GUILTY UK - Tia Sharp, 12, New Addington, London, 3 Aug 2012 #2

[Skigh]

I wonder if SH will plead guilty or go for a manslaughter charge. I still feel that Granny knew what happened.

 

[Inge Jones]

Well if Paul Meehan is telling the truth, then that puts the grandmother back in the picture at the time of death. The police are gonna have to come down one side or the other, sometime.

 

[Lola68]

I dont think they have charged PM with anything yet?

Can you really be charged with saying you saw someone walk down a path when they didnt?
The police cannot know when Tia died yet, there is no reason to say she didnt walk down the pathway from the house to be met at the bottom of the road and then brought back to the house, that way, PM wouldnt be lying.

I still have a feeling all is not what it seems, it wouldnt surprise me if SH takes the rap even though other/others were involved

It's possible PM saw her on Thurs and thought it was on Friday, esp if the family told him Tia wearing similar clothes to those she had on in CCTV on Thurs. I doubt she ever left the house on Friday. October is 2 months away - that doesn't mean that CS or PM aren't guilty of something, but would suggest that if they are it's not considered to be serious (in terms of risk to others / flight risk)

 

[laserdisc10]

In the reports I've read, the police - within their apologies to the family -- stated the child's remains would/should have been discovered on Sunday. This suggests police believe Tia had been dead since at least Sunday if not earlier

How family members (also police and dogs) who were present within that small dwelling did not smell something throughout following days remains to be explained. Maybe scented candles and incense were used continually as part of the vigils, or some of the roof tiles had been lifted deliberately to carry away rising hot air, etc. Remains to be explained

Throughout, the media several times quoted police in saying claims by a neighbour (that Tia had walked from the house towards transport) had not been confirmed, were 'uncertain', etc. Possibly the neighbour/witness finally contacted police to say they wished to retract such claims and this resulted in police conducting the final search after which three people were taken into custody (two recently bailed)

CS/CB's demeanor from the outset troubled me but to give benefit of doubt I reasoned she may have been shy or uncomfortable for whatever reason in being exposed to the world via the media. Many people are introverted and/or loathe their lives and person being subject to scrutiny. Same with NS's demeanor which I also found to be disturbing. Now, I tend to suspect that CS/CB at least knew early on that Tia was dead. Even if convincing argument can be put forth that she did not know, it still remains to be explained why she didn't contradict SH's claims about the search of the fun-fair - either on Friday evening when it's claimed this tale was told to NS, or later, when SH repeated the claim on tv

It's my personal suspicion that CS/CB knew almost from the start that Tia was dead and it seems SH knew it also. I'm having a difficult time believing the pair of them were able to conceal this from immediate family members throughout the following several days and nights in addition to covering decomposition odours within that small dwelling. I can still 'read' facial expressions, tones of voice, etc. of even close friends/family who I may not have seen in several years - let alone 'read' family members whom I see frequently. I'm confident the majority would say likewise

I've only watched the SH tv-interview twice. Will have to watch it again, although he grates on my nerves now. So this next may be incorrect and/or others will disagree. It pertains to the section of the tv interview where SH is recounting the alleged search of the fun-fair. It's only a small thing - maybe nothing - but SH stumbles over the location of the fun-fair and turns to DS, who either prompts him or is surprised SH doesn't remember the correct suburb. The brief incident stood out to me - triggered instinctive suspicion. Did SH attempt to relieve his own tension at that point by finding an excuse to avert his eyes momentarily from the camera by introducing DS as a brief diversion? Did he attempt for a second to 'hide' behind DS (the uncle)? Was DS genuinely surprised that SH did not know the correct suburb of the fun-fair? Or was DS annoyed, shocked, alarmed that SH had slipped up in what was a pre-rehearsed spiel? Or -- having known SH for most of his life, and aware of SH's ramblings and concoctions, was DS disappointed that the interview had been 'spoiled' by SH's failure re: the fun-fair detail ? I don't know.

