GUILTY UK - Arthur Labinjo Hughes, 6, killed, dad & friend arrested, June 2020 #3

[Carroll520]

In my opinion -

The fatal assault on Arthur, with intention, meets the definition of murder.

The injuries to his brain and spinal cord, and the blunt force trauma, as well as the bleeding in his brain which showed a day or two of healing, caused by salt poisoning, and restricted water intake, ignoring his requests for a doctor when he was suffering with headache through his last night on the concrete floor - and instead ramping up the violence and pouring salt down him - showed intent to cause death. (IMO) Intent to hasten an end to the problem. There was no future for Arthur unless they stopped but neither of them was prepared to stop because that would require self-recrimination (not present) and agreement, or TH to leave with Arthur and the torture, the 130 fresh bruises, to come to the attention of TH's family, and doctors. She will not admit the salt poisoning because that intention was not formed in the spur of the moment, IMO. I don't think she dreamed for one minute that they would test him for salt, she thought she could convince medics and police he was into beating himself up and throwing himself into walls, because that's the story she tried on the hairdresser.

When police reviewed the evidence, spoke to witnesses, saw the reports to SS, saw the texts and the CCTV, got the experts to assess what had happened to Arthur, they knew this could and would not have happened without TH and ET working together. There was nothing separating their involvement in the torture of Arthur but the salt, and the salt did not kill him. TH was as much responsible because Arthur was at the point of dying, at the point of not being able to survive the next assault and that could have been and was until that point, coming from either and both of them.

TH was as responsible as ET. Say there were two people stabbing someone and one knife wound to the heart caused the death, that is joint enterprise murder. This isn't joint enterprise, I believe, because TH was out of the house. TH now denies most of his violent assaults,

"Hughes reiterates he never pressure pointed Arthur and states he gave 'little squeezes' to his neck as an affectionate gesture."

"[Prior QC] argues there is no logic in his stance not to plead guilty just so the jury can 'hear what I have to say before making a decision'."

"[Richmond QC] tells the jury Hughes is ultimately in 'your charge' and there was no real point in him standing up and pleading guilty."

and thinks he can get out of everything by saying he never meant what he said, and 'prove everything'. The point about that is that it shows no remorse and in the memory of Arthur he says 'I will lie about what I did to you and I will accept a not guilty verdict'.

Bottom line, if this was murder and they acted with the same level of culpability (bar the salt) he has to face the same charges as her, as secondary party because he was out for an hour.

When I look at the guidelines for "causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm, or death", and the maximum sentence for it (14 years), this was a step up - intent to cause GBH. Intent being in their behaviour over the days before his death and in the escalation. Too egregious over its course to be classified as causing or allowing a death. If this had happened to an adult and not a child it would be classed as murder too. JMO

I couldnt agree more with you more. Both as guilty as eachother

 

[Helleux301]

I read somewhere in the web hole of articles on this case that a neighbour did call social services and the police due up the constant name calling and child screaming coming from that house. Arthur could be heard saying “it hurts it hurts”

This neighbour has since tagged people in her post as a “shame on you” for not acting. Police / social service companies etc. she said the walls between properties were very thin.

This was a daughter of the man who lived next door.


I don’t know which neighbour sat at the stand and said she didn’t really hear anything that sounded horrible anf it wasn’t a big deal. Clearly not the same neighbour !!


Another missed opportunity for Arthur

I can’t find the post I’m sorry. Jusr read it in the early days of knowing abt the case

Another potential *advertiser censored** up from social services though if indeed it’s substantiated.

Yes I've seen that as well. I think the neighbour that gave evidence is covering their own backs imo because they could of done something ( even if social services didn't act as per usual, at least they could of said they tried).

 

[Riparthur]

Did he complain of a headache prior to his fatal assault ?????

I think I missed that

Did they hit his head the day before too??

 

[Carroll520]

In my opinion -

The fatal assault on Arthur, with intention, meets the definition of murder.

The injuries to his brain and spinal cord, and the blunt force trauma, as well as the bleeding in his brain which showed a day or two of healing, caused by salt poisoning, and restricted water intake, ignoring his requests for a doctor when he was suffering with headache through his last night on the concrete floor - and instead ramping up the violence and pouring salt down him - showed intent to cause death. (IMO) Intent to hasten an end to the problem. There was no future for Arthur unless they stopped but neither of them was prepared to stop because that would require self-recrimination (not present) and agreement, or TH to leave with Arthur and the torture, the 130 fresh bruises, to come to the attention of TH's family, and doctors. She will not admit the salt poisoning because that intention was not formed in the spur of the moment, IMO. I don't think she dreamed for one minute that they would test him for salt, she thought she could convince medics and police he was into beating himself up and throwing himself into walls, because that's the story she tried on the hairdresser.

