Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 1427 comments are related to the topic:
Tia Sharp the 12 year old girl missing from South London.
Tia Sharp the 12 year old girl missing from South London.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1,427
|
By:
I can't see how they could have done that tobermory. Nobody thought 1) was likely and 2) was an obvious fail.
What crime would they have claimed to have been trying to prevent? |
|
By:
this was what i deduce ALLEGEDLY happened :- it is my guesswork and NOT an accusation or accusations of certain persons you understand .....
(your honour)... He (allegedly)killed that poor girl then he (allegedly) took her body into the loft and over the dividing wall into next doors loft the police search HIS /the Gran's home 3 times...incl with trained sniffer dogs--but find nothing (coz she's next door) once the searches take place and thinking house is now in the clear-- the body is moved back into gran's loft. the police unexpectedly turn up days later with a sniffer dog --again, trained in these matters -- and he barks the house down ... You can put your own suppositions on why the neighbour and the gran are now (allegedly) arrested too. you won't need to spend much time on it. |
|
By:
well if they thought she might possibly be alive then prevent, or rather end , a case of false imprisonment or worse.
1 was presumably the reason they turned up in such force the 4th time, as , it is suggested, they had found something to indicate they really needed to take the place apart. |
|
By:
I genuinely don't know Tobers, there's a lot more to be found out, but seeing someone walk on a wrongful search would be a horror story, and lacking either evidence of his guilt or her survival, I can't see another possibility.
|
|
By:
The majority of Londoners I know don't have half height dividing loft walls these days, they brick them up
|
|
By:
Looking it up it is lawful to search without a warrant but...
The police officer may search the premises, but the power of search is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose for which the power of entry is exercised. I guess it is entirely reasonable to search from top to bottom in this scenario so i don';t think there could have been any case of getting off on a technicality (as finding the body would by the law justify the search in retrospect, proving it was reasonable to search). If they'd been innocent and it turned out they did not have reasonable grounds then they could have made a Civil claim against the police. |
|
By:
One of the commentators on the BBC news site has commented on the remarkable speed with which the Met apologised. I don't know what that means, but it's interesting, if I'm correct in thinking that Gran and Neighbour are STILL being held? It's hard to think of an explanation that isn't really, really odd.
|
|
By:
But they couldn't have been sure of finding a body Tobers...hence why no search justified...hence why no forced tearing of the house apart took place.
|
|
By:
Having reasonable grounds to suspect would justify a search.
Seemingly while an abduction/runaway was still considered likely, the occupants weren't suspects so they did seem to be rather discreet about the early searches (something ex police officers are being highly critical of) I certainly don't think it was a legal concern on their part. I can't believe Hazell or the GM raised any objections to whatever they wanted to do, as that would have made them prime suspects, when it seems, the police had an open mind. |
|
By:
(clunge) It's hard to think of an explanation that isn't really, really odd.
---------------- 01:36 post above . and arrest tends to suggest the pair you mentioned (allegedly) got to find out later after the deed was done, and (allegedly) may have turned a blind eye |
|
By:
The BBC and the London Met don't get on
The Met asked for footage on last years riots in Tottenham to screen for evidence of somebody supplying a gun to Mark Duggan, the bloke who was shot, that the rioters used as as an excuse to go looting The BBC said 'No, you can't have it' The Met went to a judge The judge said 'No' as well |
|
By:
If I reported my child missing after leaving my house, and the police searched the house, I'd put up with it, I think. They returned later and asked to dismantle my home, and I'd tell them to feck right off and go find her, no question.
That was the scenario they faced. No legal right, no evidence so far as we know, whatsoever to destroy a home they'd already searched. |
|
By:
And scissors, I'm sure you'd agree that would be really odd!
|
|
By:
You can just about see a partner covering, but a neighbour?
|
|
By:
But if they were wanting to look in areas they had not searched first time, yes you'd be pissed 'wtf didn't you look last time' , then you would be effectively saying, no you can't look in there which makes it look very possible that you'd stashed the body there. And that gives them the right.
|
|
By:
it is supposition clunge
but fits what we do know fairly well food for thought until we find out the exact story in time . i'm off to bed --night |
|
By:
It's hard to think of an explanation that isn't really, really odd.
Yes , the alleged involvement of the gran and the neighbour is perplexing to say the least |
|
By:
No it doesn't tobers, as I posted the other day, people are entirely entitled to refuse illegal searches.
