Justice for Nicola Bulley - part one
Jan 27th - Feb 18th
· INTRODUCTION
The full story of what took place between Jan 27th and Feb 19th is going to prove exceptionally difficult to get at and it will be meet with fierce resistance, but this is no reason not to try.
Many people are afraid of uncomfortable truths and would rather live with comforting lies, or sometimes it may be their livelihood depends on their not understanding the truth. For others peeling back the layers to understand what lies behind the deception remains outside of their limited comprehension. To those of you who stand for truth and justice, you’ll have observed on many occasions (if not constantly) how straightforward it can be for bad actors to manipulate thoughts and perceptions of the masses using a blend of misinformation and disinformation.
Lancashire’s Police and Crime Commissioner Andrew Snowden commissioned the College of Policing on Feb 22nd to undertake a full, independent review into the handling of the ‘missing from home’ investigation into Nicola Bulley.
This is like marking your own homework, not least by making the statement that the hypothesis of the police investigation on how Nicola went missing was sadly proven to be correct. I deal with facts and given the starting point for this review is patently false (nothing is proven), I sense the start to a cover up that will facilitate an open verdict to be reached at the inquest on Jun 26th. It’s remarkably convenient too for Lancashire Constabulary who have indicated that Freedom of Information requests will not be released “until a future point in time.”
Freedom of Information requests
I’m appealing to decent people with strong moral and ethical values to come together - to demand and seek justice for Nicola Bulley. To assist with this aspiration I’ll relate the known facts surrounding Nicola’s tragic and untimely death, joining the dots where it’s helpful for understanding, in order to expose the bogus investigation. Yes, you read that right.
What many of you think you know about Nicola Bulley’s disappearance and subsequent discovery, I can assure you, you don’t. It may come as a surprise to learn there are very few facts at all which is by design. The fewer the facts, the greater the ambiguity and unknowns. For more than three weeks it was primarily this that enabled the spread of so much false and malicious information and fuelled countless unfounded rumours, causing endless confusion, speculation and false conjectures.
Keep in mind that there were only ever two groups in the foreground that captured the public’s attention to create the furore over Nicola’s disappearance:
[1] Lancashire Constabulary
The following police press conferences were held:
[a] Jan 30th - Superintendent Sally Riley
[b] Feb 3rd - SI Sally Riley
[c] Feb 15th - Asst Chief Constable Peter Lawson & Detective SI Rebecca Smith
The press conferences were pivotal in framing the relentless mainstream media reporting and therefore these police officers had responsibility and must take accountability for their role as part of the three-ring circus we witnessed during the twenty three days of Nicola’s disappearance.
[2] Mainstream media
Including, in alphabetical order: BBC, DMG Media (Daily Mail and Metro), Guardian Media Group, ITV plc, JPI Media (regional publishing), News UK (The Times, The Sun, Talk TV), Reach plc (Daily Mirror, Daily Express and Daily Record), Sky News and the Telegraph Media Group.
It’s good practice to remain wary of the media, to always be on your guard in assessing what they are drawing your attention to, to better see what they are distracting you from. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the primary role of mainstream media (or the key sponsors directing them) is to control the narrative.
· CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE
So as to open your minds, please humour me and ponder a hypothetical question. I’d like you to imagine and write down the name of a powerful organisation that could theoretically influence the activities of both mainstream media [Sales & Marketing division] and Lancashire Constabulary [Operational division]. Please don’t read on without having a reached a theoretically plausible answer to this hypothetical question.
It can’t have escaped your notice how many stories circulating were directly or indirectly placing suspicion on both the family and friends of Nicola, right from the start of the investigation. Much of this suspicion remains today (as I show later) and will never go away unless the real perpetrators are identified. To all those of you that fall into this camp, suspecting Nicola’s family and friends of foul play, you have successfully been manipulated. There have indeed been actors putting on a polished performance, but you need to invert your focus. They’re not who you’d ever normally suspect and while the media worked miracles to ensure you’d continue looking the wrong way, the situation descended into a farce as the days progressed with the steadfast refusal to redirect the investigation.
Before going any further, for absolute clarification, all family and friends of Nicola Bulley are owed a deep heartfelt apology by anyone who disseminated any form of derogatory rumours. Even more so considering what they personally have had to endure and for the anguish experienced regarding Nicola’s disappearance and subsequent confirmation of her tragic death.
Time now to put aside all your preconceptions and examine with a critical eye what I outline below. Above all, please remember Nicola Bulley was an innocent woman with two young daughters who now have to sadly grow up without their mother. Nicola deserves justice, as do her family and friends who have been used and defamed as part of this theatre of the grotesque.
