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

[Lola]

on the evidence point: surely it is because there is no official evidence, specifically the findings of the PM -- only media speculation based on one leaked fact that there was bruising on the lower body and no indication of a significant wound.

 

[soozieqtips]

They had a vehicle once CS arrived home (if in fact she did work a 23 hour shift). As the killer/s showed no respect for the child's body in any case, why didn't they utilize the vehicle and the time at their disposal to transport the child's remains elsewhere before raising the alarm/notifying the police?

Maybe because Tia was still alive at that point so there was no body to dispose of? I honestly can't think why they'd leave a dead body in the loft when they could have removed it... unless Tia wasn't dead. So much doesn't make sense.

 

[laserdisc10]

You sleep with someone, literally and in the Biblical sense, for years

You share a bathroom

You eat with them. You squeeze from the same tube of toothpaste. You combine your small change to buy a carton of milk

You know each other backwards

You've seen each other elated, depressed, scared, angry, defensive, drunk and stupid

but you don't know if the person lying beside you is keeping a dark secret - is scared - is lying - is bluffing something out ?


Not sure I can buy that

 

[Skigh]

laserdisc10, all very interesting points. The funfair story is all a bit of a mystery to me. They got worried about 7pm, and instead of phoning Tia's mum and checking if Tia had called, they instead wasted another hour apparently searching a funfair, before deciding to drive 'literally straight round to Natalie' (I think that's what SH said).

About the funfair, is it possible that SH invented the funfair story so he could explain away one of the hours before Tia was reported missing? Did they actually leave at 7pm to drive directly to Natalie's house, explain what had just happened, and get all their stories correctly matching for the police?

A bit far-fetched, I know, but he did mention exactly what time they left for the fair and how much time they spent searching at the fair, which would be perfectly reasonable, if just one member of staff had remembered seeing him.

So if he didn't go there - what was he doing in that extra hour? The cleaning up was done in the morning if we believe the 'cleaning' part of his interview to be true, so it is possible the pair of them went straight to Nathalie to tell her what had happened. I can't shake the feeling that everyone knew, but were convinced it was a terrible accident and no one could 'tell' because dear old granddad would get into trouble.

It would also help to explain why Tia's mum was so absent throughout. If she knew the truth, her family definitely wouldn't have wanted her in front of a camera for fear of giving something away. And it's not unknown for families to keep dark secrets for generations.

EDIT: I know Tia didn't have a phone with her, but she could have gone to a call box and called home (if kids even know how to use a phone box!). Point is that it's odd no one thought to call Natalie first to ask if they'd heard from Tia and to say they were coming over.

I too have a feeling the family knew what had happened.

I still feel there is something odd about Tia having her mother's phone not her own. If her own phone was out of charge I thought she would have taken it with her and charged it at the Granny's house.

 

[kaos]

I'll post the article I found that may be NS. If it's not acceptable then hopefully the mods will just give me a mild rebuke and I'll happily delete it. I'm aware that NS is a victim too but like I said in an earlier post, it's more so other forum members can see what kind of family life both NS and Tia grew up with on that estate.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...e_archive/?id=41830+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

[laserdisc10]

Maybe because Tia was still alive at that point so there was no body to dispose of? I honestly can't think why they'd leave a dead body in the loft when they could have removed it... unless Tia wasn't dead. So much doesn't make sense.

If she was alive, why would they raise the alarm, notify the police, hem themselves in with media and the curious ?

 

[laserdisc10]

Prosecutor Crispian Aylett said the order had been made after Walters attacked his ex-girlfriend Natalie Sharp during a row.

He had allegedly hit her over the head with a half-empty brandy bottle, kicked her face, and punched her in the jaw.

When he was arrested, Walters admitted kicking Miss Sharp's head, but denied attacking her with the brandy bottle

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...e_archive/?id=41830+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Well gee, you can see Walters point - what sort of man would risk losing the contents of half a bottle of brandy by hitting a woman over the head with it when instead any normal would simply put in the boot

 

[Lola68]

I would like to know who hands them out..

