UK - Arthur Labinjo Hughes, 6, killed, dad & friend arrested, June 2020 #2

[Dotta]

You can’t appeal just because you don’t like the verdict. You can appeal the punishment handed down or a point of law but not the verdict.

I never said not fighting enough. She’s asked questions of TH to create reasonable doubt. That what her job is. I more meant, not trying especially hard to get a not guilty verdict. I hope that makes sense.

Thanks.
The ethics of job must be above personal feelings.
Especially in case of lawyers.
Do your best at your job or change your career if you cant cope.
It applies to everybody.

 

[Tortoise]

What ET's barrister said to the hairdresser


Ms Prior puts it to her that she has 'exaggerated' her account after finding out Arthur had died.

Ms Milhench replies: "No".

She says: "I think I was more in shock. Scared. Didn't know what to do. Me personally I've been in court before I have been attacked, I got attacked by the defence. It was hard for me to do this but I know I needed to do it. I understand it's your job."

Ms Milhench is crying and there is a brief pause while she collects herself.


To the hairdresser's partner

Ms Prior asks Mr Jarman if it is the case that he has become angry at Hughes and Tustin since learning of Arthur's death.

He replies: "After finding out what happened the only anger was possibly put on towards myself, why I didn't make the phone call.

"Looking back I could have made a phone call. I didn't. Should I have, shouldn't I have, you can go back and forwards all day saying I should have done this or should have done that."

Ms Prior suggests he has 'exaggerated' his account. Mr Jarman says: "Absolutely not."


Dad accused of murdering son branded a 'short-tempered, wicked man' - updates
---

I think the barrister has been doing her job. I don't know how any human being could dream up the notion of exaggeration, after seeing how broken that little angel was.

 

[Tinksx]

What I meant was not "liking the verdict or not liking".
But I oppose the attitude of "not fighting enough" for the client.
Why to choose this profession then?
Let's think about doctors, teachers etc.

You cannot fight something that is clearly evidenced though? Ms Prior can’t say “ET did not inflict abuse to Arthur”. Because it’s evidenced she did via cctv. So Ms Prior can only defend ET by casting holes in TH and the CPS story, prosecution witnesses testimony and by deflecting blame elsewhere. If Ms Prior were to stand in court and state “ET did not inflict abuse on Arthur”, when it’s clearly evidenced she did, Ms Prior would no longer be part of the queens counsel. Her job is to cause “reasonable doubt” amongst the jury, she cannot knowingly lie. It’s a very thin and complex line. But as long as she defends to the best of her ability with the limited amount of “mitigation” material she has, then that is sufficient.
These two really shouldn’t have taken this to trial, the evidence against them is vast!

 

[Discosally]

What ET's barrister said to the hairdresser


Ms Prior puts it to her that she has 'exaggerated' her account after finding out Arthur had died.

Ms Milhench replies: "No".

She says: "I think I was more in shock. Scared. Didn't know what to do. Me personally I've been in court before I have been attacked, I got attacked by the defence. It was hard for me to do this but I know I needed to do it. I understand it's your job."

Ms Milhench is crying and there is a brief pause while she collects herself.


To the hairdresser's partner

Ms Prior asks Mr Jarman if it is the case that he has become angry at Hughes and Tustin since learning of Arthur's death.

He replies: "After finding out what happened the only anger was possibly put on towards myself, why I didn't make the phone call.

"Looking back I could have made a phone call. I didn't. Should I have, shouldn't I have, you can go back and forwards all day saying I should have done this or should have done that."

Ms Prior suggests he has 'exaggerated' his account. Mr Jarman says: "Absolutely not."


Dad accused of murdering son branded a 'short-tempered, wicked man' - updates
---

I think the barrister has been doing her job. I don't know how any human being could dream up the notion of exaggeration, after seeing how broken that little angel was.

thanks for this. Are there any more pages of the hairdressers testimony, I didn’t read them on the day it happened and on the bham live page I can’t scroll down far enough?

 

[ScottishSam]

What I meant was not "liking the verdict or not liking".
But I oppose the attitude of "not fighting enough" for the client.
Why to choose this profession then?
Let's think about doctors, teachers etc.

How can you defend someone you know is guilty?
This might explain the defence counsels reasoning

 

[Tortoise]

thanks for this. Are there any more pages of the hairdressers testimony, I didn’t read them on the day it happened and on the bham live page I can’t scroll down far enough?

Mr Hankin calls Catherine Milhench, also known as 'Affy', to the witness box.

