Tina Satchwell News updates MOD NOTE POST ONE

Boggles

John_Rambo wrote: »

Fact and vast experience.

In the relationship with strangers and their dogs.

Cool.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Yes. It is indeed.

Or in other words. No.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Everyone knows Tina ain't coming back

Again that is just your opinion isn't it?

John_Rambo

Boggles wrote: »

In the relationship with strangers and their dogs.

Cool.

I know. It comes with years of experience of people and their pets.

Boggles wrote: »

Or in other words. No.

The answer is yes. Now, you can go and argue with the dozens of other people you’ve started arguments with on boards.ie for no reasons. I just don’t have time for your petty nitpicking and fussy fault finding.

Boggles

John_Rambo wrote: »

I know. It comes with years of experience of people and their pets.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

Again that is just your opinion isn't it?

Based on strong evidence that she is not above ground. You already said you believed she is probably dead, but if anyone else says similar you accuse them of using their own opinion. Interesting logic.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Based on strong evidence that she is not above ground. You already said you believed she is probably dead, but if anyone else says similar you accuse them of using their own opinion. Interesting logic.

You are saying for an absolute fact you know she is dead.

Correct?

blade1

This is getting tiring lads.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

You are saying for an absolute fact you know she is dead.

Correct?

I can see where you are going with this, an endless cycle. Read back my posts, I have said it numerous times already.

There is zero hard factual evidence she is alive. Nada, nothing, zilch.

To believe otherwise is just fantasy I'm afraid.

ToBeFrank123

blade1 wrote: »

This is getting tiring lads.

Agreed. I'm not going to respond to anymore of Boggles posts - he's just recycling posts at this stage.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There is zero hard factual evidence she is alive. Nada, nothing, zilch.
.

That you know of.

Anyway the point is there is probably far more to this case than is in the public domain, but one thing for sure is random internet sleuths won't be solving it any time soon.

Completely writing everything Richard has said off it as BS just because his eyes go in 3 different directions is pretty naive IMO, I get the sense he may be as much as a victim as Tina or he may just be the actual victim in all this.

Fr_Dougal

Boggles wrote: »

Why?

Because it was plastered all over the media, and everyone they interviewed, said that she would never be without her dogs.

fin12

Boggles wrote: »

That you know of.

Anyway the point is there is probably far more to this case than is in the public domain, but one thing for sure is random internet sleuths won't be solving it any time soon.

Completely writing everything Richard has said off it as BS just because his eyes go in 3 different directions is pretty naive IMO, I get the sense he may be as much as a victim as Tina or he may just be the actual victim in all this.

What exactly is he a victim of or for that matter Tina since you don’t believe she’s dead?

Boggles

fin12 wrote: »

What exactly is he a victim

If she took their money and fecked off with someone else, leaving people to think he is a murderer.

fin12

Boggles wrote: »

If she took their money and fecked off with someone else, leaving people to think he is a murderer.

How convienent it was cash...

Boggles

fin12 wrote: »

How convienent it was cash...

Yeah, that's why people usually steal it.

BENDYBINN

Boggles wrote: »

If she took their money and fecked off with someone else, leaving people to think he is a murderer.

Carrying a large sum of cash is asking for trouble..........It may have been her downfall..

fin12

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, that's why people usually steal it.

No it’s cause the money can never be confirmed, good for him.

His story is the biggest load of bullsh*t ever. He thinks he’s clever n in the clear but that’s usually when they slip up.

Boggles

fin12 wrote: »

No it’s cause the money can never be confirmed, good for him.

Of course it can, the claim was it came from the sale of a property, I very much doubt the sale was in cash. There would be some sort of bank trail. But even if it was in cash, the people who bought the property could be questioned.

fin12 wrote: »

His story is the biggest load of bullsh*t ever. He thinks he’s clever n in the clear but that’s usually when they slip up.

TBF and I don't mean this to sound bad, but he doesn't strike me as being "clever".

A bit "innocent" would be the phrase we used to use.

fin12

Boggles wrote: »

Of course it can, the claim was it came from the sale of a property, I very much doubt the sale was in cash. There would be some sort of bank trail. But even if it was in cash, the people who bought the property could be questioned.



TBF and I don't mean this to sound bad, but he doesn't strike me as being "clever".

A bit "innocent" would be the phrase we used to use.

Sorry he can say the money came from the house sale doesn’t mean there was any left,it was cash he could have blown the whole thing, how can u prove it was there when she apparently took it

fin12

Boggles wrote: »

Of course it can, the claim was it came from the sale of a property, I very much doubt the sale was in cash. There would be some sort of bank trail. But even if it was in cash, the people who bought the property could be questioned.



