Missing Tia Sharp

Good Morning to all of you,
allow me to post my personal conclusion/response to the development of the case over the last 48 hours:

Though having lived over here on/off for 35+ years I had never heard the term "estate" or ever been near one (to me an estate was somewhere,where people like Prince Charles or Lady Diana were brought up).
When we moved back from Germany (where these "estates" are completely unknown) we had to look for a place outside London since this house price idiocy meant we couldn't afford a London home any more.
In fact the only type of places we could afford were repossessions mostly in estate areas.
When I first looked at the areas and the houses I was shocked. Actually, so shocked that I considered leaving the country and move to France back then...

In the end we found a tiny house at the border of an estate, one side featuring traditional terraced houses the other side being the border of an estate. To our taste the area is so rough that we decided to home educate the kids and stay well away from the people on the estate.
When a single mom with two boys of about our kids' ages moved in next door,we were quite open minded towards her and the boys ("You never know").
She had moved from the center of the estate to the border and was thrilled out of her wits about "the nice and pleasant area".
Within a couple of weeks the boys turned out to be as nasty as the rest of the people around the corner.
We haven't had any contact for 3 years and this will stay this way until we move.

Some of the friends we have found over here, have offered to look after the kids since we are both self-employed. We have thanked them for their offer, BUT: we have never let the kids go anywhere. And looking at cases like this one, we will be even more alert of the whereabouts of our kids(even in shops). Some may say we are depriving the kids of important social contacts. Are we? Honestly, I don't care.
This case has finally made up our minds to sell up and move to France.

There, we will send the kids to a state school, we will let them out (probably not unattended, at least not for the time being), we will enjoy a wider social life.

Since I first moved to GB in 1976, I have loved Britain, especially London. For its culture, the variety and last, but not least for the Brits.
I was sad to leave in 1999. From what I have come to see over the last 4 years, I am shocked how this country has deteriorated, both as a society and landscape-wise. So much dirt, so much rubbish, so much carelessness, so much me-me-me. I am disgusted by the people around here.
And these dreadful cases are only evidence (to me) that this country and society is at the brink of complete collapse. And I thank the Harriet Harmans and Co. for that.
Such a shame for such a formerly great great nation.

Sorry to be off topic and rambling, but this is not only my impression, but what comes across in newspaper reports on the continent.
Be sure, the Olympic games will be forgotten, but the Tia Sharp case will live on in people's minds.

Jule

Back to the Tia case and the dogs.

Imagine this.
Day 1, PC stands on chair and pokes head up into loft space with small torch and sees nothing much - reports "loft searched - negative". (Human)

Wednesday - dog keeps alerting but fails to point upwards. (Dog) Wherever it alerts is searched, with negative result. (Human)
No one does the loft again, because it has already been done, and ruled out. German Shepherd is too big to lift without proper equipment, and anyway it's been done and ruled out. (Human decision) Reports leak out that dog is unreliable (Human interpretation based on incomplete evidence)

Thursday - SIO looks at the report of the dog alerting and makes the proper decision. Trust the dog, not the human.

Friday - search with dog, and with instructions that they are not to leave until the body is found. (Human decision) Body found within very short time.
Clearly several human errors

1 Not believing the dog
2 Believing the human
3 Stating that the dog is capable of error

I can imagine the words of the final briefing to the search team
"If that dog says there is a body, then there is a body.
Your job, gentlemen is to find it. Do not return until you have done so"

Or words to that effect, as we used to say in Court !

PeterMac wrote:Back to the Tia case and the dogs.

Imagine this.
Day 1, PC stands on chair and pokes head up into loft space with small torch and sees nothing much - reports "loft searched - negative". (Human)

Wednesday - dog keeps alerting but fails to point upwards. (Dog) Wherever it alerts is searched, with negative result. (Human)
No one does the loft again, because it has already been done, and ruled out. German Shepherd is too big to lift without proper equipment, and anyway it's been done and ruled out. (Human decision) Reports leak out that dog is unreliable (Human interpretation based on incomplete evidence)

Thursday - SIO looks at the report of the dog alerting and makes the proper decision. Trust the dog, not the human.

Friday - search with dog, and with instructions that they are not to leave until the body is found. (Human decision) Body found within very short time.
Clearly several human errors

1 Not believing the dog
2 Believing the human
3 Stating that the dog is capable of error

I can imagine the words of the final briefing to the search team
"If that dog says there is a body, then there is a body.
Your job, gentlemen is to find it. Do not return until you have done so"

Or words to that effect, as we used to say in Court !

