In case you have not seen it - here is Paul’s interview from the C5 documentary on Nicola’s disappearance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja6tbxju2-k
——
As in the previous interview, Paul doesn’t wonder, “Where is she?” - or express concern for Nicola’s safety. I find his lack of curiosity odd, given the circumstances.
As in the previous interview, Paul doesn’t wonder, “Where is she?” - or express concern for Nicola’s safety. I find his lack of curiosity odd, given the circumstances.
Hi
There is something off about this case and i can't put my finger on it.
What’s behind his seeming indifference toward Nicola? We don’t know their relationship, except many discussions about marriage - from which it could be gathered that perhaps one of them did not want that level of commitment.
Nothing much said by anyone about Nicola, or anything - I hear platitudes and cliches.
Why did they not call out for Nicola? Did no-one think she had fallen , was caught on something, or lay injured somewhere along the river bank? Paul said he looked around in his gym clothes, not that he also called her name - though I suppose they all would assume that Willow would have been with Nicola if she was in the area, so maybe that is why they didn’t find a need to call out.
Listening again, Paul does say, “Where is she?” - but only in quoting himself as having said it that morning at the river. I think the burning question should and would be, until she is found, “”Where is she?” - it should be driving them all crazy.
I don’t think Paul is really saying much for himself - he’s mostly repeating the vague wonderings of Nicola’s friends and sister
He’s not beating about the bush when it comes to being the good guy - “We are good people.” They deserve to be rewarded for all the care and compassion that others have shown. (GoFundMe didn’t work out in that regard)
He uses Willow’s name many times, but Nicola or Nikki, only or mainly in reference to others - “Nikki’s friend” etc., so I wonder, is Nikki dead, or is she just dead to Paul? He seems angry - does he believe she has run away and left him with the children, of whose upset he cannot deal? He never says “my/her daughters” or “our daughters” - always the girls, or children. I think reasonably, he’s finding it hard to manage his family without Nicola.
He’s only mildly negative about Nicola in a couple of places - what is his linguistic disposition? Not much of anything, IMO, if you pass over the obligatory, “fun, kind, loving”. - I don’t know what else I think he should say though. He’s complimentary of Nicola as an exceptional mother. No compliments or reference to her as his wife, though - after twelve years and two children, I’d like him to say, “Where’s my wife/ if you have my wife” etc - anything. Generally, though, it sounds as if none of them know Nicola very well, or anything much about her.
—
The bruise could be from restylane, filler, Botox - my first impression was maybe eye work at some time, and possibly filler - bruises can look like a fading black eye and last longer on one side than the other. He obviously cares about his appearance - that’s not suspicious, IMO - they all may be into cosmetic procedures. Willow just had a grooming session, too.
His language could just be reflective of a general shift away from more intimate family terms such as wife, husband, daughter, son, aunt, uncle, etc toward partner, child, relative - some consistently choose and favour these impersonal terms, others see it as undermining of family and relationships. I wonder if ever he calls his girls his daughters, or Nicola his wife, or if he always has not used those terms. Not going to know the answer, but it’s still a question.
The interviewer done an awful job, however.. This wasn't a candid interview. He is fed scenarios, emotions etc..over and over again. He (Paul Ansell) knew the questions before hand. It was staged. He may not come across deceptive, but, if you knew what was going to be asked, you wouldn't.
He does not speak freely throughout without prompt.
Yes, there were some quite leading questions: “Was it a normal morning, like any other?” Paul says “Yes”, then goes on to explain how, actually, it was different, but finishes by insisting it was nurmal. So many questions that my suspicious mind forbids me to ask - probably biased, moreso in view of mention of a gym.
Interesting Paul doesn’t say if he got dressed in his gym clothes or if he changed into his gym clothes - rather “got my gym stuff on” - which is puzzling to me. Is “got my (whatever) on” the Northern term for “got dressed”, as in fist thing, maybe?
Why does he need to say he got his gym clothes on, anyway?
He’s obviously bothered about why he was in his gym clothes way ahead of his scheduled gym session - he got them on to go and look for Nicola, though intending to return home to work before going to the gym. Why would anyone care what he was wearing? But as he mentions it, twice: either he just was late getting ready for the day so skipped getting dressed in day clothes and decided to get straight into his gym clothes - or, for some reason, he changed from his day clothes into gym clothes, hours before it was necessary, the latter of which could look suspicious in view of Nicola being missing. He might be worried either because he did, or because it just appears he did, change his clothes. Alternatively, he might mention it to give the impression that he was so confident of finding Nicola, he expected the rest of his day to be like any other Friday, and so he was all ready for the gym - but as that was hours early, it. And might feel awkward and contrived by now, if it was. It’s important to him, as he mentions it twice - but would anyone, beside the police, have given a second thought to what Paul had been wearing, had he not introduced the subject? It does seem strange, but could just be that he’s worried that it appears suspicious. - it’s not, though it could be if he had changed out of day clothes into gym clothes after he had thought of dialling 999 - but he says he got into his gym clothes before even the school rang - so. I don’t know - why’s it a problem?
Sweet Willow, (the only one who got a “Bless her”) - she looks up so attentively when he recounts how he returned with her to the bench, and asked, “Where’s Mummy?”
I thought the dog was genuine - and the end, when Paul said he’d be alright so long as Nicola comes back.
More acted upon, than actor? - I don’t know, but his Truman Show comparison was interesting, if it was his own.
I thought his appeasement speech fell a bit flat - he doesn’t seem genuinely impassioned. Contradiction in implying something happened to Nicola in the village yet also asking her to “come home”, rather than ask that a captor release her, but if he really doesn’t know what happened, his mind would flick between abduction and the possibility that Nichola ran away.
