Found Deceased Spain - Esther Dingley, from UK, missing in the Pyrenees, November 2020 #4

[Seni]

Snipped by me for focus.

I suspect that some forensic work would actually be better carried out in the dark. A comprehensive article here has this as its opening paragraph:

"Ultraviolet Light Analysis
Ultraviolet (UV) light technologies are used for multiple purposes in forensic investigations, including authenticating paintings and other fine art, authenticating signatures, analyzing questioned documents , illuminating latent fingerprints at crime scenes and trace evidence on clothing, analyzing ink stains, and revealing residual stains of body fluids."

The rest of the article is technical but very interesting. It doesn't actually say that the presence of other light would reduce the efficacy of the technique, but I suspect it might. I think it is quite likely that the Spanish authorities would have used this technique on the camper van at some stage. If they did, they could have been quite open about it - it is a bog standard procedure. Instead, their explanations have done nothing but raise eyebrows.

I think this technique can only be carried out under black room conditions.

 

[Seni]

Well, here’s a theory up for debate.

Esther hitches a ride with the wrong person. He kills her, disposes of her body, and takes her backpack to salvage some things to sell. He now has the keys to the van. While all focus is on the mountain search, he learns about the “english girl” and “everyone knows about her van.” He becomes emboldened after the van is not impounded and the search continues to be all about disappearing in the mountains.

‘He uses the keys to see if there’s anything else worth selling in the camper. He’s not sleeping but searching under the mattress in the bed area.

LE invents a cover story so as not to interfere with their investigation or have this detail released to media. Dan knows it and agrees to be silent...but this is why he is so certain that there is a criminal explanation.

Any thief would close curtains. Probably this van also has shutters that could be closed

Why would you say this :"LE invents a cover story so as not to interfere with their investigation"

You have absolutely nothing to back this up.

 

[IrisElizabeth]

Any thief would close curtains. Probably this van also has shutters that could be closed

Why would you say this :"LE invents a cover story so as not to interfere with their investigation"

You have absolutely nothing to back this up.

But it's clearly stated as being a theory, I didn't realise theories had to be backed up by fact now..

 

[stmarysmead]

Any thief would close curtains. Probably this van also has shutters that could be closed

Why would you say this :"LE invents a cover story so as not to interfere with their investigation"

You have absolutely nothing to back this up.

It was just a theory (thanks Iris Elizabeth) Upthread Otto posed a question:

‘Just suppose e that someone was sleeping in Esther's van a few days after she vanished. What's the theory? Someone harmed her, took her keys, forced her to reveal where the van was parked, caused her to disappear, and then decided to sleep in her van exactly where she parked it while police were searching for her?”

I responded by creating a theory in answer to that. We don’t have information to prove that happened but at this point, when we see something as unusual as this weird witness sighting, we attempt to make sense of it. It’s a guess, not even an opinion.

I imagine Dan has many unprovable theories of a criminal explanation as well.

 

[otto]

But it's clearly stated as being a theory, I didn't realise theories had to be backed up by fact now..

Theories should be based in fact. Researchers test theories all the time, starting with known facts and building on them.

There's no reason to believe that police are dishonest, so we can exclude any theory that presumes dishonesty in police.

 

[otto]

It was just a theory (thanks Iris Elizabeth) Upthread Otto posed a question:

‘Just suppose e that someone was sleeping in Esther's van a few days after she vanished. What's the theory? Someone harmed her, took her keys, forced her to reveal where the van was parked, caused her to disappear, and then decided to sleep in her van exactly where she parked it while police were searching for her?”

I responded by creating a theory in answer to that. We don’t have information to prove that happened but at this point, when we see something as unusual as this weird witness sighting, we attempt to make sense of it. It’s a guess, not even an opinion.

I imagine Dan has many unprovable theories of a criminal explanation as well.

I have looked at the photo in detail and cannot make out a sleeping person. I think the woman saw the light in the van at night, wondered why it was on, took a photo, then reported it to police. Police responded by letting her know that they were responsible for the light. She didn't like that answer, so she took the photo to the newspapers to create drama and speculation around the light in the van.

I don't think the photo of the light in the van has helped Dan or the police, but has instead laid the groundwork for theories that Esther was dishonest about her planned hike and activities on the day before she disappeared, and fuelled Dan's hope that Esther is alive but held captive.

