Tina Satchwell *Mod note in op*

How long do they expect it will take to clarify if the remains are hers?

Necro

Mod:

How many times does this have to be posted - NO SPECULATION.

Rows Grower, Cona and Deec do not post in this thread again

Cona

Necro wrote: »

Mod:

How many times does this have to be posted - NO SPECULATION.

Rows Grower, Cona and Deec do not post in this thread again

Get ****ed

Mod: Banned

fin12

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Can someone be charged with murder if no body found?
Any such cases?

YES, watch the show forensic files. Loads of people have been charged with murder without a body.

Necro

Mod:

Deec's threadban lifted after discussion with poster

Larsso30

fin12 wrote: »

YES, watch the show forensic files. Loads of people have been charged with murder without a body.

Not in Ireland. Very few in the history of the state

Day Lewin

Larsso30 wrote: »

Not in Ireland. Very few in the history of the state

True, but there have been a couple, sometimes quite high profile.

However, although you don't always need a body to prosecute on a charge of homicide, you do need something better than a vague opinion that "Its probably the husband"

I mean, sadly, if women are murdered the most common culprit IS their intimate partner;
- not always, though. You need something more concrete than statistics and opinion!

Day Lewin

Deleted User wrote: »

How long do they expect it will take to clarify if the remains are hers?

They haven't said, afaik; but around three to four weeks would be typical.

Necro

Mod:

Rows Grower's threadban lifted after discussion with poster

BENDYBINN

Day Lewin wrote: »

True, but there have been a couple, sometimes quite high profile.

However, although you don't always need a body to prosecute on a charge of homicide, you do need something better than a vague opinion that "Its probably the husband"

I mean, sadly, if women are murdered the most common culprit IS their intimate partner;
- not always, though. You need something more concrete than statistics and opinion!

Yes, the first person to be questioned is the spouse.............says a lot about marriage really........

Ann22

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Yes, the first person to be questioned is the spouse.............says a lot about marriage really........

Michaela McAreavey RIP and Jill Meaher's RIP husbands were initially wrongly suspected. God help them both..such tragedies.

tdf7187

Ann22 wrote: »

Michaela McAreavey RIP and Jill Meaher's RIP husbands were initially wrongly suspected. God help them both..such tragedies.

There was a case in England also, the tabloids and cops fingered Christopher Jefferies, his 'crime' being having an acquaintance with the murder victim and being perceived as eccentric. It was nothing to do with him and he successfully sued them.

eviltwin

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Yes, the first person to be questioned is the spouse.............says a lot about marriage really........

It says a lot about the reality of living with someone. A spouse is with you in the privacy of your home so is an obvious choice. Same as your flatmate would be or your cousin if you lived with them.

BENDYBINN

eviltwin wrote: »

It says a lot about the reality of living with someone. A spouse is with you in the privacy of your home so is an obvious choice. Same as your flatmate would be or your cousin if you lived with them.

Not really, very easy to leave your flatmate or your cousin.......spouse on the other hand your stuck with them till death do you part....

P.Walnuts

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Not really, very easy to leave your flatmate or your cousin.......spouse on the other hand your stuck with them till death do you part....

Yeah death, or you know, a divorce.

BENDYBINN

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Yeah death, or you know, a divorce.

Yea divorce so simple........

Larsso30

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Yes, the first person to be questioned is the spouse.............says a lot about marriage really........

Statistically it usually is the husband/partner so standard enough line to take

Dante7

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Yes, the first person to be questioned is the spouse.............says a lot about marriage really........

If you've been married and haven't thought about how you could kill your spouse and get away with it, you're not normal.

gozunda

Dante7 wrote: »

If you've been married and haven't thought about how you could kill your spouse and get away with it, you're not normal.

Have you told your wife?

And I'd disagree. I don't think it is normal to be going around ruminating on how to do with the other half and get away with it.

Eitherway possibly not a good idea to put such ideation online for the public record ...

TheBoyConor

Exactly. If it did even happen that you're wife went missing, as the husband you'd be the first suspect they're gonna investigate, and if that post came to light, it could paint you in a very bad light and works be a piece of circumstantial evidence against you.

CrabRevolution

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Yeah death, or you know, a divorce.

Not exactly related but I read an article on the BBC website before about a group who campaigned for the release from prison of women who killed their partners. Usually not even in self defence; one of them was even killed in his sleep. The usual lines of "It's his fault anyway, he mistreated her" or "she had no other way out" got airings.

While obviously domestic violence is a complex subject and it's never as simple as just walking away; with all the compassion in the world I can't accept that these women weighed up the options of "messy breakup and all the follows" vs. "murder him and subsequent imprisonment" and came to the logical conclusion that murder was the route containing less hassle. Even if he was scum, the idea that it's preferable that he dies rather than the woman having to deal with ending the relationship just doesn't wash with me.

TheBoyConor

To be honest I would have the greatest of sympathy with cases where a woman was tormented and bullied and abused with years to the point that she would snap and kill him.
I think no woman in that situation should be imprisoned. They suffered enough cruel degrading treatment during their marriages.

Dante7

gozunda wrote: »

Have you told your wife?

And I'd disagree. I don't think it is normal to be going around ruminating on how to do with the other half and get away with it.

