Thoughts on Conspiracy Theories

He was 14 at the time of the killing

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/466367/FBI-profile-of-Jodi-killer-points-to-wrong-verdict

Not that the FBIs profiling means much legally, but why would the police go to so much expense to hire them for the job and then hide the document, then eventually hand it out with parts missing/edited.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/aug/02/luke-mitchell-jodi-jones-appeal

I have a feeling that fella might be innocent, not 100% sure yet though but there are lots of red flags. I don't like the case. Something isn't right.

Is it legal to question a minor in Scotland without a solicitor present? Was there a parent or "appropriate adult" with him?

At the time I lived three miles from Dalkeith where Jodi was murdered. I remember the night it happened as I was driving back from work and the police presence was obvious.
If I can remember correctly there was talk of Luke being heavily involved in drugs and other strange things. His family (especially his mother) have strongly defended him and
continued to help with the appeals he has made. I'm not sure what I think if I'm honest.

Freedom wrote:Is it legal to question a minor in Scotland without a solicitor present? Was there a parent or "appropriate adult" with him?

No Freedom in Scotland a minor does need to have a solicitor and I'm sure a family/guardian member present.

I vaguely remember this case now it's been mentioned.

Will read some more on it later to make my mind up on it all.

I havn't read anywhere he was a drug user but did read he sold cannabis. However I read another school friend was a heavy drug user and had handed in an essay the previous week about murdering a girl in the woods and a witness claimed to have seen him soon afterwards with scratches on his face.

It seems like the prosecution based their case on the accused and his dog finding the body, they say he had to have known it was there, even though it was the dog who found her.

They accused him of being into dark stuff too without any evidence. He did have a cd but was later proved it was purchased after the murder.

I know a lot of cases can be proved on only circumstantial evidence, but this one sucks.
No DNA on her belonging to the accused, I'm sure she put up a fight, no DNA on him or his home. The prosecution said he burned his clothes in his yard but no evidence was found that he had but it still went against him.

He was tried in the area it happened which seemingly had massive media attention. The jury were not put in a hotel. So much of this case stinks. Why didn't they investigate the DNA that was found on her and pursue that line also.

Seemingly there was a BBC documentary about the case, I'll have a look on YouTube and see is it there, I'd like to see it.

While looking on YouTube I came across his polygraph test, it's in three parts. He Passed.
Just search both their names, Luke Mitchell Jodi Jones and you will find them.

I'm going to watch them now.

This link is a news report on another suspect who was never questioned.

The more I read about this case the more I think Luke is innocent.  It's a disgrace the police won't follow other lines, to be certain.

Not one hundred percent sure here Bloodhound, but there was talk of an older man with learning difficulties who 'may' have been regarded as a suspect. I lived in Pathead(which is the next village to Dalkeith) and I am sure what I did hear came from the villagers as I can't remember paying close attention to the media. However at one point I'm sure I did think Luke was innocent, but it has been so long now, who knows.

PMR wrote:

poster wrote:

PMR wrote:Not all police dogs react to cadaverine, in Huntleys case it might not have had time to develop and in the Tia Sharp case the land sharks were probably looking for a live scent to track

Hmm....sorry, nice try....rubbish

Hmm ..... sorry not rubbish  

The 'rubbish' bit relates to my frustration about the convictions of Huntley and Carr. Nothing will convice me that they are guilty. I don't think the case against them stands at all. It is completely illogical.

While I still don't think Stuart Hazell comes across as guilty in the interview (although I agree the 'angel' bit is over-egging)  I hadn't read the letter he wrote in which he clearly seems to be saying that there was an accident and he panicked.

But, again, the forensics of the case just don't add up in terms of a body lying in the house for 5-6 days. And while it is true that the dogs brought in might have been search and rescue rather than cadaver, I still think that the dogs would have reacted in some sort of way to cadaver scent on those four occasions.  