 

[PeggyHenry]

Well, everyone can look at this from different viewpoints which is healthy.. but I think you are suggesting that the dog walker lied, for some reason. I hope and do not think that is the case but respect that opinion.
The police are allowed to lie if it aids their investigation. In this case they may or may not have claimed the sleeping person in the van was part of their forensics team to aid their investigation. We can only speculate.
Things Police Officers Don't Want You To Know | Reader's Digest (rd.com)

The man in the van may well have been an undercover officer (not part of forensics at all) but in the van for a very good reason.

 

[Puzzles]

Esther's partner needs to think about the difference between intentional disappearance, voluntary disappearance, accidental disappearance and criminal act. She in missing and vanished disappeared, not displaced in a new life, criminal or otherwise.

Snipped for focus. BBM

Otto, I’m sure you meant no harm in stating what “Esther’s partner needs to think about…"

But in case Dan reads this thread, I want him to know I, for one, was saddened to learn some of us may believe we are in a position to suggest what 'he needs to think about…'

 

[stmarysmead]

Theories should be based in fact. Researchers test theories all the time, starting with known facts and building on them.

There's no reason to believe that police are dishonest, so we can exclude any theory that presumes dishonesty in police.[/QUOTE

I d0nt think we can say...as a ‘fact” that police are never dishonest. I could point to other discussions on other cases...on this very website but that would distract from our discussion. Police have even been charged with lying in certain cases.

I was very close to one of the beleaguered families whose innocent son was charged in the notorious Duke Lacrosse hoax in 2006...which ended with the LE investigator Gottlieb killing himself, the District Attorney being disbarred, and Dr Meehan, the DNA expert being discredited and losing his business. It has led me to believe that anything, unfortunately, is possible. In 2005 I might have posted as some of you have...that a theory based on misleading or untruthful statements from LE was IMPOSSIBLE! But I watched the most outrageous prosecution for over 18 months and it was a very sad teaching moment. And yes, we all bring a bit of our own history to this website.

I also believe there are sometimes good reasons that LE proper;y withhold information from the general public and might have to dissemble to the media....to protect an investigation.

But in any event, I was posing a theory, not even an opinion and I have no facts to prove that police lied or that the witness lied.

But IMO somebody lied.

 

[stmarysmead]

Otto posts...Theories should be based in fact. Researchers test theories all the time, starting with known facts and building on them.

There's no reason to believe that police are dishonest, so we can exclude any theory that presumes dishonesty in police.[/QUOTE

I d0nt think we can say...as a ‘fact” that police are never dishonest. I could point to other current discussions on other cases...on this very website but that would distract from our discussion. Police have even been charged with lying in certain cases.

I was very close to one of the beleaguered families whose innocent son was charged in the notorious Duke Lacrosse hoax in 2006...which ended with the LE investigator Gottlieb killing himself, the District Attorney Nifong being disbarred, and Dr Meehan, the DNA expert being discredited and losing his business. Here’s a relevant tidbit of the outrageousness; Cabbie was 'hero' in Duke case

It has led me to believe that anything, unfortunately, is possible. So, IMO, sadly,we cannot summarily “exclude any theory that presumes dishonesty in police.”

In 2005 I might have posted as some of you have...that a theory based on misleading or untruthful statements from LE was IMPOSSIBLE! But I watched the most outrageous prosecution for over 18 months and it was a very sad and shocking teaching moment.

And yes, we all bring a bit of our own history to this website.

I also believe there are sometimes good reasons that LE proper;y withhold information from the general public and might have to dissemble to the media....to protect an investigation.

But in any event, I was posing a theory, not even an opinion and I have no facts to prove that police lied or that the witness lied.

But IMO somebody lied.

 

[otto]

Well, everyone can look at this from different viewpoints which is healthy.. but I think you are suggesting that the dog walker lied, for some reason. I hope and do not think that is the case but respect that opinion.
The police are allowed to lie if it aids their investigation. In this case they may or may not have claimed the sleeping person in the van was part of their forensics team to aid their investigation. We can only speculate.
Things Police Officers Don't Want You To Know | Reader's Digest (rd.com)

The man in the van may well have been an undercover officer (not part of forensics at all) but in the van for a very good reason.

Police can lie to a suspect during interrogation. They can, for example, falsely claim that the suspect's friend has just confessed. That's nothing new. Police cannot and do not broadcast false information.

No one is suggesting that the woman who saw a light in the van is lying. In fact, police have confirmed that the light was turned on and acknowledged that they are responsible for the light.

Given the quality of the photo, where it stretches the imagination to "see" a person in the van, how is it possible to determine that the mirage of a person is a man rather than a woman?

"A light seen inside the camper van of a missing British hiker was due to police activity and not her, it emerged yesterday.

This week a dog walker said they had seen a light on inside her Fiat vehicle while it was parked in Benasque, Spain, on December 2.

