Do we know for sure, though, whether or not they did go to the fair and search or whether CS told the police that SH was lying? Have the police commented about either? I think we'll probably know a lot more with regards to that part of it after the trial.
Well sure. But at the moment it's pre-trial so we're left to speculate based on information made available to us
Do we know whether or not they did go to the fair to search? No, we know only what the media feeds us. And the media, in the form of This Is Croydon Today/Croydon Advertiser named the staff and proprietor of the fun-fair and revealed they claimed SH had not approached them in order to search the fun fair, nor had he approached the security guard to let him slip in to find Tia
Now, in the tv interview, SH waxed lyrical about the fun-fair search. It was no mere mention. Instead, he detailed how he supposedly searched the fun fair from around the perimeter, then approached the entry/ticket box and explained he simply wanted to search for Tia. After being allowed inside, supposedly, he conducted another detailed search, even checking inside the ghost ride, according to him on tv
The small staff and security man reportedly advised This Is Croydon Today/Croydon Advertiser that at the time on night specified by SH, things were very quiet at the fair and if SH had approached them seeking entry, etc., he would definitely be noticed and remembered. In fact the staff said the first direct contact they had with the Tia case was in the form of people asking them if they could put up missing posters or similar
So who's telling the truth? My money is with the fun-fair staff. Next to be considered is - what would they have to gain from denying SH's story? What do they have to lose if they're lying? Well, if I ran a little fun-fair, I would think twice about publicly contradicting someone like SH, for a start. I'd be concerned about the sort of friends he'd be likely to have, as well. But most of all, I wouldn't want to be dragged into a court case and required to give evidence that may condemn someone or several someones to prison. Nor would I be eager to reap the potential 'rewards' for doing so when he/they were released. I wouldn't want the publicity created by my name and business being associated in any way - let alone in a newspaper - with the murder of a child. And unless I were very confident I were telling the truth and nothing but, I'd be worried about the aftermath from a legal perspective
Last of all, we have the fact that the article about the fun-fair staff was pulled from public domain 2 days after it was published, almost certainly a legal move