|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Mar 25, 2023 1:23:53 GMT -5
Foul Play? This opening post will give only a brief intro to the case as the main focus will be on Nicola Bulley's partner of 12 years, Paul Ansell. To get a grip on the case, one needs to acquire knowledge of road names and such in the area where she lived and disappeared, known as St Michael's on Wyre. Also the topography of the land where River Wyre cuts through has become important, especially since her body was later found in that river. Important dates are: January 10, 2023, "concern for welfare" call at family residence 1. January 23, 2023, Nicola disappeared. February 19, 2023, body found in River Wyre. February 20, 2023, body confirmed to be that of Nicola Bulley. I've been keeping an eye on this case since the news about Nicola Bully's disappearance broke. Most so-called true crime YouTubers immediately went berserk with speculation, which I'm not particular interested in. What did peek my interest was the location that might be considered the crime scene, or staged crime scene: a bench facing a slow flowing stream (part of River Wyre), her phone left on the bench, her dog's harness on the ground and....the dog 2 itself. Up until her disappearance, which is believed to be just past 9am, she was connected to a MS Teams conference call while walking the dog along the river, camera off and microphone muted. She also texted or emailed a friend about an upcoming event. The phone was still on Teams when found, although the conference had been terminated, which suggests that she was literally stopped in her tracks. Nicola's partner, Paul Ansell, was supposedly in their home when he received a telephone call from the school where Nicola had dropped their two daughters at (aged 6 and 9) as the part of the regular school run. He was told something strange was going on because their dog had been found running lose. He immediately took off in his own car and on the way to the gated area 3 called law enforcement to report Nicola missing. Nicola would leave the car in the parking lot and immediate begin walking the dog, which had been riding along in the back of her SUV. She is assumed to have proceeded along a well traveled road to a gate leading to a recreational area. Nicola would normally loop this green area and exit through the same gate. The aforementioned bench was just inside of this gate. Basically, two possibilities presented themselves to the police: 1/ Nicola somehow entered the river and drowned. Consequently, her body was carried downstream and could be washed into the sea or trapped somewhere along the way. 2/ She wondered off on her own accord or was forcefully removed from the area. Exploring scenario one, LE quickly launched a search of the river by professionals. Absolutely the right call, IMO, as this could save a lot of resources in case she was found in the river within a day or two, which was very likely if an accident had occurred in the bench area. However, they couldn't rule out the second possibility. This is where LE performed less brilliantly when it came to collecting CCTV and dash cam footage, possibly combined with a misunderstood timeline. I'll ascribe this mainly to lack of local knowledge, but will not elaborate further in this post. What really caught my attention was two interviews with Paul Ansell. A short one at the bench right after Nicola's disappearance, and a second, longer one sometime later, but prior to her body being recovered from the river. Both interviews in part were covered by one of my favorite YouTubers, Face Body Reading. I'll link to both assessments in upcoming posts and add my own statement analysis. _______________
1 Talk about red flag! 2 A Springer Spaniel named Willow.
3 I'm not sure if he actually went to the school first to check on her car, which he claims to be his initial plan when got worried about her not returning as expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Mar 25, 2023 8:58:29 GMT -5
Diversion Detected? Paul Ansell analysis preceded by a short recap, followed by my comments on his language usage.
@3:51 Actually his whole attention, which makes sense if he knows she's already dead. RED FLAG. The slight pause just before "our two girls": was he about to say my to girls? Putting "any focus into anything else" is a strange suggestion considering that his eminent problem should be the disappearance and possible drowning of his partner. RED FLAG.
@4:15 "Just....", as opposed to wasting time on Nicola. It's quite obvious where his attention is directed, or, where he want's you to believe his attention is focused. "Just" is a SA classic, indicating that something else is really on his mind, like when and how Nicola will be recovered.
