GUILTY UK - Star Hobson, 16 months, murdered, Sep 2020 *arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Along with pp I’m really confused as to why they weren’t charged with cruelty. I can’t imagine what more evidence there would need to be?

As for the causing or allowing, on the evidence we’ve read personally I think I would find FS guilty per the wording of the charge:
(1)A person (“D”) is guilty of an offence if—

(a)a child or vulnerable adult (“V”) dies [F2or suffers serious physical harm] as a result of the unlawful act of a person who—

(i)was a member of the same household as V, and

(ii)had frequent contact with him,

(b)D was such a person at the time of that act,

(c)at that time there was a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of such a person, and

(d)either D was the person whose act caused [F3the death or serious physical harm] or—

(i)D was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk mentioned in paragraph (c),

(ii)D failed to take such steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from the risk, and

(iii)the act occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

BBM.
Being stupid doesn’t in my mind exonerate FS from what she ought to have foreseen and could reasonably be expected to do.

Much has been made of her “IQ of 70” but the number means nothing in a vacuum. IQ is a comparative, and it assesses you against your peers. Therefore whilst accepting that FS is “less intelligent” than other 20(?) year olds, if you tested her against 13-14 year olds the number would be higher. I would challenge that a 13-14 year old would know damn well that if you leave a baby with someone who beats them they will beat them again. JMO MOO
 
Kitkat28 said:
Along with pp I’m really confused as to why they weren’t charged with cruelty. I can’t imagine what more evidence there would need to be?

As for the causing or allowing, on the evidence we’ve read personally I think I would find FS guilty per the wording of the charge:
(1)A person (“D”) is guilty of an offence if—

(a)a child or vulnerable adult (“V”) dies [F2or suffers serious physical harm] as a result of the unlawful act of a person who—

(i)was a member of the same household as V, and

(ii)had frequent contact with him,

(b)D was such a person at the time of that act,

(c)at that time there was a significant risk of serious physical harm being caused to V by the unlawful act of such a person, and

(d)either D was the person whose act caused [F3the death or serious physical harm] or—

(i)D was, or ought to have been, aware of the risk mentioned in paragraph (c),

(ii)D failed to take such steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect V from the risk, and

(iii)the act occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen.

BBM.
Being stupid doesn’t in my mind exonerate FS from what she ought to have foreseen and could reasonably be expected to do.

Much has been made of her “IQ of 70” but the number means nothing in a vacuum. IQ is a comparative, and it assesses you against your peers. Therefore whilst accepting that FS is “less intelligent” than other 20(?) year olds, if you tested her against 13-14 year olds the number would be higher. I would challenge that a 13-14 year old would know damn well that if you leave a baby with someone who beats them they will beat them again. JMO MOO
Click to expand...

An IQ of 70 is equivalent to a 9 year old, also according to sentencing guidelines learning disabilities, as well as domestic violence and coercive control mean someone convicted of causing or allowing will get a lower sentence.

What is relevant is the IQ gap between SB and FS, it’s very annoying that we haven’t been told that. But it’s obvious that SB is significantly more intelligent than FS.

I do agree that low IQ in itself is not an excuse, many woman with IQs of 70 and even lower make good mothers. (In fact in some parts of the world, an IQ of 70 is average, the average of 100 is based on Europeans). I think if FS had exactly the same mental capacity, but had the personality trait of being caring rather than selfish and lazy (as her own family describe her), she would have put a stop to the cruelty to Star.

I agree about the “ought to have forseen”, I didn’t know about that part.

There’s no evidence that FS knew about any assaults before the weekend of the 12th-14th of September, and I would give her the benefit of the doubt about the “ought to have forseen” before this date, because of her low IQ and being actively manipulated.

She was only suspicious and didn’t know the extent of SB’s attacks on Star, but it could be argued that because babies are so delicate FS ought to have known how deadly any assault of any severity could be. (Not to mention how cruel, but sadly this isn’t a consideration in this trial).

After this date, Star saw SB twice, both times with FS present. FS had not seen any attacks herself, and therefore, for an intellectually challenged person, it could be argued that it wasn’t unreasonable for her to think that Star was safe.

The attack occurred when FS was present and had just nipped to the loo.

