Missing Tia Sharp

Taking a step back, it is interesting to observe the similarities between this case and Madeleine McCann, especially now we seem to know what the likely truth is

The immediate media publicity frenzy started with Sky & The Sun...Martin Brunt at the forefront...Turning into virtual 24/7 coverage
Reward money offered by the Sun
T-Shirts printed immediately
Posters made immediately
Sightings

Inconsistent and changing stories of the 'facts'
"Grandfather" and Grandmother seemingly obsession with 'cleaning'

Kay Burley when interviewing John O'Connor Wednesday/Thursday on Sky News stated that the family were complaining that the police were not doing enough. Kay Burley also brought the word 'abduction' into the interview. Also, the female reporter on the hourly Sky news started to use words 'leaving no stone unturned'

The 'jane tanner' sighting by the neighbour as reported & named in the Telegraph (coincidentally) Jane Harry..."Last time that I saw her was on Friday afternoon at about midday when she was leaving her grandma's and walking up the street here."......What it is very important here apart from it being a total big fat lie, it opens the door wide open to 'abduction' and takes the focus away from the truth to a misleading false trail that could last for years. Had the police not found the body, then the general public and media would now only be thinking that Tia must have been abducted. Anybody with an opinion that any of the family has involvement would be demeaned as 'ghouls' etc and no doubt generate the level of hatred of trolls we have seen in Maddies case...All based on the neighbours 'word' that she definitely saw Tia leave the house that Friday afternoon, just like Tanner saw her abductor man/woman

The candle vigil whilst wearing all their t-shirts. Led by the lead suspect. Those that are covering a lie need to be control of the situation and leading it, their sub conscious guilt tells them so. One reason why I think the mccanns totally dismiss the Smith sighting is because they have no control over it but have total control with jane tanners. Its interesting to note that SH describes Tia as an 'angel'...a description used by a friend in the Maddie case statements. And the push of the word 'happy' by SH and the neighbour who helped out, a description used often by friends in the Maddie case statements....Jane Harry "She was wearing a white top and leopard print leggings. But she had nothing on her, nothing in her hands, but she seemed happy, happy at that time.........She is the same age as my son J***. She was here all last week playing in the street with a group of other kids, they were all happy and riding their bikes and they seemed fine"....SH in his interviews says Tia was "“a happy-go-lucky golden angel”

Taking away the body being found, what Tia and Maddie both had in common from the outset is that they both just suddenly vanished into thin air without any trace. In Tia's case, no CCTV images/pictures of her after she left the house and nor was there ever going to be, only the word of a neighbour to convince everyone 'in effect' that it had nothing to do with the family. Very similar to Maddie, a friends sighting the only word most people are convinced by especially the mccann machine, hardly any pictures from the holiday except a few dodgy photoshopped ones which took 3 weeks to be released, not on their cameras and seemingly never given to the police. From the outset Tia vanished without any trace, Maddie vanished and 5 whole years later without any trace nor a single shred of evidence of an abduction. In both cases help was given by friends in what seems to be a cover up, who says friends do not help. The difference between the 2 cases is we now know what happened to Tia

I cannot imagine the trauma Tia's mother is going through. Nobody can say what they would do in this situation she is in, my heart goes out to her. I don't think there can be any words of comfort except to take heart from the support of her community, police, and the general public at large

Shannon's mother's latest partner was called Craig Meehan. He was not convicted or even charged with anything relating to the hoax abduction but for possessing child pornography.

dragonfly wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Popcorn wrote:I find it interesting that there are now three people under arrest in connection with Tia's murder. I often hear people insist that the McCanns must be innocent because other people - their friends - would never help them to cover up a crime against their daughter. If Tia's case carries on in the direction it's going, it would appear that some people will do exactly that.

I am absolutely sure that this occurred following the killing of Stuart Lubbock at Michael Barrymore's home at around 4.30pm on 1 April 2001.