@4:20 Surely some bad acting going on, and why does he again need to emphasize being scared of directing focus at the search for Nicola or is something else on his mind? Note that he offers no specifics as to what that focus might be.
@5:30ish Looks like he's trying to deliver a prepared statements that doesn't work for him in front of the reporter. He's winging it from there.
@5:35 Ok, so this interview is a week on since her disappearance.
@6:00 Note how he doesn't offer any specifics of what he doesn't understand or what doesn't make sense.
@6:09 "Just seems...just....like a dream....", repeated use of "just' when it's not needed. Plus all those scenarios. By using the abstraction "scenario", he avoids any reference to specific evidence or locations, why?
@6:52 Great catch. Cuts himself of saying "evidence". But evidence of what? Massive blunder, as he couldn't complete his sentence without referring to some incident, thus exposing guilty knowledge.
@7:00 "All we're doing...". But he's not actually doing anything except for taking care of the kids, right?
@7:15 The interviewer has blindly bought Paul's story about the girls, feeding it back to him, adding that's how it has to be! Of cause Paul immediately latches on, scoring a small victory. Bad journalism!
@7:45 Well, he just told how he's coping: Just(!) keeping his eyes on the girls.
@8:13 Offering Paul a way out, heartwarming...
@8:55 Genuine grin seems out of placed, RED FLAG.
CONCLUSION:
I get bad vibes from this dude. Several red flags and a noticeable blunder. He distances himself from Nicola using abstractions even though there is what must be considered physical evidence surrounding the bench and her phone. This pattern continues in his next, much longer interview. I have no doubt that he possesses guilty knowledge of Nicola's disappearance and he knows that she'll not return alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Mar 27, 2023 0:49:40 GMT -5
A 30-minute Case Breakdown by MindShock
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Mar 30, 2023 6:02:06 GMT -5
This analysis by FBR concerns the second interview with Paul Ansell and you'll find my comments below the video as usual, this time to sync with the original interview. For the purpose of studying PA's facial expressions the interview is slowed down to half speed. This can be tedious to deal with if you just want to hear PA's natural intonation. A quick way of achieving this is to temporarily switch to double playback speed.
I've linked to the full interview in the footnotes1, although that's edited too. I'll do another post on the parts not covered by FBR as there's more to be learned from those remaining parts of the interview. Especially towards the end where he begins to suffer micro meltdowns while discussing possible marriage. Detailing future plans involving a dead partner just doesn't work!
@2:37 CH52 @16.36, "For me...".
@4:55 CH5 @17:10, "People don't...".
@6:10 CH5 @17:40, "My plea now...".
@7:52 CH5 @18:50, "Just pleading...".
_______________ 1 Actual Channel 5 interview: LINK 2 Indicates time in actual Channel 5 interview. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Mar 30, 2023 9:50:21 GMT -5
A 30-minute Mixed Bag of Reddit Rumors & Rabbit Holes by MindShock
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Apr 3, 2023 1:24:50 GMT -5
Channel 5 interview with Paul Ansell -- PART I
This longer interview, embedded below, was apparently put together from four segments. It's packed with stuff to analyze, so I'll deal with the interview the way it was originally segmented. This means there will be four parts and this post is the first of four.
@0:00 Note heavy breathing. Needs plenty of oxygen to burn the adrenaline rush while trying to appear calm. @0:10 "Um, hell...". Nobody to my knowledge has been to Hell and returned to tell how it was. He immediately uses generalized terms like hell, no specifics like lack of sleep or exhaustion.
@0:14 "I am...still here, obviously". Yes, obviously, so why do we need being told that? And what was the alternative he needed to think about before stating the obvious?
@0:18 Begins children rant, as we've seen previously.
