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

[soozieqtips]

Also, journey time from East Croydon to New Addington via tram is 17 minutes.

http://tramlink.co.uk/info/gen/timetable.shtml

So give or take a few minutes, the time fits in with Tia being captured on CCTV in New Addington about 15 minutes later.

 

[laserdisc10]

I agree Laser, with a bit more thought, they could have done a much better cover up.
Which leads me to think that the event was an accident in some way, followed by panic and removal of body quickly to perhaps a * temporary* hiding place.

After this, and before a better plan could be worked on, the police arrived in NA.

Also, dependant on time of death, if it was say Friday afternoon, then perhaps the hasty removal to the loft (if indeed that is what was done ) was because there may have been the worry that someone else would come into the house.

So many people have lived there at one time or another, and I doubt they bothered to change the locks, so there could be a fair number of relatives who had keys and who might call round and enter the house with their own key.

Yep. Until we have more information, we'll just go 'round and around

Either SH killed TS and secreted her in the loft or there were more than one involved who for reasons best known to themselves agreed, were persuaded, whatever and at whatever juncture, to assist in a cover-up

Or -- it began as a Sharon Matthews type con and went wrong, perhaps

Still does not explain the way the police handled it. Nor do any of the above rule out that the body may have been moved about. And hopefully police/coroner whomever will see fit eventually to explain WHY they reportedly speculated TS may still have been alive when they first searched !

 

[MobyBluff]

He said he knew exactly what Tia was wearing because “I washed her clothes that night”.

He believes she left the house to catch the 231 bus into Croydon, a journey that she had made many times before.

Mr Hazell said he met Tia in East Croydon at 4pm and they took the tram back to New Addington.

They spent the evening on the PlayStation which was “nothing unusual cos she’s cheating all the time”, he joked.
------------------------------------------------

It's in this article.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tia-sharp-stuart-hazell-interview-1246879

It just doesn't make sense to me that he would meet her at East Croydon when she was in a relatively safe place (on a tram crammed with people). Wouldn't it make more sense to meet her at her destination, seemingly New Addington (nearest Tram Stop to the co-op sighting).

 

[soozieqtips]

It just doesn't make sense to me that he would meet her at East Croydon when she was in a relatively safe place (on a tram crammed with people). Wouldn't it make more sense to meet her at her destination, seemingly New Addington (nearest Tram Stop to the co-op sighting).

Maybe he was already in East Croydon at the time, and therefore didn't have to make any effort to meet her. He said she travelled on her own a lot and was responsible, so it's completely illogical that he'd have made a special trip to pick her up - for what? I think he must have already been there for some other reason. He said he 'picked her up' but he could have meant 'I was already there when she arrived'.

 

[graceholl]

Even if they are all guilty, I think the police would still have to apologise for what they did wrong as a PR exercise. Everyone was wondering how they could possibly have missed finding the body after numerous searches, so something had to be said.

Agreed, but apologising to NS specifically? They could easily have worded it differently if she was suspected of any complicity...

 

[Clio]

Anyone have any thoughts about police reportedly speculating TS might still have been alive during the initial search whilst reportedly stating - simultaneously - that the body was in such advanced state of decomposition, identification necessitated dental records ?

Reverse logic perhaps? Perhaps they knew who their chief suspect was from the start.

 

[laserdisc10]

Maybe he was already in East Croydon at the time, and therefore didn't have to make any effort to meet her. He said she travelled on her own a lot and was responsible, so it's completely illogical that he'd have made a special trip to pick her up - for what? I think he must have already been there for some other reason.

BBM


Is it possible they met by by prearranged plan so SH could give TS the ten pounds (promised her by CS, perhaps) in order she could buy the 'flip flops with straps' she was so intent upon having ?

Is it possible SH had just drunk the ten pounds, prior to meeting TS? If so, did he make excuses for not giving her the ten pounds then and there? Was she sulky? Did SH tell TS he'd left the money at CS's place? Is it possible this is the reason TS didn't just buy her flip-flops and go home to NS's place (remembering the various stories we've heard, some of them being DN claiming TS was due at NS's place by 6 ) ?

Did TS accompany SH reluctantly back to CS's place simply to get her ten pounds?

Did SH attempt to mollify TS with chips, pizza, computer games, more excuses?

Did TS insist on having her ten pounds regardless?

Did SH claim CS would give it to her when she came home?

Did TS decide there was no point going home if she'd have to return to CS's place next day to collect the ten pounds?

Did SH start to panic at the thought of CS arriving home only to discover an angry child awaiting ten pounds that SH had already blown on liquor? Had he done the same before and been told next time was his kick out the door?

Did he finally deliver a sharp slap to the side of TS's head, knocking her half unconscious? Did SH really panic then about what would happen when she came-to? So did he hold something over her face and finish it, afterwards stuffing TS in the loft?

