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

[Cherwell]

I took it that he meant 'no evidence whatsoever' suggests she was smothered.

speculation in the media for example about the cause of death but there is no evidence whatsoever, it is no more than speculation

Ah! but does he mean that the media have no evidence. I mean, there will be evidence of some sort, but currently there is none in the public domain (in which I include the media here).

 

[sar2them]

In fact i believe that legal aid supplies the solicitor>. No criminal barristers are allowed to take jobs directly from a client - they are handed out on a via the "cab rank rule" i.e the next available barrister recieves the next available case.

Its purely coincidence he got lucky with this one.

The link below explains it a bit better than me!!

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barristers_in_England_and_Wales"]Barristers in England and Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[SallyLu]

According to the Guardian timeline for Saturday, 11 August, "Paul Meehan, a 39-year-old neighbour, is taken into custody on suspicion of assisting an offender." I read that in a couple different places at the time as well.

Thank you to wfgodot and all other sleuthers who provided this information.


So, we can probably discount the theory that SH crawled throught the party/fire wall to PM's house and got away from the scene. Good, cos I had a problem wondering how he got back to PM's without anyone seeing any trip and also the biggie - that Tia's body was up there so would he go back up there anyway?

 

[Lola68]

....with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution....

Which says to me that he didn't help with the crime but helped SH leave the area - but how would there be proof that PM knew SH had committed this crime before the body was discovered??? I'm confused.....

Or her apprehension...

 

[Inge Jones]

Maybe the offender PM was accused of helping was not SH, but another person suspected of being an offender, ie CS.

 

[Lola68]

No it isn't two, it's one. My point is that all we know is that a 39 year old man was arrested and then bailed on suspicion of assisting an offender.

It is the press who have named him and said he was the one who saw TS leaving the house.

What if that's wrong? What if the female witness is the person who was the single uncorroborated witness.

The 39 year old man must then have been arrested for some other reason.

Just a reminder not to extrapolate too much from what's reported by the media - they've been known to be wrong before!

 

[laserdisc10]

*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

 

[laserdisc10]

Something else that does not sit right with me is the fact SH appeared to enjoy the trust and support of many in the family throughout the week long search

' I knew something was wrong'. ' He/she was acting strangely'. ' He/she just wasn't him/her self '. ' I knew the minute I saw his/her face that they were keeping something from me, I knew he/she was lying'. 'He was just acting weird'. 'It was the way he looked/something he said, that made me realise he'd done it '. etc. We've all heard people say that. Most of us have said it at some point

CS, NS, DS and others in the family had known SH for a number of years. They'd all lived together at close quarters -- CS and NS in particular. I find it very difficult to accept that once again in close quarters and analysing every aspect of Tia's disappearance, etc. that he was able to maintain the charade with the child's body above their heads, without one or more of them sensing or realising he was somehow involved, lying, hiding something

Unless one or more of them already knew

 

[Cherwell]

DN is directly quoted in this Telegraph report of 5 August:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...l-12-disappears-on-way-to-buy-flip-flops.html

“Last time I saw her was on Thursday morning as I was going to work, she was asleep at the time. She went to her nan's that day and was going to come back on Monday.”

I haven't dismissed the theory that Tia may have died accidentally, in a manner that may have got SH and/or CS into serious trouble, let's say for example she found some drugs belonging to SH and experimented with them fatally. And that SH and CS went to Tia's mother and broke the news to her the same day.

 

[soozieqtips]

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.

 

[laserdisc10]

DN is directly quoted in this Telegraph report of 5 August:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...l-12-disappears-on-way-to-buy-flip-flops.html

“Last time I saw her was on Thursday morning as I was going to work, she was asleep at the time. She went to her nan's that day and was going to come back on Monday.”

I haven't dismissed the theory that Tia may have died accidentally, in a manner that may have got SH and/or CS into serious trouble, let's say for example she found some drugs belonging to SH and experimented with them fatally. And that SH and CS went to Tia's mother and broke the news to her the same day.

Thank you, Cherwell. Have deleted that paragraph within my post

 

[Inge Jones]

And it's not unknown for families to keep dark secrets for generations.

Yes and with the accidental loss of a loved child/grandchild/niece they need each other more than ever. But I feel uncomfortable with speculation that is really very unlikely to be true, on such a scale, and could only serve to hurt a grieving family (the innocent members of it) more than they are already hurting.

