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

[RusselSprout]

My guess is tomorrow or Friday at latest, but that may be wishful thinking.

 

[Carroll520]

Ms Prior says:

She says she didn't do anything to cause Arthur to die. That's her case. She is not a stupid woman. She knows all of the medical evidence is against her, again and again and again it has been pointed out to her. She is not an idiot.

She knows what it shows. Yet she says to you 'I didn't, I didn't'. Even if you reject that there's still decisions for you to make."

I'm not sure how to interpret this!!? Anyone?

Didnt make any sense! She knows the medical evidence is against her.
Yes Mrs Prior that is because she knows she is as guilty as SIN

 

[SpursGyal]

This is not bullying for bullying sake'
Mr Richmond says Hughes accepts he was cruel to Arthur by forcing him to stand in isolation.

He says he 'essentially puts up his hands and says no contest' to the child cruelty counts relating to assault and forced standing in isolation.

He tells the jury Hughes is ultimately in 'your charge' and there was no real point in him standing up and pleading guilty. Mr Richmond says:

The battlegrounds, places we do say to you we don't accept he's done this, are the murder and mansaughter, the deprivation of food and drink and the salt. What's gone on here is Mr Hughes has tried to find a way of disciplining Arthur and has completely lost sight.

This is not bullying for bullying sake. It started off as trying to find the right place, right level, and failing."

 

[SpursGyal]

.. the word you are looking for, is evil'
Mr Richmond: "Our view of Ms Tustin, our case against Ms Tustin, are directly at odds with Ms Prior.

"I'm afraid I will not be mocking in my tone of her client and will try and be as respectful as I can. But the reality is Ms Tustin has a number of features about her which are very worrying.

"And I'm afraid when you think about them and analyse the evidence and the way she behaved towards Arthur, the conclusion you may reach, the word you are looking for, is evil.

"She is as you will see as we go through this one last time, manipulative, controlling, she uses emotional blackmail, she does everything sh can to control the narrative to get her version of events in first and control the way people think.

"She used against Arthur confirmation bias, again and again and again."

 

[SpursGyal]

She is not just physically aggressive she is intellectually aggressive'
Mr Richmond continues: "She is aggressive, she is not just physically aggressive she is intellectually aggressive. She makes a point and keeps on making it and making it.

"When you say something she will pick you up on a particular word. She will get highly defensive very easily. She will use evidence to support her contentions and she will use it very cleverly.

"The way she used audio and photographs to back up her assertions. She pursued from the very early days an anti-Arthur narrative. Don't be fooled for a second by this notion she was was a loving confidante of Arthur at the start. By Christmas 2019 or early January he was telling his uncles that Emma Tustin was mean.

"She uses Thomas Hughes' absence to good effect because the number of things that happen when he's not there is remarkable. She drives wedges between people so she is in control. She drove a wedge between Arthur and Madeleine. She drove a wedge between Thomas and his family.

"And she tries again and again and again to drive a wedge between Mr Hughes and Arthur. And more fool him he lets her. He lets her."

.

 

[SpursGyal]

'Her prey was that little boy called Arthur'
Ms Richmond: "She never allows Arthur and Mr Hughes to have quiet time to themselves. She's always there."

He states she was deliberately 'creating drama' when she called her ex-boyfriend Shane Hawkins to confront Hughes in April.

Mr Richmond adds: "The relationship was never given chance to heal, never given chance because one of the techniques she uses is this drip, drip, drip of poison and playing the victim.

"From the very start to the finish, the moment she walked into the witness box to the moment Ms Prior spoke on her behalf, she has played the role of the victim.

"She is not a victim, she is a predator. And her prey was that little boy called Arthur because she wanted something he had. Thomas Hughes. And she pursued her aim ruthlessly because that's what she is, ruthless, relentlessly obsessive."

He argues that Catherine Milhench stated Tustin seemed 'obsessed with Arthur'.

Mr Richmond adds: "The way she just wouldn't let him be, when he was really doing nothing.

 

[SpursGyal]

'He was so ridiculously attached to Emma Tustin'
Mr Richmond continues: "Mr Hughes does not come out of this looking good because he went from a father who seemed to do everything he could for his child, whose family say he got on very well with his son, into a disciplinarian and into a bully.

"But that's a very long way from somebody who was then trying to harm his son deliberately and ruthlessly. He was bullying his son and that's something he will have to live with for the rest of his life. He was so ridiculously attached to Emma Tustin."

The barrister states most people reading the texts between Hughes and Tustin would tell Tustin 'to get lost'.

Mr Richmond: "But he doesn't. He won't be the first person to be stupid in a relationship. She knew which buttons to press. Ms Prior says that's what we were doing to Emma Tustin. When you look at it, the real button pusher was Emma Tustin."

He argues from a very early stage in the relationship Tustin undermined Hughes as a parent, undermined Arthur's behaviour and undermined the relationship between Arthur and his mothe

 

[Discosally]

Who is Madeleine that Mr Richmond is referring to?

