Missing woman

[MyOldCaravan]

BBC News - Nicola Bulley: Partner describes perpetual hell over missing mum
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-64450243

Just been reading about this. How awful for her partner and children. Really hope she is found soon

@NothingButAWalkover I have just said similar on other thread.

The devil is in the details & we are in danger of overlooking early vital detail & overlaying with supposition etc. Too many contradictory reports, do we have facts/evidence on below? So often the answer lies hidden at START:

1. Who found the dog first (Park owner)?& did they also find phone at same time, facing up or down? ‘Under a tree’ or not? At angle or not? Did they then place on bench or not?
2. Harness on ground? Did they put on dog or not? Keys clipped to harness or not? Habitual or not for Nicola, if so?
3. Did they tie dog to bench or not?
4. Who did they alert? What was the communication chain, exactly? Who was alerted next & when & so on? Why was the finder there? Did they see anyone acting strangely? (Police of course will have asked)
5. Did Nicola know of this woman at all? Had Willow chased her (?) chickens -behind a wire fence, behind the gate? IF park owner, woman who discovered dog etc, understandable to be sensitive about dogs. Lots of roaming chickens on site. There is some, fairly tenuous, evidence re: a ‘dog sensitivity’ for her, but evidence nonetheless. (Entirely appropriately given running (presumably) a camp site with lots of chickens!) Not pointing fingers. Could dog being off lead (against official rules) have cumulatively angered or troubled anyone else she or anyone else knows of? Not to say these were potential abductors! But context & background so important!
6. Family friend tells us phone on ‘loud speaker’ on calls usually- so could call be heard by woman which is why she saw it, first (?) She also flags CCTV so presumably these are amongst the things the family want us to know.
7. Finder recognised/half recognised & couldn’t place Nicola from lockscreen on phone or not? Recognised dog or not? Continuing conference call (on loud speaker) whilst still on ‘lock screen’ or not?

Of course police will be doing above.

Here is link to forensic 'Drowning' expert
He does have some good points to make.
Extremely experienced in finding bodies in water.

@ilkleymoorbartat clothes in cold wet water, no matter how many layers, won't keep you warm for a few minutes unless you're wearing a wetsuit.

She was wearing short wellies so if she did go in the water they wouldn’t have filled up to the extent long ones one have and you would have thought they would have come off at some point and floated

@oakleaffy thank you for finding & posting the clear link above. He certainly feels compelling, doesn’t he. His professionalism/track record also speaks for itself as he is unwilling to foist himself on the police etc without their say so, yet regularly collaborates with other forces (very successfully).

I cold water swim, and went last week when the water was 3 degrees in just a swimming costume. I know how much you need to work to regulate your breathing, it can really take the air out of your lungs.

However I still find it hard to see how she wouldn't have surfaced right but the bank and quickly managed to get out.

Really thinking about her girls and loved ones. Horrible situation for everyone involved.

Yes I agree with you. I think the police might have made a crucial mistake early on. I'm also wondering about the second witness, again someone who apparently knows Nicola, who saw her at 9.10. Saw her on the far side of the upper field, although I read this person only saw her from a distance. I think this witness was a man, from what I've read.

I'm sure the woman who found the phone and dog said she came across a man, asked him about the phone/dog and then he carried on his way towards Rowanwater. Is this the same man as the second witness? She was spotted fairly close to Rowanwater at 9.10. Surely he should come under a little suspicion, simply for being a man that knew Nicola and is looking like he was the last person to see her, if indeed it was her, as it was at a distance. I will never believe she is in the water until she's found in it and even then, it's possible she's been put in there later on now the public knows that the police think she has been in there all along.

If you are unused to cold water- “cold water shock” is a physical response and not something you can work to overcome.

your blood vessels in your skin and extremities slam shut, forcing all your warm blood to your core in an attempt to preserve heat. The corresponding dramatic rise in blood pressure then overloads your heart and it stops.

there was a case in the summer of a teacher, strong swimmer, who dived into a cold river and just never came up. Dead pretty much as soon as he hit the water.

Yes, this is the mystery to me too. I don’t understand tying up that poor dog and just walking away, or not checking the water.

Yes @Newnamenewme23 that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

Maybe the dog couldn't follow her because the gate was closed.

Looks like we’re going to need a new thread!

I think as others are saying they really need to go back over these fine details at the start of when she disappeared. I think if the water has been relatively shallow a head injury or potentially even breaking her neck or something on the way down has been the reason she hasn’t made any attempt to get out/shout for help etc.

The thing that I hate most about all this is the fact the police are assuming she’s in the water so if she’s never found it will always be assumed she’s in the water but was out at sea and unable to be found. There is still a possibility, due to the fact there’s no evidence at all so far, that she was never in the water. The not knowing would be so much worse for the kids if they have to grow up without her 😢

I read someone say the weir would stop the body going out to sea.

Thing is even if she did fall in the water for whatever reason and died immediately (or was dead before she went in) then I still don't understand how she wouldn't have been visible when the initial person found willow. The clothing she was wearing wouldn't have saturated with water that quickly. The gilet should have kept her buoyant enough in the water that at least some of her body was visible. The water was not flowing so fast it would have carried her away quickly.

@justgettingthroughtheday NB: my earlier post, you’re right!

Not only are you right, you’re brilliant. The dog’s tag! Of course, if it had one & I imagine it did, why didn’t the finder call etc, more data to work from & would have stopped her having to ambiguously guess (?) Did she recognise the Lock Screen photo? Did she know dog, etc.

Although, of course, likely had Nicola’s mobile number on it.

@justgettingthroughtheday it’s s real puzzle, especially as she apparently found the phone (did she?) & it was closer to the river than even the bench. You’d likely look around too, with a disembodied phone on ground?

I have what are branded “short wellies” but they are nearer in length to full wellies, certainly a lot longer than ankle wellies. So it depends what they mean by short wellies.

I agree about the phone, this has been bothering me . She was on a call (with headphones in ? On speaker ?) so why would her phone be on the ground ? If she had got up to deal with the dog then she would have put her phone down on the bench surely ? A mugging gone wrong maybe ?
I once fell into a canal in late Winter. Not quite as cold as a river I imagine, but deep and cold. It did take my breath away briefly, partly due to the sudden shock, and I couldn’t pull myself out. I managed to hold onto the side and shout and then I was helped out but it was hard to shout at first. So I can imagine not being able to call for help with the shock of falling in.
I agree with pps that drowning is a lot more likely when drunk, in the dark etc. There have been tragic cases of drunk students drowning when walking home along riversides. I am surprised though that a sober person would drown so quickly in that slow moving water, when they would have fallen in at the edge. But tragic accidents do happen, and maybe there were other circumstances that none of us know about.

Yes, this is my thinking too.

The police said “ankle length” I think ? So like Wellibobs.

Totally agree about the oddities of the person who found the dog the first time.

I would not be too be concerned if I found an agitated dog alone in an isolated spot, presuming they'd run off from their owner who'd soon appear.

I certainly would be concerned when I then further came across an abandoned mobile phone, dog lead, harness etc and there was nobody around, right next to a river as well. I think I'd call out to see if anyone replied, then I'd immediately report it.

Was the phone, lead and harness first found on the bench? Or found elsewhere and left on the bench thinking owner would find the things there?

I keep thinking the search must be a case of bad luck as in the initial search area wasn't where she actually fell in and in that time her body has been moved a significant distance. I think people underestimate the power of water particularly forces under the surface.