Tina Satchwell News updates MOD NOTE POST ONE

weldoninhio

Gravelly wrote: »

That's a bit of an oxymoron. If we must accept his version of events, then we shouldn't be looking for any evidence to the contrary.

If you were a detective, nobody would be guilty of a crime unless they themselves admitted to it.

Nail on the head. We aren't the Gardai.

Bob Harris

Uncharted wrote: »

Let's not start dancing on the head of a pin already here.....im specifically referring to this case...... my point is that we must accept RS's version of events as truthful until evidence proves to the contrary.

Guards: Richie...look me in the eye and tell me you had nothing to do with the disappearance of Tina.

Richard:(looking at the floor)..I could never harm Tina.

Guards: Grand so, case closed!

Trigger Happy

Uncharted wrote: »

Have you ever heard the phrase..... "innocent until proven guilty " ?
You will have to familiarise yourself with it or this thread could end up locked.
I'm sure no one wants that

The point is that AGS do not accept what a suspect says without investigating it and validating, as best possible, that it is true. What someone says is not fact.
A good investigator will believe nothing that cannot be proven. And so they should not believe what the husband is saying either. They should be investigating the obvious suspects of which he is one.

That counters your point that we should accept everything that he says unless proven in a court of law.

Uncharted

Jesus wept..........Best of luck with keeping this thread legal Mods.

Paddy Cow

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Reopening this thread now.
Mod NoteThis thread was brought to the attention of the people upstairs. I did my best to edit this thread. All the speculation/theories are removed as are the joke and gossip. This may have upset Tina's family, Richard, friends or some Boards.ie users. This took hours and if anybody notices anything that they think that shouldn't be here report it.
Basically just post news updates in this thread from now on.

Fair play! If that was me I'd just have deleted the thread and opened a new one with a warning

Bob Harris

Uncharted wrote: »

Jesus wept..........Best of luck with keeping this thread legal Mods.

It was crazy it went as long as it did before it got cleaned up.
Try saying the words 'Paddy' and 'Jackson' in the same paragragh and you'll be pulled up quicker than you can say threesome.
All sorts of claims, speculation, accusations and outright bullshít was posted here for ages and not an eyebrow raised when there is a woman disappeared for over a year and a major and high profile Garda investigation about it.

muckbrien

Uncharted wrote: »

Jesus wept..........Best of luck with keeping this thread legal Mods.

I can't take anyone seriously that uses that hideous phrase "Jesus Wept" to make a point .

Just saying like

Paddy Cow

Uncharted wrote: »

Have you ever heard the phrase..... "innocent until proven guilty " ?
You will have to familiarise yourself with it or this thread could end up locked.
I'm sure no one wants that

Do you understand how the legal system works? The police run an investigation. They do not simply believe what witnesses tell them. They pass their findings onto the DPP who then decides whether or not to pursue a case. The defence will argue for innocence and the prosecution will argue for guilt. A person won't be legally found guilty until proven guilty in a court of law but from the very start of a police investigation, until the end of the court case, there will be plenty of people in the legal system who believe someone to be guilty. That's how it works. Why else would the DPP or prosecutors bother going to court if they didn't think people were guilty?

Paddy Cow

Bob Harris wrote: »

It was crazy it went as long as it did before it got cleaned up.
Try saying the words 'Paddy' and 'Jackson' in the same paragragh and you'll be pulled up quicker than you can say threesome.
All sorts of claims, speculation, accusations and outright bullshwas posted here for ages and not an eyebrow raised when there is a woman disappeared for over a year and a major and high profile Garda investigation about it.

The difference is that is an ongoing trial. There has been no arrests in the Satchwell case. The two are not the same at all. One is an investigation. The other is a trial.

Uncharted

My point still stands. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. It's basically the backbone of criminal law worldwide.
That's all I'm saying. Theres nothing too deep or mysterious about it.

gozunda

fepper wrote: »

If that's the case,we have to take what Richard said so far is fact truthful ...

You have a point - however I would change the term 'truth' for 'fact'. Imo it's not about taking what someone says as truthful or otherwise - rather looking to see whether something stands up to scrutiny compared to other accounts or ascertained facts

I could claim on national TV that I've visited the moon in the last week and anyone could quite legitimaly check with NASA to see if any space rockets had been detected in the upper earth atmosphere.

Serious questions would be asked if it was found that there was no evidence of this whatsover.

Same here.

Bob Harris

Paddy Cow wrote: »

The difference is that is an ongoing trial. There has been no arrests in the Satchwell case. The two are not the same at all. One is an investigation. The other is a trial.

I know that Paddy. I was just making the point that there are certain topics that boards deems untouchable while in other cases such as this one people can post whatever pie in the sky theories and accusations they like and it took an awful long time for them to be cleaned up.

gozunda

Uncharted wrote: »

My point still stands. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. It's basically the backbone of criminal law worldwide.
That's all I'm saying. Theres nothing too deep or mysterious about it.

