Re: Missing Tia Sharp

by Guest 15.08.12 12:49

DLinne8 wrote:Mods: Is it OK if I post a fictional dialogue about what may have happened in the aftermath of the murder? It isn't gratuitous and doesn't implicate anybody else except SH, as my belief is he was the only one involved. Should I just post and you can always delete? Let me know, thanks.

I really don't think there is need for a speculative fictional dialogue DLinne8.

by grove39 15.08.12 13:26

Julchen wrote:
Nina wrote:I really don't think that we should tar the whole estate with the 'sink' title.One thing that I noticed when the helicopter shots were being shown was just how tidy some of the gardens did look. There was one, in the same row as Grandma's I believe where there back garden was paved with table and chairs so obviously a houseproud resident, and there were others with flowers and shrubs and children's slides and the like.
The Grandmas house on the other hand was scruffy and unkempt. Didn't Hazel say he had given Tia 10 pounds to help him with the garden?

I used Street View to get an impression of the area.
I noticed a huge difference between the "old" part with the 30s/40s semi-detached houses and the "new" 60s part with the terraces.
The old part looks really inviting and clean.
The new part looks like the worst bit of estate in our area.
Even from the satellite views you can notice the difference. The new part looks cramped and the blocks of garages don't really enhance the impression.

Jule

the old part is the bottom half of the estate and the new part is at the top of the estate where all the semi detached houses are.

the top half is actually the nicer end of the estate.

by Julchen 15.08.12 13:55

the old part is the bottom half of the estate and the new part is at the top of the estate where all the semi detached houses are.

the top half is actually the nicer end of the estate.

I don't know about upper and/or lower.

I just "jumped" into one of the streets with 30s style semis and was quite impressed how nice these houses looked.
Streets seemed wider but still kind of leafy.

Dropping the street view figure near the terraces was quite a shock. I started in front of a row of garages and it got worse the further I "drove/walked". I happened to suddenly stand in front of "the Lindens".

Pity that good ideas seem to turn sour once it's being lived for a certain amount of time.

Doesn't only happen to council estates. Some new build developments round here haven't survived their first 5 years. Already on their way to (human) rubbish dumps.

What a shame!

Jule

by Julchen 15.08.12 13:58

candyfloss wrote:Danny Shaw‏@DannyShawBBC
#tiasharp Judge says hearing for Hazell to enter a plea on Nov 19. Provisional trial date Jan 21

Why do court cases always take so long before they really get going?
This is meant as a serious question since I am used to a quick working system.
Wouldn't it be better and more sufficient to trial a person as long as witness's memories are fresh and evidence not gathering dust,yet?

Jule

by grove39 15.08.12 14:00

Julchen wrote:

the old part is the bottom half of the estate and the new part is at the top of the estate where all the semi detached houses are.

the top half is actually the nicer end of the estate.

I don't know about upper and/or lower.

I just "jumped" into one of the streets with 30s style semis and was quite impressed how nice these houses looked.
Streets seemed wider but still kind of leafy.

Dropping the street view figure near the terraces was quite a shock. I started in front of a row of garages and it got worse the further I "drove/walked". I happened to suddenly stand in front of "the Lindens".

Pity that good ideas seem to turn sour once it's being lived for a certain amount of time.

Doesn't only happen to council estates. Some new build developments round here haven't survived their first 5 years. Already on their way to (human) rubbish dumps.

What a shame!

Jule

where the Lindens is would be known as the bottom of the estate which is the oldest part and the further you go to the other end the newer the houses get.

when i lived on that estate and close by, the top part was always known as the "new estate", i even know somebody who still lives in Uvedale Crescent and i'm 99% sure that those houses were built in the 60's

by Guest 15.08.12 14:28

Julchen wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Danny Shaw‏@DannyShawBBC
#tiasharp Judge says hearing for Hazell to enter a plea on Nov 19. Provisional trial date Jan 21

Why do court cases always take so long before they really get going?
This is meant as a serious question since I am used to a quick working system.
Wouldn't it be better and more sufficient to trial a person as long as witness's memories are fresh and evidence not gathering dust,yet?

