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

[ScottishSam]

I think there was mention of TH attempting to take over Arthur’s food but ET said “my food not good enough?” Or words to that affect. Also some massive issue with TH getting takeaways for Arthur as it was a “treat” and he didn’t deserve a treat for his behaviour. Again, this will probably be half a mile down the BL thread. If my phone ever complies, I’ll have a look for it

Yes, she said that. And she felt Subway was a treat, and disliked TH taking him for one.

 

[ChloLo]

I’m concerned that everyone is falling for TH’s nonsense about being gaslit into torturing his own son. How can anyone read the hairdressers testimony about Arthur screaming while TH pressure pointed him and still think that. TH himself said he took all his frustrations out on his son, because he couldn’t hit ET or her kids.

He was not a good dad. Ever. When he was described as a good dad, it was when he was a part-time dad. Initially, Arthur’s mum took care of him, then when TH had him after she was jailed, he was living with his parents and brother, who provided plenty of support.

Lockdown with ET was the first time TH actually had to be a dad all by himself, as ET was unsupportive and hostile. He couldn’t stand the responsibility and pressure, and wanted Arthur to be still, silent, not move, not need any basic bodily functions or personal care.

No doubt Arthur was traumatised after losing his mum and witnessing some of her violence (this was in her own court case), yet TH wasn’t even prepared for ordinary parenting, let alone the therapeutic parenting that Arthur would have needed.

My impression from the statements and testimony is that, although ET inflicted the fatal assault, TH was the main physical abuser. ET would b!tch about Arthur, and the dynamic was all about look what daddy’s going to do when he gets home. TH relished in his role as the one who would come home and really show his son who was boss.

His quotes (from the texts, and witness statements) towards Arthur seem to contain far more frequent death threats and violence than ET’s do. ETs quotes are primarily vicious griping and insults, with occasional violence, whereas TH’s are almost all severely violent.

Most tellingly, from what has been released so far, Arthur himself repeatedly expresssd concerns that his dad would kill him, not ET. Arthur was worried his dad would kill him as early as the end of 2019.

I am reminded of Karla Homolka, who successfully convinced everyone that she was just a vulnerable, abused young woman, who was manipulated and abused into going along with her serial killer husband’s rapes and murders (including that of Karla’s teenage sister). After she had convinced everyone of this, got a substantially reduced sentence and was immune from further consequences, video evidence emerged that Karla was in fact an active participant in the crimes, and enjoyed every moment of it.

I am deeply concerned that TH is successfully pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes using very similar tactics.

I don’t believe anyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes. We all have different experiences so will have our own interpretations. Everyone’s just here trying to understand that reasons why this happened. Being in an abusive/coercive relationship could explain the change in character. Until you’ve been in one, it’s hard to understand, I’m afraid only survivors really understand. It can turn you inside out and upside down; have you doing things you swore you’d never do.
Also, a lot of the information about TH and his parenting before ET, comes directly from THs family, including one of the prosecution witnesses. If his family are saying he was a good dad, I think it’s unfair to disbelieve them, they saw it first hand.
None of this excuses what happened, he should have got himself and Arthur the hell out of there. But leavings hard and he didn’t, so now he’ll get what’s coming.

 

[ScottishSam]

And she got massively annoyed when Arthur said he liked his granny's toast better than hers. So, in her mind that's worth hours of the 'thinking step/chair'. I hate that thing.

 

[ChloLo]

Yes, I can see all that, but I cannot for the life of me understand why he used that language to and about his own son apart from awful threats of violence. He was almost boasting about giving Arthur 'the slap of his life' and worse.

It’s not nice or acceptable language to those of us that are “normal” but there are families out there that do use such language. That swear at their children etc. TH isn’t the only one to use language like that.

 

[ScottishSam]

I don’t believe anyone is having the wool pulled over their eyes. We all have different experiences so will have our own interpretations. Everyone’s just here trying to understand that reasons why this happened. Being in an abusive/coercive relationship could explain the change in character. Until you’ve been in one, it’s hard to understand, I’m afraid only survivors really understand. It can turn you inside out and upside down; have you doing things you swore you’d never do.
Also, a lot of the information about TH and his parenting before ET, comes directly from THs family, including one of the prosecution witnesses. If his family are saying he was a good dad, I think it’s unfair to disbelieve them, they saw it first hand.
None of this excuses what happened, he should have got himself and Arthur the hell out of there. But leavings hard and he didn’t, so now he’ll get what’s coming.

