@schloss this is a completely brilliant post, my work is similar. I find when there is serious financial crime, 'money' means that the very best and the brightest descend, egos and pride go in everyone's pocket and people pull tougher for a successful outcome. Everyone is a respected specialist in own field and everyone is carefully focused. Teamwork at its finest. When a woman goes missing do we see the same response?
There is a centralised website re: police where the timeline, for clarity etc, placed, it may be me, but as a details driven person, I like to build a mental picture and I can't help feeling slightly gaslit as certain things appear to drop out of the narrative, is this because they were misreported or incorrect or inappropriate for us to know? I realise we can't be party to everything and some things do become sensitive but when things shit and change I can't help feeling gaslit.
Who was and who wasn't there the morning? Where is the man, is he cleared, what part did he play? An early article said he suggested Nicola had a 'medical episode' and 'fishing bait' probably lured her dog to the river's edge. One example. Another, the phone was on the ground, says SR very clearly and corrects herself later around this only to say, very clearly, always on the bench. The devil is in the detail in my work so I am wired that way. Was this the invention of a poor journalist? Did I dream it? I begin to wonder.
The we have the women in the many coloured coats who have also gone stage left....Etc, all 'cleared'? They seem to have random focus on Nicola's clothing but no replicas or a reason to push ahead of other things, are they looking for it to wash up in the river in this spot?
SR Press Conference
We can say with confidence that we believe Nicola remained in the riverside area. I understand the this is frustrating for those observing the investigation when the river has been searched and Nicola has not been found. This does not mean, however, that Nicola was not in the river at some point due to the tidal flow for he river. For this reason, our search of the river and the river banks extends out to the sea, particularly the area from Knott end out towards Morecombe.
PF on Jeremy Vine
I have just come from the bench area and below the bank where Nicola would have fallen in it's about a foot deep on to rocks, so if she had fallen in even if a foot higher, she would have fallen on rocks and would have been able to hold on. It is deeper in the middle but you have to remember on day one where Nicola's phone was found, the police thoroughly searched that area that day and nothing was found. People don't tend to move very far from where they fall into the water. They go to the bottom, you sink you don't float and you tend to stay there . Even in a reasonably strong current you don't go very far you drag along the bottom and you have to go right around the corner [where she apparently fell in]. If she got to the weir she has to get over and under its all shallow and just a pile of rocks. The key thing is this area where she fell, if the fact the divers were there so fast, she can't ever have been there.
He says he wouldn't call it a Missing Persons enquiry and wouldn't only focus on the river. If she had have gone in the river that day she would not have gone at all. Talks of a decoy, and a shoe being planted by a murderer. I think he changes tune a little later, possibly as has gleaned some of the information not in the public domain?
An intelligent surmise would therefore be would it not, she was NEVER in this part of the river. Can anyone unpack what SR is saying? Surely the only hypothesis that works is indeed they think/know (police) that she entered the river elsewhere?
As this area was searched x4 times in total, says PR including thoroughly twice by police divers on the very day she went missing where the expert says she wouldn't have moved AND then we have to take the rocks and shallow parts and bend into account, and his estimate is people don't move far at all even in strong current. Sonar radar was then used which turned up nothing.
Assuming that in a veritable millpond with an apparent expert with all sorts of high tech equipment and sonar radar, with no logical way for the body to move very far: Rocks, very shallow in front, a foot deep, searching a few times. Then we have police divers on the scene immediately, which is encouraging for Peter yet baffling, they too searched a few times and zip.
SO, we have a ton of evidence to say that she wasn't in there, don't we? AND although I am impressed with SR, and I don't want to knock the police, a cynic might say they didn't really want SR on board as they knew she wasn't there? Now there may be good reason as they are working elsewhere on something that is sensitive but is it not insulting our intelligence and wasting people's time . Many of us are able to critically think, pretty well. Am I missing anything ?
Should it really be For this reason, our search of the river and the river banks extends out to the sea, particularly the area We know she really entered in another place, so we will now be looking from Knott end out towards Morecombe.
As you suggest @schloss possibly the authentic way to navigate difficult situations like this one is to give a very brief, clear update and say more will be said in time? That way you are not put on the spot or asked questions where you really can't give an honest answer and THEN everyone beings to see through it and thinks you/the force are incompetent at best. Thing is it's not your fault but it's pretty inevitable when lots (?) has to be with held. Why not say exactly that and nothing more if so? Is brevity allowed?