Witness says Arthur was 'lovely'
Ms Milhench confirms she had known Tustin for around 12 months by June, 2020, and cut her hair at her own home. But she states she did not socialise with her.

The witness confirms the hair appointments lasted between three and four hours and she got on with Tustin 'absolutely fine'.

Ms Milhench tells the court she became aware of Tustin's new relationship with Hughes around Autumn 2019, and that by the end of that year she had met Arthur.

Asked what Arthur was like she says: "Lovely, playing in the garden with my son. Happy."

'Arthur made to sit down... and not move'
Asked what his physical appearance was like, Ms Milhench adds: "Absolutely fine. Healthy. Normal boy."

Mr Hankin turns to a hair appointment at her home in February 2020. He asks how Arthur was.

Ms Milhench says: "Still healthy looking but not happy. Wasn't playing or anything at this time. He was made to sit down with his hands on his knees and not move."

She confirms Arthur was made to sit at a children's table and chair in her front room. She states Hughes and Tustin had told him to sit there.

Ms Milhench adds: "I just thought he's obviously been naughty at home. When you go to other people's homes you don't want your child to misbehave. I didn't ask questions."

She confirms the appointment lasted the usual three to four hours and Arthur was at the table the entire time. If he moved he was told to keep his hands still, she says.

Arthur told to 'face the door. Not to move'
Mr Hankin moves on to the hair appointment on June 15, 2020.

Ms Milhench confirms when Tustin arrived she told Arthur to 'stand at the front door and face the door'.

Mr Hankin reminds the court Tustin and Arthur were at her home between 10.40am and 5pm. He asks how Tustin interacted with Arthur during that time.

Ms Milhench: "Telling him to stand up not to lean on the door. To face the door. Not to move."

She confirms she first saw Arthur when she went upstairs to wash Tustin's hair.

Ms Milhench: "He was made to come upstairs and face another door. Said he couldn't be trusted."

'Ham sandwich was taken off Arthur'
Asked about what happened at lunch, Ms Milhench says Arthur was given a ham sandwich and made to eat it at the door while Tustin's other two children, who were with her, had a picnic in the garden.

She tells the court Tustin said Arthur spat out the sandwich and that it was 'rude to spit things out' so she took the sandwich away from him.

Asked whether Arthur was given a drink Ms Milhench replies: "No."

Mr Hankin asks her what else Tustin said to Arthur that day: "She would constantly be saying stand up straight, don't lean. He was facing the door constantly."

Tustin 'claimed Arthur had bitten her'
Ms Milhench refers to the statement she made a few days after Arthur died and says: "She (Tustin) said he had thrown himself into the living room door.

"I didn't see him but she got up to go to him and said he had cut his lip and gone to get a tissue to clean it up.

"Whilst doing that she said he had bitten her. She showed a small mark on her hand."

Ms Milhench describes it as a 'tiny mark' on Tustin's thumb area.

Asked whether she was aware of Arthur 'throwing himself up the door' Ms Milhench says: "More like falling not throwing."

She adds this was due to Arthur's 'weakness'.

Tustin was 'aggressively, shouting'
Ms Milhench tells the court that whilst returning from the bathroom she did not see Arthur try to push Tustin down the stairs because she was walking in front of them, but she does recall Tustin complaining that Arthur did.

Ms Milhench states she did not hear Arthur banging on any doors and that she would have heard if he did.

She describes the way Tustin spoke to Arthur that day as 'aggressively, shouting'.

Tustin called Arthur 'little c***'
Ms Milhench confirms Tustin was using her phone whilst having her hair done.

She says: "Messaging Tom telling him what was going on. Arthur playing up. Can I use language? I hate the word, c***, calling him a little c***, quite a lot, to Tom."

Ms Milhench says Tustin also recorded voice notes and at one point took the phone to Arthur 'for Tom to have a word with him, tell him off basically'.

Arthur fell but 'none of them helped'
She describes what happened when Hughes arrived at her home.

"He had him by the scruff of the neck and closed the door to the hallway so it was just the two of them in there. Calling him a little c*** and language."

Ms Milhench then tells the court what she saw outside as they left her home.

"I remember Arthur falling to the floor. None of them helped. He just collapsed and fell into the car."

Asked how Tustin and Hughes reacted she says: "All quite rushed. I just remember them rushing off pushing him into the car."

Hughes had Arthur 'by scruff of neck'
Mr Hankin moves on to Tustin's return visit to her home the following day, June 16, at 9.45am.

