On January 10
Yesterday was a year since the event that is, in my view, inextricably linked to Nicola Bulley's death. An event that still has so little clarity: Who made the 999 call that night? Her sister, as reported at the inquest, or her partner, as reported by the College of Policing? Two sides of the same coin. A counterfeit coin, until proven otherwise.
Which is the truth? This one:
...Or this one?
The two people involved in January 10 are also the two people who broke down at the inquest to such an extent that the proceedings had to be paused. Even her parents in the unfathomable grief of losing a child somehow managed to hold it together. So the guilt about January 10 must have been immense: That they hadn't done enough that night? That they'd done too much? Or something else? Are those two united in their guilt, or do they come at it from different places?
Why does it appear that Nicola's parents were kept in the dark about January 10 for so long? And why they didn't know that her disappearance had been graded "high-risk" until they heard about it in the February 15 press conference, along with the rest of the world? In the College of Policing report, it is stated that the four FLOs were "deployed" to the family on February 15 following the Smith/Lawson press conference in part to ensure that Nicola's parents knew the "factual" information about January 10. So they hadn't before?
Why confuse Nicola's parents, or keep them in the dark, for nearly three weeks—more than a month if you count from January 10—and when Nicola was still missing? Hope must have been fading. And yet at no point between January 27 and February 15 did LC or PA think it necessary to relay information to Nicola's and LC's own parents that might have some bearing on why or how Nicola went missing (and likely did)? Not to mention the fact that Lancashire Constabulary also didn't bother explaining about January 10 to the parents until mid-February. This is truly baffling. Actually, it's enraging.
Did January 10 factor in to the decision to grade Nicola high-risk within 27 minutes of the 999 call on the 27th? If it did, when did it? If the IOPC slapped the attending officer from January 10 on the wrist about issues with "recording information in police systems," that suggests the call handler and the district response inspector didn't actually have the January 10 information on hand when they made that designation on the 27th just before 11:30am. The CoP report states that it was the review of the information provided by PA on the 999 call of January 27 that warranted the upgrade to high-risk. No mention of January 10 at all:
So apparently the information PA provided on the 27th call—that Nicola was "suffering from mental health, had been experiencing the menopause, and had been suffering from depression" was enough. More than enough. They were immediately dead-set on the river theory, feeling that Nicola must have been "ill or injured." And near a body of water! Well then, case closed.
No mention of alcohol on that January 27 call, it seems. That would come later, only once everyone's hands were forced about January 10. And the forcing of hands was thanks not only to Mark Williams-Thomas, but apparently a great "amount of people" in the community that, in Mark's words, knew "exactly" what had been going on, and had either told him or were prepared to. Mark stated this in a TV interview on February 16.
To this day, we still don't know "exactly" what had been going on. But people were clearly ready to let Mark in on it. And that is why the "threatening to sell stories" line came out from "the family"—remember it wasn't the whole family, as her parents didn't even know the "correct factual detail" about January 10 until after the February 15 press conference had been held. Then the full extent of the "vulnerabilities" ended up being released. Not just because Mark was trying to sit down with PA for an interview, but, I think, because other locals were going to contribute to whatever piece or video Mark was planning to put out. The tantrum thrown here was, I believe—and as others have also said on X—because the "stories" locals had shared with Mark were in contradiction to what PA himself was going to share—about January 10, but also possibly about other things that had gone on that locals had been privy or witness to.
With this conjecture in mind, suddenly it makes more sense why PA did not appear alongside the family for their Sky News interview of February 2. Why he appeared caught off guard when he was approached by a different Sky News reporter near the river search HQ, the tennis club, on February 3. In my view, he had not been planning to do an on-camera interview at all, and was trying to distance himself publicly from Nicola's parents because he knew things about January 10 (and possibly other events) that he hadn't shared with them.
He was also trying to remain out of the spotlight because of the bruise on his face. (Hence a voice memo statement to Sky News a few days later, instead of a public appearance.) You could say the hat pulled extremely low, trying to cover a fairly fresh blue bruise under his right eye, the right side of his face turned slightly away from the camera, was why he appeared so cagey when the Sky reporter first approached him with a camera. But he conceded to an interview, first saying he didn't have anything to add beyond what the family had said in their interview the day before. He then proceeded to speak freely about "no ev," about how he couldn't even "think about" how he was feeling, and then laughed while saying, "We don't have anything else, do we?" As we all know by this point, the Sky reporter had to remind him that he also had "hope." He then fell all over himself to make clear that, oh, right, "we" have hope and are "never ever gonna lose" it. Who's "we," when you wouldn't even sit down with the rest of the "us" for an interview, and present a united front, as most innocent families of missing people do?