That does sound like the most logical sequence of events.

Digressing slightly I remember hearing that a dog cannot look up (Shaun of the Dead) - still not sure if this is true.

PeterMac wrote:Back to the Tia case and the dogs.

Imagine this.
Day 1, PC stands on chair and pokes head up into loft space with small torch and sees nothing much - reports "loft searched - negative". (Human)

Wednesday - dog keeps alerting but fails to point upwards. (Dog) Wherever it alerts is searched, with negative result. (Human)
No one does the loft again, because it has already been done, and ruled out. German Shepherd is too big to lift without proper equipment, and anyway it's been done and ruled out. (Human decision) Reports leak out that dog is unreliable (Human interpretation based on incomplete evidence)

Thursday - SIO looks at the report of the dog alerting and makes the proper decision. Trust the dog, not the human.

Friday - search with dog, and with instructions that they are not to leave until the body is found. (Human decision) Body found within very short time.
Clearly several human errors

1 Not believing the dog
2 Believing the human
3 Stating that the dog is capable of error

I can imagine the words of the final briefing to the search team
"If that dog says there is a body, then there is a body.
Your job, gentlemen is to find it. Do not return until you have done so"

Or words to that effect, as we used to say in Court !

Which is what happened when Eddie the cadaver dog alerted at Haut de la Garenne but humans dug up a coconut shell and Martin Grime said 'People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human.'

Cristobell wrote:[quote="
Digressing slightly I remember hearing that a dog cannot look up (Shaun of the Dead) - still not sure if this is true.

Cristobel, many people think this but I can assure you it is not true. My own GSD spends half his life looking up at birds, planes and helicopters, if it flies it will get his attention. He will sit there and look up at fireworks too, they seem to entertain him.

They also train guide dogs to look out for obstacles at human head height, agreed it is not very high but when the dog is right next to you it most definitely entails it looking up. It is however very difficult to do and some guide dogs are better at it than others. Judging by the amount of time my GSD spends staring at the skies, if he were a guide dog my head would be safe but I should probably fall down an open manhole......

admin wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Back to the Tia case and the dogs.

Imagine this.
Day 1, PC stands on chair and pokes head up into loft space with small torch and sees nothing much - reports "loft searched - negative". (Human)

Wednesday - dog keeps alerting but fails to point upwards. (Dog) Wherever it alerts is searched, with negative result. (Human)
No one does the loft again, because it has already been done, and ruled out. German Shepherd is too big to lift without proper equipment, and anyway it's been done and ruled out. (Human decision) Reports leak out that dog is unreliable (Human interpretation based on incomplete evidence)

Thursday - SIO looks at the report of the dog alerting and makes the proper decision. Trust the dog, not the human.

Friday - search with dog, and with instructions that they are not to leave until the body is found. (Human decision) Body found within very short time.
Clearly several human errors

1 Not believing the dog
2 Believing the human
3 Stating that the dog is capable of error

I can imagine the words of the final briefing to the search team
"If that dog says there is a body, then there is a body.
Your job, gentlemen is to find it. Do not return until you have done so"

Or words to that effect, as we used to say in Court !

Which is what happened when Eddie the cadaver dog alerted at Haut de la Garenne but humans dug up a coconut shell and Martin Grime said 'People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human.'

I've often wondered about that piece of coconut shell.

I'm not sure exactly where it was found but how can we be certain it didn't have cadaverine on it.

If I were a criminal and knew in advance that a dog of the quality of Eddie was coming along and I were of a mind to make him appear foolish I might just stick a coconut shell or similar overnight with a corpse before burrying it.

As Peter Mac said above, the mistake was not believing the dog......

What I meant was, that the dog is alerting perhaps in the bedroom, trying to indicate something, but the humans interpret this as an alert in the room, not in the loft.
Because they have done the loft and there is nothing there !! And there is nothing in the room either,
Therefore . . .
The dog must be giving a false positive.
Until the SIO reads the report and refuses to dismiss the dog's evidence. Gets a warrant and a huge team and gives the appropriate instructions.
Look at the sizeof the team outside the house, for Public Order control when the body was found. to prevent the place being torched.
The SIO KNEW the body would be there. He believed the dog (the wednesday dog)

