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

[YidArmyRach]

We don't actually know that there's no lodger, do we? None has been mentioned, which means there probably isn't one, but I wouldn't take it as fact.

If its a council-owned house, they wouldn't be allowed to have a paying lodger.
Obviously, they could have ignored this rule, as they don't seem a particularly law abiding lot!

 

[soozieqtips]

It's so close to likely that I consider it fact. In Maths the area under a curve is estimated by "differentiation"....it's so close to being accurate that its actually correct. That's how I am looking at this. There is no lodger.

I agree there's no lodger. At least, I think it's highly unlikely there's a lodger or we'd have heard about it by now. I still base my opinions on what's most likely, and not what's most unlikely. No one's proved there's a lodger, and no one's mentioned a lodger, so as far as I'm concerned, the possibility that there is a lodger is too small to consider. SH would surely have mentioned a lodger if he/she'd been in the house the night before, wouldn't he?

 

[soozieqtips]

Now that I read it again...

He says he last saw her at the house before he left for work...

But then she said as SHE was leaving...MOW.. Bye! See you at six!

How could she have said that to him while leaving the house, if he was leaving for work first..

Or unless they both left at the same time!

Very confusing to me!

Well, some posters believe the reports have been added together, in that when DN said Tia said 'Bye, see you at 6', he was actually repeating what SH had told him about her leaving New Addington on the Friday, but the reports didn't separate the comments so it looked like he was referring to her being at Mitcham when she said it.

However, I'm not sure that's the case. It could be that he did have that conversation with her and wasn't repeating SH's account at all. The clue in that (to me) is that DN's words appear to be first hand, and not the re-telling of someone else's version of events.

We'll see!!

 

[soozieqtips]

opalsqueak - thanks for the link to the missing person's guidelines which showed what police are supposed to do from day one. I noticed it said that lofts should be checked, plus garages etc - and that if an area hadn't been searched, they had to write down why not. I'm pretty sure the loft wasn't searched on the initial visit as the police said it was a missing person's enquiry (as opposed to looking for a dead body). They searched the bedroom, if I remember, but not the loft. If those rules were ignored, then the police deserve all the flak they get.

 

[Cherwell]

There have been comments from her natural father.

In other cases comments from family members have been published after the body was found.

DS was very much the family spokesman at the beginning.

Surely it would not be sub judice for him to come and say something along the lines of how shocked he was and is now supporting his sister.

I agree. Why on earth would it be sub judice for the family spokesperson to say something? The step-granddad spoke out and her own father spoke out after the event. That wasn't sub judice, so why should it be for DS?? I think the reason he's keeping quiet is because he made such a big thing of defending SH in every way he could, and now it could look like collusion. It can't possibly be sub judice if other family members have spoken out.

The point is that the sub judice rule kicks in once somebody has been charged. Not when a body is found.

And the sub judice rule doesn't mean that people can't say something, but that it cannot be reported once charges have been brought. This is why we are not hearing anything more from members of the family. Look it up.

 

[India99]

They have a dead child's body who was in his care, in the house where he lives. They have it on video that he lied about the dead child's whereabouts. Unless his defence is that there was somebody else in the house who could have caused the child's death, then wrapped the body up and lifted it up into the loft of the house, then he won't be walking anywhere.


I've no doubt there'll still be evidence that will convict him. Whether that be his fingerprints on the plastic bag she was wrapped in or even perhaps the police finding the clothing she was supposed to have been wearing in the washing basket.

i have no doubt either but like i said they will still need the evidence for it to even reach court in the first place.

there have been many cases which the public thought were a sure thing only for them to be thrown out by the CPS due to lack of evidence even when the person was caught red handed.

dont assume anything is certain until you see him in a court room.

 

[soozieqtips]

The point is that the sub judice rule kicks in once somebody has been charged. Not when a body is found.

And the sub judice rule doesn't mean that people can't say something, but that it cannot be reported once charges have been brought.

This is why we are not hearing anything more from members of the family. Look it up.

Can you clarify? Are you talking about all family members including Tia's father, grandfather and step-grandmother, or just the ones who were on the scene the day Tia went missing?

 

[Cherwell]

Can you clarify? Are you talking about all family members including Tia's father, grandfather and step-grandmother, or just the ones who were on the scene the day Tia went missing?

It's anything that might prejudice a trial. Newspapers and other media may not publish anything other than strictly factual info, eg reports of court appearances and similar. Look it up.

 

[soozieqtips]

It's anything that might prejudice a trial. Newspapers and other media may not publish anything other than strictly factual info, eg reports of court appearances and similar. Look it up.

I did look it up the first time you told me to look it up, which is why I asked you the question. You didn't need to tell me twice. What you haven't explained is why DS expressing sorrow about his niece would be 'prejudicing' the trial. Isn't that why you said he hasn't said anything? Expressing sorrow over a dead child is hardly prejudicing a fair trial, is it?

 

[soozieqtips]

A quick refresher:

According to this timeline in the Standard...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tia-sharp-developments-as-they-unfold-8014761.html

... SH says he and Tia did have pizza and chips on the Thursday evening. Then CS claims she also prepared the same meal the next day. It also says that CS changed her statement on Thursday (the day before Tia's body was found) to admit that she hadn't actually seen Tia for 24 hours.

If she'd made a statement before to say she'd seen Tia on the Thursday, then she was deliberately lying.

