Missing Blogger Esther Dingley #2

[AlanB]

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:

https://42cc80b7-be3b-41e3-a85b-18b664074b2b.filesusr.com/ugd/4addd9_d8c55b489c6f445b96d6324dd882f5a1.pdf

" 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,

 

[LittleMissBlueSky]

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.

 

[AlanB]

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 ?

 

[LittleMissBlueSky]

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.

 

[AlanB]

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.

 

[LittleMissBlueSky]

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.

 

[AlanB]

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.

 

[sassmaster3000]

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.

 

[AlanB]

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...

 

[LittleMissBlueSky]

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.

 

[AlanB]

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.

 

[LittleMissBlueSky]

"I think she was fobbing him off" is fine. No quarrel with that.

"We know from Mr. Colegate that the claims of a bad signal were often not true" is nonsense. We know no such thing. You made it up.

 

[AlanB]

"I think she was fobbing him off" is fine. No quarrel with that.

"We know from Mr. Colegate that the claims of a bad signal were often not true" is nonsense. We know no such thing. You made it up.

He is saying that other than a very small area when it came to phone signal he didn't find what he expected, they are talking about France and Spain - the question is WHY he was expecting poor signal so often when it is not in fact the case - that's where the speculation comes in.

=======================================
"Police in Spain and France have launched an investigation into her disappearance and initial suggestions the area has a poor phone signal have been ruled out because of the mast.

Earlier this week Dan, 38, himself revealed communications were good.

He told BBC Breakfast :''Now I’ve since been in the area and found that the signal is actually quite good in a lot of the places she might have been... if she had had an accident and that was the reason she couldn’t have been in touch it must have been in a very very small area indeed."
========================================

 

[LittleMissBlueSky]

He is saying that other than a very small area when it came to phone signal he didn't find what he expected, they are talking about France and Spain - the question is WHY he was expecting poor signal so often when it is not in fact the case - that's where the speculation comes in.

=======================================
"Police in Spain and France have launched an investigation into her disappearance and initial suggestions the area has a poor phone signal have been ruled out because of the mast.

Earlier this week Dan, 38, himself revealed communications were good.

He told BBC Breakfast :''Now I’ve since been in the area and found that the signal is actually quite good in a lot of the places she might have been... if she had had an accident and that was the reason she couldn’t have been in touch it must have been in a very very small area indeed."
========================================

Ah! The Sun!

"Initial suggestions the area has a poor phone signal have been ruled out because of the mast" is nonsense. In mountainous areas its quite possible for whole valleys to lack signal, even close to a transmitter site. Dan's dossier is very clear that there's no signal at all immediately below the peak on the French side until a point well below the refuge.

The second part (BBC Breakfast) is talking about her expected onward route from the Peak de Sauvegard into France. The "very small area" refers to the path from the peak down to the refuge de venasque where she was expected to spend the night.

Sun journalists aren't big on context!

 

[AlanB]

Ah! The Sun!

"Initial suggestions the area has a poor phone signal have been ruled out because of the mast" is nonsense. In mountainous areas its quite possible for whole valleys to lack signal, even close to a transmitter site. Dan's dossier is very clear that there's no signal at all immediately below the peak on the French side until a point well below the refuge.

The second part (BBC Breakfast) is talking about her expected onward route from the Peak de Sauvegard into France. The "very small area" refers to the path from the peak down to the refuge de venasque where she was expected to spend the night.

Sun journalists aren't big on context!

Wow, that's TRULY DESPERATE...

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 is NOT true based on the statement from Mr. Colegate.

You are trying to obfuscate by wanting to make it about specific times and places that suit your attack - which is not what he says in the statement, but regardless, that is not what I stated either so it's moot...

EDIT: This is what I said (you shortened it to make it appear more definitive and aid your argument) :

" 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."

That statement is factually accurate.

 

[Very traditional]

Honestly this thread is becoming unreadable other than a few sensible posts, if this is what websleuths is like no wonder it has such a dodgy reputation! Everyone likes to specilate about conspiracies and obviously we all follow true crime but some of the reaching and armchair diagnostics on here is unbelievable.

 

[AlanB]

Honestly this thread is becoming unreadable other than a few sensible posts, if this is what websleuths is like no wonder it has such a doggy reputation! Everyone likes to specilate about conspiracies and obviously we all follow true crime but some of the reaching and armchair diagnostics on here is unbelievable.

That's a fair statement, the problem is if someone repeatedly calls you a liar and it's not true then it is difficult not to respond and you end up in a vicious spiral, however, I will stop responding to her continual attacks now as I think I have made my point.

 

[LittleMissBlueSky]

Wow, that's TRULY DESPERATE...

Says the Sun reader.

You are trying to obfuscate by wanting to make it about specific times and places that suit your attack - which is not what he says in the statement, but regardless, that is not what I stated either so it's moot....

No, I'm putting back the context The Sun has left out.

EDIT: This is what I said (you shortened it to make it appear more definitive and aid your argument) :

No, I shortened it to make it shorter!

" 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."

That statement is factually accurate.

No it isn't! We know from Mr. Colegate that his assumptions about the phone signal on Esther's assumed onward path were false, and that's the context in which his remarks were made.

 

[Very traditional]

That's a fair statement, the problem is if someone repeatedly calls you a liar and it's not true then it is difficult not to respond and you end up in a vicious spiral, however, I will stop responding to her continual attacks now as I think I have made my point.

My post wasn't aimed at you in particular but I did literally just skim read the last couple of pages as it was a bit of a drag to get through. But thank you for your consideration

 

[LittleMissBlueSky]

That's a fair statement, the problem is if someone repeatedly calls you a liar and it's not true then it is difficult not to respond and you end up in a vicious spiral, however, I will stop responding to her continual attacks now as I think I have made my point.

Let me be clear that I'm not calling you a liar. I think you're saying something that hasn't been shown to be true, because it fits a story that you want to believe. That's not quite the same thing!