Another question which I guess will feature within police internal-enquiries will be: did police attempt to verify SH's (and CS/CB's) claims re: the fun-fair search, considering SH must have told this story each time police took his statements several days before the discovery of Tia's remains and the same story was surely repeated to investigators by NS and her partner. If police DID swiftly learn SH and CS/CB had NOT been anywhere near the fun-fair (as claimed by the fun-fair proprietors) then WHY didn't police immediately and with justification, focus their attentions on SH and CS/CB ?

The above cannot be stressed strongly enough. Police were contacted about a missing child on Friday evening. In taking statements and details, police would have been told by the mother and step-father that they'd just been visited by SH and CS/CB who'd just returned from an intensive search of a fun-fair as their last resort in finding the child themselves. At that point, police would, you would think, have sent a car around to question the fun-fair staff in order to verify. The fun-fair staff have made no secret of the fact they did not sight SH or CS/CB. That should have set off immediate alarm-bells with the police. A senior officer should at that point have instructed officers to bring the fun-fair staff to the station in order they could give a statement

Having learned from fun-fair staff that SH and CS/CB had not searched for the allegedly missing-child, the next step would have been to take SH and CS/CB to the station to give statements. The discrepancies between statements provided by fun-fair staff as opposed to those provided by SH and CS/CB would alone have been justification for a warrant to search their house. If a thorough search had been conducted at that point, on Friday night, the body would have been discovered

SH was escorted to the police station to provide statements on two later occasions. And in each instance, apparently, police accepted his claims because they had not bothered to interview the fun-fair staff. It can't be argued otherwise. Because if police HAD questioned fun-fair staff, they would not -- could not -- have accepted SH's statements or released him

 

[josie1986]

In the reports I've read, the police - within their apologies to the family -- stated the child's remains would/should have been discovered on Sunday. This suggests police believe Tia had been dead since at least Sunday if not earlier

How family members (also police and dogs) who were present within that small dwelling did not smell something throughout following days remains to be explained. Maybe scented candles and incense were used continually as part of the vigils, or some of the roof tiles had been lifted deliberately to carry away rising hot air, etc. Remains to be explained

Throughout, the media several times quoted police in saying claims by a neighbour (that Tia had walked from the house towards transport) had not been confirmed, were 'uncertain', etc. Possibly the neighbour/witness finally contacted police to say they wished to retract such claims and this resulted in police conducting the final search after which three people were taken into custody (two recently bailed)

CS/CB's demeanor from the outset troubled me but to give benefit of doubt I reasoned she may have been shy or uncomfortable for whatever reason in being exposed to the world via the media. Many people are introverted and/or loathe their lives and person being subject to scrutiny. Same with NS's demeanor which I also found to be disturbing. Now, I tend to suspect that CS/CB at least knew early on that Tia was dead. Even if convincing argument can be put forth that she did not know, it still remains to be explained why she didn't contradict SH's claims about the search of the fun-fair - either on Friday evening when it's claimed this tale was told to NS, or later, when SH repeated the claim on tv

It's my personal suspicion that CS/CB knew almost from the start that Tia was dead and it seems SH knew it also. I'm having a difficult time believing the pair of them were able to conceal this from immediate family members throughout the following several days and nights in addition to covering decomposition odours within that small dwelling. I can still 'read' facial expressions, tones of voice, etc. of even close friends/family who I may not have seen in several years - let alone 'read' family members whom I see frequently. I'm confident the majority would say likewise

I've only watched the SH tv-interview twice. Will have to watch it again, although he grates on my nerves now. So this next may be incorrect and/or others will disagree. It pertains to the section of the tv interview where SH is recounting the alleged search of the fun-fair. It's only a small thing - maybe nothing - but SH stumbles over the location of the fun-fair and turns to DS, who either prompts him or is surprised SH doesn't remember the correct suburb. The brief incident stood out to me - triggered instinctive suspicion. Did SH attempt to relieve his own tension at that point by finding an excuse to avert his eyes momentarily from the camera by introducing DS as a brief diversion? Did he attempt for a second to 'hide' behind DS (the uncle)? Was DS genuinely surprised that SH did not know the correct suburb of the fun-fair? Or was DS annoyed, shocked, alarmed that SH had slipped up in what was a pre-rehearsed spiel? Or -- having known SH for most of his life, and aware of SH's ramblings and concoctions, was DS disappointed that the interview had been 'spoiled' by SH's failure re: the fun-fair detail ? I don't know.

