Lancashire Constabulary corruption
Lancashire Constabulary corruption
Justice for Nicola Bulley
Introduction
Nicola Bulley disappeared the morning of Friday 27th January in the small village of St. Michael’s on Wyre and was missing for twenty three days. Her body was subsequently identified by a senior coroner using her dental records the afternoon of Monday 20th February.
It’s a matter of public interest that Lancashire Constabulary be independently investigated for their role in concealing the truth behind a terrible crime that has been committed. The Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) for the investigation was Detective Superintendent Rebecca Smith.
On Wednesday 22nd February the Police and Crime Commissioner, Andrew Snowden, commissioned the College of Policing to ‘undertake a full, independent review’. This is but a cover-up, indicated by his statement that ‘the hypothesis of the police investigation on how Nicola went missing was sadly proven to be correct.’
A simple dictionary definition of ‘cover-up’ is: “an attempt to prevent the public from discovering information about a serious crime.”
Dr James Adeley, HM Senior Coroner for Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen, scheduled a full day inquest hearing for Friday 26th June at County Hall, Preston. The purpose of any inquest is to determine where and when a death occurred, as well as how it occurred.
A coroner can legally certify a medical certificate of cause of death (MCCD) if ‘investigated’ either through autopsy, inquest, or both. Scope for abuse is straightforward and been demonstrated since the revised official ‘Guidance for doctors completing MCCD in England and Wales’ back in March 2020.
Lancashire Constabulary issue Refusal Notices to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests pertaining to the case of Nicola Bulley on the grounds that: “the information is felt to be exempt from disclosure under the FOI”.
A formal complaint against Lancashire Constabulary is being submitted to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and circulated to the media, with particular emphasis on the charge of corruption and cover-up of all matters relating to Nicola Bulley’s death.
Basis for the criminal complaint
Lancashire Police, with all the significant resources committed to the search for Nicola Bulley, claim:
(i) no third party involvement in her disappearance, with her having gone into the river adjacent to the bench area within a ten-minute window, prior to her dog Willow and mobile phone being found at 9.33am on Friday 27th January.
&
(ii) her body was recovered downstream on Sunday 19th February further to a call placed by a psychic medium to the police at 11.36am that morning.
The entirety of the official narrative will be shown to be patently absurd to such an extent it removes any question of police negligence, leaving only police corruption that must be addressed. All the evidence gathered during the investigation, currently kept under lock and key away from the public eye, can serve to prove this.
All taken together - an in-depth review of the police’s preposterous ‘hypothesis’ and claims, the press conferences and their laissez-faire approach to the investigation from the initial reporting of Nicola Bulley as a missing person show:
the original crime scene and associated riverside bench area was staged
Nicola Bulley’s movements throughout the investigation remain unknown
Eyewitness accounts are false - either fabricated, using phony witnesses, or both
the final crime scene and ‘discovery’ of her body in a remote location adjacent to Rawcliffe Road was staged
Review - unanswered questions
[1] ONE
Lancashire Police (Superintendent Sally Riley) held a police press conference on Monday 30th January four days into the investigation, whereby the police were still sticking to a false timeline that continued until Wednesday 1st February inclusive.
It centred around a 9.15am eyewitness claim of two people on the riverpath:
“she (Nicola) was laughing and joking with them as she went by”
SI Sally Riley in response to a journalist’s question let slip as to the police’s true intentions on undertaking a thorough investigation.
“How do you think she got to St. Michael’s because her home is probably three miles away?”
“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.”
Questions:
Why was SI Sally Riley, officer in charge, not aware of the basic case information at the press conference four days into a missing person investigation?
Who were the two individuals that provided false eyewitness statements?
What are the reasons that necessitated a new timeline, communicated a week after Nicola’s disappearance?
[2] TWO
Lancashire Police’s second press conference on Friday 3rd February outlined this revised timeline of events referenced above. Either due to being poorly scripted or not adequately rehearsed, the police have since all but broadcast the bench area to be a staged scene associated with something that took place elsewhere.
SI Sally Riley at the press conference:
“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.”
SI Sally Riley at a later update meeting on Tuesday 7th February:
“We have now identified around 700 vehicles that drove through the village on that morning on the 27th January at around 9.10, 9.15, and we’re in the process of speaking to all of those drivers to try and find out if they have any dashcam footage or what they saw on that day…..”
