Nicola Bulley: Some questions for the police and Coroner a month after her body was recovered.

"Let’s make this very clear, the Metropolitan Police Service and policing in general prioritise one thing above all others and that’s institutional protectionism. There is nothing more important and they will lie, manipulate, and push the boundaries of legality to ensure their interests are served."  Ex-Police Sergeant, David Eden @  'The Upsetter'

The initial disappearance of forty-five year old Nicola Bulley became national news in January and February 2023. 

Paradoxically, since it was tragically confirmed that she had in fact died, after a body was retrieved from the River Wyre, it has ceased to be a story of interest in the national press, this despite the many unresolved questions. 

Until she was found approximately a mile down-stream from the location at which it was claimed she entered the water, the mystery of her disappearance fuelled the fascination; the need to locate her justified the interest and internet discussion. 

Now she has been found and laid to rest, people, or at least the media, seem to have moved on, despite the fact many questions, anomalies and enigmas remain unanswered. There seems to have been an unspoken agreement between governmental authorities and the press, to leave the subject alone, as if the cause and circumstances of her demise had been settled. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Of course the responsibility for answering outstanding questions rests with the police and ultimately the cause of her death with the Coroner, but there is a credibility problem with the former, based on their pronouncements and approach to the disappearance. 

Leaving aside the fact that the Lancashire Constabulary was already subject to official censure, their statements, 'hypotheses', methodology and apparent conclusions, could not be less credible.

We have to wait until the 26th June, 2023 to see how the Coroner performs. The first question is how transparent the inquest will be? Will the parties be properly represented?  Will the police assumptions, actions and opinions be challenged or will they be regarded as 'gospel'. Will it be in front of a jury? If there is one, can we rely on it to bring in the right finding?

So in this context many outstanding questions come to mind, questions that have either never been posed, or reliably answered.

Trying to get to the bottom of the matter is of course primarily a family matter, but it also has public significance, particularly if her death resulted from a criminal act. 

If her death resulted from something other than accident or self harm, it means that there is a person or persons unknown not identified still at large. That is a valid public concern. It may to a certain extent, be assuaged if critical questions are addressed and answered. Is it acceptible to have to wait more than four months, when many of the points of crucial significance could be cleared up now?

Questions arising from the Paul Ansell Interview  (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REpPIwjUpEo )

1.  Who initially informed the police of Nicola's disappearance at 11.01 a.m. on 27th January, 2023? There appears to be conflicting evidence on this point.  It is said that local people rang the police soon after they found the phone, harness and dog running loose at 9.33 a.m. If so, what accounts for the nearly hour and a half delay? There were apparently multiple calls to the school and family. 

Paul Anseel was eventually contacted by the school at 10.50 a.m. So what caused this inordinate delay when the telephone contact number was on Ripple's dog collar?

2.  If the phone was recovered at 9.33 a.m. ('Ron's account) in who's posession was it at about 10.30 a.m., when Paul says he made two calls to it and a 'WhatsAp' message?  Why were those calls not answered or responded to?

3.  After the phone on the bench was retrieved, still turned on, what happened to it? Was it kept turned on or was it turned off? Was it used to make enquiry or reporting calls or were other phones used for this purpose? If so who made those calls using what phones? What was the actual sequence of the calls made and to whom?

3. Paul Ansell says in his interview with Dan Walker two weeks after she went missing, that he started to get worried at about 10.30 a.m and decided to go and look for her after first changing into his gym gear. Then just before he set off he gets a call from the school to say 'Ripple' has been found, but no sign of Nicola, which understandably causes him to "panic". So why the school and why, given the fact that Ripple always wore a collar and tag with telephone numbers on it, wasn't he called by the people who located the dog, much closer to 9.33 a.m.?

4.  Paul says that after this call he got in his car and rushed the three miles or so and ran to the bench, where a group of people have Willow, the phone and the harness. Who were these people? Where did Paul park his car? Was it in the school car park or perhaps in the Caravan Park as being closer?  He doesn't say. These details are important as they determine the time of his arrival (between 11 a.m and 11.15 a.m.?) and if he parked in the school carpark he would have seen Nicola's black Mercedes, which he would have surely looked in, but strangely he doesn't even mention it. Did he see her car parked up or not?

5.  In actual fact there is a conflict of evidence on the time the dog running loose was located. This was stated to be very precisely 9.33 a.m. (Elsewhere I have drawn attention to the numerical significance of this number) But this conflicts with another police report that the dog was located at 10.15 a.m.  In the first instance 'Ron' claims the dog was tied up with string (where the lead?) or was the dog not retrieved until 10.15 a.m.?  Which is it?

