Talk:Disappearance of Tom and Eileen Lonergan

== Staged death? = The suggestion that Eileen and Tom might have 'staged' their death is disgraceful and profoundly insensitive. It seems to me that it was not enough that they were abondoned when they were alive the company seem to want to abandon them whilst are dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.9.59 (talk • contribs) but like if there wrote that how? did they have a pen on them? and paper? was it written in blood?
 * When you go diving you can't talk underwater. You would have a board and underwater pern to write quick message to one another. (anon)

I agree. It's the company's responsibility to do a headcount. The couple could not have counted on the headcount being wrong and the boat leaving in order to "commit suicide" or "stage their deaths" and any such suggestion is pure tabloid trash. The leaking of "supporting information" from the dive company speaks volumes about their moral stature.

Much more useful factual information that could replace the wild theories and tabloid speculation: - Was there an official inquiry of any kind? - What was the result of the inquiry? - Has the dive company been sued? - Did the incident lead to any criminal charges?

CraigWyllie 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it doesn't matter if it's "tabloid trash." As long as it's made clear that it's a speculation, then it should be at least mentioned. (Need I remind you that the purpose of the site is to provide as much info as possible?) Facts are what belong here. "Some speculate that that Tom and Eileen's death was staged..." or what have you, is a fact.
 * Cabound Mar8 07

There was a half hour CourtTV show on this (Forensic Files?). I thought the boat company was held responsible in the end. We need more info. ~ Strathmeyer 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a diver's slate found then is the suspiscion part still relevant anymore? It could be misunderstood that there were suspicions and theories after the trial, which none exists. Sgnpkd (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Three !'s
"Although some of their gear was found washed up later miles away from where they were lost, their bodies were never found. This recovered gear included a diver's slate which read: "Monday Jan 26; 1998 08am. To anyone [who] can help us: We have been abandoned on A[gin]court Reef by MV Outer Edge 25 Jan 98 3pm. Please help us [come] to rescue us before we die. Help!!!"" Did the diver's slate really have 3 exclamation marks? It seems wierd that someone would bother to right out 3 in a state like that...


 * Since there is no source there is no telling, but I doubt it. I put a citation needed to that quote and added the version I believe to be true with a source.
 * Cabound Mar8 07

Well, they may have taken the time ut to write all of that becuz they were in DESPERATE need of help!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.129.44 (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a man would have written three exclamation marks, but a woman might. My wife, mother, and all my girls use !!!! frequently for things that don't need them. Neither I nor my sons use them often, and when we do, it is pretty much always 1.

Not all women use them, not all men refrain, and I don't have any studies to back me up, but if she wrote it, I don't have any trouble believing that she used three. If ever there was a situation that called for 3 exclamation marks, this was it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:6146:9D00:462:2224:F257:DB29 (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Diary Red herring
No matter if they killed each other or were left at sea the faut lies with the scuba company Aussy GOV used diaries to shift blame it is so mean to the families your children are dead and then their killers.

procedures revised to make sure something like this doesn't happen again?
Do I remember reading something about that, after this (removed BLP concern)? (I.e., do head count and make sure that everyone is back on board.)

And by the way, I am seeing the standard caution about biography of living person(s), although it's presumed this couple died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the Lonergans are alive, Jack Nairn and others named or referred to in the article are, presumably, still alive. Thus, the article must not imply any of them were involved in the couple's disappearance. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we add a death/disappearance date to the two people?
Is this a good addition? FinnSoThin (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Their age on the main page assume they are not dead (age 58?)
They were born in 1964/1969 and sadly lost at sea (died) on 1998, So the were 29/34 years old (not! 58) 2A00:A040:199:9004:B950:8094:480B:2F17 (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a good point actually, but I'm not sure what wiki or even AP policy/rule of thumb is for aging people missing presumed dead. 104.159.238.182 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)