@0:22 "...always has been". So, his main focus was never Nicola, me may infer, until the kids were born, or? Was this an embedded confession that explains why they were never married? (more on this later in the interview) @0:30 Repeats focus on children, then adds "but", indicating a contradiction, which turn into some nonsense about what "you", the audience, can't do. This involves "because", now trying to justify why you, the audience, can't know what he's feeling. Unfortunately he, who should know, can't explain it either! We're one minute into the interview and Paul Ansell is already talking nonsense -- this is bad, and was also noted to FBR in his assessment.
@0:30 BTW, why is his focus 45 degrees off to the right as per hand gesture? Looks more like a diversion, as normal people would focus straight ahead. Incongruent, as FBR would say. I suspect this is really a Freudian slip since his actual focus is somewhere else. @1:00 Note "situation", another abstraction. The Ramseys (Jonbenet case) used the same type of phrasing, distancing themselves from what was actually murder. @1:10 Anger, frustration, confusion, disbelief, surrealism. OK, took him a while to come with the list. Anger comes first, but do you see any anger displayed? @1:35 Mentions a show1 I'm not familiar with...honestly feels he's gonna wake up any moment. So, what should happen when he wakes up? Why does his analogy go nowhere instead of waking up and Nicola walks in the door? Again, he seems to be extremely ill prepared and his explanations just fizzle out. @2:00 He and Nicola's sister are "good people" just going about their lives. Does this include Nicola? Nice trick involving the sister to get an appraisal.
@2:10 "Appreciate the small things...". He's now winging it, trying to sell some BS story like they're straight out of some EastEnders episode. I'll say with confidence, two minutes into the interview, that Paul Ansell is faking it big time. @2:20 Note micro expression displaying disgust while referring to what you see on the telly. He wants to be associated with dramas he honestly believes are trash! @2:25 "The woman that you love...", but haven't yet mentioned! This turns into another rant about kids.
@2:38 "It's impossible2, um...". Buying time, since he would have to answer questions asked by the kids. He knows the answers given, so what's the problem?
@2:43 Meltdown! Played back at a quarter speed, one hears how Paul flip-flops between "I" and "any" while touching nose. He can't decide whether to tell what he told the girls or deflect. He's basically running out of processing power to compose the sentence while struggling with a deflection plan. Classic RED FLAG.
@2:50 His plan is to state the obvious and wing it from there: Who wouldn't make everything better for their children?
@3:10 Appearing not to worry doesn't answer their questions...
@3:24 "Reassure them as much as I can with, you know, with what... [disgust displayed]... with what we know, which isn't much...". So who is "we", and how do you assure somebody with speculation? Again, he's trying to wiggle his way out, but can't build a sentence that even makes sense.
@3:28 Strong display of disgust associated with "what we know". Is this really referring to something or someone Nicola was involved with?
@3:40 Playing mind games with the kids don't prevent them from asking the obvious questions.
@3:45 Interviewer to the rescue, but....he asks an even more specific question, dang!
@3:50 BTW, notice who the dog prefers!
@4:00 Again, "impossible situation". So his deflection failed, and he restates the "impossible" nonsense but does come up with one answer (which is likely true), however, a 9-year-old can figure out that if mum didn't drown in the river, she either left or was taken. Even worse, the girls might tie the "concern for welfare incident" to Nicola's disappearance, and may even blame themselves, believing they were the reason she left. It's evident to me that Paul doesn't want to go anywhere near that "situation".
@4:14 "Just, just to give them that..., you know, that level of hope...". Just, so what else should he tell them that can't be disclosed? Level of hope? Strange that he operates with different levels of hope, very removed from what a kid would consider. Once again, we're back to his "find her" mantra, with no specifics on his own opinion. All word salad.
@4:30 Nikki, face on a poster, but now Paul has to tell us what she is like! @4:40 "She...is...um...fun...". Imagine you were asked the same question, would you hesitate as well? Probably, that why I wouldn't call that out as suspicious. Whatever he answers, he would be criticized for being too much over the top or not showing affection. However, classic statement analysis tells one to look for the order, revealing priorities. "Fun" was the best he could come up with. @4:44 "Loving", comes in second. Toward him, animals, everyone? @4:47 "Loyal", was almost 3rd on his list, but notice how he cuts himself off and qualifies loyalty to being with friends. So where does this leave the partner or husband? RED FLAG.
