Found Deceased Spain - Esther Dingley, from UK, missing in the Pyrenees, November 2020 #4

[otto]

DC appears convinced Esther has been taken by a third party. He has more knowledge and access to the facts than any of us. He has walked the route etc etc.

Durham hiker Esther Dingley taken 'against her will'
The Northern Echo 4th Feb

From the dossier, Esther's partner does accept that accident is always a possibility.

• Regardless of experience and conditions, any hiker in the mountains can have an accident.
• Also, as the Search and Rescue Teams have pointed out, occasionally it is just not possible to find somebody.
• The accident theory cannot be further investigated at the moment due to the weather.
• The only real possibility for a long fall is from the peak itself, but the helicopter went up and down the slopes many times and saw nothing whatsoever, and nor did searchers with high powered telescopes looking from a distance

Dossier

 

[stmarysmead]

Snipped for focus.

IMO this turns the discussion on those topics into a set of black-and-white facts. IMO, there was disagreement about how to evaluate any of the items in this paragraph. "Denial" IMO does not enter the picture. And for sure, no one was calling anyone else a "liar": that's never been on the table.

I agree and stated that no one called anyone a liar.

‘No one took the position that anyone was calling Dan a liar and that any other comments that disputed his opinion must stop.’

But Dan’s interpretation of Esther’s readiness and her expertise were refuted in opinions here..while others agreed. Not sure why there’s any controversy about different opinions or theories being articulated on this “sleuthing Board.”

IMO there few “black and white FACTS” except that Esther is missing. We can choose to believe or disbelieve witnesses, LE, Facebook posts...and often we bring our own personal histories into how we make those decisions.

But I enjoy the debate...it’s not very productive if we all just agree or try to censor those who see things differently. Maybe soon we will have more information to focus on and that will be helpful.

 

[stmarysmead]

From the dossier, Esther's partner does accept that accident is always a possibility.

• Regardless of experience and conditions, any hiker in the mountains can have an accident.
• Also, as the Search and Rescue Teams have pointed out, occasionally it is just not possible to find somebody.
• The accident theory cannot be further investigated at the moment due to the weather.
• The only real possibility for a long fall is from the peak itself, but the helicopter went up and down the slopes many times and saw nothing whatsoever, and nor did searchers with high powered telescopes looking from a distance

Dossier

I don’t think anyone is disputing the accident theory. I think just about everyone has to accept that an accident is not only possible but probable. But until,the search continues, IMO, LE and even amateur sleuths should test other theories...just in case...

 

[Seni]

I agree and stated that no one called anyone a liar.

Snipped to cut to the point from previous page:

"But in any event, I was posing a theory, not even an opinion and I have no facts to prove that police lied or that the witness lied.

But IMO somebody lied."

****

Maybe we can lay the issue to rest and accept Police and LB explanations that activities were going on in van known to them.

 

[otto]

I don’t think anyone is disputing the accident theory. I think just about everyone has to accept that an accident is not only possible but probable. But until,the search continues, IMO, LE and even amateur sleuths should test other theories...just in case...

Police are considering all three possibilities at this time. They have no choice because there is no evidence. She was last known to be at the top of the mountain on Nov 22. Then nothing. Three possibilities for her disappearance are : accident, voluntary disappearance, or someone else being involved.

Accident can not be investigated until the Spring. Voluntary disappearance is unlikely since she has no digital footprint since Nov 22. If someone else is involved, it has nothing to do with the photo of the van with the light on - police have taken responsibility for the light in the van a few days after Nov 25.

 

[Rush4087]

Police are considering all three possibilities at this time. They have no choice because there is no evidence. She was last known to be at the top of the mountain on Nov 22. Then nothing. Three possibilities for her disappearance are : accident, voluntary disappearance, or someone else being involved.

Accident can not be investigated until the Spring. Voluntary disappearance is unlikely since she has no digital footprint since Nov 22. If someone else is involved, it has nothing to do with the photo of the van with the light on - police have taken responsibility for the light in the van a few days after Nov 25.

In my opinion there are FOUR possibilities for her disappearance, not three. The fourth possibility is suicide. I sadly think that that is what happened in this case. (Jmo).

