Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Nicola Bulley Missing

I called it in post #16. There are a number of factors that could lead to someone being classed as "high risk" but most would obviously not be relevant in this case (learning disability, child exploitation risk etc). Which leaves suicidal, and the police would have been aware of that from the start. And it obviously makes more sense than tripping over the dog and hitting her head on a step or whatever.
 
Total arse-covering by the OB woman trying to justify the focus on the river by saying at least 3 times "we have no evidence whatsoever of third party involvement" each time emphasising whatsoever.

Nobody chose to point out to her that equally, they have no evidence whatsoever that NB went into the river.
 
Her partner has asked that her car keys be traced and has contacted Mercedes hihimself. He has also said that he doesn't believe that she went into the river.

It's strange that the police are only now saying that she was vulnerable. They are also saying they got this jnfo re her vulnerability from her partner??
However he has stated openly that he does not believe she went into the river...and her friends who would have known her ..are all on the same page.
 
Total arse-covering by the OB woman trying to justify the focus on the river by saying at least 3 times "we have no evidence whatsoever of third party involvement" each time emphasising whatsoever.

Nobody chose to point out to her that equally, they have no evidence whatsoever that NB went into the river.

They also said there's no evidence of the fishermen/man said to have been in the area on CCTV. I suspect that there are bigger CCTV blindspots than we are being told.

This conference has come way too fucking late and just leaves even more questions than answers. Bravo Lancashire police :facepalm:
 
Her partner has asked that her car keys be traced and has contacted Mercedes hihimself. He has also said that he doesn't believe that she went into the river.

It's strange that the police are only now saying that she was vulnerable. They are also saying they got this jnfo re her vulnerability from her partner??
However he has stated openly that he does not believe she went into the river...and her friends who would have known her ..are all on the same page.

It's important to remember that they are motivated by hopes she is still alive.
 
I called it in post #16. There are a number of factors that could lead to someone being classed as "high risk" but most would obviously not be relevant in this case (learning disability, child exploitation risk etc). Which leaves suicidal, and the police would have been aware of that from the start. And it obviously makes more sense than tripping over the dog and hitting her head on a step or whatever.

Given the extent of the search that's been going on for nearly two weeks, I would have thought if she had committed suicide her body would have been found by now.
 
They also said there's no evidence of the fishermen/man said to have been in the area on CCTV. I suspect that there are bigger CCTV blindspots than we are being told.

This conference has come way too fucking late and just leaves even more questions than answers. Bravo Lancashire police :facepalm:
Can you please use the mutually agreed, gender neutral, phrase of choice on this thread, 'Fisher-folk' when describing members of the angling community? HTH.
 
Given the extent of the search that's been going on for nearly two weeks, I would have thought if she had committed suicide her body would have been found by now.

Why? She likely walked along the path past the weir to enter the water, where the river is faster flowing, and then it soon becomes tidal. They didn't search that part immediately. That also explains the dog going between the gate and bench, and not being wet or going near the water.
 
So the husband's the one has told the police about these vulnerabilities which are being read as possible suicide but also he's sure she's not in the water? Seems odd but then it's an odd situation.
 
So the husband's the one has told the police about these vulnerabilities which are being read as possible suicide but also he's sure she's not in the water? Seems odd but then it's an odd situation.
He would have told them this at the start though, I'd imagine. He came to the conclusion she wasn't in the water a bit later on.
 
Why? She likely walked along the path past the weir to enter the water, where the river is faster flowing, and then it soon becomes tidal. They didn't search that part immediately. That also explains the dog going between the gate and bench, and not being wet or going near the water.
Yeh. It explains it. But not to the satisfaction of anyone with a couple of braincells to rub together
 
So the husband's the one has told the police about these vulnerabilities which are being read as possible suicide but also he's sure she's not in the water? Seems odd but then it's an odd situation.
The vulnerabilities are being read by some on this thread as her potentially being suicidal, but, from the limited information we have, I think there are other options, like having a condition which required regular medication.

Speculation is inevitable, but some people on the thread seem (again) inclined to latch on to one possibility and discuss it as if other possibilities don't exist or can be dismissed out of hand.
 
So the husband's the one has told the police about these vulnerabilities which are being read as possible suicide but also he's sure she's not in the water? Seems odd but then it's an odd situation.
let's assume for a moment she was feeling suicidal. why would she take the dog for a walk if she knew she was going to get in like virginia woolf and drown herself? why not use the dog's harness to tie the animal to the bench? why take part in the work meeting - albeit just a listening one - at all? it doesn't add up, it really doesn't. who would want to spend their last minutes listening to some manager droning on?
 
let's assume for a moment she was feeling suicidal. why would she take the dog for a walk if she knew she was going to get in like virginia woolf and drown herself? why not use the dog's harness to tie the animal to the bench? why take part in the work meeting - albeit just a listening one - at all? it doesn't add up, it really doesn't. who would want to spend their last minutes listening to some manager droning on?
If she was on antidepressants she may have just thought fuck it at the last minute, walked down to below the weir and jumped in. As a "strong swimmer" she may have been fixated on dieing by drowning as at one point she presumably enjoyed swimming.
 
Not everyone experiences a slow and predictable descent to rock bottom though. Some can be plunged into such a state without warning. These posts are really silly.
no indeed; yes. but it'd be really weird imo to take the dog out and do some work related bollocks just before doing away with yourself. often you hear about how cheery people have been just before they kill themselves. i think it's because they're glad they've made their mind up and have a plan. obvs mileage varies from person to person.
 
Last edited:
If she was on antidepressants she may have just thought fuck it at the last minute, walked down to below the weir and jumped in. As a "strong swimmer" she may have been fixated on dieing by drowning as at one point she presumably enjoyed swimming.

Yep. Whatever happened is er... likely to be unlikely if that makes sense. There isn't a neat conventional scenario that results in a person vanishing. Whether that's a particular reaction to being somewhere on a course of medication, an oddly awkward fall or a third party being missed by CCTV etc.
 
Yep. Whatever happened is er... likely to be unlikely if that makes sense. There isn't a neat conventional scenario that results in a person vanishing. Whether that's a particular reaction to being somewhere on a course of medication, an oddly awkward fall or a third party being missed by CCTV etc.
or perhaps a combination of all these
 
I thought the weir was a long old way downstream from the bench if so would someone not have seen her traipsing along the river path ?? And I don't see either how this supposedly explains the dog remaining by the bench?
 
If she was on antidepressants she may have just thought fuck it at the last minute, walked down to below the weir and jumped in. As a "strong swimmer" she may have been fixated on dieing by drowning as at one point she presumably enjoyed swimming.
My mother threw herself into the Thames at Kingston. Alcohol was a factor and it wasn't a planned or rational decision.

Fortunately, she was rescued fairly quickly, got a council funded place in a rehab clinic and, surprisingly from her children's point of view, lived quite happily afterwards. She folded up her clothes and left them neatly on the bank which was true to form and obviously improved her chances of survival.
 
I thought the weir was a long old way downstream from the bench if so would someone not have seen her traipsing along the river path ?? And I don't see either how this supposedly explains the dog remaining by the bench?

It's a meander; the path crosses the top of a loop.

e2a: About 350m to the bridge, 130m to the weir.
 
I thought the weir was a long old way downstream from the bench if so would someone not have seen her traipsing along the river path ?? And I don't see either how this supposedly explains the dog remaining by the bench?

It's around 500 feet along the path through bushes and trees. It contradicts amateur dog psychologists who claimed the dog would be wet or by the river if she had gone in by the bench or in sight of the dog.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Back
Top Bottom