 

[Jaccles]

Re PM's charge if people haven't looked this up thought it would be useful for you to read:

Assisting an Offender - section 4(1) Criminal Law Act 1967

The offence of assisting an offender ("the principal offender") is committed when:

the principal offender has committed an arrestable offence;
the accused knows or believes that the principal offender has committed that or some other arrestable offence;
the accused does any act with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of the principal offender; and
the act is done without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

It is an offence triable only on indictment unless the principal offence is an either way offence, in which case the offence of assisting a principal offender is also triable either way. The maximum sentence for the offence varies from three to ten years' imprisonment, depending on the punishment applicable to the principal offence: s.4(3).

Proceedings may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions: s.4(4). Consent may be granted after charge but must be before committal proceedings (indictable offences) or mode of trial (either way offences). Consent must be obtained before proceedings are started by way of summons. It is not an offence to attempt to commit an offence under section 4.

Examples of the type of conduct appropriate for a charge of assisting an offender include:

hiding a principal offender;
otherwise assisting a principal offender to avoid arrest;
assisting a principal offender to abscond from bail;
lying to the police to protect principal offenders from investigation and prosecution;
hiding the weapon used in an assault/robbery;
washing clothes worn by a principal offender to obstruct any potential forensic examination.

There may be an overlap between the offence of assisting an offender and obstructing a constable, wasting police time, concealing arrestable offences (s.5(1) Criminal Law Act 1967) and perverting the course of justice .

The courts have made it clear that assisting an offender is a serious offence and, if the statutory offence of assisting an offender can be charged, it should normally be preferred over common law offences.

However, the common law offence of perverting the course of justice should be considered when:

the assisting is aimed at preventing or hindering the trial process (as opposed to the arrest or apprehension of an accused);
the facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers for the statutory offence are considered inadequate;
admissible evidence of the principle offence is lacking.

Assisting an offender is sometimes not an easy offence to prove since it requires proof that the principle committed an arrestable offence and that the accused knew or believed this. In the absence of such proof, other public justice offences, such as obstruction or perverting the course of justice, can provide alternative charges.

 

[Clio]

I considered the possibility that TS died accidently after taking drugs. SH may not be the reformed character his father said he was. I can believe that this happened when she was alone with SH and rather than call an ambulance, because of his past, he hid her in the loft before CS got home.

If that is not the case and CS was either there when she died or SH told her when she came home, why would they put the body in the loft? Why would they not remove the body before reporting her missing?

 

[kaos]

Hi everyone,

I have been closely following this case as soon as it appeared on the news. I have only now caught up fully on all the posts- I wanted to read everything in order not to repeat something that's already been said (but that's quite likely as the thread is moving fast and I've probably forgotten some posts!) Anyway it's great to have a place to discuss cases like this with fellow curious minds.

I too had my suspicions about SH from the start- particularly the crazy detail in his interview regarding cleaning the house. He went OTT and that was a giveaway- but his emotions were convincing which could indicate he's far more inteligent and manipulative than first given credit, or that Tia's death was an accident and this was genuine remorse (or he was in denial due to this and was trying to convince himself of a lie.)

I kind of have the feeing that Tia's mother's phone could be key in this- I had similar thoughts as other posters, in that perhaps Tia saw something on the phone from SH to her mother that she wasn't supposed to see and TS confronted SH about this. However based on the manipulative SH theory, perhaps SH could have talked his way out of anything incriminating: he had half the nation convinced in his interview, surely he could talk round a 12 year old girl? Anyway the lack of CCTV, phone left on charge (a girl that was always 'glued to her phone', and I'm sure I read somewhere that her step-gran said she always charged her phone at night- which means I'm inclined to believe something happened on the Thursday evening/overnight Thursday/Friday). Everything certainly pointed to her not leaving that house, or having gone very far at least and it's shocking she wasn't found earlier if the area/loft had previously been 'searched'. As an aside (forgive me if someone has already pointed this out)- it was also reported that Tia supposedly left for the shopping centre in Croydon with just £10 in her pocket (this was just a story by SH, but conveniently means that her purse being in the house wouldn't necessarily suggest she had never left.)

