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

[Clio]

A quick refresher:

According to this timeline in the Standard...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tia-sharp-developments-as-they-unfold-8014761.html

... SH says he and Tia did have pizza and chips on the Thursday evening. Then CS claims she also prepared the same meal the next day. It also says that CS changed her statement on Thursday (the day before Tia's body was found) to admit that she hadn't actually seen Tia for 24 hours.

If she'd made a statement before to say she'd seen Tia on the Thursday, then she was deliberately lying.

Thanks for this link. I notice it says

Mr Hazell says he believes she was planning to catch the 231 bus into Croydon.

I hadn't read that before.

It also states that

At around 6pm her family raise the alarm with the police

This is at odds with the ThisIsCroydonToday fairground article stating that TS was reported missing around 10pm. The latter makes more sense to me.

BIB Absolutely agree.

 

[BritsKate]

They have a dead child's body who was in his care, in the house where he lives. They have it on video that he lied about the dead child's whereabouts. Unless his defence is that there was somebody else in the house who could have caused the child's death, then wrapped the body up and lifted it up into the loft of the house, then he won't be walking anywhere.


I've no doubt there'll still be evidence that will convict him. Whether that be his fingerprints on the plastic bag she was wrapped in or even perhaps the police finding the clothing she was supposed to have been wearing in the washing basket.

The only case one needs to read to seriously jeopardize their faith in the judiciary is that of Zahra Baker. Zahra was an Australian 10 year old cancer survivor illegally moved to America by her father.

It is theorised she was beaten to death with her own prosthetic leg by her stepmother but no cause of death could be determined. Her body was dismembered in the home and she was buried in multiple areas. Much of her body remains unaccounted for. Her mattress was disposed of, replaced, and approximately two weeks after her murder she was reported missing by her father.

Adam Baker claims not to have known the fate of his daughter due to his work schedule. Two weeks - house repainted to cover blood evidence, mattress replaced, no physical contact at all with Zahra. (He'd also lied to investigators about the last time he had seen his daughter.)

Today Elisa Baker has been convicted of 2nd degree murder while Adam Baker is a free man in his homeland. No charges were ever filed against him in connection to his daughter's murder.

It is a case to leave one incredulous and heart broken. At any rate I hope they have a lot more against SH. All fingerprints will determine is that he concealed her body. All clothing will tell is that he lied to investigators. Hopefully law enforcement has enough to substantiate a murder occurred.

 

[soozieqtips]

The pizza and chips story also puzzles me slightly. I was sure ( although I cant find it now, unless it was part of the SH interview ) that SH said something about them having pizza and chips and then about cooking * another* pizza on the Thursday which TS didnt eat - presumably bcos she had already eaten one ?

this might explain why there was pizza in the oven on Friday, which then became the meal that CS says she cooked for the return of TS at 6pm.

I still find it odd that someone would cook a pizza in advance when they cant guarantee that the person will walk thru the door at 6pm on the dot.

The pizza and chips story is from the interview, and I remember SH stumbling slightly over that when he was asked what they ate. He said 'pizza and chips' (the same meal CS said she also cooked for Tia on the Friday) - and then he (I'm pretty sure) faltered, and said he also cooked it for her the next day. I agree that putting a pizza in the oven before the person's come home is really really odd. Pizzas cook really quickly. If I ever cook one, I don't put it in the oven till everyone's home since it only takes about 15 minutes. Makes no sense that dinner time was arranged for the dot of 6pm, or that SH and CS have different stories about who cooked it.

Also, when someone repeats a question back to themselves, as SH did when he said: "Did we have a meal? Yeah. Because we bought those things at the Co-op" - "Did I do anything to Tia? No I bloody well didn't" - I think they're buying a few extra seconds to make sure they say the right thing. Just my opinion.

This is at odds with the ThisIsCroydonToday fairground article stating that TS was reported missing around 10pm. The latter makes more sense to me.

That confused me too because no one (as far as we know) raised the alarm at 6pm. CS and SH had to go and 'search' the funfair first and then drive to NS's house. I think that part is incorrect.

 

[soozieqtips]

Agree.