Jule

A number of reasons: court timetables, the need for both prosecution and defence to prepare cases and disclose documentation ( remember the postmortem is not yet concluded and a cause of death has not yet been established) , on going enquiries ( remember 2 other people are presently remanded on police bail pending further investigations) which may in turn have an impact on both the prosecution and defence cases.

Witnesses will have provided statements of course.

by **PeterMac** 15.08.12 14:32

Julchen wrote:
Why do court cases always take so long before they really get going?
This is meant as a serious question since I am used to a quick working system.
Wouldn't it be better and more sufficient to trial a person as long as witness's memories are fresh and evidence not gathering dust,yet?
Jule

Yes, it would, but the defence will need as much time as they can get to prepare the defence.
If you have quick court hearings people tend to plead guilty, which does the profession no good at all !
We used to do it after football matches, in the violent days of the 70s and 80s, and they did it again during the riots.
But there is no money in a ten minute plea in mitigation. A QC will need at least 6 months to consider every word of the prosecution file, before he can even consider advising his client. And before that the defending solicitors will have had to have read every word, and had long conferences with the Junior.Justice must be seen to be done.

And conditions on remand are much more pleasant than after sentence, so the longer the accused can spin it out, the better for him.
And the police have to cover every possible eventuality, every possible defence trick or ambush. The case has to be absolutely watertight before the DPP will even entertain going ahead.

by aiyoyo 15.08.12 14:36

Although Tia had clearly been dead
for some time, officers have not been able to rule out that the
schoolgirl was alive when colleagues first visited the council house in
New Addington, near Croydon, South London, after she vanished a week
earlier.

Wonder what the Press is trying to tell us in my bolded bits?
That she could be alive even after the alert was raised? In fact someone tweeted this a few days back....something along the line "what if she was alive between searches...." or something to that effect.

Don't know what to make of this - wonder if that's pure speculation or got wind of this from investigating quarters as a result of autopsy. Also wonder why autopsy is paused, and formal identification also delayed?

It must be real frustrating for the police when they knew they missed her recovery during the critical initial hours.
The Police are really doing a thankless job. When they did well no one praises them, but when they made mistakes which is only human, criticisms come down on them like tons of proverbial. Front line police are mostly good guys who suffer occupational hazard of being badly emotionally affected by the gruesome body recovery at the same time laden with feeling of not having done enough for the victim.

by Guest 15.08.12 14:46

Criminal cases certainly used to be heard within a few months in comparatively recent history. As examples, the Moors Murderers were arrested in October 1965 and tried in April 1966; Ruth Ellis was tried and executed within three months in 1955 and the very controversial execution of Derek Bentley was carried out in January 1953 barely three months after the murder of a policeman which his 16-year-old accomplice had committed.

Nowadays it's often well over a year before cases come to court.

by AskTheDogsSandra 15.08.12 14:49

Jean wrote:Criminal cases certainly used to be heard within a few months in comparatively recent history. As examples, the Moors Murderers were arrested in October 1965 and tried in April 1966; Ruth Ellis was tried and executed within three months in 1955 and the very controversial execution of Derek Bentley was carried out in January 1953 barely three months after the murder of a policeman which his 16-year-old accomplice had committed.

Nowadays it's often well over a year before cases come to court.

More than 5 years in the case of doctors.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 14:54

It seems that SH has been living with CS for about 9 years. Initially CS was living there with her husband, DA, and her two kids. When Tia was 3, SH moved in. Presumably he shared a room with Tia and NS. However, he was in prison for 2.5 yrs shortly after moving in, during which time NS moved out and settled down with DN. DA thought SH was bad news and hoped the family would be rid of him for good. It seems that he didn't like the way SH treated his daughter. For some reason, despite his many convictions, the rest of the family seemed to adore him. In 2010, CS allowed a homeless SH to move in, fresh from his latest bout in prison as she pitied him, and thought he was a 'changed man'.

by AskTheDogsSandra 15.08.12 14:58

DLinne8 wrote:It seems that SH has been living with CS for about 9 years. Initially CS was living there with her husband, DA, and her two kids. When Tia was 3, SH moved in. Presumably he shared a room with Tia and NS. However, he was in prison for 2.5 yrs shortly after moving in, during which time NS moved out and settled down with DN. DA thought SH was bad news and hoped the family would be rid of him for good. It seems that he didn't like the way SH treated his daughter. For some reason, despite his many convictions, the rest of the family seemed to adore him. In 2010, CS allowed a homeless SH to move in, fresh from his latest bout in prison as she pitied him, and thought he was a 'changed man'.