Did his story start to fall apart in following days, with family members questioning him in greater depth? Did he finally confess in response to their accusations?

Was it decided to cover it up, for fear NS would lose custody of her other children and SH would go to prison in tandem with in-depth investigation into the entire family?

 

[laserdisc10]

Reverse logic perhaps? Perhaps they knew who their chief suspect was from the start.

I don't think they'd stick their necks out in making that statement unless they believed it possible

 

[Cherwell]

Is it possible they met by by prearranged plan so SH could give TS the ten pounds (promised her by CS, perhaps)

I think the £10 may be entirely fictitious.

 

[soozieqtips]

BBM


Is it possible they met by by prearranged plan so SH could give TS the ten pounds (promised her by CS, perhaps) in order she could buy the 'flip flops with straps' she was so intent upon having ?

Is it possible SH had just drunk the ten pounds, prior to meeting TS? If so, did he make excuses for not giving her the ten pounds then and there? Was she sulky? Did SH tell TS he'd left the money at CS's place? Is it possible this is the reason TS didn't just buy her flip-flops and go home to NS's place (remembering the various stories we've heard, some of them being DN claiming TS was due at NS's place by 6 ) ?

Did TS accompany SH reluctantly back to CS's place simply to get her ten pounds?

Did SH attempt to mollify TS with chips, pizza, computer games, more excuses?

Did TS insist on having her ten pounds regardless?

Did SH claim CS would give it to her when she came home?

Did TS decide there was no point going home if she'd have to return to CS's place next day to collect the ten pounds?

Did SH start to panic at the thought of CS arriving home only to discover an angry child awaiting ten pounds that SH had already blown on liquor? Had he done the same before and been told next time was his kick out the door?

Did he finally deliver a sharp slap to the side of TS's head, knocking her half unconscious? Did SH really panic then about what would happen when she came-to? So did he hold something over her face and finish it, afterwards stuffing TS in the loft?

Did his story start to fall apart in following days, with family members questioning him in greater depth? Did he finally confess in response to their accusations?

Was it decided to cover it up, for fear NS would lose custody of her other children and SH would go to prison in tandem with in-depth investigation into the entire family?

Actually, like I said before, I don't think the £10 ever existed in the first place. I think the £4 that he said Tia might have been given by Natalie was in existence (as he 'guessed' a specific amount). Maybe he wanted the £4 for a drink? Do we know for a fact they bought shopping in the Co-op? Whose money was used? Maybe SH had a debit card and used that. There should be proof of what he bought on CCTV. My feeling is that he resented Tia and thought she was a nuisance. What's perturbing is that she might also have resented him (maybe he gave her mum a rough time) and yet she chose to stay at Gran's because her home life was perhaps even worse. And maybe she didn't know her Gran was going to be absent all afternoon and night.

It's very convenient for the guilty party/parties that her own phone was broken.

 

[laserdisc10]

Still trying to figure out why police would even suspect, let alone divulge, that TS might still have been alive during the first search

Seems they did suspect, however. So why?

Could it have been something revealing about the position of the body when discovered? Were TS's hands found embedded in the plastic bag, indicating she'd struggled to get free of it ? Was it because the plastic bag revealed scratch-marks or was there plastic beneath TS's fingernails? Was it suspected, based on stretching of the bag, that TS had attempted to push her feet through it? Was the sheet found entangled around arms or legs in such a way as to cause police to suspect TS had struggled?

Has to be a reason

 

[MobyBluff]

I don't think they'd stick their necks out in making that statement unless they believed it possible

SH was arrested for the murder of TS between the date of the CCTV sighting and the date her body was found. This indicates they were not at that time sure when the murder occurred.

 

[Skigh]

Also, journey time from East Croydon to New Addington via tram is 17 minutes.

http://tramlink.co.uk/info/gen/timetable.shtml

So give or take a few minutes, the time fits in with Tia being captured on CCTV in New Addington about 15 minutes later.

What would the journey time from Merton to East Croydon be.
That would be a clue to a poosible time she left home

 

[MobyBluff]

Still trying to figure out why police would even suspect, let alone divulge, that TS might still have been alive during the first search

Seems they did suspect, however. So why?

Could it have been something revealing about the position of the body when discovered? Were TS's hands found embedded in the plastic bag, indicating she'd struggled to get free of it ? Was it because the plastic bag revealed scratch-marks or was there plastic beneath TS's fingernails? Was it suspected, based on stretching of the bag, that TS had attempted to push her feet through it? Was the sheet found entangled around arms or legs in such a way as to cause police to suspect TS had struggled?

Has to be a reason

The Police haven't confirmed that the body wasn't moved have they? I can only recall their statement saying the area where TS was found had been previously searched - and then an apology to the mother for the delay.

Today they say it may have been a management error. Could that mean management decided not to search the neighbours loft? Perhaps they are now aware that the body had been moved?