The debate here regarding d.iii (if they believe FS’s account, which I do), will rest on whether FS could have reasonably predicted an attack during her toilet break. Also the fact she was planning to let SB babysit Star alone at a later date undermines her attempts to protect Star with her presence.

Morally speaking, I really hope that FS is convicted of causing/allowing, because she deserves punishment for her appalling treatment of her baby. But I’m not sure if it stands up, legally. The jury will be debating a looooong time if she’s actually guilty of it beyond reasonable doubt. (Including debating about the veracity of her toilet break).

I have no idea why the prosecution didn’t decide to charge them with child cruelty, despite the ample and indisputable evidence for this crime. They did in Arthur’s case. Child cruelty is much more fitting for FS in my opinion and would ensure she was convicted of something.
 
Last edited:
Scratchingmyhead said:
I understand that no new charges can be added but I'm talking about right at the start of the investigation and the bringing of the charging/case being brought to court e.g. during case management discussions..
Click to expand...
I believe if being tried together they need to face the same charges (or alternative charges for the same offence) as the charges are based on the same set of facts. However, in my opinion a cruelty charge could be based on the same facts and could be faced by both defendants.
 
Given these two options only, I don't think I could hand on heart, find FS guilty on these counts.
And yet...and yet...no doubt the significance of the IQ tests was explained to FS before she did them and the tests are * not * difficult to manipulate IMO.
Oh dear...I'd be useless on that jury
 
Good lord, someone needs to buy David Jagger a pint. He’s done a beyond thorough job on this trial.

Absolutely agree with the comments about a child cruelty charge, surely there would’ve been enough to put that on there.

How long would they deliberate for before the judge moves to accept a majority verdict?
 
Scratchingmyhead said:
Given these two options only, I don't think I could hand on heart, find FS guilty on these counts.
And yet...and yet...no doubt the significance of the IQ tests was explained to FS before she did them and the tests are * not * difficult to manipulate IMO.
Oh dear...I'd be useless on that jury
Click to expand...

The expert was asked about the possibility, and he said he felt she was doing the test to the best of her ability. He said fakers normally score lowly in every aspect of the IQ test, whereas FS had a range of scores showing natural strengths and weaknesses.

Her strengths correlated with her known employment history, (her strength is in practical intelligence), and her overall low IQ fit in with her poor GSCE results.

Before her IQ score was mentioned, FS’s family members had described her as “slow” and “different”. Her mum said she played with dolls until the age of 16.

She comes across as very thick in her court testimony, and from that alone people were speculating if she was learning disabled, before knowing anything about the IQ assessment.
 
squish said:
She was only suspicious and didn’t know the extent of SB’s attacks on Star, but it could be argued that because babies are so delicate FS ought to have known how deadly any assault of any severity could be.
Click to expand...
I keep coming back to this in my head. I have a family member who has, to use her preferred term, learning disabilities. Due to this she won’t ever live independently, wouldn’t be able to parent a child, or function in the way someone of her age would expect to, however she would still know damn well that a) babies are to be loved and cared for, fed, cuddled, tended to if they cry, b) you don’t leave a baby with any random who will take it so you can go drinking and c) if you even slightly suspect someone is hurting a baby you tell someone else, rather than carry on giving them access to that baby.
squish said:
The debate here regarding d.iii (if they believe FS’s account, which I do), will rest on whether FS could have reasonably predicted an attack during her toilet break. Also the fact she was planning to let SB babysit Star alone at a later date undermines her attempts to protect Star with her presence.
Click to expand...
I do actually believe FS was in the toilet. I don’t however think it matters much because I don’t think that she has to have foreseen that SB would kill or injure Star at that exact time. I think it’s enough that she knew it would happen at some point, to find her guilty of causing/allowing.
 
The jury have returned with a question.



Smith and Brockhill have taken their seats in court.

Mrs Justice Lambert is explaining to them there is a question from the jury.

The question asks, Yvonne Spendley's statement to police, when she refers to the phone call in the ambulance from Smith, what date was that statement given?

LIVE: Star Hobson murder trial day 36 - Jury watch
 
SpursGyal said:
The jury have returned with a question.



Smith and Brockhill have taken their seats in court.

Mrs Justice Lambert is explaining to them there is a question from the jury.

