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

[laserdisc10]

User Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 80

Quote:
FAIRGROUND workers have raised doubts over Stuart Hazell's account of the day Tia Sharp went missing.

Mr Hazell, the boyfriend of Tia's grandmother Christine Sharp, is being hunted by police after a body was found in their house in The Lindens, New Addington, this afternoon.

Murder suspect Stuart Hazell's account of what happened the evening of Tia's disappearance has been questioned

The 37-year-old claims that after Tia failed to come home last Friday he went to look for her at a funfair in Ashburton Park in Addiscombe.

But the manager and the head of security of J. Davis & Son Funfairs have both told the Advertiser that no one came to the fairground to look for Tia.

Charmaine Davis, who operates the amusement park with her husband John, was working in the entrance kiosk that night with her best friend and her daughter, McKenzie. Mrs Davis told the Advertiser: "I was in the box most of the time and if I wasn't there, my daughter or my best friend was.

"No one asked me if they could come in and look for a missing girl.

"We're on the entrance, which is pretty quiet after 7pm. We would remember someone asking about a missing girl."

Speaking to ITV on Thursday Mr Hazell said he told Tia, who wanted to go to the Whitgift Centre to buy shoes, to be back by 6pm.

After she failed to return, Mr Hazell said he and Christine, 46, decided to drive to the funfair at "about 7.15-7.30pm".

He explained: "We got into the car and went down to the funfair where I thought she might have snuck out to or something.

"We went down to the funfair (he turns to Tia's uncle David Sharp) it was Orpington, wasn't it?"

David replied: "Err...no it was Ashburton."

Mr Hazell said: "Ashburton Park. I walked the perimeter of the funfair, on the outside of the fence, to see if I could see her.

" Me and Chris, we couldn't see her so we went up to a security guard by the main gates.

"We explained what happened, (that) my granddaughter might have snuck off in there. So he let us in to go and have a look around.

"We were in there for a good hour. We looked all the way around. Chris went one way I went the other. We looked at every single ride. All the arcades. We stood by the Ghost Train thing. We looked everywhere basically."

Mrs Davis, who said there was only one way into the fair, added: "They would have come to the front window and asked to go in and look for her.

"They would have had to do that to get in for free.

"I don't recall anyone doing that. Neither does my daughter or my best friend.

"We recall people coming and giving out leaflets the following day but we don't recall anyone coming and asking if they could look for a girl that evening. It would have stuck in our minds.

"No family members came in and asked about looking for Tia."

When asked whether anyone had asked to enter the fair to look for a missing girl, McKenzie, 17, said: "No. The only thing we had was on very late on Friday night, two women, between 25 and 30, came up and gave us some of the pictures and told us she had gone missing. Then they went.

"They came back on Saturday, about 1pm, and gave us more. That's all I recall in terms of anyone coming and mentioning Tia."
Mrs Davis added: "That's why we would have remembered. Everyone was talking about it the next day. If they had been there on Friday night, someone would have said."

Stephen Petley, of security firm Loc19, was one of two guards on duty that evening, and the only male.

The Advertiser showed Mr Petley a picture of Stuart Hazell, but he did not recognise him.

"I've talked to everyone who worked that night and none of them were asked about a missing 12-year-old," said Mr Petley.

"There was an incident during the day. A couple had lost a small child but that was resolved. It had nothing to do with this.

"To the best of my knowledge, no one asked about a missing child that evening."

Originally posted by Kaos

This article appeared in both thisiscroydon and thisislondon but I can't find any of them now so don't know if they've been pulled from both sites.

I'm sure it was reported that Tia had her own bedroom at CS's house

Poster: Kaos

Page 45


BBM

 

[India99]

Seems a bit odd that they would print posters so quickly.

I wonder who suggested they printed them ?

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm taking from those articles that she's went off to the shops twice as the second article says she went out "around midday yesterday afternoon" - which would be the 8th or 9th.
I know it may seem trivial but wouldn't you just get somebody else who was in the house to go and get what you needed whilst you're anxiously waiting for the phone to ring from your grandaughter?

I didn't really read anything into that. If she'd been cooped up in the house day after day waiting for news, I can see why she'd want to get some air. It must have been claustrophobic with the rest of the family staying, and I believe (not absolutely sure) that Tia's mum was there too. So no reason why Gran shouldn't go to the shops a few times if Tia's mum was home. There were other family members who could have answered the phone.

