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

[opalsqueak63]

Morning to you too adorabella,

Like I said, it's just an impression. Firstly, when I thought of other cases like this, Milly Dowler, Joanna Yeates and Sarah Payne, for example, the emotional grief and heartache in the 'come home pleas' was very evident and felt genuine. There wasn't an appointed spokesperson who talked in a very unemotional way on behalf of the rest of the family (that I can remember, anyway).

Add to that the fact that not one of them made an appeal directly to the possible kidnapper (as someone noted in an earlier post). Why make a plea directly to the missing child and not to the person who could be holding her? Because they knew no one was holding her?

Also, they don't exactly come across as a shy retiring sort of family who wouldn't say boo to a goose. And if NS has been the victim of domestic violence (as suggested by some of the things we've read regarding the Social Services referrals), then she would have already been intimidated by the males in her life and may have felt she had no choice but to go along with the 'stronger' members of the family. If she knew what had happened and felt unable to do anything about it, and was in emotional turmoil about what had happened, it would help to explain why she was never seen on camera pleading with people to come forward, or asking Tia's 'kidnapper' to let her go - because the family knew she'd give something away, hence, appointing DS to speak for everyone.

In families with domestic violence, you often find out it's been going on for years and years and years, from one generation to the next, and so on. Some women will eventually begin to feel helpless and worthless and be treated like crap by men for the rest of their lives. In NS's situation, maybe her mother was also the victim of domestic violence, or maybe the mother was the instigator because of what had happened in her own childhood. Maybe NS always deferred to the men in her life (or her mum), and this time was no different.

My long-winded point (sorry!) is that taking the family on what we've seen, what they've said, how they've reacted, the SH interview, NS missing from cameras, DS appointed spokesperson, issues of domestic violence in the past, drug-dealing, machete-wielding step-granddads who date daughters and then the mothers... well, there are no boundaries in that family, and if each member has the some sort of disregard for the law, or low self esteem due to their upbringing, then 'family' might be all they have. The family might also be the only 'friends' they have, and covering up and lying for each other might be what they've been conditioned to do throughout life.

Very incisive post imo. Thank you.

 

[soozieqtips]

Thanks Soozie, I appreciate you taking the time to explain all of that.

Based on those ideas, here's another tangent (that could be thwarted by the Thursday evening Co-op footage) about domestic violence happening at her actual home...do we know whether it was DN who was the perpetrator that the press have referred to?

If it was, could TS have returned home on Thursday evening (as I had originally understood that she was expected to) and been subject to severe domestic violence that resulted in her death? Rather than DN taking the rap and NS being left with 2 small children etc, it was decided that SH would take the rap (as he has less to lose and has been in and out of prison etc). Perhaps they thought that there would be no evidence to convict him other than the body that they stored in the loft and so everyone would ultimately be free?

Just trying to think from an alternative view point which would also explain various demeanours/ reactions etc - probably a crazy idea (so I will say sorry up front).

Well, from the dates of the Social Services visits, 2010 was the last time the police referred the family to them, and NS would have been with DN having recently had a baby with him. We don't know if DN was the one accused, it could have been DS maybe.

But even it was DN, why move the body to the loft in New Addington and then report her missing from there? That part doesn't make sense to me. They'd have had to move the body from Mitcham, put it in the car, unload it the other end, and then put her in the loft. To me, it seems too complex and risky for it to have happened like that.

Although SH might be a few sandwiches short of a picnic when he's been drinking, even he would know the risk of storing a dead body in the same house where it's inevitable police are going to be crawling around any minute. But even if he didn't know that, one of the others, DN, DS, CH surely would have known.

Mind you, I'm thinking rationally, and maybe they weren't.

 

[Adorabella]

Quite probably!

I think we have to take the CCTV footage in the co-op as being 100% Tia.

Yes - that's what I said...and maybe she went back home that same evening to meet her fate? And, G'ma brought her to her final resting place in the car the following day? Far-fetched but at least I haven't mentioned aliens. Just trying to come up with equally 'interesting' theories is my original ones seemed so bland in comparison to some of these latest ones.

 

[soozieqtips]

We don't know that nobody thought to phone NS to see if TS had gone home. All we know is that it wasn't mentioned. They may well have phoned and we don't know. You could argue that SH would have said so in his interview but he may not have deemed it important. If NS did lend her phone to TS, then however unlikely it may seem, perhaps NS doesn't have a landline. Again, we only know what little we are told by the media.

