Missing Blogger Esther Dingley #2

New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Many relationships are troubled. Very very very few end in murder.
Except for the two women killed by their partner or ex-partner every week - in England & Wales alone? What is ‘very very few’ then?

There is a Twitter account tracking the cases to shine a light on these crimes - look at the circumstances of the latest one - a pregnant newlywed 😓

It’s naive at best to think it’s rare occurrence
 

Attachments

  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 5
It was an accidental fall while hiking ... 😨

that's not true, he had a cerebral haemorrhage at the age of 50. :(:(😪

ETA - my point remains; I disliked him, I didn't want to live with him or be married to him any longer, but that was enough - as adults, we could live our own lives and there was no need to kill him. That really is rare; yes, it happens, but I feel Dan could have murdered Esther under much easier circumstances, if he was really so inclined. Staging an accident while hiking could have many other outcomes.
This is a point I made previously, if he had decided to bump her off it would be easier to take a last trip with her so that his presence doesn’t incriminate him. My view is that Mr. Colegate would have preferred to have kept his ‘disciple’ and such an incident would have occurred in a fit of rage - in which case the location of his phone would have incriminated him.
His distance makes it logistically extremely difficult for him to be involved (even travelling at night) and if he had gone there it would have been to persuade her to his way of thinking.

My opinion is that Mr. Colegate is a narcissist, but not involved in Ms. Dingley’s death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Except for the two women killed by their partner or ex-partner every week - in England & Wales alone? What is ‘very very few’ then?

There is a Twitter account tracking the cases to shine a light on these crimes - look at the circumstances of the latest one - a pregnant newlywed 😓

It’s naive at best to think it’s rare occurrence
Ah, that sad case is local to me. Was it her husband? Or another family member (I'm wondering about 'honour' killing.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
@Superdude

"I feel Dan could have murdered Esther under much easier circumstances, if he was really so inclined."

Easier ways yes. Except she wasn't coming home... kept postponing... 3 days became a month. That would enrage such a weak insecure control freak.

A calculated murder or spur of the moment? Who knows.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5
Okay, so let's look at this list.



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.

This is particularly clear when she did this TWICE - once on social media, once in a Whatsapp message. We can be certain that the first time she was NOT literally able to see him, which indicates that using "I can see you" to mean looking from a distance in your general direction was something she did.



Irrelevant.

In fact, if you were going to hatch a cunning plan to acquire transport from...somewhere, sneak across France under lockdown, speedwalk up a mountain, murder your partner, speedwalk back down and sneak back to your previous location, you'd probably NOT want to draw the attention of the media in advance, right?



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).

b) The claim that they were on a break comes from a single source, Laura Adomaityte. It could be true - or it could have been lost in translation; between English and Spanish, it is easy to mistake "we're [physically] apart, and I don't know when I'm [physically] going back to him" (true at the time) and "we're [emotionally] apart, and I don't know when I'm [emotionally] going back to him".

In contrast to Laura Adomaityte's statement, we have the words of Esther's aunt, speaking on behalf of her father, who said Esther had phoned her dad to tell him she would soon be going home to Dan; we have the words of Esther's long-term close friend Phil Ash, who said she told him the same; we have Esther's own social media posts, thanking Dan for helping her become more confident and imagining him alongside her; we have a selection of Esther's Whatsapp messages to Dan, full of "love you" and "xx". Notably, these were all AFTER her conversation with Laura Adomaityte.

NO OTHER WITNESS has said they had broken up. All witnesses report that she was happy and in good spirits.



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.

Dan continued to search the mountains for months. Nobody else was searching at that time.



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?

Finally, as for the much-discussed quote about hatred and loathing...it was in the context of telling a story that ran, essentially, "we were stressed and miserable, and then we bought a camper van and became happy and fell in love with each other again."

I get that this thread is just endless searching for examples of confirmation bias to support your pet theory, but come on.