Ms Milhench says the first thing she noticed was that Arthur was wearing the same clothes.

She tells the court Arthur was brought into the house 'by the scruff of his neck again', by Hughes.

She says Hughes was being 'rough, aggressive', with Arthur. Ms Milhench states both Tustin and Hughes told Arthur to stand by the door again and not move.

Witness says Hughes wanted Arthur to respond 'yes sir'
Mr Hankin asks how the defendants spoke to Arthur.

"Constantly calling him a little c***. Telling him to stand up. It was back and forwards between them both. Both shouting. Like a game of tennis."

Mr Hankin asks whether Arthur spoke.

She says: "Only time he would speak is if they said something. He would say 'ok, yes'. If he didn't respond him correctly Tom would say 'yes what?'. He would say 'yes sir'. That's how Tom wanted him to respond to him, 'yes sir'.

Mr Hankin asks how she was feeling at that point.

Ms Milhench says: "Hated it. Uncomfortable. Wanted them out."

'My partner snuck him drink of water without them knowing'
Ms Milhench confirms her partner Tobias, also referred to as 'T', was at home on June 16.

She says: "My partner snuck him a drink of water without them knowing. He told me he had to hold the cup for him. He couldn't hold it. He was asking for more. Because he did that, he was calling for T."

Ms MIlhench tells the court Hughes overheard Arthur calling for T and said: "He won't want you. T doesn't want you because you have been banging the door and stuff."

Ms Milhench states she did not hear Arthur banging on the door.

'Pressure pointing him... because it hurts'
Further asked how the defendants spoke to Arthur, she adds: "It was continuous. Attacking. Swearing."

Mr Hankin asks if at any point she heard Arthur screaming.

Ms Milhench says: "I was doing Emma's hair. I can't remember how it started. Tom was in there, he shut the door and Arthur started screaming. I turned around and said 'what's going on?'

"She said 'pressure pointing him'. I said 'pressure pointing?'. She said 'yeah because it hurts'.

Mr Hankin asks whether she spoke to Tustin about school.

Ms Milhench said: "I suggested send him back to school if things are bad at home. She said they can't because they would see the bruises. She said it was what Tom had caused to Arthur."

'No, because Arthur wins'
Mr Hankin asks Ms Milhench whether she spoke to Tustin about Arthur going back to his grandparents.

She says: "I had said, because he mentioned previously he wanted to go to his nan's, I said take him to his nan's, he'll be happy, you'll be happy, everyone wins.

"She said 'no, because Arthur wins, he will win if he goes to his nans'. She said 'no because that's what he wants'."

'I will bury you six feet under'
Mr Hankin asks Ms Milhench what happened when her own son ran into the house with a football.

She says: "Arthur moved. Tom shouted he'll rip his head off and use it as a football. Also shouted loads of other stuff. Watch you little c***, I will bury you six feet under."

Ms Milhench says Arthur 'stumbled again' as they left her home that day, because he was 'physically weak'.

She confirms neither Tustin or Hughes helped him up, 'they just stood there'.

Tustin claimed Arthur had 'smashed his head' on table
Ms Milhench tells the court as they approached the car Hughes was 'leaning across the front passenger side and as he was doing so was pushing against Arthur who was on the floor'.

Mr Hankin asks her if she spoke to Tustin on the phone later that day.

Recalling what Tustin said to her, she says: "Arthur has just thrown himself at the dressing table and smashed his head. She basically said she would call back if I didn't hear from her, she would send a message."

Ms Milhench recalls that Tustin referred to Arthur as a 'little s***' during the call.

Dad accused of murdering son branded a 'short-tempered, wicked man' - updates

 

[ScottishSam]

thanks for this. Are there any more pages of the hairdressers testimony, I didn’t read them on the day it happened and on the bham live page I can’t scroll down far enough?

The 'it's not my place' drove me mad. Tobias Jarman didn't want to go back down the stairs the 2nd day ET turned up at the house because of how Arthur had been treated the day before. At no point did he consider how Arthur felt having to live that. He saw no evidence Arthur was being mistreated. Yet he had to hold the cup to his lips. Arthur's mouth was so dry he could hardly talk. And ET was furious Tobias had given Arthur a drink. So, he refused Arthur's request for a second glass of water. Imagine the courage it took for this little boy to ask for a glass of water. The other children were playing in the garden, and had a picnic. Arthur was given a sandwich, which he spat out, because it was obviously unpalatable. Arthur faced the wall the entire time he was there. When ET went upstairs, Arthur had to face the bathroom wall. They were surprised to see Arthur turn up in the same onesie as the day before.
How much proof does someone need that this 6 year old boy was being singled out.