The question asks, Yvonne Spendley's statement to police, when she refers to the phone call in the ambulance from Smith, what date was that statement given?

LIVE: Star Hobson murder trial day 36 - Jury watch
Click to expand...

interesting …..
 
SpursGyal said:
The jury have returned with a question.



Smith and Brockhill have taken their seats in court.

Mrs Justice Lambert is explaining to them there is a question from the jury.

The question asks, Yvonne Spendley's statement to police, when she refers to the phone call in the ambulance from Smith, what date was that statement given?

LIVE: Star Hobson murder trial day 36 - Jury watch
Click to expand...

Interesting question, sounds like they are torn on FS. I think (hope!) they decided on SB pretty quickly.
 
The minimum time between the jury being sent to retire and directions for a majority verdict is 2 hours. But the jury must not feel pressured regarding the time they have to reach a verdict so it’s unusual for a judge to give majority directions that quickly. In more complex cases it can be days before a majority direction is given.
I think if we don’t have a verdict today or by the end of Monday there will probably be a majority direction given. MOO
 
Kitkat28 said:
I keep coming back to this in my head. I have a family member who has, to use her preferred term, learning disabilities. Due to this she won’t ever live independently, wouldn’t be able to parent a child, or function in the way someone of her age would expect to, however she would still know damn well that a) babies are to be loved and cared for, fed, cuddled, tended to if they cry, b) you don’t leave a baby with any random who will take it so you can go drinking and c) if you even slightly suspect someone is hurting a baby you tell someone else, rather than carry on giving them access to that baby.

I do actually believe FS was in the toilet. I don’t however think it matters much because I don’t think that she has to have foreseen that SB would kill or injure Star at that exact time. I think it’s enough that she knew it would happen at some point, to find her guilty of causing/allowing.
Click to expand...
According to her testimony, some of the cruelty, eg the scaring star awake, was FS repeating what she had experienced. She stated her dad did it to her. Given her challenges it’s possible she didn’t know any better. She appears to have a pattern of copying others. This could be linked to some of her challenges. Putting it bluntly, she simply didn’t know any better.
As to leaving the baby with randoms, they weren’t randoms, they were friends/family and SB was FS partner. It’s not like she was just pulling people off the street to babysit.
I think it comes down to when did FS suspect or realise something was going on and what did she think was happening. To us normal people it’s obvious, but would it have been to FS?
MOO
 
ChloLo said:
According to her testimony, some of the cruelty, eg the scaring star awake, was FS repeating what she had experienced. She stated her dad did it to her. Given her challenges it’s possible she didn’t know any better. She appears to have a pattern of copying others. This could be linked to some of her challenges. Putting it bluntly, she simply didn’t know any better.
As to leaving the baby with randoms, they weren’t randoms, they were friends/family and SB was FS partner. It’s not like she was just pulling people off the street to babysit.
I think it comes down to when did FS suspect or realise something was going on and what did she think was happening. To us normal people it’s obvious, but would it have been to FS?
MOO
Click to expand...

I agree - from the little snapshots we have had of wider family life this going out and drinking - having babysitters pulled from a circle of family friends / leaving babies in care of others when she needed a longer break from childcare responsibilities was ‘normal’ family life. Indeed, she was often doing it so she could go out with her own mum. Life at mums house was described as unstructured and chaotic. MOO
 
Last edited:
SpursGyal said:
The jury have returned with a question.



Smith and Brockhill have taken their seats in court.

Mrs Justice Lambert is explaining to them there is a question from the jury.

The question asks, Yvonne Spendley's statement to police, when she refers to the phone call in the ambulance from Smith, what date was that statement given?

LIVE: Star Hobson murder trial day 36 - Jury watch
Click to expand...
Oh..forget my last post ;)
 
Scratchingmyhead said:
When the verdicts are announced (let's hope it's soon!), I'll bet a load of extra security will suddenly appear in the public area :cool:
Click to expand...

yes I think, sadly, it’s likely to be a verdict that ‘divides opinions’ for sure. At least there is some strong evidence that cannot be denied.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 195 more.
Total: 502 (members: 196, guests: 306)

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
306
Total visitors
502
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,680
Messages
18,243,992
Members
234,421
Latest member
EimearRyan90
Back
Top