And I don't think ED will necessarily be found when the snow melts - for the same reason she wasn't found during the initial searches - because she didn't/doesn't want to be found. I don't think ED is anywhere near any of the trails being discussed. I think she found a beautiful place of concealment on the Spanish side the Pyrenees Mountains (in view of the Pic), a place of breathtaking beauty. I think she searched for just such a concealment spot in the time she had between her two summits on the 21st and 22nd. All JMO

And no, I don't think the term "suicide" should be included in the umbrella term "voluntary disappearance" as some LE agencies in various countries and municipalities around the world insist on doing so that no one ever has to say, consider, or contemplate the often unexplainable, always sad, and always tragic cases of suicide. But treating suicide as a forbidden topic won't make it go away. It just creates confusion for LE, families, and the public.

The term "voluntary disappearance" should cover: "start a new life", "obtain a new identity" and live-off-the grid" scenarios. It is true that sometimes people will fake or stage a suicide in order to facilitate a voluntary disappearance, but again, that's not a suicide

If you're going to include suicide in with any "voluntary disappearance", you can't claim (in this case, anyway) that because there's been no evidence of digital communication or credit card use, therefore one can rule out "voluntary disappearance", because there would be no digital communication or credit card usage in the case of a suicide either...

I just think this is a very sad disappearance. I do hope that LE is able to learn what happened to ED. And if she ended her own life, I hope they are able to locate her remains - but only to put her family at ease (and not as part of any recovery attempt). That's just the way I feel about it. All jmo.

 

[PeggyHenry]

If this had happened whilst Esther was hiking in a less precarious landscape then I’m trying to imagine what my feeling would have been. If there was much less chance of an accident.. I think I would have leant towards third party.

Because this occurred in the dramatic setting of the Pyrenees, under lockdown, when there are a few people around then it is logical to assume an accident. Of course suicide is a possibility but whilst I see that Esther had some emotional struggles and anguish, for me that isn’t the case here. For some reason I am convinced of a third party involvement. Again I go back to the interruptions to routine:

• Suddenly stops Facebook posts describing daily experiences (no post after 19th apart from insta on 21st)

• BBC article published online on 22 nd

• Repeats Climb of Pic de Sauvegarde

• Talks to Ballarin of potential change of plan ( she is not aware at that time that her conversation will be made public)

Apart from those, the ‘ I think I can see you’ texts disturb me.

 

[stmarysmead]

Snipped to cut to the point from previous page:

"But in any event, I was posing a theory, not even an opinion and I have no facts to prove that police lied or that the witness lied.

But IMO somebody lied."

****

Maybe we can lay the issue to rest and accept Police and LB explanations that activities were going on in van known to them.

The witness said a light was on when she walked the dog at 7pm. This disturbed her so much that she looked in the van at 10pm...three hours later...and saw someone with brown hair “sleeping” in the van. She took a picture and called police. She felt that police brushed her off...or some phrase to that effect.

We can’t tell much from the picture. But it’s hard to understand why this witness would involve herself and make up such an elaborate story. What would be her motive? Why would she take a picture if it was only going to refute her statement? Why let the media have it if it would undercut the validity of what she saw?

My guess is that LE saw the photo and therefore had to admit publicly that someone was in the van.

So, considering this and using a more polite word...is she mistaken?

LE responds that this is their officer. So no denial. But they also elaborate on this statement. This is a forensic exam. They explain further that, yes, the officer was not in protective clothing (as one might expect). Yes, there’s no police car because...he arrived in an unmarked car.

Instead of answering doubts for me....this explanation raises more of them. Why wouldn’t a forensic examiner be in protective clothing? What was he doing under artificial light for over three hours? Why would he have to be so stealthy to arrive in an unmarked car when he would have the light on in the van? And they did not address the part of the witness statement that said the person was sleeping.

In any event, I will agree to pleasantly disagree with those who see nothing unusual in this situation. We simply do not know enough at this point...to make decorative statements that ANYTHING has “nothing to do with Esther’s disappearance.” We cannot rule anything out...just give our own opinions.

My opinion is that, at the least, nothing “forensic” was going on in that van.

 

[PeggyHenry]

The Spanish officer must have been a part of the investigative process and I suppose could have been working undercover, but any forensics officer would have been wearing protective clothing and would have had no reason to not look and act like a forensics officer.
I also think that we have only seen one of the photos that was taken. Yes, it may have been the only photo but I doubt that very much. She may have taken ten - we dont know -we have only seen what we have been allowed to see.

 

[stmarysmead]

The Spanish officer must have been a part of the investigative process and I suppose could have been working undercover, but any forensics officer would have been wearing protective clothing and would have had no reason to not look and act like a forensics officer.
I also think that we have only seen one of the photos that was taken. Yes, it may have been the only photo but I doubt that very much. She may have taken ten - we dont know -we have only seen what we have been allowed to see.