 

[ChloLo]

Thanks.
The ethics of job must be above personal feelings.
Especially in case of lawyers.
Do your best at your job or change your career if you cant cope.
It applies to everybody.

Of course. If you remember my first comment about the barrister was someone has to do it. A legal professional knows the ethics, the law and will provide representation; it’s what they signed up to when they became a legal professional. It’s not the defences job to prove innocence. The prosecution has to prove guilt. All the defence have to do is make the jury question the prosecutions case. By ticking the boxes I meant fulfilling their duties as legal representation.

 

[Tortoise]

Witness sent 'happy birthday' text to Tustin
Mr Hankin concludes his initial questioning and Ms Milhench is now being cross-examined by Mary Prior QC, representing Tustin.

Ms Milhench confirms after June 15 and June 16 she wanted nothing to do with Hughes and Tustin.

But accepts that on June 17 she sent Tustin a text to say 'happy birthday' followed by another which said: "Hope you're okay."

'You are a friendly person to someone who terrorises a child?'
Ms Milhench says: "I obviously had a year friendship with her as in clientele.

"That's me as a person I'm a friendly person. At the time I was unaware of what had happened, that they had been arrested and the situation. I'm just a friendly person."

Ms Prior: "You are a friendly person to someone who terrorises a child?"

Ms Milhench does not respond.

'I knew something wasn't right'
Ms Prior: "Whether you knew Arthur was alive or not, you knew he had been made to suffer significantly for two whole days?"

Ms Milhench: "I knew something wasn't right."

Pressed again on why she sent the messages on June 17 Ms Milhench says: "I shouldn't have done. It was just me. That was a mistake. I couldn't have. We all make mistakes if I could look back and change I really would."

Ms Prior puts it to her that she has 'exaggerated' her account after finding out Arthur had died.

Ms Milhench replies: "No".

Witness in tears
Ms Prior asks Ms Milhench why she did not raise any 'child cruelty' concerns when police confirmed to her on June 18, 2020, that Arthur had died.

She says: "I think I was more in shock. Scared. Didn't know what to do. Me personally I've been in court before I have been attacked, I got attacked by the defence. It was hard for me to do this but I know I needed to do it. I understand it's your job."

Ms Milhench is crying and there is a brief pause while she collects herself.

Arthur's birth mother was in prison
Ms Prior asks if Tustin told her Arthur's biological mother, who was in prison, was trying to see Arthur and it was having a 'significant impact on Arthur'.

Ms Milhench confirms she remembers Tustin mentioning Arthur's mother's intention but that she cannot remember if she said it had an impact on Arthur.

She does confirm that Tustin told her she was struggling to cope with Arthur's behaviour.

'Tustin claimed Arthur was telling lies about her'
Ms Milhench says she cannot remember if Tustin told her Arthur had threatened to set her and Hughes on fire or threatened to stab them.

She does recall Tustin saying Hughes was not supporting her. She also confirms that Tustin stated Arthur had started to self-harm, slap himself, and that he had 'picked it up off Tom'.

However Ms Milhench does not know whether Hughes himself self harmed.

She confirms Tustin 'felt on her own' when Arthur was misbehaving.

Ms Milhench says Tustin claimed Arthur was telling lies about her and that she was 'stressed' Arthur would cause her to miscarry.

She recalls saying to Tustin that Arthur 'sounded like a difficult child'.

Ms Milhench confirms she never saw Tustin hit Arthur
Ms Prior asks Ms Milhench if she suggested Tustin get a CCTV camera in her house because Tustin was worried about Arthur saying she had hit him.

Ms Milhench responds that she does not remember suggesting the idea, but explains how having a baby camera in her own home had benefited her in the past in a similar situation, and that she had spoken to Tustin about her own experience.

Ms Milhench says she was not aware Tustin was pregnant in June 2020, only aware she had miscarried.

Ms Prior concludes her cross-examination with a series of questions.

Ms Milhench confirms she never saw Tustin hit Arthur, that her behaviour towards him was 'just verbal', and that Tustin had told her she was 'at the end of her tether with Arthur's behaviour'.

Witness cross-examined further
Bernard Richmond QC, representing Hughes, begins his cross-examination.