6.  Ripple had a collar with tag, a harness and a lead. Was the collar and tag in place? The harness was off the dog and located half way between bench and river but there is no mention of the lead. Nicola's habit was to allow the dog to run freely but to always take the lead. Leaving aside the question of why the harness had been taken off and placed so conspicuously, where is the lead?

7.  There is a small but significant mismatch in Paul Ansell's timeline. He says in the interview that he rang the police after he left the house on his journey to the bench in search of Nicola at about 10.50 or ten to eleven. That's a good ten minutes before the police say they had the first call. Of course this would rule out anyone else ringing the police prior to Paul Ansell's call but why does Paul say he made the call ten minutes before the police record it? Is it to give the impression he reacted quicker than he did or just a minor miscalculation?

8.  He says he is handed both dog and phone at the gate. He does not say whether the phone was turned on or off. He says he looked around the field but he does not say whether he checked messages on Nicola's phone or indeed whether he could access it or not. That seems strange as we might expect it to be the first thing he would have done. Nor does he appear to enquire why those holding it did not answer his three calls.

9.  So, why doesn't he specify the questions he posed to the people at the gate? Wouldn't he be naturally full of them? Why does he not refer to the missing lead?  Did he take a spare one, in which case why, or did he just use the length of string that a person had provided? What happened to the phone? Did he keep it or hand it over to the police before he left?

10.  He says the police telephoned him whilst he was still at the bench and told him to return home. It is not altogether clear if they got to the bench before he left or if he had gone before they arrived. If as he says the police got to the bench by "twenty-five past eleven" it is amazing their paths did not cross somewhere between the bench and wherever he parked his car. So did he meet the police at the scene or if not how did they miss one another? What time did they get to his house? All these times are important to fix his movements on the day. 

If as he says he rang the police in the car on the way there, and the police record the 999 call at 11.01 a.m. as stated, he could not have got to the bench (the three mile drive, parking up, running the length of the river) before 11.10 a.m. at the very earliest. He said he spent time there looking around the field and meeting the people who had gathered for the hand-over. He also took a call from the police whilst there. How then could he have missed the police if they arrived as he said at 11.25?

11.  Now one very strange thing about this account, he does not mention the children once or the location of Nicola's car. If Nicola has gone inexplicably missing, with suicide obviously on the cards, wouldn't he want to check on the children to ensure they were OK? But there is no mention of calling into the school either before or after his trip to the bench. Similarly he appears to make no effort to locate her car or check it for clues as to what might have happened. Neither of these fundamentals get a mention. Absolutely no information is provided about Nicola's car, where it was parked or when and by whom it was returned home. 

12. So did PA meet the police before returning home and if not, why not given the timings? Why didn't he check on the school or anywhere else, for either Nicola or the children? Why didn't he check out the location and condition of Nicola's car? Did the police take her car and subject it to forensic examination? How did the police treat Paul's car? Indeed have any vehicles been subject to forensic examination?

13.  In the interview he says he cannot fault the police despite disagreeing with their basic hypothesis that she had drowned in the river. So why is he not critical of the fact that they failed from the first, to treat it as a crime. Why is he not critical of the confusion over their stated times, locations, descriptions and failure to change tack, even when the river was ruled out? At no time did he seek to correct the police report (Sally Riley) that Nicola had walked to the school with the dog (and children?)

Witnesses

14.   Is it acceptible that the whole issue of who saw Nicola where and when has been shrouded in secrecy and confusion? Initially it was stated in the press that the last sighting of her was in the top field at 9.10 a.m. The person who claims to have seen her has not been publically identified. It has therefore been impossible to test the veracity of that statement. How reliable therefore is the claim? How well did the witness know Nicola and how sure was she or he that it was not someone who looked like her? Could provide an accurate description that matched what she was wearing? How did they lose sight of each other?

15.  Given that it was claimed that a woman in a red coat walking her dog saw Nicola, who later denied she had seen her, isn't it time the police published a definitive list of the witnesses who claim they saw Nicola, precisely where and how reliable those sightings are?

16.  An elderly couple were said to be the last people to see Nicola alive, but that was on the footpath at about 9.15 a.m. If that is true, in which direction was she heading, towards the bench or away from it? Of course this claim would contradict the one in 14 above.