As soon as I heard she’d set off on her walk late afternoon in Winter I was convinced it was a tragic accident and nothing more. It seemed a reckless thing to do and she sounds to have been under prepared on numerous occasions
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
We know from Mr. Colegate that the claims of a bad signal were often not true because he was surprised when he got up there that there was in fact no problem most of the time.
No thats not true. Spanish side had bad signal. French side had good signal below refuge de venasque but she hadn't been there yet. Maybe she never got there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
No thats not true. Spanish side had bad signal. French side had good signal below refuge de venasque but she hadn't been there yet. Maybe she never got there.
Mr. Colegate DID say he was surprised how good the signal generally was, it confused him greatly because it wouldn't occur to a narcissist that she wanted time without him bothering her. Please cite the source of your claim that where she was had universally bad signal because I don't think that's right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Mr. Colegate DID say he was surprised how good the signal generally was,
No he didnt he said good signal on FRENCH side below refuge de venasque, but no signal from caban besurtas to below refuge de venasque except on the peak de sauvegard. Read the dossier.
it confused him greatly because it wouldn't occur to a narcissist that she wanted time without him bothering her. Please cite the source of your claim that where she was had universally bad signal because I don't think that's right.
no signal from caban besurtas to below venasque except on the peak. read the dossier. No evidence she ever entered the good signal zone below venasque. Please cite the source of your claim that it confused him greatly because it wouldn't occur to a narcissist that she wanted time without him bothering her.

dossier:

" Spends the night alone at Cabana de la Besurtas on the Spanish side (Esther had no phone signal once she left the peak, but she confirmed this the following day when she returned to Pic de Sauvegarde). "
...
"After leaving the peak, there is no mobile phone signal anywhere on this part of Esther’s route towards Refuge de Venasque. "
...
" Note: Although Esther believed and had warned family that there was poor signal in the area, in fact the signal is very good on the French side. Within half an hour of leaving the refuge, Esther should have been able to use her phone for most of the rest of the day. "
...
" No trace of Esther was found in the relatively small area without a phone signal. Although Esther believed and told family that signal was poor in the area (based on the coverage on the Spanish side of Pic de Sauvegarde where she had spent most of Saturday and Sunday), the region Esther planned to enter in France has quite good mobile coverage. "
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4
I still don’t think DC murdered her, but I think she died via suicide and he knew or at least suspected where she would be, but kept it to himself for whatever reason, and then led the search and rescue people on a bit of a wild goose chase. I feel for him as it must have been hard to know someone had chosen to leave you in the most permanent way possible so this may explain his odd behaviour. I know previous posters have scoffed at the idea of him manically trying to ‘control the narrative’ but that’s exactly what he has been doing since she disappeared. However that doesn’t mean he is guilty of murdering her, more likely desperately trying to protect their brand and his future - I’m sure we will see another self published book and perhaps a collection of poetry about the tragedy, which people might not be interested in if it was known that the relationship was possibly on the rocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
No he didnt he said good signal on FRENCH side below refuge de venasque, but no signal from caban besurtas to below refuge de venasque except on the peak de sauvegard. Read the dossier.
no signal from caban besurtas to below venasque except on the peak. read the dossier. No evidence she ever entered the good signal zone below venasque. Please cite the source of your claim that it confused him greatly because it wouldn't occur to a narcissist that she wanted time without him bothering her.

dossier:

" Spends the night alone at Cabana de la Besurtas on the Spanish side (Esther had no phone signal once she left the peak, but she confirmed this the following day when she returned to Pic de Sauvegarde). "
...
"After leaving the peak, there is no mobile phone signal anywhere on this part of Esther’s route towards Refuge de Venasque. "
...
" Note: Although Esther believed and had warned family that there was poor signal in the area, in fact the signal is very good on the French side. Within half an hour of leaving the refuge, Esther should have been able to use her phone for most of the rest of the day. "
...
" No trace of Esther was found in the relatively small area without a phone signal. Although Esther believed and told family that signal was poor in the area (based on the coverage on the Spanish side of Pic de Sauvegarde where she had spent most of Saturday and Sunday), the region Esther planned to enter in France has quite good mobile coverage. "
I wasn’t talking specifically about the end of the trip, I meant generally, because of the battery and her statements on the reception SHE was controlling when they talked, NOT HIM - and the trip just kept getting longer and longer as she continually delayed her return to him.

