An Analysis of January 10th
What can we learn about what happened to Nicola by focusing on this one day, and the immediate events surrounding it? Possibly nothing new, but it matters immensely what happened on the 10th, because Nicola ended up deceased weeks later. The chances of there being a welfare issue at home—a genuine issue or a fabricated one—and then the subject of said issue "falling" into a cold river and "drowning accidentally" 17 days later is very slim, wouldn't you agree?
Anyone who has experienced DV, knows someone who has, works in victim advocacy or related fields, or simply cares about this issue, knows that January 10th is crucial to this case. But details on the welfare call and the head injury that apparently happened to Nicola that morning, the morning of the 10th, are scant. Unfortunately we have to piece together little snippets of reporting from different news outlets. I'm also going to be relying heavily on Irish Eyes' series of post-inquest videos, because she expertly catalogued dozens of the most relevant interviews and other soundbites in her analysis.
What We Know About January 10th
- A team consisting of a police officer, paramedic and mental health staff, officially known as the Synergy team (an emergency mental health response vehicle) was called to Nicola's home at 7:30PM on January 10th.
- According to the inquest, the welfare call was made by Nicola's sister Louise. "The family was concerned with her increased alcohol use and the impression she 'didn’t want to be here'" (Lancs Live).
- The "didn't want to be here" comment was apparently overheard by Nicola's children and seemingly reported to Louise by Paul, as Louise said at the inquest that she could not recall Nicola ever making comments to that effect, or regarding suicide generally, to her.
- Attending health clinician Teresa Leevy testified at the inquest that Nicola "appeared intoxicated" but "appropriately dressed" and repeatedly stated she didn't know how she had "gotten like this" (Lancs Live again). Nicola also stated that she had lost weight due to her alcohol use (I wonder if she was making a joke in saying this, as in, "Well, it's helped me lose weight"?) Nicola also said she was tired and wanted to go to sleep.
- Louise stated at the inquest that she thought January 10th was "a bit of a wake-up call" for Nicola and that she "started to get back to normal after that." She also said Nicola was "fuming" about the welfare call and that she thought Louise had overreacted in making the call.
- The head injury is barely mentioned at the inquest. Leevy says it was recommended Nicola see the doctor on the 11th (Why? What of the head injury was discussed that night?)
- Nicola's GP, Dr. Gray, stated at the inquest that Nicola attended a walk-in clinic on January 11th due to an "injury to the back of the head after a fall" (LEP) and had apparently complained of dizziness and vomiting. She was then sent to A&E and received a CT scan, which came back normal.
- Leevy stated she was "unable" to make a judgment about Nicola's mental health on January 10th, but was "confident" Nicola didn't need "immediate further assistance" (LEP again).
Mentions of January 10th During the Search
It's important to remember that of course January 10th wasn't mentioned to the press at all by partner, family, or friends during the search. More than that—her father actually suggested in newspaper interviews that Nicola did not have any health or mental health issues prior to going missing, and her sister and mother did not go against that publicly. Her father stated, "She's done this a thousand times"—dropped her daughters at school and walked Willow in the fields. (Bears repeating: Not exactly the habit of someone with a drinking problem.) In newspaper interviews her father said, "Her mind was great":
In the Sky TV interview with the family (below), her sister seemed to want to emphasize the fact that everyone has to "keep an open mind," with the same refrain as Nicola's partner that there was "no evidence" of any particular "scenario." Having possessed knowledge of January 10th—according to inquest testimony, she is the one who placed the welfare call—this is a bit of an odd thing to say, but I think what Louise meant is that Nicola might have just gone off somewhere. She did not herself seem to be suggesting foul play, in my opinion, but rather just that Nicola might not have gone into the river—accidentally or on purpose. We then get a bigger hint about January 10th when her sister suggests that Nicola might have "taken herself off for whatever reason," and later in the interview she makes a plea of, "If you're out there..."