‘Great point about the possibility of multiple photos. Here’s an article that confirms there were multiple photos.

Also. If the person in the van was not sleeping, and doing some kind of active exam...I wonder why he didn’t see the witness looking in the window and then taking several photos. It’s not like he was in a house, he was in a small camper! He could have leaned out of the van and said he was LE and asked why she was photographing him. But her statement says the forensic officer never moved from his sleeping position.

Mystery deepens in case of missing hiker after strange sighting

“I saw someone sleeping in the back of the caravan car and I couldn’t believe it,” Lucia told the MailOnline.

“Everyone in Benasque knows about the missing English girl. And I knew that was her van. It is the only camping car that is British.

“I first saw the light on when I took my dog out at about 7pm. It seemed a bit strange.

Then I took the dog out again at about 10pm and I took a closer look. I could see someone asleep in the back of the van. They were lying down. They were not moving. They were lying quite still.”

Lucia said she took PHOTOS and reported her sightings to police, but claims they “weren’t interested” in her pictures or her story.’

and this...


‘Three days after spotting the figure in the car, the vehicle was impounded by authorities.

When asked about the incident, Spanish police initially claimed the person in the van was a forensic investigator, but have since declined to comment.’

 

[Puzzles]

BBM
It’s not only LE’s assertion it was a forensic officer in the van that I find puzzling.

I also don’t understand why tracker/sniffer dogs weren’t used in the search for Esther.

From DC’s dossier: "Dan did offer to give clothes / samples to the French police so they could do a forensic search or send in sniffer dogs, but they said they didn't have that type of dog and/or it was too long afterwards.”

IMO, it’s odd, even unbelievable, that SAR in the Pyrenees does not have access to tracker/sniffer dogs.

In 2018, when a young man went missing in a ski area of British Columbia, dogs were employed in the search, in two meters of snow, three weeks after he was last seen. See article below where we read " If he is there, they are confident the dogs will find him."

This leads me to question the statement “it was too long afterwards."


https://cfjctoday.com/2018/03/08/specialty-dogs-take-up-search-for-man-missing-at-sun-peaks/
February 17th, the last time anyone saw 20 year old Ryan Shtuka. He left a house party on Burfield Drive just after 2am, it’s believed he was headed home, just a five minute walk away.

Nearly three weeks later, a renewed search effort. Five canine specialists from the Canadian Search and Disaster Dogs Association, along with their handlers, have arrived in Sun Peaks for an intense three day hunt.

“They have a sense of smell which is really really strong, by air scenting it allows them to isolate the other scents which is better in this case,” says Silvie Montier, Canadian Search and Disaster Dogs Association Team Leader.

The dogs are trained to find human scent in wilderness, rubble and water searches. With a sense of smell a million times stronger than ours, they can detect any human trace from a distance, be it live or deceased.
“They will catch a scent from far enough and it’s very important for a situation like this where the snow is so deep the dog can’t go everywhere, so he has to be able to get the scent from far enough, so that he can go in the deep snow only where it’s needed,” says Montier.
Trudging through nearly two metres of deep snow, the canine unit is focusing on the Burfield area where Ryan was last seen. If he is there, they are confident the dogs will find him.

(To date, Ryan Shtuka has not been found.)

 

[IrisElizabeth]

BBM
It’s not only LE’s assertion it was a forensic officer in the van that I find puzzling.

I also don’t understand why tracker/sniffer dogs weren’t used in the search for Esther.

From DC’s dossier: "Dan did offer to give clothes / samples to the French police so they could do a forensic search or send in sniffer dogs, but they said they didn't have that type of dog and/or it was too long afterwards.”

IMO, it’s odd, even unbelievable, that SAR in the Pyrenees does not have access to tracker/sniffer dogs.

In 2018, when a young man went missing in a ski area of British Columbia, dogs were employed in the search, in two meters of snow, three weeks after he was last seen. See article below where we read " If he is there, they are confident the dogs will find him."

This leads me to question the statement “it was too long afterwards."


https://cfjctoday.com/2018/03/08/specialty-dogs-take-up-search-for-man-missing-at-sun-peaks/
February 17th, the last time anyone saw 20 year old Ryan Shtuka. He left a house party on Burfield Drive just after 2am, it’s believed he was headed home, just a five minute walk away.

Nearly three weeks later, a renewed search effort. Five canine specialists from the Canadian Search and Disaster Dogs Association, along with their handlers, have arrived in Sun Peaks for an intense three day hunt.

“They have a sense of smell which is really really strong, by air scenting it allows them to isolate the other scents which is better in this case,” says Silvie Montier, Canadian Search and Disaster Dogs Association Team Leader.

