Re: Missing Tia Sharp

by Invinoveritas 15.08.12 19:46

DLinne8 wrote:All I'm going to say is this:

Tia may have been smothered to muffle protestations, so as not to wake someone sleeping upstairs.

I don't think this happened during the night.

pure speculation on your part, put your theory online and we can discuss it

by DLinne8 15.08.12 19:47

PeterMac wrote:Don't asume they sleep upstairs.
Or even in a bed.

Edited to say: Tia may have been smothered to muffle protestations, so as not to wake the one other person in the house sleeping. Think about when you would need to sleep if you are working a long night shift. Now, you might just add the number of hours at home sleeping to those that you worked, so you have an alibi for a whole day, pretending you were out the whole time.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 19:54

Why would you need to shut someone up in such an immediate, panicky way, unless there was someone very close by who could hear? Why not just threaten the person, tell them to be quiet etc.? The answer is because somebody else was in that house - imo

by DLinne8 15.08.12 19:57

Invinoveritas wrote:
DLinne8 wrote:All I'm going to say is this:

Tia may have been smothered to muffle protestations, so as not to wake someone sleeping upstairs.

I don't think this happened during the night.

pure speculation on your part, put your theory online and we can discuss it

Yes it is all speculation, I have absolutely know evidence for it.

by tiny 15.08.12 20:13

DLinne8 wrote:All I'm going to say is this:

Tia may have been smothered to muffle protestations, so as not to wake someone sleeping upstairs.

I don't think this happened during the night.

yes that could have happend,but would the person who did this take the chance of getting her upstairs into the loft if there was someone sleeping up there,if not where do you think the person hid the body till the coast was clear.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 20:19

tiny wrote:
DLinne8 wrote:All I'm going to say is this:

Tia may have been smothered to muffle protestations, so as not to wake someone sleeping upstairs.

I don't think this happened during the night.

yes that could have happend,but would the person who did this take the chance of getting her upstairs into the loft if there was someone sleeping up there,if not where do you think the person hid the body till the coast was clear.

I think she was wrapped in a bedsheet and placed under her bed, or in her wardrobe; remember she had her own room in that house. Knowing that the other occupant wouldn't be searching her room, the offender could then wait until the other occupant left the house for work before spending the night wrapping the body in bin bags and hiding the body in the loft. Or perish the thought, she might have been placed in her bed as if she was sleeping.

by tiny 15.08.12 20:37

yes but would the offender take the chance that the person who was asleep upstairs would not be awake.

could you not put your theory up, it would be easier to follow.

by Smokeandmirrors 15.08.12 21:08

I thought making a big deal about doing hoovering was odd. I considered the noise a hoover can make, some are very loud, hard to hear other goings on over the top etc. I didn't believe the notion that it muffled out a conversation (not that a loud hoover wouldn't ), the reason he allegedly didn't hear Tia as she left as per the original story that was given. It didn't ring true.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 21:13

tiny wrote:yes but would the offender take the chance that the person who was asleep upstairs would not be awake.

could you not put your theory up, it would be easier to follow.

OK. I think she was killed on Thurs. 2nd in the evening, but before the other occupant had left the house for work, and was sleeping (as works nights). I think the reason might be that Tia threatened to tell the person that was sleeping something private, and it was too risky for the other person to try and talk her round using his usual charm, what with the other person sleeping in the house. So she was suffocated. I think who did it just panicked and probably used a pillow or cushion so didn't have to see the face. I think the person who did it probably shocked themselves with their power to take a life.

Obv. when the person was sleeping the body could be quickly hidden somewhere temporary. Yes, there would still be risk, but the perpetrator had no choice and had to do something quick once the deed was done.

Is that ok or did you want my theory on a specific aspect?

by DLinne8 15.08.12 21:16

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
I thought making a big deal about doing hoovering was odd. I considered the noise a hoover can make, some are very loud, hard to hear other goings on over the top etc. I didn't believe the notion that it muffled out a conversation (not that a loud hoover wouldn't ), the reason he allegedly didn't hear Tia as she left as per the original story that was given. It didn't ring true.