Also, if she's innocent (and I do feel she knows something...) then the house might have made her feel really miserable, as that's the last place Tia was. Mind you, if she's guilty, and knew all the time that Tia was in the loft, she'd have been in an emotional pressure cooker, so getting out of the house might have been the only way she could have escaped from the nightmare she knew was going on in the house.

To be honest, I still find so much of this confusing and without logic, even with all the intriguing theories people have posted.

 

[laserdisc10]

I'm extremely grateful to Kaos for having the foresight to save the above article. I read it. Thought about it once the body was discovered. In a sleep-lagged overreaction to discovery of the body, I posted here and annoyed a lot of people at the time. Rightly or wrong, my posts criticised the police for not sending a car around to the fair-ground as a priority, to check SH's claims of searching, considering he had a long list of convictions (and now we learn the family was on the radar too)

If police had sent someone, even one officer, to check SH's claims with the fun-fair - and if the fun-fair people had told police what they later told the Croydon newspaper (i.e. denial of SH's story) then police could have taken him down to the station and obtained a statement from him. Simultaneously, they could have taken a statement from the fun-fair staff. At that point, they would have had reason to distrust SH's version of events and justification for conducting a search of CS's house (I think/would hope). Anyway, those were my thoughts when I posted

If police had questioned SH vigorously that Friday night - if they'd confronted him with the fact the fun-fair staff denied he'd searched the fun-fair - if they'd questioned CS just as vigorously they would have learned then, at that early point in the investigation, that CS had not been at her house for 23 hours. And who knows how differently the investigation might have gone if the above had occurred

I don't know why police took SH at his word. Nor do I know why they failed to follow-up on his claimed movements earlier in the evening by checking his claims against the people at the fun-fair. One officer in a car, shouldn't have taken very long to drive to the fun fair. Or even one phone call to check SH's story

Anyway, very grateful to Kaos for having the presence of mind to save the article, because 2 days after it was published, it was pulled and all I could provide to vouch for the article were remnants of Google headers for the article

Good for you, Kaos

 

[Luna15]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tia-sharps-family-reported-to-social-1268016

“Questions need to be asked": Murdered schoolgirl Tia Sharp's family were referred to social services three times

This will get us talking....

 

[India99]

I'm extremely grateful to Kaos for having the foresight to save the above article. I read it. Thought about it once the body was discovered. In a sleep-lagged overreaction to discovery of the body, I posted here and annoyed a lot of people at the time. Rightly or wrong, my posts criticised the police for not sending a car around to the fair-ground as a priority, to check SH's claims of searching, considering he had a long list of convictions (and now we learn the family was on the radar too)

If police had sent someone, even one officer, to check SH's claims with the fun-fair - and if the fun-fair people had told police what they later told the Croydon newspaper (i.e. denial of SH's story) then police could have taken him down to the station and obtained a statement from him. Simultaneously, they could have taken a statement from the fun-fair staff. At that point, they would have had reason to distrust SH's version of events and justification for conducting a search of CS's house (I think/would hope). Anyway, those were my thoughts when I posted

If police had questioned SH vigorously that Friday night - if they'd confronted him with the fact the fun-fair staff denied he'd searched the fun-fair - if they'd questioned CS just as vigorously they would have learned then, at that early point in the investigation, that CS had not been at her house for 23 hours. And who knows how differently the investigation might have gone if the above had occurred

I don't know why police took SH at his word. Nor do I know why they failed to follow-up on his claimed movements earlier in the evening by checking his claims against the people at the fun-fair. One officer in a car, shouldn't have taken very long to drive to the fun fair. Or even one phone call to check SH's story

Anyway, very grateful to Kaos for having the presence of mind to save the article, because 2 days after it was published, it was pulled and all I could provide to vouch for the article were remnants of Google headers for the article

Good for you, Kaos

the thing is though, when did he tell the Police he'd been there ?

 

[wfgodot]

From Luna15's Mirror link above:

Police informed the local authority about the family twice after allegations of drug abuse and domestic violence in 2008 and 2011. Social workers were warned a third time after Tia’s mother Natalie, 31, gave birth to Tia’s brother in 2010.