Three men were arrested on suspicion of murder: Michael Barrymore, his then-lover Joanthan Kenney, a drag queen from Lancashire, and Justin Merritt, who was a local drug-dealer in the area (maybe still is). But there were six other people at that so-called party who I am sure did not participate in the acts that killed Stuart (one of them Justin Merritt's sister). I am sure they were bought off and warned. I read the police witness statements and one of the two girls picked up from the local night-club by bBrrymore and his associates that night referred in her statement to her 'crying because there had been a rape...' But she refused to say more

off topic, Tony would you be able to start a thread on Barrymore, I would be interested to hear more about that case, as I only know the version the papers printed, Thanks in advance

Yes, I'll be pleased to do that, I'll put it up later this evening in the section called 'Crime, Corruption and Conspiracy', or something like that, I might just add a 'taster' or two from my book on the case* as well

* NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away with Murder, Terry Lubbock and Tony Bennett

Spaniel wrote:Drangonfly, after the trial, I too would like to hear Tony's view on many of his works. With Tony preparing, maybe now is not the time.

The most disgusting accusation was that the hospital staff caused the injuries. If we do ever discuss it, I hope it's not here for public viewing but to trusted members only.

There is indeed a section in my book on how Barrymore raised this issue; I don't think it needs to be hidden from public view, though, since much of this came out at the Inquest and was fully reported on by all the mainstream media

Well said, jd

tcat wrote:Well said, jd

Seconded! jd rocks!

ProfessorPPlum wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I've been following this on DigitalSpy, although not all of the hundreds of pages of posts! I did just want to mention that there were loads of people commenting that no-one should jump to conclusions or be judgemental about the type of family, neighbourhood etc and it was making me quite cross really. Whilst we might not have got every detail spot-on (certainly based on what has been thus far confirmed via the news), many people have been pretty bang-on from the off. Our instincts and ability to read situations is overall pretty good as is panning out as the days go by - so what exactly IS wrong with being judgemental?

I make no apologies for be as judgemental as hell - in early middle age, I have had plenty of time to observe behaviours and consequences, as have very many. We have often used our suspicions and judgements wisely, and one might even go as far to say that on occasions our judgements have helped us divert potentially dangerous situations. History shows us that time and time again, our initial observations ad judgements are entirely worthy. So why oh why do some faux do-gooders persist in hectoring us with the notion that it is wrong to make value judgements and have opinions about characteristics and behaviours which we know damn well are not conducive to decent and harmonious living?

This case has so far vindicated "judgemental" thinking. What do others think of this??

I know I'm a bit late on this but I just wanted to say that sums me up completely. My judgment has served me very well and I trust my intuition because it's never been wrong. I'm not going to dismiss that knowledge / ability for any text-book idea about being 'non-judgmental'. What I try not to do is underestimate people, value them less or treat them differently because of any judgment I form about them.

ETA: Actually, not true. My intuition is *mostly* right. I admit I was wrong in the first instance about the Philpotts - however I kind of let myself off there because I actually don't believe they intended to kill their children at all so the grief I observed was, I think, genuine.

I thought Huntley straight away.

Years later. I read how a perfectly lucid man was returned from Rampton after a few weeks as a shanbling wreck and I'm no longer sure.

For some reason no one wanted to question the very lucrative USA base nearby where the bodies were found. The surrounding economy depending on it.

Long ago, but as far as I remember, no DNA on the footie shirts etc. As the two girls passed beneath the clock it didn't tally with the camera etc. Far worse discepancies than the McCann case.

Whatever, the drug treatment to Huntley was horrific. They turned him into a drugged Zombie who couldn't even stand unaided.

He stood in the dock trembling and dribbling after a couple of weeks at Rampton. Did you see him like this? Nor me, he was quite lucid then.

They saved the McCans and are equally able to condemn others.

If that is far fetched, see how Madeleine's parents were/are protected. Then think of the reverse for a school caretaker.

I don't feel it's a completely different note at all, as I'm sure you not only knew your new partner's friends (always a good indicator for a new relationship) and his relatives, judged him accordingly. You then gradually introduced him into your family.

