The disappearance of Nicola Bulley

[GGizmo]

I didnt see any thread about this story so thought I'd start one.

Nicola Bulley: Missing mum's sister urges people to keep open mind

Police believe Nicola Bulley fell into the river but her sister says there is "no evidence" of that.

www.bbc.co.uk

The police seem to be focused on the theory that she fell in the river. They aren't just not looking in to any other theory. But also saying it hurts the family to even mention other theories.

Meanwhile its come out that even the family don't understand why the police have ruled out every other theory at this early stage.

Why have the police ruled out all other theories so early on?

 

[GGizmo]

It's not like the police don't have a reputation for searching all over the place only to find the body under their nose.

The case of Shannon Matthews comes to mind that the cops searched the house previously that she was subsequently found hiding under a bed inside.

She was on a call sitting on the bench. Her falling in the river isn't really a stand out theory. It is a theory yes. But I wouldn't be ruling out other theories at this early stage.

Why would she fall in the river when she was sat on the bench in a conference call? I can imagine if her phone was on the floor next to the river. It seems like an unusual sequence of events had to happen for the polices theory to become a reality.

Have the police searched the area?

Some people say she might have fallen in getting her dog from the river. But if her dogs out then unless she jumped in then she wouldn't be in as you'd lean back to safety to pull the dog out.

I could imagine someone might have pushed her in i.e. someone stopped to talk to her, and she put the phone on mute and on the bench. Then the idiot pushed her in the river. As we know idiots are pushing random people on to train tracks at stations these days. I've heard of people being pushed in to canals too. That would be a more likely way to be in the river than she just fell in.

 

[GGizmo]

The police haven't even told the family why they have made this theory the only one.

So far according to the family the police have no evidence for this theory.

Police seeking ‘key witness’ in search for missing Nicola Bulley

A woman pushing pram near where dog walker went missing was captured on CCTV

www.theguardian.com

Nicola Bulley: Family and friends claim there is ‘no evidence’ she fell into river

Ms Bulley’s sister, Louise Cunningham, urged people to ‘keep an open mind’ as there is ‘no evidence whatsoever’ that the dog walker fell in the river

www.standard.co.uk

They would have told the family of the evidence, especially if they were challenging the theory.

Who are the police to tell people not to speculate!? There is no court case going on. It's more likely this cop leading it doesn't want her theory challenged. Because maybe she'd have to answer why shes eliminated all over theories.

The family are now demanding the police show the evidence to them.

 

[GGizmo]

As demonstrated with great accuracy by the next two pages of this thread. It's the way people present their wacky ideas as "the only logical way it could have happened" that is really fun.

So far the police have put forward an idea without evidence.

 

[GGizmo]

You keep repeating this, yet the police haven't stated nor implied they have evidence she fell in, they said it's their main working hypothesis based on the fact they have no current indication she left the area via other means and that there's no sign nor suggestion of third-party involvement. Again, this was all in the press briefing given yesterday.

They shouldn't be putting any theory out there.

 

[GGizmo]

A forensic expert who works for other police forces doesn't believe she just fell in.

He also gives lots of reasons why the theory isn't likely. But if she did fall in he said he would have expected them to found her by now.

Interesting that the area hasn't been sealed off. So we don't know if someone else was there. Now we won't know.

It seems like the police amateur hour.

Poor woman.

 

[GGizmo]

There is just too many questions about the situation. To instantly focus on one theory seems odd. They haven't given anyone, not even the family, a reason why they think she fell in.

 

[GGizmo]

I “don’t believe” “rumours” “I think”

IF this guy is who he says he is, he sounds like a disgrace to the profession. He admits he doesn’t know any of the details then just states conclusions like fact.

He is just trying to advertise his business (we are best in the world - freebie to attract more clients on the back of a dead woman!) that is some morally questionable TV appearance.

Again listen to it (did you listen to it before you posted?)

Tell me what evidence the police have for the theory she fell in?

Because so far they haven't shown any evidence to anyone.

At least be consistant with your criticism.

 

[GGizmo]

The fact that there is no evidence of her leaving the area is surely the evidence that she fell in the river.

They clearly have reasonable CCTV coverage of the area so the chances of her being abducted and not spotted are tiny plus add in the fact that the dog remained in the area and didn't follow her or get killed by any abducter.

I get the family dont like the idea of the river theory because then it just becomes an accident with no one to blame and also removes any chance of her being found alive.

We don't know how good the CCTV coverage is of the area. I have CCTV cameras and whenever anything happens in the area we find out who else as CCTV. Not many people do. The ones that do are scattered around.

They haven't cordoned off the area. So they haven't looked for forensic evidence on the ground.

The main point I'm making is that the police haven't got any evidence to support their theory, so why only focus on that one possibility?

Do they have any evidence that something else happened?

You seem very happy to point criticism at them for pursuing the theory that she fell in, but in the absence of any evidence at all, what do you think they should be doing?

At the moment they don't seem to have any evidence of anything. That's my complaint. That they have zoomed in on one theory and not bothered to keep an open mind.

At the start I would have cordoned off the area. Get sniffer dogs in. Put some kind of grid across the river further down to stop any large items from flowing past.