@4:55 "What you see is what you get", so what did the police see on January 10th?
@5:00 "Nothing's hidden", but what about that hand gesture like pulling a curtain back? @5:07 "...exceptional mum...", and as a partner? Rant continues about their children...
@5:15 "...goes above and beyond... I say--saying to Emma [White]... [hard swallow] the other day, I don't--I don't think she's been away from them like, for like more than one or two nights... ". Paul in trouble again while praising Nicola. Uses an idiom but can't finish the sentense, having verb issues and stutters. The hard swallow immediately after bringing up Emma is a huge RED FLAG to me. He brings up Emma to bolster his story and her name instantly triggers something in his mind that throws him off. @5:21 Hm, so in nine years, Nicola has not been away from the kids (or Paul?) more than one or two nights. Does anyone believe that story? If true, I'd say this can't be healthy to a relationship or is this a sneaky way of saying she couldn't be screwing around, meaning foul play related to cheating on him can be ruled out? @5:35 Pillar of strength. Took him some time to come up with that one, certainly not top of his list. Part II next...
_______________
1 OK, he must be referring to the 1998 movie The Truman Show.
2 How could it be impossible if he got help from the close knit family: BULLEY-FAMILY |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Apr 7, 2023 3:34:57 GMT -5
Channel 5 interview with Paul Ansell -- PART II
@6:04 Begins...
@6:15 Leading question, Paul instantly latches on. Even adds "totally", but then contradicts himself to explain it wasn't 100% normal. The classic SA normal factor to look out for...
@6:17 "The only difference...", lengthy explanation follows. Constantly appealing to the interviewer, "you know". Mayhem/carnage, a bit strange pick of words given the context. Interviewer clearly signaling he's onboard, trusting Paul's narrative.
@6:31 "Only difference...", it appears he didn't participate up until the kids and dog were put in the car. Interesting that would be the difference, so was she ahead of time? @7:15 Rolls may be reversed if it's his job, usually. Interesting, so was it usually Paul or usually Nicola who did the school run? it wasn't a 50-50 split? @7:20 Repeats that everything was normal, then breaks the chronology to explain his work routine involving US timezone difference.
@7:25 Begins to struggle, including stutter on pronoun "I", rubs his nose. He knows some explaining is needed further out the timeline involving his hour off, so to speak, and want's to prep the interviewer. Likely cognitive overload because he's juggling events from actual memory which must be filtered and modified to fit his narrative.
@7:30 "'cause", weird wording, as his work hours being 6 hours behind UK time doesn't change anything since they could swap roles for the school run. BTW, at 9am UK time it's 3am us time so nothing will happen until noon anyway. Also odd he'll leave for gym at noon when US is waking up and the early risers would expect him to be available. @7:50 An hour to himself, but what does he do during that hour? Was he even at home that morning or with somebody after Nicola left?
@7:55 He's now forced back into his narrative by the interviewer, note heavy breathing.
@8:10 Nicola is usually back at 10am, and that's when his workday starts. When does her workday start? Several signs of disgust, why is that?
@8:40 Talking to Emma or anybody. Would Nocola just talk to anybody? Almost like Paul instantly regrets bringing up Emma and reduces her to anybody. SA concept of minimizing. @9:00 10:30am is definitely late. Calls Nicola, also tries WhatsApp, no response.
@9:20 "getting a bit--bit panicky, I think". You don't think to get panicky, and plan to go to the gym. HUGE RED FLAG. @9:40 Gym stuff on! Why do we need to know that detail unless he knows that someone noticed him dressed in gym clothes before he was supposed to leave for the gym? Problem is that it doesn't make sense if he expected to return and continue working. This is probably what was on his mind earlier. @9:55 Does he say "we're", "were", or "was"? He was supposed to be alone so was this a slip-up?
