Apart
from the fact that the video footage cannot possibly be of doorcam
given its high elevation, there are serious reservations as to
whether it actually shows Nicola or a lookalike. The person in the
video has a very distinctive gate with a long stride that should be
fairly easy to match with minimum effort. Leaving aside the colour of
the coat that appears blue but was described as black, and which some have
held is just down to the characteristics of the lens and electronics,
the coat is definitely not ankle length as described. Strangely Paul
Ansell is seen looking in the front nearside passenger door. There
is no sign of the children who would surely be in the back seat? That
does not mean they were not there, only that there is no sign PA
checks on them there.
But
apart from clear proof the video has been tampered with – a water
mark has been added and is layered differentially – the image also
'jumps' half way through. Face features, particularly the nose of the
woman, seem chopped, and most important of all, there is no
verification that this was actually the day in question. It could
almost have been any day at any time during light hours.
And whilst
on the subject, the fact that stills taken from the video and the
video itself, could appear on an American YouTube channel, must be
questionable and prove police had not seized such evidence. Strangely
the Lancashire Police did post the stills on their web site as if
validating them, and then later abruptly took them down, leaving a
criptic message in their place about “an ugly page”. However two
of the images remain on the official site for the 6th
Feb. 2023 here:
https://www.lancashire.police.uk/news/2023/february/missing-nicola-bulley-latest-update/
Note it claims to be "Nicola on her ring doorbell on Friday Jan., 27th". Do I detect a subtle give-away here? Don't Americans always put the month before the year? Did a British policeman write the script or was it an American? Of course Paul Ansell works for an American Detroit-based new start-up and it was said the images were issued by his unidentified male friend, appearing first on a dubious American social web site, ostensibly investigating crime called 'Grizzly'! Call me paranoid, but to my mind this all smells of a certain American organisation with a C and an A. And who has ever heard of a door bell that could capture images from that angle?
To round off this little discussion, I came across a recent episode of ITV's Loose Women, on which Paul Ansell's interviewer and Emma White's friend (allegedly) Dan Walker appeared. He was warmly welcomed and introduced as such but not to talk about the Bulley case but about a 'spin-off' series of four programmes on missing persons.
It's a strange phenomenon we have witnessed before, how interviewers of certain individuals get rewarded quite fortuitously thereafter, whilst truth-seekers get nothing but trouble. This we were told was a philanthropic enterprise and of course nothing to do with furthering his career, raising his profile or financial gain.
His recent, in fact the day after Nicola's body was recovered, accident, when on a Sheffield roundabout he was knocked off his bike, was briefly referred, and the picture of his bloodied face evoked sighs of sympathy from the audience, as indeed it might. There is no doubt his injuries could have been much worse.
I saw the footage and wondered how it had been obtained as it seemed to be looking rearwards. Or perhaps it was just the Council's permanent camera? In any event it looked pretty deliberate to me and the driver didn't stop nearly running over him! However Walker appeared quite sanguine about the affair, stating that "being a cyclist made him a better driver, and being a driver made him a better cylist."
As always the interview appeared highly scripted with a detectable sub-text: It was that the Bulley case was old hat now and it was time to concentrate on the more pressing issue of all those other missing persons, almost as if Nicola's disappearance and death, had served its purpose and it was time to move on. Was it all just to press home the need to rein in social media and as Andrew Snowden so deftly put it, "regain control of the narrative"?
Let's
move on! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu12LsMdnMo
5,855 views 28 Mar 2023 #loosewomen #nicolabulley
#missingperson
"Today, journalist Dan Walker joins us
ahead of the launch of his new, gritty TV show ‘Vanished: The Hunt
For Britain’s Missing People’ to tell us all about how he brings
peace to the families of missing people across the UK."
Absolutely no
discussion of the unanswered questions as if it is an open and shut
case with absolutely no criminal element. Dan Walker says, “It's
time to move on.”