I wonder when CS made her first statement saying that she'd seen Tia on the Thursday. I assume as the search for TS began. Why would she have said she'd seen TS if it was perfectly untrue? At the early stage of a missing persons enquiry, if there was hope that she would be found, why lie (esp as she would be found out by checking her work attendance records)?

I don't get it. Unless her statement wasn't changed, but the press had reported something wrong in the first place, and the statement was only changed in their eyes?

Do you remember reading articles that said: "It was assumed that Tia's gran had been with her on Thursday, but now it turns out she was working" or something to that effect? Then a couple of days later there were stories that said she was actually working that night and hadn't seen Tia at all. As no one has actually reported that Gran stated she saw Tia on Thursday, it could be that since Tia had specifically gone to stay with her gran, that her gran was presumed to have been there, and that's how it got reported?

Maybe she wasn't 'changing' her statement on Thursday, 9th. But as we have no idea when she made her first statement (would have assumed it was the day Tia went 'missing') then we can't rule out that she might simply have been adding / clarifying something (like SH did the night before). Then perhaps the press found out some of the details and printed them like they were 'new' facts, not realising that CS may have already told the police she wasn't there.

Having said all that, there's always the chance that the reason Gran was interviewed the day after SH's TV interview is because she had told police she was at home for some of the time, but SH forgot to mention it in his interview, so the police needed her to clarify some things. Long shot and I'm pretty brain dead this morning, so feel free to replace the pinch of salt with a sack of salt

The pizza and chips story implies CS lied though. She wouldn't have lied if she thought nothing was wrong. Isn't that perverting the course of justice?

 

[soozieqtips]

I'm quite curious to know how SH is handling life without booze (and maybe drugs). I knew a guy once who liked a drink every single day. He didn't always get drunk, but he couldn't go a day without drink without getting very stressed. I think SH will be finding it extremely tough as he's probably never been dry for this long. Hopefully, it could clear his head for the first time in a long time, and maybe he'll do the right thing (if he's guilty) and co-operate with the police rather than making things worse and trying to weasel his way out of it just because there's no definite cause of death just yet.

One can always hope!

 

[Cherwell]

I did look it up the first time you told me to look it up, which is why I asked you the question. You didn't need to tell me twice. What you haven't explained is why DS expressing sorrow about his niece would be 'prejudicing' the trial. Isn't that why you said he hasn't said anything? Expressing sorrow over a dead child is hardly prejudicing a fair trial, is it?

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, I don't know how else I can explain it. No, I didn't say that he hasn't said anything, just that whatever he might have said hasn't been reported. There's no knowing what may turn out to be prejudicial, so the media can only report on strictly factual events (such as court appearances) now. They can't go around doing interviews and stories on people involved in the case who may be witnesses should it go to trial. If you look back on other cases, you'll see that once someone's been charged, all the articles and stories stop.

 

[soozieqtips]

Clio, from The Telegraph:

Mrs Sharp, 46, a care worker, left Tia with her boyfriend Stuart Hazell, 37,
when she went to work on Friday morning. Relations said Tia told Mr Hazell she was catching the bus into Croydon and left the house alone at about midday. She has not been seen since.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lks-of-heartbreak-as-police-search-woods.html

This sounds like something from a first statement? That could be why she was interviewed again (after SH didn't mention her presence at all in the TV interview) and why she then had to admit she was on a night shift at the time? I acknowledge the Telegraph could have got it wrong, but it reads as fact.

 

[Cherwell]

It could also be just an assumption by the reporters that CS had left for work in the morning - after all that's the pattern for most people.

 

[ScotsPaddy]

I'm quite curious to know how SH is handling life without booze (and maybe drugs). I knew a guy once who liked a drink every single day. He didn't always get drunk, but he couldn't go a day without drink without getting very stressed. I think SH will be finding it extremely tough as he's probably never been dry for this long. Hopefully, it could clear his head for the first time in a long time, and maybe he'll do the right thing (if he's guilty) and co-operate with the police rather than making things worse and trying to weasel his way out of it just because there's no definite cause of death just yet.

One can always hope!