Sorry, I'm way behind one today's thread but it seems pretty obvious to me why a lawyer would want to take this on - very high profile, complex and emotive case and not a straightforward prosecution or defence. Intellectual challenge or guaranteed publicity - either way, it makes sense to me.

 

[soozieqtips]

If she was alive, why would they raise the alarm, notify the police, hem themselves in with media and the curious ?

But if she was dead, then why not move her? None of it makes sense to me!

 

[user484]

Maybe because Tia was still alive at that point so there was no body to dispose of? I honestly can't think why they'd leave a dead body in the loft when they could have removed it... unless Tia wasn't dead. So much doesn't make sense.

Wouldn't have been a bad plan if the police had stopped at 3 searches...

I'm still thinking the death was accidental. Low intelligence plus panic may well explain many of the discrepancies.

 

[Skigh]

*If* SH killed the child prior to CS's arrival at the house (2.30p.m.) and *if* CS played no role, and *if* it's true they did not search the fun-fair, why would SH introduce a fictitious fun-fair search into the mix? If we assume CS played no role and came home and believed that Tia had gone on her own to the shops, there could be no criticism of two people (CS and SH) remaining at home unconcerned throughout the afternoon, surely? I would have been satisfied with an explanation along the lines of: ' CS was exhausted after her 23 hour shift so she went to bed as soon as she got home, and I fell asleep in front of the tv. We both awoke with a shock to realise it was 6.30/7.30 p.m. and Tia still wasn't home

If memory serves, SH claimed in the tv interview that he'd gone to the shops on Thursday afternoon to buy some things 'for Chris' and amongst these was the pizza which he claimed he and Tia ate for dinner that evening. Maybe he bought sufficient pizza as dinner for Friday night also, seeing as CS has reportedly claimed she'd prepared a pizza for when Tia returned home (on Friday). Or maybe CS stopped at the shops on her way home from work. Or maybe the 'her pizza's still in the oven' claim is BS


CS's work schedule will undoubtedly be known to police by now. In fact it's to be suspected that realisation investigators would check (or had checked) was what prompted CS to reveal, late in the day, that she had not been at home during the time Tia was there

If we accept CS's claims that she arrived home after Tia had supposedly gone shopping, also that she fully expected the child to return around six p.m. to the extent she heated the pizza, is it unreasonable to suspect that it wouldn't have been until an hour or so after six that CS and SH became concerned about the child's failure to arrive? Which would make it approx. 7 p.m. before they grew concerned to the extent they travelled to NS's place. But then, as people have already remarked, why didn't they simply phone to ask if Tia had returned home to NS's place for some reason?

It's unclear to me what happened after that. In the tv interview, SH claimed that NS contacted the police. The story basically ends at that point, or I've missed discussion of it. Did CS and SH drive around searching for Tia after that or did they return home?

Nothing -- unless he was telling the truth -- explains for me the reason for inventing the fun-fair element or the reason CS would go along with it (if she did). If he was lying about searching the fair, it suggests SH believed for some reason that he needed to pad out the story - create a red-herring. If he felt the story needed padding, he must have had a reason

If a child was late returning home, would you leave the house locked and hop into a car to search a fun-fair and travel to inform the child's parents? Or would one of you remain at the house in case she turned up? Or, was there someone else at the house to wait for her?


Lot's of 'ifs' and question marks

I find this version of events as confusing as you.I wonder if the dinner in the oven was in fact the uneaten dinner from Thursday.

There did not seem to be any visits to neighbours to see if she was there or to ask a neighbour to wait in the house and phone them if Tia arrived when they went to the fair and then to Natalies.


If I remember correctly C.S was tweeting various celebrities about her missing grandchild on the Friday evening

 

[kaos]

Wouldn't have been a bad plan if the police had stopped at 3 searches...

I'm still thinking the death was accidental. Low intelligence plus panic may well explain many of the discrepancies.

I don't think any thought was given as to how quickly the printers would step in and how quickly on Twitter it would spread. He also maybe thought the police would start the investigation at NS's home, giving him time to get rid of the body.

 

[Clio]

But if she was dead, then why not move her? None of it makes sense to me!

