did he only contact the police yesterday after they had put out an appeal for him? Also, is he the owner of the 'abandoned' house?
A couple of days ago, someone from the volunteer search and rescue team said they came across the house during the early stage of the search effort. He was quoted as saying 'we went to search the outside of the property, the owner was there FOR SOME REASON'. What does that mean? He went on to say they couldn't search the actual house because that was the job of the police (I assume they mean from legal perspective - search warrant etc) but that they asked the owner to go in and see if Nicola was in there. Apparently the owner went in and had a quick look, then came back out and said she wasn't there. Then late last night after finding the man/witness they (police) were looking for, the police finally started looking at this property.
I can't help but feel the 2 might be connected. Even if the man/witness from last night is not the owner of the abandoned house, and is just a genuine witness,it's so weird that the bench is right across the river from the house. Then with the comment from the volunteer implying that the owner wouldn't normally be there. Really makes me think there's something to the house.
How wonderful it would be if the police announce she's been found safe and well, that's what we all want