I followed this story at the begining and read as much as I could and Ive a few reasons as to why.
That pretty much sums it up! lol
accusations that this poster is DC in 5, 4, 3….
2….1 Hi Dan….
I live not far from the Pyrenees. When the story first broke, no one in my hiking club could quite believe that she'd gone alone into a treacherous part of the mountains in winter, at a time when national and regional lockdowns meant there'd be fewer people around. Then add the details like ascending late in the day, wearing dark colours, not being sure if the refuge had a winter room, apparently carrying inadequate provisions and with unsuitable footwear...
If you hike regularly, you will see SAR in action sooner or later. It happens. People go missing and have accidents in the mountains a lot.
It is ABSOLUTELY INSANE that people think she meant this literally. She was looking towards France. He was in France. It's not unusual or mysterious, it's normal to say, "teehee I can see you from here!" I've sent similar messages to friends in Mallorca when hiking. This did not lead them to swim to the peninsula and murder me.
Irrelevant.
Because he thought she was on a 3-day hike.
This is not the smoking gun people think it is. Innocent people fearing the worst also use the past tense.
This is an oxymoron - either he was searching alone or he was leading SAR on a wild goose chase, but both cannot be true.
a) They're a charity, not a PR firm. They're not "controlling the narrative" (this thread's favourite phrase).
Deliberately placed...by an animal or snowmelt. Not remotely unusual in the mountains.
Dan found her body because he was looking for it. The SAR operation happened in winter; realistically, it was not going to involve combing every centimetre of the area, due to weather conditions and the sad fact that if you have an accident alone in the Pyrenees in winter, you will die quickly. SAR focus their efforts on the living.
Maybe she stashed them somewhere, deciding she didn't need them and wanted to lighten her load. Maybe they were dislodged when she fell or after she died. Those tents fold up very small. Could be wedged down the side of a rock, in a crevasse, etc.
...for a charity. In memory of Esther. A charity she had previously raised funds for. How the duck is this considered a red flag?
I just wanted to say how impressed I am by the way you copied and broke up the previous post. Skills
This is all very rational and well articulated. Some of the speculation on here has been pretty wild.
Indeed but not for long I suspectOMG sanity
It has always been made clear that phone records indicate he did not leave the village in which he was staying.
The French police were, at the time, trying to push the theory that Esther had chosen to voluntarily disappear. The French police are notorious for ALWAYS pushing this theory - the right to disappear - in missing person cases. Look up the work of the ARPD if you want to know more.
in winter in high mountains. She did not speak Spanish. She wore dark colours, yoga pants, and inadequate, wornout footwear. She did not carry any form of GPS other than her phone. Her route was not set in stone. She did not know if her intended destination had a winter room. She was known to carry inadequate provisions. She was known to follow bad bivouac practice. She ascended late in the day. All this took place during a global pandemic, when there were fewer people in the mountains due to national and regional restrictions. It has always been made clear that phone records indicate he did not leave the village in which he was staying.
If you believe that Esther meant "I can see you" literally (both times?), you presumably believe that:
* Dan rented/borrowed/bought/stole a car from someone who has never come forward
* Dan managed to sneak across France under lockdown, then back again
* While this was happening, Dan left his phone with a friend in the village
* The friend repeatedly whatsapped Esther from the village
* The friend also had a video call with Esther on the afternoon of her disappearance
In other words, yep, it's completely batshit insane.
The French police were, at the time, trying to push the theory that Esther had chosen to voluntarily disappear. The French police are notorious for ALWAYS pushing this theory - the right to disappear - in missing person cases. Look up the work of the ARPD if you want to know more.
Note that at the same time, the SPANISH police said that they believed she'd had an accident. But that wasn't nearly as exciting for the armchair detectives, was it?
Note also that the French police, post-body discovery, now agree with their Spanish counterparts.
Finally, note that even when the French police were trying to push the voluntary disappearance angle, they repeatedly reiterated that Dan wasn't a suspect. Because he was hundreds of kilometres away.
BTW, you want red flags? Let me reiterate:
Esther travelled to Spain to go hiking alone
Each one of these would either make an accident more likely, or make it harder to get help after an accident. There are reasons that hikers have best practice guidelines to follow.
Nah, I'm just a paid troll trying to control the narrative.
THANKYOU for your posts. I have been on this thread since January and it’s become more and more obvious that this has just been a tragic accident. In my opinion, these batshit theories about her other half murdering her are actually just disrespectful to her memory at this point.It has always been made clear that phone records indicate he did not leave the village in which he was staying.
If you believe that Esther meant "I can see you" literally (both times?), you presumably believe that:
* Dan rented/borrowed/bought/stole a car from someone who has never come forward
* Dan managed to sneak across France under lockdown, then back again
* While this was happening, Dan left his phone with a friend in the village
* The friend repeatedly whatsapped Esther from the village
* The friend also had a video call with Esther on the afternoon of her disappearance
In other words, yep, it's completely batshit insane.
The French police were, at the time, trying to push the theory that Esther had chosen to voluntarily disappear. The French police are notorious for ALWAYS pushing this theory - the right to disappear - in missing person cases. Look up the work of the ARPD if you want to know more.
Note that at the same time, the SPANISH police said that they believed she'd had an accident. But that wasn't nearly as exciting for the armchair detectives, was it?
Note also that the French police, post-body discovery, now agree with their Spanish counterparts.
Finally, note that even when the French police were trying to push the voluntary disappearance angle, they repeatedly reiterated that Dan wasn't a suspect. Because he was hundreds of kilometres away.
BTW, you want red flags? Let me reiterate:
Esther travelled to Spain to go hiking alone
Each one of these would either make an accident more likely, or make it harder to get help after an accident. There are reasons that hikers have best practice guidelines to follow.