I wonder how would Nicola feel if she could see or hear all that?
The wedding talk was maybe a bit too past tense, but he rallied.
So much! Too bad these interviews are the only way to see and hear him - I’m so curious as to how, usually, he might be and speak.
Of concern was that Paul described what normally/ usually was their routine in regard to taking the girls to school rather than say what happened that particular morning. No last remembered conversation between him and Nicola - just that Nikki went upstairs to get ready. He did not even necessarily have to see her in that scenario, so I have doubts as to whether Nicola really was at home that morning. The girls were having breakfast - everything was set and ready to go. Why - so the girls did not need to interact with Nicola either, maybe? Clothes, breakfast, school bags, shoes, coats, all ready?
It would be a big leap though, to imagine maybe someone else who could pass for Mummy, in coat, bobble hat and sunglasses, was already sitting in the car, and drove the girls silently to school. Mummy can’t speak, has a sore throat, lost her voice - it’s unlikely, and would be like something from a Tv drama - the kids wouldn’t be so easily fooled. Plus there are witnesses, who say they saw or spoke to Nicola that morning - eyewitnesses can be unreliable, though. There’s cctv of Nicola putting Willow in the boot - could be from another day. Too unlikely, and not only Paul, but also would call for a wiling accomplice.
What seems more likely is that Nicola fell in the river, and her and Paul’s relationship maybe wasn’t that great, so he’s struggling to appear heartbroken, and maybe hopes that really she has run away and could return - though he still wouldn’t be in a rush for them to get married. If Nicola ran away, it would make him angry him, if he’s the type to call 999 when she’s not even an hour late home and hasn’t answered her phone.
I’m not convinced Nicola was at home, as he has no account of seeing her or of any interactions between Nicola and the girls - yet the alternatives are so outlandish as to seem unlikely.
I hope Peter will cover the second interview.
Is anyone making a transcript, or does anyone know if one is already available? I can do one, but it might it not be today.
The Behavior Panel is covering the second interview today.
Well, The Behavior Panel’s video has bombed and disappeared - will it come back?
—-
I am past half way in my transcript - noticing how Paul is emotional when he speaks about his girls - I missed that the first time round. It’s all so strange - it is like something from a TV drama.
The number of people vanishing, never to be seen again is now at record levels. Statistics show that someone is reported missing every 90 seconds in the UK. Approximately 180,000 people go missing in the UK every year; this number is believed to be a significant underestimate as around 353,000 files of missing persons are opened each year. As of the end of March 2020 there were over 5,300 long-term missing individuals in the UK. So, when the state-owned media focus solely on just one "missing" person it raises eyebrows.
So why is this case so high profile? Why such a rapid response? Why has this gone global? The questions are endless.
Police press conference (today) bullet points.
Visited 300 premises
Spoken to 300 people
Received 1,500 pieces of information
Identified 700 vehicles
50 dashcam submissions received Police issued a new timeline of the day Nicola disappeared:
08:26: Nicola leaves her home address
08:40: Nicola's children start school
09:01: Nicola was with her dog in a field south of Rowanwater caravan park at St Michaels on Wyre. She logged into a Teams call. She remained on mute with her video off throughout the call, which was not unusual for Nicola
Around 09:10: A witness who knows Nicola saw her on the upper field
Around 09:33: The phone was found on the bench, still connected to the Teams call, which had ended at 09:30hrs
11:01: Nicola was reported to us as a missing person and immediately graded as high risk (this has yet to be disclosed.)
Around 12:00: Specialist officers were on scene, with police dogs, commencing foot patrols including evidence gathering associated with missing persons, as well as speaking to family, friends and witnesses
12:18: Police drone was utilised to search the fields and immediate area
13:10: National Police Air Service (NPAS) deployed to the same area
13:14: Lancashire FRS on scene using thermal imaging, underwater drone, search dogs and land searches
14:30: Partner agencies, including mountain rescue, underwater search and marine units were deployed
Search efforts continue at this intensity for the proceeding days
I think the number of missing person reports is so high in UK because foster carers are obliged to report as a missing child their foster child who stays out later than agreed, which with teenagers in care, happens all the time - most are found or return home of their own accord within a few hours. Long term missing person numbers sound high, but are not that high given the population, and the years that figure might span.
It’s so rare for a mother just going about her day to go missing. Maybe it was/is believed that Nicola ended her own life - ‘vulnerable’ is often used of those with mental health issues. The other possibilities have and are being looked into, too - you don’t need forty detectives to investigate the river theory alone. No evidence of third party involvement - but no evidence that Nicola fell into the river, either.
I don’t know if anyone caught the channel 5 (UK) documentary on this case. There was a lengthy interview with the husband. I recorded it so I could take a better look at what was said. The interviewer asked him if the morning in question was a normal morning to which he replied something along the lines of that is was normal “except for”, and then gave the reasons why. He said that normally getting up and getting the kids ready was “mayhem” but that on that morning when he came down a lot more had been done and things were calmer. This would mean that Nicola had done more than normal in terms of getting everything done in connection with the kids and getting ready to take them to school etc… That’s interesting because it reveals Nicola was working harder in terms of preparation for her leaving that morning.
When asked to recall the morning she went missing the husband spoke about what usually happened opposed to actually recounting first person. This allows that there were things which happened which he wanted to avoid talking about. There was also sensitivity in relation to what he was wearing. He said he got changed into his gym clothes “because” he goes to the gym on that day of the week. Later when speaking of receiving the phone call from the school regarding the finding of Nicolas phone and the dog he again mentions that he went out and that he had his gym gear on. That tells us it is important for him that listeners know about what he was wearing through his need to explain it and then restate it later.