I knew a lady (she was a patient) who told me about her awful treatment at the hands of her daughters father. She said she put up with it while it was her he was knocking about, once he started on the daughter she knew she'd have to leave. She told me 'the hardest part is jumping'. I've never forgotten those words. She'd been on TV in the 90s as a sports woman, had money behind her. But took years of his abuse, even though she had the financial means to leave. She made up excuses for him. She cut off everyone who told her he was bad news. She was one of the strongest women I've met. To speak to her you'd never guess she'd put up with what she did.

 

[Lancslass]

sorry I have been going in and out of the discussion, I thought I read in the updates TH say he has another child?

ET was pregnant . She aborted the pregnancy at 21 weeks whilst in custody.

 

[ScottishSam]

I would think she would be allowed to. We already know that she applied to the family courts for access to Arthur, which is how cafcass became involved. That would have required one hearing in a family court, it would’ve been via video link. I think, considering this case is about the murder of her son, she would be allowed because even though she is a convict, she doesn’t lose her human rights. There’s a big act for that and as we know, I am rubbish with the acts and legislation part so @ChloLo would probably be better placed for that. Lastly, she wouldn’t be giving evidence per see, she would be a character witness. So she would be best placed to give an insight into TH as a partner as well as a father. A problem that may arise from that is that, she is a prisoner. Jurors could make inferences that she is “untrustworthy” “unlawful” “murderer herself”. Although if she was a witness for TH, her telling the courts that TH was mild mannered/amazing with Arthur/loving to them both, as the mother of the child murdered, it might throw some weight behind the whole “ET is the catalyst”. It’s all just speculation at present

I agree with this. Despite the fact she's a serving prisoner, if she was to offer an insight into TH as a good and caring dad/partner it would throw weight behind his defence. It seems to me neither Olivia, nor her family had concerns that Arthur shouldn't live with his dad. Neither did THs family have concerns.
So both families had agreed somewhere along the line that TH would be capable of providing Arthur with a stable and loving home. Which, according to his brother Andrew he'd been doing anyway, until ET came on the scene.

 

[Sooty]

Snipped from article below:

Mr Dutton added: 'It got to a point where we had to tell Emma to stop bringing Arthur. We wouldn't let her bring him in the house because it was too distressing for my wife.’

Parents of stepmother accused of murdering boy, six, called social services | Daily Mail Online

to me sounds like the mum had the same approach to life as ET.

ME, me, me.


MOO

 

[Discosally]

I agree with what was said above. TH two family members are prosecution witness yet still say he was a good dad before he met ET, we should take their word and trust they are speaking the truth, they are prosecution witnesses and that shows that they are not defending him-they want total justice for Arthur and are contributing to that. They can’t change the facts from before that he was a good dad. So I take from this that he was.

ET’s witness have no credibility for me. If SH is the SH that has been in the local bham papers convicted of £1million drug ring a few years ago and convicted of a violent crimes (the ages match up) then he is a criminal with low moral compass who re offends.…whether he is the same SH as the convicted one or not, giving the benefit of the doubt, he has admitted that he had to hit TH to appease ET and look like he had acted on it. I don’t think he thought that TH did, as who would allow someone who hit their son continue living there…it just wouldn’t happen.
Her stepdad sounds to me like an arrogant man that isn’t used to having his words questioned so lies frequently. JMO

His texts are inexcusable and indefensible but as said above, there are families that talk like this. I have a friend that is a lovely person , has started seeing someone who is a bit on the wild side and her language has got more profane…people do get influenced.

I think that he is guilty of the 4 counts of cruelty, but I don’t think he knew about the salt, it is interesting that the prosecution didn’t bring up the salt with him. He is dim-witted and probably didn’t even think to try the food as they were all eating the same that tasted fine, so he thought Arthur was being ‘rude’ to ET and I think he said to the hospital that Arthur went on hunger strike as one of the problems with his behaviour.
I do believe she was the driving force like the link above…constant, tiny little drips of Arthur’s ‘bad behaviour’ in a house that TH felt a visitor in. We also don’t know how ET’s kids behaved…had she trained them to be quiet, obedient and tidy children? Mini-adults? I think that’s very possible.

I don’t think he saw how weak Arthur had become, he just saw him as creating trouble in someone else’s home, and was trying to discipline him into behaving how was expected of children in that home (not having the sense for himself and no longer having his family influence that it wasn’t discipline he was doing it was abuse and cruelty) , but where ET’s kids would have only known her cold way of child rearing and it sounds like her mom is the same, Arthur had been brought up by OLH and his grandparents and the grandparents child rearing sounds very loving and nurturing.