@10:10 So who's we? @10:16 Nicola--Nikki...why correction?
@10:30 Just about to leave, so he's got his gym stuff on. Why the need to reinforce the gym stuff detail? Gonna see her, pass her, get there and find her. Slightly odd that he's already worried but gives us three options of "recovery". Logically, the first option, since it's already late, should be to pass her. To see her sounds like go seeing somebody. To "get there" implies he has a specific place in mind where to find her, but how does he know she even made it to the school? How about his: Call Emma, she was the first possible distraction Paul mentioned. I smell a rat!
@ 11:15 Mad panic, the kids? But he's not worried for the girls at all! @ 11:30 How would he know something "weird" had happened? @ 12:05 How did he obviously know something was wrong before arriving there? @ 12:30 Surprisingly quick? @12:50 Again, "found her", not her car coming up the drive, not walk in the door?
@13:10 Two weeks later, well rested, not looking overly concerned, you know!
SUMMARY, PARTS I & II
Halfway into the interview, and I already hear alarm bells ringing. Just 30 seconds into the interview, red flags pop up. Why is it the only option Paul allows for is that Nicola is found? Why is it that he never mentions how she might be feeling being away from the kids? Why is fun the best he could come up with to describe her?
The kids: I smell a rat. Paul's girlfriend, and mother of their daughters, vanished into thin air. The girlfriend disappeared but nothing happened to their daughters. His focus is now on the kids, really?
The gym clothes: huge problem! Why is he wearing his gym clothes "prematurely"? Why the need to serve us the noon gym trip on Fridays, unless wearing the gym stuff would appear out of place. Detective 101 would say get the gym log to verify his pattern. I see no reason to fabricate a pattern that is easily disproved. He may try to establish some kind of alibi related to CCTV footage, even his own!
Hypothetically, if Paul was involved in a scheme to make Nicola disappear, he might have left the house right after Nicola drove off, and expected to later show up at the gym as he usually would on Fridays. BTW, there is no evidence that Nicola was supposed to be home at 10am! This, hypothetically, could have triggered Paul to follow Nicola, kinda stalking her, and expected to return directly to the gym.
Others speculate some involvement of Emma White, Nicola's friend. Were in fact both of them messing around? Part III next...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Apr 10, 2023 2:18:35 GMT -5
Channel 5 interview with Paul Ansell -- PART III
@13:18 Straight forward question: what do you think (might have) happened? Result: Instant deflection! If that doesn't warrant a RED FLAG, I don't know what would. We're less than 10 seconds into the third part of the interview, and he does not want to tell us what the evidence tells him. Same recipe of talking BS using abstract terms like "options" and "avenue".
@13:40 Who asked them to push a specific scenario? BS. @13:43 However, he then immediately tells us which avenue we should not go down, based on his, and her sister's, and family's gut instinct! What happened, or didn't happen, now turned into a "thing". Extreme distancing continues.
@13:50 Despite the most obvious "thing" being the river [where she was eventually found], it's what he instinctively believes, as does everyone around him, that's not the case. His wording is very odd, telling us "it's the river", but rivers don't do stuff. Nicole is in the river, or she drowned in the river! Negation is another sign to raise your alertness when doing statement analysis. He knows what it's NOT as a gut feeling without referring to the evidence.
@14:10 Also stutters on pronoun "I", and he's now on a rant telling us how incredible the police has been, searching the river, where she's not.
@14:30 "But...", leading us to some kind of contradiction, presumably... @15:00 "The unlikeliness of it, you know...", hang in there... @15:00 WTF? @15:00 "Really, the--she--the--river isn't--isn't what happened...", BOOM. Where isn't she, or what didn't happen to her? If he knows she's not in the river, but later was found in the river, when was she dumped into the river? Paul was milliseconds from seriously slipping up.