I didn’t see any guilty knowledge in relation to what has happened to Nicola in his language, but I only had a brief look at the interview so I can’t make any further comments. In general his language fits with the scenario of her disappearance in terms of it leaving most speechless due to its mysterious nature and that there are no clues. You can’t make an appeal to a kidnapper if you don’t have knowledge that there is one etc…
Later in the interview he said he wanted the local land and properties scrutinised which is appropriate as it shows he wants to leave no stone unturned.
Adrian, hi - Paul didn’t say who got things ready, rather he leaves it open to the listener to assume it was Nicola. Just says that more things were ready than usual, not that she had made them ready.
It could be things were ready because Nicola got them ready, because for whatever reason, she wanted a peaceful, orderly start to the day for them all.
Or someone else could have got things ready because they knew Nicola wasn’t going to be there, and they didn’t want chaos and a big fuss from the children. Could also be more things, besides the school preparations, were done and ready, house clean and tidy, in anticipation of the police coming to the house later - they have an image to keep up?
He does nort speak or have any interaction with Nicola, neither do the children, by his account - all he says is that he went downstairs, and Nikki went upstairs to get ready, not that he saw or spoke to her. So maybe Nicola was not really there, or they were all very uncommunicative that morning. No goodbye, enjoy your walk, see you later, or anything. No last words recalled - I wonder what those were.
Suspicious mind. I didn’t like Paul’s challenge “Something happened . find out” etc - disrespectful, in view of the resources already dedicated to investigating Nicola’s disappearance.
—-
So Lancs Police puts out that Nicola is vulnerable, then follows up with alcohol issues due to the menopause as justification for why they think she went into the river.
I’m appalled, not only because it’s very unusual for personal information to be made public, but because Paul was the source of that information, and the slant of the investigation toward the river has been based on that, when it may or may not be true. Nicola is not here to agree or disagree, and it’s so against her dignity. Makes Paul look like a possible victim - which he could have been, but it’s not him who is leading in the victim stakes now, if ever he was.
Paul’s Facebook account name has been changed from his own to ‘Sam Beckett’. Did he do that - a hacker - the police? It’s bizarre. The police have Nicola’s social media they said, and apparently her FB has been cleared of content. Emma’s also - is her FB under scrutiny, too, or just a coincidence? All very strange.
—-
I can’t believe there’s not something very amiss going on, and Nicola doesn’t appear to be there that morning, from what Paul said - passive language.
Police and health team attended their home for a welfare check a couple of weeks before Nicola went missing; so something must have been going on, and Paul did not allude to that. Protecting Nicola, and/or his own reputation. Paul could be a victim, but it is Nicola who is missing.
Her father, Ernest, added that Nicola was content in her job and had a meeting with an important client before she disappeared. He added: "Her mind was great, we picked the children up the Thursday before she went missing, as we do every Thursday. "We took them home, Nicola had had a meeting with her boss in Garstang and she said, 'Can you stay a bit later because I have an important client coming in on Zoom?' We said, 'No problem' and stayed. "She had done her work and she was very upbeat about getting her mortgage sorted. I said, 'We better go now' and Nicola came to the front door, and I gave her a kiss and told her I loved her and that was the last conversation I had with her."
——
Maybe some conflict between what Nicola’s parents said, and what Paul said to police regarding Nicola suffering from ‘brain fog’? If it occurred as a result of the medication she was no longer taking - would she still have had ‘brain fog’ when she disappeared? Her father said “her mind was great”. Maybe in response to a question?
Nicola appears very competent, taking care of herself, her children and dog, and was trusted by Paul to drive the girls to school, also functioning well in her mortgage adviser capacity, - which to me suggests her issues could have been exaggerated by Paul, because no-one would allow anyone with “severe” issues to take the children to school most days, or walk next to a river. The “issues” did not appear of enough significance for the police to say Nicola was “vulnerable” at the time she disappeared, which would be expected, if they had believed that to be the case - unless they immediately believed she was dead, in which case it would have been unnecessary to volunteer that personal information. Seems entirely unnecessary at this late stage to give out much more personal information, not in Nicola’s interests, or her daughters - awful CYA move, IMO.
I find it questionable if Nicola would leave Willow beside the river, as she is Paul and Nicola’s “third child”. If she had, I think Willow would at least have been at the riverbank, and would have followed Nicola downstream, either in or alongside the water, if Nicola had fallen or jumped in and been carried away by the current. Spaniels are water dogs! That she ran between the bench and the gate rather than pace back and forth by the river makes me question whether someone had taken her in through the gate, told her to stay, and left.
I wonder about Paul’s reference to “her phone” becoming “the mobile” - and to “the car” - how many cars do they own, and why did he not say he got into “my car” when he went to look for Nicola? Was someone else there in whose car he went? If so, he omits to say.
—-
So, while I do understand that a suicidal person often gives no indication, may even appear happy, I still have questions as to whether Nicola was suicidal, or whether that was a narrative suggested by Paul.
We don’t know what the domestic incident was - it is still being investigated. No arrests had been made - also no arrests can be made if the victim, or the perpertrator, can’t be located.
I hope the police have really strong reason, aside from whatever Paul has said, to be so convinced in their hypothesis that Nicola fell or went into the river. They must have, surely? I also hope another constabulary reviews Lancs work, and that the other hypotheses have and are being worked on, too. Of course they are - a lot of searching nowhere near the river, which doesn’t support that they are only willing to consider that Nicola fell into the river - probably ruling out that she has harmed herself somehow, somewhere locally. If she did go in the river it would have been so much better for the children for it to be able to be ruled an accident or open verdict - but no Nicola so far. Could be months, if at all, if she is in the water.
I am keeping an open mind - there’s no evidence that Nicola fell or jumped into the river.
