Missing Tia Sharp

aiyoyo wrote:

Ribisl wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:What is wrong with some people here?
We've got a bunch of highly intellectual posters here and that's what made for aninteresting dynamics of this forum that keeps it alive and going.

Just because Mod barked " caution" do people have to jump onto the bandwagon and rapped others knuckles literally over nothing?
Are we driving away reasonable posters, or do we now all have to tip toe round the Mod watching out for her "BAN" stick? FFS we're hardly mainstream, far from it! Why stifle discussions unnecessarily?

Or is libel the fear factor? Have the mccanns' total control over liberty of free speech and were fortunate enough to have a high powered media manipulator helped them in that respect and also fortunate enough to sit on a pile of OPM that their nasty bull dog was sneaked in here so that they can sue (for more money?) set the standard for Forum for discussions of all cases?

Ok rant over.

I think your snipe at Spaniel is unfair and uncalled for. Our discussion is interesting precisely because we try to analyse facts, develop credible theories and apply some common sense to form our own opinions. Posters should therefore be encouraged to disclose the source of any information they quote that is not yet widely known or potentially controversial. Depending on the source, it would also help us decide how credible such information might be.

Hope this case will conclude soon and after all the guilty parties have been locked up, there will be a press conference when we shall find out more facts.

You're jumping to your own conclusion as I was not snipping at anyone.

I was merely thinking there's no need for people to jump on Dlinne8 when s/he tried to put forward her theory and thoughts especially since invited to do so. I, for one, am keen to know her/his theory or anyone else for that matter.

Analysing of facts is all very well if facts are already in the public domain. Having said that if all the facts are there then there's no need for positing of theory or discussions unless there's controversy involved.

This case, unlike the mccanns' is not about discussion of data from the released police files already in the public domain, hence facts.

People are in the dark about this one so imo reasonable discussions of theory or of the why and when etc without pointing fingers at anyone shouldn't be a problem isn't it or am I mistaken? Or is it alright to rap people's knuckles all in the guise of sub-judice even if nothing of that sort is displayed?

ETA: edited to say just seen Candyfloss response re this. Let's drop this and let's not over react please. Thank you.

Here's my tuppence worth: Let's leave it to the Mods to moderate.
Mostly statements are backed up by references and if they're not it's a simple matter to ask where it's from. I do feel that the 'plane spotter' remark was uncalled for as the post which mentioned the phone was quite innocuous imo.
I've just gone though the last five pages as I bowed out on the extensive discussion on cadaver odour. :bad:

The story SH told changed from hearing her go out when he was hoovering, to going with her to the tram. Changing stories are suspect.
In the 10 minute ITV interview he said her phone was on charge - some remark 'excuse my language' she often forgot to charge it. I picked up on it because some annoyance with Tia came through there. I believe it's in the last five minutes.
Now we hear that she borrowed her mother's phone.
None of it adds up.

Imo - as the alarm was raised at about 6.00 pm on Friday probably by the grandmother, she might not have known 'something had happened' until it was too late to hide the body.
I don't see any 'being clever' of SH at all in the interview - I saw 'poor me - not my fault etc.'
If the grandmother came home and got a full or edited account of the 'accident' - it's not very likely that she'd allow the dead body of her granddaughter to stay in the loft.
SH had no opportunity to hide the body elsewhere during Thursday or Friday morning. He did not have a car and the houses are too close together to risk moving a body at any time of night or day I'd think.
So the body wasn't taken elsewhere and hidden as soon as the grandmother was back - Tia was expected back at 6.00 pm. allegedly. So why raise the alarm at that time? Therefore I think she wasn't told as soon as she came in. Otherwise why raise the alarm at 6.00?
That only makes sense if SH told her another story first and she genuinely went looking for Tia in the car. It also follows that the 6.00 pm time is not the time she expected Tia back, but some hours earlier.
Once she'd raised the alarm, they could count on police coming round and subsequent interest from neighbours, totally impossible to move a body after that.
Perhaps SH sat on it for one more night, but by the following day police and press besieged the house 24/7. By that time the grandmother must have been complicit. The body was possibly moved to next door's attic and when the dogs had been round on the Wednesday, they might have thought they'd got away with it.