It now appears, if psychic Jason can be believed, the body was floating on the up-tide immediately before it got entangled in the recumdant tree and was reported at 11.35. The tidal river follows a 12 hour cycle in tune with the tides. From this certain things follow. It is unlikely the body was in the river the previous day without being spotted so we can deduce it was placed in the river some time in the previous 12 hours or thereabouts, the exact location and time determined by determined by the impact of the tide on a floating body. It could have been place in the river in the approximate place it was found 12 hrs before, or 6 hrs before down stream allowing it to flow back.
Why was a simple experiment not carried out at an early stage to test the flow and whether a body either floating or submerged would get a mile downstream. A body ALWAYS comes to the surface after a few days. In such a small river, a body could not have been missed.
Everything indicates the police still do not think there was foul play or a criminal investigation would have been opened. The FACTS prove she was in the river and could NOT have floated to where she was found because of the weir obstruction and the physical characteristics of the river. Ergo, a third party and criminal intent must have been involved. The crime can only be solved by the police and won't be unless they treat it as a crime. The Inquest cannot solve the crime. The best it can do is record an open verdict or unlawful killing. If the latter it would be referred back to the police but the Coroner would not allow the finding if there was proof and that is unlikely if the police haven't got it.
Jason Rothwell, the 'pschic' who located Nicola's body. Image: CHRIS NEILL. The Mirror)
Ryan Tower
March 26, 2018
·
When you are discussing politics, you are discussing the laws over minds. It needs to be approached this way. We need to be conscientious of whats applied in our speech.
What minds are we making laws for right now? And what effect are they having on the minds of people?
Our culture (which is owned and operated; outright; for the purpose of creating instability and dissociated psychology) is at the heart of all political discussion. No rational conversation about politics could be without first addressing those on which our opinion applies.
Most humans are kept in a state of constant turmoil and self consciousness. This is not by accident. And it IS the root cause of social disorder. The social alienation and the hardships felt by those who are being oppressed either by their peers or culture as a whole is what causes social disorder. The urge to kill is not something that happens easily in the human mind. It must be pulled out and dug from the depths negative emotional trauma.
The delicacy of our minds can never be undervalued. We must be vigilant about what we allow our minds to consume. All sound and information has a corresponding physiology. Could we expect well behaved and naturally harmonious children being born out of system which has no feeling? We are all living under a corporate entity which has no centralized nervous system. "It" cannot feel, hear, or see us. It is lifeless.
While I agree that guns are a social issue. I am disappointed that the young ones of our country are demanding change from the same system that produced the social discomfort that led to the shootings. Making laws is a lazy solution. The real conversation is about who is in control of culture. And why are they so determined to prevent us from seeing each other as family? Why the violence on television? Why the gender rigging? Why the pitting races against one another? Why the extremist, non compromising politics? Why are these things the most prominent in our field of attention.
America, I think its time we had a chat about your kids.
3.4.23 I have always thought 'the two fishermen' could have been highly significant. Yet again we must gobsmacked the police reacted to it in such a leisurely careless manner. The reason I think it significant is because it appears to tick a lot of boxes and the more boxes it tick the more significant it becomes. First the source seems highly credible from the explanation for the delay in reporting, the fact the incidents had stuck so clearly in his memory and the fact he pursued the the matter when the police had not come back by the following Friday. Secondly the time and location fits. He/she saw them outside the Church only a matter of minutes (about 30) before Nicola would have arrived there. They are in exactly the right place to carry out a reccy. We know Nicola was in the habit of walking there, but strangely no one has revealed what her movements were on the PREVIOUS DAY (26th Jan) If she did walk there the previous day, the two men might well have seen or even followed her. The fishing rods suggests they were going that way. Next the fact they were there two days running but hadn't been noticed before or since, the day before she went missing and on the very day is highly coincidental. The fact that it appears they haven't come forward heightens the suspiciousness. And then finally their demeanor and equipment was overtly dubious. Rods without the usual accoutrements or stools, looking shifty, faces covered all add up to regarding these individuals of interest in any conspiracy or abduction if it took place. Now one other aspect worth noting: the two men who visited the garage were marked out as distinct from local police. The report doesn't say whether they identified themselves, only that they "were assertive". As far as I am aware they have never been identified by the police, so who were they? It was stated at the very beginning "Anti-terrorist officers were at the scene." Do you realise how strange that is for just a missing person assumed to have committed suicide, because that is the only rational explanation for her going into the river and not getting back out. Were the two at the garage even police officers and did the removed CCTV footage ever get to the investigators, or was the real purpose to remove it? Could it be the two 'fishermen' and the two 'assertive officers' one and the same?