Another question which I guess will feature within police internal-enquiries will be: did police attempt to verify SH's (and CS/CB's) claims re: the fun-fair search, considering SH must have told this story each time police took his statements several days before the discovery of Tia's remains and the same story was surely repeated to investigators by NS and her partner. If police DID swiftly learn SH and CS/CB had NOT been anywhere near the fun-fair (as claimed by the fun-fair proprietors) then WHY didn't police immediately and with justification, focus their attentions on SH and CS/CB ?

The above cannot be stressed strongly enough. Police were contacted about a missing child on Friday evening. In taking statements and details, police would have been told by the mother and step-father that they'd just been visited by SH and CS/CB who'd just returned from an intensive search of a fun-fair as their last resort in finding the child themselves. At that point, police would, you would think, have sent a car around to question the fun-fair staff in order to verify. The fun-fair staff have made no secret of the fact they did not sight SH or CS/CB. That should have set off immediate alarm-bells with the police. A senior officer should at that point have instructed officers to bring the fun-fair staff to the station in order they could give a statement

Having learned from fun-fair staff that SH and CS/CB had not searched for the allegedly missing-child, the next step would have been to take SH and CS/CB to the station to give statements. The discrepancies between statements provided by fun-fair staff as opposed to those provided by SH and CS/CB would alone have been justification for a warrant to search their house. If a thorough search had been conducted at that point, on Friday night, the body would have been discovered

SH was escorted to the police station to provide statements on two later occasions. And in each instance, apparently, police accepted his claims because they had not bothered to interview the fun-fair staff. It can't be argued otherwise. Because if police HAD questioned fun-fair staff, they would not -- could not -- have accepted SH's statements or released him

Can't bold as I'm not on my laptop but the part of his interview where he mentioned the fun fair stuck out to me as well,you would think after reciting every detail of his cleaning activities he could recount where the fun fair was.

Ive only watched that interview once and the whole thing just gave me the creeps for some reason.

Even more so now knowing that tia was just feet away.I can't imagine how that reporter feels.

I Googled rate of decomp and depending how long she was deceased for it seems she would be fairly bloated but still recognizable,and be able to get a fair bit of evidence from her.this all depends if the theory that she was in the water tank isn't the case.I'm not sure how that would effect decomp but I imagine it would slow it down? I have the impression that a body would be preserved well ? Probably wrong.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Lola68]

I've never seen reference to the funfair search in the media other than SH's filmed interview on Thurs - was this part of his story right from the start?

 

[Inge Jones]

I can't imagine for a moment that he would have placed the body in the water tank. Firstly it would take quite a long time to do, as you'd have to lower it very slowly in order to allow time for the overflow pipe to carry the water away. Secondly, it would make it harder to remove later, without making some mess that would have visitors to the house asking questions. Thirdly, he has to bath and clean his teeth in that water - even SH must have a "yuck" threshold.

 

[josie1986]

I can't imagine for a moment that he would have placed the body in the water tank. Firstly it would take quite a long time to do, as you'd have to lower it very slowly in order to allow time for the overflow pipe to carry the water away. Secondly, it would make it harder to remove later, without making some mess that would have visitors to the house asking questions. Thirdly, he has to bath and clean his teeth in that water - even SH must have a "yuck" threshold.

Which begs belief where could she have been that they missed her on the previous searches and why couldn't anyone in the house smell anything?

I'm surprised that no one has come out and said that someone came in to the house,killed her and moved her up to the loft without sh / cb noticing.

Seems about right for these whack jobs.

Uh I rarely ever get angry but this just makes my blood boil

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[laserdisc10]

I've never seen reference to the funfair search in the media other than SH's filmed interview on Thurs - was this part of his story right from the start?