He asks Ms Milhench whether she ever felt compelled to tell Tustin not to shout at Arthur, give him a drink or make him a sandwich.

She confirms she did. Asked why she did not do any of those things Ms Milhench says: "I think for me personally, stepping in on someone's discipline, I don't know what's happened previously, that's a hard subject."

'There seemed a lot of hatred'
Asked about the defendants' general attitude towards Arthur Ms Milhench says: "There seemed a lot of hatred. Both a lot of hatred backwards and forwards."

Finally, Mr Richmond asks about her impressions of Hughes.

Ms Milhench says when she first met him he was 'quiet' and 'just sat there' but when he was at her home in June 2020, he was a 'different person'.

Mr Hankin asks a few questions in re-examination, in particular about the voice recordings of Arthur sent to her by Tustin.

Ms Milhench confirms she had no idea about Arthur's experience at home, or any context, when she was sent the messages.

Dad accused of murdering son branded a 'short-tempered, wicked man' - updates

 

[Tortoise]

Tobias Jarman, the partner of Catherine Milhench, is called to give evidence next.

He recalls Tustin's arrival at his home with Arthur on June 15 last year and refers to his statement.

"Her shouting at him telling him to get out the car. Stand by that f***ing front door now and don't move. She said he had been a nightmare all morning. Basically a nightmare, been misbehaving prior to coming to our house."

'He went ballistic at Arthur'
Asked how often Tustin shouted at Arthur Mr Jarman says: "Consecutively shouting. Five to ten minutes rest in between. Just consecutive more or less. Get off that f***ing door. Stand up straight. What are you doing? Up by that door now. Swearing and so forth."

Mr Jarman recalls Hughes' arrival at his home later that day.

"He went ballistic at Arthur. Screamed and shouted at Arthur 'wait until I get you home'."

He adds: "I thought they were just extreme in their way. They didn't care what we thought. They would discipline him as they felt necessary, when they felt necessary."

Witness says Hughes said 'get out the f***ing car now'
Mr Jarman is asked about the defendant's arrival at his home the following day with Arthur.

He says: "Heard Tom this time 'get out the f***ing car now'. Emma was saying 'what are you doing? Get up'.

He confirms he did not go down to greet them because: "I didn't want to go downstairs and listen to them shouting at him again. I heard Emma shouting at Arthur and shouting at Tom to look at what he's doing, 'tell him to stand up', telling Tom to go and sort him out, kind of thing.

"Tom said 'stand up f***ing straight. Wait until you get home I'm going to put you six feet under'.'

Arthur's legs were 'trembling'
Mr Jarman tells the court he stood at the top of his stairs and took a moment to observe Arthur.

He says: "He kept being told to do this and do that. I thought maybe there's a reason to shout at him. I stood seeing if he was stood messing. Just nothing. He just stood. I say stood. Just so, so moving about. I'm thinking I would do this if I needed the toilet. But he didn't need the toilet."

Mr Hankin asks about Arthur's legs in particular.

Mr Jarman says: "Trembling. Struggling to stand basically. Like he needed to sit down."

Arthur looked 'malnourished. Just unwell'
Mr Jarman confirms he also noticed Arthur was wearing the same clothes as the previous day and that he thought it was 'a bit strange' but that he was 'not one to judge'.

He tells the court he walked down the stairs and had to reassure Arthur he was not going to hurt him.

Mr Jarman said Arthur did not have 'the normal glow you see in a kid's eyes of that age' and that 'it looked like there was fear ingrained'.

Mr Hankin asks him about Arthur's physical appearance.

Mr Jarman says: "Lips dry, cracked lips. The build-up of plaque on his teeth was considerable. Dirty fingernails. He just looked quite grotty. As if he'd been out playing in the garden, that hadn't been the case. Just malnourished. Just unwell really."

Arthur 'could not hold glass of water'
The trial resumes with Mr Jarman in the witness box.

Asked to describe a verbal exchange he had with Arthur at the bottom of the stairs he says: "I asked if he was alright, if he wanted to sit down. Told him to sit down on the step. I asked if he wanted anything.

"He said a drink. I decided to get him a drink. I got him a drink. There was a glass on my bedside table. I filled it half full, went down and went to give it to Arthur. He couldn't hold it. I held it up to his mouth so he could have a drink. He drank it instantly."

Arthur was 'struggling to get his words out'
Mr Jarman says Arthur was 'struggling to get his words out' because his mouth was so dry.

Mr Jarman is asked to refer to his statement. He confirms before he went upstairs to get the glass he opened the door.