When police reviewed the evidence, spoke to witnesses, saw the reports to SS, saw the texts and the CCTV, got the experts to assess what had happened to Arthur, they knew this could and would not have happened without TH and ET working together. There was nothing separating their involvement in the torture of Arthur but the salt, and the salt did not kill him. TH was as much responsible because Arthur was at the point of dying, at the point of not being able to survive the next assault and that could have been and was until that point, coming from either and both of them.

TH was as responsible as ET. Say there were two people stabbing someone and one knife wound to the heart caused the death, that is joint enterprise murder. This isn't joint enterprise, I believe, because TH was out of the house. TH now denies most of his violent assaults,

"Hughes reiterates he never pressure pointed Arthur and states he gave 'little squeezes' to his neck as an affectionate gesture."

"[Prior QC] argues there is no logic in his stance not to plead guilty just so the jury can 'hear what I have to say before making a decision'."

"[Richmond QC] tells the jury Hughes is ultimately in 'your charge' and there was no real point in him standing up and pleading guilty."

and thinks he can get out of everything by saying he never meant what he said, and 'prove everything'. The point about that is that it shows no remorse and in the memory of Arthur he says 'I will lie about what I did to you and I will accept a not guilty verdict'.

Bottom line, if this was murder and they acted with the same level of culpability (bar the salt) he has to face the same charges as her, as secondary party because he was out for an hour.

When I look at the guidelines for "causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm, or death", and the maximum sentence for it (14 years), this was a step up - intent to cause GBH. Intent being in their behaviour over the days before his death and in the escalation. Too egregious over its course to be classified as causing or allowing a death. If this had happened to an adult and not a child it would be classed as murder too. JMO

I couldnt agree more with you more. Both as guilty as eachother

 

[Carroll520]

Did he complain of a headache prior to his fatal assault ?????

I think I missed that

Did they hit his head the day before too??

He called TH down to sitting room at 3am the night before he died, saying he had a headache. I would love to know how TH acted towards him in those quiet moments alone with Et standing over his shoulder

 

[SpursGyal]

Jury taken through Arthur's injuries
Judge Wall takes the jury through Arthur's injuries, including the fact his brain was being starved of oxygen, his raised blood sodium levels and the condition of his thymus organ which showed signs of prolonged stress comparable to a child with cancer.

He reminds the court that Arthur's cause of death was a 'severe head injury'.

Judge Wall adds: "What led to the collapse and death and brain injuries is agreed to be a combination of impact and what's called a shaking-type injury."

He states this would have occurred immediately before Arthur's collapse on June 16.

Judge Wall moves on the bruises on Arthur's body. He takes the jury through those particular findings.

 

[Riparthur]

He called TH down to sitting room at 3am the night before he died, saying he had a headache. I would love to know how TH acted towards him in those quiet moments alone with Et standing over his shoulder

Oh

He must’ve not been nice at all as Arthur woke up and starting crying seconds into waking up. He must’ve felt dizzy too hence his unsteadiness with the duvet.

I’m surprised TH even went down. I would’ve imagined he would’ve shooed him away or sworn at him for disturbing him


Was ET also there at 3am??

 

[Riparthur]

Oh

He must’ve not been nice at all as Arthur woke up and starting crying seconds into waking up. He must’ve felt dizzy too hence his unsteadiness with the duvet.

I’m surprised TH even went down. I would’ve imagined he would’ve shooed him away or sworn at him for disturbing him


Was ET also there at 3am??

And after that that *advertiser censored* still made him sleep on the floor alone?? Wow

 

[suebaloo]

I read somewhere in the web hole of articles on this case that a neighbour did call social services and the police due up the constant name calling and child screaming coming from that house. Arthur could be heard saying “it hurts it hurts”

This neighbour has since tagged people in her post as a “shame on you” for not acting. Police / social service companies etc. she said the walls between properties were very thin.

This was a daughter of the man who lived next door.


I don’t know which neighbour sat at the stand and said she didn’t really hear anything that sounded horrible anf it wasn’t a big deal. Clearly not the same neighbour !!


Another missed opportunity for Arthur

I can’t find the post I’m sorry. Jusr read it in the early days of knowing abt the case

Another potential *advertiser censored** up from social services though if indeed it’s substantiated.

I also read that on a Facebook thread. But then, why was that neighbour not subpaenoed to testify? The time lines are a little unclear as well as it appears said neighbour had not lived in Cranmore Rd for some time. Can anyone give clarity?

 

[SpursGyal]

Arthur 'could not have caused his own fatal head injuries'
Judge Wall states that Dr Roger Malcolmson, a consultant pathologist, concluded the number, pattern and distribution of bruises to Arthur suggested they had been inflicted upon him by someone else.

He tells the jury the 'consensus' view among the medical experts was that Arthur could not have caused his own fatal head injuries.

The judge states the boy would not have been able to generate enough force to cause the damage in his eye in particular, which featured a detached retina.