I really dont get what you are saying tbh. I cannot see anyone saying someone is guilty in the last couple of posts imo. Even the Gardai don't prove guilt. That is the job of the legal system.

weldoninhio

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Do you understand how the legal system works? The police run an investigation. They do not simply believe what witnesses tell them. They pass their findings onto the DPP who then decides whether or not to pursue a case. The defence will argue for innocence and the prosecution will argue for guilt. A person won't be legally found guilty until proven guilty in a court of law but from the very start of a police investigation, until the end of the court case, there will be plenty of people in the legal system who believe someone to be guilty. That's how it works. Why else would the DPP or prosecutors bother going to court if they didn't think people were guilty?

Do you understand how Boards works? They do not simply let people post wild baseless nonsense. This could lead to legal action due to defamation or a host of other charges. All it takes is someone affected by the malicious rumours posted to bring it to a solicitor who brings it to the Gardai who refer it to the DPP.


The DPP who then decides whether or not to pursue a case. The defence will argue for innocence and the prosecution will argue for guilt. A person won't be legally found guilty until proven guilty in a court of law but from the very start of a police investigation, until the end of the court case, there will be plenty of people in the legal system who believe someone to be guilty. That's how it works. Why else would the DPP or prosecutors bother going to court if they didn't think people were guilty?

fepper

gozunda wrote: »

You have a point - however I would change the term 'truth' for 'fact'. Imo it's not about taking what someone says as truthful or otherwise - rather looking to see whether something stands up to scrutiny compared to other accounts or ascertained facts

I could claim on national TV that I've visited the moon in the last week and anyone could quite legitimaly check with NASA to see if any space rockets had been detected in the upper earth atmosphere.

Serious questions would be asked if it was found that there was no evidence of this whatsover.

Same here.

I'd agree with you,if I was a lodger in the satchwell home on that morning and was also drinking tea at the same time Richard said he got Tina tea then I correlate his story,so is it a bit too coincidental that none of version of story can be verified by neighbours friends publicly so that element of doubt can be discounted of him ito the outside world

CeilingFly

Can any of the part-time sleuths here tell me what his motive was if they think he has some criminal responsibilty.?

With every crime there has to be some form of motive.

Money? - Doesn't seem to be life insurance or any fortune lying about.

Affair? - Had to be the most secret affair ever if that was the motive.

Violence? - Someone at some stage would have seen / noticed something . they lived in a townhose not a isolated bungalow where sounds can't be heard. And as not even the the hysterical sensationist rags have found anything of this nature, that can be discounted.


Still points to suicide unless there is evidence of anything else.

The most likely causes are she was 45, no children and couldn't/didn't have them, depressed and entering menopause (many women enter menopause age 45+ though 48+ is the average. (30% of women in menopause are on some form of anti depressants.) and led a somewhat lonesome life. RS probably feels emotional guilt as if it was suicide he naturally would feel in some way responsible and that may explain some of his ramblings as he does not want to accept suicide and the emotional guilt that brings with it.

gozunda

CeilingFly wrote: »

Can any of the part-time sleuths here tell me what his motive was if they think he has some criminal responsibilty.?

With every crime there has to be some form of motive.
Money? - Doesn't seem to be life insurance or any fortune lying about.
Affair? - Had to be the most secret affair ever if that was the motive.
Violence? - Someone at some stage would have seen / noticed something . they lived in a townhose not a isolated bungalow where sounds can't be heard. And as not even the the hysterical sensationist rags have found anything of this nature, that can be discounted.

Still points to suicide unless there is evidence of anything else.

And that's not based on any surmising, the facts are she was 45, wanted children and couldn't/didn't have them, depressed and entering menopause. 30% of women in menopause are on some form of anti depressants. RS probably feels emotional guilt as if it was suicide he naturally would feel in some way responsible and that may explain some of his ramblings as he does not want to accept suicide and the emotional guilt that brings with it.

Ouch. Bar age perhaps - all of that is at best your unconfirmed opinion and not 'fact' None of what you just detailed about TS can be substantiated here. There is no official account or confirmation on any of the above. This is the type of thing Freshpopcorn detailed above as NOT acceptable imo. Speculating on other posters opinion on motives ditto.

gozunda

fepper wrote: »

I'd agree with you,if I was a lodger in the satchwell home on that morning and was also drinking tea at the same time Richard said he got Tina tea then I correlate his story,so is it a bit too coincidental that none of version of story can be verified by neighbours friends publicly so that element of doubt can be discounted of him ito the outside world

I was thinking more about external reports such as independent accounts eg car boot sales where people met TS and family accounts that don't appear to match with has been said publicly.

Ok some of this may be down to reporting however not all of it imo.

dee_mc

CeilingFly wrote: »

And that's not based on any surmising, the facts are she was 45, wanted children and couldn't/didn't have them, depressed and entering menopause.