Mr Jarman says: "Emma approached me and asked me what Arthur had just said. I told her he asked me for a drink. She wasn't shouting at me it was like 'what did he just say? He shouldn't be talking'.

"I said he just asked me if he could have a drink. She went nuts. 'Is he taking the f***ing p***?'. Ballistic. Properly shouting. Really angry.

"I said I actually asked if he wanted a drink. I was the one who asked him. She said he hasn't eaten his food so he's not having anything to drink."

Arthur looked like 'poor little kid who was broken'
Mr Jarman tells the court he went back upstairs and got the glass from his bedside table.

He says: "He asked if he could have some more. I had heard Emma. I said 'I can't give you anymore mate I'm sorry'. Because the way she reacted I didn't want to make him get in any more trouble by giving him more water. Now I know I should have done."

Asked again to describe Arthur's appearance Mr Jarman says: "Overall, generally malnourished. His face was a little bit gaunt. He basically looked like a poor little kid who was broken really."

Dad accused of murdering son branded a 'short-tempered, wicked man' - updates

 

[Tortoise]

Mr Hankin concludes his questions and Ms Prior begins cross-examination.

She asks Mr Jarman why he did not report his concerns about Arthur to the police or social services after the incidents at his home on June 15 and 16.

He says: "To take it upon myself to make that call I would have had to physically see Arthur being hit or deprived. It would have given me a stronger cause for concern. His condition and state was not well at all.

"How people discipline their kids, look after their kids, everybody is different. It's unfair to be asked why I didn't make the call.

"I'm just a parent of my own kids in my house. However other people choose to discipline their kids, I may not agree or disagree, I'm not one to make assumptions how people should discipline their kids. It's not my place to say."

'Looking back I could have made a phone call'
Ms Prior asks Mr Jarman if it is the case that he has become angry at Hughes and Tustin since learning of Arthur's death.

He replies: "After finding out what happened the only anger was possibly put on towards myself, why I didn't make the phone call.

"Looking back I could have made a phone call. I didn't. Should I have, shouldn't I have, you can go back and forwards all day saying I should have done this or should have done that."

Ms Prior suggests he has 'exaggerated' his account. Mr Jarman says: "Absolutely not."

Ms Prior asks Mr Jarman if Tustin joked with him about digging a grave for Arthur. He confirms that is correct

Rule that Arthur 'could not have a drink if he'd not eaten his food'
She now asks if Tustin told him Hughes had established a rule that Arthur was not to have a drink if had not eaten his food.

Mr Jarman confirms Tustin told him about the rule, but not that it was Hughes' rule.

Mr Jarman also confirms he had never seen Tustin hit Arthur.

After brief cross-examination from Mr Richmond, and re-examination from Mr Hankin, Mr Jarman concludes his evidence and is released.

Dad accused of murdering son branded a 'short-tempered, wicked man' - updates

 

[Sarahlou]

I keep seeing headlines about this case but I quickly scroll by them as it is just too heartbreaking. One of the saddest things I've ever heard of. Poor sweet Arthur.

I won't even say what I think this pair deserve. I'm absolutely sickened by them.

 

[ScottishSam]

In my job I've had to deal with murderers, rapists, violent offenders. You put your feelings to the side, and deal with the person in front of you. I keep my interactions with these individuals to the bare minimum required of my job.
But, by the time I meet them they're either serving time, or have not been found guilty yet. Therefore, it's not my place to be judge and juror.
I treat them as my job requires, sometimes have brief conversations. But always, I'm aware of what they've done.

 

[Carroll520]

Yes, he apparently headbutted her too. And had the energy to push her down the stairs at the hairdresser's house. Even though the hairdresser stated she didn't witness it.

I wouldnt be surprised if she was the one who headbutted poor Arthur. She was seen on the cctv rubbing her head after being in the hall or did she do that on purpose as she knew the camera was on

 

[Dotta]

Mr Hankin calls Catherine Milhench, also known as 'Affy', to the witness box.

Witness says Arthur was 'lovely'
Ms Milhench confirms she had known Tustin for around 12 months by June, 2020, and cut her hair at her own home. But she states she did not socialise with her.

The witness confirms the hair appointments lasted between three and four hours and she got on with Tustin 'absolutely fine'.

Ms Milhench tells the court she became aware of Tustin's new relationship with Hughes around Autumn 2019, and that by the end of that year she had met Arthur.