· EVENTS: Jan 27th – Feb 18th (disappearance & investigation)
St Michael’s on Wyre is a small village with a population of less than 700. On Jan 27th (Friday morning) Nicola Bulley disappeared into thin air from a rural area of open fields with a bench, close to a nearby caravan park, with only her phone, dog (Willow) and the harness found. Ask yourself ought it to have been rocket science to determine the bare bones of the who/ where/ when with such few variables involved?
FACT ONE: Lancashire Police and the media provided a FALSE timeline for the best part of a week into the investigation (from Jan 27th to Feb 1st). Let that sink in!
Timeline 1 (reminder): Nicola was seen on the towpath walking eastward at 9.15am with the alarm raised at 10.15am by another walker finding her dog Willow running loose, together with her mobile phone and dog harness on the bench.
Four days into the investigation (Jan 30th) SI Sally Riley held a police press conference, still adhering to this unfounded timeline. DSI Rebecca Smith subsequently tries to memory-hole the entirety of the first four days at the press conference more than two weeks later (Feb 15th).
[15/2] DSI Rebecca Smith: “We’ve been really fortunate in that we’ve had a lot which has really been able to help us in pin down both Nicola’s movements and also the movements of key witnesses. Which is why we were able to give a timeline of events quite quickly.”
Stop and think! This is a problem. Her statement is patently false. Please take a moment to now watch this short exchange between a journalist and SI Sally Riley on Jan 30th (a little while before the formal press conference started).
Police issue Nicola Bulley update
Journalist: “How do you think she got to St. Michael’s because her home is probably three miles away?”
[30/1] SI Sally Riley:” I’m not aware of how she got from her home area to the village, but we believe she made it on foot with the dog to the towpath.”
So immediately this prompts the following questions:
(1) Why does SI Sally Riley not have the first clue about Nicola’s movements?
(2) Why is there a fictional eyewitness account at 9.15am?
(3) Why is there a false timeline four days into the investigation?
(4) What might be a reason for starting again with the timeline on Feb 2nd ?
Everyone (other than SI Sally Riley by her own admission), had known for days that Nicola routinely drives her children from Inskip to the local school and then proceeds to walk with Willow from there. SI Sally Riley is following instructions and a script, the objective of which was to continue to steer opinion towards this being a missing person case, but not a crime.
By way of conclusion to the press conference, SI Sally Riley responds to a journalist’s question of how suspicious the disappearance of Nicola is:
[30/1] SI Sally Riley: “…..we do believe that the likelihood is that Nicola has gone missing and that it is not a crime inquiry…..”
You couldn’t make it up! Yet they did. However, had it been possible to make this initial timeline stick, the remainder of the investigation wouldn’t necessarily have fallen apart given the few variables. It simply outlined Nicola arriving at the lower field by the bench area from where the items were discovered shortly thereafter with her mysteriously disappearing (near to the river).
Question: who was the eyewitness that had invented the 9.15am sighting? Police have glossed over this without so much as a peep.
Could it be the same unknown persons who are overall responsible behind the events that have transpired, having introduced a phony witness?
You see, originally it couldn’t be known that Nicola had sent a work email and arranged a playdate by text before dialling into a works call. This alone undermines a claimed sighting at 9.15am starting her walk eastwards along the river path. It just doesn’t work. The new improved (yet fictitious) timeline to follow, places Nicola in the fields where she may have indeed been by 8.50am in time to compose an email. It fits with a brisk walk from school to the kissing gate leading into the fields from where she could have paused near to the bench to write and send her email (8.53am), her text arranging a playdate (8.57am) before logging on to her works call (9.01am).
I don’t know Nicola’s movements, but then again, neither do Lancashire police as I’ll demonstrate. The (unintended?) introduction of a revised timeline is where it starts to unravel with the upshot being the police had been played for suckers for nearly five days. Judging by SI Sally Riley’s attention to detail, not a stretch to see how.
Her less than stellar performance may have been a factor for appointment of DSI Rebecca Smith as Senior Investigating Officer the following day (Jan 31st ), possibly for damage limitation purposes. SI Sally Riley is now on a tighter leash and sticks faithfully to the script that her superior officer, the DSI, will have approved.
FACT TWO: From the get-go DSI Rebecca Smith assumed and has always maintained to this day a ‘main working hypothesis’ that Nicola must be in the river. Everyone has closed ranks, sings off the same hymn sheet and emphasises that there’s no question of foul play:
[15/2] DSI Rebecca Smith: “Not a single piece of information or evidence to suggest that there is any third-party involvement”
Later the same press conference.