TBF and I don't mean this to sound bad, but he doesn't strike me as being "clever".

A bit "innocent" would be the phrase we used to use.

Innocent me hole. He’s spun the most ludicrous story ever.

Boggles

fin12 wrote: »

Sorry he can say the money came from the house sale doesn’t mean there was any left,it was cash he could have blown the whole thing, how can u prove it was there when she apparently took it

You can't, but you may be able to confirm that it actually existed which would give credence to his claim, you know that and other pieces of evidence that the guards may have looking into.

fin12 wrote: »

Innocent me hole. He’s spun the most ludicrous story ever.

I don't really see how the "story" is ludicrous, it's unusual, but that doesn't automatically mean it's BS.

But either way, I am operating on the belief that not all the "story" is in the public domain.

Didn't Richard confirm this himself when he said he has told the guards things he would never release publicly.

Paddy Cow

fin12 wrote: »

What exactly is he a victim of or for that matter Tina since you don’t believe she’s dead?

Boogles actually believes that Tina is probably dead but has a pedantic compulsion to argue with everyone on thread when they say they think Tina is dead, that it's only their opinion and not fact. Because obviously posters on this thread are too thick to realise they're not actually part of the investigation and the Guards will have more information at their disposal than what we read in the media. Phew. It's a good job we have intelligent people like Boogles to constantly point out the obvious. Thanks Boogles

Boggles

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Boogles actually believes that Tina is probably dead but has a pedantic compulsion to argue with everyone on thread when they say they think Tina is dead,

Well no, there is a big difference between thinking there is a high possibility someone is dead compared to someone who 100% thinks the husband murdered them.

I don't actually think that can be classified as pedantic. Can it?

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Thanks Boogles

You are more than welcome, thank you for your lovely manners.

Paddy Cow

Boggles wrote: »

Well no, there is a big difference between thinking there is a high possibility someone is dead compared to someone who 100% thinks the husband murdered them.

I don't actually think that can be classified as pedantic. Can it?




You are more than welcome, thank you for your lovely manners.

Yes it can. We all know the Guards have more information that what's available to us in the media. Someone who says they 100% believe Tina is dead or that they know who did it, knows that is their opinion. Constantly following posters around and repeating (paraphrasing here) "just because you believe that, doesn't make it true" IS pedantic because it's the default position and doesn't need pointing out. It doesn't make you more intelligent than anyone else here and actually comes across as quite immature and silly. We all know the difference between our personal opinion and cold hard facts. Please stop trying to educate us. It's gone beyond tedious.

Boggles

US and We?

I honestly never heard of you until you posted about me personally and started misrepresenting what I actually posted..

But yeah I am singling out people and following them around. Truly Bizarre.

JeffKenna

Boggles must have difficulty holding a conversation with anyone in real life...

"Nice day out isn't it"

"That's your opinion and not Fact so shut up"

ToBeFrank123

I don't care what Boggles thinks or if he agrees with me or not.

I am as certain as certain can be this woman is no longer alive or above ground.

The question is how did she die? Suicide, accident, natural death or murder?

Unfortunately Richards 4 day wait in reporting her missing shows him in a very very poor light. It is not normal behavior and cannot be excused by how odd he, she or their relationship is. Clearly there was no love between them if he waited 4 days before reporting her missing.

Paddy Cow

Boggles wrote: »

US and We?

I honestly never heard of you until you posted about me personally and started misrepresenting what I actually posted..

But yeah I am singling out people and following them around. Truly Bizarre.

I've been contributing to this thread since it started two years ago. It ran into hundreds of pages but the speculation got out of hand and most of it was deleted. I still follow the thread in case any information about Tina comes about. The last few pages have been tedious to read and that's not because I've misrepresented what you posted. What's truly bizarre is your need to have people agree with you that their opinions are not facts. Correct?

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The question is how did she die? Suicide, accident, natural death or murder?

I don't think we are too far apart TBH.

But lets say she is dead.

Suicide - likely
accident - no
natural death - no
Murder - maybe.

One burning question I would have though. Murder is such a relatively rare crime and a murder in these dynamics would be even rarer.

What was the motive?

Boggles

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I've been contributing to this thread since it started two years ago. It ran into hundreds of pages but the speculation got out of hand and most of it was deleted. I still follow the thread in case any information about Tina comes about. The last few pages have been tedious to read and that's not because I've misrepresented what you posted. What's truly bizarre is your need to have people agree with you that their opinions are not facts. Correct?

Ah lad, you are just tying up the thread talking about me.

It's tedious, please stop taking about me.

Thanks.