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

[fabgod]

Controversial suspicion here:

wondering if SH is a police informant

Can you expand this? I'm not following!

 

[MobyBluff]

Controversial suspicion here:

wondering if SH is a police informant

And just happened to have his "step grand daughter" murdered in his home? Pretty thin.

 

[graceholl]

I'm also puzzled as to how the police have been convinced enough to release CS on bail...

 

[laserdisc10]

Maybe they want her out there in the hope she makes contact with someone or does/says something that leads them to more information.
God forbid, its not the first time!

Just my opinion, based on what we've seen and learned, but I suspect she would have been too cunning to fall for that by the time she was six years old

 

[laserdisc10]

And just happened to have his "step grand daughter" murdered in his home? Pretty thin.

Haven't exactly ridden him hard though, have they ?

Seemingly took his fair-ground search as gospel

Allowed him to slip away for several hours

Didn't object to his televised wail

Had him in the station more than once, but clearly found no reason to hold him

and failed to find a child's remains in the ceiling for a week despite all the above, which in turn -- should forensic evidence have been rendered degraded, may result in a very light sentence

My suspicions of his possibly being a police informant therefore remain

 

[fabgod]

Just my opinion, based on what we've seen and learned, but I suspect she would have been too cunning to fall for that by the time she was six years old

:floorlaugh:
I take your point completely on that, having said that, she didnt seem to clever at choosing her last partner?
(dont tell her I said that)

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

My comments relate to the fact the police obviously did not follow up

How many opportunities must police have had to confirm (or not) SH's claims (substantiated, apparently, by CS) that he searched the fun-fair on Friday evening?

How many:

(1) when Tia's mother NS contacted police to say her daughter was missing, at which point police would have learned the child was in the care of SH and CS at the time and that SH and CS had arrived at NS's house supposedly after searching the funfair but had failed to find Tia

(2) when police questioned SH and CS initially, which surely they did on Friday night either at NS's home or shortly after departing NS's place to confirm her statement

(3) when police had SH to the station for questioning -- did he attend once or twice?

So that's at least three opportunities provided police to check SH and CS's claims with the fun-fair staff

Clearly police did NOT bother to confirm SH's claims re: a fun-fair search with staff of the fair

for if they had, they would have learned that fun-fair staff were not approached on Friday night by SH, rendering SH's statements highly suspect/complete fabrication

SH was still recounting his alleged search of the fun-fair as late as during the televised interview

At no point, seemingly, did CS contradict SH's claims

In short: it was not the paid duty of fun-fair staff or journalists to debunk SH's claims of searching the fun-fair. It was the duty of the police

I suspect the police did do all of them thing's. They also most likely suspected Hazell/family involvement very early on.

Their own huge mistake on the 5th Aug messed the investigation up big time. It wasn't until Wed they finally sent in a BRD and got the investigation back on track.

The NPIA's (National Police Improvement Agency) own guide book for missing cases states (page 15) in big bold letters:

"IF IN DOUBT, THINK MURDER".

I'll link it if you want to read it.

 

[Skigh]

I'm also puzzled as to how the police have been convinced enough to release CS on bail...

The police probably do not have enough evidence to charge her.

It could also depend on SH's story -will he plead innocent and blame Granny ,or protect Granny and plead manslaughter or even possibly guilty.

 

[josie1986]

Apologies Josie, I am a bit older than you...lol...and to me a grandma should have lovely 400 TC flowery bed sheets.....but then this old mare does not resemble a grandma in any shape or form, and I am still convinced that she has plenty to hide, including a weird and twisted lifestyle.

no apologies needed crazymama,i dunno if i can pass judgement on anyone due the the decor or furnishing of their house,i mean i have had some questionable items :what:

Defo....he has hired a top barrister with a decent reputation for getting acquittals in similar cases.....why would he then plead guilty? He's not going to get a lesser sentence for owning up (I would hope!)

how is he affording that? i assuming he is on benefits? i cant see a top barrister being provided on legal aid

 

[laserdisc10]

:floorlaugh:
I take your point completely on that, having said that, she didnt seem to clever at choosing her last partner?
(dont tell her I said that)

Beggars can't be choosers ?


Well ....

 

[Cherwell]

I was just trying to place the article and interview into the timeline of events. The article was the first I'd heard of the alledged funfair visit. Shortly after that interview, SH (and for that matter NS) disappeared according to CS. I wondered if possibly SH came up with that story as part of the interview and that was the first CS had heard of it and that's why SH disappeared.

If not, and the funfair story had been in the mix all along then I am struggling to understand why CS hasn't been charged with something even if it is a lesser charge than murder.

This is what I have been thinking too.

Laserdisc has made a good point regarding the funfair story, but only if SH had been telling it from the beginning. But that is just an assumption, as far as I'm aware. If this story was only introduced during the filmed interview, then there is no reason why the police would have interviewed the funfair staff any earlier.

 

[Skigh]

[QUOTE
how is he affording that? i assuming he is on benefits? i cant see a top barrister being provided on legal aid[/QUOTE]

In the Joanna Yeates case ,Vincent Tabak got a very well known barrister on legal aid.

 

[laserdisc10]

This is what I have been thinking too.

Laserdisc has made a good point regarding the funfair story, but only if SH had been telling it from the beginning. But that is just an assumption, as far as I'm aware. If this story was only introduced during the filmed interview, then there is no reason why the police would have interviewed the funfair staff any earlier.

Maybe we'll learn later, when the media is vying for rights to various family members' stories

He'd told the story of the fun-fair search before the televised interview though, as evidenced by the fact the uncle seemingly needed to prompt him re: the fair's correct location

 

[Destroyer]

Can you expand this? I'm not following!

I think what Laserdisc is trying to say is that SH was trusted by the police as he has in the past been used as a 'Grass' to obtain inside information of crime in the area with inside knowledge. Like a mole i suppose.

 

[laserdisc10]

I think what Laserdisc is trying to say is that SH was trusted by the police as he has in the past been used as a 'Grass' to obtain inside information of crime in the area with inside knowledge. Like a mole i suppose.

Not sure about 'trusted', but police may have considered him 'valuable', an 'asset' (as in 'valuable' or favoured/protected informant/grass/mole)

Thanks for clarifying by the way

 

[Destroyer]

Not sure about 'trusted', but police may have considered him 'valuable', an 'asset'

Thanks for clarifying by the way

Well one things for certain - they didnt have him under surveilance !!!

 

[Skigh]

Maybe we'll learn later, when the media is vying for rights to various family members' stories

He'd told the story of the fun-fair search before the televised interview though, as evidenced by the fact the uncle seemingly needed to prompt him re: the fair's correct location

That is a very good point-the Uncle did know the story. If Granny was involved I wonder if Uncle was also involved in hiding Tia's body.

 

[Cherwell]

He'd told the story of the fun-fair search before the televised interview though, as evidenced by the fact the uncle seemingly needed to prompt him re: the fair's correct location

Yes, but we don't know at what point it was first told to the police. Initially they may have just said something like "we've been out looking everywhere we could think of" without going into such specific detail. I may be wrong, but it sounds like a story that may have been been worked up later.

Either way, the fairground staff may well be called as witnesses in due course, so removing their accounts from the public domain is a precaution to avoid prejudicing a fair trial.

 

[laserdisc10]

Well one things for certain - they didnt have him under surveilance !!!

Exactly

 

[laserdisc10]

Didn't exactly check CS out too thoroughly either, apparently, considering it was several days before it emerged (or she finally divulged) that she had not been at home during the time Tia was there. Although accounts still aren't all that clear