 

[Luna15]

I'm extremely grateful to Kaos for having the foresight to save the above article. I read it. Thought about it once the body was discovered. In a sleep-lagged overreaction to discovery of the body, I posted here and annoyed a lot of people at the time. Rightly or wrong, my posts criticised the police for not sending a car around to the fair-ground as a priority, to check SH's claims of searching, considering he had a long list of convictions (and now we learn the family was on the radar too)

If police had sent someone, even one officer, to check SH's claims with the fun-fair - and if the fun-fair people had told police what they later told the Croydon newspaper (i.e. denial of SH's story) then police could have taken him down to the station and obtained a statement from him. Simultaneously, they could have taken a statement from the fun-fair staff. At that point, they would have had reason to distrust SH's version of events and justification for conducting a search of CS's house (I think/would hope). Anyway, those were my thoughts when I posted

If police had questioned SH vigorously that Friday night - if they'd confronted him with the fact the fun-fair staff denied he'd searched the fun-fair - if they'd questioned CS just as vigorously they would have learned then, at that early point in the investigation, that CS had not been at her house for 23 hours. And who knows how differently the investigation might have gone if the above had occurred

I don't know why police took SH at his word. Nor do I know why they failed to follow-up on his claimed movements earlier in the evening by checking his claims against the people at the fun-fair. One officer in a car, shouldn't have taken very long to drive to the fun fair. Or even one phone call to check SH's story

Anyway, very grateful to Kaos for having the presence of mind to save the article, because 2 days after it was published, it was pulled and all I could provide to vouch for the article were remnants of Google headers for the article

Good for you, Kaos

Look at exactly what the police have said:-

He told the press conference at New Scotland Yard today: 'It is important that we explain more about the circumstances of the searches.
'Four scene examinations were conducted of the property. The first followed immediately from the missing person report that was received on Friday 4 August.
An initial visit was made to assess the situation and examine the property. This visit was not regarded or viewed as a full search of the property.
'The second visit was a full search of the property with the consent of the occupiers. This was conducted on 5 August over a period of two hours. All parts of the premises were searched including the location where a body was discovered, five days later, on Friday 10 August.'

'A third visit was undertaken on 8 August. This was not a search, but the attendance of a body recovery dog to assist the investigation team in their enquiries.
'It is not appropriate to comment further on aspects of the criminal investigation currently being conducted but our investigation was such that it was decided that a further intrusive search needed to be undertaken - it was that search, yesterday, which resulted in the discovery.
'On behalf of the Metropolitan Police I apologise for the distress and concern this delay will have caused.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-body-missing-12-year-old.html#ixzz23w8HYvoA

What I find totally unacceptable is that, on the Wednesday 'body recovery dogs' were indicating at the ceiling, but a senior officer had said the loft had already been searched but was persuaded to change his mind (will try to find the link if anyone insists) .... why? at the very point did someone not just go back to the loft???

UNACCEPTABLE... and totally jeopardised the whole investigation..... as for taking SH at 'face value' a check through CRB should have put them on the highest alert.... RIDICULOUS :banghead:

 

[laserdisc10]

the thing is though, when did he tell the Police he'd been there ?

You mean when was he questioned by police regarding Tia's alleged disappearance? I don't know

Or do you mean what date and time did SH tell police he'd searched for Tia at the fun-fair? Again, don't know

All I'm aware of are the claims made by SH in his televised interview, in which he claimed that after searching the fun-fair, he and CS went to NS's house, told her their story and she summoned the police. That's all I know as verbatim claims from SH

We fill in the gaps, don't we, based on what we know, when we're trying to reconstruct events. Well, I do

It was my belief that police would arrive at NS's house and question her as to the allegedly missing child's movements leading up to her disappearance. Seems reasonable to speculate that NS would be required to reveal that the child had been in the care of CS when she disappeared. At that point surely, police would have obtained from NS CS's address, name, phone number. Then they would surely have asked 'When did you first become aware Tia was missing?'

At that point, surely, NS would have told them that CS and NH had been to her home not long before to say Tia had not arrived at their home from her shopping trip. It's quite possible that SH and CS were still at NS's house when police arrived. Or, maybe they'd taken off in order not to be questioned, although surely it would be only a short time before the police arrived. And wouldn't NS tell police that when SH and CS arrived to tell her they couldn't find Tia, they'd also told her they'd searched a fun-fair and followed a bus, etc.?

Whatever the case, the police needed to speak to SH and CS. They needed to learn a lot of details: when had Tia last been seen by them? Was she upset when she left? What was she wearing when last seen? etc

Maybe I'm wrong, but seems to me that in order to put themselves in the best possible light with the police, that SH and CS would have told them of their dilligent searches for Tia before they'd raised the alarm

Again, I could be wrong, but when questioned (twice?) by police, wouldn't SH have stuck to the story of searching the fun-fair? If not, how did he account for the time and his movements after Tia supposedly left the house and also between Tia's expected arrival at 6 p.m. and NS's call to police to report a missing child?

