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

[Cherwell]

I have to admit his sentences sound jerky, as if they may have been pulled from other interviews and then put together.

Exactly! Or as though they are replies to random questions coming from all directions as he is mobbed by a pack of journalists. It's definitely not a clear linear account.

But who knows if he really met her at East Croydon? There's CCTV at that tram stop, so they should both have shown up on it. I think it's really strange that the only footage of her during the whole Thursday is at 4.15 in the Co-op at New Addington, apparently without SH in tow. Maybe he was outside the shop? Regardless, he says he met her at East Croydon, so there must be CCTV proof of that.

It's not necessarily the only footage, but the only bit that has been made public. I'd be surprised if the police don't have more.

 

[blefuscu]

Something that has kept grabbing my attention was SH saying that he told Tia to leave the phone while it was charging. Why? You can still use a phone normally when it's charging.

 

[Clio]

Something that has kept grabbing my attention was SH saying that he told Tia to leave the phone while it was charging. Why? You can still use a phone normally when it's charging.

I think it's pretty clear by now that, however she died, SH put her body in the loft. Well that's my opinion anyway. Whether he had any assistance at the time and whether other people knew or suspected afterwards is subject of much debate.

I think the phone was an oversight. SH needed to explain why it was still in the house as it was normally glued to her ear according to AN. Why she would have left to go to Croydon without the phone needed explaining.

In SH's TV interview he says that he told her to leave the phone alone so that it would get charged up. The implication, although he doesn't actually say it, is that she mistook that to mean leave your phone at home so that it can get charged. Not very believable IMO.

 

[Alyce]

Based on the conflicting quotes from the various members of the family, I am more and more of the opinion that there was collusion re whatever happened to TS.

We have two stories of See You At Six

1. DN claims that TS said to him, see you at 6pm
( which I find a bit odd anyway, not a typical remark from a 12 year old, would have made more sense if it was DN saying to TS, be sure to be back by 6pm )

2. SH says to TS, be back by 6 and TS just says yeah - far more like a 12 year old would

We have two pizza and chips stories
There is the Thursday night meal, which apparently TS didnt get to eat bcos she didnt want it ?
and there is the Friday night meal, which CS prepared ( who prepares pizza and chips BEFORE the person gets home when there was no guarantee that TS would walk thru the door on the stroke of 6pm ? )
and this is the meal that CS cant bear to take out of the oven

MOO - there is only one pizza and chips, prepared Thursday, not eaten by TS bcos by the time it was ready, TS was no longer alive.
Food is forgotten in light of other events, and a story then has to be created to explain the food still in the oven on Saturday, when police make initial visit.

and, again MOO.......... what if....
the image we see of TS on Thursday at the Co op is TS making the journey back to her home, having spent the earlier part of the week with CS/SH.
This would be backed up by JH statement that TS had been in NA all week.
This would also be a reason why SH said to his father, I took her to the tram stop
( I know that was explained away as father getting the story muddled but could be it was something that did happen, but happened one day earlier on the Thursday and this fact then got incorporated into the later stories that were created, after TS was reported missing )
From here, I dont know, ...either TS did make it back to her home and there was an event there ?
or there was a call asking CS/SH to keep her for another night, leading to irritation on the part of SH with tragic consequences.

 

[laserdisc10]

Apparently, both DN and SH believed it important to establish either that Tia did not have her own phone, OR that NS did not have her phone during the time in question. Which was it ?

The claims may be false. Only those who've investigated both phones are in a position to know

 

[Clio]

Based on the conflicting quotes from the various members of the family, I am more and more of the opinion that there was collusion re whatever happened to TS.

We have two stories of See You At Six

1. DN claims that TS said to him, see you at 6pm
( which I find a bit odd anyway, not a typical remark from a 12 year old, would have made more sense if it was DN saying to TS, be sure to be back by 6pm )

2. SH says to TS, be back by 6 and TS just says yeah - far more like a 12 year old would

We have two pizza and chips stories
There is the Thursday night meal, which apparently TS didnt get to eat bcos she didnt want it ?
and there is the Friday night meal, which CS prepared ( who prepares pizza and chips BEFORE the person gets home when there was no guarantee that TS would walk thru the door on the stroke of 6pm ? )
and this is the meal that CS cant bear to take out of the oven

MOO - there is only one pizza and chips, prepared Thursday, not eaten by TS bcos by the time it was ready, TS was no longer alive.
Food is forgotten in light of other events, and a story then has to be created to explain the food still in the oven on Saturday, when police make initial visit.

and, again MOO.......... what if....
the image we see of TS on Thursday at the Co op is TS making the journey back to her home, having spent the earlier part of the week with CS/SH.
This would be backed up by JH statement that TS had been in NA all week.
This would also be a reason why SH said to his father, I took her to the tram stop
( I know that was explained away as father getting the story muddled but could be it was something that did happen, but happened one day earlier on the Thursday and this fact then got incorporated into the later stories that were created, after TS was reported missing )
From here, I dont know, ...either TS did make it back to her home and there was an event there ?
or there was a call asking CS/SH to keep her for another night, leading to irritation on the part of SH with tragic consequences.