The dogs are trained to find human scent in wilderness, rubble and water searches. With a sense of smell a million times stronger than ours, they can detect any human trace from a distance, be it live or deceased.
“They will catch a scent from far enough and it’s very important for a situation like this where the snow is so deep the dog can’t go everywhere, so he has to be able to get the scent from far enough, so that he can go in the deep snow only where it’s needed,” says Montier.
Trudging through nearly two metres of deep snow, the canine unit is focusing on the Burfield area where Ryan was last seen. If he is there, they are confident the dogs will find him.

(To date, Ryan Shtuka has not been found.)

I mentioned this on an earlier thread but just to say again that DC specifically says it was the French police who didn't use the sniffer dogs, we do not know if the Spanish police did (or did not).

 

[Seni]

Hi Iris Elizabeth,

Here are some links re use of sniffer dogs in this case:

Hunt for hiker who gave lift to missing Briton Esther Dingley | News | The Times

“After more than a week of extensive searching by mountain rescue teams on both sides of the border using helicopters, drones and sniffer dogs, Ms Dingley has been listed in Spain as a missing person. The file has been passed to a specialised judicial unit in France.”

More reporting on deployment of sniffer dogs:


'We have nothing': police stumped by disappearance of Briton in Pyrenees

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...urope-tour-missing-pyrenees-esther-dingley-2/

Esther Dingley: Police looking for missing British hiker looking at 'options beyond mountain accident'

 

[Seni]

BBM
It’s not only LE’s assertion it was a forensic officer in the van that I find puzzling.

I also don’t understand why tracker/sniffer dogs weren’t used in the search for Esther.

From DC’s dossier: "Dan did offer to give clothes / samples to the French police so they could do a forensic search or send in sniffer dogs, but they said they didn't have that type of dog and/or it was too long afterwards.”

IMO, it’s odd, even unbelievable, that SAR in the Pyrenees does not have access to tracker/sniffer dogs.

Respectfully snipped.

They were used.

DN did not accompany the SAR searches.

Pyrenean SAR have a very high rating amongst international mountain search teams and are used to cooperating between countries. I know that because I am a mountain fan and read it in a rating not so long ago. Rickshaw may be able to back this up...

 

[Puzzles]

Thanks to all who replied to my post about DC having stated they didn't have that type of dog and/or it was too long afterwards. IrisElizabeth, I remember now you'd pointed out earlier it was the French police who didn't use sniffer dogs.

As some reports describe actual sniffer dogs were used, I wonder if they provided any clues to Esther's whereabouts, withheld from us.

It's interesting for me to note I've been grumbling to myself about how some posters repeat the same facts, or pose the same questions, over and over, ignoring what they, or others, have already discussed, and now learn I've done the same myself. Projection at work I'm sorry.

 

[Seni]

Thanks to all who replied to my post about DC having stated they didn't have that type of dog and/or it was too long afterwards. IrisElizabeth, I remember now you'd pointed out earlier it was the French police who didn't use sniffer dogs.

As some reports describe actual sniffer dogs were used, I wonder if they provided any clues to Esther's whereabouts, withheld from us.

I'm sorry.

Snipped for focus.

Why would any force with-hold information?

From "us" This is a huge operation involving two countries under difficult weather conditions on top of Covid instructions that were not respected and which put people's lives in risk.

 

[Puzzles]

Snipped for focus.

Why would any force with-hold information?

From "us" This is a huge operation involving two countries under difficult weather conditions on top of Covid instructions that were not respected and which put people's lives in risk.

Hi @Seni, you ask "Why would any force with-hold information?"

Information is withheld from the media by LE for a number of reasons, and a google search will provide you with examples.

With all respect, I don't understand to what you refer in your last sentence, because I can't pinpoint how the huge operation or difficult weather or Covid or people's lives at risk might relate to LE withholding information from us.

I didn't want to ignore a post made in response to one of mine, and I apologize if I've misunderstood either your question or your statement. I'll aim for a better reply if you can please rephrase them for clarification. Thanks, Seni.

 

[Hatty]

The witness said a light was on when she walked the dog at 7pm. This disturbed her so much that she looked in the van at 10pm...three hours later...and saw someone with brown hair “sleeping” in the van. She took a picture and called police. She felt that police brushed her off...or some phrase to that effect.

We can’t tell much from the picture. But it’s hard to understand why this witness would involve herself and make up such an elaborate story. What would be her motive? Why would she take a picture if it was only going to refute her statement? Why let the media have it if it would undercut the validity of what she saw?