A pivotal claim within SH's tv interview was his supposed search of the fun fair. He included CS also as an active participant I see after being provided the opportunity by Kaos to read the article again. Is it likely SH would have invented the fun-fair search purely for the tv interview. I don't believe so. If he'd told a different version of events to police more than once, not even he would be careless to the extent he would contradict his statements to police with a newly invented tv claim of searching a fun fair. So I suspect he told the fun-fair tale from the start and all the way through. I have NO idea why he invented the fun-fair element. Imo, he would have been more convincing and had less risk of discovery if he'd said CS slept all afternoon after her 23 hour shift and he was watching tv or something

We've discussed it earlier in the thread and people have suggested the reason he invented the fun-fair story was possibly because he feared police might find cctv evidence to show he had been near the fun-fair or cctv evidence to show he and CS had been out and about somewhere in the car - which as speculation holds water, imo

 

[Jaccles]

Could someone with local knowledge say what the area around the fair is like? I'm still convinced they must have travelled that way for a reason and used the fair as an excuse in case caught on CCTV travelling to and from that area with an hours gap when TS was supposedly missing. They must have needed to go somewhere pretty urgently, dealer to help cope with the stress? God if the JY case was Pizzagate then this must be Fairgate!

 

[India99]

You mean when was he questioned by police regarding Tia's alleged disappearance? I don't know

Or do you mean what date and time did SH tell police he'd searched for Tia at the fun-fair? Again, don't know

All I'm aware of are the claims made by SH in his televised interview, in which he claimed that after searching the fun-fair, he and CS went to NS's house, told her their story and she summoned the police. That's all I know as verbatim claims from SH

We fill in the gaps, don't we, based on what we know, when we're trying to reconstruct events. Well, I do

It was my belief that police would arrive at NS's house and question her as to the allegedly missing child's movements leading up to her disappearance. Seems reasonable to speculate that NS would be required to reveal that the child had been in the care of CS when she disappeared. At that point surely, police would have obtained from NS CS's address, name, phone number. Then they would surely have asked 'When did you first become aware Tia was missing?'

At that point, surely, NS would have told them that CS and NH had been to her home not long before to say Tia had not arrived at their home from her shopping trip. It's quite possible that SH and CS were still at NS's house when police arrived. Or, maybe they'd taken off in order not to be questioned, although surely it would be only a short time before the police arrived. And wouldn't NS tell police that when SH and CS arrived to tell her they couldn't find Tia, they'd also told her they'd searched a fun-fair and followed a bus, etc.?

Whatever the case, the police needed to speak to SH and CS. They needed to learn a lot of details: when had Tia last been seen by them? Was she upset when she left? What was she wearing when last seen? etc

Maybe I'm wrong, but seems to me that in order to put themselves in the best possible light with the police, that SH and CS would have told them of their dilligent searches for Tia before they'd raised the alarm

Again, I could be wrong, but when questioned (twice?) by police, wouldn't SH have stuck to the story of searching the fun-fair? If not, how did he account for the time and his movements after Tia supposedly left the house and also between Tia's expected arrival at 6 p.m. and NS's call to police to report a missing child?

A pivotal claim within SH's tv interview was his supposed search of the fun fair. He included CS also as an active participant I see after being provided the opportunity by Kaos to read the article again. Is it likely SH would have invented the fun-fair search purely for the tv interview. I don't believe so. If he'd told a different version of events to police more than once, not even he would be careless to the extent he would contradict his statements to police with a newly invented tv claim of searching a fun fair. So I suspect he told the fun-fair tale from the start and all the way through. I have NO idea why he invented the fun-fair element. Imo, he would have been more convincing and had less risk of discovery if he'd said CS slept all afternoon after her 23 hour shift and he was watching tv or something

We've discussed it earlier in the thread and people have suggested the reason he invented the fun-fair story was possibly because he feared police might find cctv evidence to show he had been near the fun-fair or cctv evidence to show he and CS had been out and about somewhere in the car - which as speculation holds water, imo

yeah i meant, when did he tell the Police that he's searched there, was it friday night or was it at some other point a lot later.

 

[laserdisc10]

Could someone with local knowledge say what the area around the fair is like? I'm still convinced they must have travelled that way for a reason and used the fair as an excuse in case caught on CCTV travelling to and from that area with an hours gap when TS was supposedly missing. They must have needed to go somewhere pretty urgently, dealer to help cope with the stress? God if the JY case was Pizzagate then this must be Fairgate!