This may sound like diligent police work, but at the final press conference on Wednesday 15th February DSI Rebecca Smith makes clear a cover-up has taken place and that the police know full well Nicola Bulley was never in the river:
“From digital data that at some time around 9.20, we believe that Nicola’s handset had moved towards the bench area”
The reference to her handset moving in the fields (and not Nicola herself), together with the police investigation focusing on her possible movements and sightings prior to that time confirms the phone is believed to be in the possession of an unknown third party. Therefore the bench area was staged!
Questions:
Why is the phone location data not provided prior to 9.20am?
What does it reveal?
What are the police concealing?
[3] THREE
This second fake scripted timeline also comes apart as regards SI Sally Riley’s statement at the earlier press conference of a “confirmed sighting” at 9.10am.
This refers to a fake eyewitness account initiated off a police appeal for a then unknown individual on Tuesday 31st January, culminating with a false eyewitness account reported via The Times by the wife of a local resident of Rowanwater who’d come forward. By way of note, it was (perhaps inadvertently) also reported elsewhere in the media that this gentleman confirmed to officers he had not seen Nicola on the day she disappeared. This is of significant concern.
DSI Rebecca Smith, unconvincingly and presumably instructed to do so, maintained the deception of this key aspect to the official narrative at the final press conference on Wednesday 15th February:
“At approximately 9:10, a witness that knows her had the last sighting and that was at the upper field. 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.”
Question:
Why are there multiple false eyewitness accounts?
What purpose do they serve?
How did they become part of a fabricated timeline?
What is being concealed?
[4] FOUR
DSI Rebecca Smith, identified as Senior Investigating Officer on Monday 30th January the same day as the first press conference, has never changed position from her ‘main working hypothesis’ of Nicola having gone into the river by the bench area.
In addition to it being made clear the bench area has been staged, it’s never been disputed that no single piece of evidence exists to indicate Nicola (nor her dog Willow) having ever gone into the non-tidal section of the river. An unprecedented number of river search resources have been deployed - underwater drone, helicopter, police divers, sonar equipment, pole cameras, search dogs - with additional support received from HM Coastguard, the RNLI and other external professionals. The expert Peter Faulding concluded in an interview with GB News on February 20th:
“….there’s no way she gone in the river at this point by the bench. It’s too shallow and she wouldn’t have drowned at that point, and she would not have got washed under the weir. And I can say that and I’m happy to do a test at anytime to prove that she couldn’t have gone in at that point…..”
&
“…I can categorically say from our sonar footage which I’ve since reviewed Nicola was not laying on the river bed….”
Questions:
Who instructed DSI Rebecca Smith to dream up the fallacy of an accidental river incident (four days into the investigation when identified as SIO)?
Who instructed DSI Rebecca Smith to defend the absurdity of maintaining this narrative at all costs?
What is being concealed?
[5] FIVE
Lancashire Police constantly reminded the public that this was not a crime inquiry, and DSI Rebecca Smith didn’t hold back in driving this point home at the press conference Wednesday 15th February:
“Not a single piece of information or evidence to suggest that there is any third-party involvement”
Later the same conference to ensure the media had what they required to print their stories. After all repetition is key to learning:
“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”
The bench area wasn’t sealed off by police for forensic examination that morning and neither had they checked any CCTV, so only in the fantasy that the police created could they assert no third party involvement or crime having taken place. A tome could be written making clear just how the police continued to maintain this act consistent with no crime and consequently no real investigation either. By way of just one example to illustrate this:
It seems incredulous that a caravan park set in seven acres, less than 200 metres from the bench area, wouldn’t be searched by officers for more than two weeks after Nicola’s disappearance. Plenty of unoccupied static caravans with the site closed at the time being off-season, together with CCTV at the back of the park that wasn’t working but would have ‘seen everything’.
This sole example is strictly to show the farce of the claim about having the first clue about Nicola’s movements. Taking into consideration other factors, it’s improbable that this is due to police negligence alone.
