Hello, first-time poster chiming in here.
BBM.
I actually thought the "I said leave it on charge" part was the most interesting part of the interview with SH, but I interpreted it differently - I thought he was saying that he told her "LEAVE YOUR PHONE ON CHARGE" that day, but what he had meant was "stop messing with it while it's charging because you're slowing it down", only Tia interpreted it as "leave your phone on charge and don't take it with you". I saw it as him blaming himself and thinking that she had misinterpreted what he had said resulting in them being completely unable to contact or trace her once they had realised she was missing.
To my (finely-tuned I reckon :wink
instinct, the only thing I'm sure of is that SH is acting in his interview like a guilty person. The question to me is, is this guilt that he perceives himself ("it's my fault she's missing, I could've prevented it") or is it culpability in that he is responsible for whatever has happened to Tia? At this moment in time I'm leaning towards the former, based on his behaviour in the interview, but who knows.
I'm giving the police the benefit of the doubt. I really do believe that they're deliberately not saying much to the media as part of some grand masterplan - to me it's very telling that they have directed almost no obvious resources beyond the estate. I'm not saying this is another Shannon Matthews but to me it's clear that the police believe somebody close to home is responsible. If the police wanted wider media coverage, they could get it. I am also convinced that the MSM also believe whatever has happened to Tia happened VERY close to home, based on both the wording of the reporting, and the particularly disgusting way they are currently camped out on the doorsteps of the family.
I find the young uncle's behaviour quite odd. But I think it could easily just be that he's a bit of a lad who is a young man enjoying the media spotlight far more than he should be under the circumstances... Doesn't by any means mean he doesn't love his niece or has done anything wrong, just a little inappropriate to be lapping it up as much as he has appeared to. I'm wondering if the mother is being deliberately kept away from the spotlight so as to not do damage to public perception... I'm wondering if the decision was made that the mother WOULD draw obvious comparisons to the Matthews case and therefore it was best to have her not speak to camera so as to not arouse unfair suspicion? Perhaps the uncle is the more articulate family member and it was felt that this would go across better on camera, not that I imagine camera appeals are particularly relevant if something happened to Tia at home or immediately after leaving.
Just my two cents. I'm sorry to be so wordy in my first post! :seeya:
