My impression of the number one rule that LE/SAR use for any situation is, you can't prove anything from lack of evidence. The courts follow this rule as well: all that a lack of evidence means is, you can't be certain one way or another, it is unproven.I think even with a very strong "leave no trace" ethic, there would have been a trace left in the refuge under those conditions. For instance, it might be normal to expect ashes in the fireplace, but SAR found no ashes. There might normally have been a patch on the floor indicating a ground cloth had been there. There might normally have been a crumb or two on the table. Or a sniffer dog might normally have picked up on fresh pee or excrement. If SAR found no sign of her at the refuge, I would think we'd have to go with that.
IMO, it is a crude, dirty stone hut. Unless she wrote "Esther was here 11/22/20" in a ledger or on the wall, or left something distinctive behind, I can't imagine what kind of evidence they could find, days after she had intended to be there.
"Theoretically her itinerary meant she should have done the loop and crossed into France before returning, but we cannot say for sure. We have no indication of whether she crossed the border or not,” Gaillard said. Gendarmes to scale down search for British hiker Esther Dingley in Pyrenees
ETA: IMO, if there is good cell reception at the refuge, but she did not turn on her phone that night, would be the strongest suggestion that she didn't stay there.
Last edited: