It's not that unusual a term. I took it to mean a member of the public, someone who didn't know TS personally. "Independent" in the sense of someone who had no reason not to be telling the truth.
GUILTY UK - Tia Sharp, 12, New Addington, London, 3 Aug 2012 #4
- Thread starter wfgodot
- Start date
New Posts
-
UK 100 year old skeleton of baby doe, Bishop Auckland, County Durham
- Latest: seasideForest
- Status
It's not that unusual a term. I took it to mean a member of the public, someone who didn't know TS personally. "Independent" in the sense of someone who had no reason not to be telling the truth.
We don't know that no one noticed the smell. We don't know the criminologist didn't notice anything. We do know that there was a media briefing scheduled for Friday 10th which was cancelled and a "pre-arranged" search was conducted instead. The search may well have been "pre-arranged" but it was brought forward imho.
On the morning of the 10th SH and NS were no longer at the house. When interviewed by the press early on Friday morning, CS said she didn't know were they were, which may or may not be true.
It's likely that by Thursday, the smell was becoming noticable, upstairs at least. Perhaps this combined with possible untruths coming to light as part of the SH TV interview caused innocent family members to do their own re-questioning of SH which resulted in him being kicked out of the house. Who knows?
It may even be that innocent family members told the police they could smell something and that's why all the activity happened on the Friday.
I agree, it's difficult to understand why the smell wasn't detected earlier, but we don't know how the body was wrapped and what, if anything, may have been used to mask the smell.
Correct it isn't a game, but I do think we are all trying to piece the jigsaw together to work out what actually happened. I haven't seen a post on here that belittles what is a terrible story.
The article was published on Monday 6th Aug. If JH was interviewed by the press on the 5th or 6th then "last week" would have meant ~30th Sept to ~4th Aug.
Don't know what to make of that. IF it's true then either TS was travelling on a daily basis or the statement that TS left her home on Thursday morning is wrong. Yes, interesting....
Which would indicate that JH made the only statement (that we know of), which would further indicate that PM was NOT arrested for assisting an offender by giving a false statement, but for some other reason?
Unless, under arrest, SH then told police that PM was somehow involved?
To my mind SH could remember which fair, he just couldn't remember the name of the park in which the fair was held. He guessed "Orpington" Park, and was, after hesitation corrected to "Ashburton Park".
That was on the Friday that she was eventually found. Not on the Thursday when the house was full of house members, cameramen and a tv reporter trained as a criminologist.
Again, I am not convinced the body was in the house at that time.
I'm not following why it would indicate that. To me the term "independent witness" just means someone with no vested interest in lying. A member of the public, not related to family.
That could be JH or PM. From yesterday's discussion I don't think we can infer anything from the charge of arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender.
The fact is that we know a 39 man was arrested and bailed on that charge whereas nobody who might be JH has been arrested. As far as we know.
Inge Jones
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 437
- Reaction score
- 69
I think using technical terms like "Independent witness" point to the fact these people were no strangers to the legal system 
I guess what I am asking is whether it is possible that PM didn't give a statement saying he saw TS leave on the Friday and that someone else gave this statement.
The press are ASSUMING that PM gave this statement, but does that have to be the case?
It would seem that whoever gave the statement, if indeed anyone really did, was either mistaken or lying. Because it now seems that TS never left the house at all on Friday 3rd.
I can see that if someone intentionally lied about the sighting then they might be arrested for doing so. And I can now see why that might lead to the type of charge which was made.
Of course it's possible the press are wrong. The truth is we don't know why the 39 year old man was arrested and bailed and we won't know until there is a trial.
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,327
- Reaction score
- 54,886
Yes , good point. Quite possibly the " meeting up " detail was only said to make it sound like TS was not left to travel all the way on her own, responsible adult met her half way etc.
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,327
- Reaction score
- 54,886
that is very interesting - I wonder if that could be why JH was not charged and PM was ? Perhaps PM took the blame for both of them ?
Ah no, am forgetting the discrepancy in clothing, so cant be that.
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,327
- Reaction score
- 54,886
But in reality, we dont know whether any clothes were washed or not - my guess is not. Putting clothing back onto a body is very difficult, so Im told and for what purpose ?
Easier just to dispose of the clothing a long way away from the house
Alyce
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 13,327
- Reaction score
- 54,886
To me it sounded like an over statement, trying to emphasise that it was not a member of the family, it was someone outside the family who was backing their story.
Protesting too much perhaps ?
Adorabella
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 193
- Reaction score
- 0
Morning Everyone!
Like Moby, my brain has been fried with all the latest suggestions, so although I have skimmed through the last few days posts, I may be repeating things already said, for which I apologise.