The number of people vanishing, never to be seen again is now at record levels
They are somewhere, hopefully alive and wanting to be unfound, buried, hidden dead somewhere, put into water, or most likely and what seems to horribly happen often, put into the trash.
I think Terri Hormon put Kyron into a garbage bag that the lawn guys took away. And that there was some sort of interaction between her and the gardeners due to their unbeknownst complicity in his disappearance.
In one of Terri’s statements to Dr Phil, she spoke about putting his science fair project “into the pile” and because of the connection to the lawn guys.. And as the person responsible for picking out the clothing for such a young one, and she chose all black, and possibly because of premeditation, the CSI black shirt! And she was seen by another motorist entering the main highway at a high rate of speed, and identified by , most likely after returning home to leave Kyron in a garbage bag with a pile of bags containing lawn clippings, She really needs to go to jail for murder. It was HER that looked like a man with her giant body builder muscles, waiting for a prearranged meeting with a sweet trusting Kyron by a back entry into the school. It makes me sick to think she’s getting away with it!
Peter, I’d be so interested in your analysis of Alex Murdaugh’s police interviews. The unredacted 911 call and 3 interviews are available here and on Law&Crime or Court TV. It’s a tragic, but fascinating case.
Matthew 12:34-40 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.
The psyop idea is based on Paul and Emma White’s involvement in acting, which seems to be as extras - Paul/Pauly/Sam Beckett in the not recent past, according to his FB.
All sorts of people act as extras -seems a very part time hobby/fun activity and a stretch to turn that into, “They’re actors - It must be a psyop!” rather than see it as Nicola and Paul share a group of friends who have a common interest in appearing in TV dramas, and some media connections.
Emma maybe loves the camera. Paul gave his C5 interview when it wasn’t really necessary as his first interview was positively received by influential analysts, namely, Peter, and the Behavior Panel, others, too. I think they are would-be luvvy types who quite like the cameras - more mundane a likelihood than them all being actors in a psyop conspiracy.
Seriously, why would someone lie to police officers and go through all the gyrations that that guy went through, to film the police remove remains from a river.? He admitted to wearing some sort and f head apparatus with a camera, but then after lying to police as to why he was present, he filmed with his camera in his phone. It seems that he strongly wanted to film whatever the police were recovering from the river. How did he know to appear at that very moment?
Anon - He has a YouTube where he answers this type of question.
It was surprising, moreso in view of the strong possibility that footage would be uploaded, that police did not cordon off that section of the river bank or prevent people standing there or filming, especially after the coroner’s van arrived. Channel 4 crew was also on the riverbank filming alongside the Curtis guy. Curtis’s video showed that more manpower would have made for a gentler and more reverent recovery, and that those divers probably needed a chiropractor, as they struggled so much. It could be helpful, if anyone to whom such things mattered was interested. All those resources, and they end up with two guys in the water with a piece of string. Utter shambles.
Maybe the police expected people just to do the decent thing and keep their distance - why did they not ensure it, though? Always, with incidents involving bodies, they ask people to stay back, put up a cordon or screen, yet with a village full of TikTokers and YouTubers, they just let them free range.
Someone suggested it was because it was a posh village so the police there don’t know how to handle not posh people. No, because the villagers are not posh people either. Why would the police be intimidated by Curtis? He’s a hairdresser…
I don’t think he’s put up a CashAop yet, or a GoFundMe, so there’s that - plus he apologised and made a donation to Paul, which is a lot more than I would do.
Extensive searching, as you’re probably aware, has gone on in that river," he told the presenter.
"The fact that the divers and underwater rescue team and all that were in that river on the day, and thankfully found absolutely nothing, in the part where you would have to presume is her last known location.
"Personally, I am 100 per cent convinced it’s not the river, that’s my opinion.
Mr Ansell says he was was 'looking forward to an hour of peace' after his children headed off to school on the day the mum vanished.
But he noticed a difference on the morning of the day she went missing - not much rushing to get out the door.
"So when Nikki takes the girls to school, I then know that I've got like an hour to myself on that morning when she takes them.
"So I always quite look forward to that. I wave them off and then I go in the house, I put the kettle on and make a cup of tea, and I think right I’ve got an hour.
"You know any parent, no matter who you are, you do look forward to that little bit of peace don’t you.
"I just went in the house, put the kettle on, made a cup of tea, went into the living room, and thought I’ve got on an hour now to sort of chill and get myself ready for the day. Nicole’s husband’s statements from the Mirror
Analysis: it’s almost all in the present tense. Very weird
But he said: “It would be upsetting but only if I let myself read it all.”
He continued: “Don’t get me wrong, I have seen some stuff. Most people have been amazing, you're always gonna get that 2% of people that for whatever reason say and do not very nice things but I don’t want to give any energy to that.
“My energy is just finding Nikki. I read one that said the police need to look at the partner and I was sort of like, yeah, that’s the first thing that they did. Of course it is. I knew that that would happen on the first day, I expected that."
Why did he expect that? Why did he say “ I knew that that would happen on the first day,”?
I’m suspicious. Most innocent people are entirely surprised at being accused. In the Mirror interview he also offered different scenarios at to why her phone was found on the bench, and her dogs harnessnearby, suggesting it was a decoy. And starting the interview insisting that her was 100 percent sure she WASN’T in the river.
30 comments:
Hi, Peter,
In case you have not seen it - here is Paul’s interview from the C5 documentary on Nicola’s disappearance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja6tbxju2-k
——
As in the previous interview, Paul doesn’t wonder, “Where is she?” - or express concern for Nicola’s safety. I find his lack of curiosity odd, given the circumstances.
Hey Jude said...
As in the previous interview, Paul doesn’t wonder, “Where is she?” - or express concern for Nicola’s safety. I find his lack of curiosity odd, given the circumstances.