Soozie,if hes a junkie or ex junkie hell prob be on different prescription drugs,methadone,valium,DFs etc so id would presume he would still be prescribed these inside..
If hes not in solitary then he can get most drugs fairly easily inside nowadays,far more expensive tho.or he could be swapping his prescription drugs for illegal drugs inside..
Ive known of people who have got themselves sent to jail because their supply on the outside has dried up..

 

[Clio]

Clio, from The Telegraph:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...lks-of-heartbreak-as-police-search-woods.html

This sounds like something from a first statement? That could be why she was interviewed again (after SH didn't mention her presence at all in the TV interview) and why she then had to admit she was on a night shift at the time? I acknowledge the Telegraph could have got it wrong, but it reads as fact.

Yes, it does read as fact. But it could be an assumption.

NB doesn't mention who was the last person to see TS in the Press Conference aired in the evening of Monday 6th.

SH was formally interviewed as a witness Wed 8th Aug.

NB holds another press conference shown in the evening on Wed 8th where he confirms a witness has come forward to say TS was seen leaving the house on Fri 3rd. Again no mention of CS being at home or otherwise on Fri 3rd.

According to the LES timeline, CS was interviewed as a witness in the afternoon of Thursday 9th August. It seems it was as a result of this interview that it became known to the public that CS wasn't at home on the morning of Friday 3rd. (Can't find reference to it any earlier but I may have missed it)

This was before the SH interview was shown in the evening of Thurs 9th Aug. But the interview could have been recorded earlier in the day.

 

[MobyBluff]

It could also be just an assumption by the reporters that CS had left for work in the morning - after all that's the pattern for most people.

I think this is the most likely story.

 

[opalsqueak63]

opalsqueak - thanks for the link to the missing person's guidelines which showed what police are supposed to do from day one. I noticed it said that lofts should be checked, plus garages etc - and that if an area hadn't been searched, they had to write down why not. I'm pretty sure the loft wasn't searched on the initial visit as the police said it was a missing person's enquiry (as opposed to looking for a dead body). They searched the bedroom, if I remember, but not the loft. If those rules were ignored, then the police deserve all the flak they get.

Hi Soozie.

Very true - perhaps they did a quick "open door" search the first time, and an officer poked his head up through the hatch and had a quick look around with a torch and saw nothing- he would have been looking for Tia hiding - not a dead body.

He probably couldn't have walked around up in the loft as the roofs are shallow and without balancing on the slats (or whatever you call them) he could have come through the ceiling which would only be plasterboard. There was probably insulation of some kind up there which sometimes needs to be handled with protective clothing.

Perhaps then the officer recorded that the loft had been searched

Perhaps the body was not there when he searched, or perhaps it was there, and was missed.

I have been wondering for a while whether the police would have needed a search warrant to check next doors loft. I have checked and yes, they would need a warrant beforehand.

 

[Skigh]

Yes, it does read as fact. But it could be an assumption.

NB doesn't mention who was the last person to see TS in the Press Conference aired in the evening of Monday 6th.

SH was formally interviewed as a witness Wed 8th Aug.

NB holds another press conference shown in the evening on Wed 8th where he confirms a witness has come forward to say TS was seen leaving the house on Fri 3rd. Again no mention of CS being at home or otherwise on Fri 3rd.

According to the LES timeline, CS was interviewed as a witness in the afternoon of Thursday 9th August. It seems it was as a result of this interview that it became known to the public that CS wasn't at home on the morning of Friday 3rd. (Can't find reference to it any earlier but I may have missed it)This was before the SH interview was shown in the evening of Thurs 9th Aug. But the interview could have been recorded earlier in the day.

Going back to thread 1 in this forum people were discussing it on 6th August

 

[Clio]

Going back to thread 1 in this forum people were discussing it on 6th August

Thx. Do you have a post number? I just looked online now but didn't check back through all the WS posts.

ETA Not to worry, found it

 

[Clio]

Soozieqtips

In post #25 of the first thread, Foxymona posted "Sky news interview with the grandmother says the grandmother was at work and the last person to see Tia was the grandmother's boyfriend."