I've just given my thoughts on that in a response to Cherwell.

 

[Crazy Mama]

I think so too! The odds that Tia died from natural causes, or accidentally fell down the stairs and died and was then shoved in a loft to rot for 8 days while her family went about printing t-shirts and posters are extremely slim. I'm thinking of what is most 'likely', not of what is most unlikely. That doesn't mean I have a closed mind. It means I'm starting with the most obvious theory.

If you think it's probable that Tia wasn't killed by anyone, that's fine. I don't have to agree with it just as you don't have to agree with my theory that Tia was deliberately killed. We are simply discussing what we think may have happened. As for phoning NS, you said that just because SH didn't mention it during the interview, it doesn't mean they didn't do it. Once again, we are merely discussing what we think may have happened based on our own individual theories.

And about phoning NS...

I watched the entire full-length interview an at no point did SH say he'd phoned NS to check if she'd heard from Tia. In my opinion, if SH and CS had phoned NS (as would be considered normal under the circumstances) then he would have said so. He took great care to tell us all about the cleaning in minute detail, and what a 'happy go-lucky perfect golden angel' she was, and yet, when recounting his and CS's actions after they began to get 'worried' - their first reaction was to visit a funfair (?) and then drive to NS's house... all without calling to let them know what was happening?

If you believe that they did call NS, but SH just forgot to mention it in his interview, that's fine too. I don't agree with that line of thinking though, just as you don't agree with mine. Neither of us is right or wrong. We are just giving theories based on our own interpretation of events.

BBM
When he said that bit about perfect golden angel in the interview, it made me feel very uncomfortable, almost like he was saying that she was perfect and would let them do whatever they wanted with her....I can imagine him telling TS that sentence, whilst forcing her into something she was not comfortable with.

 

[Cherwell]

The odds that Tia died from natural causes, or accidentally fell down the stairs and died and was then shoved in a loft to rot for 8 days while her family went about printing t-shirts and posters are extremely slim. ..... If you think it's probable that Tia wasn't killed by anyone, that's fine.

I don't think it's "probable", no, but it's far from being impossible. I think the examples you give above are very unlikely, but I wouldn't rule out drugs being involved.

If you believe that they did call NS, but SH just forgot to mention it in his interview, that's fine too.

No, I don't "believe" that, it's just a possibility, is all. It is such an obvious thing to have done that he may have thought it went without saying that they made the call.

I try to keep in mind that there is always plenty that, for one reason or another (or no reason!) we do not get to hear about.

 

[Adorabella]

Well, from the dates of the Social Services visits, 2010 was the last time the police referred the family to them, and NS would have been with DN having recently had a baby with him. We don't know if DN was the one accused, it could have been DS maybe.

But even it was DN, why move the body to the loft in New Addington and then report her missing from there? That part doesn't make sense to me. They'd have had to move the body from Mitcham, put it in the car, unload it the other end, and then put her in the loft. To me, it seems too complex and risky for it to have happened like that.

Although SH might be a few sandwiches short of a picnic when he's been drinking, even he would know the risk of storing a dead body in the same house where it's inevitable police are going to be crawling around any minute. But even if he didn't know that, one of the others, DN, DS, CH surely would have known.

Mind you, I'm thinking rationally, and maybe they weren't.

Rational thinking is great!

As I said - perhaps G'ma transported the body from NS's to hers in the car on the Friday - because they felt confident that even if the trail lead to theirs they hadn't actually harmed Tia and so no ultimate blame could be put on them....apart from hiding the body? And at least it would divert attention from the culprit....and maybe he (whomever that might be) has info on the family that he used to bargain with to gain their assistance.

It wouldn't have been risky to move TS at a point when she wasn't missing, would it? She was small for her age and no one would be suspicious of a family bringing in a box or big holdall etc.

If that is what they did then it would also explain (if people think that the family were colluding) about the fair, candlelit vigils, posters, T-shirts, expressions of guilt etc. because they were all in on it...and would also explain NS's absence.

Obviously I have no idea BUT in this scenario someone who is known to be violent (whether that's DN or DS or whomever at NS's) would possibly be more likely to lash out and harm TS.

Yikes!!! Now my head is in a knot.

Edited: and perhaps PM helped them bring in the heavy 'package.'

 

[Cherwell]

Rational thinking is great!