The Croydon newspaper, online, recommended on other sites, contains verbatim statements from the fun-fair operators, in some detail. For example, they state without equivocation that NO one approached them about a missing girl and NO one asked to conduct a search of the grounds. At least 3 separate fun-fair staff statements were quoted in the newspaper. They said it was very quiet at the time of night SH had claimed he went to the fun-fair. They said they were manning the entrance at all times. They were related and knew each other, not casual staff. They were very definite that SH nor CS had been at that funfair and the security guy said likewise

If the police had conducted even a cursory enquiry with the fun-fair staff as simple follow-up on the claims made by the last people to see Tia (SH and CS) the police would have known, straightaway, that there was a big problem with this missing-child case. If the police had taken even that simple step, it would have been game-over for SH at that point on Friday evening

To compound the police's incompetence, it appears they didn't bother checking SH's and CS's claims with the fun-fair people in days to follow, either. Instead we had close-ups of SH returning to the station to clarify his previous statements --- clarify them against WHAT ? Means police simply accepted SH's claims about searching a fun-fair. Seems EVERYONE accepted the fun-fair story without checking it


Postscript: received TWO 'severe threat warnings' from Microsoft and AVG re: this site when I logged back on in order to post this. Threats were blocked but what the hell is going on ?

 

[Luna15]

Throughout, the media several times quoted police in saying claims by a neighbour (that Tia had walked from the house towards transport) had not been confirmed, were 'uncertain', etc. Possibly the neighbour/witness finally contacted police to say they wished to retract such claims and this resulted in police conducting the final search after which three people were taken into custody (two recently bailed)

respectfully snipped by me...


Miss Sharp also said a witness had seen the 12-year-old leave the house on her own on Friday, despite contradictory reports that she had walked to the tram station with her grandmother's boyfriend.

She said: "I have an independent witness that she left on her own walking down the road."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lks-of-heartbreak-as-police-search-woods.html

One would suspect this "independant witness" was the neighbour.

 

[Skigh]

Which begs belief where could she have been that they missed her on the previous searches and why couldn't anyone in the house smell anything?

This is what I do not understand. Lofts are warm this time of year and even if SH had wrapped her in bin bags and sprayed fabreeze around, after a few days the smell would be awful. Flies would also be attracted to the loft.

Body fluids are also lost so would they not seep through the ceiling?

 

[deniseyolande]

If they did not go to the fair as SH stated and grandma didn't dispute what her man said then I would assume she knew what he did or at least realized something was not right...what day was that interview where he mentioned going to the fair?

 

[laserdisc10]

I've been searching for the articles in This Is Croydon Today news for fun fair staff stating unequivocally that SH and CS did NOT search or ask to search the fun fair

They've PULLED the articles

However, Google contains remnants, such as this header, which, when clicked, results in Page No Longer ....

Tia Sharp: Fairground workers raise doubts over murder suspect ...
www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Tia-Sharp-Fairground.../story.html

from the above, as shown on Google:

2 days ago – FAIRGROUND workers have raised doubts over Stuart Hazell's account of ... We would remember someone asking about a missing girl. ... Mr Hazell said he and Christine, 46, decided to drive to the funfair at "about ... The Advertiser showed Mr Petley a picture of Stuart Hazell, but he did not recognise him

Covering their tracks, the Met, aren't they ?


And here's another from Google search:

Missing 12 year old girl - Page 86 - General Discussion - Digital ...

forums.digitalspy.co.uk › ... › General Discussion

15 posts - 12 authors - 2 days ago

I mean he could have simply gone out searching for her. ... We would remember someone asking about a missing girl." ... The Advertiser showed Mr Petley a picture of Stuart Hazell, but he did not recognise him. ... After the leaving the funfair Mr Hazell says he and Christine followed a 130 bus they thought ...

 

[Cherwell]

... did police attempt to verify SH's (and CS/CB's) claims re: the fun-fair search, considering SH must have told this story each time police took his statements several days before the discovery of Tia's remains and the same story was surely repeated to investigators by NS and her partner.

Do we know that the funfair story was told from the outset - or was it cobbled together in the ensuing days to add colour and detail to their version of events?

 

[brighidin]

Postscript: received TWO 'severe threat warnings' from Microsoft and AVG re: this site when I logged back on in order to post this. Threats were blocked but what the hell is going on ?

That is odd. Try alerting on your post (little triangle button top right hand corner of your post) and ask the mods. They might be able to look into it.

