Missing Woman Nicola Bulley 7

[LoveMAFS]

The chat appears to have gone quiet today after the last thread filled up, so I'm making a new one for anyone who wants to come together whilst we all hold our breath hoping for a good outcome.

Coffeeeplease surely the missing woman under strange circs is enough to suspect criminal activity a possibility? Or are we really suggesting that no missing persons are ever investigated as a potential crime? How would many murders ever be discovered?

The contradictions are many. Saying no crime/ third party involvement but then asking people to not tamper with potential evidence and speculate. Potential evidence of what?

The police saying they are sure she’s in the water but also keeping an open mind. Her family suggesting they think there is potential third party involvement.

I mean the very best you can says is that it’s been a comma disaster. Unfortunately people are stupid and very interested in unsolved crimes and mysteries. You have to really play to the lowest denominator when there’s massive public interest in a case like this.

Pretty sure there are photos on the first day, police confirmed they had been used so were at some point in any case. Thing is there is no concrete evidence she was in the field at all, the last sighting that arguably has to be true is dropping her daughters at school. The police will have looked into the statements for their reliability etc but even if phone data has been used for location it only confirms her phone was there.

I’m sure I read dogs were brought in along with divers on the first day. I can’t find a link though, so much to trawl through at this point.

If I found a dog running loose I’d use its lead to tie it up, not a piece of string I happened to be carrying. In fact id probably call the number on its tag and if I couldn’t get through just take the dog up to my nearby office and get a message to the owner rather than just leaving it there.

Me too
That part has always baffled me

They can't cordon off the entire area when there is nothing to suggest criminal activity.

You do realise how illogical this statement is @Coffeeeplease

It's only possible to exclude criminal activity once a forensic search has been done.

You can't prove something is negative simply based on a belief, or a cursory glance.

The fact someone is missing (in those circumstances) is a reason in itself to suspect criminal activity. The police have behaved appallingly badly as everyone can see.

the depth of the water is a red herring. It’s the temperature of the water which is relevant. If she inhaled straightaway then she could have drowned instantly. The temperature could mean she suffered a cardiac shock, and you can die of hyperthermia in four minutes.

In terms of the dog and the question mark over the woman who found it, I’m always seeing posts on our local fb group from people saying things like “I saw a dog on x road/in x park just running around earlier this morning,” it’s really not unheard of or unusual to see a dog and just figure it’s got loose. It’s possible that she thought of the dog and wondered if the woman had come back, and then the phone being on the bench came into her mind as an afterthought, and prompted the call.

If the lead, harness and phone weren’t there then had someone taken them to then ‘plant’ a while later?

Missing persons enquiries aren't criminal by default. I'm not sure where the notion is it comes from, but it's not the case.

I was thinking for a while this could have been a confrontation over off lead dog, but I think if it’s an unplanned attack, some evidence would have been found. This seems like a meticulously planned abduction to me, probably from a stalker given how
open all her social accounts were.

The issue with the water is that yes, it was freezing and also deep enough to drown, but where is she? I apologise for being macabre but people tend to stay in the same spot, especially in a slow moving river.

I just don't understand how a fall into the river by a fit young woman leads to drowning. How deep is it next the riverbank? No more than waist deep I believe

To me - attractive woman, open social media including daily routine and routes shown on social media, no obvious suicide reason and no body , points clearly to planned abduction.

I've just read someone ask, how did the caravan park owner know it was Nicola who was missing, not Paul if they recognised the dog.
I'm assuming the phone itself looked like it belonged to a woman?

TV/films.

I don't think a missing person enquiry should become criminal by default, but in this instance with her not being found then other avenues need to be explored.

The police say they're doing that, so hopefully they haven't missed anything (if there was anything to miss).

And that's right in the middle. Next to the bank is shallow onto rocks.

In terms of cordoning off the area, phorensic examination of the bench was done on the first day. If nothing was found from that, and nothing was found from the search of the area, including by the dogs, it cannot be treated as a crime scene as there is no evidence a crime has been committed there.

That doesn’t mean that it can’t be thought that there might have been a crime, just that they can’t declare it a crime scene.

If the police had said “sorry, we have absolutely no idea what happened here,” they would be criticised for that as well. The river is by far the most likely possibility, not only because there was a river, but because of the tiny window of opportunity, in an area which was well known to be well frequented by dog walkers.

But a body could take weeks or even months to emerge from a river. It’s not a very palatable thought, but it’s really common for people to drown and not be found for a while. And no, I don’t care what Peter Falding says. I’m far more inclined to think that he said too much too soon, bigger himself up about how wonderful his equipment was and how he would find her within hours, and then when he did, instead of admitting he got it wrong, he said that she obviously wasn’t in there and backed out.

When she’s found he’s going to look like a complete prat.

@Coffeeeplease genuine question, how do they know from the offset, day 1 that nothing criminal has happened? Surely you treat it with equal measure until you are proven by eveidence that it's not either way? Why isn't a disappearance like this treated with suspicion immediately. I dont think they should have said so early on what they thought likely happened.

No but you have to have something that points to them not being potentially criminal. It’s possible her family are in complete denial, but then surely the police would be winding down if they had good evidence. The basic truth is that 2 weeks on no one has any idea what’s happened to this woman who vanished in a fairly small window. Every possible theory has some pretty major flaws. That’s why people are so fascinated by it.

*I just don't understand how a fall into the river by a fit young woman leads to drowning. How deep is it next the riverbank? you can drown in six inches of water.

Yes it was poor turn of phrase and can only fuel speculation

@MySugarBabyLove I don't remember them saying forensics were done. But I could have missed this being stated in the mix with all the other information.

If she has been taken it was meticulously planned, it looks almost like a professional did it, but why would anyone do that? A stalker would make more sense but surely she’d have been aware of something.

I have to stick with the experts that she has gone in the river. And hope she is found sooner than later. Because the longer she is in the water they will not get much evidence back to rule out foul play.

I do think she got up to get her dog for some reason. And I wish they could check the lake in the c park. Its just too close to the area for my liking.

I agree they should just rule out that lake too

Hopefully this new line of enquiry into the 2 suspicious men comes up with something