Sorry to bang on about this but I really think the BIB should be taken with a pinch of salt. I saw the video where DN was entering a house and being mobbed by journalists shouting questions at him and he was throwing out replies. How the media were expected to report an accurate and chronological version of what he said is beyond me.

As for CCTV of TS being of her on her way back home, that's not something I had considered but could be possible. Problem is we have no knowledge of any other CCTV images which the police have which would answer this question.

If it were the case, then that raises a whole host of questions and possibilities. The main block to that theory for me is why on earth someone would put her body in a loft in New Addington and then make a statement to the police that she left that same property around noon on Friday. Why draw attention to the last place you would want the police to look?

 

[Skigh]

Based on the conflicting quotes from the various members of the family, I am more and more of the opinion that there was collusion re whatever happened to TS.

We have two stories of See You At Six

1. DN claims that TS said to him, see you at 6pm
( which I find a bit odd anyway, not a typical remark from a 12 year old, would have made more sense if it was DN saying to TS, be sure to be back by 6pm )

2. SH says to TS, be back by 6 and TS just says yeah - far more like a 12 year old would

We have two pizza and chips stories
There is the Thursday night meal, which apparently TS didnt get to eat bcos she didnt want it ?and there is the Friday night meal, which CS prepared ( who prepares pizza and chips BEFORE the person gets home when there was no guarantee that TS would walk thru the door on the stroke of 6pm ? )
and this is the meal that CS cant bear to take out of the oven

MOO - there is only one pizza and chips, prepared Thursday, not eaten by TS bcos by the time it was ready, TS was no longer alive.
Food is forgotten in light of other events, and a story then has to be created to explain the food still in the oven on Saturday, when police make initial visit.

and, again MOO.......... what if....
the image we see of TS on Thursday at the Co op is TS making the journey back to her home, having spent the earlier part of the week with CS/SH.
This would be backed up by JH statement that TS had been in NA all week.
This would also be a reason why SH said to his father, I took her to the tram stop
( I know that was explained away as father getting the story muddled but could be it was something that did happen, but happened one day earlier on the Thursday and this fact then got incorporated into the later stories that were created, after TS was reported missing )
From here, I dont know, ...either TS did make it back to her home and there was an event there ?
or there was a call asking CS/SH to keep her for another night, leading to irritation on the part of SH with tragic consequences.

That is interesting ,I had not heard that she did not want the pizza and chips on Thursday-was that said in his tv interview?


A while back one poster described the cctv picture of Tia outside the co-op looking 'matronly'.
Looking at it again it does . The clothes do not look like those that would be worn by a fashionable ,slim 12 year old.
In the cctv she has a bag-why did SH say she took nothing with her on the alleged trip to Croydon.If she had a bag with her surely she would have taken it with her.

 

[laserdisc10]

why on earth someone would put her body in a loft in New Addington and then make a statement to the police that she left that same property around noon on Friday. Why draw attention to the last place you would want the police to look?

This, of course, has been the stumbling-block for sleuthers all the way through

One answer could be that by focusing police attention on New Addington, opportunity was provided to cleanse NS's place of incriminating evidence, if in fact something happened there to TS

There may have been the intention to removed the body from NA but this was thwarted by swift police and media attention

Not saying this was the case, but it could be posed as a possibility

 

[Skigh]

Apparently, both DN and SH believed it important to establish either that Tia did not have her own phone, OR that NS did not have her phone during the time in question. Which was it ?

The claims may be false. Only those who've investigated both phones are in a position to know

Or to explain why Tia's phone was in Merton and NS's phone was in New Addington.

 

[laserdisc10]

In the cctv she has a bag-why did SH say she took nothing with her on the alleged trip to Croydon.If she had a bag with her surely she would have taken it with her

I raised the same issue a while back and said most women/girls grab their bag automatically when leaving (apart from CS, apparently)

SH claimed TS left the house with 'nothing' and elaborated a bit. So where did TS keep the ten pounds SH claimed he'd given her, plus the suspected four pounds or so he speculated TS may have received from NS ? As I've said, did TS stick the money in her sock? If she was wearing leggings, it's doubtful they'd have a pocket. As she'd reportedly lost her oyster card, she might have needed to pay bus-fare to town, which means she'd have to secrete loose change and notes somewhere. Where - in her sock? Or are we to suppose she carried the money in her hand? Personally, I believe that if a young girl chose to use as shoulder bag as shown in the cctv, then she would have taken it with her when leaving to go shopping

I don't believe SH's version of events, though. Not about the bag or phone or much else

 

[Clio]

This, of course, has been the stumbling-block for sleuthers all the way through

One answer could be that by focusing police attention on New Addington, opportunity was provided to cleanse NS's place of incriminating evidence, if in fact something happened there to TS

There may have been the intention to removed the body from NA but this was thwarted by swift police and media attention

Not saying this was the case, but it could be posed as a possibility

Possibly but if that were the case, then I struggle to understand why the New Addington loft was chosen as an interim hiding place. Why not just miss out the middle bit and dump the body in the surrounding countryside.

