comment by Vladimikel Artutin - committing war crimes against football since 2019 (U18355)
posted 3 hours, 46 minutes ago
comment by Pranks Baby (U22336)
posted 1 day, 21 hours ago
You believed the whole falling in the river thing when there was absolutely no evidence to support it

She is as fit as fiddle and a strong swimmer so no she didn't just fall into the river.

Not to mention this river at a snails pace.

She's either been abducted or chosen to disappear by choice,

Given the situation abduction looks the obvious conclusion.

How the police ruled out a 3rd party on day 1 is just outrageousBecause they didn't think a crime had been committed they missed out on a lot of forensics.

Just a mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but how do you know more than the police?

She was on a work call while walking her dog in broad daylight. The only way she was abducted was if aliens picked her up.

And disappearing by choice would be impossible considering the dog didn’t disappear with her.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The work call was via teams, she was on mute and the camera was off so anything could have happened and the people on the call wouldn't know anything.

And of course if she wanted to disappear by choice she could have however I don't think that is what happened.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
Mist likely scenario imo...
She sat on the bench, put her phone down and listened to the teams meeting. Probably struggled to keep her eyes open. Suddenly noticed the dog was too close to the river or out of sight so went to get the dog. Tripped. Fell in. The combination of lots of clothing, the cold icy water and the shock meant she could neither get out nor scream. Her body shut down and the river took her body out to sea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does still very much look like she fell in the river. There's a big drop off into the water so she could easily have been knocked out from the fall. Also the freezing January water would only have added to her problems as soon as she hit the water.

The dog (Willow) stuck around the area heavily indicating that was the last place Willow saw her. Whether Willow actually saw or heard her go into the water is up for debate but presumably he did. And Nicola can't have moved far from that point after entering the river otherwise Willow would likely have been found at a different part of the river where he last saw or heard her.

Why her body hasn't been found after such an extensive search is very strange. Judging by what's been said it seems highly implausible that she's drifted out to sea. Pretty much impossible. So you have to assume that her body is lodged or hidden somewhere in the river that they just haven't found yet.

But why was her phone muted if she was taking part in a conference call, did somebody else mute it so nobody could hear anything, and who puts a phone down on a park bench if they had to get up to see to the dog, surely they would keep the phone in their hand or put it in their pocket, i know that is what I would do.

The river was slow moving and not in flood, with varying depths and a weir further down stream, with plenty of gravelly shallows. That search specialist has 20 years experience and he reckons in those conditions a body would not move all that far, and they sink to the bottom quite quickly. They then surface again about a week later when they fill up with gases.

I suppose its possible she is in the river down near the estuary or in the sea, but that goes against what the specialists are saying.

why was her phone muted if she was taking part in a conference call,
------
Literally every teams meeting I've been in I have been on mute.

“The work call was via teams, she was on mute and the camera was off so anything could have happened and the people on the call wouldn't know anything.

And of course if she wanted to disappear by choice she could have however I don't think that is what happened.”

My point is the supposed abductor wouldn’t have known the call was muted. Yea she could have voluntarily disappeared but her behavior that morning doesn’t suggest she would have (still a far higher possibility than abduction though)

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 9 hours, 16 minutes ago
why was her phone muted if she was taking part in a conference call,
------
Literally every teams meeting I've been in I have been on mute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah and typically I have my camera off unless speaking

comment by Vladimikel Artutin - committing war crimes against football since 2019 (U18355)
posted 3 hours, 23 minutes ago
“The work call was via teams, she was on mute and the camera was off so anything could have happened and the people on the call wouldn't know anything.

And of course if she wanted to disappear by choice she could have however I don't think that is what happened.”

My point is the supposed abductor wouldn’t have known the call was muted. Yea she could have voluntarily disappeared but her behavior that morning doesn’t suggest she would have (still a far higher possibility than abduction though)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
who knows what an abductor is thinking, its not normal behavior.

My thoughts are as from the beginning is that she's been taken against will and being held somewhere or is already dead.

I don't think she's in the water

Yea that’s your opinion but you have completely dismissed the professional opinions of the experts who are actually working the case and have no evidence to support an abduction

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 10 hours, 1 minute ago
why was her phone muted if she was taking part in a conference call,
------
Literally every teams meeting I've been in I have been on mute.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats because your company force you to do that tbf

Having the teams call on mute with the camera off isn't remotely suspicious. For all we know she did that on every similar work call.

Neither is putting your phone on a bench temporarily if you need to go and do something like attending to your dog for whatever reason.