[6] SIX
DSI Rebecca Smith’s account is a smokescreen propping up a fictitious version of events. From the same final press conference:
“There were a number of dogwalkers in the area and we’ve 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. Again whilst we can’t cover the whole area with 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……”
Both timeline of events are false, but even by the police’s own admission the first timeline lasted seven days before being revised, making the DSI’s statement above a barefaced lie.
There has never been anyone positively identified as having been in the field other than local residents that made the discovery and raised the alarm. Nor has there ever been any CCTV released of Nicola nor of any other key witness, only still images of individuals that unequivocally confirm not to have seen Nicola Bulley that morning. It remains common knowledge that there are a number of blind spots due to no full CCTV coverage and also two of the existing cameras in proximity weren’t operational at that time.
Questions:
Why does DSI Rebecca Smith claim the police were able to ‘pin down’ Nicola’s movements in the absence of any genuine eyewitness account or CCTV?
Why was the police looking for dashcam footage from passing cars if there exists reliable evidence to place Nicola in the fields?
What is being concealed?
[7] SEVEN
Lancashire Police have even made efforts to obfuscate the events surrounding how Willow and Nicola’s mobile phone came to be found and the alarm raised, other than to assure the public that it was at a very precise 9.33am (so it is alleged).
There’s considerable speculation and numerous accounts surrounding who found what and where, at what time. For something so fundamental, the concealment of these basic facts speaks volumes, all part of the cover-up.
DSI Rebecca Smith at the 15th February press conference, purposefully vague:
“…following a number of enquiries, eventually, people return to the bench, recover the handset and Willow and we find out that obviously they belong to Nicola”
Questions:
At what actual time was the original discovery?
This was Nicola’s regular dogwalk. How can it be claimed (by the police) the nearby residents didn’t recognise Willow (also wearing his dogtag)?
How do the first hand statements provided by the local residents involved compare to the ambiguous and contradictory reports issued by the police and reported on by the media?
The scene of the bench area was staged in order to be discovered, but what is being concealed?
[8] EIGHT
Turning to police operations of Sunday 19th February, they too had the appearance of being part of a script without any semblance of reality.
People are expected to believe that Lancashire Police, off the back of nothing more than a telephone call placed at 11.36am from a psychic medium using his ‘gift’, immediately deployed resources including a police helicopter. After a search this then led to the recovery of a body early afternoon, all the while captured in real time by freelance photographers who, with the suspension of disbelief, are in exactly the right remote location at the right time to catalogue events from the outset.
Without diverting off into a rabbit hole and very obvious other pertinent questions, as regards Lancashire Police involvement:
Questions:
Why have they declined to release under FOI the recorded call received from the psychic medium?
Why was the psychic medium asked to scramble down the bank of a potential crime scene that bore all the hallmarks of a staged photoshoot?
What were the specialist officers, unaware they were being filmed, joking about that was so funny while in the process of recovering a dead body?
As with the initial disappearance why no forensic examination, no crime scence established and the area simply reopened to the public on completion?
It’s unknown who pre-arranged for the photographers to be on the scene. What contact did the police have, if any, with the press or photographers when the initial call was received?
Conclusion
Keeping this summary as brief as possible, it’s hard to identify if Lancashire Police left any stone unturned in diverting the public’s attention away from the true account of what happened to Nicola Bulley. In the process they are solely responsible for the media circus and online abuse that friends, family and local residents of St Michael’s have been on the receiving end of.
Lancashire Police and Senior Investigating Officer DSI Rebecca Smith, were gaslighting the public to such an extent that a sizeable minority doubt Nicola’s very existence altogether, believing instead she’s an elaborate fraud as implausible as this even sounds. Articles in the media have been published to this effect.
This cannot be allowed to continue. Lancashire Police have tried every deception possible to persuade people that no crime has taken place. No crime scenes, no forensics, no reconstruction and only a token attempt for show purposes at investigating what led to the death of Nicola Bulley.
Lancashire Police must be investigated for corruption and the complicit role they have played, before any controlled third parties now actively involved as part of an alleged ‘review process’ can be allowed to complete the cover-up.
Nicola Bulley had two young daughters. When they’re grown up they deserve to know the truth about what happened to their mother. At the least, please sign this relevant petition and share.
Justice for Nicola. What happened? A new Investigation to establish the truth