Talk:Death of Esther Dingley

Untitled

I have reverted the reference to 100 miles back to my original form. It had been changed to 3 hours on the basis that this was more relevant. That is an error. The journey time is dependant upon the means of transport. The distance is relevant because Daniel Colegate says he could not have travelled return journey of 200 miles on a bicycle during the time Esther Dingley was missing. The car journey time each way is 2 hours; the bicycle journey each way is around 7 hours. Please do not revert to 'hours'. SteveCree2 (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The page has been reverted from miles to hours. The reason given is 'transport availability is unknown' and that using miles creates an negative POV Colegate. This is incoherent. It is precisely because the amount of time it takes to travel 100 miles depends upon the mode of transport that 'hours' is incorrect. Moreover, including the distance does the opposite from a negative POV. It IS known what transport Colegate had available to him, a bicycle, and it would have taken around 7 hours each way. This supports his alibi. Please do not revert. SteveCree2 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't plan to revert that, but have removed the bicycle reference. Colegate has not been named as a suspect in this case so discussion of an "alibi" is irrelevant. ClydebankBill (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is more economical to remove reference to modes of transport. There was no reference to 'alibi' in the entry, however. For information, Colegate has accepted the need for his elimination and has said publicly that the police did indeed eliminate him in part by noting that a bicycle was his only means of transport.SteveCree2 (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that alibi was not referenced but the bicycle was made it seem kind of accusatory, without actually doing so.Reads better now. ClydebankBill (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of the profile was, and I think remains, problematic. Because it is an ongoing case and tense is present, it will need revising very soon. My view is that since Wikipedia is not a news site, updating as regularly as this on details which have only very temporary relevance (unlike, for example, the substantive dates Dingley went missing, when she was found and so on) does not seem in order. I have, however, changed the last sentence to deal with an element of negative POV which was creeping in. It is true at present that the police have not ruled out murder and this may suggest to some it is legitimate to refer to the questioning of Dingley's partner. But the reference used also makes is abundantly clear that Colegate is not a suspect and the police continue to think an accident is the most likely scenario. Indeed, the headline chosen by the sub-editor is wholly unrepresentative of the actual article at the reference. My own view is that users amending this page should both avoid both blow-by-blow accounts of events as they proceed and not present routine police questioning as raising suspicion of Colegate per se. At some point, the police will make a statement one way or the other, and indeed there will be an inquest in the UK when Dingley's body is repatriated. These seem to me to be appropriate watersheds for changing details on this page; there may of course be others. SteveCree2 (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the update by HWDEMD, I am reluctant to undo this as I agree with the spirit of the change you made in light of a number of negative and speculative comments on this article in the past, but I think it needs a citation to back up the statement that Dan Colegate was not questioned.ClydebankBill (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the whole section on whether Colegate was questioned or not as it seems to be entering into a debate without proper citation. ClydebankBill (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)