Rather like the search and rescue dogs brought in in the early hours/days by Portuguese police who became extremely agitated outside apartment 5J. This happened on several occasions with several different dogs so cannot be written off as an anomaly. And although Portuguese police say that the dogs were not alerting to the scent they were trained to alert to (an alive person) they certainly became extremely agitated. Which might suggest the scent of cadaver coming from that apartment.

And how could the police have missed a body lying in an attic for so long? Surely this is one of the most obvious places to search? I mean it's positively keystone cops. Mind boggling ineffectual, imo.

I have no idea what Suart Hazell is really like but my main gripe is the forensics of the case and the fact that the police were so bungling that they missed the body in the attic for so long.

ETA: I broadly agree with the sentiments in the link below. I am not saying the man is an angel. I have no idea. It's just that the case against him doesn't really add up, imo.

ETA2: Think this link was posted upthread and I agree that the Satanist bit loses me slightly. But who knows? There are some might strange people around.

http://www.geneticdisorders.info/article/57024764/the-stuart-hazell-set-up/

What forensics don't add up?  I couldn't find any yet but this case is new to me.

The dogs DID alert towards the attic on each occasion.  One police man looked inside, with his legs dangling down, so obviously didn't enter and search it.  There's a lot of them wood beams in an attic, very easy to hide a body especially if no one searches there.

Yes the police were bungling, I agree and only eventually heeded the dog alerts when the body began to smell a few days later..The officers were reprimanded for this and I believe an apology made to the family, the dog trainers were removed from that line of work in their jobs.  No one was sacked. But to be fair they learned a lot from this case, in regards to taking the dogs more seriously.

I personally think the police couldn't be bothered climbing up and crawling through a small attic with a dog in tow.

A few bits about the evidence here.  On point no. 2, about the posed photo of A dead Tia, all the prosecution could say was that she might have been alive.

This man is as guilty as sin.  He's a pervert and should never be free again.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/photos-tia-sharp-the-evidence-against-hazell-71944/view/29130

@poster...

Why would the Police stitch up Stuart Hazell.... What would be the motive for that....

Been reading a bit more on this Luke Mitchell chap.

It's very iffy to say the least that he actually did the crime I must say.

Bloodhound wrote:A few bits about the evidence here.  On point no. 2, about the posed photo of A dead Tia, all the prosecution could say was that she might have been alive.

This man is as guilty as sin.  He's a pervert and should never be free again.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/photos-tia-sharp-the-evidence-against-hazell-71944/view/29130

Interesting.

Never seen any of that before.

Certainly looks hugely incriminating.

But I still think there are weird factors to the case relating to the dogs, the time it took to find the body and why would the killer hide the body in his own home where it was bound to be found and where the finger would point straight to him? Surely that is entirely illogical? If Hazell snapped and did something and then panicked, surely he would move to the body away from the house?

Surely one of the hallmarks of a murderer is that the try to conceal the evidence of what they have done? Not put it in the very same house where they lived?

It is also on record that Tia preferred to be with her grandmother rather than with her mother who had remarried and had two more children.

I'd probably be looking a bit more at the role of Tia's step-father and Tia's home life with her mother generally. I would be looking at the wider family dynamic. Why did Tia prefer to be with her grandmother?

Certainly, in the cctv footage of Tia shopping with Hazell on the day he allegedly murdered her she seems very relaxed and at ease in his company. There is nothing that suggests she was scared of him or wanted to get away from him. If the relationship had been inappropriate or he had been in any way threatening towards her, she would not have wanted to spend time at her grandmother's house.

http://truthseeker444.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/tia-blog-stuart-hazell-at-this-stage-is.html

Andrew wrote:@poster...

Why would the Police stitch up Stuart Hazell.... What would be the motive for that....

I think the police are often under huge pressure to wrap up a case and there might be a tendency to shoehorn someone into the suspect role. Other times I would imagine there are other factors at play that might involve criminal gangs/tit for tat convictions/covering up for incompetence.