Julchen:
I'm very sorry to say that I agree with everything you have written. I've never lived outside "G"B, more's the pity. During the last couple of decades I have seen such a decline in respect. Respect for other people, respect for property, respect for the very towns, cities and countryside in which we live. I've witnessed areas that used to be "nice" and formerly considered respectable turn into complete dives. It is so sad. People on the whole have become more aggressive, more & more selfish and totally inconsiderate towards others. I actually detest living here. So many people drag their kids up to be impolite tow rags with no morals. That's putting it mildly. Controversial though I know this is, I firmly believe that some people should not be permitted to reproduce. It appears to me that those "parents" who raise little scum bags are the ones who often have the most children. Therefore as time goes on, the percentage of the population with no respect for the decent living others can only increase.
*Steps down from soap box*

PeterMac wrote:What I meant was, that the dog is alerting perhaps in the bedroom, trying to indicate something, but the humans interpret this as an alert in the room, not in the loft.
Because they have done the loft and there is nothing there !! And there is nothing in the room either,
Therefore . . .
The dog must be giving a false positive.
Until the SIO reads the report and refuses to dismiss the dog's evidence. Gets a warrant and a huge team and gives the appropriate instructions.
Look at the sizeof the team outside the house, for Public Order control when the body was found. to prevent the place being torched.
The SIO KNEW the body would be there. He believed the dog (the wednesday dog)

Yes. And maybe the dog was not in error with the coconut shell, maybe it was the human interpretation that was either wrong, not incisive or sufficiently lateral.

I know which one my money is on.

If it's OK with the Mods I'm opening a topic in the Lounge area about the unfairness/problems of modern life so that this thread can remain for Tia.

This post IS for Tia, by the way, we're discussing the reliability of human cadaver scent dogs:

admin wrote:Which is what happened when Eddie the cadaver dog alerted at Haut de la Garenne but humans dug up a coconut shell and Martin Grime said 'People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human.'

monkey mind wrote:I've often wondered about that piece of coconut shell.

I'm not sure exactly where it was found but how can we be certain it didn't have cadaverine on it.

If I were a criminal and knew in advance that a dog of the quality of Eddie was coming along and I were of a mind to make him appear foolish I might just stick a coconut shell or similar overnight with a corpse before burrying it.

As Peter Mac said above, the mistake was not believing the dog....maybe the dog was not in error with the coconut shell, maybe it was the human interpretation that was either wrong, not incisive or sufficiently lateral.

I know which one my money is on.

It is by no means established that Eddie alerted to a coconut shell. On the contrary, Lenny Harper, the Senior Investigating Officer in the Jersey Haut de la Garenne case, has explicitly said that the original skull/shell came back from the forensic laboratory with IIRC a 1.6% collagen content. That indicated that this was human bone.

But then - guess what - the same skull/shell was tested a second time, and this time, apparently, yielded no collagen, prompting what I believe was a wholly false claim (believed hook line and sinker on all the McCann-believer forums) that Eddie 'had alerted to a coconut'.

Paedophiles like those who undoubtedly preyed for decades on the innocent children incarcerated in Haut de la Garenne very often have good connections in the very highest of places, even in the management of forensic laboratories:

In November 2008 I watched with some astonishment and no little annoyance and frustration as David Warcup and Mick Gradwell told the world that all the work that I had carried out along with a talented and dedicated team in Jersey investigating child abuse in States run institutions had been false and a pack of lies. I watched as they not only blackened my name, but also justified the suspension and character assassination of one of the best, most honest and capable bosses I had worked for in thirty four years in Graham Power. I recoiled at the inferred and explicit statements that the evidence from victims of savage and cruel abuse was all a fiction and the product of sick and criminal minds. My anger and bemusement increased as first Warcup and Gradwell and then Andrew Lewis (only hours before I left the island Lewis had stood at a dinner at the Lt. Gov’s residence with his arm around me and told my wife that he had stood shoulder to shoulder with me in facing down Frank Walker who had wanted to once again “bury” the abuse allegations) and the Chief Minister of the time explained that their actions and the nonsense they told the world’s press were all direct lifts from a report by the Metropolitan Police (the Sweeting Report) which was “critical and damning” of my performance in leading the Abuse enquiry and of Graham Power’s supervision of me. They told how the Met report had severely criticised me for my handling of the financial management of the investigation, the entry and subsequent search in HDLG, working practices with lawyers, victim support policy, lack of a Gold group, and the finding and labelling of human remains. They also related how the Met report had criticised me for my use of terminology such as ‘shackles’ and falsely describing areas where victims had alleged abuse within HDLG as ‘cellars.’ This damning report, they said, was the reason why they had no choice but to suspend Graham Power for his failure to supervise his out of control Deputy.