17.  The route along the river path and around the field is evidently very popular and well used. Either Nicola or Paul went there virtually every day. It is very hard to believe she could either be abducted or fall into the river, without someone noticing. Both would likely create a noisy commotion. If as proved she was not in the river, she must either have left the scene or not been there. Someone certainly left the phone, dog and harness at the bench. So who was it?

Police Investigation

18.  In view of the above, is it not time the police came clean over what they know and can reliably prove, and what they assume and surmise?  What firm evidence do they have of Nicola's movements that day from the time she was alleged to have left the house (8.26 a.m) to the time she was found to be missing (9.33 a.m.)  If there is little or none, the police should be open and frank, and admit it.

19.  The police have talked vaguely about CCTV coverage and car cameras. They have said Nicola does not appear on any. However the public is in the dark what in practice this means. Why don't the police provide precise details of what cameras were operative, and what field of view they covered? How could the witness in the top field be recorded on CCTV but not Nicola?

20.  These days, valuable information on a person's movements can be gleaned from mobile phones which continuously report their location to the transmitters from which position can be triangulated. Presumably this was employed to make the statement that "the phone made its way to the bench from the top field." But what of the earlier period?  Where was it located at the start of the day and up to 9.33?

21.  And not only Nicola's phone. What of Paul's and Emma's? Of witnesses and even of other unidentified ones that could be placed in the vicinity?  Have these been checked out also?

22.  The police assumptions and methodology have been much criticised particulary assuming she was in the river and more particularly holding to that theory, even when within a couple of days it was decisively disproved. Although denied, the opinion she was a 'vulnerable person' based on information presumably provided by her partner and an incident to which they were called, influenced their explanation - i.e. self harm - to the exclusion of all others. This was a fundamental error which affected the way they proceeded.

23.  It goes some way to explaining why they did not treat the bench area as a crime scene or impound the electronic devices of those affected. It appears Paul took the harness and phone home. The lead appears is not referred to. The bench and surrounding area was never inspected forensically.

24.  In the first recorded interview with Superintendent Sally Riley, she stated she believed Nicola had walked the three miles from her home!  So what led her to make that assumption?  Shouldn't she explain if and why she changed her opinion if she did? If it was a significant mistake based on false information shouldn't she say so?

25.  In the week later press conference, (See: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=1891635774561855 ) Superintendent Riley followed up with a number of inexplicable statements and requests. First she referred continually to the wrong road and giving it the wrong name:  "Garstang Lane" instead of "Garstang Road"!  However if Nicola had followed the route described she would not have entered Garstang Road. Indeed Supt. Riley confirmed that the CCTV at 'The Grapes' public house confirmed it.  Nevertheless it took two week for the Grapes footage to be checked despite its obvious location. (Apparently Google Earth has now changed the nomenclature to accord with riley's version, which suggests high level influence and manipulation!)

26.  The roads Nicola actually walked on (if she did) were 'Allotment Lane' leading onto the main road, the A586, which at that point up to the river bridge is 'Blackpool Road' or Blackpool Lane. Perhaps these mistakes can be put down to the stress of the moment, to memory loss, but they are fundamental errors insofar she was asking people to recall seeing Nicola where she knew she would not have been!  So how come she made such a mistake and why didn't she apologise and correct it?    

27.  The second cardinal error she made was in relation to a public appeal for car cam or any other incidental footage relating to Garstang Lane (sic) and its vicinity at a very strange time, namely a time she knew Nicola couldn't be there! Amazing as it sounds she used the time of 9.10 to 9.15 a.m.

28.  She says Nicola was sighted "walking towards the iron bridge at 8.43". "At 8.47 she was seen in the lower field with her dog Willow." "At 9.10 she was seen in the upper field with her dog off the lead." "We are particularly interested in the period from 9.10 to 9.20." (This was later changed to 9.15) Then later as regards to to car camera video or information in answer to a question, "Were they driving through the village about 9.15?"

29. So why 9.15?  True it is in the gap in which they though she went in the river, but as for people travelling through the village a week later it is either too late or too early.  Nicola was on her way to the bridge at 8.43 so passing motorist between 8.30 and 8.45 should have been alerted.  Alternatively a time of 9.15 to 9.45 should have been stated to cover the time she might have reached the road again. Similarly if she had been abducted by vehicle, these are the times that would have applied, yet she makes no reference to suspicious or unusual vehicle movements, particularly of marked or unmarked vans. So why did she appeal for public information from the road when she was certain Nicola was in the field?