5.4.23 The road name confusion is an error that does not inspire confidence in any of the information or assuptions of the Lancashire 'Keystone' cops, but to a large extent it is a moot point, as the road is continuous, and the one leads into the other. Four days after her disappearance Supt. Riley was still not clear how (or if?) Nicola had got from her home to the school. The supporting evidence of her being in the school car park seems to be limited to the account given by Emma White that she saw her and waved. Given the media role by the latter, that seems very flimsy evidence for her being there, particularly when the absence of ANY cctv is factored in. But this also highlights another important issue that has universally been ignored: namely the route Nicola and her children supposedly took from her Inskip home to the school carpark. There appear to be two available routes but the police have not requested any car cam video on them. This seems strange given Supt. Riley's earlier comment. Either way the journey would terminate in HALL LANE, and this too significantly has not been mentioned, although it runs for several miles between the two locations. The two routes to the school could either be via Sowerby or via the B5269 turning right and north through Lane Heads. In the absence of the totally irrational 'fell into the river' theory, and now with the confirmation of her death - I don't believe for a moment she committed suicide by jumping in the river elsewhere - only abduction and murder remain the viable explanations. The failure of the police to actively consider this possibility from the outset, is a grave error of judgement that is hard to explain or excuse.
5.4.23 As always governmnt is more interested in secrecy and cover-up than revelation and solution. It is a political device to give the impression of inquiry, when in fact it targets the wrong topic. It is paralleled by Andrew Snowden's remark that "the police was right all along" and the only problem " was losing control of the narrative." It's not hard to see the line the police will take at the Inquest despite all the evidence to the contrary.
6.4.23: There are psy-op indicators in this case, whether they have substance is the issue. What are they? The basic features are suspicious. A very attractive woman. How the story immediately gained traction and blanket coverage. All the apparent 'coincidences'. All the theatrical elements as detailed by EW. A classic 'who dunnit'. How it ties into national issues - the control of social media even concurrent Parliament hearings on menopause! The use of 'macdonald yellow' which managed to get a plug at the memorial. (Anyone who knows anything about terrorist events knows how macdonalds keeps cropping up purely from coincidence) All the yellow daffodils tied to the bridge - was it genuine and spontaneous or organised. The way the police have handled it. Were they following INSTRUCTIONS not to treat as crime. The stage managed interviews and unfortunate accident to interviewer and his subsequent preferment. The staged nature of the scene, obviously designed to support an untenable drowning explanation. The two mysterious men on the day and prior. (Note neither these or Dan's driver have come forward) The choice of a 'psychic' to discover her body - straight out of central casting and how he modified his account, obviously with police approval. The heavy handed way they treated Curtis Media, very typical of a certain approach (apro pos Alex Belfield) "That's enough indicators: Ed.) And one last point, a psyop doesn't have to be all pretend. It is invariably a skillful mixture of real and unreal. There seems no doubt NB is is dead (unless the dental surgeon cannot be relied upon!) Though I find it strange the Home Office Pathologist was referred to by the Coroner almost as an after thought. Why wasn't in on the autopsy? The control of the media now she has been found is so sudden and complete it makes me wonder if a D-Notice was involved. I have never got over the announcement at the beginning, that 'anti-terrorist officers were on scene' whilst police stated it wasn't even a crime. That alone suggests something very strange. "The two girls want their mummy home" and cry, happens in several of Emma's interviews, strongly suggestive of following SCRIPT as in a play. Interestingly PA uses the same line. It seems to me they have agreed between them, what to say and emphasise.