[15/2] DSI Rebecca Smith: “there is no evidence whatsoever or information, and there’s been a vast amount reviewed I can assure you, to suggest any third-party involvement or Nicola leaving that field”
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence to coin a well-known expression (especially when you fail to take the necessary steps that might have gathered some evidence day one). Pertinent facts: no crime scene established, no police cordon, no reconstruction of a timeline, no timely searches of the proximity, not a single piece of evidence to suggest Nicola went into the river and her water-loving Willow* was bone dry.
If this isn’t damning enough on it’s own, a highly respected outside forensic search expert (Peter Faulding) confirmed after extensive searching that Nicola wasn’t in the river. A consequence of which I have no doubt contributed to the punishment of SGI underwater search team being removed by National Crime Agency from the Expert Advisor’s Database.
Short of DSI Rebecca Smith being a blithering idiot which is exceptionally unlikely, the unwavering commitment to the “main working hypothesis” throughout of Nicola being in the river is risible. More so as Nicola’s movements have always remained unknown despite the masquerade of an illusion to conjure up definitive timelines.
FACT THREE: the public’s attention was directed by Lancashire Police right from the start as to that being where Nicola Bulley would be found.
Question: Why?
For reasons unknown there followed an unprecedented number of search resources of the river from day one including drone, helicopter, police divers, sonar equipment, pole cameras, underwater drone, search dogs and waders assisted by the coastguard, RNLI and other experts. Leaving aside what never appeared to be remotely possible using an iota of basic common sense, this was one of the most comprehensive and ongoing continuous river searches. Faultless.
While the general public will buy into almost anything, there wasn’t sufficient widespread suspension of disbelief to support this ongoing river narrative. Too many were casting a critical eye and for that reason it may have been considered expedient to destroy Nicola’s reputation and character by gratuitously publishing information of “specific vulnerabilities” and her having been graded as “high risk”. I can’t think of a better ploy to support an unreasonable fixation with the river. I refuse to stoop to their level regarding this outrageous smear campaign other than to say none of what you have been led to believe is backed by fact. The only fact is Nicola showed signs of being in good spirits and thinking clearly that morning. To substantiate this, we know that within the space of twenty minutes Nicola dropped off her two children to school, was walking Willow, sent a work email, arranged a playdate by text and signed on to a works call on a timely basis at 9.01am. Good multitasking! Do not fall for the propaganda intended to do whatever it takes to draw your attention away from there having been a heinous crime committed that morning.
To quote a friend of the family who remained anonymous (understandably not wishing the public attention):
Friend: “I feel angry for Nikki. She’s a beautiful kind, loving person. One of the best kind of friends you could wish for. This has painted her in an unfair light.”
FACT FOUR: just like that a brand-new timeline is magicked into existence on Thurs Feb 2nd with the police press conference of Feb 3rd adding the necessary formality.
Timeline 2: Nicola was seen at 8.43am on the towpath, 8.47am in lower field, and a last sighting at c.9.10am in the upper field, before the discovery of Willow at 9.33am.
Lancashire Police issue a website statement reflecting the new timeline. including this red flag:
“9.10am (approximately) – A witness – somebody who knows Nicola – saw her on the upper field walking her dog, Willow. Work is ongoing today to establish exactly what time this was”.
An intriguing choice of words that I’ll return to when addressing eyewitnesses, but as a reminder the original claimed sighting at 9.15am from timeline 1 was fictional and most probably a phony, one that last for six days!
From the police press conference:
[03/2] SI Sally Riley: “……..therefore the time that we are particularly interested in is between 9.10, the last confirmed sighting, and 9.20 when Nicola’s phone was found on the bench. Sorry not found on the bench, when Nicola’s phone was on the bench, believed to be on the bench, found at around 9.33. The witness made numerous enquiries to try and find the owner of the phone not knowing who’s phone it was and indeed who’s dog it was. That led the witness to meet up with other people who did recognise the dog as Nicola’s and the school to which Nicola’s children go was alerted at 10.50 as was her family.”
Not the greatest delivery but then it’s difficult to repeat your lines if they differ to conflicting information you may be privy to. The media are now primed for another communication blitz, tasked with a focus on two key messages:
(1) Only a ten-minute window during which Nicola’s movements were unaccounted for.
(2) There’s no question that she might have left the riverside area.
