Nicola Bulley and the intriguing detail of the SOCKS!
The following are screen shots of a video presentation by Penny Bunny at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJACVMbefA0 They tend to support the assertion made elsewhere, on the back of other evidence (ring, gait, facial features, manipulation etc.) that the person purported to be Nicola Bulley leaving the house and entering the car on the morning of Friday 27th January, the day she is said to have gone missing, is not Nicola but is in fact Emma White. Of course this is only a claim made by others, which I neither believe or disbelieve but regard as highly relevant. There may be perfectly innocent reasons for this similitude but they certainly deserve explanation.
For reference see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Capture_(TV_series)
EMMA WHITE INTERVIEW AT THE BENCH, 1ST FEBRUARY, 2023
CLOSE-UP OF THE ABOVE
'NICOLA BULLEY' 'LEAVING THE HOUSE ON THE MORNING O fRI. 27TH JANUAURY, 2023
CLOSE-UP OF THE ABOVE
COMPARISON OF TWO
For those that haven't followed this case, and perhaps even for those that have, it may be worth pointing out that, in common with many other aspects, the stills and brief video abstract of the alleged departure on the morning of the 27th January, 2023, is decidedly 'dodgy'. The more so because the stills from it were used by the Lancashire Police in their campaign to locate Nicola Bulley. From the off there were some glaring inconsistencies with the police description of the event it purported to illustrate. That the police chose by using, validate them, without spotting the problems is very detrimental to their observational and analytical skills that the leading detective, Det. Supt. Rebecca Smith claims to be competent in. At some point, perhaps when the defects had been finally noticed, the stills were removed from the official Lancashire Police web site, although no formal retraction or apology has been forthcoming.
The stills and video were said to be taken by a door cam at the Ansell/Bulley Inskipp home address, yet it is clear from the angle of view this cannot be the case. The image is looking down on the roof of the vehicles and people so must have been taken from either a hand-held device at an open bedroom window or from eaves level security CCTV. In any event it could not be from a door cam - if they have one - as clearly stated.
This is but the first of many problems with this material. It would not be so bad were it not for the fact that it was put forward by the police of substantial and reliable evidence of what happened the very morning Nicola went missing. In fact proof that she set off to school with the dog and children and that her partner assisted her in the process. It validated Paul Ansell's account of events and proved she was at least alive and well at about 8.20 am that morning as he had claimed. By showing everything about the video and account it purports to relate is unreliable, so also becomes the account.
The first thing to be noticed by observers was that elements of the scene did not accord with the Police description of what Nicola was wearing that morning. Her coat was said to be 'ankle-length' when clearly it is not. It only comes down to the knee. This cannot be explained by any trick of the light or camera technology which may have caused the second anomaly: namely the colour of the jacket which is shown to be blue but was described by Police as 'black'.
However the description she was wearing jeans with socks 'tucked into them' (jeans would be tucked into socks not the other way about or not at all) is not borne out by the image which shows her wearing tight leggings seemingly tucked into the socks, which as I have highlighted above were striped. These variations are not insignificant as they must have been supplied by her partner and given out by Supt. Sally Riley at the first formal press conference (there had been a earlier informal one outside the village hall). As soon as the 'door-cam' images were published by the police themselves, the police description was proved to be inaccurate, not an auspicious start to the search for her.
But as if this was not enough to cast doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the images, there is far more damning information.
The moving video was issued to validate the three still images (See my earlier article here: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-nicola-bulley-mystery-disappearance.html ) which it conspiculously failed to do. Why? Because there is no way of verifying it. It is not time and date stamped. It could in fact have been any (winter) day. Having so said, many people commented on the fact that despite the alleged time and date (early morning in late January) there was no sign of frost or ice on cars or surfaces. Perhaps the previous night had not been so cold as others (3 degrees C at 8 am apparently) that might explain it.
There are significant problems with the stills and video footage as has been pointed out by social media commentators. 'The Armchair Detectective' highlighted the way the alleged face of Nicola had appeared to have been altered, in particular the loss of her nose in the image of her leaving the house. (Incidentally a clearly different angle so more than one camera device must have been used)
Another analyst 'Super Chuffer' (See below) has identified multiple proofs that the video footage had been manipulated at one or more stages. There are two distinct 'water marks' that must have been added at two different times before it was released. 'Nicola's' foot and lower leg appears to disappear. Paul Ansell's head appears to show inexplicable alteration. There is a colour change in the brick paving and a noticable jump in the framing of the image all contributing to the conclusion the video is doctored. As such it loses all validity.
But the final, and perhaps most important, aspect relates to whether the female figure shown is indeed Nicola or someone else approximating to close friend of the couple, Emma White. 'Mind Juice' points to the fact that there is an undeniable hint of a ring on the right hand ring finger that approximates to one Emma in TV interview is shown to be wearing and appears to attempt to hide from the camera. Nicola in images is never seen to wear one.