9.4.23 It is a fundamental and serious failing of the police investigation, that their preferred hypothesis is the ONE option that was proved to be physically impossible within days, yet they refused to abandon it. That I think was pure conceit. As they admitted there was NO evidence she had gone in the river or was in it, in fact all the evidence pointed the other way. It was physically impossible she had passed the weir and she was not anywhere above it. All they had was an absence of alternative explanations and CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence of her suggested mental state and the abandoned dog and phone. In other words, nothing. As soon as it was clear she was not in the river and could not have passed the weir, they should have abandoned their 'hypothesis' and followed every other possible scenario. That they didn't was a flaw that lost valuable time and possible opportunities. Her body appearing twenty three days later almost a mile down stream, can only mean others unidentified were implicated in her death.
11.4.23: Yet another example of a failed bureaucratic functioning for whatever reason - incompetence or corruption. Yet there is still time for the Lancashire police to redeem itself. Unless the Coroner is in cahoots, it should ditch its 'drowning at the bench' theory, admit the error of its way and institute a criminal investigation. Even if it failed to find a culprit, the case would remain open which would be a small consolation for her parents and children and may even lead to eventual resolution of this most tragic event.
12.4.23: If only we knew what the police know (or don't) If I had been in charge of this operation I would have plotted ALL the people who admitted and could prove their movements on or in the vicinity between at least 8.30 and 9.30. Every such person was not stationary but mobile and blazed a trail. This is an important factor in a mobile situation. The fields are relatively open with views across. However memories are fallible, subject to distortion and subsequent influence and so must be treated with caution but should still provide fairly reliable information where Nicola was and wasn't, at what time. The information of sightings coming from the police was widely disseminated but has proved unreliable. Why if the police are convinced there is nothing suspicious about her disappearance should they treat this information so preciously? Why not be fully transparent, limited only to protecting the privacy of individuals if requested? There is a great deal of open space but also very confined space. For example anyone walking the path between those times could not avoid noting Nicola as she passed, either towards or away from, the bench. In contrast open vistas would allow people to see one another over distance. When walking it is natural to visually track others, even if far away, especially if there is something distinctive about them such as a dog. Have the police actually done this exercise? Their dilatory and blinkered approach - for example the person who reported the 'two fishermen' had to badger to get a response; the caravan park was not inspected and cursorily for over two weeks; the CCTV at the 'Grapes' was not checked for two weeks despite its obvious importance; similarly the garage by two rather mysterious unidentified 'assertive' men - does not inspire confidence, leaving aside the fact that it was a 'psychic' who eventually located the body, not the police themselves. We (the public) still do not know precisely where the CCTV cameras are or were, which ones were working and what fields of view they covered. Did any of them capture Nicola walking past or not? If they recorded others but not her, that has implications. Clearly the Constabularly view is that the public should be kept in their place and be 'fed only the crumbs that fall from the master's table'. They don't like being monitored, evaluated and certainly not on camera. Can we trust their statements and approach that is the question? This case does not fill us with confidence that's for sure, particularly in the light of the smug comments of that 'Crime Commissioner' or the fact that public information and partisipation has been effectively shut down pending the Coroner's Inquest, whilst the questions remain pertinent and unanswered. If the body was only identifiable by dental records, it suggests that other identiifiable features, including jewelry, fitbit clothes etc. It would also make any claims of 'dropping from height' hard to substaniate unless bones were fractured, unlikely from a 'straightforward' drowning. What I find rather strange, the interrment of the body seems to have taken place before the Home Office Pathologist was on scene, despite the Coroner referring to him. The body could not be released for burial or cremation without the Coroner's permission having been obtained.