[03/2] SI Sally Riley: “Nicola was in the riverside area and remained in the riverside area”
On other words, Lancashire Police with no basis whatsoever are prevaricating in so much as stating that Nicola had to definitively be at the bench near the river between 9.10 - 9.20 during which time she disappaeared ergo, she fell or jumped and was swallowed up by the river.
This is pure, unadulterated bullshit!
Before dissecting the new timeline in its entirety a reference to show how SIO, DSI Rebecca Smith, recalls the same event that SI Sally Riley had conveyed matter-of-factly as a last sighting at 9.10am - but this time at the police press conference nearly two weeks later:
[15/2] DSI Rebecca Smith: “At approximately 9:10, a witness that knows her had the last sighting……..when I say an approximate time, it is that but we are basing that on obviously the times that we can say that the witness left the field. So, I’m quite confident it is around that time.” (at 12:15)
[15/2] DSI Rebecca Smith: “The handset had moved towards the bench area”
It’s interesting that references to her phone are careful to describe the phone’s movements, the language used never implying it to be in Nicola’s possession. I suggest the metadata from the phone analysis would aid in providing significant clues and inconsistencies with the new timeline.
As to the riverside area, an absence of CCTV to show Nicola ever entering the area doesn’t preclude her therefore from leaving (especially with identifed exits not covered). SI Sally Riley’s statement is preposterous and the DSI’s account of the last confirmed sighting leaves much to be desired as to it’s authenticity.
EYEWITNESSES?
So, 8.43am, 8.47am & c. 9.10am? (and not 9.15am – original police & media claims).
I want to highlight that if you followed the media reports, none of the high profile potential witnesses you saw had any part in corroborating the new timeline? Mainstream media collectively acted as a well-oiled machine to ensure you remained engaged, but looking away from anyone that was pivotal as a material witness to the new timeline. All smoke and mirrors. Sales & Marketing division at work!
I’m going to provide a world exclusive - that not a single mainstream media outlet sought newsworthy enough (surprise, surprise). None other than the indivdual that DSI Rebcecca Smith purports to have sighted Nicola maybe aprproximately some time around 9.10am (with his fluffy white dog).
However, we need to start with the lady in red walking her white dog (Snowflake).
Christine Bowman: Sky News broadcast the important police appeal for this potential witness on Feb 2nd.
In an unlikely coincidence the media frenzy around this lady then took place the subsequent day - the day of the police press conference (Feb 3rd ). A good time to distract as everything had just been reset, new timeline and all. Barely anyone notices.
With the usual mainstream media suspects pushing their attention-grabbing stories of how she’d been identified from the police appeal, Sky News - true masters of deception - were broadcasting the new timeline and now portraying this very lady as the key (first!) eyewitness who saw Nicola in the lower field at 8.47am, quoting police officer reports: “saying the pair knew each other and their dogs interacted briefly”.
Fabulous, but wait! Unpicking the conflicting accounts, in a nutshell this poor woman in speaking to the Daily Mirror said she was “baffled” by the appeal to track her down as she’d originally spoken to police officers on the very first day (Jan 27th ), confirming she had not seen Nicola. Oh! Well, we do however learn her dog is called ‘Snowflake’. That’s about it.
What you have is a stunning piece of media misdirection that muddied the waters and sowed confusion – with an (intentionally?) misleading video account from Sky News but fundamentally no story whatsoever. Sky News greatest coup with broadcasting the new timeline (Feb 3rd ) is arguably making the first claimed eyewitness at 8.43am simply vanish, supposedly an integral part of the new story. This suspicion is reinforced when Sky News double-down two weeks later on Feb 17th (which I come to in detail further on) in an especially lame attempt to support the new fiction, by retracing Nicola’s last-known steps. Make a note to listen to Kay Burley and her sidekick, Inzamam Rashid, as they start across the bridge around the time of 8.43am. Look! Squirrel!
For now, hey presto, with a mix of conflicting stories, amusing anecdotes and sleight of hand, attention is diverted away from these first two eyewitnesses and they disappear into the ether too.
Question: did anyone see Nicola after school drop off and before 9am?
Appears doubtful and if anyone genuinely did it’s been obfuscated by the media, therefore only the police could substantiate it with written eyewitness statements. That said it’s a tall order to differentiate between a genuine sighting or phony sighting as we’ve seen.
There are two feasible explanations that can co-exist as to why it could be ‘beneficial’ to conceal the veracity of there existing a single sighting should you be so inclined:
(1) The greater the all round uncertainty and ambiguity, the easier it is to bury outright fabrication, as opposed to having too much clarity which would lead to any whoppers sticking out like a sore thumb, and
(2) To add fuel to the fire of wild conspiracy theories raging such as is Nicola Bulley a real person.