@15:06 Sure, the river isn't what happened. Paulie continues talking nonsense in an attempt not to name Nicola and not using the word "drowning". Notice the "but" from way back @14:30 hasn't been resolved. He hasn't yet explained why the river search was wasted. @15:10 "So, we always felt the mobile phone and the harness, and everything, it could--it could possibly be a decoy". Well, it could only be a decoy if Nicola was not in the river, and thus had to be planted. Apart from not resolving the "but", he's finally launching a decoy theory, but very much backwards. What was "everything" about, since only the phone and harness (and dog) were found? @15:20 The interviewer stupidly tries to rescue Paul... @15:35 BS, if Paul was constantly thinking about the Teams call still being active, why doesn't he tell us his conclusion leading to the decoy theory? Nothing else matters, the only thing "we're" bothered about is finding her. Note the blatant contradiction (read: lie) as he seconds before told that he was constantly thinking about the decoy setup. "Bothered", not obsessed, does anyone besides me find "bothered" a strange word in this context?
@15:45 Finding her, finding her. Finding her alive, right? @16:00 Again, "it wasn't the river". @16:05 "Not nice talking about it...", well, you haven't actually said anything so far... @16:07 But, since no item of clothing or anything has been found anywhere. In the river or elsewhere?
@16:26 Interviewer helps Paul out again (fool), but note the "and--and--and..." massive stutter! Paul's flight instinct almost makes him jump out of the couch! I think all this waffling is about Nicola's car key not being found, and he possibly knows where it was dropped, or supposed to be dropped, as part of the decoy scheme.
@16:35 "For me, personally, ...", Face Body Reading covered this in my "Guilty Knowledge?" post, including the plea part. Since this should be a summary of his convoluted explanation, why does his mind seem to suffer a meltdown just restating the obvious about there being an explanation?
@18:07 "Because...for something to have happened there...", next attempt at the same explanation, Paulie is losing it. He's implying somebody local (which would include himself) must be involved, since a non-local would have been noticed. However, one can not infer the decoy objects were placed by a local.
@18:40 So let's hear why he agreed to the interview in the first place!
@18:50 The ingratiation thing, please, please. Anything, the smallest thing, could be the key to finding her. Now is the time to address the camera!
@19:06 "Because that is the--could be the key to finding her." I'll bet that was a Freudian slip right there, cutting himself off, but too late. How would he have knowledge of a tiny thing that is the key to finding her?
@19:10 Oh, and he forgot about the family! So he now has to throw something in, like, "we're not bothered about anything else (again), like, there's nothing else", which, unfortunately, 100% contradicts his own claim of totally focusing on the two daughters who he can't allow himself to take his mind off. Tripped himself up badly there, another RED FLAG. Part IV next...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Apr 24, 2023 15:15:25 GMT -5
Channel 5 interview with Paul Ansell -- PART IV
@19:20 Begins...interviewer revisits the idea of Nicola ever leaving for a night or two, you know! @19:27 Micro expressions...WTF? @19:30 "About as far out of character as you could get, you know, and I truly mean that...". Really? How about beating up the kids if they wet the bed? And if you said it, why wouldn't you mean it? All that unnecessary language to sell his story... @19:35 "Like...even as a couple, um, on the odd occasion if we ever do have a night away from the girls...", OK, so even as a couple, then what? @19:40 "cuz, the girls are our world, like, if we go out for meals the girls come with us, and...our whole... [interrupted]". Paulie talking nonsense again, failing to finish his sentence; because what? Obviously, the story he's pushing onto the public is that everything they do revolves around the girls. To me, it sounds like Nicola was obsessed with those kids, not what I would consider a healthy relationship. @19:50 "yeah, everything that we do is, um, the girls are in it, the girls are involved in it...". Like everything? @19:54 "um, and that's--that feels right, you know...", really? @19:57 "we luv it, we luv--we luv our little family, we luv our world... ", sure sounds like I would quickly suffocate in their lovely world, and could that be why Paul treasured his hour off following morning mayhem? @20:00 Willow, more "hell" ramblings. @20:08 "... what's happened, yet". Interesting