All sorts of reasons, I suppose including corruption (McCann case for instance, imo, with 'call me Stu' from Leics Constabulary forwarding calls directly to TM....hmmm....)

I'm not saying he was stitched up necessarily - maybe the police were just incompetent and bungling - but I find things about the case odd.

In the case of Huntley and Carr I think it was a stitch-up and I think there are political reasons for this...so there you are, another reason why police might stitch up someone - pressure from above to find a patsy.

@Poster

I can't see anything weird about the dogs at all, they alerted and were ignored.

I think he hid the body in the attic with the intention of moving her when he could. He might not have had time to dispose of her, but I certainly don't believe he intended keeping her there for too long. But then he didn't know he would be put under house arrest, so he had no choice but to leave her there.

Maybe Tia had a good relationship with her granny and preferred staying with her. I don't know. But I don't think the body was planted in the attic. It was impossible. Hazell was under house arrest and was there during the searches. Tia's grandmother may have been there too.

Plus the fact he admitted he did it by accident, hid the body because he panicked. His confession was nothing like Huntleys, he wasn't drugged up, he wasn't carted off to a mental hospital. He was clear in his confession, and his plea from not guilty to guilty.

I honestly can't see, with all the evidence available and a bit of logic, how you think someone else killed her and planted the body there, and for hazell never to use this as a defence at any time, if it was the case, it would be stupid on his part, and he doesn't seem stupid to me.

But anyway, I think I read that there were one or two more sources of DNA found on Tia, so maybe he didn't work alone or had help getting her to the attic. But I think he'd be the type to have said so by now if someone else was involved.

Looking into his background he is a dodgy character, and his browsing history just adds to the evidence that he was a pervert.

poster wrote:

Andrew wrote:@poster...

Why would the Police stitch up Stuart Hazell.... What would be the motive for that....

I think the police are often under huge pressure to wrap up a case and there might be a tendency to shoehorn someone into the suspect role. Other times I would imagine there are other factors at play that might involve criminal gangs/tit for tat convictions/covering up for incompetence.

All sorts of reasons, I suppose including corruption (McCann case for instance, imo,  with 'call me Stu' from Leics Constabulary forwarding calls directly to TM....hmmm....)

I'm not saying he was stitched up necessarily - maybe the police were just incompetent and bungling - but I find things about the case odd.

In the case of Huntley and Carr I think it was a stitch-up and I think there are political reasons for this...so there you are, another reason why police might stitch up someone - pressure from above to find a patsy.

I agree with this, but not in Tia's case.
The only bungling I have read about was that the police ignored, several times, the dogs alerting to the attic and they didn't bother searching the attic.
If he wasn't guilty he would be chiming it daily, he seems that type of fella.

Wasn't there something about a neighbour being arrested for being an accessory or wasting police time but was released without charge?

From Wikipedia. I think that the neighbour claimed to have seen Tia leaving the house that day.

Court proceedings
It was announced on 26 November 2012 that Hazell would face trial in May 2013.
On 7 December, the Metropolitan Police announced that Christine Sharp would not face charges.
On 5 February 2013, neighbour Paul Meehan was charged with wasting police time. He appeared at Croydon magistrates' court on 28 February 2013, where he denied the charge against him and was released on bail for a one-day trial on 29 July.
Hazell pleaded not guilty to murder when he appeared in court on 8 March 2013.
The trial of Hazell began on 7 May 2013 before Mr Justice Nicol. On 13 May, Hazell changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment on 14 May with a minimum term of 38 years, meaning he will be 75 years old before he is eligible for parole.
On 5 August 2013, Meehan was found guilty of wasting police time and sentenced to five months in prison.

Thanks Freedom.

The name Meehan again...

Shannon Matthews.

Both Meehans telling porkies.

I thought of him too. I don't think that he was ever charged with anything relating to the phoney disappearance though it's hard to believe that he didn't know about it.