Tia Sharp murder.

[jimslip]

Was it just me, that when 3 or 4 days ago it was reported thet Stuart Hazel, Tia's "Grandad" had been convicted a couple of years ago of, "Carrying a machete" and that conveniently, Tia had gone round to her grandmas house when she was on a night shift and that Hazell was, "The last person to see her alive", that my suspicions were aroused?

Am I Inspector Poirot or Colombo? But would not the whole population of the UK have suggested to the police that they should dismantle Tia's gandma's house brick by brick, 4 or 5 days ago? !confused!

[Essex Lad]

No, I think everyone thought that but then 99 times out of a hundred the killer is one of the "family".

[one eyed jack]

I was amazed to read they searched the house 4 times and only just found her yesterday unless there is more t this than meets the eye

I also read a man hunt was on for the guy as he did a runner but yet how did they find him to arrest him in a pub in South London yesterday evening

Whatever the case may be it doesnt look very good for him and I suspect very probablr that he is guilty but lets not get ahead of ourselves just yet.

[Peter]

Essex Lad wrote:

> No, I think everyone thought that but then 99 times out of a
> hundred the killer is one of the "family".

I think most people think that every time there's a news conference/appeal by the tearful relatives. I understand that setting up such an event as part of the investigation if the people are suspects is banned, but I suppose it's easy for plod to get around that.

I must admit the first thing I saw on seeing the relatives was 'benefits'.

[Essex Lad]

Peter wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > No, I think everyone thought that but then 99 times out of a
> > hundred the killer is one of the "family".
>
> I think most people think that every time there's a news
> conference/appeal by the tearful relatives. I understand that
> setting up such an event as part of the investigation if the
> people are suspects is banned, but I suppose it's easy for plod
> to get around that.
>
That's because it's nearly always the one making the appeal that did it. These appeals have NEVER had a successful outcome unless the person making the appeal is the guilty one. In other words, they are nearly always staged by the police to entrap the appellant.

Never heard that suspects can't make an appeal. Is that new?

[David Johnson]

"I must admit the first thing I saw on seeing the relatives was 'benefits'."

So not horror, despair, pain, torment, tragedy etc then, but "benefits"?

Interesting!

[jimslip]

David Johnson wrote:

> "I must admit the first thing I saw on seeing the relatives was
> 'benefits'."
>
> So not horror, despair, pain, torment, tragedy etc then, but
> "benefits"?
>
> Interesting!

I think its a little unfair to scold Peter for observing the family looked like they were on "Benefits". I am sure if Tia had come from a middle class family and Peter had observed, "They look like toffs", you wouldn't have finger wagged or told him off.

As a mark of respect for this poor girl, let's not bring party politics and political correctness into the discussion.

There are plenty of other topics for you to patrol. This topic is about the apparent incompetence of the police.

[jimslip]

one eyed jack wrote:

> I was amazed to read they searched the house 4 times and only
> just found her yesterday unless there is more t this than meets
> the eye
>
> I also read a man hunt was on for the guy as he did a runner
> but yet how did they find him to arrest him in a pub in South
> London yesterday evening
>
> Whatever the case may be it doesnt look very good for him and I
> suspect very probablr that he is guilty but lets not get ahead
> of ourselves just yet.
>
Ahem, I think Hazell explaining why the dead body of his, "Grand child" is found very well hidden in his house, especially when he says that he was the last person to see her alive would be entertaining to observe!

I don't think I'd like to be his defence lawyer! I believe a member of the public reported his whereabouts to the police.

[David Johnson]

You can obviously read what the hell you like into my post, but you are writing nonsense as per usual.

"I think its a little unfair to scold Peter for observing the family looked like they were on "Benefits". "

Wrong.

To repeat what I posted and put in capitals the key word to make it easier for you to grasp

"I must admit the FIRST thing I saw on seeing the relatives was
'benefits'."

So not horror, despair, pain, torment, tragedy etc then, but
"benefits"? Interesting!

" I am sure if Tia had come from a middle class family and Peter had observed, "They look like toffs", you wouldn't have finger wagged or told him off."

Wrong.

I would have found it equally "interesting". Here, try the sentence "So not horror, despair, pain, torment, tragedy etc then, but "toffs"? Interesting!


"As a mark of respect for this poor girl, let's not bring party politics and political correctness into the discussion."

You are clearly talking immature bollocks.

"There are plenty of other topics for you to patrol."

You are the most un-self aware person I have ever come across. A bit like a 4 year old.

"This topic is about the apparent incompetence of the police."

Clearly not according to Peter.

Have a nice evening.

[David Johnson]

"especially when he says that he was the last person to see her alive"

I thought that he had denied hurting Tia. Clearly both statements cannot be correct?

As OEJ sensibly points out

"Whatever the case may be it doesnt look very good for him and I
> suspect very probably that he is guilty but lets not get ahead
> of ourselves just yet"