If SH had confessed to his partner immediately, it's more likely they would have hidden the body far away from the house on Friday night and report her missing the following day. No-one would know. Allegedly they went to the fun fair and looked for her there - the car was available and could have been used to transport the body.

The whole convoluted story turns around SH - the way he thinks and the way he tried to get out of the situation. Hmm, reminds me..

justme3 wrote:I want to pick up on these points, not to keep an argument going, but for clarification.

"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.": from Spaniel.

I take it that many people who post on here have many things going on in their lives; things that take them away from their pcs, and out into the big wide World. Many of us will read a newspaper or a poster, as we sit in offices, or in newspapers and magazines that are often left in waiting rooms for people to read, such as in a dentists' surgeries or a doctors' waiting rooms. Many of us will read them just to kill time, and not take too much notice of the name of newspaper or magazine we are reading. Later, when we've returned home, we realize that what we have read is of significance to this forum, for example.

So, my question is, do we NOT post what we read, just because we don't remember the source, other that it was in a newspaper or a magazine? As it's been said, most people on here are here because they want to see justice, and most, if not all, are people with high IQs and logical thinking. Let's not spoil it by snide remarks, that only put off intelligent people, who think to themselves, "I can do without this", and not bother to come back again.

My point was that if a new bit of info is dropped in such as Tia using her mother's phone, it's good to have a link. Though pointless of course had it been mentioned before and I hadn't seen it. Ignore me.

I posted, on here, last night, the people who were said to be living in the house with SH and CS, between 2005-2012 Could it be there were more than SH and Tia in the house on that Friday night? After all, who are these people, mentioned on the electoral register, and why are they all saying they live in the same house?

Can anyone on this forum explain why I am getting a warning "Jill Havern forum blocked" on my pc?

justme3 wrote:Can anyone on this forum explain why I am getting a warning "Jill Havern forum blocked" on my pc?

Where are you getting this warning justme3, you are obviously getting in and posting. Where is this appearing?

Justme3, it could be that Denis Alden lived there before the Sharp family did. I'm surprised that Tia was listed as clearly she was ineligible to vote. We can assume that she, her mother and her uncle all lived there at one time before being rehoused.

As far as we know, only Stuart Hazell and Christine Sharp (a k a Bicknell) actually lived there full time at the time when Tia disappeared.

DLinne8 wrote:

pingunootnoot wrote:Is there a possibility that the post mortem will conclude that it was an accidental death?

I am sure i recall that there were no clear injuries to Tia's body, i know it has been claimed that there were bruises to the lower body but that could also possibly be lividity.

Also a final question, can anyone confirm who actually reported Tia missing and at what time.

Thank you.

The most accurate time for her being reported missing is 6pm (on the 3rd), and by NS. However, the validity of this information may be questionable, as the majority of articles describe more vaguely how she was reported missing by family in the evening.

Tia was definitely murdered, as far as the law is concerned. This will have been decided not only from the state of the body, but from the manner in which it was dealt with post mortem.

ETA: A person doesn't generally cover up an accident to make it look like murder.

Unless you're a billionnaire, in which case it's all perfectly innocent: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9443573/Billionaire-heir-Hans-Rausing-escapes-jail-for-preventing-his-wife-Evas-burial.html

candyfloss wrote:

justme3 wrote:Can anyone on this forum explain why I am getting a warning "Jill Havern forum blocked" on my pc?

Where are you getting this warning justme3, you are obviously getting in and posting. Where is this appearing?

It's popping up on the bottom of my screen, It says "Jill Havern forum blocked". It's some sort of pop up. It's done it twice.

justme3 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

justme3 wrote:Can anyone on this forum explain why I am getting a warning "Jill Havern forum blocked" on my pc?

Where are you getting this warning justme3, you are obviously getting in and posting. Where is this appearing?

It's popping up on the bottom of my screen, It says "Jill Havern forum blocked". It's some sort of pop up. It's done it twice.

It sounds as if it is one of the adverts that is blocked by internet explorer or your security firewall, I get them sometimes, and the advert at the top of the forum doesn't appear just a box with a red cross on it.