AFAIK we never saw any footage of CS's car being taken in for forensic checks but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nobody knew Vincent Tabak had a car and a body had been transported in it until the trial

 

[laserdisc10]

Or to explain why Tia's phone was in Merton and NS's phone was in New Addington.

Do we know TS's phone was in NA ?

 

[Skigh]

This, of course, has been the stumbling-block for sleuthers all the way through

One answer could be that by focusing police attention on New Addington, opportunity was provided to cleanse NS's place of incriminating evidence, if in fact something happened there to TS

There may have been the intention to removed the body from NA but this was thwarted by swift police and media attention

Not saying this was the case, but it could be posed as a possibility

I think that that this must be the case.I do go with the connecting loft theory so perhaps they thought even with a police search of the house they could buy more time to arrange a location to place Tia away from the house.

 

[laserdisc10]

Possibly but if that were the case, then I struggle to understand why the New Addington loft was chosen as an interim hiding place. Why not just miss out the middle bit and dump the body in the surrounding countryside.

AFAIK we never saw any footage of CS's car being taken in for forensic checks but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nobody knew Vincent Tabak had a car and a body had been transported in it until the trial

BBM

We're all struggling to understand that

 

[Clio]

I raised the same issue a while back and said most women/girls grab their bag automatically when leaving (apart from CS, apparently)

SH claimed TS left the house with 'nothing' and elaborated a bit. So where did TS keep the ten pounds SH claimed he'd given her, plus the suspected four pounds or so he speculated TS may have received from NS ? As I've said, did TS stick the money in her sock? If she was wearing leggings, it's doubtful they'd have a pocket. As she'd reportedly lost her oyster card, she might have needed to pay bus-fare to town, which means she'd have to secrete loose change and notes somewhere. Where - in her sock? Or are we to suppose she carried the money in her hand? Personally, I believe that if a young girl chose to use as shoulder bag as shown in the cctv, then she would have taken it with her when leaving to go shopping

I don't believe SH's version of events, though. Not about the bag or phone or much else

BIB Maybe it's only me but I think it's blindingly obvious that SH made up a story. What we are all wondering is who else, if anybody, was complicit in this story

 

[Clio]

BBM

We're all struggling to understand that

For me, the only thing that makes any sort of sense is that, however she died, SH put the body in the loft and there was no subsequent opportunity to move it. As I said, whether he did it alone or not remains to be seen.

 

[Alyce]

If it were the case, then that raises a whole host of questions and possibilities. The main block to that theory for me is why on earth someone would put her body in a loft in New Addington and then make a statement to the police that she left that same property around noon on Friday. Why draw attention to the last place you would want the police to look?

I posted, a few pages back, that my thought on this is......... by saying that TS had departed from the house in NA, they ( they being SH and whoever else may or may not have been part of the event ) thought that they were deflecting attention away from the house.
ie, the one place TS couldnt be was in that house, because defintely, positively, she had departed from the house.

 

[laserdisc10]

Maybe it's only me but I think it's blindingly obvious that SH made up a story. What we are all wondering is who else, if anybody, was complicit in this story

I've read comments made by CS's ex-spouse (biological father to NS and DS) made to the best of my knowledge after discovery of the body. Have also read comments made by one of CS's ex-lodgers. Read them after discovery of the body I think, but no way to know if the media sat on them since before discovery of the body. Also have read comments made by family-members of PM

Apart from that, have read or seen nothing from DN or NS or DS, which indicates to me that they are under investigation

 

[Skigh]

Possibly but if that were the case, then I struggle to understand why the New Addington loft was chosen as an interim hiding place. Why not just miss out the middle bit and dump the body in the surrounding countryside.

AFAIK we never saw any footage of CS's car being taken in for forensic checks but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nobody knew Vincent Tabak had a car and a body had been transported in it until the trial

Perhaps because mobile phone usage tells its own story and they had to find what they thought was a plausable story for Tia to be missing for a while with out a mobile.They also might have needed time to make sure no incriminating DNA was left on her clothing.

 

[Skigh]

For me, the only thing that makes any sort of sense is that, however she died, SH put the body in the loft and there was no subsequent opportunity to move it. As I said, whether he did it alone or not remains to be seen.

I think if SH was the only one involved and something happened to Tia ,when they were alone ,he would not put her in the loft,but take her and put her in the local woods.