A clincher that footage has been manipulated and unreliable, is that the female when at the back of the car has ungloved hands, whereas by the time she is opening the driver's door she appears to be wearing white gloves! The apparent shift in the image half way between the two seems to suggest a composite of two different ones. Who knows? With so many anomalies and conflicts with descriptions, why did the police place such trust in it? Were they duped?
The hair of the person is tied back in a poney tail as Emma likes to wear it, whereas Emma prefers in images to keep it loose. The build and stride of the person has been linked to other images of horse-riding Emma by particularly 'Super Chuffer', and the combination of all these features certainly makes out a persuasive case that the stills (I haven't mentioned the pronounced facial features and high cheek bone that seem to match Emma's face more closely than Nicola's) and video portray not Nickola leaving the house and getting into the car, but her friend Emma.
Now added to this list we have the interesting detail that Emma several days later is seen wearing identical striped socks to those of the person in the video, whilst no such socks are ever seen worn by Nicola. There may be an explanation for this apparent coincidence but it needs to be a damn good one.
Of course the final questions are why there are so many questions relating to the stills and videos? Why were the police so easily persuaded they were genuine and unmanipulated? If they do show Emma rather than Nicola, what is the explanation?
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.
'Super Chuffer':
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.
29.4.23: Nothing has been released about the condition of the body as retrieved. We only know the fact that the dental records match. There is so much more of critical importance that has remained secret at least from the public. We know that the police made no effort to create a crime scene there, despite all the earlier suspicious circumstances. Of course a person was arrested and charged for filming the event. This looks very much like vindictiveness on the part of the police. Those that have seen the footage report the corpse was hardly recognisable as a person and was treated very casually. The relevant information will be known to the Pathologist who had the unenviable job of inspecting the remains and the Coroner who recieved his report, and maybe even the family, but the public, who have a genuine interest, are kept in the dark, maybe for ever, depending on how much is revealed at the Inquest. The state of decomposition, completeness and integrity of body structures, chemical analysis, signs of injury, clothes and possessions whether intact or not, all help to paint a picture and tell a story. As you say the approach of the police is quite inexplicable and contrary to all reason and continued even when the body was recovered. If this is down to personal ego of officers involved or a matter of not admitting fundamental errors to save face, it is unforgiveable. The public policy issues around the confidence we can have in the investigation of the most serious crime, profound. That is why this is not only a private issue but a public one as well. We wait to see whether the Coronial process can retrieve a lamentable situation or will merely condone and excuse it, allowing the perpatrators of what is an undoubtedly heinous crime, to go scott free. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iVGYQ4zVsU
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.
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.
Thanks for sending. My comment on it was as follows: Nicola Bulley did not go in the water at the bench. She was not in the river until the 19th February. She did not go over the weir. She did not travel in the river from the bench to where she was found without being detected. Given these FACTS the explanation for her disappearance must lie elsewhere. The failure of the police to change the nature of the enquiry when this became clear is a stain on their professionalism and competence, that messing about in the river now, fails to wash clean. http://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2023/04/nicola-bulley-and-intriguing-detail-of.html Of course I will never be honoured by the government or anybody else. lol
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.
8.5.23: Three days after going missing, Sally Riley still couldn't be sure how NB got from Inskip to St Michael's on Wyre. That is a huge red flag. The fact that only EW allegedly saw her at the school is another. The only way to be sure NB took her kids to school is to ask them. Strangely the police have never said they have confirmed it. That's another red flag. Witness evidence is flimsey to say the least. What if NB never did the trip from home to school? What if a lookalike did the walk route, just to create the ficticious story line? After all the dog and other items at the bench are strong evidence of doing just that. Rather than doing well - as PA thought and opined - my view is that the police, despite experts and a team of forty - could hardly have done WORSE! And not just in 'controlling the narrative'. So what narrative was that?
8.5.23: Strange parallels to Nicola Bulley case! ANOTHER MISSING NICOLA!
Murder of Basildon's Nicola Ray remains mystery after disappearance
(6th May 2023) https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/23499557.murder-basildons-nicola-ray-remains-mystery-disappearance/ "This week marks the 23rd anniversarty of the death of Nicola Ray, a mum-of-two, disappeared without trace following a night out with friends in the early hours of May 2, 2000.
Essex Police has issued an update on the case and insists "no case is ever closed." She has never been seen since, and her case became one of Basildon’s most well-known and saddest unsolved cases." Her partner Timothy Barnes (47) has been the chief suspect and arrested in connection with her disappearance several times. Apart from the similar ages of the victim, her children and her marital status, another astounding connection is that allegedly Timothy Barnes is Paul Ansell's cousin! Twenty three years ago, too!
Murder of Basildon's Nicola Ray remains mystery after disappearance
(6th May 2023) https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/23499557.murder-basildons-nicola-ray-remains-mystery-disappearance/ "This week marks the 23rd anniversarty of the death of Nicola Ray, a mum-of-two, disappeared without trace following a night out with friends in the early hours of May 2, 2000.