Jean wrote:Justme3, it could be that Denis Alden lived there before the Sharp family did. I'm surprised that Tia was listed as clearly she was ineligible to vote. We can assume that she, her mother and her uncle all lived there at one time before being rehoused.

As far as we know, only Stuart Hazell and Christine Sharp (a k a Bicknell) actually lived there full time at the time when Tia disappeared.

Denis Alden was the previous partner of Christine Sharp wasn't he? It's been mentioned on this thread within the last 10 pages or so. I'll try and find it

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'.

This is the reference to DA (Denis Arden) being the partner/husband of CS. I'm not sure where this has come from though. DLinne8, do you have the link for this piece of info? I wonder if DA was NS real father?

Christine Bicknell married a Paul Sharp in 1983 and subsequently Denis Alden in 2004. Natalie Sharp was born in 1981 so I think we are pretty safe in assuming that Paul Sharp is Natalie`s father.

I

alison wrote:Christine Bicknell married a Paul Sharp in 1983 and subsequently Denis Alden in 2004. Natalie Sharp was born in 1981 so I think we are pretty safe in assuming that Paul Sharp is Natalie`s father.

I

Thank you Alison, I no longer have a paid membership of Ancestry.co.uk to look these things up

My first post - so go easy on me! Just wanted to make some comments...

Before a body was found Sky had an interview with a retired Scotland Yard detective, think it was the Tuesday or Wednesday. He actually said that the fact a 12 year old left her phone at home was - and I quote - "unbelievable"; so I'm pretty sure the police had an idea abt what was going on quite early.

That said, there are other scenarios that spring to mind with missing children. What if a child did leave a house, did forget her phone & then at the end of the road realised & walked back. What if someone in another house had seen her & invited her in, just as Ian Huntley did. If the houses had interconnecting lofts, it must make any case a bit more complicated.

I don't know if the cadavre dog visited any other houses in this particular case?

EJW wrote:

alison wrote:Christine Bicknell married a Paul Sharp in 1983 and subsequently Denis Alden in 2004. Natalie Sharp was born in 1981 so I think we are pretty safe in assuming that Paul Sharp is Natalie`s father.

I

Thank you Alison, I no longer have a paid membership of Ancestry.co.uk to look these things up

Body formally identified as Tia Sharp...saying on Sky News

It's only a question of formality - it couldn't have been anyone else.

Last night reading the posts on here, made me feel very sad about the whole thing. As we discuss the decomposition of corpses and other unsavoury things let us reflect for a moment that in a Mortuary somewhere in London there lies a child of no more than twelve years old who has been robbed of her life, future and the hope of better things to come. I could cry for this child right now and wish her safe passage wherever she is.

I thank you.

HAVEYOUFEDTHECAT wrote:Last night reading the posts on here, made me feel very sad about the whole thing. As we discuss the decomposition of corpses and other unsavoury things let us reflect for a moment that in a Mortuary somewhere in London there lies a child of no more than twelve years old who has been robbed of her life, future and the hope of better things to come. I could cry for this child right now and wish her safe passage wherever she is.

I thank you.

I agree with everything you say, and thank you for reminding me.

HAVEYOUFEDTHECAT wrote:Last night reading the posts on here, made me feel very sad about the whole thing. As we discuss the decomposition of corpses and other unsavoury things let us reflect for a moment that in a Mortuary somewhere in London there lies a child of no more than twelve years old who has been robbed of her life, future and the hope of better things to come. I could cry for this child right now and wish her safe passage wherever she is.
I thank you.

Sadly she was from a totally dysfunctional family, on a sink estate, and her "future and hope of better things to come" were all too plainly marked out.
There was a ghastly inevitability about her future.

EJW 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'.

This is the reference to DA (Denis Arden) being the partner/husband of CS. I'm not sure where this has come from though. DLinne8, do you have the link for this piece of info? I wonder if DA was NS real father?

Sorry got that wrong. Her father is Paul Sharp, and he wants nothing to do with his ex-wife or daughter after they let SH back in to their lives after NS had split up with him.

HAVEYOUFEDTHECAT wrote:Last night reading the posts on here, made me feel very sad about the whole thing. As we discuss the decomposition of corpses and other unsavoury things let us reflect for a moment that in a Mortuary somewhere in London there lies a child of no more than twelve years old who has been robbed of her life, future and the hope of better things to come. I could cry for this child right now and wish her safe passage wherever she is.