Here goes (in no particular order):
1. How does SH defer to DS in the interview? There is only one real moment when he looks to DS and that is for confirmation of the location of the fair. I did not see that as 'deferring' in any way.
2. Perhaps SH is not making up the visit to the fair at all. Could it be that when G'ma started getting worried that TS hadn't reappeared that she suggested a visit to the fair and as she is the one that drives SH didn't take too much notice of where they went (bearing in mind he may have had other things on his mind - which could also have been 'addled' with alcohol or drugs at the time)?
3. Not sure why but I am not 'feeling' the 'phone as a big clue. From my understanding DN expected to see TS at home on Thursday evening (so the fact that TS stayed over at G'ma's that evening is more of a warning bell to me - although from what we have since discovered it seems she stayed there often). A conversation may have taken place about the fact that her 'phone wasn't charged and it was suggested that she swap SIM with her mom's and take that 'phone and NS could easily charge and use TS 'phone that day if she needed to. This may not have been an unusual occurrence in that household. I know I would prefer my child to go out with a 'phone (any 'phone) than not.
4. NS may have been out of sight not because she knew anything but because she was overwhelmed/ panicked/ guilty/ terrified because her little girl was missing (and as time went on the worry increased and her ability to deal with it decreased), or because she also has 2 other children to look after and perhaps because she was advised to stay home in case TS returned there?
5. I think the body was present throughout. I think the smell was becoming more noticeable hence the final search that discovered TS's body. The fact that other people were present in the house throughout that week doesn't tell me that the body wasn't there - it tells me that it took that long for the smell to permeate the house.
6. There were apparently 60 reported sightings of TS on the Friday. Perhaps 10% of those are real. Perhaps TS did walk out of the house towards the bus stop but was brought back or recalled to the house before she actually got anywhere?
7. DS and his friends doing the 'appeal', T-shirts, posters, vigil etc to me do not necessarily equate to everyone being involved in TS's death. Are we are assuming their motives based on our own intelligence and thought processes, rather than theirs - it could be that this family are just not very bright and/ or sophisticated in anyway and adopted learned behaviours from what they had seen from the most highly publicised cases of missing children of recent times? I know that if my child was missing I would be hysterical and would do anything and everything that I could unless advised not to. Perhaps the police did not advise the family against certain things in this case (as we are already aware that they made mistakes)? It also seems that the police thought that it could have been a 'Shannon Matthews' case and might therefore have followed a different protocol to a genuine disappearance? Or at least knew from the outset that something had occurred within the family and were giving them enough rope....?
8. We do NOT know that DS, G'ma and others did not make their suspicions known to the police. Not sure where the information is coming from that G'ma and DS went along with SH's story about the fair after the interview if they didn't actually go there. We are not party to all the facts and it is just as likely that the penny dropped for them at that time. As we know, the landlord in the JY case was arrested and held on bail for a significant time but was 100% innocent.
9. Also not feeling the adjoining loft thing either - think PM could easily have been arrested for stating that he saw TS when he didn't and the reason the female independent witness who said the same has not been, is because there is proof that PM is lying? Perhaps he wasn't even in the area when he was supposed to have seen her, or there are other facts that rule his information out?
10. SH has seemingly never really gotten away with his crimes so I would gauge from that that he is quite fatalistic in his approach to life, which is backed up by his 'relationship' with G'ma. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc....but it seems to me that he pretty much accepts his fate in a defeatist way. He had a relationship with NS (which makes sense to me) and ended up in a relationship with G'ma as it came with a roof over his head and security. I don't think it's a relationship he dreamed of and perhaps he wasn't the one to make the moves? Based on that, I feel that he wouldn't really expect to get away with a major crime and that his 'disappearance' on the Friday was the action of a man who knew his time was up. Why Merton someone asked - not sure about this but don't his family live there? Perhaps he went there looking for comfort - not necessarily in person but just to be in a familiar place that may have held memories of happier times?
It's interesting to read some of these incredible theories but my gut feeling is that the obvious is most likely the truth. It was always obvious for example in the Joanna Yeates case that a neighbour was responsible - it was just a case of which one.
It was clear from the outset in this case that TS didn't really leave the house/ neighbourhood and that the last person to see her (which seems to be SH) was most likely responsible for her death (how and why I cannot fathom yet based on what we know).
Now I need a lie down.
Welcome to all the new members, too!
Like Moby, my brain has been fried with all the latest suggestions, so although I have skimmed through the last few days posts, I may be repeating things already said, for which I apologise.