I think that lack of continual access to her frustrated him and that’s how I read his confusion on the phone signal, due to the way I perceive his actions throughout. If you think they had a healthy relationship then I can see how you would view it differently.

Taking her texts to Mr. Colegate at this time at face value is in my view naive, I have no doubt she still had a value for him, she was a really nice person and they had been together a very long time - but that doesn’t mean you want to continue in the relationship and you don’t have that conversation up a mountain via text. I suspect the whole situation was enormously difficult for her, which is why I don’t rule out suicide,
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I wasn’t talking specifically about the end of the trip, I meant generally, because of the battery and her statements on the reception SHE was controlling when they talked, NOT HIM
So please provide sources for your claim that "We know from Mr. Colegate that the claims of a bad signal were often not true because he was surprised when he got up there that there was in fact no problem most of the time." My bold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
So please provide sources for your claim that "We know from Mr. Colegate that the claims of a bad signal were often not true because he was surprised when he got up there that there was in fact no problem most of the time." My bold.
If you’re saying that the part “claims of a bad signal” is not provable I accept that is true, but frankly this is pretty pointless - maybe “expectation” is a word you would be happy with - but the question is WHY he would expect that ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Dan expected a bad signal because Esther had said her signal nearby on the 21st and 22nd had been bad, and she couldn't know whether things would improve on the French side she hadn't yet visited. I dont see any evidence that she was making false claims of a bad signal to fob him off on this or any other occasion, let alone "often". You certainly haven't provided any.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3
Dan expected a bad signal because Esther had said her signal nearby on the 21st and 22nd had been bad, and she couldn't know whether things would improve on the French side she hadn't yet visited. I dont see any evidence that she was making claims of a bad signal to fob him off on this or any other occasion, let alone "often". You certainly haven't provided any.
Well, no, the signal has been bad before, and then she had the ultimate power to turn it off, but the main problem is we have two people involved and one of them is no longer here, the other doesn't have an incentive to say anything else, he can totally control the narrative. I think she was fobbing him off - you don't, that's OK, none of this makes him involved in her death (and for the reasons I have given before I don't think he was).

Of course the fact that she left him in the house-sit and then repeatedly extended her trip is the biggest "fob off" of all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Well, no, the signal has been bad before, and then she had the ultimate power to turn it off, but the main problem is we have two people involved and one of them is no longer here, the other doesn't have an incentive to say anything else, he can totally control the narrative.
So when you said "We know from Mr. Colegate that the claims of a bad signal were often not true ..." you were saying something that wasn't true.

Be honest. We don't know that, do we? You made it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
So when you said "We know from Mr. Colegate that the claims of a bad signal were often not true ..." you were saying something that wasn't true.

Be honest. We don't know that, do we? You made it up.
No, I am being honest, he thought there would be a lot less signal than there was, how he came to that belief is the interesting point, it didn’t come out of thin air, do you seriously think that if it came from Ms. Dingley he would say so ? That’s ridiculous, he is telling us what is good for him, even the Police mentioned this.
I find your desire to bang on about this point when there are so many more important points quite amusing - but keep at it if it makes you feel better. 🙃
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
No, I am being honest, he thought there would be a lot less signal than there was, how he came to that belief is the interesting point, it didn’t come out of thin air, do you seriously think that if it came from Ms. Dingley he would say so ? That’s ridiculous, he is telling us what is good for him, even the Police mentioned this.
I find your desire to bang on about this point when there are so many more important points quite amusing - but keep at it if it makes you feel better. 🙃
AlanB I am quite perplexed by you! You have joined tattle recently and have only contributed to this thread, which makes me think that you joined the site for the main purpose of commenting on this thread (no problem there, all are welcome!). However I am aware that there has been policing of comments in regards to this case on other Internet forums, so I do wonder if you have come here from those (WS).

you seem to agree with the explanation that it was unlikely that DC crept across the mountains and murdered her in cold blood, yet he doesn’t seem entirely innocent in your eyes. Which is fair, given all the theories being thrown around.

