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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #221
I believe everything ET blames Arthur for, she in fact has done to Arthur… the exact reverse of all she’s said is true…

“Arthur was rude” - means “I called Arthur a f***** c***”

“Arthur was throwing himself up the walls and on the floor” means “I smashed him against the wall and he staggered to the floor”

“I was scared of Tom” means “Tom was scared of me”

“Arthur threatened to stab my kids” means “I threatened Arthur I’d stab him”

“Arthur told me his mum spat wine in his face” means “I told Arthur his mum hates him and spat wine in his face and abandoned him”

“Arthur refused to eat, refused his food” means “I poisoned his food so it was inedible”

Etc etc etc

just read any statement she makes where she blames someone and reverse the statement to find out what really happened
 
  • #222
I pray that she’s not left unattended for even a second, so she doesn’t have a chance to harm herself. She’s that manipulative, entitled and controlling, she will feel entirely entitled to derail the trial with attention seeking antics or a means of get out
 
  • #223
I pray that she’s not left unattended for even a second, so she doesn’t have a chance to harm herself. She’s that manipulative, entitled and controlling, she will feel entirely entitled to derail the trial with attention seeking antics or a means of get out
I don't think that she will see the light of day for a long time. MOO.
 
  • #224
I grew up in the same borough at Victoria and Peter. Heartbreaking cases. The changes were necessary but as there are still children falling through the cracks, something further needs to change.

Relevant charities were raising concerns about lockdown, saying that victims of abuse would be the hidden victims of the pandemic. In Arthur’s case it’s so true.
It was and not just for Arthur - other children too and Domestic Violence victims - referrals up by 65%
 
  • #225
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!
With slam dunk evidence like this they will try and attack Police procedure and the SIO’s decision making and policy
 
  • #226
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

Reading this, I am utterly convinced that the father is every bit as culpable, sadistic, abusive and evil as Tustin. In particular, the bit about Arthur screaming during pressure pointing was absolutely gut wrenching to read. The thing about making him call him "sir" shows his mentality.

Tustin may have been the one to deliver the fatal blow, but either one of them was going to do it at some point. If that hadn't have killed him, the next blow would have, and that might have come from his dad.

Hughes seemingly admitting responsibility and owning up to his cruelty is merely putting on a show of remorse for the jury's benefit. Since he knows Tustin ultimately killed Arthur, he's hoping to make himself look like the more reasonable parent, and that he was just controlled by Tustin. Absolute manipulative bollocks. They both thoroughly enjoyed torturing their child.

I also cannot understand why the hairdresser didn't call the police and an ambulance. They were abusing the life out of him right in front of her and her partner. Absolute pathetic cowards.
 
  • #227
I think Tustin watching that video of Arthur trying to pick up a pillow and duna had a realization that her story of Arthur bashing his head would not wash. Arthur had no strength in those little arms. There is no way he could get the strength to bash his own head. Her filming of his every move has put the nail in the coffin for her.
MOO
 
  • #228
I believe everything ET blames Arthur for, she in fact has done to Arthur… the exact reverse of all she’s said is true…

“Arthur was rude” - means “I called Arthur a f***** c***”

“Arthur was throwing himself up the walls and on the floor” means “I smashed him against the wall and he staggered to the floor”

“I was scared of Tom” means “Tom was scared of me”

“Arthur threatened to stab my kids” means “I threatened Arthur I’d stab him”

“Arthur told me his mum spat wine in his face” means “I told Arthur his mum hates him and spat wine in his face and abandoned him”

“Arthur refused to eat, refused his food” means “I poisoned his food so it was inedible”

Etc etc etc

just read any statement she makes where she blames someone and reverse the statement to find out what really happened
Exactly. This is precisely what the narcissist does. They project. They blame you for what they have done to you. It’s the weirdest and most infuriating thing. But yeah, she’s basically revealed to us everything she is guilty of.
 
  • #229
I believe everything ET blames Arthur for, she in fact has done to Arthur… the exact reverse of all she’s said is true…

“Arthur was rude” - means “I called Arthur a f***** c***”

“Arthur was throwing himself up the walls and on the floor” means “I smashed him against the wall and he staggered to the floor”

“I was scared of Tom” means “Tom was scared of me”

“Arthur threatened to stab my kids” means “I threatened Arthur I’d stab him”

“Arthur told me his mum spat wine in his face” means “I told Arthur his mum hates him and spat wine in his face and abandoned him”

“Arthur refused to eat, refused his food” means “I poisoned his food so it was inedible”

Etc etc etc

just read any statement she makes where she blames someone and reverse the statement to find out what really happened
Oh yes. This!! 1000% true. This is how these narcissists/sociopaths operate.
 
