ndrew
This is all that remains of a lengthy article on the Bully case. It just disappeared when I went back to writing the draft. My efforts to restore it have so far failed although I have asked for google help. Should I regard this as sinister? Can I trust Google? Several days work on a logical analysis of the evidence apparently lost. If that doesn't indicate deep state involvement in this thing I don't know what does. Or am I being paranoid?
It is very obvious she was not in the river and could NOT have floated to where she was found, principally because of the physical barrier of the weir and the physical characteristics of the river. In the light of this it is inexplicable why the police stuck with their preferred 'hypothesis'; and why they did not institute a criminal investigation as a third party had to be involved between her disappearance and discovery? Whatever explanation there may be therefore, it MUST be something other than falling into the river.
And not far away in https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/michael-brooks-death-no-answers-17655269
Michael Brooks death: No answers for mum who may never know how he died
Michael reportedly watched stars while high on drugs but other people claim he was thrown from a bridge - there was no verdict from the coroner
Michael, 19, was found floating in the river in Penwortham, after a two week search by mountain rescue, fire and rescue services and friends and family in February 2018.
The last man to see him alive, Connor Rishton, told an inquest how Michael ‘disappeared into the night’ after the pair went to watch stars in Avenham Park, high on hallucinogenic drugs at around 1.20am on January 13.
But other witnesses gave statements claiming Michael was thrown from the Old Tram Bridge by two unnamed men at knifepoint, to settle an outstanding drugs debt.
Area Coroner James Newman recorded an open verdict, stating: “There are two very polar opposite accounts of how Michael has gone into the river.”
Dan Walker had accident day after Nicola was recovered NOT day after the interview. There is video of the collision. It looks deliberate and of course the driver did not stop or come forward which adds to the suspicion. Walker appeared on ITV's 'Loose Women' and appeared very philosophical about the 'accident'. Very strange. Perhaps the collison was a warning and his new series a repayment for staying mum?
The question is why despite the overwhelming real and circumstantial evidence Nicola did not go in the river at the bench and was not in the river for 23 days without being found or observed, the police appear to be holding to their untenable 'hypothesis'. If they do, the credibility of the Lancashire Constabularly will never recover.
Was that speech written by the family or by a PR agency? Up to that point the family did nothing but thank the public, police and media for their assistance? Paul Ansell said he had nothing but praise for the police. But this statement diametrically changes the narrative to blame the media. This is blatant manipulation to deflect criticism away from responsible persons and the police. It reminds me of what happened after Lady Diana's suspicious death, when the press were immediately blamed and arrested although they were largely innocent and uninvolved. Every high profile planned event requires a scapegoat to deflect attention and blame. This case qualifies on so many counts.
It is also worth noting that there is no way he would have changed or modified his story unless the police had either instructed him to or at least approved it before he placed it in the public domain. Its reliability is doubtful for a number of reasons. The purpose of it is clear: to undermine the lay-by dumping theory. The police obviously want everyone - and that includes the Coroner - to believe Nicola was in the river for 23 days without being located (a preposterous idea) and that no third party or crime was involved. Given the circumstances, this would amount not only to a dereliction of duty but actually perverting the course of justice, from which crime the police are not exempt.
@ 1.20 mins 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?
8.4.23: 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.
What dogs do if their master falls into water!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.