Tina Satchwell News updates MOD NOTE POST ONE

Boggles

Ann22 wrote: »

No it was the US. He said the most elaborate theories explaining disappearances are really rare.. and of women who are murdered the vast majority are killed by partners or ex partners.

Hang on a second, you have switched from talking about missing persons to killings / murdering of females. That was a fairly swift lane change TBF.

Firstly there is absolutely no concrete evidence to suggest she is dead and certainly no concrete evidence she was killed / murdered.

But he is right, the vast majority of females that are killed are by partners or ex partners, the figures fluctuate, the highest one I have seen is 9/10.

Quite a damning stat, but of course as always the devil is in the detail. You don't usually get that with Podcast designed to scare.

Partners / Ex Partners comprise of different dynamics. Non cohabiting partners, cohabiting partners, ex cohabiting partners, married cohabiting, separated, divorced, etc. It also includes Familicide and murder / suicide.

For instance if the couple are married and without children it drops the stat into the minority.

Several other factors drop it further, for instance if the woman brought kids from a different relationship she has more chance of being killed by her partner.

Motive again effects the stat, financial, illicit affair, threatening to leave him with the kids, etc.

The you add things like the age of the couple and how long they have been together / married, drops the stat significantly further.

So in reality you have turned a 90% into maybe a 10-20% when applied to this circumstance.

You throw in what has been reported as a history of mental illness with the woman and it drops significantly further.

Stats are very much like a bikini, very revealing but they tend to hide the most important parts.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on a second, you have switched from talking about missing persons to killings / murdering of females. That was a fairly swift lane change TBF.

Firstly there is absolutely no concrete evidence to suggest she is dead and certainly no concrete evidence she was killed / murdered.

But he is right, the vast majority of females that are killed are by partners or ex partners, the figures fluctuate, the highest one I have seen is 9/10.

Quite a damning stat, but of course as always the devil is in the detail. You don't usually get that with Podcast designed to scare.

Partners / Ex Partners comprise of different dynamics. Non cohabiting partners, cohabiting partners, ex cohabiting partners, married cohabiting, separated, divorced, etc. It also includes Familicide and murder / suicide.

For instance if the couple are married and without children it drops the stat into the minority.

Several other factors drop it further, for instance if the woman brought kids from a different relationship she has more chance of being killed by her partner.

Motive again effects the stat, financial, illicit affair, threatening to leave him with the kids, etc.

The you add things like the age of the couple and how long they have been together / married, drops the stat significantly further.

So in reality you have turned a 90% into maybe a 10-20% when applied to this circumstance.

You throw in what has been reported as a history of mental illness with the woman and it drops significantly further.

Stats are very much like a bikini, very revealing but they tend to hide the most important parts.

Generally when someone disappears off the face of the earth with not a single piece of evidence to prove they are alive such as contact with family and friends, witness accounts, cctv evidence and so on, it can be taken as a given they are no longer alive.
In other words, its up to you to prove she is alive. Until you can do that, we can take it she is dead. Proof of life is important.

I've lost faith in the gardai to get to the bottom of this case. Their delays in investigating may well have been fatal to a resolution. Evidence such as local CCTV would have been vital and was probably wiped by the time they decided this wasn't simply a missing persons case.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

In other words, its up to you to prove she is alive.

Ah, I'm pretty it isn't TBF.

Gadgetman496

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Generally when someone disappears off the face of the earth with not a single piece of evidence to prove they are alive such as contact with family and friends, witness accounts, cctv evidence and so on, it can be taken as a given they are no longer alive.
In other words, its up to you to prove she is alive. Until you can do that, we can take it she is dead. Proof of life is important.

I've lost faith in the gardai to get to the bottom of this case. Their delays in investigating may well have been fatal to a resolution. Evidence such as local CCTV would have been vital and was probably wiped by the time they decided this wasn't simply a missing persons case.

Or up to you to prove she is dead?

P.Walnuts

Deirdre Jacob's case was recently upgraded to murder investigation without any recovery of a body.

So I'm guessing there is a point at which a missing person is assumed dead, without any actual slam dunk evidence they are.

Boggles

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Deirdre Jacob's case was recently upgraded to murder investigation without any recovery of a body.

Based on new information.

They didn't just do it for the crack.

P.Walnuts

Boggles wrote: »

Based on new information.

They didn't just do it for the crack.

Of course it was based on new information, point being though the information received could in no way prove she was dead, no more so than disappearing off the face of the planet proves you're dead.

Assumptions are made based on probability. It's a very reasonable assumption , based on the evidence that this poor woman is dead unfortunately.

ToBeFrank123

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Of course it was based on new information, point being though the information received could in no way prove she was dead, no more so than disappearing off the face of the planet proves you're dead.

Assumptions are made based on probability. It's a very reasonable assumption , based on the evidence that this poor woman is dead unfortunately.

Agreed. And based on the fact there is no longer an ounce of evidence Tina Satchwell is alive, the overwhelming probability is she is dead.

Most people knew she was dead from day 1 by the way.

Waiting for her to turn up just delays a proper investigation into her death, malicious or not. And the longer you delay the less chance of solving it. Which is why none of the missing women cases in this country were ever solved except for Elaine O'Hara.

Boggles

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Of course it was based on new information, point being though the information received could in no way prove she was dead

I never suggested it would.

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Assumptions are made based on probability. It's a very reasonable assumption , based on the evidence that this poor woman is dead unfortunately.

Yes, but the overwhelming suggestion on this thread is that she was murdered.

fepper

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

Or up to you to prove she is dead?

