Missing Tia Sharp

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.

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.

candyfloss wrote:Danny Shaw‏@DannyShawBBC
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Judge says hearing for Hazell to enter a plea on Nov 19. Provisional trial date Jan 21

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

Julchen wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Danny Shaw‏@DannyShawBBC
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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

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

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.

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.

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'.

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?

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:[

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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...

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.

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

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

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

The interview took place on Thursday, 9th August.