that he expects to know in the future what happened, or does he already know? @20:43 "She's a very sensitive dog", so what, there is nobody to back up his story. @21:30 Social media. Sure, he has seen some stuff! I'll bet he's been all over the Internet to watch his reviews, as he certainly would have done following this interview, and that is probably why we haven't heard from him since. Only 2% contributing to the "not very nice things"? Putting all his energy into finding Nikki, but that doesn't work if he's 100% focused on the kids -- BS. @22:25 Look at the partner. Did he really anticipate that, or is this an ego thing to look smart? @22:44 "I said to them, um, do it, and--and get that out of the way, and then focus on... [stalls, cue by interviewer] on finding her and focus on the rest of it, so that was exactly what we did, you know. That was done, ruled out, obviously, um, and then... move on". There is no way LE would clear him on day one (even if they told him so) which tells me the guy is seriously delusional, and probably thinks he has fooled everybody. It wouldn't surprise me if Paul Ansell thinks he's some kind of genius. @23:15 Local response. Yada-yada. @23:50 Keeping it. Of course, of course, of course -- LOL. "Unprecedented hell", what strange wording, like he has decades of documented experience going through hell. BTW, it's not unprecedented that women have given up on their partners and died. @24:30 Marriage, confesses to procrastinating. However, the daughters are now 6 and 9, so he's quickly getting into some weird ramblings to rationalize getting nowhere with the marriage arrangements... @25:00 Why would it be obvious they discussed marriage before the kids arrived? When they did arrive, they were too time-consuming. Then they had to grow up in order to act as bridesmaids. Note how he's spinning this whole deal to give the impression they basically had decided to marry. @25:20 "And so... [breathing]... you know, it's just now, just now, um, you know, it's--it's something...would--we would obviously, you know, spoken about and--and--and move forward with again, but, and--and still will." Serious problems here for poor Paulie, missing pronouns and verbs while trying to buy time. Any sane person would have realized it's not just now there is a problem, as there's nothing to move forward again. Likewise, still suggests a continuation that's not there, since he has already written Nicola off. The "but" totally gives him away when he tries to nullify it with "still will". I'll count that as guilty knowledge, maybe even closer to a hidden confession. He didn't need a "but" if he believed they still will continue the planing. The "but" was needed because she's dead and the whole deal no longer makes sense. @25:40 Out there? Very weak response, talking about her, not to her. @26:25 She must come back. Interesting, this is the first time I've heard Paul suggest Nicola would return, but she remains a "she". @26:25 Deserves a happy ending. So what does Nicola deserve? SUMMARY, PARTS III & IV Paul Ansell didn't do any better in the remainder of the interview. We see the same pattern in this interview: there are at least three solid clues which he does not relate to. First, Nicola's phone on the bench, still connected to the Teams call. Second, the dog's harness left on the ground. Third, the dog itself being around the bench along with the fact that it had not been in the water. So, what is so confusing about that evidence? He's somehow 100% sure N is not in the river, but he can not qualify his belief based on the evidence. Why does he not at least share his thought process, inferring what the evidence tell him? If he can't even interpret the evidence right under his nose, why request more random search, in fact pleading for every house to be turned upside down? What bothers me the most is how he continues to talk nonsense about it not being the river. At a minimum, he could have argued that Nicola was fit, and a strong swimmer. His body language is indicative of severe stress. He almost leaves the couch a one time, and watching his micro-expressions @19:27, when asked about Nicola going away, is like his suffering an internal short. Could this be what she actually had planned, dumping him? His story building around their lovely little family and a decade of wedding planing screams fake to me. Big blunder when he enters the slippery slope of excuses for the wedding that never happened and how it's now definitively called off, despite his frantic claim that it's alive and well. The real question is: who stalled the marriage preparations? Was it him all along, being fed up with Nikki running the show, or had Nicola decided to dump him?