Asked what Arthur was like she says: "Lovely, playing in the garden with my son. Happy."

'Arthur made to sit down... and not move'
Asked what his physical appearance was like, Ms Milhench adds: "Absolutely fine. Healthy. Normal boy."

Mr Hankin turns to a hair appointment at her home in February 2020. He asks how Arthur was.

Ms Milhench says: "Still healthy looking but not happy. Wasn't playing or anything at this time. He was made to sit down with his hands on his knees and not move."

She confirms Arthur was made to sit at a children's table and chair in her front room. She states Hughes and Tustin had told him to sit there.

Ms Milhench adds: "I just thought he's obviously been naughty at home. When you go to other people's homes you don't want your child to misbehave. I didn't ask questions."

She confirms the appointment lasted the usual three to four hours and Arthur was at the table the entire time. If he moved he was told to keep his hands still, she says.

Arthur told to 'face the door. Not to move'
Mr Hankin moves on to the hair appointment on June 15, 2020.

Ms Milhench confirms when Tustin arrived she told Arthur to 'stand at the front door and face the door'.

Mr Hankin reminds the court Tustin and Arthur were at her home between 10.40am and 5pm. He asks how Tustin interacted with Arthur during that time.

Ms Milhench: "Telling him to stand up not to lean on the door. To face the door. Not to move."

She confirms she first saw Arthur when she went upstairs to wash Tustin's hair.

Ms Milhench: "He was made to come upstairs and face another door. Said he couldn't be trusted."

'Ham sandwich was taken off Arthur'
Asked about what happened at lunch, Ms Milhench says Arthur was given a ham sandwich and made to eat it at the door while Tustin's other two children, who were with her, had a picnic in the garden.

She tells the court Tustin said Arthur spat out the sandwich and that it was 'rude to spit things out' so she took the sandwich away from him.

Asked whether Arthur was given a drink Ms Milhench replies: "No."

Mr Hankin asks her what else Tustin said to Arthur that day: "She would constantly be saying stand up straight, don't lean. He was facing the door constantly."

Tustin 'claimed Arthur had bitten her'
Ms Milhench refers to the statement she made a few days after Arthur died and says: "She (Tustin) said he had thrown himself into the living room door.

"I didn't see him but she got up to go to him and said he had cut his lip and gone to get a tissue to clean it up.

"Whilst doing that she said he had bitten her. She showed a small mark on her hand."

Ms Milhench describes it as a 'tiny mark' on Tustin's thumb area.

Asked whether she was aware of Arthur 'throwing himself up the door' Ms Milhench says: "More like falling not throwing."

She adds this was due to Arthur's 'weakness'.

Tustin was 'aggressively, shouting'
Ms Milhench tells the court that whilst returning from the bathroom she did not see Arthur try to push Tustin down the stairs because she was walking in front of them, but she does recall Tustin complaining that Arthur did.

Ms Milhench states she did not hear Arthur banging on any doors and that she would have heard if he did.

She describes the way Tustin spoke to Arthur that day as 'aggressively, shouting'.

Tustin called Arthur 'little c***'
Ms Milhench confirms Tustin was using her phone whilst having her hair done.

She says: "Messaging Tom telling him what was going on. Arthur playing up. Can I use language? I hate the word, c***, calling him a little c***, quite a lot, to Tom."

Ms Milhench says Tustin also recorded voice notes and at one point took the phone to Arthur 'for Tom to have a word with him, tell him off basically'.

Arthur fell but 'none of them helped'
She describes what happened when Hughes arrived at her home.

"He had him by the scruff of the neck and closed the door to the hallway so it was just the two of them in there. Calling him a little c*** and language."

Ms Milhench then tells the court what she saw outside as they left her home.

"I remember Arthur falling to the floor. None of them helped. He just collapsed and fell into the car."

Asked how Tustin and Hughes reacted she says: "All quite rushed. I just remember them rushing off pushing him into the car."

Hughes had Arthur 'by scruff of neck'
Mr Hankin moves on to Tustin's return visit to her home the following day, June 16, at 9.45am.

Ms Milhench says the first thing she noticed was that Arthur was wearing the same clothes.

She tells the court Arthur was brought into the house 'by the scruff of his neck again', by Hughes.

She says Hughes was being 'rough, aggressive', with Arthur. Ms Milhench states both Tustin and Hughes told Arthur to stand by the door again and not move.

Witness says Hughes wanted Arthur to respond 'yes sir'
Mr Hankin asks how the defendants spoke to Arthur.