The Garda could be looking for a dead person if they send sub aqua divers into the sea and digging up a forest area with diggers

fin12

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Generally when someone disappears off the face of the earth with not a single piece of evidence to prove they are alive such as contact with family and friends, witness accounts, cctv evidence and so on, it can be taken as a given they are no longer alive.
In other words, its up to you to prove she is alive. Until you can do that, we can take it she is dead. Proof of life is important.

I've lost faith in the gardai to get to the bottom of this case. Their delays in investigating may well have been fatal to a resolution. Evidence such as local CCTV would have been vital and was probably wiped by the time they decided this wasn't simply a missing persons case.

I agree I wouldnt have much confidence in Guards in tracking down missing people, they don’t seem to have a very good record in solving cases of missing people.

BENDYBINN

Lots of couples have rows and one fecks off for a few days without contacting the other. It will take a few days before any concerns are raised
Have local taxis and hackneys been interviewed?
Carrying such a large sum of money would be a big temptation to a lot of people.

Fr_Dougal

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Lots of couples have rows and one fecks off for a few days without contacting the other. It will take a few days before any concerns are raised
Have local taxis and hackneys been interviewed?
Carrying such a large sum of money would be a big temptation to a lot of people.

There is no evidence that she had any money.

clfy39tzve8njq

BENDYBINN wrote:

Have local taxis and hackneys been interviewed?

The guards never thought of that better give them a call.

BENDYBINN

Ernest Clever Rumor wrote: »

The guards never thought of that better give them a call.

Well maybe they are like everyone on here ......assuming Richard is guilty with absolutely no evidence.

clfy39tzve8njq

BENDYBINN wrote:

Well maybe they are like everyone on here ......assuming Richard is guilty with absolutely no evidence.

I would say the guards know what happened to Tina but don't have enough to go to court with. The time lost at the start was key.

BENDYBINN

Ernest Clever Rumor wrote: »

I would say the guards know what happened to Tina but don't have enough to go to court with. The time lost at the start was key.

In the same way they know what happened to all the other missing women?

Muahahaha

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Deirdre Jacob's case was recently upgraded to murder investigation without any recovery of a body.

So I'm guessing there is a point at which a missing person is assumed dead, without any actual slam dunk evidence they are.

AFAIK a missing person has to be missing for forty years before they are legally considered to be dead which is a determination made by the county coroner. As said Deirdre Jacobs is now considered dead by new information to Gardai.

clfy39tzve8njq

BENDYBINN wrote:

In the same way they know what happened to all the other missing women?

Some of them I would say yeah, but not enough to go to court with.

ToddyDoody

Tina, if you're reading this..........

BBFAN

Muahahaha wrote: »

AFAIK a missing person has to be missing for forty years before they are legally considered to be dead which is a determination made by the county coroner. As said Deirdre Jacobs is now considered dead by new information to Gardai.

Don't know where you're getting 40 years from, it's 7 years.

BBFAN

There is absolutely no evidence that she had a lump sum of cash when she went missing.

He claimed that they made it from boot sales. As someone who has frequently sold at boot sales there is no way you would make enough money to disappear without a trace for 2 years. Not a hope.

P.Walnuts

Muahahaha wrote: »

AFAIK a missing person has to be missing for forty years before they are legally considered to be dead which is a determination made by the county coroner. As said Deirdre Jacobs is now considered dead by new information to Gardai.

Irregardless of the official amount of time needed to declare someone dead, your line doesn't quite make sense.

Deirdre Jacob was officially declared dead by the Gardai without any body being recovered. The only was to conclusively prove someone is dead is to recover a body. This didn't happen which indicates the Guards have discretion on whether to investIgate a missing person, or a death.

So there is no burden of proof required to prove someone is dead or indeed to disprove someone is alive, an in some cases it's impossible. That was the only point I was contesting.

fin12

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Irregardless of the official amount of time needed to declare someone dead, your line doesn't quite make sense.

Deirdre Jacob was officially declared dead by the Gardai without any body being recovered. The only was to conclusively prove someone is dead is to recover a body. This didn't happen which indicates the Guards have discretion on whether to investIgate a missing person, or a death.

So there is no burden of proof required to prove someone is dead or indeed to disprove someone is alive, an in some cases it's impossible. That was the only point I was contesting.

There doesn’t need to be a body found either to be charged with murder. People have been charged with murder without the body ever been recovered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murder_convictions_without_a_body

Boggles

BBFAN wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence that she had a lump sum of cash when she went missing.

He claimed that they made it from boot sales. As someone who has frequently sold at boot sales there is no way you would make enough money to disappear without a trace for 2 years. Not a hope.

No he didn't.

Fr_Dougal

Boggles wrote: »

No he didn't.

He claimed it was from the proceeds of a house sale.

He also claimed that she took it, but there is no evidence to suggest that she did.

I suppose it would look more suspect if she was to disappear without any money. Claiming that she left with it would certainly make *his* story seem a little bit more believable.

If she was to leave of her own accord, there is no way she’d leave her dogs behind.

Boggles

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

If she was to leave of her own accord, there is no way she’d leave her dogs behind.

Why?

John_Rambo

Boggles wrote: »

Why?

Because more mature childless couples tend to become very close and sometimes obsessed with their pets and find it very hard to be away from them for long periods.

Boggles

John_Rambo wrote: »

Because more mature childless couples tend to become very close and sometimes obsessed with their pets and find it very hard to be away from them for long periods.

That's an opinion based on, well I don't know what it is actually based on, but it is certainly not a definite fact as was stated in the post I replied to.

Is it?

BENDYBINN

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

There is no evidence that she had any money.

There is no evidence that she is dead either............you only want evidence when it suits you!