15.4.23: As soon as Nicola went missing, the police theory should have been TESTED. Given that people closely followed by the police were on scene within minutes, Nicola would still have been visible. She was wearing QUILTED water resistent clothing that would have kept her afloat. But even if she had submerged, the weir would have undoubtedly blocked her journey downstream. But in either case the reality could have been tested - but it wasn't. The river survey proved she wasn't in the river but incredibly and dogedly, the police stuck to their 'hypothesis' and nothing has indicated they have changed their minds. In this context a couple of policement wading around in the river weeks after the event, is just the theatre of the absurd. The Police explanation makes no sense, which at least is consistent with the rest of their logic.
16.4.23: As I have said from the first time I saw the weir I KNEW the police 'hypothesis' was nonsense. That they held to it throughout, proves either police stupidity or positive malfeasance. It seems to me, whoever planned this event - and lets be clear it was PLANNED - seem to have overlooked the weir in their calculations. It was the FATAL mistake. There's always one. Trouble is the police appear to be deeply involved in trying to invalidate it and that can only mean complicity. The police, if nothing else, follow orders from ABOVE. It certainly APPEARS Becky Smith is following the INSTRUCTION, "this is a non-suspicious death'; "No third party involved". This outrageous suggestion is confirmed by Crime Commission Andrew Snowden's comment, "It's a wrap"! That proves a closed mind and a predetermined conclusion that ignores the weight of evidence. Snowden is a pompous irrelevance but that does not negate the possibility of control from the top - just another one. We have observed it too frequently at work elsewhere to pooh-pooh it. https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/search?q=covert+control
21.3.23: If she WAS last seen on the footpath at 9.15, she wasn't heading towards the bench and field but on her way BACK. In that case she disappeared somewhere between the bench and her parked car at the school (if it was) and someone must have taken the dog back to the bench, which might explain why it was trying to get back on the path. The fact that she ended up dead nearly a mile down stream of course greatly increases the liklihood she was abducted and murdered. How long will it take before the police accept it?
22.4.23 James Riley (27) of Jepps Ave., Preston, a serving Lancashire police officer, charged with attempted murder of a woman, Nov. 14th 2022 remanded in custody. Any relation to Sup. Riley? https://ukcorruptpolice.com/lancashire-police-officer-accused-of-attempted-murder-appears-in-court/
23.4.23: The normal procedure if a crime is suspected, is that the Coroner will adjourn the case until the criminal investigation and trial, if a responsible person is arrested and charged, is completed. In the Bulley case there is no indication from the police they are treating it as a possible murder, in fact the opposite as they have stated they believe there is no third party involvement which rules it out and they have not changed their position. It is therefore reasonable to assume that is the position they will be taking with the Coroner on the 26th June. The Coroner may hear the case alone or with a Jury. It is at his discretion although given the media attention it has attracted I would guess he will appoint a jury. The evidence and witnesses called is also his decision to make but much depends on whether the parties involved seek legal representation or not. If they do they can interrogate the witnesses and ask to see the factual evidence provided. They may challenge the opinion of experts and if required ask for their own to be called. The possible findings are laid down. Juries cannot ascribe criminal blame but they can find the person died from a criminal or negligent act. The Coroner is not able to ascribe a suicide verdict unless there is clear evidence supporting it. There appears to be no evidence of suicide in the Bulley case. Therefore I suggest three verdict options will be open to the Coroner and jury if there is one: misadventure or an accident; an open verdict i.e. where the cause of death cannot be accurately or reliably determined; or unlawful killing for which there would have to be reliable evidence. In practice only the police can provide the latter so if as seems likely they are unable or unwilling to do so, the latter verdict is unlikely despite all the circumstatial evidence that supports it.
26.4.23: Ref. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utx7Qe7jYTs The log is also obvious to the eye, as a body would have been IF it had gone over the weir. Needless to say it wasn't in the river and couldn't have gone over the weir anyway. A similar test with a floating and/or a sebmerged object should have been carried out by police to test their stupid 'hypothesis'. (Never has there been a greater mismatch between a word and its practical expression) But it wasn't. Beccy Smith and her team of forty officers, couldn't appear more ham fisted if they tried.