Hi
There is something off about this case and i can't put my finger on it.
Hi, John - I agree.
My wonderings include:
What’s behind his seeming indifference toward Nicola? We don’t know their relationship, except many discussions about marriage - from which it could be gathered that perhaps one of them did not want that level of commitment.
Nothing much said by anyone about Nicola, or anything - I hear platitudes and cliches.
Why did they not call out for Nicola? Did no-one think she had fallen , was caught on something, or lay injured somewhere along the river bank? Paul said he looked around in his gym clothes, not that he also called her name - though I suppose they all would assume that Willow would have been with Nicola if she was in the area, so maybe that is why they didn’t find a need to call out.
Listening again, Paul does say, “Where is she?” - but only in quoting himself as having said it that morning at the river. I think the burning question should and would be, until she is found, “”Where is she?” - it should be driving them all crazy.
I don’t think Paul is really saying much for himself - he’s mostly repeating the vague wonderings of Nicola’s friends and sister
He’s not beating about the bush when it comes to being the good guy - “We are good people.” They deserve to be rewarded for all the care and compassion that others have shown. (GoFundMe didn’t work out in that regard)
He uses Willow’s name many times, but Nicola or Nikki, only or mainly in reference to others - “Nikki’s friend” etc., so I wonder, is Nikki dead, or is she just dead to Paul? He seems angry - does he believe she has run away and left him with the children, of whose upset he cannot deal? He never says “my/her daughters” or “our daughters” - always the girls, or children. I think reasonably, he’s finding it hard to manage his family without Nicola.
He’s only mildly negative about Nicola in a couple of places - what is his linguistic disposition? Not much of anything, IMO, if you pass over the obligatory, “fun, kind, loving”. - I don’t know what else I think he should say though. He’s complimentary of Nicola as an exceptional mother. No compliments or reference to her as his wife, though - after twelve years and two children, I’d like him to say, “Where’s my wife/ if you have my wife” etc - anything. Generally, though, it sounds as if none of them know Nicola very well, or anything much about her.
—
The bruise could be from restylane, filler, Botox - my first impression was maybe eye work at some time, and possibly filler - bruises can look like a fading black eye and last longer on one side than the other. He obviously cares about his appearance - that’s not suspicious, IMO - they all may be into cosmetic procedures. Willow just had a grooming session, too.
His language could just be reflective of a general shift away from more intimate family terms such as wife, husband, daughter, son, aunt, uncle, etc toward partner, child, relative - some consistently choose and favour these impersonal terms, others see it as undermining of family and relationships. I wonder if ever he calls his girls his daughters, or Nicola his wife, or if he always has not used those terms. Not going to know the answer, but it’s still a question.
The interviewer done an awful job, however..
This wasn't a candid interview. He is fed scenarios, emotions etc..over and over again. He (Paul Ansell) knew the questions before hand. It was staged. He may not come across deceptive, but, if you knew what was going to be asked, you wouldn't.
He does not speak freely throughout without prompt.
Yes, there were some quite leading questions: “Was it a normal morning, like any other?” Paul says “Yes”, then goes on to explain how, actually, it was different, but finishes by insisting it was nurmal. So many questions that my suspicious mind forbids me to ask - probably biased, moreso in view of mention of a gym.
Interesting Paul doesn’t say if he got dressed in his gym clothes or if he changed into his gym clothes - rather “got my gym stuff on” - which is puzzling to me. Is “got my (whatever) on” the Northern term for “got dressed”, as in fist thing, maybe?
Why does he need to say he got his gym clothes on, anyway?
He’s obviously bothered about why he was in his gym clothes way ahead of his scheduled gym session - he got them on to go and look for Nicola, though intending to return home to work before going to the gym. Why would anyone care what he was wearing? But as he mentions it, twice: either he just was late getting ready for the day so skipped getting dressed in day clothes and decided to get straight into his gym clothes - or, for some reason, he changed from his day clothes into gym clothes, hours before it was necessary, the latter of which could look suspicious in view of Nicola being missing. He might be worried either because he did, or because it just appears he did, change his clothes. Alternatively, he might mention it to give the impression that he was so confident of finding Nicola, he expected the rest of his day to be like any other Friday, and so he was all ready for the gym - but as that was hours early, it. And might feel awkward and contrived by now, if it was. It’s important to him, as he mentions it twice - but would anyone, beside the police, have given a second thought to what Paul had been wearing, had he not introduced the subject? It does seem strange, but could just be that he’s worried that it appears suspicious. - it’s not, though it could be if he had changed out of day clothes into gym clothes after he had thought of dialling 999 - but he says he got into his gym clothes before even the school rang - so. I don’t know - why’s it a problem?
Sweet Willow, (the only one who got a “Bless her”) - she looks up so attentively when he recounts how he returned with her to the bench, and asked, “Where’s Mummy?”
I thought the dog was genuine - and the end, when Paul said he’d be alright so long as Nicola comes back.
More acted upon, than actor? - I don’t know, but his Truman Show comparison was interesting, if it was his own.
I thought his appeasement speech fell a bit flat - he doesn’t seem genuinely impassioned. Contradiction in implying something happened to Nicola in the village yet also asking her to “come home”, rather than ask that a captor release her, but if he really doesn’t know what happened, his mind would flick between abduction and the possibility that Nichola ran away.
I wonder how would Nicola feel if she could see or hear all that?
The wedding talk was maybe a bit too past tense, but he rallied.
So much! Too bad these interviews are the only way to see and hear him - I’m so curious as to how, usually, he might be and speak.