I guess my other point is that you seem to be quite keen to disregard other people’s information “without a source” when you have yourself commented or made an opinion on things without an actual source…

Regardless, this is clearly a complex case with a large public interest. As much as I agree with you in terms of DC being involved, I think it is only fair to request “a reliable source” if you are also able to back up your information with one too.

I once again reiterate that it has categorically been proven than Dan would be logistically unable to murder Esther without hiring help or a hitman; and I believe that it is disrespectful to the entire family to continue to pursue the idea that Dan is a stone cold murderer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
AlanB I am quite perplexed by you! You have joined tattle recently and have only contributed to this thread, which makes me think that you joined the site for the main purpose of commenting on this thread (no problem there, all are welcome!). However I am aware that there has been policing of comments in regards to this case on other Internet forums, so I do wonder if you have come here from those (WS).

you seem to agree with the explanation that it was unlikely that DC crept across the mountains and murdered her in cold blood, yet he doesn’t seem entirely innocent in your eyes. Which is fair, given all the theories being thrown around.

I guess my other point is that you seem to be quite keen to disregard other people’s information “without a source” when you have yourself commented or made an opinion on things without an actual source…

Regardless, this is clearly a complex case with a large public interest. As much as I agree with you in terms of DC being involved, I think it is only fair to request “a reliable source” if you are also able to back up your information with one too.

I once again reiterate that it has categorically been proven than Dan would be logistically unable to murder Esther without hiring help or a hitman; and I believe that it is disrespectful to the entire family to continue to pursue the idea that Dan is a stone cold murderer.
Your post in response is even more perplexing to me ! You put within your post to me comments about how disrespectful it is to suggest Mr. Colegate murdered Ms. Dingley as though somehow this is related to me, when I am saying the opposite, even if I agreed with that position (which I don't) frankly I have to say that's classic straw-manning.

Again, I think it is extremely unlikely that Mr. Colegate is responsible, although I think your opinion that it has categorically been proved he couldn't is incorrect, nor do I think it disrespectful for others of a different opinion to say as much.

I have not been posting on WS, I came here because I thought that this case was it extraordinary and it seemed that Tattle was a believer in freedom of speech, unlike WS. I am interested in the sources for information and speculation, I think anything that might get us nearer the truth is good and both speculation and citing sources is good in my view. I don't have a problem with my own statements being questioned and have explained my position when asked, others may not like what I have said that but that's fine, I don't mind.
I haven't disregarded anybody's information as you suggest, that doesn't mean I agree with all of it and that is my right - we all have an opinion.

I don't have a "side to fight on" and prove "MY" position, which seems to be how so many posters on here operate - that is in my view childish...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
No, I am being honest, he thought there would be a lot less signal than there was, how he came to that belief is the interesting point, it didn’t come out of thin air, do you seriously think that if it came from Ms. Dingley he would say so?
He thought there would be a lot less signal than there was in a specific area because Esther had said she was in an area with bad signal. She was. The Spanish side has no signal except for the Peak. The French side has no signal until a point about half an hour's walk below the refuge where she was expected to spend the night. There is absolutely no evidence that Esther had claimed a poor signal on other occasions in order to fob him off, or that that was happening on this occasion. So when you said "We know from Mr. Colegate that the claims of a bad signal were often not true ..." you were saying something that wasn't true. You made it up!

That's important because Esther can't tell her own story. If you think you can tell her story for her, you should tell the truth about what you know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
He thought there would be a lot less signal than there was in a specific area because Esther had said she was in an area with bad signal. She was. The Spanish side has no signal except for the Peak. The French side has no signal until a point about half an hour's walk below the refuge where she was expected to spend the night. There is absolutely no evidence that Esther had claimed a poor signal on other occasions in order to fob him off, or that that was happening on this occasion. So when you said "We know from Mr. Colegate that the claims of a bad signal were often not true ..." you were saying something that wasn't true. You made it up.

That's important because Esther can't tell her own story. If you think you can tell her story for her, you should tell the truth about what you know.
No, I didn't ever specify that Esther said it, that is my speculation, I think she was fobbing him off and still do, I have explained my position in multiple posts which I am not going to repeat because it's all there, if you don't like that then tough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3