Anyone know more about who he’s house sitting for?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
That's another mystery/closely guarded secret/unanswered question (not sure it should be). It is not clear to me whether the "house sit" was in the Gers, in Haute Pyrenees or elsewhere. If you look around (facebook) you can see they spent a lot of time at a place in the Gers, Esther mentions Arreau but not necessarily that they were staying there. It does of course make a difference to certain options exactly how close the place was to the mountain.
I thought it was supposed to belong to some friends (not totally sure) in which case they have not made any statement.
I really hope this young lady is found soon , it’s very strange that after traveling around the world together with her boyfriend in a van for the last 6 years , she goes missing while they are on a break and temporarily separated, as another member posted the boyfriends Instagram writings seem to me to be filled with anger and hate ,, I’m getting very weird vibes from the boyfriend to be completely honest
The fact that the police have turned it into a criminal investigation speaks volumes
The fact that the police have turned it into a criminal investigation speaks volumes
Last edited:
Whilst I think he's a bit creepy, I don't think that correlates with him being involved necessarily. I haven't read that much on this case but I've read that she had been walking alone for a month which is pretty brave and shes obviously confident and independent to do this. I also read that she was a few days from her journey ending and that she didn't want to settle down and start a family etc. So maybe she has go on the down low voluntarily? Just my thoughts and opinions. I hope she is ok
The first I heard of her disappearance was here on Tattle, although there has been media coverage it doesn't seem much of a well known case to me. Given the nature of her disappearance I don’t think her husband was involved but that’s without really looking into it as I suppose it would be remarkably easy to fall/lose your way or something.
I would really like to think she’s just decided to go off alone. The thing that holds me back on that though is as someone else said - would she do that to her family? Surely by now, she could call her Mum and say she’s safe but isn’t coming back for a while. They would have to call off the search and stop the investigation as she’s then not a ‘missing person’. I don’t think many people would want to cause their families and the authorities an unnecessary panic. A day or two would be enough to slip off especially if she didn’t want her boyfriend coming after her for example.
That’s not to say I think she’s wrong if she has done this - she might not be in a good frame of mind - but surely she would know one short call would stop it all, and they still couldn’t make her come back if she doesn’t want to.
From what I can see Esther looked like a girl full of life and was close with her family so I really doubt she would go off alone imo , the family have put out a statement saying that it is now a criminal investigation, so these highly trained professional believe somebody else caused this young woman’s disappearance
Yes just looked up a statistic and 61 percent of women killed in 2018 were killed by partner or ex partner. (BBC.com femicide)
There is still little clarity in aspects of the case. Were the dogs in France or England for instance? I have no clue as I’ve read that they were in England and France. If DC was house sitting then did he have an alibi for up until he reported Esther missing? Again the only thing I’ve read is that the police have said ‘ his movements are covered’.... means nothing. Could be carefully worded. If you’re house sitting in rural France and very self sufficient it might be difficult for Dc to prove his whereabouts....
Also at this stage the police will not be giving anything away.... if they do suspect anyone close to Esther then they will be watching them.
There is still little clarity in aspects of the case. Were the dogs in France or England for instance? I have no clue as I’ve read that they were in England and France. If DC was house sitting then did he have an alibi for up until he reported Esther missing? Again the only thing I’ve read is that the police have said ‘ his movements are covered’.... means nothing. Could be carefully worded. If you’re house sitting in rural France and very self sufficient it might be difficult for Dc to prove his whereabouts....
Also at this stage the police will not be giving anything away.... if they do suspect anyone close to Esther then they will be watching them.
Last edited:
I did think the investigators were really on the ball and were waiting for DC to make a mistake but now I am starting to wonder if the fact that so many authorities are involved could mean this hasn't been dealt with properly and the case is never closed.
If this was a planned attack, doing it like this is a very god way of 'getting away with it'. Just like people who 'fall' off cruise ships in international waters....
I find it hard to think this was an accident.
If this was a planned attack, doing it like this is a very god way of 'getting away with it'. Just like people who 'fall' off cruise ships in international waters....
I find it hard to think this was an accident.
I’m sure talking about missing people in the past tense is something that’s given other killers away before too - again can’t remember who though.
It can be yes. It does depend on context though. There can be natural slips when people fear the worse etc.
Yes, a lot of them do it. There's a fascinating science called statement analysis where they analyse truthful vs untruthful language, and the priorities of the person speaking, among other things. According to statement analysis it is stressful for the brain to lie and the truth usually leaks out in some way. Speaking in the past tense about someone who's not supposed to be dead is a major tell, but it's well-known enough that a lot of murderers try hard not to do this.