"Constantly calling him a little c***. Telling him to stand up. It was back and forwards between them both. Both shouting. Like a game of tennis."

Mr Hankin asks whether Arthur spoke.

She says: "Only time he would speak is if they said something. He would say 'ok, yes'. If he didn't respond him correctly Tom would say 'yes what?'. He would say 'yes sir'. That's how Tom wanted him to respond to him, 'yes sir'.

Mr Hankin asks how she was feeling at that point.

Ms Milhench says: "Hated it. Uncomfortable. Wanted them out."

'My partner snuck him drink of water without them knowing'
Ms Milhench confirms her partner Tobias, also referred to as 'T', was at home on June 16.

She says: "My partner snuck him a drink of water without them knowing. He told me he had to hold the cup for him. He couldn't hold it. He was asking for more. Because he did that, he was calling for T."

Ms MIlhench tells the court Hughes overheard Arthur calling for T and said: "He won't want you. T doesn't want you because you have been banging the door and stuff."

Ms Milhench states she did not hear Arthur banging on the door.

'Pressure pointing him... because it hurts'
Further asked how the defendants spoke to Arthur, she adds: "It was continuous. Attacking. Swearing."

Mr Hankin asks if at any point she heard Arthur screaming.

Ms Milhench says: "I was doing Emma's hair. I can't remember how it started. Tom was in there, he shut the door and Arthur started screaming. I turned around and said 'what's going on?'

"She said 'pressure pointing him'. I said 'pressure pointing?'. She said 'yeah because it hurts'.

Mr Hankin asks whether she spoke to Tustin about school.

Ms Milhench said: "I suggested send him back to school if things are bad at home. She said they can't because they would see the bruises. She said it was what Tom had caused to Arthur."

'No, because Arthur wins'
Mr Hankin asks Ms Milhench whether she spoke to Tustin about Arthur going back to his grandparents.

She says: "I had said, because he mentioned previously he wanted to go to his nan's, I said take him to his nan's, he'll be happy, you'll be happy, everyone wins.

"She said 'no, because Arthur wins, he will win if he goes to his nans'. She said 'no because that's what he wants'."

'I will bury you six feet under'
Mr Hankin asks Ms Milhench what happened when her own son ran into the house with a football.

She says: "Arthur moved. Tom shouted he'll rip his head off and use it as a football. Also shouted loads of other stuff. Watch you little c***, I will bury you six feet under."

Ms Milhench says Arthur 'stumbled again' as they left her home that day, because he was 'physically weak'.

She confirms neither Tustin or Hughes helped him up, 'they just stood there'.

Tustin claimed Arthur had 'smashed his head' on table
Ms Milhench tells the court as they approached the car Hughes was 'leaning across the front passenger side and as he was doing so was pushing against Arthur who was on the floor'.

Mr Hankin asks her if she spoke to Tustin on the phone later that day.

Recalling what Tustin said to her, she says: "Arthur has just thrown himself at the dressing table and smashed his head. She basically said she would call back if I didn't hear from her, she would send a message."

Ms Milhench recalls that Tustin referred to Arthur as a 'little s***' during the call.

Dad accused of murdering son branded a 'short-tempered, wicked man' - updates

OMG!
This is horror.
Yes Sir - to TH and TH shouting "You c***"
I missed this terrible testimony earlier.

 

[Discosally]

Thank you for the copying the testimonies Tortoise, very sad reading

 

[Discosally]

I wouldnt be surprised if she was the one who headbutted poor Arthur. She was seen on the cctv rubbing her head after being in the hall or did she do that on purpose as she knew the camera was on

I wouldn’t be surprised if she made up Arthur trying to push her down the stairs too, as the hairdresser didn’t see it, she just heard ET say he did….and the bite, I wouldn’t be surprised if she did it to herself. Devious, setting the scene as ‘step-mother to a devil child’ that caused her to miscarry and threatened to burn down the house…it is just beyond harrowing

 

[Discosally]

Thank you for the copying the testimonies Tortoise, very sad reading

Tortoise, I read TH mother’s and brother’s testimonies, do you know if TH father took to the stand?

 

[JayWill]

OMG!
This is horror.
Yes Sir - to TH and TH shouting "You c***"
I missed this terrible testimony earlier.

Just using that language in my home would have had me telling them to leave, client or not.

 

[ChloLo]

Tortoise, I read TH mother’s and brother’s testimonies, do you know if TH father took to the stand?

He didn’t.