There was speculation it may have been Esther or her boyfriend Dan Colegate, who had driven from a farmhouse in France the couple were staying at to Benasque, to give cops keys to the van.

But in a statement Matt Searle from the Lucie Blackman Trust said:"Police have confirmed that the light seen on in the camper van last week was due to their presence."

He added:"There has been considerable speculation in the media over this case and we urge caution in this respect."​

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...sther-dingley-camper-van-light-due-to-police/

 

[otto]

I d0nt think we can say...as a ‘fact” that police are never dishonest. I could point to other current discussions on other cases...on this very website but that would distract from our discussion. Police have even been charged with lying in certain cases.

I was very close to one of the beleaguered families whose innocent son was charged in the notorious Duke Lacrosse hoax in 2006...which ended with the LE investigator Gottlieb killing himself, the District Attorney Nifong being disbarred, and Dr Meehan, the DNA expert being discredited and losing his business. It has led me to believe that anything, unfortunately, is possible. So, IMO, sadly,we cannot summarily “exclude any theory that presumes dishonesty in police.”

In 2005 I might have posted as some of you have...that a theory based on misleading or untruthful statements from LE was IMPOSSIBLE! But I watched the most outrageous prosecution for over 18 months and it was a very sad and shocking teaching moment.

And yes, we all bring a bit of our own history to this website.

I also believe there are sometimes good reasons that LE proper;y withhold information from the general public and might have to dissemble to the media....to protect an investigation.

But in any event, I was posing a theory, not even an opinion and I have no facts to prove that police lied or that the witness lied.

But IMO somebody lied.

Are we talking about police tactics during interrogation, dishonest officers, tunnel vision prior to DNA analysis, corruption, conspiracy?

In this case, a woman took a photo, from some distance, of a van with a light turned on. Police, and the organization where Dan has sought support, have confirmed that police were responsible for the light. They have asked that people be cautious regarding speculation.

If we don't assume that the victim and police are honest, then we have no information whatsoever. There has been discussion that Esther was not honest regarding her planned hike, about the photo from the Sauvegarde summit on Nov 22, about the Cabana where she stayed overnight on Nov 21, and more. I don't see how doubting the facts provided by police, the victim and her partner helps to find her, or better understand what happened.

 

[stmarysmead]

Are we talking about police tactics during interrogation, dishonest officers, tunnel vision prior to DNA analysis, corruption, conspiracy?

In this case, a woman took a photo, from some distance, of a van with a light turned on. Police, and the organization where Dan has sought support, have confirmed that police were responsible for the light. They have asked that people be cautious regarding speculation.

If we don't assume that the victim and police are honest, then we have no information whatsoever. There has been discussion that Esther was not honest regarding her planned hike, about the photo from the Sauvegarde summit on Nov 22, about the Cabana where she stayed overnight on Nov 21, and more. I don't see how doubting the facts provided by the victim and her partner helps to find her.

The statement has been made by LE that ‘nothing is off the table.” Therefore over the weeks, we have looked at every one of the possibilities. In order to discuss these possibilities, still ALL on the table, we have tried out, for discussion purposes different scenarios based on the limited information we have. All within the rules of this site.

Initally, our resident experts posted a great deal that was critical of Esther’s preparation and her choices regarding nutrition, equipment, time of year etc. Now Dan in his dossier takes a very different view. That didn’t mean any0ne was in error for disputing his POV. No one took the position that anyone was calling Dan a liar and that any other comments that disputed his opinion must stop. We discussed it and essentially Dan denied it. But that didn’t mean it wasn’t worth discussing.

Next we discussed the possibility of suicide (LE says “still on the table” voluntary disappearance”) This included looking at Esther’s FB posts and comparing/contrasting with Dan’s dossier. Even one LE and one witness opined that the relationship was not as solid as depicted in the dossier. So we all looked at that for awhile. Dan disputes this but we still found merit in discussing it. Again, isn’t that what investigators would do?

We touched briefly on whether Esther might be alive and just wanted out of her old life. We didn’t get too far with that. Soon after Dan posted on his FB that he ardently believes this disappearance involves a criminal act. We as posters have also had less to say on that possibility...mainly because the only thing to date that might even “fit” IMO...is the “sleeping stranger” witness statement.

Now in trying to discuss this theory, it could be that we should be as skeptical of LE’S comments as we have been of Dan’s. I don’t know why questioning their statement has to be couched in accusing LE of dishonesty. It could be tactical. Disputing Dan’s statement on Esther’s “expertise” and “equipment” “their relationship” ‘her happiness” could be grief talking. We still considered alternative non factual theories.

