I know that mate, I was making a point it wasn't the Police who sought his help. He seemed totally pissed off that he wasn't in the loop about everything aswel as having digs at the police. Totally dismissing she's in the water when he'd finished his look.He volunteeted himself to the family and they agreed
Hes a prickI know that mate, I was making a point it wasn't the Police who sought his help. He seemed totally pissed off that he wasn't in the loop about everything aswel as having digs at the police. Totally dismissing she's in the water when he'd finished his look.
But we don't know how she ended up in the water do we? -unless of course there was other evidence to point towards that. The hypothesis was she was in the water..and by that alone she's high risk.
No, I'm not saying that.Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are saying if she's in the water and high risk, then she is still alive in the water
Hes a prick
So he didn’t search a mile downstream because confidential personal info was withheld? And nobody had the decency to tell him it was flowing water?If he thought she'd accidentally fallen in as opposed to jumping he said it would have changed his search pattern. Don't ask me how he's the expert.
He was there because he volunteered his services as his equipment was far superior to anything the police had.
This is why I've stayed away from this god awful thread.Fucking hell Bert you're not getting it are you?
Her being in the water didn't make her high risk. People slip and fall into water all the time. Her having struggles with the menopause and alcohol makes her high risk.
I notice people online are already using the fact that Nicola wasn't found earlier to back track on the fact that the police were right in focusing on the river. I have absolutely no experience in what must be a horrible and difficult job so it seems obvious to me not to judge people who do it. Thanks for confirming that it isn't easy and I assume nothing is a sure thing when dealing with events like this.Have you ever needed to search for a body in the water? I have, twice-one occasion my officers found the person, the other, a dog walker found the poor chap a mile or so down the river tangled in reeds...
Its not as easy as people seem to think.
My force had a handful of divers. Lancs will have more but even so a body will move, sink, float up-and often get stuck somewhere.
The media feeding frenzy around this case has been frankly sickening .
People also get confused-the media don't run the investigation-the police do.
In my role as a Response Insp I'd have numerous missing persons -a number high risk, every single shift, plus all the other demands to manage with meagre, over stretched resources.
I expect Lancs with self refer to IOPC.
But also somebody slipping/falling into water doesn't make them a missing person does it? You're confusing the two things. Nicola was reported as missing.Fucking hell Bert you're not getting it are you?
Her being in the water didn't make her high risk. People slip and fall into water all the time. Her having struggles with the menopause and alcohol made her high risk.
This is why I've stayed away from this god awful thread.
I do get it because I dealt with hundreds of mispers in my career.
You grade a misper on your information and take it from there-I'm not privy to the full information Lancs had but if their hypothesis is that she's in the water, plus other information, its quite obvious why she was graded as high risk v early in the investigation.