That is how it should be done and thousands do so very successfully.

Had you then found his friends were drug users, he'd lived with the mother of his ex? No of cause not. He'd have been dropped like a hot brick for the sake of your children if nothing else. You did it the right way. They didn't, and poor Tia has gone.

I don't know the post you refer to, but we can all take offence according to our situation, as any comedian, no matter how inoffensive will attest to.

No way would you have let that man into your circle. Good for you and your family. We all make blunders, me more than most.

Most important "OpenMind" is to carry on your lovely united family.[/quote]

What a lovely reply Spaniel, thank you! With a daughter just a little younger than Tia I am astounded that people get these things so wrong

admin wrote:

tigger wrote:I don't think a retired police officer should - certainly not at this stage - criticise his erstwhile colleagues. Certainly not in public and for the press.
Someone posted earlier that John O'Connor is a great TM supporter? I've never heard of him but clearly he's keen on the limelight.

You should google John O'Connor and Kate and Gerry McCann...you'll find quite a lot!

Thanks, I just did - what an attention seeker! Or worse.... he will need the Colgate special -boot polish removal toothpaste.

Jean wrote:Shannon's mother's latest partner was called Craig Meehan. He was not convicted or even charged with anything relating to the hoax abduction but for possessing child pornography.

So that's alright then!!

eta, not you Jean. Hope he's not still filleting fish. M's was it?

tigger wrote:

admin wrote:

tigger wrote:I don't think a retired police officer should - certainly not at this stage - criticise his erstwhile colleagues. Certainly not in public and for the press.
Someone posted earlier that John O'Connor is a great TM supporter? I've never heard of him but clearly he's keen on the limelight.

You should google John O'Connor and Kate and Gerry McCann...you'll find quite a lot!

Thanks, I just did - what an attention seeker! Or worse.... he will need the Colgate special -boot polish removal toothpaste.

He has an opinion on anything and everything, as long as he knocks his former officer colleagues.

Would he care if not being paid? Not likely!

One of the fundamental facts to be determined in a missing person investigation is the reason why the subject has disappeared. In cases where the circumstances are suspicious or are unexplained, use the maxim:

IF IN DOUBT, THINK MURDER

Failure to apply such thinking in past cases has led to the loss of valuable investigative opportunities. This can ultimately result in failure to trace the missing person or to establish sufficient evidence to convict a perpetrator.

The status of the relationship between the missing person and the person making the initial report can also be important. Investigators should not always assume that such relationships are stable. There have been numerous cases where the person reporting the crime and/or the missing persons has been found to be the perpetrator of the crime.

ACPO (2010) Guidance on the Management, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons

http://www.npia.police.uk/en/17187.htm

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I've been following this on DigitalSpy, although not all of the hundreds of pages of posts! I did just want to mention that there were loads of people commenting that no-one should jump to conclusions or be judgemental about the type of family, neighbourhood etc and it was making me quite cross really. Whilst we might not have got every detail spot-on (certainly based on what has been thus far confirmed via the news), many people have been pretty bang-on from the off. Our instincts and ability to read situations is overall pretty good as is panning out as the days go by - so what exactly IS wrong with being judgemental?

I make no apologies for be as judgemental as hell - in early middle age, I have had plenty of time to observe behaviours and consequences, as have very many. We have often used our suspicions and judgements wisely, and one might even go as far to say that on occasions our judgements have helped us divert potentially dangerous situations. History shows us that time and time again, our initial observations ad judgements are entirely worthy. So why oh why do some faux do-gooders persist in hectoring us with the notion that it is wrong to make value judgements and have opinions about characteristics and behaviours which we know damn well are not conducive to decent and harmonious living?

This case has so far vindicated "judgemental" thinking. What do others think of this??

I haven't got to the end of this thread yet so this could already have been said.

I think its ok to be judgemental when you are right.