As I said - perhaps G'ma transported the body from NS's to hers in the car on the Friday - because they felt confident that even if the trail lead to theirs they hadn't actually harmed Tia and so no ultimate blame could be put on them....apart from hiding the body? And at least it would divert attention from the culprit....and maybe he (whomever that might be) has info on the family that he used to bargain with to gain their assistance.

It wouldn't have been risky to move TS at a point when she wasn't missing, would it? She was small for her age and no one would be suspicious of a family bringing in a box or big holdall etc.

Can you explain why, in this scenario, they wouldn't hide or bury the body in a place with which they had no connection? There's miles of wooded countryside close at hand where anyone could have hidden it.

 

[laniefi]

Anyone have any opinions on why Tia would be in the loft, not buried, not "disposed" of in water, not "disposed" of in the dumpster, etc.

What I am getting at is the area where a deceased person is located can sometimes give insight into the mind of the killer.

So I have been thinking about where Tia was found...

- Close to home (vs taken away)
- Loft, highest place in the house ("elevating" Tia vs burying her in the ground)
- No visibly apparent COD

Does this speak to anyone or provide any further thoughts?

 

[YidArmyRach]

BBM
When he said that bit about perfect golden angel in the interview, it made me feel very uncomfortable, almost like he was saying that she was perfect and would let them do whatever they wanted with her....I can imagine him telling TS that sentence, whilst forcing her into something she was not comfortable with.

To me, I took him describing her as a "perfect golden angel" to be a way of trying to make people think she was so good and perfect, that she never did anything wrong, so none of her family could ever have got annoyed with her or lost their temper with her etc -so it couldn't possibly be any of them who hurt her, could it? Laying a false trail, imo.

And by using words like that, it created an impression that she was a much loved and cherished child.

 

[soozieqtips]

No, I don't "believe" that, it's just a possibility, is all. It is such an obvious thing to have done that he may have thought it went without saying that they made the call. I try to keep in mind that there is always plenty that, for one reason or another (or no reason!) we do not get to hear about.

Yes, it's such an obvious thing to have done if Tia had really gone missing. Did you watch the full interview? When SH was recollecting events, he did so in chronological order for the most part. He said (from memory, and without watching that exact part again) that it got to 7pm and they started to get worried (which I always thought was odd, since it was only an hour). Then they thought she might have 'snuck off' to the fair (which he stumbled over) so they went to the fair.... no phone call mentioned.

I don't believe he accidentally forgot to say they'd called NS. Even if there was no landline, DN would have had a mobile, I'm sure. I think he forgot to mention it because he didn't do it, not because he thought it would 'go without saying' that he did it. Not much else went 'without saying', so why something as significant as phoning Tia's mum to say 'she hasn't come home yet. Have you heard from her?'

We all have our own ways of digesting the information we have, and as I said before, I tend to base my thinking on what I feel is most probable, not what is unlikely. If SH killed her without meaning to, then it's not 'natural causes' - it's manslaughter. And SH has been charged with her murder, not 'on suspicion of murder' like Chris Jefferies and CS were.

I appreciate there may be more to come out, but until it does come out, I can only base my feelings on what I've observed so far.

 

[soozieqtips]

To me, I took him describing her as a "perfect golden angel" to be a way of trying to make people think she was so good and perfect, that she never did anything wrong, so none of her family could ever have got annoyed with her or lost their temper with her etc -so it couldn't possibly be any of them who hurt her, could it? Laying a false trail, imo.

And by using words like that, it created an impression that she was a much loved and cherished child.

Totally. I also noted the same thing. He overdid it though in my opinion, and that sort of aroused suspicion when DS had also said 'Come home Tia. You're not in any trouble'

Did she see something she shouldn't have seen?

They tried to portray the image of a very close-knit, loving and supportive family who doted on Tia and loved her 'to bits'. Truth is that wasn't the case at all, as we now know.

 

[blefuscu]

I wonder if DN and NS had regular break ups when NS would be with other men? It wouldn't surprise me if they had an "on again, off again" kind of thing.

 

[Adorabella]

Can you explain why, in this scenario, they wouldn't hide or bury the body in a place with which they had no connection? There's miles of wooded countryside close at hand where anyone could have hidden it.

Haha - nope, I can't! I also can't work out why she was hidden in the loft anyway. Baffled.

 

[opalsqueak63]

To me, I took him describing her as a "perfect golden angel" to be a way of trying to make people think she was so good and perfect, that she never did anything wrong, so none of her family could ever have got annoyed with her or lost their temper with her etc -so it couldn't possibly be any of them who hurt her, could it? Laying a false trail, imo.