My guess is that LE saw the photo and therefore had to admit publicly that someone was in the van.

So, considering this and using a more polite word...is she mistaken?

LE responds that this is their officer. So no denial. But they also elaborate on this statement. This is a forensic exam. They explain further that, yes, the officer was not in protective clothing (as one might expect). Yes, there’s no police car because...he arrived in an unmarked car.

Instead of answering doubts for me....this explanation raises more of them. Why wouldn’t a forensic examiner be in protective clothing? What was he doing under artificial light for over three hours? Why would he have to be so stealthy to arrive in an unmarked car when he would have the light on in the van? And they did not address the part of the witness statement that said the person was sleeping.

In any event, I will agree to pleasantly disagree with those who see nothing unusual in this situation. We simply do not know enough at this point...to make decorative statements that ANYTHING has “nothing to do with Esther’s disappearance.” We cannot rule anything out...just give our own opinions.

My opinion is that, at the least, nothing “forensic” was going on in that van.

Been away for a while and have come back to pick up this thread. Nothing seems to have changed much!
I provided an explanation for this forensic issue ages back.

1. Forensic examiners (SOCO’s) don’t always wear “protective clothing” unless, for example, at a murder or rape scene.
2. To suggest the SOCO was being “stealthy” is ridiculous. In the UK Police force I served in, they always drive unmarked vans. They’re not police officers so they don’t need marked vehicles (CID drive unmarked vehicles too - usually we got a naff Corsa!! If detectives or SOCO’s drove marked vehicles, they could be flagged down and end up dealing with incidents they don’t need to be dealing with when they need to be elsewhere).

They were probably searching for/examining paperwork, identification docs etc.

I’m sure the last thing they wanted was nosy MOP’s peering through the windows.

 

[IrisElizabeth]

Hi Iris Elizabeth,

Here are some links re use of sniffer dogs in this case:

Hunt for hiker who gave lift to missing Briton Esther Dingley | News | The Times

“After more than a week of extensive searching by mountain rescue teams on both sides of the border using helicopters, drones and sniffer dogs, Ms Dingley has been listed in Spain as a missing person. The file has been passed to a specialised judicial unit in France.”

More reporting on deployment of sniffer dogs:


'We have nothing': police stumped by disappearance of Briton in Pyrenees

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/ne...urope-tour-missing-pyrenees-esther-dingley-2/

Esther Dingley: Police looking for missing British hiker looking at 'options beyond mountain accident'

Oh thanks Seni, that's interesting - I wonder why DC made the point very clearly that they weren't used by the French police then. Perhaps he thinks the third party intervention he believes occured happened further into the French side or something along those lines, and he thinks the dogs should have been used in a wider radius?

 

[RickshawFan]

Respectfully snipped.

They were used.

DN did not accompany the SAR searches.

Pyrenean SAR have a very high rating amongst international mountain search teams and are used to cooperating between countries. I know that because I am a mountain fan and read it in a rating not so long ago. Rickshaw may be able to back this up...

I think we can be fairly secure that the Pyrenees SAR folks did an excellent job and used every possible resource. They are professionals. They do this stuff all the time. They know where to look, how to look, all the nooks and crannies, grid searches, methodically covering the area.

We have only a hint from secondary sources (i.e. DC) that dogs weren't used.

Personally, I wouldn't argue with SAR on anything related to wilderness searches, especially in an area like the Pyrenees where they do so many.

I will repeat Seni's observation that DC was not with SAR during the searching. That's per LE, not a secondary source. He would have no way to know what techniques were used or not used.

Keep in mind, along with this, that the search area (including the Refuge) was contaminated within days of when ED disappeared. At least one person stayed there. Who's to know whether some forensic techniques were mooted because of this, and perhaps even certain uses of dogs?

We also have the limitation that SAR goes first for the high probability location and was given a specific route to search. However, there's no evidence that ED actually went on that route.

The claim that "ED is not in the mountains because there's no sign of her on that route" is not at all the same as "we've searched that route, and we haven't found a trace of her on that route." The latter still leaves a very high percentage (like 99% IMO), that ED's remains are on a Pyrenees mountain; we just don't know which one.

SAR is methodical and experienced the world over. They take such pride in what they do that they go to extreme lengths to find and help people. They put their own lives on the line on a regular basis. They often pay for their own training out of pocket. They are also extremely methodical, with techniques, grid maps, weather charting, etc. honed over decades with military and SAR predecessors. IMO disputing their competence is a non-starter.