ok, so SH went to Merton to find DS, who was in Merton supporting his sister. To be honest, that may be a possibility...if DS was with his sister. If not, (or even if true), why was SH arrested in Merton? Why Merton? Is it possible he went to NS's house to tell the truth, but wasn't let in?
Why Merton, why was he found in Merton? Handing out leaflets to the local area in case they'd seen Tia? I don't think so. By that point I'd imagine the whole of Merton were fully aware that one of their children was missing and SH would be equally aware.
Why Merton?
Can you try and explain why you feel this may be the case. I know you explain it as a hunch, but can you express why you have this hunch?
DS really was there from "day dot" wasn't he. He will have known all about the DV, drugs, SS involvement, SH's record, Tia's living arrangments etc.
Personally, I would not, and did not wear a t shirt when my sis was missing in the says before she was found dead - why not? Because everyone who knew me and everyone in the community already knew she was missing.
The people who didn't know me - could they read what is on that t-shirt unless they were close up? If you are close enough to a person, you can talk to them. You would carry a large and recent photograph on a flyer to hand out. (Assuming that the police think this is a good idea) People can take it away and keep it - it gives them something real to have and makes them think actively rather than passively about the missing child. You talk to everyone in pubs, clubs, restaurants, shopping centres in the early days. Once it has national media coverage, you don't need t-shirts.
They were making it about them imho, or maybe, DS was assisting the police all along. Could be that he assisted the police in a covert way. I really hope so.
Although I have experience of a family member missing and being found dead, perhaps it is because I am from a different background that I cannot relate to any of the behaviour of this family since Tia "went missing". They were behaving as though she was already dead and they wanted to be grieving and seen to be grieving. No one in my entire family shed a tear until sis's body was found. It wastes time when you could be doing something useful.
Just my opinion and absolutely no offence meant to anyone who thinks differently.
The offence of assisting an offender ("the principal offender") is committed when:
the principal offender has committed an arrestable offence;
the accused knows or believes that the principal offender has committed that or some other arrestable offence;
the accused does any act with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of the principal offender; and
the act is done without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
They were behaving as though she was already dead and they wanted to be grieving and seen to be grieving. No one in my entire family shed a tear until sis's body was found. It wastes time when you could be doing something useful.
On the issue of the neighbour arrested and released on bail for assisting an offender.
I initially believed that it was unlikely that he was the person who was the "independent witness" who saw TS leave the house on Friday. There was the female witness JH whose words were quoted in the press. I therefore argued that it was more likely that JH was the witness and therefore PM must be suspected of some other crime. After all the media could, and have before been wrong. This seemed to fit with the count of assisting an offender.
Having thought some more about it, I can see how the neighbour might given a false sighting and have been arrested on that charge.
The first reports of TS were of her wearing leopard print leggings. This was later changed to plain grey trousers of some sort.
What if, the neighbour described her clothing to police based on what SH told him. Perhaps SH told PM that police wouldn't leave the house alone and that he (SH) had some Class A drugs stashed he needed to get rid of in case they were found or somesuch. SH might have told PM what TS was wearing when she supposedly left the house on Friday and PM repeated that in a statement to the police. The matching clothing description means this is a "confirmed" sighting.
On Friday 10th, CS leaves the house (not under arrest), a body is found at around 17:00 and SH is later arrested at around 20:00. We learn from the papers the next day that CS and PM were arrested late on the Friday evening.
If you read the CPS definition of Arrested on Suspicion of murder it says that
It goes on to state one such example as lying to the police to protect principal offenders from investigation and prosecution
Isn't possession of Class A drugs an arrestable offence? Yes it is
In this scenario, would PM have lied to the police to protect the main offender of a charge of murder, or some other arrestable offence? Yes he would.
It's always easier to downgrade a charge that upgrade it. And let's not forget that, at this point in time, PM has not been charged.
My point is that PM would not necessarily have had to know that SH's crime was murder.
On the issue of the neighbour arrested and released on bail for assisting an offender.
I initially believed that it was unlikely that he was the person who was the "independent witness" who saw TS leave the house on Friday. There was the female witness JH whose words were quoted in the press. I therefore argued that it was more likely that JH was the witness and therefore PM must be suspected of some other crime. After all the media could, and have before been wrong. This seemed to fit with the count of assisting an offender.