RS has stated that he wanted children but Tina didn't, so they 'compromised' and had dogs and parrots that they treated like their babies instead.
You're using the word 'fact' there - we only have RS's word that he wanted children and she didn't, and that she was depressed for that matter. The only concrete fact there is that she was 45 at the time of her disappearance.

Gravelly

dee_mc wrote: »

RS has stated that he wanted children but Tina didn't, so they 'compromised' and had dogs and parrots that they treated like their babies instead.
You're using the word 'fact' there - we only have RS's word that he wanted children and she didn't, and that she was depressed for that matter. The only concrete fact there is that she was 45 at the time of her disappearance.

Putting "Fact" after any statement on Boards makes it immutable and unchallengeable - Fact. Putting it in capitals doubles the effect - FACT.

CeilingFly

Gravelly wrote: »

Putting "Fact" after any statement on Boards makes it immutable and unchallengeable - Fact. Putting it in capitals doubles the effect - FACT.

OK, so not 100% confirmable, (and post has been changed) but certainly a far more logical explanation than some of the sleuths here have come up with.


Can anyone come up with a logical motive if they think there was something untoward?

Gravelly

CeilingFly wrote: »

OK, so not 100% confirmable, (and post has been changed) but certainly a far more logical explanation than some of the sleuths here have come up with.


Can anyone come up with a logical motive if they think there was something untoward?

I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss motives any more but if we are:

An argument got out of hand and she was "accidentally" killed

She really was suffering from bipolar (or whatever it is she is supposed to be suffering from) and she attacked him - he killed her in self-defense but panicked (or was afraid he wouldn't be believed) and hid the body

She spent the famous €26k (on clothes perhaps) and he killed her in a fit of rage

etc. etc. etc.

fepper

CeilingFly wrote: »

OK, so not 100% confirmable, (and post has been changed) but certainly a far more logical explanation than some of the sleuths here have come up with.


Can anyone come up with a logical motive if they think there was something untoward?

Surely your not saying that everything needs a motive to actually happen

CeilingFly

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss motives any more but if we are:

An argument got out of hand and she was "accidentally" killed

She really was suffering from bipolar (or whatever it is she is supposed to be suffering from) and she attacked him - he killed her in self-defense but panicked (or was afraid he wouldn't be believed) and hid the body

She spent the famous €26k (on clothes perhaps) and he killed her in a fit of rage

etc. etc. etc.

He hardly looks like the strongest person around. Can't see how you'd move a body from the house in a town to a car and then dispose of it without leaving any trace whatsoever.

Yes the hystericla media have had a field day because many cases like this do end up as criminal cases, but many also have sad endings.

The media have invested a lot on this but even they seem to be coming around to there not being a case other than a personal tragedy with a fair change in their reporting style recently.

degrassinoel

fepper wrote: »

Surely your not saying that everything needs a motive to actually happen

gozunda

CeilingFly wrote: »

OK, so not 100% confirmable, (and post has been changed) but certainly a far more logical explanation than some of the sleuths here have come up with.

Can anyone come up with a logical motive if they think there was something untoward?

"Sleuths"?

I see what you did there - throw some slurs around and set yourself up as a "logical" alternative? Lol

What are you doing that many other posters have not already done before you came and opened the door to let the light in?

We have been specifically requested not to speculate on percieved motives etc. So no not going there.

I'm presuming you have read the mods post this morning?

Gravelly

CeilingFly wrote: »

He hardly looks like the strongest person around. Can't see how you'd move a body from the house in a town to a car and then dispose of it without leaving any trace whatsoever.
.

Going by the photos, he is considerably bigger than she was, and regardless, she somehow did disappear from the house without leaving any trace whatsoever.

CeilingFly

fepper wrote: »

Surely your not saying that everything needs a motive to actually happen

yes, motive / reason.

Everything has some sort of motive/reason. That's human nature.

Yet to see any of the sleuths come up with one plausible motive/reason to suggest a criminal act.

They are very good at answering back, but not one single plausible motive or reason has even been mentioned.

Not even the hysterical media or Neil "tuggy" Prenderville has come up with anything.

Flippyfloppy

CeilingFly wrote: »

yes, motive / reason.

Everything has some sort of motive/reason. That's human nature.

Yet to see any of the sleuths come up with one plausible motive/reason to suggest a criminal act.

They are very good at answering back, but not one single plausible motive or reason has even been mentioned.

Not even the hysterical media or Neil "tuggy" Prenderville has come up with anything.

Have you seriously decided to come here today, after a thread clean up, and a mod warning against speculation, to ask everyone to speculate on what happened to Tina?

Gravelly

CeilingFly wrote: »

yes, motive / reason.

Everything has some sort of motive/reason. That's human nature.

Yet to see any of the sleuths come up with one plausible motive/reason to suggest a criminal act.

They are very good at answering back, but not one single plausible motive or reason has even been mentioned.

Not even the hysterical media or Neil "tuggy" Prenderville has come up with anything.

Ahem.