If even one person in the area knows more, and was prepared to tell Mark Williams-Thomas more, it also makes sense why PA has decided to sell the home and move. Yes, it's reasonable to sell this house given the cost of financing it on one income, probable life insurance payout notwithstanding. But moving—we don't know where to—given everything else, feels like yet another red flag.
It's worth noting that, if not for so many red flags in this case, January 10 could be seen as an escalation of prior health or mental health events. In my view, if this had been the first occurrence of Nicola allegedly "not wanting to engage," PA's message to LC should have been something like, "Can you come over and help with the girls tonight? Nicola's not feeling well." Not, "I need you to call an ambulance for your sister."
But on January 10, Nicola also told the mental health professional, Theresa Leevy, "I don't know I got like this," meaning—in Leevy's estimation at least—"intoxicated." Indeed, at 7:30pm you have to wonder what had gone on for Nicola to be in this state, and to say so early in the evening, after a brief private conversation with Leevy, that she was tired and wanted to go to bed.
After the welfare team had gone, did LC stay over? Or did she come back the next day? She stated at the inquest that she stayed at the house for a few days, until the 13th. But we don't know if she actually stayed the night of the 10th, or came back the next day, and again, we don't know when Nicola's head injury occurred or how it occurred, only that it occurred on the 10th and she received an assessment for it on the 11th. PA was apparently not asked to speak about the head injury at the inquest, and nor was LC. I believe that's all by design—the family solicitors' design. But it's a crucial piece of information. All we have is friend NF saying Nicola "told" her that she slipped on the floor after coming inside with her wet dog. Do you believe that's the full story? I don't.
And were the children there to witness the dramatic intervention of January 10? It was a Tuesday night, so I can't imagine they were sleeping elsewhere, and at 7:30pm, the best case scenario is that they had just gone to bed. To me, that night would have to have been incredibly serious to subject your children to the traumatic event of three strangers and an ambulance showing up at their house. The other possibility is that the caller(s) didn't give a damn about the effect it would have on the children, and/or actually wanted to set the scene in front of the children that their mother was "struggling," or an unfit parent.
If someone is unwilling or unable to engage, is tired and wants to go to bed at around 8pm, and is suffering from nausea, vomiting, and a head injury, it's not unreasonable to suspect that the person may have been drugged. But there's so little to go on here. We don't even know what Nicola told the walk-in clinic or the A&E staff about the head injury when she had it looked at on the 11th. And at the inquest, the whole thing was downplayed. LC admitted that she may have overreacted, but also that, in her view, January 10 was a "wake-up call" for Nicola. That's easy to say when LC apparently had not been any kind of confidant to her sister, despite professing they had a close relationship. It's possible Nicola did not feel able, or safe, or comfortable, or ready to share with her sister what might have really been going on. LC did not hear anything about Nicola "not wanting to be here" firsthand. She knew she had gone off and on HRT at least once and that Nicola had complained of the side effects. If Nicola was planning on leaving her relationship, and/or had suffered from DV, and/or was feeling suicidal, it seems LC wasn't made privy to any such information. Or much else. If LC knew anything from other sources, she wasn't prepared to share it in TV interviews or at the inquest.
This leaves me feeling, as usual, so desperately sad for Nicola. If she felt she couldn't share more about what was going on for her, she would feel even less so after January 10. She was "furious" at LC and must have felt ganged up on after the 10th. Did she have anyone she could confide in, that she could trust? Who hadn't been tainted by questionable others?
I believe there is someone out there. But that someone is up against an inquest verdict, a College of Policing report, and a dead ACC, and a retired SIO, and a partner that Lancashire Constabulary felt the need even in June of last year to "safeguard." Collectively, all these statements and reports and deaths are telling those in the know: Nothing to see here. It's all been swept under the rug and we're going to keep it there at all costs.
So may us continuing talking about this, rehashing old information and zeroing in on new details, be a daily reminder to those in the know of the undeniable mess and injustice that has taken place. You know it, I know it. And if we don't keep talking about it, it's going to happen again. It probably already has.