Yes, and also the fact that he referred to her as mumbling, and at another stage as her going on and on, in one ear and out the other. It didn't ring true to me, as I thought seeing as they apparently spent so many hours in each other's company he might have at least heard something she said!

by DLinne8 15.08.12 21:22

CS said that she hadn't seen Tia in the 24 hours leading up to noon on the Friday she 'went missing'. This could well be true, however it doesn't mean she wasn't in the house. She may well have been in the house, but sleeping, as she worked on Thursday night. So even if she was in that house at the time Tia died, she has an alibi; she was asleep.

Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

by Ribisl 15.08.12 21:25

Pointless and morbid speculacions. If your agenda was to turn this forum into a lowbrow chat room, you are rapidly succeeding.

by AskTheDogsSandra 15.08.12 21:31

@ DLinne8: No need for the pipe and smoke it comment.

@Ribsisl: And no need to chastise DLinne8 for posting up a theory after being asked to do so.

by Spaniel 15.08.12 21:31

alison wrote:And I understand now too! What you are saying is that an explanation had to be found for the fact that the phone was there....so leaving the phone on charge was the reason given.

Yes, but any idea of Tia borrowing her mother's phone was an invention by DLinne8. That is how forum myths originate and merge into facts.

This case is complicated enough with the press giving snippets, such as Tia may have been alive earlier, without inventions such as a borrowed mobile phone muddying the waters.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 21:33

Ribisl wrote:Pointless and morbid speculacions. If your agenda was to turn this forum into a lowbrow chat room, you are rapidly succeeding.

I thought we were here to speculate. I didn't intend to anger or offend anyone. Thank you for letting me know how my comments have come across.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 21:37

Spaniel wrote:
alison wrote:And I understand now too! What you are saying is that an explanation had to be found for the fact that the phone was there....so leaving the phone on charge was the reason given.

Yes, but any idea of Tia borrowing her mother's phone was an invention by DLinne8. That is how forum myths originate and merge into facts.

This case is complicated enough with the press giving snippets, such as Tia may have been alive earlier, without inventions such as a borrowed mobile phone muddying the waters.

No it is not an invention. I read it in a newspaper, admittedly perhaps a tabloid and still believe that it is true. It is clear that I'm not welcome here.

by Smokeandmirrors 15.08.12 21:38

DLinne8 wrote:
tiny wrote:yes but would the offender take the chance that the person who was asleep upstairs would not be awake.

could you not put your theory up, it would be easier to follow.

OK. I think she was killed on Thurs. 2nd in the evening, but before the other occupant had left the house for work, and was sleeping (as works nights). I think the reason might be that Tia threatened to tell the person that was sleeping something private, and it was too risky for the other person to try and talk her round using his usual charm, what with the other person sleeping in the house. So she was suffocated. I think who did it just panicked and probably used a pillow or cushion so didn't have to see the face. I think the person who did it probably shocked themselves with their power to take a life.

Obv. when the person was sleeping the body could be quickly hidden somewhere temporary. Yes, there would still be risk, but the perpetrator had no choice and had to do something quick once the deed was done.

Is that ok or did you want my theory on a specific aspect?

Has it been disclosed what hours /times CS was working over that time period? I don't recall if it has been said what time Tia arrived at the house on Thurs, what time CS left for the shift etc. As far as I know it's quite vague. I think it really does matter, because CS is on bail and not been charged, it would be unlikely she'd have been bailed if there was a high chance she knew anything.

ETA: the courts can grant 72hr extensions (I think, please correct if wrong) to question people under the right circumstances, and depending on the level of involvement the police thought that CS and the neighbour had in potentially assisting a concealment or whatever, it obviously wasn't sufficient. At this stage I would not be inclined to overthink the potential complexity of this. I think it might turn out to be a fairly simple scenario, if and when the investigation draws any firm conclusions.

There is always the possibility too, that we might never know, it could end up being accidental death, manslaughter or indeed concealment might be the only provable outcome. Look at the recent Rousing case for example.

by lufc50337 15.08.12 22:01

Just because the other 2 have been bailed doesn't mean they aren't going to be charged,

the evidence maybe needs collating to have a strong case to charge on the bail date

by Spaniel 15.08.12 22:30

DLinne8 wrote:
Spaniel wrote:
alison wrote:And I understand now too! What you are saying is that an explanation had to be found for the fact that the phone was there....so leaving the phone on charge was the reason given.

Yes, but any idea of Tia borrowing her mother's phone was an invention by DLinne8. That is how forum myths originate and merge into facts.