I could not believe that the local Jersey media could be swallowing this innocently. They must have known that Gradwell and Warcup were wrong when they said that there were no cellars, only eighteen inch floor voids – not only had BBC Panorama’s Robert Hall filmed in there but even JEP journalist Diane Simon, together with others who were later to forget, had been shown around the cellars. Frank Walker and his wife had been taken around and shown the cellar areas where many “fleshed and fresh” bones had been burnt and deliberately hidden. These bones seemed to be conveniently forgotten when Gradwell told the world that no human bones had been found. The statement describing these bones by the expert in Sheffield had obviously disappeared. Diane Simon also conveniently forgot that it was her who first mentioned ‘shackles’ to me and that she had run a story in which she said I had refused to confirm the finding of shackles. Now she was criticising me for whipping up media frenzy about shackles.

In all of this, my anger turned to what I perceived to be the corrupt actions of the Met Superintendent who had carried out the review and who had been so critical of me without even bothering to speak to me or to those who were supervising and mentoring me. (the ACPO Homicide Working Group) Gradwell, Warcup, the Chief Minister, Home Affairs Minister and all of the Jersey media were quoting the Met report as the source for all of the criticism Graham Power and I were facing. I did the only thing I felt I could do and made a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police against Superintendent Sweeting.

At first the Met refused to accept my complaint. “You left it too long” they said. I appealed to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. (IPCC) They ordered the Met to investigate. Eventually they did and after an investigation (named Operation Tuma) they reported that my complaint was recorded as “no case to answer.”

My first reaction was one of disgust. I knew that what Warcup, Gradwell, Walker, and the rest were saying was out and out rubbish and a total fabrication. How could the Met be endorsing this? Then I read the findings. They were astounding.

My complaint was rejected not because any of the criticisms were true, but because NO SUCH CRITICISMS HAD BEEN CONTAINED WITHIN THE MET REPORT. Paragraph 5.3 of the Sweeting Met report lists the complaints that I had made, i.e.; that the report was “critical and damning of me without ever speaking to me. That it had criticised me for my handling of the financial management of the investigation, my victim support policy, the lack of a Gold Group, the finding and labelling of human remains, my use of the term ‘shackles’ and the use of the term ‘cellars.’ In reality, according to the Met report to the IPCC, “having reviewed the report written by DSU Sweeting and his team, it is clear that no such criticisms are levelled at Mr Harper.” The report goes on to say in Para. 5.4, “The report was neither critical nor damning.”

The implications of this are profound, and extremely disturbing. David Warcup did not submit the Met report to the Home Affairs Minister but instead wrote him a letter outlining what was allegedly in the report. It was critical and damning enough to launch a brutal smear campaign against me, and by extension, against the victims, and to justify the suspension of Graham Power. According to Ian Le Marquand, what Warcup told him was in the Met report gave him no option but to suspend Graham and to label me an “incompetent maverick.”

So, if there was no such criticism in either the Met interim or the final report, where did David Warcup get it from? Rico Sorda has one theory involving the consultant shown the door by Graham Power for attempting to misrepresent the facts and who was then immediately engaged by Shredder Ogley and Frank Walker. So why did Warcup and Gradwell tell the world that it came from the Sweeting report? Could the gradual unfolding of this be the real reason why Warcup scampered away from the island pleading blog harassment and why the previously media loving Gradwell retired to wedding planning never to be seen again or to give any evidence to Scrutiny or anyone else?

It also raises huge questions about t Ian Le Marquand. Was he duped by Warcup into believing that the criticism was indeed contained within the Metropolitan Police Report? If so, why did he not ask some hard questions? Or, was he fully aware that the whole thing was a charade and a pack of lies intended to discredit the whole child abuse enquiry and so marginalise (once again) the victims of cruel abuse in Jersey’s government run homes?

The truth is getting ever closer. Despite the increasingly desperate attempts of the establishment to prevent it emerging (witness the pathetic attempt to portray a letter in the JEP this week as being from establishment crony Roy Boschat when letters being revealed in a Jersey blog show him as semi- literate) the momentum is unstoppable. Sooner or later the role of a number of Jersey’s so called prominent citizens in supporting the cover up of vile child abuse will be revealed to the world. As someone else has said, the ramifications for them and their way of life will be much more severe than if they had just accepted in the first place it had happened and sought to try and make it better and prevent it from happening again.