Jaccles, India, Mobybluff and several other members here are familiar with the area, some in great detail. Hopefully they'll be along soon to answer your query. In the meantime, I've seen recent posts in which the general locality is discussed, in addition to posts about various fairs held in the district at around the time in question

 

[laserdisc10]

yeah i meant, when did he tell the Police that he's searched there, was it friday night or was it at some other point a lot later.

I'm not aware this was clarified by anyone either pre or post discovery of the body. I'd like to know the answer too

 

[soozieqtips]

Is it likely SH would have invented the fun-fair search purely for the tv interview. I don't believe so. If he'd told a different version of events to police more than once, not even he would be careless to the extent he would contradict his statements to police with a newly invented tv claim of searching a fun fair

I wouldn't have thought he'd be so careless either, but he'd already told his dad that he'd walked Tia to the tram stop. Let's assume the dad is right and that's what SH told him. How stupid was that when he knew he'd be questioned by police, being the last person to see Tia.

I don't know what his state of mind was at the time, maybe he was really high on something and wasn't thinking of the consequences of having his story contradicted by his own dad. One of my friend's husband smokes a lot of dope, nothing stronger than that, but he smokes a lot. After several years, I've noticed he now has really bad short-term memory loss and barely remembers anything he says! That's only dope. If SH was on something stronger, and out of panic, had carried on doing drugs or booze or whatever his pleasure was, I can easily see how he'd contradict himself. His brain is obviously frazzled, because I just can't see him being that stupid,

 

[India99]

Could someone with local knowledge say what the area around the fair is like? I'm still convinced they must have travelled that way for a reason and used the fair as an excuse in case caught on CCTV travelling to and from that area with an hours gap when TS was supposedly missing. They must have needed to go somewhere pretty urgently, dealer to help cope with the stress? God if the JY case was Pizzagate then this must be Fairgate!

i honestly couldn't tell you why they went there, it couldn't have been to look for her and there are so many other places to look first, there are parks, shops, playgrounds and a multitude of other places you would look for that kids first.

also if she had gone to Croydon then why not go there first, that place has a ton more places to look including cinemas etc.

it just totally confuses me as to why they would go to that one particular place as nothing since she went missing had even been mentioned about her wanting to go there at all (not publicly anyway)

the park the fair is in actually has (or did have when i lived over that way) cctv due to the amount of drug dealing/taking and general goings on in the park in the past.

did they use it as a reason for something else ? , i doubt it as i'm sure for whatever reason we think they might have gone there it would have been a lot easier to get whatever they needed a lot closer to home.

if as stated before the fair was from Hastings then i doubt they would have known anybody there anyway.

they could have driven past there on the way to who knows where but up til now there's also been no published evidence of this , this may come out in the court case or it might not ever get explained.

and when SH slipped up with the location of where the fair actually was i think this is a clear indication that they didn't go at all.

when things happen and you are trying to search for somebody , you remember exactly where you went, those things stick in your mind, everything will.

i've said it before and i'll repeat myself again, the slipping up about where it was is and was part of another story and he forgot which story he was telling for a second, you don't forget where you have been when every other part of that story includes all the places and buses you would have visited or used for years if you lived there.

nothing in this whole case has made much sense at all, i think in the coming months a lot more will be revealed about who was where and when and i really wouldn't be surprised if more members of the family are arrested and at least questioned at some point.

 

[Dion]

If they arrested PM, why didn’t they arrest JH for providing a false alibi for SH by claiming she saw Tia leave the house by herself, thereby putting herself in the position of being the last person to see her?

Here is her statement:

"Last time that I saw her was on Friday afternoon at about midday when she was leaving her grandma's and walking up the street here.

"She was wearing a white top and leopard print leggings. But she had nothing on her, nothing in her hands, but she seemed happy, happy at that time."

If SH had his mobile phone with him, the day he went "missing" then it could be possible that PM called to warn him about the body being found.

But the police could have called SH themselves and arranged to meet him (or possibly had his phone pinged to determine his location) whereas they didn’t seem to know where he was, so maybe he didn’t have his phone with him, or didn’t answer to numbers he didn’t know.

