GUILTY UK - Tia Sharp, 12, New Addington, London, 3 Aug 2012 #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the picture of Tia supposedly outside the coop is actually Natalie. Maybe they had her put on some of Tia's clothes
 
Skigh said:
Could be that they did not intend to kill Tia at all.Perhaps there was some problem and Tia was taken to Granny's to calm down.
Could it be that originally they were going to try a shannon matthews type event

Could be that ideas about this are be partly correct or completely wrong they are only theories trying to explain what is puzzling us.

It would explain why natalies phone was in the house,the missing oyster card,why one witness was saw some one leave the house but described different clothes and was not arrested,why SH went to meet the tram on thursday.

Can anyone else who feels this theory might have some life in it still. add any other things it might explain?
Click to expand...
The missing Oyster card doesn't mean anything. SH said she lost it months ago, and as kids travel free anyway, it wasn't necessary for her to have it. As for the phone, I think there might be incriminating stuff on there that's been deleted by the family. Maybe texts between SH and NS, or graphic images or things they didn't want the police to see. It's possible they didn't think deleted texts could be retrieved, so left it there to tie in with the 'charging' story - or it's possible that since they couldn't even get their stories straight, they simply forgot to move it, which is what I think might have happened.

It doesn't make any sense at all that Tia was killed elsewhere and then moved to Gran's house. It would be beyond madness to do something like that. They would all have to be totally thick to even think of it. I might just accept that an individual family member working on their own could perhaps be that stupid (drunk, stoned, not thinking straight) - but more than one person being that dumb? I don't think so.
 
India99, a bit of me reckons that once they had 2 police searches, they thought they would not be getting any more.

Was there a police cordon around gran's house all the time? probably not, and even if the press were camped there, anyone spotted taking in a large holdall, could just have said it was provisions for the family, the press don't have a right to look in the bag.

The phone is the key in my opinion, no 12 year old would borrow their mums, and no mum like NS would be parted from hers for a whole weekend. A 12 yo would rather take an uncharged phone, and charge it at gran's - all her mates numbers etc.would be on her own phone.
 
Skigh said:
Could be that they did not intend to kill Tia at all.Perhaps there was some problem and Tia was taken to Granny's to calm down.
Could it be that originally they were going to try a shannon matthews type event

Could be that ideas about this are be partly correct or completely wrong they are only theories trying to explain what is puzzling us.

It would explain why natalies phone was in the house,the missing oyster card,why one witness saw some one leave the house but described different clothes and was not arrested,why SH went to meet the tram on thursday.

Can anyone else who feels this theory might have some life in it still. add any other things it might explain?
Click to expand...

Hia Skigh.
Please could you rephrase this for a tired girl with German Measles (me)
:)
 
OK, i think it's possible that JH gave the statement saying she had seen TS because TS went over to play dominoes on the Thursday night armed with a tin full of copper money, JH wanted to try out her new poison that she had mixed the night before in her cauldron and spiked TS's cookies.

Once the drug had the prayed for effect, JH then convinced the entire family to leave the house so that she could wrap and hide the success of her new poison in the loft.

The rest is history.

Brain now satisfied and rebuilding itself.
 
Saturn said:
India99, a bit of me reckons that once they had 2 police searches, they thought they would not be getting any more.

Was there a police cordon around gran's house all the time? probably not, and even if the press were camped there, anyone spotted taking in a large holdall, could just have said it was provisions for the family, the press don't have a right to look in the bag.

The phone is the key in my opinion, no 12 year old would borrow their mums, and no mum like NS would be parted from hers for a whole weekend. A 12 yo would rather take an uncharged phone, and charge it at gran's - all her mates numbers etc.would be on her own phone.
Click to expand...

I agree about the phone.I also thought they went on too much about the missing oyster card.Why make a fuss and mention it ,all it would mean was Tia had to pay her fare.
 
Saturn said:
India99, a bit of me reckons that once they had 2 police searches, they thought they would not be getting any more.