30.  The police say Ms Bulley left her home with her two daughters, aged six and nine at 8.26 a.m., dropping them off at school and engaging in a brief conversation with another parent around 15 minutes later, Lancashire Police has said. This timeline fits with the school opening time of 8.30 and Nicola walking towards iron bridge at 8.43. Only Emma White has spoken publicly of seeing her there but this was limited to just "a wave". Is there CCTV coving the car park at the school. Was she or was she not captured on it?

31.  It is common in such circumstances for police to organise a reconstruction. They didn't in this case. Why were simple floating tests not carried out on the river, above and below the weir to establish the effect of flow and tide?

32.  At the press conference one week after the disappearance, Superintendent Riley gave out a description of what Nicola was wearing on the day. Presumably the police had obtained this from her partner Paul.  The problem arises from the fact that the description differs markedly from what is seen on three stills claimed to have been taken drom a door cam at their home on the 27th Jan as she set off for school. Unfortunately the images or the subsequent few seconds of video are not date stamped. The angle indicates it is taken high up which contradicts the claim it is a door cam. That's the first problem. So why claim it was door cam when clearly it is CCTV at the eaves?

33.  Superintendent Riley describes the clothes as follows: "An ankle length quilted gilea jacket. A black Englebert Strausse waist length coat which was worn underneath the Gilea, Tight fitting black jeans. Long green walking socks tucked into her jeans. Ankle green Next wellies, A neckless and a pale blue FitBit. It's very important the public pay heed to those very specific clothing descriptions."  Why then do they differ so obviously from the video and stills?

34.  As can be seen below the quilted overcoat appears to be blue. It is definitely not ankle length. Rather it is knee length. Tights or leggings not jeans tucked into socks not vice versa. The socks appear to be striped. For obvious reasons the neckless and FitBit cannot be seen though she does appear to be wearing a ring on her right hand index finger.  Nicola does not appear to wear a ring unlike others. The quality of the stills is very poor with deformation particularly to the face and nose.  There has been justified discussion on internet social platforms whether this is indeed Nicola or someone else? If the video or stills were interferred with, who did it and why?

34. Why have the police, who seemingly issued the stills and video  of Nicola allegedly leaving the house, not addressed and explained the issue of the stark divergence between "the very specific clothing descriptions" and the photographic evidence? Is it possible someone else was in the clothes described and was mistaken for Nicola on the day?  Coincidentally, Nicola's close friend Emma White is seen wearing an ankle length black Gilia coat which fits the description more closely. She also wears a ring on her finger.

35.  Having placed the three stills on the official Lancashire Police web site, they were immediately taken down after an American pod caster had highlighted the incriminating details.  That smacks of cover-up. So why did the police put the photos up and then remove them?

36.  Despite one week after the disappearance Supt. Riley stated that third parties and criminal action had been ruled out, a position repeated a week later by Det. Supt Becky Smith, on the Monday following Supt. Smith was put in charge of the investigation and a team of forty officers put on the case. Inexplicably it was also stated 'anti-terrorist officers' were on scene from the outset. These are conflicting positions so why if officers were certain this was a straight forward missing person case involving no one else were so many detectives allocated to it?

37.  Where was Nicola's car located? What happened to it? Was it inspected forensically?  If not why not?

38.  It now appears, if psychic Jason can be believed, the body was floating on the up-tide immediately before it got entangled in the recumbent tree and was reported at 11.35 on the 19th February. 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. Given all the evidence, why did the police not treat the recovery site as a crime scene and why have they not instituted a murder enquiry?

39. Andrew Snowden, the Crime Commissioner, having requested an investigation by the College of Policing has stated the "police were right all along." He thinks that the only worrying aspect is "how the police failed to control the narrative." Doesn't this level of naive complacency disqualify him from being ostensibly in charge of a large and important Constabulary?

40. All the indications are that the police are going to continue with their totally implausible, in fact impossible, preferred 'hypothesis' that Nicola fell in the river and ended up a mile down stream twenty three days later. Everyone knows Nicola did not fall in the river by accident or design, yet the Lancashire Police obviously intend to contend that she did. In the present context of a damning report on the Metropolitan Police and an historically low level of public confidence in them, what will it take for the Government to step in and set up a proper thorough investigation of this case? END

See also:

https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-nicola-bulley-mystery-disappearance.html

https://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2023/03/nicola-bulley-and-kabbalistic.html