 

[Skigh]

Someone posted earlier that the Police are now saying no single officer to blame.....this article is really making me think....

http://www.london24.com/news/crime/...p_body_find_failings_says_met_chief_1_1490956

I wonder if another team of police had searched the loft before-when perhaps HS was arrested for the machete incident and failed to pass on information about possible connecting lofts to the Tia search team.

I expect any detail of SH's previous arrests would have been removed online-but I think it is possible to look through past newspaper reports in local libraries....Any posters local to Croydon got an hour or 2 to spare?

 

[laserdisc10]

Actually, like I said before, I don't think the £10 ever existed in the first place. I think the £4 that he said Tia might have been given by Natalie was in existence (as he 'guessed' a specific amount). Maybe he wanted the £4 for a drink? Do we know for a fact they bought shopping in the Co-op? Whose money was used? Maybe SH had a debit card and used that. There should be proof of what he bought on CCTV. My feeling is that he resented Tia and thought she was a nuisance. What's perturbing is that she might also have resented him (maybe he gave her mum a rough time) and yet she chose to stay at Gran's because her home life was perhaps even worse. And maybe she didn't know her Gran was going to be absent all afternoon and night.

It's very convenient for the guilty party/parties that her own phone was broken.

He made such an issue of that ten pounds, though. Of money in general, as I bolded some days ago, based on the frequent mention of money in the tv interview

DN mentioned the flip-flops. SH mentioned the flip-flops

By now, police will have questioned the friend who reportedly stayed with TS at NS's place on Wednesday night and will have asked the friend what, if anything, TS said about flip-flops and about possibly going to buy them the next day

Unless NS and DN can explain how TS proposed to buy them and by whom the money had been or would be provided, then I'm inclined to suspect that CS had promised TS the money prior to the time in question and this was at least one of the reasons TS set off for CS's place on Thursday. As CS must have known she'd be working when TS arrived, it makes sense to me that CS would have given SH money for the pizza and chips for TS and also money for flip-flops. SH said in the interview that the food items he purchased, he'd actually bought 'for Chris', implying CS had instructed/asked SH to buy certain items -- such as the Knobbly Wobblies or whatever they were, three of which were eaten by TS. SH says he prevented TS from eating the fourth and last because of Chris 'seeing the packet' or words to that effect and realising all were gone. Different versions of the tv interview doing the rounds at the time and some mentioned that last bit and some did not

 

[graceholl]

SH was arrested for the murder of TS between the date of the CCTV sighting and the date her body was found. This indicates they were not at that time sure when the murder occurred.

Is that not procedure for them to give wide birth on the exact time of death, usually until trial? During the Joanna Yeates case, whilst it was readily accepted that she had died on the night she returned home from the pub, the police charge was something like "killed between the night of Friday 17th and Saturday 25th"...I think. Not sure, though.

But yeah I wouldn't take that statement to mean they don't have a pretty good idea over the date she was killed (which I'm assuming was late Thurs night or early Friday morning, but no later than that).

 

[Clio]

Still trying to figure out why police would even suspect, let alone divulge, that TS might still have been alive during the first search
Seems they did suspect, however. So why?

Could it have been something revealing about the position of the body when discovered? Were TS's hands found embedded in the plastic bag, indicating she'd struggled to get free of it ? Was it because the plastic bag revealed scratch-marks or was there plastic beneath TS's fingernails? Was it suspected, based on stretching of the bag, that TS had attempted to push her feet through it? Was the sheet found entangled around arms or legs in such a way as to cause police to suspect TS had struggled?

Has to be a reason

BIB Whoa. Where did they say that? I think I must have missed something. The police said

Area Commander Neil Basu said: "An early review has been conducted and it is now clear that human error delayed the discovery of the body within the house.

"We have apologised to Tia's mother that our procedures did not lead to the discovery of the body on this [the second] search.

Wasn't it was only the media speculating that she may have been alive?

 

[graceholl]

We do know for a fact that the body was found in CS's loft, don't we, and not a neighbour's? Could it be that the body had originally been dumped in a neighbour's loft, and then moved once the initial searches of CS's loft were complete and no body was found there?

ETA The police apology makes me think it cannot have ever been moved from where it was found, and that it was there all along. But that doesn't make sense either...!

 

[Cherwell]

Is that not procedure for them to give wide birth on the exact time of death, usually until trial? During the Joanna Yeates case, whilst it was readily accepted that she had died on the night she returned home from the pub, the police charge was something like "killed between the night of Friday 17th and Saturday 25th"...I think. Not sure, though.

But yeah I wouldn't take that statement to mean they don't have a pretty good idea over the date she was killed (which I'm assuming was late Thurs night or early Friday morning, but no later than that).

Yes, it is normal practice to define the date of the crime as being between the date the victim was last seen, and the date the body was found.