But for her sister to suggest we had to keep an open mind about "every" scenario has stuck with me. It feels as if someone else was trying to push that narrative of "vanished," "it's just impossible," "we just have no idea," etc., onto her, especially since the idea of placing the welfare call was pushed onto her. If you knew about January 10th, which you did, surely you have some idea what could have happened to Nicola. Same goes for the person who apparently asked Louise to make the welfare call on the 10th.
Nicola's father, I feel, was more open to the prospect of foul play. He said to media that he thought someone might have "taken her." To me, this suggests that he might not have known about January 10th at all, meaning neither Nicola, her sister, nor Paul mentioned this to him or Dot. We can't know that for a fact, but all of her father's comments taken together, it seems to me that he was far less convinced the disappearance had something to do with Nicola's mental state. Again, who was influencing him in these early days? What was being said, or not being said, about January 10th, drinking habits, HRT medication, etc., for him to think foul play was a bigger possibility?
January 10th was also not mentioned by Supt. Sally Riley in her press interviews or in any of her press conferences. In fact (thank you to Neya for pointing this out on Twitter many months ago), when asked about health issues and "medication" by a reporter at the February 3 press conference—the same day as the Skipool Creek forensic search, the first Fitbit mention, and the corrected clothing description—Riley shook her head before the reporter had even finished asking his question and said, "We're not considering—clearly we've considered the whole picture but that is not relevant at this time, no." 😵💫
That answer can be heard in this timestamped clip:
January 10th was first mentioned (sort of) when Mark Williams-Thomas alluded to it in television interviews on February 16th, after the police's "vulnerabilities" release on the 15th. We're able to piece all this together so easily because of how well Irish Eyes documented everything in her videos, so please watch the full videos if you haven't yet. MWT said on February 16th that he told the police the following, on the morning of February 15th:
Listen, I've got information that something has gone on within the family environment, that there have been emergency services at the address. What are you going to do about this? Can you please confirm that that's true or not?
(Watch the clip of those comments in Irish Eyes' video.)
It was clear for me many months ago from MWT's Twitter (he's since deleted certain tweets about it) that he was the one responsible for forcing the police's hand at the February 15th press conference. (Our favorite troll Christine LeBrocq actually pointed this out on Twitter multiple times.) But my question is: Where did MWT get the information about January 10th from? Was it from "family," trying to make the police (and clearly also Nicola) look bad, as Irish Eyes has suggested? It could be. But then we have a different interview from February 16 on Talk TV where MWT says this:
It's amazing the amount of people who've provided me with information over the last 48 hours, telling me exactly what her state of mind was and what was going on.
(Watch the clip of those comments in Irish Eyes' Part Two video.)
Who, pray tell, were the "people" who told MWT these things? And why was none of this mentioned by anyone before February 15? Were the multiple friends who made dozens of media appearances all instructed by the police not to mention vulnerabilities? Doing this out of respect for Nicola I can understand, but shouldn't it have been part of the strategy of finding her?
The "High-Risk" Designation
It's also important to consider that, all credit to Neya again, we don't know when Nicola was actually classified as "high-risk." Lancashire Constabulary's Lawson claimed on February 15th that it was done "immediately," with SIO Smith being brought in on January 30th when Nicola still hadn't been found by that Monday. But I agree with Neya that it's possible this high-risk effort was all patched up and cobbled together much later. In any case, it's highly likely to me that the "recording information in police systems" failures of the police officer who was in attendance on January 10th (per IOPC) resulted in delays of some kind. For instance:
- Perhaps the investigating team didn't know about January 10 at all for a day or several days (this would of course mean PA didn't tell them about it when he first called 999 to report Nicola missing)
- Perhaps the investigating team knew some details, but not others, e.g. the head injury detail, or some other very pertinent detail, was not recorded into the police systems following the January 10th visit
- Perhaps the police/January 10th team were supposed to follow up with Nicola or family after January 10th to see if the situation ("situation") had improved, and never did. Or, they did follow up, but failed to record that they had.
