Missing woman Nicola Bulley - inquest (P 158)

Uncle Wally One Ball said:
Im most certainly not being facetious. Throughout all of this I have been repulsed by the way some posters have been. Im being serious. I have never known a dog to remain static, and Im a dog owner
Click to expand...
So am I, my dog is never 5 yards away from me unless I tell him so or shut a door behind him and then he generally just lies there till I reappear
Just saying it’s possibility
But also agree dogs are random
 
paulchapo said:
It's a strange one to throw out there so late into the inquiry. If medical conditions that made her prone to blacking out then again I could see why they'd think she fell into the river. If it was mental health problems then surely straight away they'd have said she was a vulnerable person, as that could explain why she might have just took off. The police by throwing this curve ball out there have just thrown fuel onto a fire they were trying to dampen down. Most odd.
Click to expand...

If police advised that previously diagnosed with condition that made her particularly prone to blackouts.
Then as she regularly drove children to/from school & on day she went missing, wouldn't this condition
have disqualified her from driving? I know some people don't bring visibility of such conditions to DVLA
as dont wish to be disqualified. I also seem to recall that in first press conference they, in response to a
question on her ability to swim, confirmed that she could swim and was physically fit?

As you say, by first giving public visibility of vulnerabilities but then not confirming due to privacy issues,
it seems to open social media flood gates, that press conference aim, they said, were trying to quieten?

I believe real aim of introducing the "we were aware of her vulnerabilities" is to protect police service
from media speculation that they didn't treat location of phone/dog initially as crime scene as they had
information of her vulnerabilities, whatever they were/are and so supports original press conference &
today, that she entered the water either voluntarily or accidentally
 
Last edited:
gingerprince said:
If police advised that previously diagnosed with condition that made her particularly prone to blackouts.
Then as she regularly drove children to/from school & on day she went missing, wouldn't this condition
have disqualified her from driving? I know some people don't bring visibility of such conditions to DVLA
as dont wish to be disqualified. I also seem to recall that in first press conference they, in response to a
question on her ability to swim, confirmed that she could swim and was physically fit?

As you say, by first giving public visibility of vulnerabilities but then not confirming due to privacy issues,
it seems to open social media flood gates, that press conference aim, they said, were trying to quieten?

I believe real aim of introducing the "we were aware of her vulnerabilities" is to protect police service
from media speculation that they didn't treat location of phone/dog initially as crime scene as they had
information of her vulnerabilities, whatever they were/are and so supports original press conference &
today, that she entered the water either voluntarily or accidentally
Click to expand...
Whether you notify the DVLA or not not informing them of a notifiable condition would leave you uninsured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.