IMO Perhaps a little healthy doubt about all aspects of everyone’s statements might be a very important way to facilitate finding her.

 

[stmarysmead]

I think this technique can only be carried out under black room conditions.

Thank you for this update.

 

[otto]

The statement has been made by LE that ‘nothing is off the table.” Therefore over the weeks, we have looked at every one of the possibilities. In order to discuss these possibilities, still ALL on the table, we have tried out, for discussion purposes different scenarios based on the limited information we have. All within the rules of this site.

Initally, our resident experts posted a great deal that was critical of Esther’s preparation and her choices regarding nutrition, equipment, time of year etc. Now Dan in his dossier takes a very different view. That didn’t mean any0ne was in error for disputing his POV. No one took the position that anyone was calling Dan a liar and that any other comments that disputed his opinion must stop. We discussed it and essentially Dan denied it. But that didn’t mean it wasn’t worth discussing.

Next we discussed the possibility of suicide (LE says “still on the table” voluntary disappearance”) This included looking at Esther’s FB posts and comparing/contrasting with Dan’s dossier. Even one LE and one witness opined that the relationship was not as solid as depicted in the dossier. So we all looked at that for awhile. Dan disputes this but we still found merit in discussing it. Again, isn’t that what investigators would do?

We touched briefly on whether Esther might be alive and just wanted out of her old life. We didn’t get too far with that. Soon after Dan posted on his FB that he ardently believes this disappearance involves a criminal act. We as posters have also had less to say on that possibility...mainly because the only thing to date that might even “fit” IMO...is the “sleeping stranger” witness statement.

Now in trying to discuss this theory, it could be that we should be as skeptical of LE’S comments as we have been of Dan’s. I don’t know why questioning their statement has to be couched in accusing LE of dishonesty. It could be tactical. Disputing Dan’s statement on Esther’s “expertise” and “equipment” “their relationship” ‘her happiness” could be grief talking. We still considered alternative non factual theories.

IMO Perhaps a little healthy doubt about all aspects of everyone’s statements might be a very important way to facilitate finding her.

I have not seen any statements from police stating that "nothing is off the table." Police have stated that they are "not ruling out any leads." They quickly dismissed the "eaten by bear" theory on the basis that all bears are tagged for electronic monitoring and she was not near any bears. Police have explained the light in the van to the satisfaction of the Lucie Blackman Trust.

I suspect that "not ruling out any leads" does not mean doubting that Esther was truthful about her photo at the summit on Nov 22, where she stayed overnight on Nov 21 and her trip plan. No electronic footprint typically means not alive in all other missing persons' investigations.

"The prevailing hypothesis is that there was a tragic mishap. “It seems an accident in the mountains is the most likely theory, but we are not ruling out any leads,” said Bordinaro.
...

The [Lucie Blackman] trust deals with some 3,000 inquiries a year, with most solved quickly, leaving around 200 in which “something bad happens”. Dingley’s case is unusual, however, for its absolute absence of leads. Both French and Spanish police say they have nothing to go on. An obvious line of inquiry was to examine Dingley and Colegate’s relationship, asking why the couple had decided to embark on separate final trips before returning to the UK. Police found nothing out of the ordinary.

“From what we know, there was no dispute. They were asking questions about their future and whether they could continue living as they had up to now, but it was the sort of questioning that happens in all normal couples,” said Bordinaro.

Another possible explanation for Dingley’s disappearance – that she was the victim of a crime – has no evidence to support it.
...

The fact that Dingley has made no electronic footprint, no attempt at communication with anyone is, he said, rare."
​

No clues, no leads … now winter snows could cover last trace of missing hiker

 

[stmarysmead]

I have not seen any statements from police stating that "nothing is off the table." Police have stated that they are "not ruling out any leads." They quickly dismissed the "eaten by bear" theory on the basis that all bears are tagged for electronic monitoring and she was not near any bears. Police have explained the light in the van to the satisfaction of the Lucie Blackman Trust.

I suspect that "not ruling out any leads" does not mean doubting that Esther was truthful about her photo at the summit on Nov 22, where she stayed overnight on Nov 21 and her trip plan. No electronic footprint typically means not alive in all other missing persons' investigations.

"The prevailing hypothesis is that there was a tragic mishap. “It seems an accident in the mountains is the most likely theory, but we are not ruling out any leads,” said Bordinaro.
...