 

[Dotta]

You have to stick to the rules. This is not a case of you sending out a message about child abuse'
Mr Richmond emphasises the importance of the jury removing emotion from their decision. He tells them:

You have to stick to the rules. This is not a case of you sending out a message about child abuse.

This is a case of you sending out a message that, no matter how horrible the facts, a British jury will behave fairly and come to the correct verdicts, even if they don't like it and others don't like it. That's what you signed up for."

Mr Richmond concedes the jury do not have a 'complete picture' and may have 'questions which remain unanswered'.

He warns against 'speculating' about what happened.

Im getting angrier with each sentence I read.
I dont like condescending tone.
Jury know very well their rules!

 

[Scratchingmyhead]

Who is Madeleine that Mr Richmond is referring to?

I assume Tustin's daughter?

 

[SpursGyal]

She is someone who will put her claws in'
Mr Richmond states the 'thinking step' was Tustin's suggestion and that she was the person who 'introduced that concept'.

He tells the jury Tustin's 'grip tightened' when she and Hughes got engaged.

Mr Richmond adds: "Another feature of Emma Tustin is she does everything on the sly. She waits until Tom is not around. She does things she can deny or interpret another way."

He says: "She is not someone who takes a backseat, she is someone who will put her claws in. Better yet, like a plant putting her tentacles in. She would do and say anything to get her own way.

"The reason she can't cope in this trial is that up until this trial no-one has said to Emma Tustin 'no'. You see how she is when she can't get her own way. What you saw in her was a snapshot of when she doesn't get her own way.

 

[RusselSprout]

Oh I wonder what the jury saw, sounds like she possibly had an outburst

 

[SpursGyal]

'...the sucker is falling for it.'
Mr Richmond turns to the bruises found on Arthur in April and says the jury 'can't trust' what social services said in their evidence adding: "As far as investigations go that wasn't their finest hour".

He states Arthur was 'clear' who had caused the bruises.

Mr Richmond states Tustin began 'setting up a narrative' by starting to record Arthur.

The barrister tells the court that Tustin was 'in control of the food'.

Mr Richmond states Tustin 'constantly' claimed Arthur was 'winning' or that Hughes was 'letting him win'.

He adds: "Thomas Hughes was being bombarded by this again and again and again and the sucker is falling for it.

 

[JayWill]

Just fancy setting up a fight between a grown woman and a 6 year old.

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes 'stupidly did not stand up to Tustin'
Mr Richmond states there was 'always a drama' when Hughes took Arthur out because Shane Hawkins was coming to collect or drop off his children.

He says: "It was always 'you don't love me', 'Arthur is getting his way'. She started this every time he's with Arthur so he's spending time defending himself against her and not focusing on his relationship with Arthur. She was doing it deliberately."

Mr Richmond concedes Hughes 'does vent with bad language and does say things which sound threatening'.

He argues it was 'horrible, horrible venting' but emphasise they were not threats which were going to be carried out.

Mr Richmond states Hughes 'stupidly' did not stand up to Tustin.

The barrister tells the court 'another tactic' she used was to text Hughes shortly before he came back to report Arthur misbehaving in order to 'wind him up'.

 

[Kokopie]

Madeleine is Arthur’s maternal grandmother

 

[SpursGyal]

Tustin started to 'set the narrative'
Mr Richmond explains the picture of the Taser sent by Hughes as 'dark humour'.

He states if Hughes did search for pressure points at the same time it came after a 'bombardment from Emma Tustin racking up the pressure'.

Mr Richmond argues Tustin 'weaponised' her own children as well as her pregnancy, against Hughes.

He says another 'tactic' she employs is to put words in people's mouths.

Mr Richmond moves on to the events of the end of May and says: "She's pregnant and now she can really go to town because Arthur is threatening the baby."

He argues that Tustin started to 'set the narrative' around Arthur's injuries by reporting that he was 'throwing himself' into things.

 

[RusselSprout]

Arthur Labinjo-Hughes 'knew his dad was going to kill him'

Adding this link as it has a court drawing of the two, they appear to be sitting next to one another?

 

[SpursGyal]

She is actually being quite violent'
Mr Richmond states Hughes was 'under the most awful pressure' but 'played right into her hands' by kicking the door.

"Now she has got something she can use, I'm scared of you," he adds.

The barrister tells the court Tustin did not tell Hughes she had hit Arthur to the head herself.

Mr Richmond says: "The truth is she is creating a narrative to disguise the fact she is losing her temper with him more and she is actually being quite violent."

Turning to Arthur's fatal injuries on June 16 he adds: "She was getting more and more angry and she snaps and even though she will not face up to it, when she snapped she killed him."

 

[Dotta]

Arthur Labinjo-Hughes 'knew his dad was going to kill him'

Adding this link as it has a court drawing of the two, they appear to be sitting next to one another?

Thanks!
Looking not so cocky now!
She looks devastated and resigned.
He - scared.