GUILTY UK - Tia Sharp, 12, New Addington, London, 3 Aug 2012 #5

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

He'll die inside, he doesn't even look too healthy now there's no way he'll make it to 76.
 
So he'll be 76 before he can be considered for parole. If he still has sexual urges at that age (and many men do) they should castrate him before he leaves jail. Not that it would guarantee he wouldn't re-offend, but it might cut down the chance.

Also, Tia's mother said that Tia had this close and wonderful relationship with her nan (CB) which is why she wanted to stay there so often, but CB herself admitted that Hazell was in charge of Tia much more than her (CB) - so if Tia's mum knew this, why did she let her daughter spend so much time overnight with a non-related guardian who she knew had done time for violence, was an ex crack addict and boozer to boot?

All the violence Tia must have endured between her mum and stepdad (with social services being called on several occasions) and the fact she must have felt left out when the babies arrived, would have led to her wanting to find solace somewhere else. What a tragedy that she found it at the home of that stinking pervert who was obviously interested in her sexually way before she was 12.
 
It's appalling that the judge decided that there wasn't a sexual motive to the killing. So apparently killing a child during a sexual frenzy is worse than killing her after a sexual frenzy, to prevent the attack from being discovered? There's not much difference, IMO, between killing for sexual pleasure or killing to hide a perversion. She was still murdered, she still suffered and she was still sexually abused severely enough to draw blood.

There is ample proof of him developing a sexual interest her during the summer, and he took a picture of her body after the attack, which indicates that he either wanted a horrible souvenir or was so aroused that he wanted to take a picture of what he'd done to return to later. All this indicates that he may well have killed her as part of his perversion. But it doesn't matter - taking life should mean life in jail, especially for the murder of a poor, raped 12 year old. Am I correct in thinking that if he got 38 years, does that mean he will be out in half?

It's also ridiculous that the judge said he was remorseful. He led the rest of the family on a wild goose chase for a week, pretending she was missing knowing she was dead in the loft. He has been lying for the past 9 months and putting everyone who loved her through Hell. Just recently he made a desperate, racist attempt to blame uninvolved neighbours. He would have happily walked free with Somalians in prison for a crime he committed. He is about as far removed from "remorseful" as you can possibly get. He's only upset that's he's in trouble.
 
Am I correct in thinking that if he got 38 years, does that mean he will be out in half?
Click to expand...

No you are completely wrong. He hasn't been sentenced to 38 years, he's been sentenced to life with a minimum tarrif of 38 years before he can apply for parole. He will serve at least 38 years.

And the judge didn't decide there was no sexual motive for the killing, he said there wasn't enough evidence to decide either way.
 
squish said:
It's appalling that the judge decided that there wasn't a sexual motive to the killing. So apparently killing a child during a sexual frenzy is worse than killing her after a sexual frenzy, to prevent the attack from being discovered? There's not much difference, IMO, between killing for sexual pleasure or killing to hide a perversion. She was still murdered, she still suffered and she was still sexually abused severely enough to draw blood.

There is ample proof of him developing a sexual interest her during the summer, and he took a picture of her body after the attack, which indicates that he either wanted a horrible souvenir or was so aroused that he wanted to take a picture of what he'd done to return to later. All this indicates that he may well have killed her as part of his perversion. But it doesn't matter - taking life should mean life in jail, especially for the murder of a poor, raped 12 year old. Am I correct in thinking that if he got 38 years, does that mean he will be out in half?

It's also ridiculous that the judge said he was remorseful. He led the rest of the family on a wild goose chase for a week, pretending she was missing knowing she was dead in the loft. He has been lying for the past 9 months and putting everyone who loved her through Hell. Just recently he made a desperate, racist attempt to blame uninvolved neighbours. He would have happily walked free with Somalians in prison for a crime he committed. He is about as far removed from "remorseful" as you can possibly get. He's only upset that's he's in trouble.
Click to expand...
Agree with all your post. The guy is scum. One lie after another and then a final confession to 'spare' Tia's family any more suffering when the truth was more likely to be that additional horrific evidence would have been presented to the jury and he didn't want it to come out. Although I can't think of much worse than placing a young girl he'd just murdered into a pornographic position so he could take a photo of her for his sexual kicks. I can't think of anything more depraved than that, but I'm sure there was more.

It was heartbreaking to see the photo of his damaged spectacle lens which had Tia's fingerprints on it indicating she'd tried to fight the monster off. How terrified she must have been struggling against someone that size, someone she thought cared about her, and then while she was decomposing in the loft, he sat downstairs talking of how much he loved her and how he knew she'd left the house that day (before trying to fit up his innocent neighbours). Scum like that should be put down. There's no hope of rehabilitation, just a fortune in taxpayers money to feed him and keep a roof over his head. He has far more than he left that little girl.
 
squish said:
It's also ridiculous that the judge said he was remorseful.
Click to expand...

That is not what the judge said. If you are going to paraphrase, please make efforts to be accurate. He had much more to say, including this:

"Your counsel says that you wished to avoid causing further distress to Tia's family. That is very commendable, but they have had to endure four days of a very public trial.

"It was necessary for the prosecution to lay out for the jury your sexual interest in Tia and for the jury to see the photograph of Tia naked. Your plea of guilty has spared the family none of that.

"It may be the first act of remorse, as your counsel says, but because it comes so late I am afraid it will earn you only the most modest of credit."

http://news.sky.com/story/1090701/tia-sharp-murder-stuart-hazell-sentenced

Of course, we can't see the judge's expression nor hear his tone of voice, but I suspect that his delivery of "That is very commendable" was pretty caustic :cool:
 
From the judge's sentencing speech:
He says it is highly-suggestive that the picture was taken after death, according to pathologists.