But there are cases of being judgemental when you are wrong, the cases of Colin Stagg springs to mind - who I was positive had "done it" and the eccentric neighbour Chris Jeffries in the Jo Yeates case. There lives must have been hell and I bet some people still treat them like they have done something wrong. You can even include Robert Murat in this list.

Olive_Boyle wrote: You can even include Robert Murat in this list.

I don't believe you can include robert murat in this list as it was the mccanns and their friends themselves who put murat into the frame, especially their friend jane tanner. And also the then Sunday Mirror reporter lori campbell in front of the worlds media who gave a full interview on her 'feelings'. Not to mention murat's forgotten facts in his statements which he eventually 'remembered' over time

Olive_Boyle wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I've been following this on DigitalSpy, although not all of the hundreds of pages of posts! I did just want to mention that there were loads of people commenting that no-one should jump to conclusions or be judgemental about the type of family, neighbourhood etc and it was making me quite cross really. Whilst we might not have got every detail spot-on (certainly based on what has been thus far confirmed via the news), many people have been pretty bang-on from the off. Our instincts and ability to read situations is overall pretty good as is panning out as the days go by - so what exactly IS wrong with being judgemental?

I make no apologies for be as judgemental as hell - in early middle age, I have had plenty of time to observe behaviours and consequences, as have very many. We have often used our suspicions and judgements wisely, and one might even go as far to say that on occasions our judgements have helped us divert potentially dangerous situations. History shows us that time and time again, our initial observations ad judgements are entirely worthy. So why oh why do some faux do-gooders persist in hectoring us with the notion that it is wrong to make value judgements and have opinions about characteristics and behaviours which we know damn well are not conducive to decent and harmonious living?

This case has so far vindicated "judgemental" thinking. What do others think of this??

I haven't got to the end of this thread yet so this could already have been said.

I think its ok to be judgemental when you are right.

But there are cases of being judgemental when you are wrong, the cases of Colin Stagg springs to mind - who I was positive had "done it" and the eccentric neighbour Chris Jeffries in the Jo Yeates case. There lives must have been hell and I bet some people still treat them like they have done something wrong. You can even include Robert Murat in this list.

Well said. I suppose the difference between normal folk discussing things and holding their own, possibly very forthright, opinions and what the PRESS and media outlets broadcast, is that the media can form or alter judgements of so many, whereas people just passing comments within a forum or comments section will have little or no bearing on any outcome for the discuss-ee's fate. I do acknowledge hurt feelings when genuine mistakes are made within public perception as with Stagg, and this sort of thing is still an extremely rare occurrence. Obviously someone tied up in a news story (McCanns for example) can complain that it is very damaging to them, but to read or listen to the opinions on forums is an absolute choice, with a very small audience in reality. A headline staring out from the new stands is wholly different IMO as it can be seen by literally millions. This is why libel actions against private individuals is so pointless and only seeks to further publicise what they don't want people to hear.

jd wrote:

Olive_Boyle wrote: You can even include Robert Murat in this list.

I don't believe you can include robert murat in this list as it was the mccanns and their friends themselves who put murat into the frame, especially their friend jane tanner. And also the then Sunday Mirror reporter lori campbell in front of the worlds media who gave a full interview on her 'feelings'. Not to mention murat's forgotten facts in his statements which he eventually 'remembered' over time

I think you can. He has been cleared, hasn't he?, of having any involvement in the McCann case and yet people still believe (you can read it on this forum) that he is involved.

So people are judging him on the likes of Lori Campbell and the McCann clan putting him in the frame.

I'm of the opionion that he has NO involvement in her disappearance whatsoever.

Maybe its only because there has been no conclusion to this case that you don't believe he can be included.