And by using words like that, it created an impression that she was a much loved and cherished child.

Agree.

I don't believe that SH thought up those words on the spot "perfect golden angel". Whether he had rehearsed the interview or not, would it not be more convincing/appropriate to say something like "like all families, we have our little ups and downs, but T is a such a great girl, she is so special to us and we all love her" or something like that?

What man, especially of his background, would come out with words like "perfect golden angel" to describe a living 12 year old girl? An angel is other-worldly, and the true definition of an angel in Christianity is of a messenger of God without a soul of its own. (Whether you believe in angels or not - i'm just saying...)

Is it normal to call living children "angels" in everyday talk, or do some people believe that when a child dies, she becomes an angel? I am confused.

Karen Matthews also referred to Shannon as her "lost angel". (Not implying any connection here but similar socio-economic group?)

Please put me straight someone, as this has been bothering me.

 

[Skigh]

Anyone have any opinions on why Tia would be in the loft, not buried, not "disposed" of in water, not "disposed" of in the dumpster, etc.

What I am getting at is the area where a deceased person is located can sometimes give insight into the mind of the killer.

So I have been thinking about where Tia was found...

- Close to home (vs taken away)
- Loft, highest place in the house ("elevating" Tia vs burying her in the ground)
- No visibly apparent COD

Does this speak to anyone or provide any further thoughts?

I think they might have though Tia was safely hidden for a while (I still think she was in a neighbours loft)

Perhaps a plan to move her had gone wrong-could be connected to the fair ground visit then the press invasion prevented moving her.

Perhaps they did not want to chance putting her somewhere where she could possibly be found too quickly as there was evidence of either physical or sexual abuse.

 

[brit1981]

yes it is quiet normal to refer to children as little angels. If they are being good people might say they are no trouble, shes a little angel etc in the same way they might refer to them as a little devil or little monkey if they are being naughty. Even an adult someone is describing as being very nice might be described as being an angel.

 

[laniefi]

Agree.

I don't believe that SH thought up those words on the spot "perfect golden angel". Whether he had rehearsed the interview or not, would it not be more convincing/appropriate to say something like "like all families, we have our little ups and downs, but T is a such a great girl, she is so special to us and we all love her" or something like that?

What man, especially of his background, would come out with words like "perfect golden angel" to describe a living 12 year old girl? An angel is other-worldly, and the true definition of an angel in Christianity is of a messenger of God without a soul of its own. (Whether you believe in angels or not - i'm just saying...)

Is it normal to call living children "angels" in everyday talk, or do some people believe that when a child dies, she becomes an angel? I am confused.

Karen Matthews also referred to Shannon as her "lost angel". (Not implying any connection here but similar socio-economic group?)

Please put me straight someone, as this has been bothering me.

IMHO the phrase "perfect golden angel" sounds like what you say when you lose someone and tend to "idealize" them after death.

 

[opalsqueak63]

IMHO the phrase "perfect golden angel" sounds like what you say when you lose someone and tend to "idealize" them after death.

yes, indeed. Thank you for reply.

 

[Skigh]

Yes, it's such an obvious thing to have done if Tia had really gone missing. Did you watch the full interview? When SH was recollecting events, he did so in chronological order for the most part. He said (from memory, and without watching that exact part again) that it got to 7pm and they started to get worried (which I always thought was odd, since it was only an hour). Then they thought she might have 'snuck off' to the fair (which he stumbled over) so they went to the fair.... no phone call mentioned.

I don't believe he accidentally forgot to say they'd called NS. Even if there was no landline, DN would have had a mobile, I'm sure. I think he forgot to mention it because he didn't do it, not because he thought it would 'go without saying' that he did it. Not much else went 'without saying', so why something as significant as phoning Tia's mum to say 'she hasn't come home yet. Have you heard from her?'
.
We all have our own ways of digesting the information we have, and as I said before, I tend to base my thinking on what I feel is most probable, not what is unlikely. If SH killed her without meaning to, then it's not 'natural causes' - it's manslaughter. And SH has been charged with her murder, not 'on suspicion of murder' like Chris Jefferies and CS were.

I appreciate there may be more to come out, but until it does come out, I can only base my feelings on what I've observed so far.

I agree with you if SH or CS had contacted NS or DN it would have been mentioned.