I thank you.

You are right, it is awful and chilling and desperately sad. I think this is WHY however we do discuss all these possibilities and analyse everything we can about Maddie, Tia and others, so we can try and make sense of it. We are clearly, as a group of individuals not the sort of grief tourists who rush off to lay flowers for people we don't know, but we obviously have a tendency to "sort it out" in our heads because this sort of thing is just too awful and it just the bloody unfairness of life. It's a form of coping strategy in a way.

PeterMac wrote:

HAVEYOUFEDTHECAT wrote:Last night reading the posts on here, made me feel very sad about the whole thing. As we discuss the decomposition of corpses and other unsavoury things let us reflect for a moment that in a Mortuary somewhere in London there lies a child of no more than twelve years old who has been robbed of her life, future and the hope of better things to come. I could cry for this child right now and wish her safe passage wherever she is.
I thank you.

Sadly she was from a totally dysfunctional family, on a sink estate, and her "future and hope of better things to come" were all too plainly marked out.
There was a ghastly inevitability about her future.

So what of her step siblings?

HAVEYOUFEDTHECAT wrote:Last night reading the posts on here, made me feel very sad about the whole thing. As we discuss the decomposition of corpses and other unsavoury things let us reflect for a moment that in a Mortuary somewhere in London there lies a child of no more than twelve years old who has been robbed of her life, future and the hope of better things to come. I could cry for this child right now and wish her safe passage wherever she is.

I thank you.

Thank you HAVEYOUFEDTHECAT, yes it is so very, very sad.

PeterMac wrote:

HAVEYOUFEDTHECAT wrote:Last night reading the posts on here, made me feel very sad about the whole thing. As we discuss the decomposition of corpses and other unsavoury things let us reflect for a moment that in a Mortuary somewhere in London there lies a child of no more than twelve years old who has been robbed of her life, future and the hope of better things to come. I could cry for this child right now and wish her safe passage wherever she is.
I thank you.

Sadly she was from a totally dysfunctional family, on a sink estate, and her "future and hope of better things to come" were all too plainly marked out.
There was a ghastly inevitability about her future.

I may well be living somewhere similar soon PeterMac


My present neighbours have "given " their Spanish properties away.

SInce there is discussion around the time of the reporting Tia missing, the phone issue and the loft which seem to be a very ill thought out response to whatever happened, something just this minute occurred to me, and I thought I'd share and see what others think.

HASTEN TO ADD IT IS ALL PURELY SPECULATION AND HYPOTHESIS STEMMING FROM SOME INFO IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

Tia being only 12 is quite likely to have wanted to meet a friend at the shops, as it is not uncommon for young girls to feel self-conscious on their own in a town centre, and indeed, at 12 it is unlikely that going to the shops without a grown up had been going on for too long. It was said by Tia's Uncle, in effect, that although she knew her way around, she was still a little girl, and we have no reason not to take this at face value.

SH also used the noise of a hoover not to listen properly to her, and she was saying she was off to meet a friend etc according to him, rather woolly explanation.

So it is highly likely that she had arranged to meet a schoolfriend at the shops and it had possibly been talked about on the Thursday, asking if it was OK or whatever, and SH allegedly giving her £10 and so on.

Now, something obviously happened to Tia Thurs/Fri, I'm guessing Friday morning at the moment. What if a friend who was going to meet Tia got worried when she didn't turn up or answer her phone? At 12 it is quite likely that the possible friend would have phoned her own mum, or might have had NS's phone number, or their mum's had each others phone numbers. Just guessing and all hypothetical.

What if NS's phone started ringing AFTER poor Tia's demise, but only just, SH might have suddenly remembered Tia saying she was meeting someone at the shops, after the drama of what might have happened, and all of a sudden there could be worried mum's, friends and the like trying to find Tia much earlier than we have been informed so far.

This would therefore cut far shorter any windows of opportunity that were available and necessitate even more of a frantic response. But it MIGHT have given him the idea for his story, and also been his downfall at the same time. I think it somehow (the lies, stories, hiding place etc) all hinges around the phone situation.

ALL PURELY SPECULATIVE