  • #230
I have watched a narcissist unravelling in court. This unravelling of the false self is extremely dangerous physically as well as mentally for them, it is the nature collapse of this false self they’ve spent their entire lives constructing and to watch it be picked apart will cause them a narcissistic collapse.
This individual had a complete mental collapse which caused a psychotic episode which was precluded by a period of catatonic state. I wonder if this is what’s happened to ET now Tom’s eyes have been opened to her machinations and he’s turned on her and she realise how hated her real self is, by the whole world.

if a psychiatrist identifies all this is will put a big delay on the trial… as will not be mentally fit to continue unfortunately
 
  • #231
Reading this, I am utterly convinced that the father is every bit as culpable, sadistic, abusive and evil as Tustin. In particular, the bit about Arthur screaming during pressure pointing was absolutely gut wrenching to read. The thing about making him call him "sir" shows his mentality.

Tustin may have been the one to deliver the fatal blow, but either one of them was going to do it at some point. If that hadn't have killed him, the next blow would have, and that might have come from his dad.

Hughes seemingly admitting responsibility and owning up to his cruelty is merely putting on a show of remorse for the jury's benefit. Since he knows Tustin ultimately killed Arthur, he's hoping to make himself look like the more reasonable parent, and that he was just controlled by Tustin. Absolute manipulative bollocks. They both thoroughly enjoyed torturing their child.

I also cannot understand why the hairdresser didn't call the police and an ambulance. They were abusing the life out of him right in front of her and her partner. Absolute pathetic cowards.

What they did was horrific but I take a slightly different view. ET and TH are not peas in a pod.

ET enjoyed torturing Arthur as it gave her ultimate control over him, her household, TH and their wider families

TH enjoyed pleasing ET, it became his reason for existing and I honestly believe he would do absolutely anything she said or anything he felt she’d be pleased by. He would have virtually erased his own self… his text inviting her to “take his soul” made my skin crawl. This was meant literally not figuratively and shows how enormous and all encompassing g her personality had become, to the detriment and virtual erasure of his own.
 
  • #232
I have a wee niggling concern that if ET is unfit to stand trial and it goes to a retrial, would the release of the audio and cctv not jeopardise the case? I don't know the correct terminology but is there not a line about info being out in the public domain potentially influencing a jury, and defence can argue unfair trial?
But they only began releasing this graphic evidence once ET went to the hospital so I assume this isn't an issue, it's just something that crossed my mind.
 
  • #233
@Tangled Spaghetti
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I've never seen anyone describe the narc experience so well.
 
  • #234
I suspect Arthur did actually attempt to escape out the front door. He was an intelligent boy, he could read and write, and from his own quotes, was fully aware that his dad wanted to kill him. Alongside the continuous death threats, he was seriously ill with salt poisoning. I suspect Arthur knew he was dying or going to be murdered, and this was his last ditch attempt to escape to safety. But sadly was already too frail.
 
  • #235
But why did she hate the boy so much?
Because she was jealous of the boy's mother?
I wonder how she treated her children.
She seemed to care about them.
 
  • #236
But why did she hate the boy so much?
Because she was jealous of the boy's mother?
I wonder how she treated her children.
She seemed to care about them.

I suspect she was jealous of having to share TH affection with Arthur. Hence her initiative to ostracise Arthur and portray him as a naughty problem child. By all accounts, TH was deemed a good father before ET. JMO
 
  • #237
I suspect Arthur did actually attempt to escape out the front door. He was an intelligent boy, he could read and write, and from his own quotes, was fully aware that his dad wanted to kill him. Alongside the continuous death threats, he was seriously ill with salt poisoning. I suspect Arthur knew he was dying or going to be murdered, and this was his last ditch attempt to escape to safety. But sadly was already too frail.

Oh its terrible, i think ET said he tried to escape 3 or 4 times. Do we know if he actually tried to escape on the day he died?
 
  • #238
Oh its terrible, i think ET said he tried to escape 3 or 4 times. Do we know if he actually tried to escape on the day he died?
Yes, according to the statement from the woman ET shared a cell with. ET apparently told her "the little f****er tried to get out the door and I stopped him"
It's in the trial reports somewhere but I can't remember which day
 
  • #239
I have a wee niggling concern that if ET is unfit to stand trial and it goes to a retrial, would the release of the audio and cctv not jeopardise the case? I don't know the correct terminology but is there not a line about info being out in the public domain potentially influencing a jury, and defence can argue unfair trial?
But they only began releasing this graphic evidence once ET went to the hospital so I assume this isn't an issue, it's just something that crossed my mind.

The trial can continue without her present if it has to.
Also. The police would not release anything that would jeopardise the case.
 
  • #240
Narcs/abusers can even be jealous of their own biological children taking attention away from them. I’ve personally experienced this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
2,431
Total visitors
2,574

Forum statistics

Threads
632,502
Messages
18,627,749
Members
243,172
Latest member
neckdeepinstories
Back
Top