GUILTY UK - Lucy McHugh, 13, murdered,, Southampton, 25 July 2018

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

33 years is more than I was expecting. Actually more than anyone has got in the last few years. And yet still, the papers don’t seem to want to report it, there’s no national outpouring of rage or grief. I wish someone could tell me why this poor child’s murder seems to have had no effect on the public’s consciousness.
 
Kitkat28 said:
33 years is more than I was expecting. Actually more than anyone has got in the last few years. And yet still, the papers don’t seem to want to report it, there’s no national outpouring of rage or grief. I wish someone could tell me why this poor child’s murder seems to have had no effect on the public’s consciousness.
Click to expand...


I don't think its the publics conscience, what sells papers and grabs attention is grieving parents who are destroyed by the fear and worry of a missing child or broken beyond repair by their murder, I can imagine the press looked hard to find this angle to sell their headlines
 
Alyce said:
So the old clothes that are referred to, at Curzon Court , were presumably SNs old clothes that he kept there ?

And do we know where Lucy’s phone was ?

And seems that SN was staying at his mothers house, at least on Tuesday July 24
Click to expand...

I also wondered about Lucy's phone. And did they have access to her FB account? If SN deleted messages, means nothing if Lucy didn't. Perhaps I have missed this.
 
Vixsen said:
I also wondered about Lucy's phone. And did they have access to her FB account? If SN deleted messages, means nothing if Lucy didn't. Perhaps I have missed this.
Click to expand...
The judge's sentencing remarks state "she had no phone".

I haven't seen any mention of whether they were able to access her new FB account. Seeing as it looks as if she set it up to keep their messages a secret it's possible she deleted messages because she wanted to, or he told her to. It wouldn't surprise me if that was all part of his planning, telling Lucy what to do to get her to meet him. IMO.
 
Vixsen said:
I also wondered about Lucy's phone. And did they have access to her FB account? If SN deleted messages, means nothing if Lucy didn't. Perhaps I have missed this.
Click to expand...

There was a report locally that her phone had been smashed the previous day.
 
A MEMORIAL service has been held for a Southampton schoolgirl who was murdered.

The service was to remember Lucy McHugh whose body was found at Southampton Sports Centre on July 26 last year.

The 13-year-old's service took place yesterday at Shirley Warren Action Church, Warren Crescent.

The service also featured a balloon release for Lucy.



[see article for photos of service]

Memorial service held for Lucy McHugh
 
Two men have denied attacking the stepfather of murdered schoolgirl Lucy McHugh.

Richard Elmes, 22, was injured in Southampton in July, two days after the family's lodger Stephen Nicholson was jailed for life for Lucy's murder.

At Southampton Crown Court, 27-year-old Wayne Grant, of Byron Road, and Charlie Whitemore, 22, of Waveney Green, pleaded not guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm.

A trial date was set for 20 January.

Pair deny attacking murdered girl's stepdad
 
18 September 2019:

Lucy McHugh's killer Stephen Nicholson will not have sentence reviewed by Attorney General's Office

THE killer of Southampton schoolgirl Lucy McHugh will not have his sentence reviewed, the Daily Echo can today reveal.

Stephen Nicholson was jailed for life with a minimum of 33 years in July after he was found guilty of the murder and rape of the 13-year-old.

But the Echo can today reveal that Nicholson’s case was put forward to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) through the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

The scheme gives members of the public the chance to ask the Attorney General to refer certain sentences for review if they believe them to be too low.

However, a spokesperson for the AGO says the sentence will not be referred to the Court of Appeal for review.

The spokesperson said: “After careful consideration the Solicitor General concluded that he could not refer the case of Stephen Nicholson to the Court of Appeal.

“A referral under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme to the Court of Appeal can only be made if a sentence is not just lenient but unduly so, such that the sentencing judge made a gross error or imposed a sentence outside the range of sentences.

Lucy McHugh's killer will not have sentence reviewed, say Attorney General's Office
 
Continued:

“The threshold is a high one, and the test was not met in this case.”