If the scale of the case obscures this, imagine a man driving normally on a road. The police stop him and demand to do a breath test. He refuses...do the police then have a right to test him on the basis that they didn't before. Of course they don't. |
|
By:
I think it is actually an offence to refuse to take a breath test isn't it
 Comparable to an athlete refusing to take a drugs test, it basically makes them guilty de facto |
|
By:
Failing to co-operate with a preliminary test (breath test at the roadside)
Free Drink Driving Legal Advice, Help and FAQ for the UK Motorist Drink Drive Offence: The offence is fully committed when a person fails (and failure includes refusal) to co-operate with a preliminary test when required to do so. The person must have been either driving or attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle. Also Known As: Failing to provide a roadside breath test, refusing to provide a specimen of breath when stopped by the Police, Failing to co-operate with a preliminary test. Drink Driving Law: Road Traffic Act 1988 - Section 6(6) Maximum Penalty: Driving Ban Maximum Fine: £1,000 Minimum Penalty: 4 penalty points in exceptional circumstances. Punishment Guidelines: Driving ban of between 12-36 months, subject to possible 25% reduction for attending drink driving rehabilitation course. |
|
By:
^
doesn't even say that the person had to appear drunk . So it's simply a case of 'they would co operate if they were innocent, therefore they are guilty' |
|
By:
Fair does, but the question...and I realise it's I who have sent this somewhat off-track, is could he still be convicted if it was shown the officers had no reason to breath-test him.
I am absolutely certain that the police cannot tear a house apart without evidence, in legal terms of course. |
|
By:
It's back to police academy Sherlock.Better still get a window round.
|
|
By:
And of course the offence is faling to co-operate, not 'being drunk'
I'd assume the officers in this case would want a more serious charge to stick, which I suspect now they will. |
|
By:
too much been made of the need to tear the place apart
a look in all the places large enough to conceal a body would have suufficed airing cupboard,under the beds,the loft,wardrobes,behind the sofa,bath panel etc and of course under the carpet if there appeared to be huge bulge one policeman of average intelligence and about 10 minutes would have been enough to search a tiny house |
|
By:
In this case anyway, there were really no legal barriers to the police searching the house as thoroughly as they saw fit . Any search could subsequently have been justified by the circumstances of the case ( very weak evidence that she ever left the house)
|
|
By:
So technically someone who had never had a drink in their life could be convicted of drink driving
|
|
By:
and no cctv evidence to boot.not a particular difficult case to solve
|
|
By:
I'd assume the officers in this case would want a more serious charge to stick, which I suspect now they will.
Refusing the police permission to search the house would not be an offence in itself, but it would not have been possible to prevent them searching and would simply have made the search all the more thorough , as it would raise suspicions. A more grey area would be , if they were completely at a loss, they started wanting to search neighbours houses on the off chance they might find her .Then i think refusals would be difficult to overcome, so i don't think that would have been a possibilty as they would have no evidence .There was plenty of evidence, the almost total elimination of other scenarios, that Tia would be in Sharp's house. |
|
By:
That's not evidence.
|
|
By:
With the neighbour i'd guess his alleged involvement could be being the 'eyewitness' who 'saw Tia going to the tram stop' .
It could be he was just persuaded to say this by Hazell . Sounds an absurd thing for someone to do but the 1st guy caught by DNA testing for murder almost got away with it because an idiot mate, who knew nothing of the crimes, agreed to take the test in his place http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pitchfork |
|
By:
It is, circumstantial evidence.
|
|
By:
one policeman of average intelligence
Can you find me one? |
|
By:
Indeed.
|
|
By:
Circumstantial Evidence justifies searches.
|
|
By:
Supposed total elimination of other scenarios wouldn't be proof that Hazell did it.. There was nothing to say that the girl that hadn't been plucked off the street by a mysterious white van. Just because there was no proof that that happened, it didn't mean that, erm, it didn't happen.
This thread really appears to have gone downhill. Now just lots of wild supposition and extremely bold gestures based mostly on hindsight. We're unlikely to uncover the exact truth, since we don't have the evidence and knowledge of the scene that the police have, so I'm not sure we're going to get anywhere by having these increasingly desperate arguments. |
|
By:
Supposed total elimination of other scenarios wouldn't be proof that Hazell did it.
Never said it was proof . Simply that it justified a search. The evidence required to convict someone and the evidence justifying searching their home are quite different . |
|
By:
There is still the scenario of the neighbour having abducted the girl ,when the police had searched the nans loft he puts the body there ,thinking they will not return to the loft..Even if they do in time, SH will be blamed ...
The problem with that theory is it still does not explain the phone being left behind etc ,I just cannot understand SH doing interviews and sitting calmly in the house with police all over it and a body in the ATTIC .. What was he going to say I didnt know she was in the ATTIC... Ofcourse he maybe a total lunatic ,but he did not give me that impression on the TV.. |
|
By:
Tobermory, the police can't simply say 'well, er, we can't think of any other plausible scenarios, so it must be him. We need to be given full rights to search his house'.
|
|
By:
I see Hazell's been charged now, but the other two have been released on bail..
|