Nicola Bulley still missing

FishofContemplation said:
Yeah if it’s Lassie in the pictures maybe. This is real life. Mine would probably wander round gormlessly, or find some horse dung to eat, or chase after a few rabbits, or get itself run over. It would do b***r all to help me.
Click to expand...
If my years of pretending to be dead in front of my dog to see what she would do has taught me anything, it’s that she is the last person/dog I would want with me in a life or death situation.
 
Billy Horner said:
You mean the independent diver who unashamedly advertised his services on Sky News, claiming that the police didn’t know how to search the river properly and that he’d find her within about 10 minutes?

Having conned the family into hiring his services (no doubt at massive cost), he now appears to be covering up his own failings (and protecting his business) by spouting a load of conspiracy theories. Of course, it couldn’t possibly be the case that the police were right and he was wrong.

I’m surprised they haven’t arrested him for obstructing an investigation.
Click to expand...
He did it for free and the police wouldn't let him into a potential crime scene without giving him and his team the ok to investigate.

Plus how is what he is spouting conspiracy when nobody knows what has happened yet? Why would the police;

A) seal off a car park to investigate?
B) ask for footage from dashcams off of people who were driving in the vicinity.

if they were so adamant she'd fallen in the river?

Yes the weir could have stopped any evidence going further downstream, I'm not entirely sure how they work and how preventive they are at stopping stuff going further down a river, but something could have gone over the top of it.

I find it strange how they haven't even found a Welly or a hat or a jacket or something.

For all we know the police could be following a potential abduction line of enquiry but with reputable leads but don't want to advertise the fact on national TV they are onto something.
 
JM14 said:
he did it for free didn’t he? Makes sense for the police to use their services as they had the specialist equipment
Click to expand...
Acklam_Lad said:
He volunteered his services… he hasn’t taken any payment

He said all along he didn’t think she was was in there… he has proven it with the best technology to hand

Are you trying to slander the guy for helping?
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen that anywhere but, if it is the case that he did it for free, then I withdraw my remarks about conning the family.

I stand entirely behind what I said about his subsequent behaviour though. His comments about the phone being placed on the bench as a decoy smack of someone who fancies playing Hercule Poirot, are based entirely on speculation, can only add to the family’s anguish and go way beyond the remit of a professional dive/search team.
 
Randy said:
I find it strange how they haven't even found a Welly or a hat or a jacket or something.

For all we know the police could be following a potential abduction line of enquiry but with reputable leads but don't want to advertise the fact on national TV they are onto something.
Click to expand...

You don’t find those in either abduction or drowning cases. In the former they don’t make you partly and randomly strip
off. In the latter you don’t generally lose clothes. You go down with your clothes. You come up a couple of weeks later when the gases in the body make you float. Still with your clothes on. So either way it’s not evidence.
 
TheYorkshireTerrier said:
Just watching the interview with her partner now. Some strange questions from Dan Walker.

‘Will you get married when she comes back’
Click to expand...

Yeah it was all a bit strange for me. Not going to start speculation as it's not helpful to anyone but I found the programme, the interview with her partner and some of the comments from studio guests all a bit odd.
 
Have I got this right? Dan Walkers sat in the missing ladies gaff interviewing her partner, 2 weeks after she went missing. That’s a weird one, even by channel 5’s (lack of) standards.
 
Loop said:
Someone picked that up and put it on the bench next to her phone and tied the dog up.
Click to expand...
Surely they'd have someone else's fingerprints from her phone then? As far as I am aware there hasn't been anything released about that, and if that is the case then that individual would be a key witness, given that her phone was found on the bench only 25 minutes after she was last seen.
 
uncle_rico said:
Surely they'd have someone else's fingerprints from her phone then? As far as I am aware there hasn't been anything released about that, and if that is the case then that individual would be a key witness, given that her phone was found on the bench only 25 minutes after she was last seen.
Click to expand...
Yeah they have explained that.. the first person that found the phone and Willow was in a rush but knew who’s dog it was so tied the dog to the bench and called the missing ladies kids school which then raised the alarm.
 
Last edited:
FishofContemplation said:
You don’t find those in either abduction or drowning cases. In the former they don’t make you partly and randomly strip
off. In the latter you don’t generally lose clothes. You go down with your clothes. You come up a couple of weeks later when the gases in the body make you float. Still with your clothes on. So either way it’s not evidence.
Click to expand...
For the abduction point I get that no evidence would be left. 👍
 
Randy said:
Why would the police;

A) seal off a car park to investigate?
B) ask for footage from dashcams off of people who were driving in the vicinity.

if they were so adamant she'd fallen in the river?
Click to expand...

I would guess it’s pretty standard to follow all lines of enquiry and rule everything out in this type of scenario, even if they have a pretty strong hunch as to what has happened.
No good focussing all attention in one direction when there are still other possibilities that haven’t been completely ruled out, even if they are a lot less likely.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
I would guess it’s pretty standard to follow all lines of enquiry and rule everything out in this type of scenario, even if they have a pretty strong hunch as to what has happened.
No good focussing all attention in one direction when there are still other possibilities that haven’t been completely ruled out, even if they are a lot less likely.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Randy said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...


Randy said:
Why would the police;

A) seal off a car park to investigate?
B) ask for footage from dashcams off of people who were driving in the vicinity.

if they were so adamant she'd fallen in the river?
Click to expand...


Don’t think I made my point very well.
I understand why they are following up those additional lines of enquiry. What I’m saying is, that they can be doing that AND still be ‘so adamant she’s fallen in the river’.
It is something they would potentially have to do irrespective of whether they think there is any chance that they’ll find anything.
That’s the point I’m trying to make, to answer your initial questions which suggested you thought there may be something more significant to the other avenues of investigation being undertaken. It may turn out that there is, but I believe it’s also something they’d be doing as a matter of standard practice and there isn’t necessarily anything significant to be read into it.

I guess time will tell.
Whatever has happened, let’s hope they find her soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top