I think he is a coward that found it easier to bully a 6 year old than stand up to ET, that he had no home of his own and was too pig-headed to go and live back home in the annexe as that would require saying sorry to his parents, so would rather stick it out with him and his son being miserable in the hope that it gets better. It really vexes me that he couldn’t see that his discipline was abuse and Arthur’s life was extremely miserable and full of pain and fear, a life without any joy at all, but still, I do think that he actually couldn’t see it.

So, I think he is guilty of 4 counts of cruelty, not guilty of the murder as we know ET delivered the fatal blow and I really don’t think he knew about the salt. He deserves a long prison sentence and the treatment that he will get in there from the other prisoners such as numerous good hidings and abuse shouted at him, calling his inmates ‘sir’ etc .

I think ET is guilty of all charges and sincerely hope that she is tortured daily, that salt is poured over her food each meal and that she is constantly living in extreme fear of her next punishment.

 

[ChloLo]

So regarding the issue with Olivia despite being a prison she still retains her human rights and her PR. Given that she was seeking contact with would appear that social workers did not view her as a risk to Arthur, or she could be supervised to manage any risk.
The question is would she add to THs ‘good character’ as that would be what his defence are trying to prove, unless he has previous convictions, the court would view that until this case he had good character.

 

[minusfour]

I didn't know there was a thread about Arthur. I've got a lot of catching up to do. I'm glad to have found it/found you all, I'm in Australia, and have been following in the media, and my heart is broken, and Arthur needs to be remembered. I don't think I could stand it if his death, and his last months, is forgotten.

 

[Discosally]

So regarding the issue with Olivia despite being a prison she still retains her human rights and her PR. Given that she was seeking contact with would appear that social workers did not view her as a risk to Arthur, or she could be supervised to manage any risk.
The question is would she add to THs ‘good character’ as that would be what his defence are trying to prove, unless he has previous convictions, the court would view that until this case he had good character.

I don’t know if she would want to defend him, but then it is possible she might make a statement to say how he was previously, I don’t think she would have left her son in the care of someone she thought would abuse him, so she might want this fact known? I feel very sorry for her, Arthur’s death is an indirect consequence of her crime. It’s very sad.

 

[ScottishSam]

I agree with what was said above. TH two family members are prosecution witness yet still say he was a good dad before he met ET, we should take their word and trust they are speaking the truth, they are prosecution witnesses and that shows that they are not defending him-they want total justice for Arthur and are contributing to that. They can’t change the facts from before that he was a good dad. So I take from this that he was.

ET’s witness have no credibility for me. If SH is the SH that has been in the local bham papers convicted of £1million drug ring a few years ago and convicted of a violent crimes (the ages match up) then he is a criminal with low moral compass who re offends.…whether he is the same SH as the criminal one or not, he has admitted that he had to hit TH to appease ET and look like he had acted on it. I don’t think he thought that TH did, as who would allow someone who hit their son continue living there…it just wouldn’t happen.
Her stepdad sounds to me like an arrogant man that isn’t used to having his words questioned so lies frequently. JMO

His texts are inexcusable and indefensible but as said above, there are families that talk like this. I have a friend that is a lovely person , has started seeing someone who is a bit on the wild side and her language has got more profane…people do get influenced.

I think that he is guilty of the 4 counts of cruelty, but I don’t think he knew about the salt, it is interesting that the prosecution didn’t bring up the salt with him. He is dim-witted and probably didn’t even think to try the food as they were all eating the same that tasted fine, so he thought Arthur was being ‘rude’ to ET and I think he said to the hospital that Arthur went on hunger strike as one of the problems with his behaviour.
I do believe she was the driving force like the link above…constant, tiny little drips of Arthur’s ‘bad behaviour’ in a house that TH felt a visitor in. We also don’t know how ET’s kids behaved…had she trained them to be quiet, obedient and tidy children? Mini-adults? I think that’s very possible.

I don’t think he saw how weak Arthur had become, he just saw him as creating trouble in someone else’s home, and was trying to discipline him into behaving how was expected of children in that home (not having the sense for himself and no longer having his family influence that it wasn’t discipline he was doing it was abuse and cruelty) , but where ET’s kids would have only known her cold way of child rearing and it sounds like her mom is the same, Arthur had been brought up by OLH and his grandparents and the grandparents child rearing sounds very loving and nurturing.

I think he is a coward that found it easier to bully a 6 year old than stand up to ET, that he had no home of his own and was to pig-headed to go and live back home in the annexe as that would require saying sorry to his parents.