Having thought some more about it, I can see how the neighbour might given a false sighting and have been arrested on that charge.
The first reports of TS were of her wearing leopard print leggings. This was later changed to plain grey trousers of some sort.
What if, the neighbour described her clothing to police based on what SH told him. Perhaps SH told PM that police wouldn't leave the house alone and that he (SH) had some Class A drugs stashed he needed to get rid of in case they were found or somesuch. SH might have told PM what TS was wearing when she supposedly left the house on Friday and PM repeated that in a statement to the police. The matching clothing description means this is a "confirmed" sighting.
On Friday 10th, CS leaves the house (not under arrest), a body is found at around 17:00 and SH is later arrested at around 20:00. We learn from the papers the next day that CS and PM were arrested late on the Friday evening.
If you read the CPS definition of Arrested on Suspicion of murder it says that
It goes on to state one such example as lying to the police to protect principal offenders from investigation and prosecution
Isn't possession of Class A drugs an arrestable offence? Yes it is
In this scenario, would PM have lied to the police to protect the main offender of a charge of murder, or some other arrestable offence? Yes he would.
It's always easier to downgrade a charge that upgrade it. And let's not forget that, at this point in time, PM has not been charged.
My point is that PM would not necessarily have had to know that SH's crime was murder.
Good thinking Batman, but now we have to believe that the hidden Class A drugs existed. We have not heard a thing about any drugs being discovered, but that doesn't make it impossible.
I would also suggest that if Class A drugs and the body were found together then there would be 2 charges for SH. That of "suspicion of murder" and "possession of class A drugs". This isn't the case.
Good thinking Batman, but now we have to believe that the hidden Class A drugs existed. We have not heard a thing about any drugs being discovered, but that doesn't make it impossible.
I would also suggest that if Class A drugs and the body were found together then there would be 2 charges for SH. That of "suspicion of murder" and "possession of class A drugs". This isn't the case.
I did wonder this too.Could be PM did admit he let his loft be used to stash drugs -some could have been found in the search on Friday and police wanted to know whose they were.
After a near 2-day sabbatical from this thread, to give my head a chance to stop fizzing, you guys have managed to frizzle my brain again. Im having a night off!!!!
After a near 2-day sabbatical from this thread, to give my head a chance to stop fizzing, you guys have managed to frizzle my brain again. Im having a night off!!!!
The existence of drugs does not come into the scenario I painted. No drugs needed to exist. It was merely necessary that PM believed that SH had drugs.
SH is a convicted crack dealer. I rather doubt PM would have questioned him and asked to see them as proof
No we don't
We have to beleive that SH had a body in the loft. SH couldn't tell PM that now could he? But he could tell him about a "more acceptable" crime. And ask PM to give a sighting of TS which could be confirmed so as to draw the police attention away from the house.
They did appear to be grieving. Could this be because of the strength of their suspicions?
To actually find something would strenghen the police case .PM could state his loft was used without his knowledge.
Understood, so in which case it begs the question "why was he arrested if the police didn't know anything about this 'imaginary' drugs stash?"
Did SH upon his arrest admit that he'd told PM this drugs story in order to make PM give a false statement saying he'd seen TS so that they wouldn't go looking around the loft? I guess that is possible, but then that assumes SH blabbed this in a drunk state on the Friday night. And surely if there were some Class A drugs hidden in the loft they could have been moved from the house - it's not like you'd need a suitcase to move a small amount of heroin around. (it wouldn't be a huge amount or I fancy they'd be a little better off than they appear to be).
All sorts of things "could" have happened. How would we know?
All I was doing was painting a possible picture of why PM was arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender when all he did was say he saw TS on Friday 3rd.
People have been assuming that PM would have had to know SH was hiding a dead body because they thought PM must have had to know that SH had murdered TS in order to be arrested (and bailed) on such a charge.
I was merely illustrating that this is not necessarily the case.
It could only be the case if SH blabbed after his arrest, otherwise the police wouldn't know what reason PM gave his statement (assuming it is him that gave the statement).
The Police wouldn't have known from PM's sighting statement that he was actually hiding an completely unrelated arrest able offence. Unless SH blabbed post arrest.
