Post by Tom Sorensen on May 31, 2023 9:17:21 GMT -5
Update and Observations by Face Body Reading
This is now an older update but still relevant with respect to the issues pointed out by FBR. The video covers several problems which I've also noted thus saving me from doing posts from scratch to address those problems. Below I've added my 2 cents worth.
Location of body
Several people have noted that Nicola's body was found close to where the river does a left turn. Just past the bend, the river continuing adjacent to a country road. This is the first stretch of river downstream from the bench area readily accessible from a road. The body was allegedly spotted from the road, caught in branches of a fallen tree on the river bank. The road happens to offer a lay-by lining up with the fallen tree, saparated by a 3 foot stone wall.
The obvious conjecture is that someone brought the body to the river by car and staged the scene, or attempted to drag the body into the water but failed to complete the task as there seems to be plenty of brush and reeds to negotiate. This is less than a mile away from the bench so I find it inconceivable that Peter Faulding would not have found the body if staging was not the case.
LE narrative
I've already commented on LE's initial blunder of ruling out 3rd party involvement, but the true initial blunder more likely was to assign two useless twats to the case: superintendands Sally Riley1 and Rebecca Smith.2 Let's have a closer look at the statement by Sally Riley linked in the footnote:
@0:08 This 9:10 confirmed sighting later turned out to be questionable.
@0:10 So where does the 9:20 time mark originate from, and how did she know (or "believed") the phone was on the bench at this time?
@0:20 Found on the bench @9:33, but note how she constantly has to refer to the paper in front of her; she's not confident with the timeline.
@0:25 Note gender neutral "witness"...same goes for additional witness references in the extended version -- I'll get back to this detail in another post.
@0:30 Swallows, clearly nervous, why?
@2:13 Note the stare, not comftable about the situation, trying to compose herself.
@0:55 The 10 minute window: that's a blatant lie! They in fact have no evidence of the phone being on the bench until 9:33. If the 9:10 "movement" turns out to be dubious, they have nothing. Superintendant Sally is mindlessly going by her talking points.
@1:11 Hard swallow. Why is she so nervious when she's dealing with a trivial missing persons case?
@1:12 Brutal. Poor Sally mistakenly infers that no footage showing Nicola leaving the river side area means she didn't leave the riverside area. Even worse, they have no evidence of her entering the riverside area to confirm the alleged sighting. This is proof that she doesn't understand the paper she's reading from.
@1:27 Mid-sentence hard swallow and shaking her head when claiming to encourage inquiries that question their assumption, meaning Nicola was at the riverside. I assume she misspoke when saying "inquiries". Isn't it law enforcement doing the inquiring, or does she unconsciously expect their conduct to be scrutinized? Her body language signals those "inquiries" are not welcome! "Understand" is another weird choice of words. She's kind of preparing for a future retreat from a simple drowning scenario where they can claim to have "misunderstood" the lack of evidence. Sally probably knows there will be trouble ahead!
@1:40 Sure, but without a body there's no way they can rule out a crime has been committed. Rookie mistake by LE and Sally now looks more like a PR nutjob than a superintendant. And why the need to stress how harmfull speculation is when she's actually fueling speculation by jumping to conclusion with no actual evidence? It only took a couple of minutes for superintendant Sally to disqualify herself as an investigator, impressive!
Moving on to hair-in-her-eyes superintendent, Rebecca Smith:
@0:00 The river was searched repeatedly3, also beyond the location where Nicola's body was later found, so this in itself warrants suspicion of 3rd party involvement. LE produced no CCTV footage to verify that Nicola entered the footpath.
@0:15 "...or leaving that field", which doesn't allow you to rule out anything.
@0:20 "However, ..." LOL.
@0:40 She doesn't have any factual knowledge of the incident, all she has are assumptions -- what a nitwit.
@0:50 Again, playing the vulnerability card, which is based on what she was told by "the family", who ever that is, but not actually verified AFAIK.
@1:00 Sure, three weeks later, and they didn't get anywhere.
@1:01 Wow, how is it "really obvious" they are being "inundated with false information"? WTF is she babbling about? It's their bloody job to sort out what are accusations and rumors and what are the facts -- this happens in any case. Or is she like preparing for some serious backpedaling when it surfaces how she bungled the case?
Confusing street names
Personal info released
It has been well documented by C2CR4 that LE couldn't even get the street name right when they requested dash cam footage. Somebody (LE?) even made Google change the street name in Google Maps to match their faulty request!
Personal info released
Highly questionable, verified by whom?
The selfies
Is Nicola wearing makeup, or are those selfies Photoshopped? Regardless, it makes me think of Patsy Ramsey (Jonbenet case), who was all about appearance. I've only seen one picture of her not wearing makeup which, ironically, shows her with a perfectly natural skin tone! Was Nicola also obsessed with this perfect outside appearance, a perfect little family, keeping up appearances at all costs?
Which brings us to the stupid beanies! Notice how Paul and Nicola are wearing the same beanies, almost like he's brought along as a stage prop. It wouldn't surprise me that's why he was wearing this outfit in his initial outdoor interview: to reinforce his "commitment" to this whole fake selfie narrative, later underlined by his family rant. Was Paul Ansell actually fed up with playing second fiddle to Nicole.
Surveillance footage
Color of coat, can it be trusted? I would be very cautious to conclude anything based on unverified CCTV and whatever it is purported to show.
The Faulding search
This LE clown, Simon Harding, was put in his place by Peter Faulding (@11:47) when he was caught out lying, how embarrassing!
What I find most concerning is how the DCS (@1:05, extended version) effectively clears Paul Ansell of suspicion before cause of death has been announced and, as mentioned, a coroner's inquest is still pending. Somehow, both LE and Nicola's family seem to have a keen interest in bashing the media and shutting down the case as quickly as possible. Will they get away with it?
Family's statement
Another LE twat appearing on the scene (@13:05), who is she? In this longer version5, she's credited as Detective Chief Superintendent Pauline Stables. Sure, likely in charge of the two other incapable superintendents we've already met. As FBR remarked, how very odd the family seems to have blind faith in LE, just want to move on while the coroner's inquest has not yet taken place yet.
What I find most concerning is how the DCS (@1:05, extended version) effectively clears Paul Ansell of suspicion before cause of death has been announced and, as mentioned, a coroner's inquest is still pending. Somehow, both LE and Nicola's family seem to have a keen interest in bashing the media and shutting down the case as quickly as possible. Will they get away with it?
_______________
1 Sally Riley, announcement: LINK
2 Rebecca Smith, announcement: LINK 3 The "forgotton" initial search, one mile upstream and three miles downstream, documented by C2CR: LINK
5 Pauline Stables, extended version: LINK