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

[India99]

Has anyone noticed that, at least according to the press, the police are still apparently considering the possibility that the body was moved (despite the apology) - as otherwise why continue to report it in today's Sun? Maybe it was moved in the house. Do these houses have cellars?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-accused-girls-murder-told-father-strong.html

no cellars in those houses

 

[Clio]

Thank you for this detailed post.

I am not sure what I make of his phone charging story,I thought this was his excuse as to why Tia went out with a mobile.My feeling is Tia was not alive on the Friday morning.

I suppose it is still possible that SH was not the person to actually kill Tia.

I rather think the story about TS going out without the mobile is because he neglected to dispose of it and it had to be explained as to why it was still in the house.

At this point, we don't even know the cause of death, so technically we don't know she was killed. Unlikely as it seems, there is always the possibility that she died of natural causes. (Not suggesting that's what I think happened BTW)

 

[wfgodot]

I rather think the story about TS going out without the mobile is because he neglected to dispose of it and it had to be explained as to why it was still in the house.

That would underscore his aggravation upon mentioning it in the interview.

 

[India99]

A rather depressing picture, perhaps the neighbour's assistance lay in moving the body to his own garage and then returning it to SH's attic once the coast was supposedly clear. Perhaps the neighbour wasn't being watched as closely as SH and Granny. Pure speculation of course, as we have no indication what assistance was involved.

with the amount of press that was around by Monday morning i doubt they would have had any chance of moving anything without anybody taking a picture or at least noticing.

 

[India99]

I don't think there is any MSM report that states this. At least I haven't seen one anyway. I took it to be MobyBluff's take on what probably happened.

i was just confirming which pub was near the co-op re: moby's post too

 

[India99]

Thanks wfgodot & Clio, just seems to of gone rather quiet last few days on this

it will go quiet if there's nothing to report

remember, it went quiet about Keith Bennett for years until this week for the same reason.

 

[Clio]

I really don't think the body was moved after it was put in the loft. I think whatever happened to cause TS's death happened before CS came home at 14:30 on Friday 3rd. I think SH put the body in the loft in a panic and the reported cleaning was done.

The report in the Daily Mail is because they tend to update the same article over and over again with new headlines but don't check too well if new information contradicts what was written before. That's how it seems to me.

I find it hard to believe that the Met would come out so publically with their apology to NS about not finding the body if there was ANY chance it wasn't in the loft all along.

 

[Topadvocater]

with the amount of press that was around by Monday morning i doubt they would have had any chance of moving anything without anybody taking a picture or at least noticing.

That would be true of SH but would it necessarily be true of the neighbour moving something in a big holdall?

 

[Topadvocater]

I really don't think the body was moved after it was put in the loft. I think whatever happened to cause TS's death happened before CS came home at 14:30 on Friday 3rd. I think SH put the body in the loft in a panic and the reported cleaning was done.

The report in the Daily Mail is because they tend to update the same article over and over again with new headlines but don't check too well if new information contradicts what was written before. That's how it seems to me.

I find it hard to believe that the Met would come out so publically with their apology to NS about not finding the body if there was ANY chance it wasn't in the loft all along.

What, then, is your theory concerning PM's assistance?

 

[India99]

That would be true of SH but would it necessarily be true of the neighbour moving something in a big holdall?

anybody moving something large at any point while the Police and press would have been stopped and at least asked what was in the bag, bare in mind this was a missing person so i doubt they would just let somebody walk out of a nearby house with a big bag that would obviously not be that easy to carry.

Dead bodies don't usually help much when being carried.

 

[wfgodot]

anybody moving something large at any point while the Police and press would have been stopped and at least asked what was in the bag, bare in mind this was a missing person so i doubt they would just let somebody walk out of a nearby house with a big bag that would obviously not be that easy to carry.

Dead bodies don't usually help much when being carried.

True, but they seem to have let SH out of their sights entirely as the body was found, resulting in a worrisome three hours or so until he was located and arrested.

 

[India99]

True, but they seem to have let SH out of their sights entirely as the body was found, resulting in a worrisome three hours or so until he was located and arrested.

at that point he wasn't under arrest and could still technically go where he wanted to.

i know for a fact that anybody carrying a large bag from a crime scene area that involved a missing child would be stopped and at least questioned.

 

[Skigh]

True, but they seem to have let SH out of their sights entirely as the body was found, resulting in a worrisome three hours or so until he was located and arrested.

I am not so sure he was out of sight . I think he was kept under surveillence I think the police might have wanted to check who contacted him and whether he had planned to meet any one.
When a member of the public had spotted him they had to move in for the arrest.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

What, then, is your theory concerning PM's assistance?