If it was SH alone who put her in the loft and CS was not complicit in the death, maybe SH didn't have a chance to move the body. Events took over and before he could move her, CS or NS (not clear to me) reported her missing, the police arrived, the family descended on the house etc

It doesn't explain the funfair though.

 

[laserdisc10]

But if she was dead, then why not move her? None of it makes sense to me!

You never know, it might end up being so simple

 

[JTOL_1984]

Hi Jtol. It was the detail that had me suspicious for the simple fact that he could go into huge detail about the cleaning routine but never gave the same detail as to what computer game they were playing or what was on the television that he was allegedly watching in the morning before Tia even got up. According to him it was just "stuff" on the television.

Hi! True, and he could remember all that, but not what Tia supposedly said to him- he said she was 'just mumbling about something' or words to that effect?! I mean, when I clean my house I couldn't tell you that much detail of how I went upstairs, did this, downstairs, did that etc.- not to that detailed extent anyway. Guess he thought the details would indicate he wasn't lying, but it only gave him away IMO.

 

[Clio]

I too have a feeling the family knew what had happened.

I still feel there is something odd about Tia having her mother's phone not her own. If her own phone was out of charge I thought she would have taken it with her and charged it at the Granny's house.

The story is that TS's phone was broken so she took her mother's phone with her to her Grans. Presumably because NS didn't want TS travelling on her own without a phone.

The story about her phone (actually her mother's phone) having no charge when she alledgedly left on Friday lunchtime is pure fiction IMHO.

 

[JTOL_1984]

I too have a feeling the family knew what had happened.

I still feel there is something odd about Tia having her mother's phone not her own. If her own phone was out of charge I thought she would have taken it with her and charged it at the Granny's house.

I agree- the mother's phone thing sticks out to me (the fact that it could be relevant in her murder somehow). She apparently always charged her phone overnight- possibly because it was an iphone or similar which needs charging daily, so she'd charge it at night to make sure she wasn't without it in the day. I don't know if it stands out because this is one thing, IMO, that stood out to make it look highly suspect that TS never left the house on Friday like SH claimed, or because there's something more to it- like reading a message or seeing photos of her mother's on there perhaps that were maybe incriminating. Either way I'm sure we'll learn if it's significant as the police will no doubt have looked into phone activity and the content of it etc. Or maybe it's just an irrelevant detail that she had her mum's phone...

BTW if photos are deleted from a phone/sim card, are they still traceable by police etc.? I assume so- in the same way 'deleted' things from a computer can still be found if you know how- but just wanted to check?

 

[Skigh]

The story is that TS's phone was broken so she took her mother's phone with her to her Grans. Presumably because NS didn't want TS travelling on her own without a phone.

The story about her phone (actually her mother's phone) having no charge when she alledgedly left on Friday lunchtime is pure fiction IMHO.

I agree with you the second story is pure fiction, but I am not convinced that Natalie would lend her phone to Tia.

 

[Clio]

I agree with you the second story is pure fiction, but I am not convinced that Natalie would lend her phone to Tia.

I can understand that. Faced with having to choose between having your daughter travel somewhere without a phone and doing without your own phone for a weekend, I can see why she would lend TS her own phone

 

[Skigh]

I agree- the mother's phone thing sticks out to me (the fact that it could be relevant in her murder somehow). She apparently always charged her phone overnight- possibly because it was an iphone or similar which needs charging daily, so she'd charge it at night to make sure she wasn't without it in the day. I don't know if it stands out because this is one thing, IMO, that stood out to make it look highly suspect that TS never left the house on Friday like SH claimed, or because there's something more to it- like reading a message or seeing photos of her mother's on there perhaps that were maybe incriminating. Either way I'm sure we'll learn if it's significant as the police will no doubt have looked into phone activity and the content of it etc. Or maybe it's just an irrelevant detail that she had her mum's phone...

BTW if photos are deleted from a phone/sim card, are they still traceable by police etc.? I assume so- in the same way 'deleted' things from a computer can still be found if you know how- but just wanted to check?

I think David Nile's mother said Tia was always on her blackberry and she did recharge it overnight.
I too think this phone thing is relevant.

Not sure about if deleted things can be retrieved.