I wonder what CS thinks about him now? I wonder if she had any part in this? Tia was her granddaughter FFS. I can't imagine a granny doing anything like this to her own daughter's child.

and why do the press call SH Tia's step granddad when he and CS weren't even married?

by DLinne8 15.08.12 15:07

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:
DLinne8 wrote:It seems that SH has been living with CS for about 9 years. Initially CS was living there with her husband, DA, and her two kids. When Tia was 3, SH moved in. Presumably he shared a room with Tia and NS. However, he was in prison for 2.5 yrs shortly after moving in, during which time NS moved out and settled down with DN. DA thought SH was bad news and hoped the family would be rid of him for good. It seems that he didn't like the way SH treated his daughter. For some reason, despite his many convictions, the rest of the family seemed to adore him. In 2010, CS allowed a homeless SH to move in, fresh from his latest bout in prison as she pitied him, and thought he was a 'changed man'.

I wonder what CS thinks about him now? I wonder if she had any part in this? Tia was her granddaughter FFS. I can't imagine a granny doing anything like this to her own daughter's child.

and why do the press call SH Tia's step granddad when he and CS weren't even married?

BTW the timeline is complicated and not accurate, but along those lines. Apparently Tia called him 'granddad' and so the media held on to this emotive nugget of information. I think the family will be distraught because I get the impression that 'anything goes' on estates like this with the exception of hurting 'one of your own'. I'm not sure about CS but on this forum we can't speculate about that. She may well be completely innocent on all fronts.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 15:12

Regarding whether NS bears any responsibility for leaving her daughter alone with SH, I would say probably not. She knew him for a decade, dated him at one stage, and he may have proved himself to be trustworthy to her and loyal to the family, no matter what criminal activity he perpetrated outside of that family. The impression one gets from his family and friends is that he has a laid-back, charming and playful character.

by pauline 15.08.12 15:14

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:[

and why do the press call SH Tia's step granddad when he and CS weren't even married?

it's due to political correctness I think. I too find the phrase step granddad very annoying. The correct term is 'live in boyfriend'.

I also hate the term 'partner' for unmarried couples who chose not to be married. It should be live in boyfriend/girlfriend

by pauline 15.08.12 15:21

DLinne8 wrote:Regarding whether NS bears any responsibility for leaving her daughter alone with SH, I would say probably not. She knew him for a decade, dated him at one stage, and he may have proved himself to be trustworthy to her and loyal to the family, no matter what criminal activity he perpetrated outside of that family. The impression one gets from his family and friends is that he has a laid-back, charming and playful character.

I don't agree.

If Hazell was so nice and trustworthy, why Natalie split from him? His criminal activity was drug dealing and violence - even if he did not sell drugs to her family or attack them, no 'normal' person would want her young daughter spending weekends with him especially with her mother sometimes away working.

Family and friends do not necessarily tell the truth to the media or to the police - I can think of a family where I suspect this is the case - no prizes for guessing to which family I refer!

Both Natalie and Christine in my opinion have a lot to answer for.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 15:30

pauline wrote:
DLinne8 wrote:Regarding whether NS bears any responsibility for leaving her daughter alone with SH, I would say probably not. She knew him for a decade, dated him at one stage, and he may have proved himself to be trustworthy to her and loyal to the family, no matter what criminal activity he perpetrated outside of that family. The impression one gets from his family and friends is that he has a laid-back, charming and playful character.

I don't agree.

If Hazell was so nice and trustworthy, why Natalie split from him? His criminal activity was drug dealing and violence - even if he did not sell drugs to her family or attack them, no 'normal' person would want her young daughter spending weekends with him especially with her mother sometimes away working.