Mark Williams-Thomas‏@mwilliamsthomas
My investigation in the @SundayMirror shows just how child sex offenders r using #Twitter to share material & abuse children #TrulyShocking



Mark Williams-Thomas‏@mwilliamsthomas

Please buy the @SundayMirror tomorrow & read my shocking investigation in child sex offenders on Twitter.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Olive_Boyle wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I've been following this on DigitalSpy, although not all of the hundreds of pages of posts! I did just want to mention that there were loads of people commenting that no-one should jump to conclusions or be judgemental about the type of family, neighbourhood etc and it was making me quite cross really. Whilst we might not have got every detail spot-on (certainly based on what has been thus far confirmed via the news), many people have been pretty bang-on from the off. Our instincts and ability to read situations is overall pretty good as is panning out as the days go by - so what exactly IS wrong with being judgemental?

I make no apologies for be as judgemental as hell - in early middle age, I have had plenty of time to observe behaviours and consequences, as have very many. We have often used our suspicions and judgements wisely, and one might even go as far to say that on occasions our judgements have helped us divert potentially dangerous situations. History shows us that time and time again, our initial observations ad judgements are entirely worthy. So why oh why do some faux do-gooders persist in hectoring us with the notion that it is wrong to make value judgements and have opinions about characteristics and behaviours which we know damn well are not conducive to decent and harmonious living?

This case has so far vindicated "judgemental" thinking. What do others think of this??

I haven't got to the end of this thread yet so this could already have been said.

I think its ok to be judgemental when you are right.

But there are cases of being judgemental when you are wrong, the cases of Colin Stagg springs to mind - who I was positive had "done it" and the eccentric neighbour Chris Jeffries in the Jo Yeates case. There lives must have been hell and I bet some people still treat them like they have done something wrong. You can even include Robert Murat in this list.

Well said. I suppose the difference between normal folk discussing things and holding their own, possibly very forthright, opinions and what the PRESS and media outlets broadcast, is that the media can form or alter judgements of so many, whereas people just passing comments within a forum or comments section will have little or no bearing on any outcome for the discuss-ee's fate. I do acknowledge hurt feelings when genuine mistakes are made within public perception as with Stagg, and this sort of thing is still an extremely rare occurrence. Obviously someone tied up in a news story (McCanns for example) can complain that it is very damaging to them, but to read or listen to the opinions on forums is an absolute choice, with a very small audience in reality. A headline staring out from the new stands is wholly different IMO as it can be seen by literally millions. This is why libel actions against private individuals is so pointless and only seeks to further publicise what they don't want people to hear.

Yes I think you are right. Its hard to form a correct opinion if you are only going on the facts given out by the media. They have their own agenda which is to sell papers/get viewers. They are the worst arm chair detectives of them all. We have to trust they are feeding us correct information.

I suppose its different with the McCann case. We can be judgemental as the case files are out there for all to read. We can form our opinions based on Police work and not on speculation of journalists.

Olive_Boyle wrote:I suppose its different with the McCann case. We can be judgemental as the case files are out there for all to read. We can form our opinions based on Police work and not on speculation of journalists.

Unless your name is Tony Bennett.

"If your child went missing wouldn't you want the whole world to stop and look for them?" in big letters at the bottom of the Tia Sharp poster downloaded from

http://www.missingpeople.org.uk/images/stories/Missing_People_Posters/12-002029-tiasharp.pdf

Whose line IS that anyway?

Tom Rayner‏@RaynerSkyNews
Latest from Met Police on #Tia murder - still no formal identification. post mortem has not yet established formal cause of death.

Tweet from BBC Home Affairs producer....

Liz Shaw‏@Liz_Shaw

Chinese lanterns in memory of #Tia Sharp. Round of applause as they lifted high into the night sky. http://pic.twitter.com/aoHVIcqC

Mark White‏@skymarkwhite
Police say post mortem on #TiaSharp paused for the night and will resume tomorrow. All 3 people arrested remain in custody this evening

Breaking News Police‏@policeuk
#TiaSharp Police have been given a 24 hour extension to interview arrested family of Tia.

Does the fact that the body has not yet formally been identified simply mean that a member of the family has not yet done this, or that the police are unable to confirm that it is definitely Tia?