Thoughts On Eddy's Latest Theory
If you haven't yet watched Eddy's latest video, "I'm Sorry Nikki," which he claims is his definitive theory on Nicola's case, watch and then read this post later, as I don't want to take away from all the work he's done by summarizing and commenting unless you've watched it first.
I don't agree with Eddy's theory at all, and I hope that—as he hints later on in the video—he and Grandad will be back to do more videos, keep up the good fight, and perhaps reconsider this idea he's just put forth.
Let's start at the end and work backwards.
Near the end of the video, Eddy addresses PA and says, "You’re guilty of not being a very nice person to Nicola" and "You're guilty of not being a good man to Nicola. I’m not going to go into detail but I think you know exactly what I mean."
I think Eddy has tried his best through correspondence with Nikki's family to uncover more about the relationship and what might have gone on—beyond the pretty much nonexistent details shared at the inquest—but apparently he didn't succeed on that front. He said he "couldn't get a straight answer" from Nikki's sister. That's clearly the family's prerogative, but as far as exploring that angle of things, we're in the dark—save for these extremely eye-opening statements to PA that Eddy has just thrown out. Taken in conjunction with that strange (arguably unnecessary) welfare call on January 10, how can we possibly overlook this angle? What else does Eddy know that caused him to the say the above, and how could he ignore it in favor of a theory that puts the blame elsewhere, on Penny?
Some other reasons I don't agree with Eddy's theory:
Susan's role
Eddy's theory includes thinking that Susan Jones came to tie the dog up before 10am upon a request from Penny. But Susan's husband Roger was also arriving to the fields around this time. So did they come in together? See each other? Talk to each other face to face? Eddy doesn't quite join the dots there. And a witness named Norma Kershaw said she saw Susan arriving to help her husband around 10:20. I don't think Susan had anything to do with tying the dog up, and was not pressured into sticking to some story by Penny. And remember that Susan was the person who said she'd heard PA say, "She's struggling" to Anne Marie when Anne Marie first contacted him that morning. I suppose to fit to Eddy's theory Susan could have made up and inserted that detail later to throw suspicion off all of them, but I don't believe that's what happened. If so, wouldn't PA have refuted saying that at the inquest when it was brought up? He just let it be.
I agree that the time until PA and police arrived was egregiously long, and I have suspicions about that. For one thing, how did the missed calls and WhatsApp text from PA not allow the people at the bench to identify the phone sooner? Why didn't they pick up any of the calls? Is it because they left the phone on the bench when they briefly took Willow to the caravan park? And if so, how convenient that ALL of those calls and the text came in when the phone was alone on the bench and everyone was at the caravan site. That in itself is a huge unexplained red flag to me.
But I don't agree that these people were all colluding together on an alibi after one of them watched someone die and float away down a river after an argument over dogs.
Penny's whereabouts
Penny was seen and heard on Allotment Lane CCTV at 9:23am going toward the fields. So how could she be at the bench before that time? In order to be arguing with Nicola while Nicola was using her volume and side buttons at 9:18, which Eddy claims?
Dogs off leash
Penny and Nicola probably saw each other all the time. Did Penny bother regulars like Nicola about dogs off leash? Eddy's concept of "road rage without cars" I get, completely, I just think it's highly implausible as far as a means to accidentally cause Nikki's death, and it's getting a little too close to a theory that Grizzly was trying really hard to push, via the "family friend," early in the case. More on that further down this post. But I question the primary source of that theory. Yes, the caravan park has some bad reviews about dogs. But does it go farther than that, into manslaughter territory? In my opinion no, for all the reasons stated here.
Physical strength
Peter Faulding said months ago in an interview that significant, really significant, force would be required to launch Nicola into the river such that she would not be able to climb to safety. In my opinion, Penny wouldn't be strong enough to push Nikki with enough force that she’d fall into deep water and not be able to get out.
Walking away
There is no way most humans on Earth would just stand there and watch someone drown and then walk away, no matter how angry you might have (theoretically) been at the person moments before.
No one else has acted on this theory
During the search, the "family friend" was constantly feeding information to Grizzly True Crime that drew a ton of scrutiny toward the caravan people. If that was warranted, and PA believed that then, or now, why wouldn’t he be more suspicious, or angrier, or continue to try to do something about it? They all live in the same area. Why didn't he use the inquest to dig into that angle, or pressure the police to? Why is he just adding babes on Instagram and seemingly rapidly moving on with his life? Another reason I don't think this theory is plausible. It was an angle to throw out there at the time, via the "friend," but it became less useful as time went on, in my opinion.
The obvious questions remain
If she was pushed into the river, how was Nicola not seen or found for 23 days? And, because I can't help myself, how did the Fitbit last until February 4 in cold water and be recoverable after that date?
+ + +
I hope Eddy will elaborate and say more. I don't think this is the end for his analysis of the case. It can't be. I feel there is so much that went on behind closed doors that we are not privy to, but that Eddy might be slightly more privy to, based on what he said in this video and the previous one (and many others!) It's this angle that needs to be explored more. Because the chances of a deadly altercation with Penny about dogs off leash after a welfare call 17 days earlier is a bit like lightning striking twice in the same place.
Your thoughts?