In this quote from an interviewing denying the police's claims that their relationship may not have been as happy as it seemed, he refers to her in the past tense, but gets away with it because he's referring to a specific time period (just before she went missing), which of course is in the past. But everything he says has that past tense knows-she-is-dead feel to it:
“We spoke every day, the time apart worked as we expected and we were very joyful when we spoke.
We were missing each other.
The hike she went missing on was to be her last hike before driving back.
Our last conversation was totally loving and all smiles. She was so happy and we were excited to see each other."
I have underlined 9 words that are in past tense, and bolded two sections that have an air of finality about them. That is a lot of past tense and finality for a short passage.
Another thing is the principle of protesting too much. DC is very, very very eager for people to believe that they were in a state of loving bliss. He is saying too many words. In statement analysis, saying too many words weakens the statement.
A well known example is when Victoria Beckham said about David, "I truly believe I have the most faithful husband that I could hope for", instead of just saying "I have a faithful husband".
DC has said, they were "very" "joyful". They were "missing each other". Their conversation was "totally" "loving" and "all smiles". She was "so" "happy" and they were "excited" to see each other. That's 9 words/phrases in one short passage that are intended to persuade the listener that they were blissfully happy. (Qualifying extra words like 'very', 'totally' and 'so' count as their own, as we are counting extra words added to persuade, rather than counting words that mean love, happiness etc).
Why is DC so, so desperate to persuade that they were perfectly happy? It's not realistic for any relationship to be so happy, especially so soon after a short break from each other. It's not even relevant to finding her, and if any unhappiness is relevant, an innocent partner would be open-minded enough to let the police persue it. An innocent person would be delighted at the possibility that his missing partner might have left of her own accord, rather than coming to harm.
His need to persuade about their happiness could be because he wants to deflect attention away from his relationship with her. Its also worth noting that people tend to talk excessively positively about their recently dead loved ones, so there could also be an element of that.
The next section of the interview (which I've linked below, I don't want to quote it all), he was entirely talking about himself, and how cooperative he is being with the police, seemingly offended by descriptions of him being "quizzed" by them. He needed to pre-emptively persuade the reader that he is a innocent and the police aren't interested in him. It also seems like he thinks the members of public who are suspicious about him are stupid, and are getting their impression of police investigations from the TV. It shows contempt for people who doubt him, and his sense of superiority.
He also said “My only goal is to help them do what they need to do as quickly as possible”, with 'them' being the police. He couldn't bring himself to say "my only goal is to find Esther". He's admitting that his only goal is for this to be over as soon as possible.
He didn't mention wanting to find Esther, or how distraught he is at all.
It is in stark contrast to her mum's statement. Read it all here , I don't want to make this post too long.
His other weird statement is "I’m broken. Shattered to report that my beloved Esther, the person who taught me how to feel, is missing."
1) His first priority is to talk about himself and his feelings.
2) He drops the pronoun before 'shattered', weakening commitment to the following statement. ie, he's not really shattered.
3) He doesn't he's shattered that she's missing, only shattered to report that she is missing. ie, what is paining him is having to tell everyone.
4) He talks about Esther in reference to himself, and what she meant to him and did for him. He is very self-absorbed.
5) Describing her as "the person who taught me how to feel" is past-tense, and has the feel of the common bereavement behaviour of talking (in the past tense) about positive qualities of a dead person.
Good post .... agree totally with what you have said.
Its not one hundred percent proof tho as shannan watts friend talked about her in past tense from the off. I've watched a lot of crime docs on you tube too where they talk in past tense but haven't committed the crime.
Yes ... you do need evidence as well..and it’s not fair to condemn anyone just on that basis . but i guess it just makes people like the police watch a little more closely ...
I still have tiny bit of hope that she’s out there somewhere
I still have tiny bit of hope that she’s out there somewhere
Are there any more developments?
It seems to have gone quiet lately ..
Yes, very. A bit surprising since the French and Spanish police were supposed to have met over a week ago, you'd think they'd keep Dan in the loop, maybe. Add in nothing from LBT, no Christmas appeal, nothing from the family, didn't the aunt suggest Esther could have been kidnapped, no appeal to the kidnapper. The whole family has gone quiet. It's almost as if they don't want the public to know/help. As an aside the statement put out by LBT is not accessible from their own site, you have to know its url and it appears to be the only statement they have ever made on any case, odd.
- Status