Was there a police cordon around gran's house all the time? probably not, and even if the press were camped there, anyone spotted taking in a large holdall, could just have said it was provisions for the family, the press don't have a right to look in the bag.

The phone is the key in my opinion, no 12 year old would borrow their mums, and no mum like NS would be parted from hers for a whole weekend. A 12 yo would rather take an uncharged phone, and charge it at gran's - all her mates numbers etc.would be on her own phone.
Click to expand...

the press were taking photos of anybody and everybody walking to that house.
 
Skigh said:
I agree about the phone.I also thought they went on too much about the missing oyster card.Why make a fuss and mention it ,all it would mean was Tia had to pay her fare.
Click to expand...
Children travel free. Most train/bus/tram drivers will not insist on seeing an Oyster card if the passenger is a child.
 
I'm lost - has cod been determined and anyone arrested?
thanks in advance.
 
MobyBluff said:
Clio, I hold you personally responsible for my forthcoming breakdown.
Click to expand...

:floorlaugh:

Actually it was the BIB in your post below which started me thinking.:p

MobyBluff said:
The press (or at least the Sun) report PM was the next door neighbour. To give an alibi/statement of sighting AND be arrested for "assisting an offender" means PM would have had to have known the crime had been committed, which means the Police believe he knew what offence had been carried out - MURDER. Not hiding a ladder to prevent a stash being found or a false alibi......unless he knew. If he knew then do we really believe he would give a false statement, but not hide the body? Surely one is as bad as the other, in as much as both are distracting the truth form the Police investigation?
Click to expand...

Are you at least okay with the fact that the person arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender didn't necessarily have to know the offence was murder? As per my hidden fictitious drugs example...
 
lillygator said:
I'm lost - has cod been determined and anyone arrested?
thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

No cause of death yet. Physical post mortem complete, awaiting further test results.

Grandmothers partner (SH) arrested and charged with murder
Grandmother (CS) arrested on suspicion of murder and released on bail
Next door neighbour (PM) arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender and released on bail
 
Clio said:
:floorlaugh:

Actually it was the BIB in your post below which started me thinking.:p



Are you at least okay with the fact that the person arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender didn't necessarily have to know the offence was murder? As per my hidden fictitious drugs example...
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that someone can be arrested for "assisting an offender" even if it it not the offence for which the offender is suspected of being guilty for. I also agree that you have a good eye for detail.

I just don't think that this is the reason PM was arrested.

I simply want the police to GIVE ME SOME MORE INFORMATION !!!!!

Me, us, the world. JUST STOP FEEDING US SNIPPETS!
 
MobyBluff said:
Yes, I agree that someone can be arrested for "assisting an offender" even if it it not the offence for which the offender is suspected of being guilty for. I also agree that you have a good eye for detail.

I just don't think that this is the reason PM was arrested.

I simply want the police to GIVE ME SOME MORE INFORMATION !!!!!

Me, us, the world. JUST STOP FEEDING US SNIPPETS!
Click to expand...


:lol: hilarious.
 
MobyBluff said:
Yes, I agree that someone can be arrested for "assisting an offender" even if it it not the offence for which the offender is suspected of being guilty for. I also agree that you have a good eye for detail.
Click to expand...

Good & thx

MobyBluff said:
I just don't think that this is the reason PM was arrested.
Click to expand...

Might be, might not. Likey is in my view, now I've had a rethink

MobyBluff said:
I simply want the police to GIVE ME SOME MORE INFORMATION !!!!!

Me, us, the world. JUST STOP FEEDING US SNIPPETS!
Click to expand...

Have to wait for the trial for that I'm afraid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 124 more.
Total: 1,680 (members: 125, guests: 1,555)

Online statistics

Members online
125
Guests online
1,555
Total visitors
1,680
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,570
Messages
18,096,918
Members
230,882
Latest member
alblake
Back
Top