Current Affairs Missing woman in Lancashire

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that the vulnerabilities will impact on the search parameters, but what people are ignoring is the clear and obvious saga behind the scenes.

Fauling was called in by the family (not cops) around the 5th of February - 9 days after the disappearance - and after searches of the area had already taken place.

Also, he was called in at the families asking only after he made comments to GB News. What concerns me is that on the 2nd February, he released a book.

Why did he decide to make comments to GB News regarding the case, when he had no involvement? Was it to support the search or elicit a response?

As I said earlier, I fully believe the initial police search teams will have been briefed, whereas I suspect Fauling's support may have been viewed with scepticism.

By scepticism, I really mean suspicion. Has he taken payment for his services, and I wonder how many books he's sold on the back of his promotion...

...sorry, involvement. He will have been told to search an area as per his remit based on the decisions made by the investigating officers. Surely, that's his role?

It is not for him to decide the strategy - e.g. where to search. If people can't see this as egoistical self-promotion, I'm worried.
If I had known of vulnerabilities would have been looking much further very much further than what has been stated. And vulnerabilities seem to be at odds with what family were saying. And if police have always worked on the likely hood this poor lady entering the water
it was not time to keep key information private.
 
Would the dog not have jumped in the river after her though? Police said the dog did not go in the river.

If I’d jumped in the river whilst walking my dog I’m 100% certain he would of thought I’ll have a bit of that too and jumped rar in.
Some breeds will not all, self preservation kicks in. When I first heard this just thought, dog in water gets into trouble owner goes in after, dog gets out and owner drowns.
 
Some breeds will not all, self preservation kicks in. When I first heard this just thought, dog in water gets into trouble owner goes in after, dog gets out and owner drowns.
The dog is a springer spaniel - they absolutely love water. You can’t keep them out if it.

If she went in for whatever reason then the dog would have followed her. Given that the police say he didn’t go in the water tells me that neither did she.

Deffo an alien abduction
 
Would the dog not have jumped in the river after her though? Police said the dog did not go in the river.

If I’d jumped in the river whilst walking my dog I’m 100% certain he would of thought I’ll have a bit of that too and jumped rar in after me.
I'm sure GB news will be lining up ace ventura for an update
 
If I had known of vulnerabilities would have been looking much further very much further than what has been stated. And vulnerabilities seem to be at odds with what family were saying. And if police have always worked on the likely hood this poor lady entering the water
it was not time to keep key information private.
The point, however, it’s not for him to decide where to look and why. It’s for him to do as the investigators instructed him to do, using their experts*.

*The North West have their own underwater search team for this very role.
 
I agree that the vulnerabilities will impact on the search parameters, but what people are ignoring is the clear and obvious saga behind the scenes.

Fauling was called in by the family (not cops) around the 5th of February - 9 days after the disappearance - and after searches of the area had already taken place.

Also, he was called in at the families asking only after he made comments to GB News. What concerns me is that on the 2nd February, he released a book.

Why did he decide to make comments to GB News regarding the case, when he had no involvement? Was it to support the search or elicit a response?

As I said earlier, I fully believe the initial police search teams will have been briefed, whereas I suspect Fauling's support may have been viewed with scepticism.

By scepticism, I really mean suspicion. Has he taken payment for his services, and I wonder how many books he's sold on the back of his promotion...

...sorry, involvement. He will have been told to search an area as per his remit based on the decisions made by the investigating officers. Surely, that's his role?

It is not for him to decide the strategy - e.g. where to search. If people can't see this as egoistical self-promotion, I'm worried.
As guilty as he is of opportunism, a vacuum was made for him. gb news are scum. Bloody minded tory racist filth. Now that's clear lets look back.
Public interest + not a lot of facts + a fed perception the police couldn't be arsed, and suddenly gb news have a 'specialist' mouthing of live beamed into your living room under the auspices of cutting edge news and professionalism. This is the state of public discourse now, 'if you won't give us answers we'll find some elsewhere', suddenly there's public interest in this modern day Jacques Cousteau and..."why wouldn't the family want him involved...?" the narrative is set by the gb news goons, they've actively enhanced the profile of their star witness and can go live at the top of the hour and he has a book out and and and...
Ghoulish two bits a gander freak show charlatans.

On a related note all the netflicks and associated true crime media makers have accidentally unleashed a world of possibly well meaning would be Inspector Clouseau's upon us, to poke their nose in and start interfering in others lives and the authorities investigations as well as casting judgements ten a penny.

We've never been closer to execution-for-entertainment trial by the shrillest nutcase fronting a show live at 7 every night. When the maniacs start getting into all the hospital and surgery shows do I run the risk some novice might turn up to do my heart bypass?
 
As guilty as he is of opportunism, a vacuum was made for him. gb news are scum. Bloody minded tory racist filth. Now that's clear lets look back.
Public interest + not a lot of facts + a fed perception the police couldn't be arsed, and suddenly gb news have a 'specialist' mouthing of live beamed into your living room under the auspices of cutting edge news and professionalism. This is the state of public discourse now, 'if you won't give us answers we'll find some elsewhere', suddenly there's public interest in this modern day Jacques Cousteau and..."why wouldn't the family want him involved...?" the narrative is set by the gb news goons, they've actively enhanced the profile of their star witness and can go live at the top of the hour and he has a book out and and and...
Ghoulish two bits a gander freak show charlatans.

On a related note all the netflicks and associated true crime media makers have accidentally unleashed a world of possibly well meaning would be Inspector Clouseau's upon us, to poke their nose in and start interfering in others lives and the authorities investigations as well as casting judgements ten a penny.

We've never been closer to execution-for-entertainment trial by the shrillest nutcase fronting a show live at 7 every night. When the maniacs start getting into all the hospital and surgery shows do I run the risk some novice might turn up to do my heart bypass?
So you’re saying Darren the decorator from the Dingle and his bird Chantelle from Tuebrook shouldn’t be listened to over seasoned detectives?
 
So you’re saying Darren the decorator from the Dingle and his bird Chantelle from Tuebrook shouldn’t be listened to over seasoned detectives?
Sadly it depends on how photogenic they are and how much direction they can follow, if either are a double D cup with a beaming smiley of pearly whites and can trot out the slogans, there's a chance they'll be chief inspector by the end of the day....
 
If I had known of vulnerabilities would have been looking much further very much further than what has been stated. And vulnerabilities seem to be at odds with what family were saying. And if police have always worked on the likely hood this poor lady entering the water
it was not time to keep key information private.
Keeping it private from who though? You? Why the hell should you know anything about it? Or do you mean from the search team, in which case that point has already been answered 25000 times. You're now seemingly suggesting the police are lying and she doesn't have vulnerabilities, so I assume we'll be hearing from the family and their lawyer at some point today because I'm fairly sure they won't be happy with the police claiming they've told them that if it isn't true.
 
From seeing the first image of this lady when this incident first came to light, I wouldn’t have assumed she had a drink problem. You don’t know about what people are going through in their lives. I’m sure many had been surprised upon hearing this.

However if this information suddenly jogs peoples memory about seeing a lone female by an off licence or public house, leading to lines of enquiry, then surely it’s worth putting out there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top