Family and friends do not necessarily tell the truth to the media or to the police - I can think of a family where I suspect this is the case - no prizes for guessing to which family I refer!

Both Natalie and Christine in my opinion have a lot to answer for.

I keep changing my mind. At some points I think of all the family members sitting upstairs in that house on the day before she was found, and wonder if it is possible they didn't know anything. They have repeated verbatim parts of SH's own made up timeline of events, without preceding with 'SH said...', just repeating it as fact. Is it possible that not one of them noticed him acting strangely, that they believed his lies without a doubt? That they smelt nothing, saw nothing, Thurs. 9th, when MWT wasn't allowed upstairs where they all were?

by Guest 15.08.12 16:46

DLinne8 wrote: [...] At some points I think of all the family members sitting upstairs in that house on the day before she was found, and wonder if it is possible they didn't know anything. They have repeated verbatim parts of SH's own made up timeline of events, without preceding with 'SH said...', just repeating it as fact. Is it possible that not one of them noticed him acting strangely, that they believed his lies without a doubt? That they smelt nothing, saw nothing, Thurs. 9th, when MWT wasn't allowed upstairs where they all were?

***
Good gracious. I missed that "detail" ... They were all upstairs and didn't smell anything? Less than a day before her decomposing body was found? I cannot believe that.

ETA if true that throws a different light on the family sad

IMO

by DLinne8 15.08.12 16:56

Châtelaine wrote:
DLinne8 wrote: [...] At some points I think of all the family members sitting upstairs in that house on the day before she was found, and wonder if it is possible they didn't know anything. They have repeated verbatim parts of SH's own made up timeline of events, without preceding with 'SH said...', just repeating it as fact. Is it possible that not one of them noticed him acting strangely, that they believed his lies without a doubt? That they smelt nothing, saw nothing, Thurs. 9th, when MWT wasn't allowed upstairs where they all were?
***
Good gracious. I missed that "detail" ... They were all upstairs and didn't smell anything? Less than a day before her decomposing body was found? I cannot believe that.

ETA if true that throws a different light on the family IMO

Yes. Can't find the tweet from MWT, but it stated in no uncertain terms that as he was interviewing SH the day before body found, the rest of the family were upstairs. He didn't go upstairs, and he was not allowed in Tia's room.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 17:07

If there was a noticeable smell upstairs on Friday morning, I would have thought that somebody else in that house must have smelt death in the stillness of the previous night...

by AskTheDogsSandra 15.08.12 17:12

DLinne8 wrote:If there was a noticeable smell upstairs on Friday morning, I would have thought that somebody else in that house must have smelt death in the stillness of the previous night...

If there was a noticeable smell you'd think they wouldn't have asked MWT to enter the house.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 17:18

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:
DLinne8 wrote:If there was a noticeable smell upstairs on Friday morning, I would have thought that somebody else in that house must have smelt death in the stillness of the previous night...

If there was a noticeable smell you'd think they wouldn't have asked MWT to enter the house.

It clearly started to smell somewhere upstairs at some point, maybe only after the interview and location had been confirmed? And maybe only in one bedroom? The pre-arranged searched was brought forward, after this smell was noticed.

by Guest 15.08.12 17:26

Has anyone safeguarded the MWT Thursday interview with SH? It seems to have been removed from the net ...

by Guest 15.08.12 17:27

This is a link to the ITV webpage where MWT`s tweet is displayed:

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-08-10/criminologist-on-tia-sharpe-case-such-sad-news/

It does state " family" but we don`t know who that includes.

The interview took place on Thursday, 9th August.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 17:36

alison wrote:This is a link to the ITV webpage where MWT`s tweet is displayed:

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-08-10/criminologist-on-tia-sharpe-case-such-sad-news/

It does state " family" but we don`t know who that includes.

The interview took place on Thursday, 9th August.

DS, CS, NS, SH, maybe others were using that house as a base up until the Friday afternoon when they were asked to leave for the search.

Log in for more topics