Eitherway possibly not a good idea to put such ideation online for the public record ...

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Exactly. If it did even happen that you're wife went missing, as the husband you'd be the first suspect they're gonna investigate, and if that post came to light, it could paint you in a very bad light and works be a piece of circumstantial evidence against you.

I think I'd be ok. My defence would be along the lines of, that post on boards was not an admission of premeditation, but rather a particular linguistic device that is commonly known as a joke. Anyone who took it seriously is clearly an idiot. That, coupled with the fact that I have had no contact with her since she moved to a different continent over ten years ago would probably rule me out of their enquiries.

gozunda

Dante7 wrote: »

I think I'd be ok. My defence would be along the lines of, that post on boards was not an admission of premeditation, but rather a particular linguistic device that is commonly known as a joke. Anyone who took it seriously is clearly an idiot. That, coupled with the fact that I have had no contact with her since she moved to a different continent over ten years ago would probably rule me out of their enquiries.

Hmmm I'm not convinced. If that was a decent defence every murderer in the country would be queueing to crack a joke online and then declaring that 'ah sure Yer Honour I was just having the crack'. I dont think anyone that's stupid tbf ...

Dante7

gozunda wrote: »

Hmmm I'm not convinced. If that was a decent defence every murderer in the country would be queueing to crack a joke online and then declaring that 'ah sure Yer Honour I was just having the crack'. I dont think anyone that's stupid tbf ...

Hangdogroad

Larsso30 wrote: »

Not in Ireland. Very few in the history of the state

There seems to be a very high burden of proof required in comparison to in Britain. There have been a few cases brought to trial over the last twenty or so years but none successful. The most recent being the case of Sandra Collins in Mayo.

BENDYBINN

Dante7 wrote: »

I think I'd be ok. My defence would be along the lines of, that post on boards was not an admission of premeditation, but rather a particular linguistic device that is commonly known as a joke. Anyone who took it seriously is clearly an idiot. That, coupled with the fact that I have had no contact with her since she moved to a different continent over ten years ago would probably rule me out of their enquiries.[/QUOTE

She moved to another continent you say.............

Sultan of Bling

TheBoyConor wrote:

To be honest I would have the greatest of sympathy with cases where a woman was tormented and bullied and abused with years to the point that she would snap and kill him. I think no woman in that situation should be imprisoned. They suffered enough cruel degrading treatment during their marriages.

Would you feel the same about a man in that situation?

TheBoyConor

Honestly as a man myself, I would not have the same sympathy. I know it is a sexist view on it but it is one of those situations where there is just a natural imbalance between the genders. Let me explain.

On average, a woman who is being abused by an abusive husband is at a far greater risk of physical harm or isolation. She may fear being physically over powered, not have the same financial resources to fall back on if she were to run away making it very difficult (may be out if workforce to have and care for children. She may also have the children to care for and protect.. there is the added risk of rape and further pregnancy. )

On the other hand, the average man who is being abused by a wife realistically doesn't have much reason to fear being physically overpowered (not impossible, but less likely) doesn't necessarily have the same caring responsibilities for children ( 99% of the time it's the woman left holding the baby), and the risk of sexual abuse or pregnancy isn't possible. He will also usually have more financial independence than the woman.

Basically in an abusive relationship a woman is in a very much more vulnerable position than a man, the stakes are much higher for her. so there must be some understanding of when a woman takes drastic and decisive action to protect themselves from further abuse. It may be a case of this or being subject to a further escalation of abuse.

Oh course there are the odd rare cases of plain murder, but an awful lot of wife on husband killings are a desperate self preservation reaction against severe and ongoing abuse and bullying. Essentially, by their abusive behavior, these men have brought about their own downfall by abusing and pushing their partners to breaking point.

Of course, killing is wrong, but these women are driven to it as a last resort to protect themselves. I would have great sympathy for these women and I can understand the campaign to have their plights and the reasons that caused their actions understood. I would not be in favor of custodial sentences for women in this situation unless it can be shown that there was malicious intent, or an attempt to make a material gain from the killing, and where it can be shown that the killing was done for self preservation reasons and that they were in fear.

Its just a different situation between the genders. Just like sexual offences, a woman is at a high risk of physical harm and trauma from an unwanted approach, whereas a man who receives unwanted sexual advances, while perhaps annoyed, realistically isn't at much risk of any sort of physical harm, so it's not anywhere near as serious when it's male on female, and it would be a very unusual occurrence anyway.

Day Lewin

Slightly off topic, maybe; but I can't help commenting!

Yes it is true that a woman is in much greater physical danger from a male intimate partner than he is from her; statistics bear this out - chilling, sobering.

But let's not be naive that women can't be vindictive, cruel, exploitative slimeballs - because - sadly - they can. Human nature is well capable of that - no sexism here, please.

Automatically going for the "poor little thing" defense has got a lot of women off the hook who could have been on it. I've seen honest men tormented - verbally, rather than physically, (afaik) but even the worm will turn, in the end.

Note: I am NOT saying that this has anything at all to do with the Satchwell case - as best I'm aware, it doesn't. Just a comment on sexism in judgement of homicide. Beware.