 

[Amber34]

Similar questions keep recurring, I've tried to logic some out:

1) The funfair. SH states they spoke with security and were looking around for an hour. I very much doubt the fairground folk would have forgotten this event - they were aware Tia was missing as they recall people being there handing out posters. Now add the fact that SH incorrectly stated the name of the location. It's an easy thing to do, but slightly more likely if they had not actually been there and he is trying to remember a 'shopping list' of names and events. Leaving their home in The Lindens, Ashburton field is North west, Orpington is east. Furthermore, as someone has already stated, it is not necessarily known locally as Ashburton field - the chances are he would have said 'the fair at Addiscombe' (or Shirley). SH had lived in this area for a number of years, he would know the difference between the two places, which direction he headed in and which town he was in. IMO, the visit to the fair is completely bogus and simply part of a concocted story.

2) Is Christine Sharp involved? If SH was lying about the fair, CS would have had to give the same story. SH's interview with ITV would have taken place long after he was questioned by the police. From the moment Tia was reported missing, SH would have had to explain what happened on the alleged day Tia had disappeared. Dear Granny would have been asked the same. Chances are they were even in the same room at the same time when police arrived to follow up the missing persons report as there would be no reason for them to be separate. Were they not singing from the same hymn sheet from the get go, police suspicions would have been alerted and they would have found themselves 'assisting police with their enquiries' a lot sooner. Looking at her FB page, CS does not appear backward in coming forward and appears to court controversy. I may have missed something but don't recall her getting involved in the appeals and press conferences? She is frequently looking down - maybe can't face the cameras? IMO, CS was well aware of what had happened to Tia and therefore lied to protect SH.

3) Did David Sharp know anything, or even suspect SH could be involved in any way ? DS helped SH correct his story, aggressively defended SH on FB when his name was being suggested as a potential suspect and looked into the camera when appealing for information about Tia. He has presented as a very credible face of the family, but could there been something deeper? DS has known SH for a good number of years as SH first dated his sister (presumably before DN came on the scene, which has been reported as being as long ago as 8 years) then his mother (yuk!). The fact he stood up for SH shows they have a close bond - whether by friendship or.... maybe something else, such as having information on each other? I'm not sure about DS - on one hand the whole world suspected SH after a few days, but was DS too close to think along the same lines, or was his protection a front?

4) Did Paul Meehan, next door neighbour, help hide Tia's body? When the initial missing reports came out, a neighbour (Jane Henry) had said she saw Tia going out around 12 noon. This was referred to as an unconfirmed sighting for days, and then suddenly there was a confirmed sighting of Tia, although there was never a name mentioned. Later, PM was arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender but no reference to what he did to assist, so in theory he may have been behind the sighting, concealing the body or calling SH to let him know a body had been found.

5) Return to the fair: I personally believe the statement in the paper, and can see why the women giving out the posters went up there, but that was awfully quick to find a photo and get lots of copies out. Maybe someone did that at home, just a small run to cover places that were still open in the evening and the fair would be a logical place to look. But it was still very quick to get word out and organised. JMO

 

[SallyLu]

If the police were so confident early on that Tia was alive then why didn't they check the fairground story? Doesn't make sense to me. They (the police) said that but was there any police searches anywhere else?

Was it a smoke screen?

 

[Dion]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tia-sharps-family-reported-to-social-1268016

“Questions need to be asked": Murdered schoolgirl Tia Sharp's family were referred to social services three times

This will get us talking....

I take this to mean that the mother's b/f was assaulting the mother. I hope he wasn't doing the same to Tia.

The poor child was being ping ponged between two incredibly dysfunctional "families". She probably had no concept of what a normal life was supposed to be, as she was surrounded by violence and drug addiction.

 

[Jaccles]

Re CS/CB, it's not uncommon for people to cover for someone out of misguided belief that they are telling the truth. The more I read the more I think she wasn't involved but did cover up out of fear that the police/social services would "set up" SH. It's amazing how many people go into complete denial even when faced with the obvious...

Re PM for him to be charged with what he has the police must suspect he knew that SH had committed an offense. The theory that he contacted or tried to contact SH after the body was discover seems the most plausible to me. If he was stupid enough to leave him a message or even a missed call regardless if the phone was turned off it would explain why the police where quick to arrest when they did. If it was re the false sighting the charge would have been obstructing an enquiry or perverting the cause of justice IMO

Re SH, just read back on the articles and picked up that not only did his Dad say he told him he walked TS to the tram so did his sister. He blamed his Dad's misinterpretation on alcohol but didn't mention why his Sister said this also. This with the fair mix up leads to a very dubious story which the police must have picked up on. I can only assume they thought TS was alive and left him free in the hope he would lead them somewhere in the early stages.

Any thoughts on these theories?