This case is complicated enough with the press giving snippets, such as Tia may have been alive earlier, without inventions such as a borrowed mobile phone muddying the waters.

No it is not an invention. I read it in a newspaper, admittedly perhaps a tabloid and still believe that it is true. It is clear that I'm not welcome here.

If you make a claim that is not common knowledge then please post a link.

You must understand that if we summised, later down the line it would be posted as fact.

Search your browsing history to find it? I read most papers online that are free, I however missed it.

Are you the plane spotter by any chance? If so I found that all interesting.

by DLinne8 15.08.12 22:40

Spaniel wrote:
DLinne8 wrote:
Spaniel wrote:
alison wrote:And I understand now too! What you are saying is that an explanation had to be found for the fact that the phone was there....so leaving the phone on charge was the reason given.

Yes, but any idea of Tia borrowing her mother's phone was an invention by DLinne8. That is how forum myths originate and merge into facts.

This case is complicated enough with the press giving snippets, such as Tia may have been alive earlier, without inventions such as a borrowed mobile phone muddying the waters.

No it is not an invention. I read it in a newspaper, admittedly perhaps a tabloid and still believe that it is true. It is clear that I'm not welcome here.
If you make a claim that is not common knowledge then please post a link.

You must understand that if we summised, later down the line it would be posted as fact.

Search your browsing history to find it? I read most papers online that are free, I however missed it.

Are you the plane spotter by any chance? If so I found that all interesting.

"Tia was using her mother's mobile phone, as hers is broken"

And here is the link: http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Tia-Sharp-Items-belong-missing-12-year-old-search/story-16661786-detail/story.html

by Smokeandmirrors 15.08.12 22:46

Thanks for that link. It is interesting to note that in the article she was reported missing at 6pm. If this is correct reporting, then that would mean she was reported missing at the exact time she was allegedly told to be back.

by Spaniel 15.08.12 23:06

DLinne8 wrote:
Spaniel wrote:
DLinne8 wrote:
Spaniel wrote:
alison wrote:And I understand now too! What you are saying is that an explanation had to be found for the fact that the phone was there....so leaving the phone on charge was the reason given.

Yes, but any idea of Tia borrowing her mother's phone was an invention by DLinne8. That is how forum myths originate and merge into facts.

This case is complicated enough with the press giving snippets, such as Tia may have been alive earlier, without inventions such as a borrowed mobile phone muddying the waters.

No it is not an invention. I read it in a newspaper, admittedly perhaps a tabloid and still believe that it is true. It is clear that I'm not welcome here.
If you make a claim that is not common knowledge then please post a link.

You must understand that if we summised, later down the line it would be posted as fact.

Search your browsing history to find it? I read most papers online that are free, I however missed it.

Are you the plane spotter by any chance? If so I found that all interesting.

"Tia was using her mother's mobile phone, as hers is broken"

And here is the link: [url=http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Tia-Sharp-Items-belong-missing-12-year-old-search/story-16661786-detail/story.html

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Tia-Sharp-Items-belong-missing-12-year-old-search/story-16661786-detail/story.html[/quote[/url]]

Thanks for that link. Do you see what I was getting at? Anyone can pluck something out of thin air, but provide a link and it validates it.

by justme3 16.08.12 0:42

Posted by Spaniel. "Yes, but any idea of Tia borrowing her mother's phone was an invention by DLinne8. That is how forum myths originate and merge into facts".

It's snipes like this, that prevent people from posting on here, and it's a common trait of spaniel's. He made a snide remark about me, a few days ago, but I let it go, and said nothing, but there comes a time when people have to strike back.

I probably know more about the McCann case, for example, than many people who post here. Some of the information is so sensitive, that I would never post it directly on here, but I have given this information to a few in pms.

So, try to keep the snipes to a minimum, Spaniel, and maybe, just maybe, more people will post here

by justme3 16.08.12 0:58

I don't know if this has been posted on here, but here is a list of the people who were said to be living in the same house as Stuart Hazell, between 2005-12 Denis Alden Tia Sharp David Sharp Stuart Hazell Natalie Sharp Christine Sharp Christine Bicknell

by DLinne8 16.08.12 1:25

As a teenager, before having Tia, NS was to have her first relationship with a violent drug addict and dealer, with multiple convictions:

'He had allegedly hit her over the head with a half-empty brandy bottle, kicked her face, and punched her in the jaw.'

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Log in for more topics