In defence of amateur sleuths

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. But that argument shows a remarkable lack of interest in the way that we think. Of course the public is invested in a story like Ms Bulley’s. She disappeared from her village just after dropping her children off at school. She can’t have left the area by the main roads and she is accounted for in all except a ten-minute window. She has vanished. How can we not speculate?