Essex Police has issued an update on the case and insists "no case is ever closed." She has never been seen since, and her case became one of Basildon’s most well-known and saddest unsolved cases." Her partner Timothy Barnes (47) has been the chief suspect and arrested in connection with her disappearance several times. Apart from the similar ages of the victim, her children and her marital status, another astounding connection is that allegedly Timothy Barnes is Paul Ansell's cousin! Twenty three years ago, too!
17.5.23: The video of Nicola leaving the house is deeply dodgy from not just one aspect but many. It is NOT from door cam as stated. There is no reliable date/time line. The film for various reasons has been doctored. The female shown is probably not Nicola but someone else. Inexplicably even the description issued by police does not fit. For all these reasons, the footage cannot be relied upon. Significantly even the police took it down from their official web site. There is doubt over where Nicola parked her car (if she ever did) Was it in the school yard or the tennis club car park? Apparently the school gates are locked after drop-off which would rule out the dog walk. EW "waved" at her apparently, so who is the witess who allegedly 2spoke to her"? If we, with limited information, can see more holes in this case than a tea strainer, why, with all their resources and 'expertise', can't the police?
18.5.23: Schizophrenia is a serious and debilitating condition that would probably require permanent medication. From what I have seen of NB, I find that rather far fetched. There are no indications in the public arena that would point to it and no one in the family made mention of it even as a hint. Would she have had charge of the children or been allowed to drive with the condition? Someone with it is delusional and usually subject to hearing voices and other bizarre symptoms rendering normal life very problematical. Her regular routine, including taking the children to school and the dog on the same route every day, is counter indicative. The trouble is the source you used is not validated in any way and therefore may not be reliable. People can say anything and make anything up if they have a mind to. If she was schizophrenic, it is surprising that no one has even hinted at it privately or publicly. Such a diagnosis may be relevant to her going missing or even commiting suicide but the facts say otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u7wuJ6_4m0
24.5.23: The rules of evidence you are discussing is predicated on a criminal trial, in which the two sides put their case which must be based in reliable, provable evidence. This particularly applies to the prosecution, because until found guilty by the jury, the accused is presumed innocent. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove his innocence. Even so in practice, the theory may prove inadequate to protect an innocent man. However in the NB case all of this is somewhat inapplicable because of course there is no criminal prosecution or trial. The police believe, in my opinion wrongly, that there is no evidence of third party involvement or criminality. It appears their investigations are concluded at least until the Coroner's Inquest. The rules to which the Coroner must conform and the procedures of his court are very different to a criminal trial. It is not adversarial but it is inquisitorial. In many ways it is closer to Roman based European criminal process than it is to English Common Law. Unless parties are represented, it is down to Coroner to assess the evidence and question the witnesses he calls, himself. Compare and contrast this to a Judge in a criminal case who in theory acts as an unbiased arbiter between the two sides. The Coroner does have an officer (usually an ex-police office) who enquires on his behalf, but again in practise he is almost wholly reliant on the police and the stance that they take. He is not obliged to accept their findings or reasoning but usually does. It would create waves if he didn't in the Bulley case. That is what has been going on in the four months between finding the body and the hearing itself. Out of the public gaze, the Coroner is no doubt trying to find a position he can square with his professional conscience. Who knows what pressure he is coming under? Will he appoint a jury? (Juries sometimes can throw a spanner in the works if they are up to it!) There is no official record of the proceedings and Coroner is under no obligation to reveal how he came to the decision he did or the evidence on which it was based, documents remaining largely secret and in his possession. As long as there are no criminal proceedings in the offing, even for dog cruelty, focusing on the Inquest may be more productive - I don't know?
21.5.2023:
Thanks for sending. My comment on it was as follows: Nicola Bulley did not go in the water at the bench. She was not in the river until the 19th February. She did not go over the weir. She did not travel in the river from the bench to where she was found without being detected. Given these FACTS the explanation for her disappearance must lie elsewhere. The failure of the police to change the nature of the enquiry when this became clear is a stain on their professionalism and competence, that messing about in the river now, fails to wash clean. Thanks for sending. My comment on it was as follows: Nicola Bulley did not go in the water at the bench. She was not in the river until the 19th February. She did not go over the weir. She did not travel in the river from the bench to where she was found without being detected. Given these FACTS the explanation for her disappearance must lie elsewhere. The failure of the police to change the nature of the enquiry when this became clear is a stain on their professionalism and competence, that messing about in the river now, fails to wash clean. Thanks for sending. My comment on it was as follows: Nicola Bulley did not go in the water at the bench. She was not in the river until the 19th February. She did not go over the weir. She did not travel in the river from the bench to where she was found without being detected. Given these FACTS the explanation for her disappearance must lie elsewhere. The failure of the police to change the nature of the enquiry when this became clear is a stain on their professionalism and competence, that messing about in the river now, fails to wa Of course I will never be honoured by the government or anybody else. lol
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.