The Echo can also reveal that Nicholson has not applied to the Court of Appeal to have his sentence reduced.

A spokesperson for the Court of Appeal says the court has not received an application under his name.

The appeal must be made within 28 days of the sentence being passed.

Lucy McHugh's killer will not have sentence reviewed, say Attorney General's Office
 
23 January 2020

Two men accused of beating up the stepfather of murdered schoolgirl Lucy McHugh have been cleared of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Wayne Grant, 28, and Charlie Whitemore, 22, were found not guilty at Southampton Crown Court.

Richard Elmes, 23, was injured outside a shop in the city on 21 July.

The attack came two days after Stephen Nicholson, who had been the family's lodger, was jailed for the rape and murder of 13-year-old Lucy.

Whitemore and Grant, who is currently serving a prison sentence and formerly of Byron Road, were also found not guilty of an alternative charge of actual bodily harm.

Men cleared of attacking murdered girl's stepdad
 
Kitkat28 said:
Yes because heaven forbid her parents should take any responsibility. It’s all “someone else’s” fault. Poor Lucy.
Click to expand...
But the school had a duty of care to Lucy and their safeguarding procedures obviously fell down. They knew she was at risk but nothing came of it.

It's not just about saying it's someone else's fault, it's looking at the people who were in a position to know something, and to do something, but didn't.
 
Littlegreenlady said:
But the school had a duty of care to Lucy and their safeguarding procedures obviously fell down. They knew she was at risk but nothing came of it.

It's not just about saying it's someone else's fault, it's looking at the people who were in a position to know something, and to do something, but didn't.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment somewhat, but I think you're looking at the wrong people to blame. Lucy's schools appear to be the only ones to get things right.

Concerns about the care and emotional well being of Clare [Lucy] and her siblings began to emerge when they started school, resulting in the children being made subject to Child Protection Plans.

[...]

Concerns were raised with Children’s Social Care by teachers at both secondary schools, which Clare attended, that she had an older boyfriend whom it was believed could be sexually exploiting her. The referrals were investigated, however, because of assurances given by Clare’s mother that there was no foundation to these concerns, no action was considered necessary.

[...]

The impact of exposure to prolonged periods of parental discord, which was prevalent during Clare’s short lifetime was manifest in her exhibiting insecurity, anxiety and vulnerability, particularly whilst at primary school.

[...]

The referrals by Clare’s secondary schools detailing concerns about Clare’s involvement with this man did not progress further than the ‘Front Door’ to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), which resulted in no multi-agency sharing of information held by Police, the School and Children’s Social Care. The referrals needed to be treated as one of child protection. If this had happened, a Strategy Discussion under Section 47 of the Children Act, 1989 could have been convened concerning the risk this man posed to Clare and her family. This did not happen and was a missed opportunity.

[...]

Similarly, there should have been an escalation from the Front Door to the MASH of the concerns raised by the schools about Clare’s involvement with an older man.

[...]

The two secondary schools she attended took appropriate action and referred this information to the Front Door of the MASH. This showed that both schools had a good understanding of child sexual exploitation and sought to protect Clare from this situation by escalating their concerns.

[...]

The care and concern shown to Clare and her sibling by the staff at their primary school is commended and is an example of good practice, as is their escalation of safeguarding concerns to Children’s Social Care.

[...]

The referral of concerns about Clare and her involvement with the perpetrator by both secondary schools is also commended as examples of good practice.​

http://southamptonlscb.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/CLARE-LEARNING-REPORT.pdf
 
Littlegreenlady said:
But the school had a duty of care to Lucy and their safeguarding procedures obviously fell down. They knew she was at risk but nothing came of it.

It's not just about saying it's someone else's fault, it's looking at the people who were in a position to know something, and to do something, but didn't.
Click to expand...
Lucy’s own mother let her abuser and eventual murderer live with them, but no let’s blame the school. Ok then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 80 more.
Total: 1,963 (members: 81, guests: 1,882)

Online statistics

Members online
81
Guests online
1,882
Total visitors
1,963
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,723
Messages
18,112,519
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top