I have a genuine question and it’s not a slight against anyone here.
Many people on here, MP’s and people all over social media are adamant that TH is guilty of murder. So it follows that they believe the jury made a mistake. Do people really believe that 11 neutral people who listened to every piece of evidence made the wrong choice, and we the public know better from the limited reports we got?
It isn’t a criticism, if that’s how people feel then fair enough. If you think the jury was wrong, what do you think tricked them etc
I think they fell for his lies.
Perhaps, for instance, being fooled by TH's lies to the school about not sending him back because he had an eating disorder, and calling the GP on the school's recommendation, when it seemed pretty obvious to me that this was just another lie to the school to buy him some time with the immediate issue of schools reopening, and he had no intention of taking Arthur to see the GP, or anyone who would actually examine him. Just like when he didn't tell social workers about the bruises.
I don't think there was any evidence he knew about the salt lacing but he left him being offered just sandwiches every day, knowing Arthur wasn't eating them. I'd have found him guilty of withholding food, and drink just based on that, let alone stuffing his face with ice cream in front of him when he was so hungry and weak, and hearing recordings of Arthur wailing no one is going to feed me today. TH was withholding food and water as punishment.
The judge made it clear that TH knew exactly what was going on. There was no ignorance of the atrocities taking place. He chose Arthur's clothes and he lied about not remembering why he left him in a thick onesie for the last 4 days of his life. Too cowardly to tell the jury he saw the evidence on his frail little body and wanted to hide it. Just like 'move Arthur because Mum's coming round'. I haven't forgotten that he was actually there at the hairdressers house that morning, this wasn't messages coming through from ET, seeing with his own eyes that Arthur was not being naughty and still pressure pointing him until he screamed and demanding he called him Sir, the morning after having bashed his head into the door when he whacked him with a slipper, and knowing Arthur hadn't slept because of a headache, still denying him a bed. I will never agree that his words were just poor choice. He knew he was leaving Arthur in danger when he went out and putting him in danger himself when he was there. If they were unclear on the distinction between serious injury and GBH, there is nothing in the evidence that suggests he was taking a measured approach to violence, if there is such a thing.
I think very possibly there was a fateful dynamic with this jury, perhaps a dominant individual (I think that came through with the raft of questions that were put to witnesses, I would bet most were from the same juror) and I also don't think the deliberations were very long at all, to really discuss all the evidence in detail. Perhaps there were members of the jury who didn't want to disagree. It happens. JMO