This is not a joke. Some of you will be more aware than others as to the incredible spectrum of theories, rumours and wild speculation that has been created by the fiasco of this investigation.
Next, the media frenzy deftly switches focus and continues unabated into Feb 4th with the next police appeal used to capture the public’s short attention span.
Lady in yellow: CCTV images from an urgent police appeal for a mystery lady in yellow seen with a pushchair, caught twice on CCTV.
Yellow woman with pushchair Subsequently reported as having come forward the news of which was bundled up in a torrent of nothingness, but you know the drill by now, she has no relevant information whatsoever. Just another media distraction and non-story to keep you pointing away from what not to look at. Here we are, the last eyewitness to see Nicola at sometime, approximately, confidently around 9.10am?
White fluffy dog man: the entire ten-minute window falls on this man’s shoulders.
So, who is he and where did he come from? Well, quite! Time for an exclusive. Stepping in where mainstream media forgot (or were directed not to report on maybe).
Just a few titbits of well-placed information were leaked in certain quarters to slip Keith Barlow surreptiously into the narrative, all the while cloaked with other diversions designed to keep you occupied.
The version of events starts with an urgent police appeal as reported Jan 31st for a dogwalker who was seen in the area at the time to come forward: “He is described as a man aged around 70, white, 6-feet tall, well-built who was walking a small white fluffy dog on a lead. He spoke to a woman* in the area before walking in the direction of Rowanwater.”.
[* the woman is Penny Fletcher (local caravan park owner), the individual who first found Willow]. Here is GB News reporting the appeal request.
The same evening Keith Barlow is then interviewed by the police on any information he may have. Incidentally this is the DSI’s first full day as SIO and we are still on fiction timeline no.1 at this point. Well….what a lucky break! Five days into one of the most high-profile missing persons investigations in history and yes, he not only knows Nicola, he saw her that morning and they even allegedly had a brief exchange of words. If you believe any of this, I have a bridge to sell you!
I’m not calling him an outright liar for one compelling reason. Nowhere in the public domain is it reported that he has ever claimed any of this! This is because we are fortunate to learn exclusively from The Times publication the next day Feb 1st they had been in contact with his wife and she recounted it all on his behalf:
[01/2] Hilary Barlow: “In the field there were about three people, including my husband. He said there was nothing unusual about her and she seemed completely normal. I’d often see her and say hello. I always thought she looked very nicely dressed, in her bobble hat and smart Wellington boots.”
More of timeline 1 antics? The reason I can reveal the individulals is having identified the mystery woman in question, I made a surprise phone call to her, catching her unprepared. Let me stress, unlike mainstream media, I would never share someone’s details publicly like this unless the end justifies the means. The call lasted ten minutes albeit most of the call was myself courteously explaining much of what I know, my motivation for calling and finally in extending an offer for her to make a choice. A clear unwillingness to engage, she listened throughout - reminding me of a rabbit caught in the headlights. I asked only for simple cooperation, a little basic information (should it be available) so as to be able to maintain her anonymity if possible. Or else to be prepared to have unwanted attention by way of being exposed to a wider audience. It was abundantly clear she’d been advised to not disclose anything to anyone, and I empathise with the conundrum of being caught between a rock and a hard place. Other than confirm that it was “the Times” that contacted her, she stated at the end she would chose “neither”. And with that her parting words to me in the absence of any other way to vent were: “go fuck yourself!” before ending the call.
Let me remind everyone I’m seeking justice for Nicola Bulley (and those who have been wronged) by helping to uncover who is responsible for her murder. Anyone who chooses to withhold or obstruct directly relevant information to achieve that aim is fair game. I’ll go further and suggest that any duplicity, hindering the truth being discovered is complicit. Simple as.
In setting this aspect of the timeline up it appears it must have been deemed necessary for a selected journalist to step in and help validate it’s authenticity. To put a bit more meat on the bones.
Let me introduce you to Isla Traquair, a journalist that presented live on location at St Michaels on Wyre for ITV This Morning on Feb 7th and Feb 9th and then a week later on Feb 16th appearing live at their London studios, in a now deleted interview. Hurrah for the digital age! She communicates live on air that she’d spoken to the dogwalker (aka Keith) about his interaction with Nicola.
Isla Traquair (journalist): “They had a little exchange as he was coming along the path about the dog and the lead etc. He said she was fine.”