Of concern was that Paul described what normally/ usually was their routine in regard to taking the girls to school rather than say what happened that particular morning. No last remembered conversation between him and Nicola - just that Nikki went upstairs to get ready. He did not even necessarily have to see her in that scenario, so I have doubts as to whether Nicola really was at home that morning. The girls were having breakfast - everything was set and ready to go. Why - so the girls did not need to interact with Nicola either, maybe? Clothes, breakfast, school bags, shoes, coats, all ready?
It would be a big leap though, to imagine maybe someone else who could pass for Mummy, in coat, bobble hat and sunglasses, was already sitting in the car, and drove the girls silently to school. Mummy can’t speak, has a sore throat, lost her voice - it’s unlikely, and would be like something from a Tv drama - the kids wouldn’t be so easily fooled. Plus there are witnesses, who say they saw or spoke to Nicola that morning - eyewitnesses can be unreliable, though. There’s cctv of Nicola putting Willow in the boot - could be from another day. Too unlikely, and not only Paul, but also would call for a wiling accomplice.
What seems more likely is that Nicola fell in the river, and her and Paul’s relationship maybe wasn’t that great, so he’s struggling to appear heartbroken, and maybe hopes that really she has run away and could return - though he still wouldn’t be in a rush for them to get married. If Nicola ran away, it would make him angry him, if he’s the type to call 999 when she’s not even an hour late home and hasn’t answered her phone.
I’m not convinced Nicola was at home, as he has no account of seeing her or of any interactions between Nicola and the girls - yet the alternatives are so outlandish as to seem unlikely.
I hope Peter will cover the second interview.
Is anyone making a transcript, or does anyone know if one is already available? I can do one, but it might it not be today.
The Behavior Panel is covering the second interview today.
https://youtu.be/r1gVIgrvD7M
Well, The Behavior Panel’s video has bombed and disappeared - will it come back?
—-
I am past half way in my transcript - noticing how Paul is emotional when he speaks about his girls - I missed that the first time round. It’s all so strange - it is like something from a TV drama.
The number of people vanishing, never to be seen again is now at record levels.
Statistics show that someone is reported missing every 90 seconds in the UK. Approximately 180,000 people go missing in the UK every year; this number is believed to be a significant underestimate as around 353,000 files of missing persons are opened each year.
As of the end of March 2020 there were over 5,300 long-term missing individuals in the UK.
So, when the state-owned media focus solely on just one "missing" person it raises eyebrows.
So why is this case so high profile?
Why such a rapid response?
Why has this gone global? The questions are endless.
Police press conference (today) bullet points.
Visited 300 premises
Spoken to 300 people
Received 1,500 pieces of information
Identified 700 vehicles
50 dashcam submissions received
Police issued a new timeline of the day Nicola disappeared:
08:26: Nicola leaves her home address
08:40: Nicola's children start school
09:01: Nicola was with her dog in a field south of Rowanwater caravan park at St Michaels on Wyre. She logged into a Teams call. She remained on mute with her video off throughout the call, which was not unusual for Nicola
Around 09:10: A witness who knows Nicola saw her on the upper field
Around 09:33: The phone was found on the bench, still connected to the Teams call, which had ended at 09:30hrs
11:01: Nicola was reported to us as a missing person and immediately graded as high risk (this has yet to be disclosed.)
Around 12:00: Specialist officers were on scene, with police dogs, commencing foot patrols including evidence gathering associated with missing persons, as well as speaking to family, friends and witnesses
12:18: Police drone was utilised to search the fields and immediate area
13:10: National Police Air Service (NPAS) deployed to the same area
13:14: Lancashire FRS on scene using thermal imaging, underwater drone, search dogs and land searches
14:30: Partner agencies, including mountain rescue, underwater search and marine units were deployed
Search efforts continue at this intensity for the proceeding days
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2023-02-15/police-say-no-evidence-of-third-party-in-nicola-bulleys-disappearance?fbclid=IwAR12T1uuCijeuKmBM8DY80ztB2Utv-V9XUFgTgwiw0tmavWr_a8riD5d9yU
I think the number of missing person reports is so high in UK because foster carers are obliged to report as a missing child their foster child who stays out later than agreed, which with teenagers in care, happens all the time - most are found or return home of their own accord within a few hours. Long term missing person numbers sound high, but are not that high given the population, and the years that figure might span.
It’s so rare for a mother just going about her day to go missing. Maybe it was/is believed that Nicola ended her own life - ‘vulnerable’ is often used of those with mental health issues. The other possibilities have and are being looked into, too - you don’t need forty detectives to investigate the river theory alone. No evidence of third party involvement - but no evidence that Nicola fell into the river, either.
I don’t know if anyone caught the channel 5 (UK) documentary on this case. There was a lengthy interview with the husband. I recorded it so I could take a better look at what was said. The interviewer asked him if the morning in question was a normal morning to which he replied something along the lines of that is was normal “except for”, and then gave the reasons why. He said that normally getting up and getting the kids ready was “mayhem” but that on that morning when he came down a lot more had been done and things were calmer. This would mean that Nicola had done more than normal in terms of getting everything done in connection with the kids and getting ready to take them to school etc… That’s interesting because it reveals Nicola was working harder in terms of preparation for her leaving that morning.
When asked to recall the morning she went missing the husband spoke about what usually happened opposed to actually recounting first person. This allows that there were things which happened which he wanted to avoid talking about. There was also sensitivity in relation to what he was wearing. He said he got changed into his gym clothes “because” he goes to the gym on that day of the week. Later when speaking of receiving the phone call from the school regarding the finding of Nicolas phone and the dog he again mentions that he went out and that he had his gym gear on. That tells us it is important for him that listeners know about what he was wearing through his need to explain it and then restate it later.