Sally Riley stated at that interview that NB was last seen ON THE PATH at 9.15 am. So why ask for car cam at that time when they know she WASN'T anywhere near the road? If she was anywhere near the road it would have been between 8.20 and 8.40 am setting off or presumably about 9.20 to 9.50 am on the way back (if she got back there) Like so much of the police involvement, this aspect is quite inexplicable.
30.4.23: 23 is not only a Prime Number, it is the ninth prime (if you include 1 which is not strictly a prime) In numerology it is significantly also referred to as the 'Enigma Number' because of past events. Of course Nicola was said to have disappeared at a bench prominently numbered '23' (where are the other numbered benches?) and Nicola was remarkably recovered on the 23rd day she went missing! These are amazing coincidences added to all the others, not least it was left to a psychic to locate her body after a huge police investigation, the use of the latest equipment by both police and specialists, Peter Faldon putting his reputation on the line to say he was sure she wasn't in the river, searches of the banks by the public over three weeks, had failed! All of this pushes credulity to breaking point.
http://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2023/03/nicola-bulley-and-kabbalistic.html Another point all outlets reported, "Two people walking their dog". Where's the dog. No sign. Was it to make the discovery more likely or rational? Rothwell comes from Oldham. Thats over fifty miles and an hour away. So if we assume he was in the vicinity of the River Wyre for about an hour before spotting the body, he had to set out well before 9.30 am on Sunday morning. As a psychic isn't he usually booked up on a Sunday? Of course he changed his story as to how he spotted her - not caught in the tree but floating mid stream, west to east on the in-coming tide. That in itself is suspicious. If the latter is reliable it must infer the bodily remains had been placed in the river to the west, less than six hours before! That is highly significant although 'psychic' Rothwell is unable to make this rather obvious deduction.
3.5.23: When Sally Riley made that comment, as a senior officer in charge of the investigation before Rebecca Smith took charge, she must have know about the extraordinary call out before she went missing and the alcohol/menopause issue supplied by PA, both of which influenced the 'vulnerable person' categorisation and very speedy response. The only conclusion therefore is that SR was being 'economical with the truth' when she denied other factors, presumably to protect personal information and why they had come to the conclusion they had. However given the fact that the police admitted there was NO evidence Nicola had gone in the river at the bench or anywhere else and that it was positively proved she was not in it at any point for several miles, the information coming from PA takes on a more sinister aspect. The concept that she was 'vulnerable' and probably suicidal, was wholly his. The total absence of reliable factual information that she was even at the scene and the obvious 'decoy' nature of both telephone and artefacts at the bench, suggest somebody was trying hard to paint a picture to cover what had actually occurred. If not in the river, Nicola must either have died before and someone else took her place, or she was forceably abducted and removed from the scene by either the principal perpatrator or agents acting on his or her direction. Either that or it must have been a carefully planned criminal act by one or more persons acting on their own behalf or others. From the moment the very specific time of 9.33 was mentioned my suspicions of deeper intrigue was awakened, and nothing that has been revealed as the case developed has lessened that feeling.
5.5.23: Ref. Jason Rothwell, leaving aside the positively delusional aspect, he may be 'psychic' but he's definitely all at sea when it comes to words and their correct useage. He uses 'to', when it should be 'too', as in 'to long'; then to even things up, uses 'off' when it should be 'of'. as in 'drawing off trees'. He is obviously floating in a world of fantasy, from which he has carved out a career dependent on the gullible and vulnerable. What however cannot be denied, is that for some reason, despite not having been involved before, he drove for over an hour to be at the exact spot on many miles of river, on the right day, at the right time, to spot the floating bodily remains of this unfortunate woman. He puts it down to previously communing with her departed spirit, the phases of the moon and two of his fish dying on the same day. I would rather put it down to pure chance, despite the huge odds against it, or much more likely, either by persons unknown implicated in her death or the by the police, he was tipped off.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.