 

[Lola68]

The Croydon newspaper, online, recommended on other sites, contains verbatim statements from the fun-fair operators, in some detail. For example, they state without equivocation that NO one approached them about a missing girl and NO one asked to conduct a search of the grounds. At least 3 separate fun-fair staff statements were quoted in the newspaper. They said it was very quiet at the time of night SH had claimed he went to the fun-fair. They said they were manning the entrance at all times. They were related and knew each other, not casual staff. They were very definite that SH nor CS had been at that funfair and the security guy said likewise

Thanks - can you post a link to Croyden newspaper page (if allowed)? I'm just not clear whether this was part of SH/CS first missing person call to police or whether it was just discussed within family and came out later - either from family member reporting during routine interviews and/or SH including/addressing it in his witness statement on Wed

What I mean by this is that police weren't necessary at fault for not interviewing fairground owners if it transpires that this was never part of the first 'official' missing persons call - ie that it 'came out' during conversations with other family members who were just (innocently? I'd like to think) retelling what they'd been told by SH/CS/the media

 

[songline]

I think you will find that the term grandmother needs to be defined pretty broadly here. If you are picturing a kindly grey haired lady that bakes cookies, you would be wrong.



Oh, that poor little baby. I think his is one of the only murder cases that has ever made me cry. I was 18 then and and I still think about little James now.

I would call her the GrandMonster uke: :dracula: :cold: :sheesh:

 

[laserdisc10]

If they did not go to the fair as SH stated and grandma didn't dispute what her man said then I would assume she knew what he did or at least realized something was not right...what day was that interview where he mentioned going to the fair?

Thing is, the fun-fair search story would undoubtedly have been the story they (SH and CS) told Tia's mother and step-father when they went to them with the tale that Tia was 'missing'

And of necessity, it would have been the same story SH and CS told police when police went to them as they had to do, seeing CS's house was where Tia had last been

Of necessity also, the search of the fun-fair story would have been the story SH told police in his original statement to them and ALSO when the media photographed him coming and going from the subsequent 2 hour interview

CS would have been asked by investigators to detail everything she knew of Tia's movements from Thursday onwards. If CS's story had differed from that of SH, there would have been problems right then. So CS must have continued to tell the same tale about fun-fair search to police each time she was questioned

Therefore, the tv interview claims of a fun-fair search was not the first time SH had told the story. He'd told it AT LEAST three times previously, beginning on Friday evening when he and CS claimed Tia was 'missing'

Doubtless SH and CS told the tale of the fun-fair search several times in succession -- to family, neighbours and everyone else

Lo and behold, several days into the search, This Is Croydon Today blew the lies of the fun-fair search to pieces, intentionally or not, when they quoted the fun-fair operators' account

This Is Croydon Today went further and quoted the fun-fair operators as saying the FIRST time they were approached about Tia was when people approached them with missing-posters. The fun-fair operators were adamant they had NOT been approached by or even seen SH or CS

So everyone who read This Is Croydon Today was aware that SH and CS had NOT searched for Tia at the fun-fair, whereas the police appeared OBLIVIOUS to that fact and were allowing SH to wander around as police continued searching garbage bins

 

[Luna15]

Which begs belief where could she have been that they missed her on the previous searches and why couldn't anyone in the house smell anything?

This is what I do not understand. Lofts are warm this time of year and even if SH had wrapped her in bin bags and sprayed fabreeze around, after a few days the smell would be awful. Flies would also be attracted to the loft.

Body fluids are also lost so would they not seep through the ceiling?

that's what keeps taking me back to the 'water tank'... especially if well insulated..

but now I am thinking he wrapped her body in bin liners, or plastic dust sheets (from his decorating) and then placed her in something like this

all that hoovering was because he got covered in loft insulation.

 

[laserdisc10]

Thanks - can you post a link to Croyden newspaper page (if allowed)? I'm just not clear whether this was part of SH/CS first missing person call to police or whether it was just discussed within family and came out later - either from family member reporting during routine interviews and/or SH including/addressing it in his witness statement on Wed

Please see my post above where I explain the Croydon article has been PULLED (although older articles remain)

In my above post I posted the REMNANTS of the Croydon article, gained from Google, which prove the article existed, but, when access is attempted, results NOW is a Page No Longer ....