Two weeks have passed since Nicola Bulley went missing while walking the dog in her Lancashire village. The police say their working theory is that she fell into the river but that they are also ‘keeping an open mind’ and pursuing ‘many inquiries’. The head of the underwater team searching the Wyre for Ms Bulley says that in 20 years he has never seen so unusual a case.
The police say they would like to speak to ‘as many members of the public as possible’ and yet have also called the level of online speculation ‘totally unacceptable’. But is public speculation really so wrong? There’s a big difference between hindering the police investigation, which is a crime, and generally being interested in Ms Bulley’s disappearance. If the amateur sleuths are indeed getting in the way of the police or causing distress to Ms Bulley’s family and friends then they should of course stop, but I do not think their curiosity should be condemned.
Sherlock Holmes first appeared at a time when the country was fascinated by forensic investigation
Crime enthusiasts get a bad rap – there’s an assumption that they must revel in other people’s misery and that there’s something sick about a fascination with suffering.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in