I didn’t see any guilty knowledge in relation to what has happened to Nicola in his language, but I only had a brief look at the interview so I can’t make any further comments. In general his language fits with the scenario of her disappearance in terms of it leaving most speechless due to its mysterious nature and that there are no clues. You can’t make an appeal to a kidnapper if you don’t have knowledge that there is one etc…
Later in the interview he said he wanted the local land and properties scrutinised which is appropriate as it shows he wants to leave no stone unturned.
Adrian.
Adrian, hi - Paul didn’t say who got things ready, rather he leaves it open to the listener to assume it was Nicola. Just says that more things were ready than usual, not that she had made them ready.
It could be things were ready because Nicola got them ready, because for whatever reason, she wanted a peaceful, orderly start to the day for them all.
Or someone else could have got things ready because they knew Nicola wasn’t going to be there, and they didn’t want chaos and a big fuss from the children. Could also be more things, besides the school preparations, were done and ready, house clean and tidy, in anticipation of the police coming to the house later - they have an image to keep up?
He does nort speak or have any interaction with Nicola, neither do the children, by his account - all he says is that he went downstairs, and Nikki went upstairs to get ready, not that he saw or spoke to her. So maybe Nicola was not really there, or they were all very uncommunicative that morning. No goodbye, enjoy your walk, see you later, or anything. No last words recalled - I wonder what those were.
Suspicious mind. I didn’t like Paul’s challenge “Something happened . find out” etc - disrespectful, in view of the resources already dedicated to investigating Nicola’s disappearance.
—-
So Lancs Police puts out that Nicola is vulnerable, then follows up with alcohol issues due to the menopause as justification for why they think she went into the river.
I’m appalled, not only because it’s very unusual for personal information to be made public, but because Paul was the source of that information, and the slant of the investigation toward the river has been based on that, when it may or may not be true. Nicola is not here to agree or disagree, and it’s so against her dignity. Makes Paul look like a possible victim - which he could have been, but it’s not him who is leading in the victim stakes now, if ever he was.
Paul’s Facebook account name has been changed from his own to ‘Sam Beckett’. Did he do that - a hacker - the police? It’s bizarre. The police have Nicola’s social media they said, and apparently her FB has been cleared of content. Emma’s also - is her FB under scrutiny, too, or just a coincidence? All very strange.
—-
I can’t believe there’s not something very amiss going on, and Nicola doesn’t appear to be there that morning, from what Paul said - passive language.
Police and health team attended their home for a welfare check a couple of weeks before Nicola went missing; so something must have been going on, and Paul did not allude to that. Protecting Nicola, and/or his own reputation. Paul could be a victim, but it is Nicola who is missing.
Early days -
Her father, Ernest, added that Nicola was content in her job and had a meeting with an important client before she disappeared. He added: "Her mind was great, we picked the children up the Thursday before she went missing, as we do every Thursday.
"We took them home, Nicola had had a meeting with her boss in Garstang and she said, 'Can you stay a bit later because I have an important client coming in on Zoom?' We said, 'No problem' and stayed.
"She had done her work and she was very upbeat about getting her mortgage sorted. I said, 'We better go now' and Nicola came to the front door, and I gave her a kiss and told her I loved her and that was the last conversation I had with her."
——
Maybe some conflict between what Nicola’s parents said, and what Paul said to police regarding Nicola suffering from ‘brain fog’? If it occurred as a result of the medication she was no longer taking - would she still have had ‘brain fog’ when she disappeared? Her father said “her mind was great”. Maybe in response to a question?
Nicola appears very competent, taking care of herself, her children and dog, and was trusted by Paul to drive the girls to school, also functioning well in her mortgage adviser capacity, - which to me suggests her issues could have been exaggerated by Paul, because no-one would allow anyone with “severe” issues to take the children to school most days, or walk next to a river. The “issues” did not appear of enough significance for the police to say Nicola was “vulnerable” at the time she disappeared, which would be expected, if they had believed that to be the case - unless they immediately believed she was dead, in which case it would have been unnecessary to volunteer that personal information. Seems entirely unnecessary at this late stage to give out much more personal information, not in Nicola’s interests, or her daughters - awful CYA move, IMO.
I find it questionable if Nicola would leave Willow beside the river, as she is Paul and Nicola’s “third child”. If she had, I think Willow would at least have been at the riverbank, and would have followed Nicola downstream, either in or alongside the water, if Nicola had fallen or jumped in and been carried away by the current. Spaniels are water dogs! That she ran between the bench and the gate rather than pace back and forth by the river makes me question whether someone had taken her in through the gate, told her to stay, and left.
I wonder about Paul’s reference to “her phone” becoming “the mobile” - and to “the car” - how many cars do they own, and why did he not say he got into “my car” when he went to look for Nicola? Was someone else there in whose car he went? If so, he omits to say.
—-
So, while I do understand that a suicidal person often gives no indication, may even appear happy, I still have questions as to whether Nicola was suicidal, or whether that was a narrative suggested by Paul.
We don’t know what the domestic incident was - it is still being investigated. No arrests had been made - also no arrests can be made if the victim, or the perpertrator, can’t be located.
I hope the police have really strong reason, aside from whatever Paul has said, to be so convinced in their hypothesis that Nicola fell or went into the river. They must have, surely? I also hope another constabulary reviews Lancs work, and that the other hypotheses have and are being worked on, too. Of course they are - a lot of searching nowhere near the river, which doesn’t support that they are only willing to consider that Nicola fell into the river - probably ruling out that she has harmed herself somehow, somewhere locally. If she did go in the river it would have been so much better for the children for it to be able to be ruled an accident or open verdict - but no Nicola so far. Could be months, if at all, if she is in the water.
I am keeping an open mind - there’s no evidence that Nicola fell or jumped into the river.
