Jump to content

Nicola Bulley Missing Dog Walker


Lupinthe5th

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SuperTed said:

The expert who was adamant she wasn’t in the river must feel like a bit of a pleb now. 

Not sure what his social class has to do with it. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wonder if something happened on that work call that made her do something (if its proven as suicide as we know very little at this stage) then she had enough

Im not sure on being suicide  though because i don't imagine she would bring the dog out if she was intending to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I just wonder if something happened on that work call that made her do something (if its proven as suicide as we know very little at this stage) then she had enough

Im not sure on being suicide  though because i don't imagine she would bring the dog out if she was intending to do that.

People committing suicide really are not thinking rationally. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bickster said:

Is that really true? I think suicide CAN be a perfectly rational decision in certain circumstances

I don't think they're thinking about the reactions to their actions. 

A friend of mine hung himself in the scout hut. I believe if you're thinking rationally you would find somewhere else to do it. 

Like people who throw themselves in front of trains. If you're thinking rationally you would probably think about the devastating effect this would have on the train driver (who really are badly affected) and probably do it a different way. 

So yes they may have rational thoughts about ending their life but they're not really thinking very deeply about how they should do it and the knock on effect. 

A detail like bringing or not bringing the dog isn't going to be in their thoughts. 

Edited by sidcow
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Xela said:

Ahhh but he said if he knew she had alcohol problems, he would have adapted his search, whatever the **** that means!

 

I still have absolutely no idea what he meant by that. However hi tech the equipment is, the result is that there is either a body in the river or there isn’t. Her personal circumstances are irrelevant. 
 

Poor women. Her family must be devastated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, av1 said:

I still have absolutely no idea what he meant by that. However hi tech the equipment is, the result is that there is either a body in the river or there isn’t. Her personal circumstances are irrelevant. 
 

Poor women. Her family must be devastated. 

I took it to mean he would have widened the search area. The idea being that if she fell in accidentally she would have hurriedly tried to get out in the same spot but if she was trying to take her own life she would have been happy to swim out and let the river take her down stream, rather than fighting against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, av1 said:

I still have absolutely no idea what he meant by that. However hi tech the equipment is, the result is that there is either a body in the river or there isn’t. Her personal circumstances are irrelevant. 
 

Poor women. Her family must be devastated. 

So in fairness to him, being charitable...

His argument is that with an accidental fall (which is what police told him their theory was) she would have been right at the side of the river in the shallower part, where she wouldn't have travelled as far, and there would likely have been signs of her trying to get out.

Whereas if she was deliberately getting into the water and into the middle of the river, it makes much more sense that she could have travelled much further down, and also that she could have gone in at a different part of the river.

But really he should have just stayed out of it. It wasn't his gig, and GB News isn't the place to share your theories as a "world-renowned expert" based on partial information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

So in fairness to him, being charitable...

His argument is that with an accidental fall (which is what police told him their theory was) she would have been right at the side of the river in the shallower part, where she wouldn't have travelled as far, and there would likely have been signs of her trying to get out.

Whereas if she was deliberately getting into the water and into the middle of the river, it makes much more sense that she could have travelled much further down, and also that she could have gone in at a different part of the river.

But really he should have just stayed out of it. It wasn't his gig, and GB News isn't the place to share your theories as a "world-renowned expert" based on partial information.

His search area was 2 miles downstream. I think regardless of how it happened that should be long enough, backed up by the fact she was found a mile away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â