Lenny Harper

One of the pro trolls main reasons for stating the couple are innocent is that someones friends wouldn't cover for them. Now we have a neighbour arrested for covering a murder up. Hmm

Ah yes thank you Tony,that clears that up nicely. My money was always on the doggie. Don't you just love Eddie. I do.

Gillyspot wrote:One of the pro trolls main reasons for stating the couple are innocent is that someones friends wouldn't cover for them. Now we have a neighbour arrested for covering a murder up. Hmm

Not to mention the mother and her boyfriend, who were not exactly in the forefront of finding Tia. In fact, early in the week she couldn't cope anymore. Imo she already knew and left her mother and her ex to sort it.

Donal McIntyre has also made a fool of himself by interviewing Stuart Hazel in his home & apparently although he claims to be a criminal expert he didn't notice he was speaking to an (alleged) murderer. Poor Donal also stated on twitter that cadaver dogs are "notoriously reliable" too.

Gillyspot wrote:Donal McIntyre has also made a fool of himself...

Surely not!? Perish the thought...

A reminder of Donal MacIntyre's report into the McCann case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

PeterMac wrote:What I meant was, that the dog is alerting perhaps in the bedroom, trying to indicate something, but the humans interpret this as an alert in the room, not in the loft.
Because they have done the loft and there is nothing there !! And there is nothing in the room either,
Therefore . . .
The dog must be giving a false positive.
Until the SIO reads the report and refuses to dismiss the dog's evidence. Gets a warrant and a huge team and gives the appropriate instructions.
Look at the sizeof the team outside the house, for Public Order control when the body was found. to prevent the place being torched.
The SIO KNEW the body would be there. He believed the dog (the wednesday dog)

I stand corrected but I get the impression the dog used on Friday wasn't the same German Shepherd used on Wednesday.
Far as I understand the dog used on Friday was cadaver detection dog, although grandma wasn't told about that.
Investigators shouldn't have to warn or tell the person whose property to be search about any detail of their intended operation. Especially if the investigators had obtained search order, they could effectively turn the property upside down if they so wished without having to pre-informed the owner of anything.

My thinking is even if German Shepherd could not go up loft, or be lifted up to the loft, one would have thought it would have barked upward in the direction of the loft to indicate the alert. Either that happened and the Police missed the body hence the re-search of the loft, or the German Shepherd did alert but not in direction of the loft.; and the loft area was alerted to by the dog that was brought in on Friday.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the body was moved to the loft post Wednesday search as the perpetrator/s might have believed mistakenly that a searched place is the safest to hide the body as it is unlikely to be searched again.

I believe we will hear more details once the case go to Court. Since no murder is free of motive. I would hazard a guess that sexual assault or spurned sexual advance is high on my list of motive in this case going by grandda's history. Wasn't it reported he courted Tia's mum before turning his attention to her grandma and ended up with grandma as his partner.

Gillyspot wrote:One of the pro trolls main reasons for stating the couple are innocent is that someones friends wouldn't cover for them. Now we have a neighbour arrested for covering a murder up. Hmm

Perhaps pro trolls believe that only illiterate and uneducated people (ie council estate people) are capable of something hideous as covering up a crime for family and friend, and that middle class professionals especially doctors are not capable of that.

Could it be these pro trolls are themselves in the category of the low IQs and thus have a special blind deference to middle-class or any class above theirs.

Apologies all. I will correct myself (unlike some on the dark side). It was Mark Williams-Thomas that interviewed Hazel

"Mark Williams-Thomas spent more than an hour with Mr Hazell at the home he shares with the 12-year-old’s grandmother, Christine Sharp, in New Addington, near Croydon, south London.
The interview, broadcast on Thursday, featured an emotional appeal from the 37-year-old, who denied any involvement in Tia’s disappearance and urged her to return home.
‘He spent some time talking to me – very clearly wanting it to be off the record – when we spoke away from everyone else,’ Mr Williams-Thomas said.
‘He spoke about his thoughts and what he thought had happened to her.’
He added painter and decorator Mr Hazell gave some ‘very clear answers’ about his movements when Tia was last seen and revealed he was not allowed into her bedroom."

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

However Donal couldn't help but disrespect the cadaver dogs again

@DonalMacIntyre
@The21lvaFox apparently the highly trained dogs did not work! Aug 11, 2012

you know i cant quite understand ,abot someone putting head into loft space and not smelling something,in the heat you can get in loft and after few days ,it doesnt seem possable the smell could be missed,it doesnt sound credible to me ,did they actually go into loft before the last dog elerted? or was it the loft next door that was used if no wall existed between houses?,we still do not know really do we