I'd have searched the area.

I'm not happy to point criticism. I'm questioning why all other possibilities have been dismissed so early.

 

[GGizmo]

Now you're just making things up.

From the BBC article today:

"Detectives said they were "as confident as we can be that Nicola has not left the field where she was last seen, and our working hypothesis is that she has fallen into the river for some reason".
"Our investigation remains open and we will of course act on any new information which comes to light.""

Literally the exact opposite of what you're claiming.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, they're focusing their investigation into the most likely scenario - your argument would seem to suggest they shouldn't be doing investigation until they have a reason to investigate

They have no evidence she fell in though.

The river banks in the videos aren't that steep. If she's at a steep bit she could have pulled herself to a less steep area.

I find it hard to believe she went from supposedly falling in to being dead in 10 minutes.

The only possible way that might have happened is if she was pushed in, away from the sides, by someone.

I'll ask the posters, if you fell in that river are you saying you wouldn't be able to pull yourself out, or shout for help?

 

[GGizmo]

I'm glad to see that forensic team I mentioned yesterday have joined the search. Now we'll see for sure if shes in the river or not.

 

[GGizmo]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The only way to know for sure if she's in the river or not is if she's:

A) found in the river
B) found somewhere else

Not finding her in the river doesn't mean she's not in the river, it just means they didn't find her in the river.

I think you're making it more complicated than it is.

If shes in the river then this team is likely to find her.

But to use your logic, if they don't find her in the river, but shes still in the river, then what else would you suggest they all do?

 

[GGizmo]

Have you called the detectives and told them what they should do next?

Why do you assume the police are always right?

They come up with a theory with no evidence and you don't question it.

Yet everytime others put forward a theory, which is equally as valid i.e. evidence isn't required, you're picking at them?

 

[GGizmo]

Go look up "Occam's Razor" and then come back to us.

They did not "come up with a theory" as you suggest.

Nice wording by the way, really subtle (not) attempt to portray a police investigation as "coming up with a theory" to facilitate you to then attempting to draw equivalencies with your own crackpot theories.

There is a vast difference between what the police are doing - Working the scene, taking into consideration all the likely possibilities to formulate the most probable outcome(s).

And what you're doing - Which is reading Social Media and newspaper clippings and then attempting to completely dismiss the most likely, obvious and reasonable explanation for her disappearance, in order to cling to some conspiracy-theory-esque claims that require 10 different hoops to be jumped through to make happen, with absolutely zero supporting evidence there was any foul play.

Why is it you choose to completely and repeatedly ignore the most obvious and likely, in favour of repeatedly parroting your own unfounded, unsupported, unevidenced claims that it's either "Something Dodgy" or "The Police being Incompetent"?

Have you any more un words?

The police haven't provided evidence for their own theory - to anyone, yet you believe it. Why? Because someone in a uniform said it?

You're right there is a social media problem, and it started when the police started putting out a theory very early on that they havent got any evidence for. Why did they feel they had to say anything?

All those un words can be applied to the police. There is no use trying to straw man this.

It's not the most likely explanation. That's why I choose to keep an open mind. Why don't you?

 

[GGizmo]

A psychologist explains why people believe in conspiracy theories

Tinfoil hats at the ready, conspiracy theories have become plentiful during the pandemic with many factors helping this process.

www.sciencefocus.com

How is it a conspiracy theory to keep an open mind?

I thought it'd be helpful to put all these in one place for Bowdon so he can just copy and paste them, rather than trying to come up with a new way of saying the same wrong thing over and over again while ignoring the answers.

Someone in a uniform told you something so it must be true

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GGizmo]

How many crimes have you solved in your lifetime?

It's common sense to keep an open mind.

 

[GGizmo]

But please do try not to confuse that with an empty one

I'm confused as to why you keep insisting the police should do nothing to investigate?

They should investigate everything.

My only complaint was them announcing priority that she fell in so early in the investigation.

They didn't need to say anything, at least to the public.

 

[GGizmo]

I noticed someone changed my Sherlock type thread title it's an outrage I didn't want to put her name in the title as I wasn't sure if it was in good taste to do that.

And then be criticised for doing/knowing nothing? Some people just have a problem with authority, and for them the police can't do anything right. Besides; when the divers start turning up, it's going to be pretty obvious why - you don't need scuba gear and underwater sonar to track someone on CCTV

I hope whatever happens that we get a conclusion soon.

I can't imagine how her family are coping with all this.

 

[GGizmo]

Expert witness - body language analyst

https://youtu.be/ABN6CByFEb8

It doesn't make sense it was him, for obvious reasons.

 

[GGizmo]

Not quite. You complained that police hadn't cordoned and searched the area (they had). You complained they were focusing entirely on one theory (they weren't). You complained they had no evidence (they hadn't claimed to). You complained they instantly focused on her falling into the river (it was one week after she disappeared during which time various other lines of enquiry were explored).

The person jumping to conclusions without evidence here is you.

And all my thoughts, not conclusions, have the same amount of evidence as her falling in the river.

If you don't want to speculate about the case then why are you on a thread that is talking about it?