That was on the 6th August at 4:36PM. So I agree with Cherwell's suggestion that the initial reports of CS being at home on Friday 3rd were just assumptions by the press.

The London Evening Standard comment about CS changing her statement on Thursday 9th can't be true if WS members were talking about it on the 6th Aug!

 

[Cherwell]

perhaps they did a quick "open door" search the first time, and an officer poked his head up through the hatch and had a quick look around with a torch and saw nothing- he would have been looking for Tia hiding - not a dead body.

He probably couldn't have walked around up in the loft as the roofs are shallow and without balancing on the slats (or whatever you call them) he could have come through the ceiling which would only be plasterboard. There was probably insulation of some kind up there which sometimes needs to be handled with protective clothing.

Perhaps then the officer recorded that the loft had been searched

Perhaps the body was not there when he searched, or perhaps it was there, and was missed.

I suspect that opal has it spot on here.

If you picture the scene, it's not hard to see how a bag wouldn't attract any particular attention at this stage, especially if there were other items up there.

 

[soozieqtips]

I suspect that opal has it spot on here.

If you picture the scene, it's not hard to see how a bag wouldn't attract any particular attention at this stage, especially if there were other items up there.

Except that we know the loft wasn't searched at this stage, remember? opalsqueak posted a very useful link to police guidelines on what to search during the first visit - and lofts are included, even on the first search.

From Neil Basu:

"An initial visit was made to assess the situation and examine the property.
This visit was not regarded or viewed as a full search of the property.

'The second visit was a full search of the property with the consent of the occupiers. This was conducted on 5 August over a period of two hours. All parts of the premises were searched including the location where a body was discovered, five days later, on Friday 10 August.'

Basu said that 4 searches were carried out, so that includes the first one in which the loft was not searched, otherwise it would have been deemed a 'full search' - like the one on Sunday was deemed. The point is they didn't adhere to the 'missing persons' guidelines.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-body-missing-12-year-old.html#ixzz24ZkIcqCd

 

[Saturn]

Am unsure if this has been raised on this forum (I've read so many), but this is a cut and paste from a UK forum (not crime dedicated).

"My next door neighbour's a police detective. He reckons that at some point before the arrest, the police would have hidden microphones and possibly cameras in the house in the hope Hazel incriminating himself."

Sorry if Websleuths has already mentioned this.

 

[Clio]

I've never thought that the adjoing loft theories held much water but I'm not so sure now. Opalsqueaks post about needing a warrant to search a next door loft has made me have a rethink.

If we assume that there is some sort of inter-building loft access then theoretically the body could have been taken up into the loft in CS's house and carried into a next door loft.

One reason I dismissed the adjoing loft theory is because I was assuming the body was eventually found in CS's loft. Therefore it would have had to have been retrieved from the neighbours loft and placed in CS's loft sometime before it was finally found on Friday 10th. This made no sense to me.

But we don't actually know where the body was found. All we know is that the police said they should have found it during the second search conducted on Sunday 5th.

The police have also said that it was down to human error that the body wasn't found and that they want to look into management and processes aswell.

If the body was in the next door loft, maybe police did follow procedure and do a thorough search of CS's loft on Sunday 5th. Maybe the human error and management and process review comments made by the police relate in some way to not getting warrants to search the neighbouring lofts.

I've also been sceptical that the neigbour who was arrested on suspicion of assisting an offender was arrested just for a reported sighting of TS on Friday 3rd.

Not suggesting that the neighbour was necessarily complicit but it would make a lot more sense to me as to why he was arrested and bailed on that charge if the body was eventually found in his loftspace.

 

[soozieqtips]

But we don't actually know where the body was found. All we know is that the police said they should have found it during the second search conducted on Sunday 5th.

Meanwhile, it has emerged the body was found in a black bed sheet in a black bag in the loft of the house.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19240104

The body of 12-year-old Tia Sharp was found wrapped in a black bedsheet in a black bag in the loft of her grandmother's house, it has emerged.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/13/tia-sharp-body-found-bedsheet-loft

The police admitted they had previously searched the location where Tia's body was found, but had missed it.

They took ladders in. Where do you think she was found?