So, I think he is guilty of 4 counts of cruelty, not guilty of the murder as we know ET delivered the fatal blow and I really don’t think he knew about the salt. He deserves a long prison sentence and the treatment that he will get in there from the other prisoners such as numerous good hidings and abuse shouted at him, calling his inmates ‘sir’ etc .

I think ET is guilty of all charges and sincerely hope that she is tortured daily, that salt is poured over her food each meal and that she is constantly living in extreme fear of her next punishment.

All of this!

 

[Tortoise]

I’m concerned that everyone is falling for TH’s nonsense about being gaslit into torturing his own son. How can anyone read the hairdressers testimony about Arthur screaming while TH pressure pointed him and still think that. TH himself said he took all his frustrations out on his son, because he couldn’t hit ET or her kids.

He was not a good dad. Ever. When he was described as a good dad, it was when he was a part-time dad. Initially, Arthur’s mum took care of him, then when TH had him after she was jailed, he was living with his parents and brother, who provided plenty of support.

Lockdown with ET was the first time TH actually had to be a dad all by himself, as ET was unsupportive and hostile. He couldn’t stand the responsibility and pressure, and wanted Arthur to be still, silent, not move, not need any basic bodily functions or personal care.

No doubt Arthur was traumatised after losing his mum and witnessing some of her violence (this was in her own court case), yet TH wasn’t even prepared for ordinary parenting, let alone the therapeutic parenting that Arthur would have needed.

My impression from the statements and testimony is that, although ET inflicted the fatal assault, TH was the main physical abuser. ET would b!tch about Arthur, and the dynamic was all about look what daddy’s going to do when he gets home. TH relished in his role as the one who would come home and really show his son who was boss.

His quotes (from the texts, and witness statements) towards Arthur seem to contain far more frequent death threats and violence than ET’s do. ETs quotes are primarily vicious griping and insults, with occasional violence, whereas TH’s are almost all severely violent.

Most tellingly, from what has been released so far, Arthur himself repeatedly expresssd concerns that his dad would kill him, not ET. Arthur was worried his dad would kill him as early as the end of 2019.

I am reminded of Karla Homolka, who successfully convinced everyone that she was just a vulnerable, abused young woman, who was manipulated and abused into going along with her serial killer husband’s rapes and murders (including that of Karla’s teenage sister). After she had convinced everyone of this, got a substantially reduced sentence and was immune from further consequences, video evidence emerged that Karla was in fact an active participant in the crimes, and enjoyed every moment of it.

I am deeply concerned that TH is successfully pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes using very similar tactics.

I trust the jury with this. I think what they've had to view won't be undone by weasel words in the witness box, or prior behaviour or character. In my eyes he's demonstrated no heartache, has devalued Arthur by putting him on a par with the unborn baby he had never had a relationship with, and has actually vindicated himself in his own mind by the chance fact that it was ET who brought the abuse to its dreadful finality.

He said many times to people who were concerned (wtte) 'he's my son, this is none of your business' showing he was not deferential and submissive to other's wishes. He chose not to allow Arthur to be loved and safe, and thrive, with his nanna.

He bought ice creams for himself and ET and carried them past his six year old son on the step. Arthur was already dead to him by that stage. Never mind the salt poisoning, if he was concerned about Arthur not eating he would have plied him with ice creams and delicious food. He even denied him water. By his last days, Arthur was alone, anguished and in pain, in his own living hell. No strength to even hold a glass of water. I actually think death when it came was prefereable to what he was living, the damage and PTSD would have continued to torture him.

The 'why' is for mitigation, I don't think it factors into the determination of TH's complicity in this. He should be pleading for the mercy of the court. Pleading guilty. I think he has more culpability in Arthur's death than ET, because it seems death was the only way this was going to go and TH was never going to step up and save him from his hell. Buying cake and balloons for the witch, which no doubt Arthur didn't even dream of sharing with them by that stage. He wanted water, not chips or sweets, water. It had come to survival for him.

I will be gobsmacked if the jury decides TH was not guilty of murder, based on the evidence they've seen.

 

[Discosally]

I trust the jury with this. I think what they've had to view won't be undone by weasel words in the witness box, or prior behaviour or character. In my eyes he's demonstrated no heartache, has devalued Arthur by putting him on a par with the unborn baby he had never had a relationship with, and has actually vindicated himself in his own mind by the chance fact that it was ET who brought the abuse to its dreadful finality.

He said many times to people who were concerned (wtte) 'he's my son, this is none of your business' showing he was not deferential and submissive to other's wishes. He chose not to allow Arthur to be loved and safe, and thrive, with his nanna.

