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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

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?
 
suebaloo said:
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?
Click to expand...
It means, even if she did it, think about what her intention was and conclude the GBH that led to his death was an unintentional consequence.
 
Fed up of prior making her out to the victim here, it's disgusting, I know it's her job but the more I hear it the more angry I get.
The lockdown doesn't cause you to torture a child to death.

And to ask 'why would she kill him in this time window' what on earth, now we are meant to think of a better window to kill? That's not the question and more misdirection away from the evidence.

Who knows she probably did it spur of the moment like all the other times she hurt him but this was a bigger beating.

Also the salt thing they are claiming her mother and grandmother did it, wheres the proof? Surely she would have brought in the mother to back Tustin up? Hmm. Nonsense.
 
Does anyone remember when TH was interviewed by police in the days after Arthur's death when he referred to ET as being like "Mother Theresa" ? He said words to the effect of "I tell her to hit him but she always refuses". I think this explains the phone call prior to the fatal final assault that she claims she can't remember what he said. I think he told her to attack him imo
 
The rules were Thomas Hughes' rules'
Ms Prior says:

Nothing about Emma Tustin would make you think she wanted to cause him serious bodily harm or kill him. Nothing whatsoever. She had the opportunity week after week, month after month, to do that. Take part in violence. Thomas Hughes wouldn't mind. He's quite happy being violent isn't he?

Nothing she did after Arthur's collapse caused or contributed to his death. There was no saving him in reality. He was going to die."


She says 'the rules were Thomas Hughes' rules'. The barrister 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'.

Ms Prior adds:

Whenever Emma Tustin deigned to cry she was asked 'who are you crying for?'. She can't win. If she's crying she's manipulative. If she's not crying, she's cold. She's 'it' now. It was Arthur. She's replaced Arthur. He was 'it'. Now it's her."
 
She has accepted much of her behaviour in May and June was absolutely terrible'
Ms Prior says of Tustin:

She has accepted much of her behaviour in May and June was absolutely terrible. She let that little boy suffer and she accepts that. She will pay a heavy price for that."

She reads a large segment of Hughes' police interviews including his admission Arthur 'took the brunt' of his frustration during lockdown.

Ms Prior references Hughes calling himself a 'monster' and being able to account for 129 of Arthur's 130 bruises.

She adds:

What great courage that took for that man to sit there and painfully describe the way he treated that little boy. God it's hard to listen to isn't it?

That's the man who was in control of Emma Tustin's household. That man decided what Arthur ate, when he ate, where he would stand, what he would wear and what he would do. In the middle of all that was a pregnant woman, with two kids already, social services had been involved with her before."


Ms Prior says Hughes threatened Tustin with the thing she 'feared the most', which was losing her own children.
 
.
SpursGyal said:
'Almost all you have heard about this man's background and life can only be lies'
Ms Prior asks 'who is Thomas Hughes?' and says:

Our case to you is almost all you have heard about this man's background and life can only be lies. His family and he says he hates confrontation, can't express feelings at all.

He's coerced. He's vulnerable. He was withdrawn after the conclusion of the relationship with lovely Olivia, who was lovely, Arthur was happy with Olivia. Everything was lovely and things changed when that woman came in."


She argues Arthur's mother Olivia Labinjo-Halcrow exposed Arthur to violence and domestic abuse in her relationship with Gary Cunningham.

Ms Prior repeats it is 'rewriting history' to say everything was happy before Tustin came along and adds: "Otherwise some of what she says might be true and we can't have that."
Click to expand...
I don't see the relevance of her bringing up Arthur's mom, his mom isn't on trial, although in prison for something horrendous, it has no bearing on this trial.
 
Last edited:
Mellowmelly said:
Wouldn't that be karma !

I don't see the relevance of her bringing up Arthur's mom, his mom isn't on trial, although in prison for something horrendous, it has no bearing on this trial.
Click to expand...

Exactly, also didnt ET children get exposed to domestic violence with her EX, plus we still don't know why the first 2 children she doesn't see anymore.
 
Tustin says she 'didn't do it' despite medical evidence saying not all injuries could be self-inflicted
Ms Prior continues:

In the middle of that she was dealing with anxiety, Arthur being difficult all day, being difficult because he was treated so badly. She lost all reasoning and reality.

She didn't do anything and assisted in him being treated badly and, as I say to you, that's something she will pay for, she will have to live with. She deserves to be punished for."


She asks the jury to consider everything they know about Tustin when judging what she did. Ms Prior says:

We know the medical evidence says this was not an accident. We know the medical evidence says not all the injuries could be self-inflicted. She says even, despite that, she didn't do it. Please think about that."


She asks, if the jury rejects Tustin's account, for them to 'think long and hard before you are swept by emotion'.

Ms Prior says it 'does not follow' that Tustin is a murderer and a bad person just because she has accepted she has done a bad thing.

Finally, she argues the evidence does support Hughes being the one who poisoned Arthur.

Ms Prior asks if Tustin was not the one who poisoned Arthur how likely is it she killed him shortly before her children were due to return home.

She concludes her speech.
 
Hughes' barrister says jurors have a 'horrendous job'
Bernard Richmond, defending Hughes, addresses the jury to begin his closing speech.

He asks them to remember how nervous they may have felt when standing and reading their oaths at the start of the trial.

He asks them to 'multiply that by a thousand' to comprehend how nervous someone would be feel if they were a defendant in a murder trial.

Mr Richmond acknowledges the jurors have a 'horrendous job' on their hands and this particular case was 'probably the last one you would have wanted'.
 
SpursGyal said:
Tustin says she 'didn't do it' despite medical evidence saying not all injuries could be self-inflicted

Finally, she argues the evidence does support Hughes being the one who poisoned Arthur.

Ms Prior asks if Tustin was not the one who poisoned Arthur how likely is it she killed him shortly before her children were due to return home.

She concludes her speech.
Click to expand...

Uhm the evidence support Hughes poisoning ? Tustin's words count as evidence now, (that she changed after the fact and reading the court files it seems) am I missing other evidence?
 
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.
 
Innocent is not the same as not guilty, Mr Richmond tells jurors
Mr Richmond concedes the jurors will likely feel 'angry' at Hughes and Tustin.

He says they must get away from any feeling that, if they find Hughes not guilty, they will have failed Arthur.

Mr Richmond moves onto the 'burden of proof'. He says innocent is not the same as not guilty.

Mr Richmond says if they think Hughes is 'probably guilty' but they have a 'doubt' then the 'prosecution haven't done their job'.
 
Jurors told they can clear both defendants of the salt claim even if they know 'someone has done it'
Mr Richmond goes on:

If a defence point might be right then that's enough, because you can't be sure we are wrong."

He says the jury must also treat Hughes's and Tustin's case separately. The barrister tells them they would be within their rights to find both defendants not guilty on the salt allegation, even if they know 'someone has done it'.

Now, Mr Richmond asks the jury to bear in mind that 'people have different standards'. He says:

It is quite clear, and Mr Hughes has accepted, his behaviour went beyond that of a normal parent, in relation to the standing and isolation. But what is normal is a wide concept."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 167 more.
Total: 3,157 (members: 168, guests: 2,989)

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
2,989
Total visitors
3,157
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,048
Messages
18,166,930
Members
231,919
Latest member
daisy82504
Back
Top