The [Lucie Blackman] trust deals with some 3,000 inquiries a year, with most solved quickly, leaving around 200 in which “something bad happens”. Dingley’s case is unusual, however, for its absolute absence of leads. Both French and Spanish police say they have nothing to go on. An obvious line of inquiry was to examine Dingley and Colegate’s relationship, asking why the couple had decided to embark on separate final trips before returning to the UK. Police found nothing out of the ordinary.

“From what we know, there was no dispute. They were asking questions about their future and whether they could continue living as they had up to now, but it was the sort of questioning that happens in all normal couples,” said Bordinaro.

Another possible explanation for Dingley’s disappearance – that she was the victim of a crime – has no evidence to support it.
...

The fact that Dingley has made no electronic footprint, no attempt at communication with anyone is, he said, rare."
​

No clues, no leads … now winter snows could cover last trace of missing hiker

French gendarmerie captain Jean-Marc Bordinaro’s frustration was palpable. “Normally at the beginning of an inquiry we have something to go on, but we have nothing,” he said by phone. “Absolutely nothing.”

Was it possible the British hiker had an accident in the mountains? Did she meet someone who had done her harm? Had she chosen to disappear? Bordinaro said nothing was ruled out, but so far he had no answers.
'We have nothing': police stumped by disappearance of Briton in Pyrenees

 

[Puzzles]

I have not seen any statements from police stating that "nothing is off the table."

Snipped for focus and BBM

Perhaps we can believe DC's statement of 'The police forces working on the Esther Dingley case say they have no leads pointing to any foul play but insist all theories are still on the table as mountain search teams wait for spring when they can resume operations after the Pyrenees snow thaws." Missing hiker Esther Dingley had love life problems says witness as British police called in to help | Daily Mail Online

I assume we can consider the sentence of 'all theories are still on the table' as being synonymous with 'nothing is off the table'.

 

[RickshawFan]

Initally, our resident experts posted a great deal that was critical of Esther’s preparation and her choices regarding nutrition, equipment, time of year etc. Now Dan in his dossier takes a very different view. That didn’t mean any0ne was in error for disputing his POV. No one took the position that anyone was calling Dan a liar and that any other comments that disputed his opinion must stop. We discussed it and essentially Dan denied it. But that didn’t mean it wasn’t worth discussing.

Snipped for focus.

IMO this turns the discussion on those topics into a set of black-and-white facts. IMO, there was disagreement about how to evaluate any of the items in this paragraph. "Denial" IMO does not enter the picture. And for sure, no one was calling anyone else a "liar": that's never been on the table.

 

[otto]

I suppose my definition of theories is based on those put forward by police, not questioning whether Esther faked a photo, or whether police were not honest when they stated that they were responsible for the light in the van after her disappearance.

"French police have said there were three categories her going missing could fall under; accident, voluntary disappearance, or someone else being involved."
​

Esther Dingley: Missing hiker's partner 'in a world without sense'

 

[PeggyHenry]

I have not seen any statements from police stating that "nothing is off the table." Police have stated that they are "not ruling out any leads." They quickly dismissed the "eaten by bear" theory on the basis that all bears are tagged for electronic monitoring and she was not near any bears. Police have explained the light in the van to the satisfaction of the Lucie Blackman Trust.

I suspect that "not ruling out any leads" does not mean doubting that Esther was truthful about her photo at the summit on Nov 22, where she stayed overnight on Nov 21 and her trip plan. No electronic footprint typically means not alive in all other missing persons' investigations.

"The prevailing hypothesis is that there was a tragic mishap. “It seems an accident in the mountains is the most likely theory, but we are not ruling out any leads,” said Bordinaro.
...

The [Lucie Blackman] trust deals with some 3,000 inquiries a year, with most solved quickly, leaving around 200 in which “something bad happens”. Dingley’s case is unusual, however, for its absolute absence of leads. Both French and Spanish police say they have nothing to go on. An obvious line of inquiry was to examine Dingley and Colegate’s relationship, asking why the couple had decided to embark on separate final trips before returning to the UK. Police found nothing out of the ordinary.

“From what we know, there was no dispute. They were asking questions about their future and whether they could continue living as they had up to now, but it was the sort of questioning that happens in all normal couples,” said Bordinaro.

Another possible explanation for Dingley’s disappearance – that she was the victim of a crime – has no evidence to support it.
...

The fact that Dingley has made no electronic footprint, no attempt at communication with anyone is, he said, rare."
​

No clues, no leads … now winter snows could cover last trace of missing hiker

DC appears convinced Esther has been taken by a third party. He has more knowledge and access to the facts than any of us. He has walked the route etc etc.


Durham hiker Esther Dingley taken 'against her will'
The Northern Echo 4th Feb