While mainstream journalists think nothing of lying through their teeth - you should know this already - they don’t often put their foot in it to such an extent as Isla when she made this ill-advised response to the interview footage posted on Twitter.
An indication she had since forgotten her lines a month on, she tries to distance herself from the episode and even manages to introduce another imaginary eyewitness (that has never existed in any fictional account) in her reply. Oh!
Moving onto further exemplary demonstration of media distraction away from what not to look at (the cat’s out of the bag now!) was the melodrama surrounding Ron the dogwalker who went public Feb 17th , in tandem with the pantomime of Sky News retracing Nicola’s last-known steps. This latest round of media brainwashing couldn’t have come at a more opportune time to divert everyone away from both the fairy-tale that was ACC Peter Lawson and DSI Rebecca Smith press conference of Feb 15th, as well as away from Isla Traquair’s creative imagination.
Ron the dogwalker: we’re bombarded with stories of Ron who went public Feb 17th.
In summary, media report Ron as the individual who’d found Willow, the harness and the phone. Exciting news but wait a moment, as we know, it was a woman (not a man) who made the discovery. The misleading media stories are widely circulated nevertheless, shining a spotlight on his role so as to refocus your attention. Lo and behold litte surprise it’s Sky News who assume the broadcasting lead, filming live in the fields during which a (not so chance) encounter with Ron confirms that it wasn’t him who first found Willow. You don’t say!
None of this is by chance. Sky News have form for misinformation – two weeks prior having hoodwinked their viewers by spuriously placing Christine Bowman (lady in red) as the eyewitness in the lower field at 8.47am. This time, Sky News deploying their two useful idiots, try to persuade everyone of the timeline by retracing Nicola’s last-known steps (to support the made up narrative). I suggest the Sky video banners on their filming are carefully designed subliminal messages to fool the viewers. For example: “Missing Woman. 9.10am. Nicola Bulley is seen again with her dog” appears at 31:25, as introduction to this ‘fortuitous’ encounter and interview with Ron. Part of the ruse to have people beLIEve all three non-existent eyewitness accounts, albeit the only one that must remain beyond reproach being this last sighting. It’s helpful that Ron is a 70-year old man himself, so the public can be easily misdirected.
All in all mission accomplished by Team Media on Feb 17th , the cumulative impact of information overload effective in creating considerable confusion, with most people now having lost any thread of what’s going on three weeks in. It’s therefore quite natural for mostly everyone to become solely reliant on what both the police and media are spoonfeeding.
In summary, Ron is essentially a non-story, although he does inadvertently make clear the police’s timeline around the discovery is simply crap! The long and the short of it – he arrived on the scene after Willow had already been found by Penny Fletcher (the local caravan park owner). He was never an eyewitness and he’d provided a statement to the police back on Jan 27th (as had both Christine Bowman and Penny Fletcher, neither of whom are eyewitnesses). An additional observation, only that, is that Ron arrived in the fields on this routine daily dogwalk at 9.10am when Sky News were filming. Thinking back to Jan 27th there’s no way to determine what time the discovery really unfolded at (but it wan’t 9.33am). This remains clear by the implausibility of the claim alone. The reason as to why the public must be misled and is but another fudge in a fictitious new timeline, I’ll explain below.
Penny Fletcher: the local caravan park owner, is the individual who originally found Willow. This is fact!
We’re beguiled into accepting this to be at a very precise 9.33am. There’s good reason for there to be scant reference to her anywhere at all in the mainstream media with it evident the sales & marketing arm of this operation have been directed to steer clear from her. Why? Well, Penny allegedly returns to her house on finding Willow to make a number of phone calls including among others to Ron the dogwalker’s wife (her sister), before, at least her and Ron if no-one else, meet back at the bench area.
At the press conference the SIO summarise this in the following way:
[15/2] DSI Rebecca Smith: “eventually, people return to the bench, recover the handset and Willow and we find out that obviously they belong to Nicola”
Now’s an opportune moment to take a look at an earlier local regional reporting (Lancaster Post) account. I’m confident most parties wish to memory-hole this for obvious reasons. The paper’s editor Nicola Adam, interviewed by GB News, gives a seemingly straightforward account from Penny that couldn’t be more at odds with what we’ve been told (at 1:20)
Nicola Adam: “…the lady who found the dog who’s been talking, she says she knew she recognised the dog and she called the police immediately. Then she found the phone as well so the police were looped in extremely quickly…”
Oh! So, we have DSI Rebecca Smith with her revealing tells emphasising a significant period of time that followed on from a suspiciously precise time of the initial discovery (9.33am) - a time that doesn’t hold up - versus a conflicting account given much earlier just before the new fantasy timeline is complete for release. To those unfamiliar with Penny, she’s portrayed by dubious alternative media sources to be a difficult person and much suspicion is (intentionally) pointed at her, once again to fool those easily led. Without question she would have known perfectly well who Willow (with a dog tag too) belongs to. She lives right there and will have seen Willow with either Nicola or Paul on numerous occasions. I’ve tried to contact Nicola Adam (a polite direct message via Twitter) to follow up but to no avail.