He says that it is likely that doctors are right but "I have to be sure".
Click to expand...
The pathologists are experts in their field aren't they? So why would the judge doubt them and say he couldn't be sure the photo was taken after death? He's not an expert in this field so I don't understand why he would doubt their claims.
 
CB's interview with the Mirror.

"He wasn’t good in the bedroom.
He never seemed interested in sex. But I loved him with all my heart.”
Click to expand...
I guess at 47 she was 35 years too old for him. More clues that he was with her to gain access to Tia. And she was perfectly aware of the child *advertiser censored* he'd d/loaded (accidentally....) on his phone.

There were other downsides to her life with Stuart, as she spoke about his problem with drugs and alcohol.

She said: “He’d drink cans of Fosters and vodka and get very argumentative. And he used to smoke weed as well in front of Tia and other grandchildren.

“I used to hate that. I used to tell him, ‘No, not in front of Tia, you know I don’t like it.’ But he’d carry on anyway.”
Click to expand...
He'd get very argumentative after drinking? Didn't she previously say he was very gentle and the most you'd get out of him was a raised voice?? And she knew he carried on drinking and smoking dope in front of the kids (despite asking him not to) and yet still thought it was okay to leave Tia alone with him night after night?

Sorry. But just going from the above, there were already huge warning signals never to leave Tia alone with Hazell for prolonged periods of time after he'd been boozing, smoking dope and viewing child *advertiser censored*. CB doesn't come across as gullible so I highly doubt she bought that rubbish about the accidental *advertiser censored* d/load. Hazell is a man I wouldn't even leave my cat with.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tia-sharps-grandmother-christine-bicknell-1887869
 
soozieqtips said:
CB's interview with the Mirror.


I guess at 47 she was 35 years too old for him. More clues that he was with her to gain access to Tia. And she was perfectly aware of the child *advertiser censored* he'd d/loaded (accidentally....) on his phone.


He'd get very argumentative after drinking? Didn't she previously say he was very gentle and the most you'd get out of him was a raised voice?? And she knew he carried on drinking and smoking dope in front of the kids (despite asking him not to) and yet still thought it was okay to leave Tia alone with him night after night?

Sorry. But just going from the above, there were already huge warning signals never to leave Tia alone with Hazell for prolonged periods of time after he'd been boozing, smoking dope and viewing child *advertiser censored*. CB doesn't come across as gullible so I highly doubt she bought that rubbish about the accidental *advertiser censored* d/load. Hazell is a man I wouldn't even leave my cat with.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tia-sharps-grandmother-christine-bicknell-1887869
Click to expand...

Wonder if she has been so gullible to talk to the newspapers for free?

I'd rather believe that, than believe she would make money out of the murder of her so-called beloved granddaughter..... but I'm having trouble doing so.
 
YidArmyRach said:
Wonder if she has been so gullible to talk to the newspapers for free?

I'd rather believe that, than believe she would make money out of the murder of her so-called beloved granddaughter..... but I'm having trouble doing so.
Click to expand...
Me too. I don't know what to make of her to be honest.
 
YidArmyRach said:
Wonder if she has been so gullible to talk to the newspapers for free?

I'd rather believe that, than believe she would make money out of the murder of her so-called beloved granddaughter..... but I'm having trouble doing so.
Click to expand...

A third possibility is that any fee has been donated to a good cause. If so there's usually a note to that effect somewhere on the page. (I haven't looked at it.)
 
^^^

That was a deeply offensive story, even for the Daily Wail. I actually feel worse for having read it.

s
 
I didn't even bother to open the link. The Daily Mail is an evil rag.
 
Sour grapes from the Daily Mail because they lost out in the tabloid bidding war, IMO.
 
Well, if they weren't paid "tens of thousand of pounds" for their interviews, and David Niles wasn't paid £2000 for a 2-minute interview, then they're well within their rights to sue the Mail.

Let's see if they do.
 
I just heard on BBC radio that the neighbour who 'saw' Tia has been sentenced to five months in prison and the judge really tore into him. Said he had 'basked in the attention' and delayed the interview of Tia's killer and led police down a blind alley.

Just a breaking news headline here, I can't get on the BBC website at the moment.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk
 
He was lucky to only get 5 months - Maxine Carr got about two years for much the same crime.

soozieqtips said:
Well, if they weren't paid "tens of thousand of pounds" for their interviews, and David Niles wasn't paid £2000 for a 2-minute interview, then they're well within their rights to sue the Mail.

Let's see if they do.
Click to expand...

Of course they were paid. Families of murder victims are always paid by the tabloids to give them interviews - the Daily Mail does it on a frequent basis. The only reason the Mail are laying into Tia Sharpe's family about doing something that the Mail itself does on a regular basis is because the Mail lost the bidding war for their story.
 
I think this might be a bit different from a legal standpoint and that's what makes it seem unusual to me and quite important.

Carr deliberately lied in cahoots with a criminal. People are prosecuted all the time for that. But I think it's very unusual for a 'witness' with absolutely no connection to the crime or the criminal to be prosecuted. Police even say there is no suggestion he did it to protect the criminal or had any part in Tia's murder.

Cases like this are not usually brought in case they discourage witnesses in other cases from coming forward. It just seems to me police and prosecutors were determined to make a point here, and point out how he delayed the interview of Hazell. I can't help wondering if this was influenced at all by all the police frustration at their searches of the house that failed to find Tia.

I haven't kept up with this case - was it ever explained why the K9s missed Tia's body? Did a handler miss their signals and not give them access to the attic?

ETA Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23493413
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 156 more.
Total: 2,248 (members: 157, guests: 2,091)

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
2,091
Total visitors
2,248
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,879
Messages
18,131,265
Members
231,173
Latest member
Melavista21
Back
Top