 

[MobyBluff]

I think it was interesting the search dog on Wednesday, was shown coming out of the house with a toy in its mouth as that is usually a sign it has found something.

is this true? A dog will be rewarded with a toy if it finds something?

 

[MobyBluff]

Father Keith says his son has since turned his life around. “Having the family around has really sorted him out," he says. "He is a different person and is really happy. He had a biological daughter but has never really seen her. He treated Tia like his own."

Do we take "had" to mean that the biological daughter is sadly no longer with us?

 

[MobyBluff]

A quick refresher:

According to this timeline in the Standard...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tia-sharp-developments-as-they-unfold-8014761.html

... SH says he and Tia did have pizza and chips on the Thursday evening. Then CS claims she also prepared the same meal the next day. It also says that CS changed her statement on Thursday (the day before Tia's body was found) to admit that she hadn't actually seen Tia for 24 hours.

If she'd made a statement before to say she'd seen Tia on the Thursday, then she was deliberately lying.

Agree.

I wonder when CS made her first statement saying that she'd seen Tia on the Thursday. I assume as the search for TS began. Why would she have said she'd seen TS if it was perfectly untrue? At the early stage of a missing persons enquiry, if there was hope that she would be found, why lie (esp as she would be found out by checking her work attendance records)?

I don't get it. Unless her statement wasn't changed, but the press had reported something wrong in the first place, and the statement was only changed in their eyes?

 

[Alyce]

A quick refresher:

According to this timeline in the Standard...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tia-sharp-developments-as-they-unfold-8014761.html

... SH says he and Tia did have pizza and chips on the Thursday evening. Then CS claims she also prepared the same meal the next day. It also says that CS changed her statement on Thursday (the day before Tia's body was found) to admit that she hadn't actually seen Tia for 24 hours.

If she'd made a statement before to say she'd seen Tia on the Thursday, then she was deliberately lying.

Possibly part of the reason CS/CB ended up with a charge against her ? and more than just a little white lie. Presumably ( hopefully for her ) she can prove she was out of the house for the 22 hours or so

The pizza and chips story also puzzles me slightly. I was sure ( although I cant find it now, unless it was part of the SH interview ) that SH said something about them having pizza and chips and then about cooking * another* pizza on the Thursday which TS didnt eat - presumably bcos she had already eaten one ?

this might explain why there was pizza in the oven on Friday, which then became the meal that CS says she cooked for the return of TS at 6pm.

I still find it odd that someone would cook a pizza in advance when they cant guarantee that the person will walk thru the door at 6pm on the dot.

 

[Clio]

Well, some posters believe the reports have been added together, in that when DN said Tia said 'Bye, see you at 6', he was actually repeating what SH had told him about her leaving New Addington on the Friday, but the reports didn't separate the comments so it looked like he was referring to her being at Mitcham when she said it.

However, I'm not sure that's the case. It could be that he did have that conversation with her and wasn't repeating SH's account at all. The clue in that (to me) is that DN's words appear to be first hand, and not the re-telling of someone else's version of events.

We'll see!!

I watched the TV clip where DN was questioned. He was entering CS's house at the time. There were lots of reporters shouting questions at him and he was throwing replies out right left and centre. I'm not surprised that the press articles that were printed as a result seem confusing.

Unfortunately the video doesn't seem to be available any more.

 

[Clio]

is this true? A dog will be rewarded with a toy if it finds something?

I'm no expert on the subject of police dogs but my understanding is that they are always rewarded with a toy after searching. I thought that, even if they don't indicate anything, once they are back on the leash, they get their toy.

 

[Clio]

Possibly part of the reason CS/CB ended up with a charge against her ? and more than just a little white lie. Presumably ( hopefully for her ) she can prove she was out of the house for the 22 hours or so

The pizza and chips story also puzzles me slightly. I was sure ( although I cant find it now, unless it was part of the SH interview ) that SH said something about them having pizza and chips and then about cooking * another* pizza on the Thursday which TS didnt eat - presumably bcos she had already eaten one ?

this might explain why there was pizza in the oven on Friday, which then became the meal that CS says she cooked for the return of TS at 6pm.

I still find it odd that someone would cook a pizza in advance when they cant guarantee that the person will walk thru the door at 6pm on the dot.

To the best of my knowledge, CS hasn't been charged. She was arrested on suspicion of murder and released on bail. I have seen no reports of any charges having been made against her, not yet anyway.

 

[Alyce]

is this true? A dog will be rewarded with a toy if it finds something?

I have heard for and against on this story. That a dog will be rewarded if it finds something and also that it will be rewarded simply for doing a thorough job ( or as much of a thorough job as it is allowed to do ! )

I cant help feeling, and this is just my opinion of course, that the photo of the dog coming out of the house with the toy was a significant message

Significant to whom I am not yet sure

 

[India99]

I have heard for and against on this story. That a dog will be rewarded if it finds something and also that it will be rewarded simply for doing a thorough job ( or as much of a thorough job as it is allowed to do ! )

I cant help feeling, and this is just my opinion of course, that the photo of the dog coming out of the house with the toy was a significant message

Significant to whom I am not yet sure

they get the toy for doing their job, not just finding things.

seen drug dogs search a whole house and find nothing but they still get their toy.

 

[Clio]

I'll stick the kettle on then.

Was only asking about Police keeping tabs on a forum like this and many others, as to me it would seem the obvious thing to do.
People happily blab online but are tight lipped in real life.

Yes I agree. I was just citing an example to show that it does happen.