In addition to Penny being much maligned by unfounded rumours and theories circulating across the internet, can you believe that the police stayed away and didn’t search her caravan park until Feb 13th ? The same caravan park the back of which the CCTV was not operating. Here’s the thing, the police and media have probably needed to encourage suspicion and otherwise scant reference to her as a material witness. After all what if we were to find out when she really first discovered Willow? What then? Putting it mildly, they’d be screwed!
Penny Fletcher quite probably unwittingly scuppered the plans on what transpired on two fronts. Firstly, by discovering Willow much earlier than might have been expected, and secondly since it was her that triggered a police witness appeal that otherwise would never have happened (the outcome of which called for a final sighting of Nicola to have occurred in the fields at some ‘approximate’ time, to quote the DSI).
She may very well not be aware of it, but I suggest that if she was able to provide a genuine open testimony of her movements that morning it could expose one devasating conclusion: Nicola was never at the bench and the scene was staged!
FACT FIVE: no credible, unambiguous evidence has been produced to support a single eyewitness account of Nicola’s movements and no evidence to support a window of time during which Nicola may have disappeared, let alone a ten-minute window. It remains supposition alone that she was in the riverside area in the first place, before the baseless claims she never left.
Lancashire Police double down, stick to their guns and maintain their story at the police press conference of Feb 15th.
[15/2] DSI Rebecca Smith: “A number of dogwalkers in the area. We have been extremely fortunate from the very start of this inquiry to have a number of witnesses, key witnesses, who know Nicola. So, there is no miscommunication about the identification of who was in that field. And also, we’ve viewed a substantial amount of CCTV……We’ve been really fortunate in that we’ve had a lot which has really been able to help us in pin down both Nicola’s movements and also the movements of key witnesses. Which is why we were able to give a timeline of events quite quickly……” (10:50)
Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. This is a gaslighting tour de force by the SIO of all the journalists present and by extension everyone who followed the bogus investigation. We’ve covered how certain (irrelevant) individuals were specially selected to be splashed across the media for your delight - none of which had seen Nicola - others with possibly very damaging information to the timeline overlooked if not concealed, and others still with the same low credibility as the phony eyewitness from timeline 1.
[15/2] DSI Rebecca Smith: “At approximately 9:10, a witness that knows her had the last sighting……..when I say an approximate time, it is that, but we are basing that on obviously the times that we can say that witness left the field. So, I’m quite confident it is around that time.” (12:15)
CCTV EVIDENCE
How enlightening to learn that CCTV had been so successful in pinning down Nicola’s movements during the investigation. Give me strength! At the earlier police press conference there was at least the semblance to pass the red face test.
[03/02] SI Sally Riley:”……really rich data that’s allowed us to have a very tight timeline” (2:50 - 3:50)
It’s a fact that a few select CCTV images of individuals were published, however there isn’t a single image of Nicola on any CCTV camera anywhere between the school where she dropped her children off and her subsequent disappearance. Not one.
It was widely reported that there are no less than three CCTV blindspots, any of which prevent recorded images of how Nicola exited the area of the fields:
(1) CCTV camera at the back of the caravan park not operating.
(2) Defunct CCTV camera at Rowanwater (with even the gate claimed to be open on the day of disappearance!).
(3) No CCTV cameras anywhere along the river path back to Blackpool Lane.
All pretence of this fallacy that Nicola didn’t leave the riverside are at best disingenuous and at worse intentionally deceitful.
Question: so where are the alleged CCTV images of Nicola “pinning down” her movements DSI?
I’m not in position to, nor trying to discover what took place that morning, as it’s been made impossible to ascertain. If you’re still suffering with cognitive dissonance ask yourself how Lancashire Police (ably supported by mainstream media) could have further enhanced obscuring what transpired that morning without it being anything other than entirely deliberate. I’m prepared to debate anyone at anytime on this.