If she was abducted then why did the dog stay by the bench? There was nothing stopping the dog following her in any direction that she would have been abducted and taken.

comment by Vladimikel Artutin - committing war crimes against football since 2019 (U18355)
posted 53 minutes ago
Yea that’s your opinion but you have completely dismissed the professional opinions of the experts who are actually working the case and have no evidence to support an abduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no evidence she is in the water

In fact Experts are saying she isn't in the water

I'm no professional abductor, but you want to leave little to no trace of the abduction. The key to a successful abduction is having as much time as possible before anyone is alerted to the fact someone is missing. Leaving phones and dogs is a very quick indicator something is wrong.

The idea the phone was left to make it seem as if she had fallen in the river seems wide of the mark. You'd chuck it down the bank to make it look like it was dropped as she got into difficulties if you were going to leave evidence.

Seems a fair distance to drag someone kicking and screaming in daylight in a seemingly popular walkway. Most abductions use a vehicle, especially of adults.

An opportunist abduction seems unlikely. A planned abduction also seems unlikely.

I also don't see how any kind of conventional abduction is possible either. If there was no dog then you could argue she was walked or frogmarched at gun point somewhere. But then you have to come back to the dog who is a vital part of the case. There is surely no way that the dog would stay at that spot if that's what happened. Also you have to think someone would have seen something if she was led away from the area.

Seen that video from the dive expert, the water was motionless where she was supposed to have gone in. If he reckons she hasn't gone in that water then that's good enough for me.

comment by KLS - Mick Lynch for prime minister (U1695)
posted 8 minutes ago
Seen that video from the dive expert, the water was motionless where she was supposed to have gone in. If he reckons she hasn't gone in that water then that's good enough for me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah the water is completely motionless, it's basically a pond there. If she went into the water then they should have found her on day 1. And they definitely should have found her when expert Peter Faulding searched the river in recent days That's what makes this case so utterly confounding.

It's as if she was plucked from thin air as that's the only thing that the evidence is pointing towards at this stage.

Aliens. The only logical answer.

If you say so

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 minutes ago
Aliens. The only logical answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the god damn robot aliens!

5 points for the film?

comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 4 hours, 4 minutes ago
I also don't see how any kind of conventional abduction is possible either. If there was no dog then you could argue she was walked or frogmarched at gun point somewhere. But then you have to come back to the dog who is a vital part of the case. There is surely no way that the dog would stay at that spot if that's what happened. Also you have to think someone would have seen something if she was led away from the area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What if there were 2 perpetrators, one who frog marched her into a van at knife or gun point, and another who stayed behind to stop the dog following. And apparently the dog was found running between a gate leading away from the area and the bench, if she had gone into the water the dog would have surely been found at the rivers edge where she went in. Apparently they are now trying to trace a tatty red van which was seen nearby and her family are convinced she did not enter the river.

comment by ●Billy The Spur● 20*21*22* ENIC OUT! (U3924)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 4 hours, 4 minutes ago
I also don't see how any kind of conventional abduction is possible either. If there was no dog then you could argue she was walked or frogmarched at gun point somewhere. But then you have to come back to the dog who is a vital part of the case. There is surely no way that the dog would stay at that spot if that's what happened. Also you have to think someone would have seen something if she was led away from the area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What if there were 2 perpetrators, one who frog marched her into a van at knife or gun point, and another who stayed behind to stop the dog following. And apparently the dog was found running between a gate leading away from the area and the bench, if she had gone into the water the dog would have surely been found at the rivers edge where she went in. Apparently they are now trying to trace a tatty red van which was seen nearby and her family are convinced she did not enter the river.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The dog staying in that same area if she was taken doesn't ring true, even if there were two assailants. Surely the dog would have followed the direction they all went in, even if the second assailant had kept the dog behind a bit. And as far as I know there is no evidence the dog was kicked or injured in any way. The gate is fairly inconsequential as the big gaps in the fence wouldn't have stopped the dog getting through.

It’s just so baffling

The Police still don't think a 3rd party is involved

Apparently there is no evidence,

comment by Pranks Baby (U22336)
posted 2 hours, 10 minutes ago
The Police still don't think a 3rd party is involved

Apparently there is no evidence,


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's be honest here...there's no fackin evidence of anything...period

comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
comment by Pranks Baby (U22336)
posted 2 hours, 10 minutes ago
The Police still don't think a 3rd party is involved

Apparently there is no evidence,


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's be honest here...there's no fackin evidence of anything...period
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the evidence is her, and she has magically disappeared.

Now apparently according to the police she has a drinking problem.

I bet she's in Torremolinos !