The one thing that stands out to me is the reports that the circumstances around SH's arrest were 'highly extrordinary' or words to that effect- I can't for the life of me find this article now but I believe it was either Daily Mail or Sky news that reported this on the day of is arrest. What could that mean? Perhaps that he was seen to be distributing flyers/ drunk etc.- but to me it sounds like much more than that. It's highly worrying and, given the rumours doing the rounds that there's so much more to come out on this case, I think that maybe the truth about Tia's murder (and maybe the events leading up to it) will emerge to be far worse than anyone other than the killer themselves could have dreamt up...

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.

 

[laserdisc10]

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.

Your version makes a lot more sense than SH's, for sure. But still leaves unexplained why they would leave the child's body in the loft that way

It's still quite light at 7 or 8 p.m. at the moment, isn't it? So they could just have easily claimed Tia had agreed to be home by 8 or 9 and still had their stories synchronised

Or, they could just have easily chosen 4 p.m. or 5 p.m., if in fact she'd been dead several hours. Not as if Tia was 'literally' going to be arriving home at six

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?

Both SH and CS appear to have considerable upper-body strength. The child wasn't very large. A big sports bag would suffice. When most in the estate would have been eating their evening meal/watching tv, SH could have hefted a large sports bag over his shoulder and made it the short distance to the car-park. Or, CS and SH could have carried it by grasping a handle each. As India's said, you could lug just about anything through the estate without anyone noticing or choosing to notice

They must have watched enough tv-crime to know their place would be searched. From the same source they must have known there would be limited opportunity to remove the body once the police were involved and people on the estate & media began taking a ghoulish interest. And not as if they played it low-key, considering the posters and T-shirts to focus the spotlight squarely on them

What are we missing?

 

[Jaccles]

From the legal jargon I can only assume that the Police used the assisting an offender charge instead of perverting the cause of justice as they believe that PM was aware of what SH had done and knowingly provided a false statement. I wonder since they're neighbours if he could have overheard something and SH convinced him it was an accident and he agreed to provide him with a cover story out of some form of misguided loyalty??

Police must be convinced of something or why wouldn't they have used a lesser charge?

 

[kaos]

Your version makes a lot more sense than SH's, for sure. But still leaves unexplained why they would leave the child's body in the loft that way

It's still quite light at 7 or 8 p.m. at the moment, isn't it? So they could just have easily claimed Tia had agreed to be home by 8 or 9 and still had their stories synchronised

Or, they could just have easily chosen 4 p.m. or 5 p.m., if in fact she'd been dead several hours. Not as if Tia was 'literally' going to be arriving home at six

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?

Both SH and CS appear to have considerable upper-body strength. The child wasn't very large. A big sports bag would suffice. When most in the estate would have been eating their evening meal/watching tv, SH could have hefted a large sports bag over his shoulder and made it the short distance to the car-park. Or, CS and SH could have carried it by grasping a handle each. As India's said, you could lug just about anything through the estate without anyone noticing or choosing to notice

They must have watched enough tv-crime to know their place would be searched. From the same source they must have known there would be limited opportunity to remove the body once the police were involved and people on the estate & media began taking a ghoulish interest. And not as if they played it low-key, considering the posters and T-shirts to focus the spotlight squarely on them

What are we missing?

Is there any chance CS was acting a bit shady because she may be claiming benefit and working at the same time? If she's only allowed to work a certain amount of hours per week, then she might not have wanted to tell the police her full hours, just in case Tia came home anyway.

 

[laserdisc10]

Is there any chance CS was acting a bit shady because she may be claiming benefit and working at the same time? If she's only allowed to work a certain amount of hours per week, then she might not have wanted to tell the police her full hours, just in case Tia came home anyway.

BBM

Distinct possibility, imo

 

[YidArmyRach]

If the killer had the foresight to get rid of the purse, wouldn't they have got rid of the phone aswell?

And more importantly, wouldn't they have got rid of the body???

I still don't understand why SH didn't move Tia's body before he reported her missing, as he must have known the police would be round his house as soon as they got the report.

He had at least until her gran returned from work on the Friday afternoon, or if she was involved, until Monday morning when Tia was due home. In fact, seeing as they drove to the mums house to tell her personally that Tia was missing, why didn't he offer to stay home whilst CS did that - which would have given him time to nip out to the woods for example. I still think there is more to come out from this one.