Here goes (in no particular order):
1. How does SH defer to DS in the interview? There is only one real moment when he looks to DS and that is for confirmation of the location of the fair. I did not see that as 'deferring' in any way.
2. Perhaps SH is not making up the visit to the fair at all. Could it be that when G'ma started getting worried that TS hadn't reappeared that she suggested a visit to the fair and as she is the one that drives SH didn't take too much notice of where they went (bearing in mind he may have had other things on his mind - which could also have been 'addled' with alcohol or drugs at the time)?
3. Not sure why but I am not 'feeling' the 'phone as a big clue. From my understanding DN expected to see TS at home on Thursday evening (so the fact that TS stayed over at G'ma's that evening is more of a warning bell to me - although from what we have since discovered it seems she stayed there often). A conversation may have taken place about the fact that her 'phone wasn't charged and it was suggested that she swap SIM with her mom's and take that 'phone and NS could easily charge and use TS 'phone that day if she needed to. This may not have been an unusual occurrence in that household. I know I would prefer my child to go out with a 'phone (any 'phone) than not.
4. NS may have been out of sight not because she knew anything but because she was overwhelmed/ panicked/ guilty/ terrified because her little girl was missing (and as time went on the worry increased and her ability to deal with it decreased), or because she also has 2 other children to look after and perhaps because she was advised to stay home in case TS returned there?
5. I think the body was present throughout. I think the smell was becoming more noticeable hence the final search that discovered TS's body. The fact that other people were present in the house throughout that week doesn't tell me that the body wasn't there - it tells me that it took that long for the smell to permeate the house.
6. There were apparently 60 reported sightings of TS on the Friday. Perhaps 10% of those are real. Perhaps TS did walk out of the house towards the bus stop but was brought back or recalled to the house before she actually got anywhere?
7. DS and his friends doing the 'appeal', T-shirts, posters, vigil etc to me do not necessarily equate to everyone being involved in TS's death. Are we are assuming their motives based on our own intelligence and thought processes, rather than theirs - it could be that this family are just not very bright and/ or sophisticated in anyway and adopted learned behaviours from what they had seen from the most highly publicised cases of missing children of recent times? I know that if my child was missing I would be hysterical and would do anything and everything that I could unless advised not to. Perhaps the police did not advise the family against certain things in this case (as we are already aware that they made mistakes)? It also seems that the police thought that it could have been a 'Shannon Matthews' case and might therefore have followed a different protocol to a genuine disappearance? Or at least knew from the outset that something had occurred within the family and were giving them enough rope....?
8. We do NOT know that DS, G'ma and others did not make their suspicions known to the police. Not sure where the information is coming from that G'ma and DS went along with SH's story about the fair after the interview if they didn't actually go there. We are not party to all the facts and it is just as likely that the penny dropped for them at that time. As we know, the landlord in the JY case was arrested and held on bail for a significant time but was 100% innocent.
9. Also not feeling the adjoining loft thing either - think PM could easily have been arrested for stating that he saw TS when he didn't and the reason the female independent witness who said the same has not been, is because there is proof that PM is lying? Perhaps he wasn't even in the area when he was supposed to have seen her, or there are other facts that rule his information out?
10. SH has seemingly never really gotten away with his crimes so I would gauge from that that he is quite fatalistic in his approach to life, which is backed up by his 'relationship' with G'ma. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc....but it seems to me that he pretty much accepts his fate in a defeatist way. He had a relationship with NS (which makes sense to me) and ended up in a relationship with G'ma as it came with a roof over his head and security. I don't think it's a relationship he dreamed of and perhaps he wasn't the one to make the moves? Based on that, I feel that he wouldn't really expect to get away with a major crime and that his 'disappearance' on the Friday was the action of a man who knew his time was up. Why Merton someone asked - not sure about this but don't his family live there? Perhaps he went there looking for comfort - not necessarily in person but just to be in a familiar place that may have held memories of happier times?
It's interesting to read some of these incredible theories but my gut feeling is that the obvious is most likely the truth. It was always obvious for example in the Joanna Yeates case that a neighbour was responsible - it was just a case of which one.
It was clear from the outset in this case that TS didn't really leave the house/ neighbourhood and that the last person to see her (which seems to be SH) was most likely responsible for her death (how and why I cannot fathom yet based on what we know).
Now I need a lie down.
Welcome to all the new members, too!
accidental-zen
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2012
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh-oh, here we go...:what:
Where was this - Twitter?
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,509
- Reaction score
- 16,655
I agree, it seemed a very defensive thing to say. As though she assumed that suspicion would immediately fall upon members of the family. (Which it inevitably did, of course!) Perhaps there had already been some finger-pointing by locals, and she was reacting to it.
- Status