If you don't mind me answering this....

Simply that he possibly gave a false sighting of Tia. There was confusion surrounding this because early on there was a purported sighting by a lady (JH) but later SH and another family member referred to another independent sighting.

They referred to this person has "He". That is my theory anyway!

 

[Luna15]

I would very much doubt these properties have cellars. In fact, I would think hiding places would be very limited - cupboard under the stairs, garden shed maybe, wardrobes.... line of attics with only partial firewalls?

If SH did prevail himself of someone else's attic space, it may have been felt that once the house was searched a couple of times, the coast was clear to move the body back again. Although WTF he thought he would do with it in the long term, I don't know!

behind the bath panel.... although you'd expect that to have been one of the first places to have been searched.... I dont think it was moved from when he first put Tia up there.

That would be true of SH but would it necessarily be true of the neighbour moving something in a big holdall?

articles now been removed, but it was reported that Police removed a "large black holdall" from CS's house (beginning of articles can be seen on 'google news')

http://news.google.co.uk/news/story...a=X&ei=etIvUMWLDqi80QXXiYHoDQ&ved=0CDEQqgIwAA

I always think it must bare relevance if the Police have removed certain stuff from the web.

There have been occassion when I have had to get something into my loft (haven't got ladders) ... I empty out the tall chest of drawers and drag the carcass to under the loft hatch, place article on carcass, climb in the loft from standing on carcass, lean out and pick up article (would be easy to grab the handles of a 'holdall') and pull up into loft...... right fricking palaver that I have only done twice!!

 

[Topadvocater]

If you don't mind me answering this....

Simply that he possibly gave a false sighting of Tia. There was confusion surrounding this because early on there was a purported sighting by a lady (JH) but later SH and another family member referred to another independent sighting.

They referred to this person has "He". That is my theory anyway!

I think posters have already mentioned in the past that the false sighting would only be a chargeable offence if he knew or had cause to suspect that SH was an offender. At the time of the sighting that was not the case,as no body had yet been found and SH was not officially under suspicion of anything, so unless PM knew more than that the girl had merely not left the house he would at most have been charged with wasting police time. What could that 'more' be?

 

[Skigh]

I really don't think the body was moved after it was put in the loft. I think whatever happened to cause TS's death happened before CS came home at 14:30 on Friday 3rd. I think SH put the body in the loft in a panic and the reported cleaning was done.

The report in the Daily Mail is because they tend to update the same article over and over again with new headlines but don't check too well if new information contradicts what was written before. That's how it seems to me.

I find it hard to believe that the Met would come out so publically with their apology to NS about not finding the body if there was ANY chance it wasn't in the loft all along.

I think the met were very aware of the potentially volotile neighbour hood who I would have thought were quite anti the police and certainly would not want any backlash or demonstration from the locals.

The police were also perhaps were at fault for not searching connecting lofts.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

I think posters have already mentioned in the past that the false sighting would only be a chargeable offence if he knew or had cause to suspect that SH was an offender. At the time of the sighting that was not the case,as no body had yet been found and SH was not officially under suspicion of anything, so unless PM knew more than that the girl had merely not left the house he would at most have been charged with wasting police time. What could that 'more' be?

It could just be that has the days went on the police pressure was building on SH even after failing to find Tia on Sunday.

He could have approached PM and said....mate the cops are still giving me grief. They've searched the place twice and they still think I did something to her. Be a pal and tell them you saw her

I think if PM is eventually charged it will most likely be for providing a false sighting.*

Also, I think that the police were on to SH from day dot

*Subject to change.

 

[wfgodot]

I am not so sure he was out of sight . I think he was kept under surveillence I think the police might have wanted to check who contacted him and whether he had planned to meet any one.
When a member of the public had spotted him they had to move in for the arrest.

Strongly disagree. I think you're giving credit where credit isn't due. We're talking about a police force who could not find a child's body, even after repeated visits, and even after the "sniffer" dog/s went through a small home.

 

[laserdisc10]

I think posters have already mentioned in the past that the false sighting would only be a chargeable offence if he knew or had cause to suspect that SH was an offender. At the time of the sighting that was not the case,as no body had yet been found and SH was not officially under suspicion of anything, so unless PM knew more than that the girl had merely not left the house he would at most have been charged with wasting police time. What could that 'more' be?

We're not privy to information which would explain why PM was charged, obviously. It's possible he confessed to police (under questioning and after the body was discovered) that he had deliberately and falsely claimed to police (during the week of searching) that he'd seen the victim after she'd allegedly left CS's house shortly after noon on Friday