I'd say the icing on the cake is his delusional analysis of how he was cleared from the list of suspects in one day! I sincerely hope it's a ruse by LE to invite Paul to feel secure and then blunder. From what I've seen, he should be at the very top of the suspect list. However, it remains to be seen if LE is on top of things in this case, as they seem to have dropped the ball on a number of occasions. I sincerely hope the coroner was able to establish the cause of Nicola's death, and I expect this to be the kicker when it comes to conclude when she ended up in River Wyre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on May 1, 2023 5:55:27 GMT -5
Channel 5 interview with Paul Ansell -- Wrap-up From what I know, there will be a coroner's inquest in June. Without knowing the cause of death and the amount of time Nicola's body was submerged, there are too many unknowns to come up with a creditable theory of what happened to her on the day of her disappearance and the weeks following up until her recovery from River Wyre. However, based on my analysis of the half-hour interview with Paul Ansell, her partner, I'll predict foul play, and that he, at a minimum, possesses guilty knowledge of what happened to Nicola. My top five list of red flags raised during his interview, in order of importance, is > Recurring abnormal phrasing: "It's not the river" > The gym clothes > His finding her mantra > His lovely little family ramblings > Missed the opportunity to directly address Nicola on TV. Paul Ansell never substantiates why "it's not the river" but lets us deduce what he means, which probably is that Nicola did not accidentally drown in the river. We're in the squishy language department -- always a bad sign -- and he avoids any mention of Nicola's name in connection with river. He could simply have said that accidental drowning was most unlikely since Nikki was fit and a strong swimmer, done! Unnecessary details concerning his clothing and the need to explain how this came about. The worst part is that his explanation doesn't make sense. He's allegedly in a panic because Nicola hasn't returned from the school run, yet he is calm enough to do a little optimization concerning his clothing in anticipation of a later planned visit to the gym. Problem is that he told the interviewer that he expected to quickly locate Nicola and do a little work prior to leaving for the gym. If Nicola is not in the river, she must be somewhere else on dry land and could still be alive. Why then doesn't Paul appeal to people who could have seen her? Why must somebody know something if all they did was observe her? If Nicola fell into the river and drowned, nobody would need to know anything and no decoy was needed. Paul is 100% sure she's not in the river, so why does he state that LE is doing a great job based on the false assumption that no third party is involved? The rosy picture Paul paints of the 'luvely' family, enjoying the small things in life, kind of derails when he becomes entangled in a lengthy explanation as to why a church wedding never materialized. If they wanted to show commitment, a civil wedding could have been arranged with minimal effort, so somebody had a reason to stall the process. I could imagine that a church wedding meting Nikki's expectations wouldn't be exactly small! So what small things in life does Paul enjoy? Is all he has that precious one hour between 9 and 10 in the morning to himself? When given the opportunity to speak directly to Nicola on national TV, Paul has nothing to say. Could it be that addressing a dead body doesn't make sense? To be brutal, all we've got from Paul Ansell is 30 minutes of waffling. I've not commented on the video bit that was released (or leaked), allegedly showing Nikola preparing to leave in the morning, since nobody seems to know if it has been manipulated. However, even this footage is incongruent with Paul's claim of an unusual quiet morning, as the lady in the video (Nikki?) is clearly in a hurry to get in the driver's seat and leave.
Finally: Emma White, Nicola's friend. She's quickly moving up my red flag list. Something about Emma White is seriously triggering Paul. The Nicola-Emma-Paul mix concerns me, although it may not be directly linked to Nicola's disappearance. If Emma is worth mentioning as Nikki's #1 distraction, why doesn't Paul call her to inquire about Nikki prior to calling the police?
|
|