John Mc GowanFebruary 15, 2023 at 7:49 AM
The number of people vanishing, never to be seen again is now at record levels
They are somewhere, hopefully alive and wanting to be unfound, buried, hidden dead somewhere, put into water, or most likely and what seems to horribly happen often, put into the trash.
I think Terri Hormon put Kyron into a garbage bag that the lawn guys took away. And that there was some sort of interaction between her and the gardeners due to their unbeknownst complicity in his disappearance.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
Man never is, but always to be blest:
Alexander Pope
In one of Terri’s statements to Dr Phil, she spoke about putting his science fair project “into the pile” and because of the connection to the lawn guys.. And as the person responsible for picking out the clothing for such a young one, and she chose all black, and possibly because of premeditation, the CSI black shirt! And she was seen by another motorist entering the main highway at a high rate of speed, and identified by , most likely after returning home to leave Kyron in a garbage bag with a pile of bags containing lawn clippings, She really needs to go to jail for murder. It was HER that looked like a man with her giant body builder muscles, waiting for a prearranged meeting with a sweet trusting Kyron by a back entry into the school. It makes me sick to think she’s getting away with it!
Nicola Bulley: Man who found Nicola's phone speaks to Sky News
How not to conduct an interview. Awful journalism.
I do believe this is interview is contaminated and they have met before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlp07937Kao&t=0s
Peter, I’d be so interested in your analysis of Alex Murdaugh’s police interviews. The unredacted 911 call and 3 interviews are available here and on Law&Crime or Court TV. It’s a tragic, but fascinating case.
https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article271689727.html
Makes you wonder what is to be “take(n) from here”? Did she have something of value that was to be left to someone?
Matthew 12:34-40 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV)
For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.
The psyop idea is based on Paul and Emma White’s involvement in acting, which seems to be as extras - Paul/Pauly/Sam Beckett in the not recent past, according to his FB.
All sorts of people act as extras -seems a very part time hobby/fun activity and a stretch to turn that into, “They’re actors - It must be a psyop!” rather than see it as Nicola and Paul share a group of friends who have a common interest in appearing in TV dramas, and some media connections.
Emma maybe loves the camera. Paul gave his C5 interview when it wasn’t really necessary as his first interview was positively received by influential analysts, namely, Peter, and the Behavior Panel, others, too. I think they are would-be luvvy types who quite like the cameras - more mundane a likelihood than them all being actors in a psyop conspiracy.
Seriously, why would someone lie to police officers and go through all the gyrations that that guy went through, to film the police remove remains from a river.? He admitted to wearing some sort and f head apparatus with a camera, but then after lying to police as to why he was present, he filmed with his camera in his phone. It seems that he strongly wanted to film whatever the police were recovering from the river. How did he know to appear at that very moment?
Anon - He has a YouTube where he answers this type of question.
It was surprising, moreso in view of the strong possibility that footage would be uploaded, that police did not cordon off that section of the river bank or prevent people standing there or filming, especially after the coroner’s van arrived. Channel 4 crew was also on the riverbank filming alongside the Curtis guy. Curtis’s video showed that more manpower would have made for a gentler and more reverent recovery, and that those divers probably needed a chiropractor, as they struggled so much. It could be helpful, if anyone to whom such things mattered was interested. All those resources, and they end up with two guys in the water with a piece of string. Utter shambles.
Maybe the police expected people just to do the decent thing and keep their distance - why did they not ensure it, though? Always, with incidents involving bodies, they ask people to stay back, put up a cordon or screen, yet with a village full of TikTokers and YouTubers, they just let them free range.
Someone suggested it was because it was a posh village so the police there don’t know how to handle not posh people. No, because the villagers are not posh people either. Why would the police be intimidated by Curtis? He’s a hairdresser…
I don’t think he’s put up a CashAop yet, or a GoFundMe, so there’s that - plus he apologised and made a donation to Paul, which is a lot more than I would do.
Extensive searching, as you’re probably aware, has gone on in that river," he told the presenter.
"The fact that the divers and underwater rescue team and all that were in that river on the day, and thankfully found absolutely nothing, in the part where you would have to presume is her last known location.
"Personally, I am 100 per cent convinced it’s not the river, that’s my opinion.
Mr Ansell says he was was 'looking forward to an hour of peace' after his children headed off to school on the day the mum vanished.
But he noticed a difference on the morning of the day she went missing - not much rushing to get out the door.
"So when Nikki takes the girls to school, I then know that I've got like an hour to myself on that morning when she takes them.
"So I always quite look forward to that. I wave them off and then I go in the house, I put the kettle on and make a cup of tea, and I think right I’ve got an hour.
"You know any parent, no matter who you are, you do look forward to that little bit of peace don’t you.
"I just went in the house, put the kettle on, made a cup of tea, went into the living room, and thought I’ve got on an hour now to sort of chill and get myself ready for the day. Nicole’s husband’s statements from the Mirror
Analysis: it’s almost all in the present tense. Very weird
But he said: “It would be upsetting but only if I let myself read it all.”
He continued: “Don’t get me wrong, I have seen some stuff. Most people have been amazing, you're always gonna get that 2% of people that for whatever reason say and do not very nice things but I don’t want to give any energy to that.
“My energy is just finding Nikki. I read one that said the police need to look at the partner and I was sort of like, yeah, that’s the first thing that they did. Of course it is. I knew that that would happen on the first day, I expected that."
Why did he expect that? Why did he say “ I knew that that would happen on the first day,”?
I’m suspicious. Most innocent people are entirely surprised at being accused.
In the Mirror interview he also offered different scenarios at to why her phone was found on the bench, and her dogs harnessnearby, suggesting it was a decoy. And starting the interview insisting that her was 100 percent sure she WASN’T in the river.
I think he’s the one. Too many red flags
Post a Comment