The point here is that something was missed regarding January 10th. We know it was, otherwise the IOPC wouldn't have given Lancashire Police a slap on the wrist about it. And the lack of body-worn video that night (also per IOPC) means that the force, whenever they found out about January 10th, couldn't get an accurate sense of Nicola's state of mind on the 10th, nor could they observe the other people present and make any deductions about why the call was placed, when and why the head injury happened, and so forth. So not only did they apparently not have proper reporting about the night of January 10th, they didn't have video either. This is shocking, and it's almost as if it was all deemed irrelevant to the investigation because it had to be. There was no proper chain of custody around the 10th so the police just tried to sweep it under the rug.
When I re-read the IOPC's non-update from August 2, my initial thought was, "Well, maybe they realized the January 10th call was unnecessary, that there was nothing to be concerned about." But there was a goddamned head injury that required a CT scan the next day. Even if there hadn't been a head injury, you'd need to make a note that you thought the person(s) who had placed the call were overreacting, or even trying to paint the subject of the welfare call in a certain light. Arguably, if you thought that was true, you'd want to take further action on behalf of the subject to protect them, or find out more.
But there was a head injury. So what actually happened? What did the attending team actually think about this? What time of day did she hit her head, and how? Did Nicola actually say that she slipped and fell, as her friend Nadia claimed? And who told Nadia that? It's worth stating what might be obvious to some: Victims of DV often lie about the source and cause of their injuries. Did the attending team probe this at all to find out how the injury happened? Did the injury have anything to do with drinking? How come none of these questions were asked at the inquest? Again, Nicola died 17 days later.
Also pertinent to January 10th, we have "she's struggling" apparently uttered by PA to Anne-Marie over the phone on January 27th. We know that the police were given a lengthier version of "she's struggling" when PA called them just minutes later. We know this because of SIO Smith's comments regarding the vulnerability "information given to us by her partner Paul" at the February 15th press conference. But I have more questions about that. When was that information given to them? Was it during the initial 999 call, or later, once all the (available) details about January 10th were examined by the investigating team, perhaps forcing PA's hand?
Shifting Party Lines
The initial public party line disseminated to friends and family and by friends and family, all keeping the January 10th incident under wraps, was essentially, Anything could have happened. She could be anywhere. And the party line disseminated by police via Sally Riley was seemingly identical to that, up until February 15th. Health issues, mental health issues? That is not relevant at this time, no.
Privately, the party line was apparently that Nicola was suicidal. A large "amount of people" knew all about January 10th—or rather, what certain people were claiming about January 10th—per MWT. Her partner revealed third-hand that Nicola "didn't want to be here" on January 10th, and that she was "struggling" on January 27th. Going off HRT and drinking "only ended up causing this crisis" (remember that was a direct quote from the "family" in a statement released via police on February 16th).
Then the party line changed again on June 26th and 27th, at the inquest. In my view, all of a sudden it was that Nicola had been "full of beans" (which is in line with what her father said at the very beginning of the search). January 10th was overblown, holiday drinking and HRT issues were a "blip," and oh, just kidding, she actually went back on the HRT, my bad, there was no crisis, never mind, erm, can we get the life insurance money now? It is very hard for me to see this turn of events any other way.
Is it any wonder that the force, the media, private investigators and the public have been running around like chickens with their heads cut off for the past eight months? If you throw spaghetti at the wall, tell us that anything's possible, you send thousands of people in thousands of different directions. It doesn't matter how experienced, intelligent and discerning those people are. You have successfully confused and exhausted people so that they no longer know up from down. It is the police's job to see through such machinations. If not them, then a private investigator such as Mark Williams-Thomas. But he suddenly stopped caring about the truth on day two of the inquest, and seemingly the only ones left who do care are us. What ghouls we are!