Even if there wre to exist an image of Nicola captured on CCTV, if the police are holding it back this would make matters worse (or better depending on your standpoint) in setting the scene to allow rumours to spread suggesting that Nicola may not even exist in the first place. Say what? Some people are intuitively more astute than others and have a strong sense of when they are being manipulated by bad actors. To successfully pull the wool over their eyes in a psyops it’s paramount to steer them down the wrong path, to make them appear to others as crazy ‘conspiracy theorists’. Might this sound familiar? Part of this great deception, with a total absence of evidence of Nicola other than a few cropped grainy images from her Ring camera driveway, has people understandably questioning her very existence. This speculation has been proactively encouraged by many (sponsored) third parties in the background through social media campaigns using misinformation to devastating effect, so as to intentionally also cast suspicion on family members and friends of Nicola.
Even the BBC - one of the most influential disinformation channels for governments and major corporations alike - played a bit role in this particular subterfuge. Did Emma White - a good friend of Nicola insist on her name being stamped in capitals on these grainy images of Nicola leaving home? Doubtful. I can assure you there are still people to this day debating whether these images show Emma (and not Nicola). All very convenient for these media ghouls.
I’ll move on from here, but to all those that were duped and find themselves constantly going around in circles, I did take the time to source early on reliable evidence to determine as fact that Nicola was a very real person and evidently a devoted, loving mother to her two young daughters who will be missed beyond words especially by her children, but also to all others close to her. If anyone thinks this is ludicrous you’d best acquaint yourself with AI and deepfakes sooner rather than later.
BACKGROUND MISINFORMATION
Additional evidence to substantiate my statement above, would it surprise you to learn that as recently as 13th March established Youtubers continue unrelentlessly to peddle misinformation to maintain ludicrous conspiracies of foul play by family and friends. This campaign is ongoing and will continue until the perpetrators can put a lid on this case (and move onto the next one). I’ll give (reluctantly) but one example. Note these Youtubers have tens of thousands of subscribers to their channels. On reviewing as much as you can bear, have a thought as to who you suspect funds agents such as these, those responsible for deceiving you. Join the dots. Or are they just stupid? Certainly callous.
And here is wingman to Gisela K.
I apologise to both Paul Ansell and Emma White for having to post garbage, a coordinated misinformation campaign by disingenuous Youtubers that are actively deceiving and manipulating their audience – in this case by using doctored original footage of Nicola leaving home that morning. It’s done in such a way as to misdirect gullible audiences. I can unpick these in a subsequent post or commentary if need be if you’re unable to see the techniques being used.
FACT SIX: What facts from the investigation do exist in the public domain? It comes to this.
· 8.40am NB drops her children at school
· 8.53am NB sends a work email
· 8.57am NB sends a friend a text to organise a playdate
· 9.01am NB signs into a Teams group work call
· 9.20am Mobile phone handset has moved toward the bench
· Penny Fletcher (local caravan park owner) discovers Willow near the bench area – time unknown
That’s it! Can you see it yet?
· CONCLUSION
In wrapping up part one of the terrible events I ask you to return to the hypothetical question posed in ‘Control of the narrative.’ Are you better equipped yet to find an answer as to who may be pulling the strings - capable of influencng background misinformation support actors in addition to the foreground actors (Lancashire Police and mainstream media). An unaccountable organisation with considerable reach and influence, beyond the grasp of even the government.
Arthur Conan Doyle: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
To avoid misunderstanding I emphasise the vast majority of police personnel are committed hardworking individuals providing a valuable service to their communities. However, I ought not need not explain how in all enterprises the work is highly compartmentalised. Officers following orders, diligently performing their tasks, oblivious to the political landscape within which they’re operating.
It is plainly unacceptable that the ‘independent review’ on the abduction and murder of Nicola Bulley has been assigned to the College of Policing - the professional body for the police service well within the influential reach of the same powerful organisation. All attention should focus on DSI Rebecca Smith, the Senior Investigating Officer. With all the evidence to hand and within her control, she must be made accountable to speak the full extent of the truth as far as she knows it.
In part two - the day of discovery of poor Nicola’s body on Feb 19th twenty-three days after her disappearance - I’ll unravel the hideous circus act that took place which is even more disturbing given the circumstances. I’ll not deal with the esoteric nature of synchronicity only to say to the vanishingly small minority of people that are well-versed with signs hidden in plain sight, that this aspect is too big a step into the unknown for most, as well as beyond the scope of what the goal is: to seek justice for Nicola Bulley.
Until next time, please do share widely. It’s a given that no mainstream media will touch this for painfully obvious reasons, however I remain optimistic there’s still sufficient journalistic integrity among alternative media and that decent ordinary people are also prepared to help raise the profile to expose the sordid truth.