 

[Carroll520]

Aw god Arthurs injuries included a detached retina, FFS! Shes a monster

 

[Carroll520]

And after that that *advertiser censored* still made him sleep on the floor alone?? Wow

Unbelievable cruelty

 

[SpursGyal]

Arthur's death was caused by 'abusive head injury'
Judge Wall turns to the evidence of Jayaratnam Jayamohan, a consultant paediatric neurosurgeon, who agrees with the view that Arthur's head injuries were caused by impact(s) and shaking.

The expert had stated Arthur had the ability to resist and was no more susceptible to his injuries than other children of the same age.

He excluded 'deliberate headbutting' and concluded Arthur's death was caused by 'abusive head injury'.

 

[Carroll520]

This is hard going guys, very hard to hear the judge stating the facts in black and white, my heart is breaking all over again for little Arthur

 

[SpursGyal]

Arthur 'could not have knocked himself unconscious'
The jury is reminded of the contribution from Home Office pathologist Matt Lyall. He had compared the level of force required to cause Arthur's injuries to a road traffic collision or a fall from a second floor height.

Judge Wall states the expert concluded Arthur's injuries 'were not consistent with accidental trauma'.

He had stated Arthur banging his own head of furniture or the walls would not have caused his fatal injuries. Dr Lyall had also declared Arthur could not have knocked himself unconscious.

 

[SpursGyal]

Dr Coulthard concluded 'no doubt Arthur was salt poisoned'
The judge moves on to the topic of salt poisoning and in particular the evidence of Dr Malcolm Coulthard, a children's kidney specialist.

The jury is told salt poisoning can occur by a gradual poisoning over time or by a large bolus being administered at once.

Judge Wall states there must have been an 'acute event' to explain Arthur's salt readings, which were off the scale - over 180 millimoles per litre (mmol/L) against the normal range of 135-145 mmol/L.

Dr Coulthard had said it is possible he could have been poisoned over a few days but he would still have had to have been given a large dose of salt shortly before he was taken to hospital.

The expert had stated it was 'not possible' to consume that amount of salt voluntarily.

He stated Arthur would likely have been given the large dose of salt within a two-to-three hour window prior to his collapse.

Dr Coulthard concluded there was no doubt Arthur was salt poisoned

 

[SpursGyal]

I don’t think deliberations will take too long.

 

[SpursGyal]

Judge concludes summary of medical evidence
Judge Wall repeats that Arthur's thymus organ in his chest showed signs of enormous stress caused over a prolonged period of time.

He moves on to the boy's 'lived experience' and the evidence of Dr Sarah Dixon, consultant paediatrician.

She had said there was no 'positive learning experience' to be achieved by making Arthur stand up for so long.

The expert told the court she had never come across standing like this before in her experience.

Dr Dixon concluded the catalogue of audio clips reaffirmed her suspicion Arthur was 'ill-treated'.

She stated the 'thinking step' was a well-known parenting technique which was not cruel if used appropriately.

Judge Wall tells the jury that the expert did not recommend physical chastisement despite the fact it is still lawful in this country.

He concludes his summary of the medical evidence.

 

[JimSteel]

This is hard going guys, very hard to hear the judge stating the facts in black and white, my heart is breaking all over again for little Arthur

“Like” doesn’t do justice to your comment. I have hardly slept in days thinking of the poor child. The sheer number of appalling sufferings that Arthur was simultaneously undergoing is mind-boggling.

The saddest thing for me, is that because you can only hold two or three thoughts in your head at one time… They would have kept re-occurring to him.

If you have a broken leg, you have a broken leg. That is an awful injury, but something you will recover from and you can focus on it and it is a finite limited single trauma.

But for poor Arthur as each bruise and hunger pang and thirst and poison and confusion and loneliness and terror and abandonment and imprisonment and loss and organ failure came back into his mind in a vicious sequence, it must have been terrible to realise again and again his predicament. Not to mention the raw fear of what is next to come, something worse again.

 

[Helleux301]

Arthur's death was caused by 'abusive head injury'
Judge Wall turns to the evidence of Jayaratnam Jayamohan, a consultant paediatric neurosurgeon, who agrees with the view that Arthur's head injuries were caused by impact(s) and shaking.

The expert had stated Arthur had the ability to resist and was no more susceptible to his injuries than other children of the same age.

He excluded 'deliberate headbutting' and concluded Arthur's death was caused by 'abusive head injury'.

Thank God the judge has pointed this out. I think we are going to get at the very least an ET guilty of murder

 

[SpursGyal]

Arthur became 'fixated with death'
Judge Wall moves on to the build-up of events leading to Arthur's death.

He reminds the jury they have various accounts of Arthur from people such as his grandmother Joanne Hughes, his uncle Blake Hughes, staff at the school as well as Tustin's hairdresser Catherine Milhench.

The judge states in late 2019 Arthur's demeanour had started to deteriorate as he became fixated with death, murder, guns and the news.


He recalls the incident of the boy crying during the school nativity production at Christmas at the moment the baby Jesus was removed from the crib.