He bought ice creams for himself and ET and carried them past his six year old son on the step. Arthur was already dead to him by that stage. Never mind the salt poisoning, if he was concerned about Arthur not eating he would have plied him with ice creams and delicious food. He even denied him water. By his last days, Arthur was alone, anguished and in pain, in his own living hell. No strength to even hold a glass of water. I actually think death when it came was prefereable to what he was living, the damage and PTSD would have continued to torture him.

The 'why' is for mitigation, I don't think it factors into the determination of TH's complicity in this. He should be pleading for the mercy of the court. Pleading guilty. I think he has more culpability in Arthur's death than ET, because it seems death was the only way this was going to go and TH was never going to step up and save him from his hell. Buying cake and balloons for the witch, which no doubt Arthur didn't even dream of sharing with them by that stage. He wanted water, not chips or sweets, water. It had come to survival for him.

I will be gobsmacked if the jury decides TH was not guilty of murder, based on the evidence they've seen.

I think the only evidence of him saying “he’s my son, it’s my business” has come from ET and her witnesses?

I’m absolutely not defending him, but I don’t think he would have treated Arthur like this if he hadnt of met ET, I think there is something in that.

It is right what you say that he put more value on the pregnancy than Arthur.

I want him to get the longest prison sentence possible and for him to have his own treatment dished out on by the other inmates. I just think it’s complex why and how he did it.

 

[ScottishSam]

I trust the jury with this. I think what they've had to view won't be undone by weasel words in the witness box, or prior behaviour or character. In my eyes he's demonstrated no heartache, has devalued Arthur by putting him on a par with the unborn baby he had never had a relationship with, and has actually vindicated himself in his own mind by the chance fact that it was ET who brought the abuse to its dreadful finality.

He said many times to people who were concerned (wtte) 'he's my son, this is none of your business' showing he was not deferential and submissive to other's wishes. He chose not to allow Arthur to be loved and safe, and thrive, with his nanna.

He bought ice creams for himself and ET and carried them past his six year old son on the step. Arthur was already dead to him by that stage. Never mind the salt poisoning, if he was concerned about Arthur not eating he would have plied him with ice creams and delicious food. He even denied him water. By his last days, Arthur was alone, anguished and in pain, in his own living hell. No strength to even hold a glass of water. I actually think death when it came was prefereable to what he was living, the damage and PTSD would have continued to torture him.

The 'why' is for mitigation, I don't think it factors into the determination of TH's complicity in this. He should be pleading for the mercy of the court. Pleading guilty. I think he has more culpability in Arthur's death than ET, because it seems death was the only way this was going to go and TH was never going to step up and save him from his hell. Buying cake and balloons for the witch, which no doubt Arthur didn't even dream of sharing with them by that stage. He wanted water, not chips or sweets, water. It had come to survival for him.

I will be gobsmacked if the jury decides TH was not guilty of murder, based on the evidence they've seen.

I think he will be found guilty on all charges. And the points you make re survival mode are true.
Had he survived this he'd have likely had MH issues forever. I also agree that if it was my child not eating, I'd be offering whatever they wanted to eat.
I believe he is expecting to be found guilty.

 

[Discosally]

Also I think re the ice creams and plying with delicious food, which is something that we would do if our kids weren’t eating, still comes back to ET. In September, 6 months before they even lived with her, she was furious that TH had bought Arthur a Subway sandwich, as she deemed it as treat. I really think her twisted rationale heavily influenced TH and as he looked up to her parenting (because her own children were well behaved) he took her way to be better than his. It’s sickening and twisted and complex

 

[ScottishSam]

I think the only evidence of him saying “he’s my son, it’s my business” has come from ET and her witnesses.

I’m absolutely not defending him, but I don’t think he would have treated Arthur like this if he hadnt of met ET, I think there is something in that.

It is right what you say that he put more value on the pregnancy than Arthur.

I want him to get the longest prison sentence possible and for him to have his own treatment dished out on by the other inmates. I just think it’s complex why and how he did it.

Andrew questioned the pink chair and was told to mind his own business I think.

 

[Tinksx]

I think he will be found guilty on all charges. And the points you make re survival mode are true.
Had he survived this he'd have likely had MH issues forever. I also agree that if it was my child not eating, I'd be offering whatever they wanted to eat.
I believe he is expecting to be found guilty.

I don’t think he’s going to be found guilty on the salt charge. The rest, yes. Murder by the secondary thingymajigg (can’t remember the name) he’s guilty. Murder by his hand physically, not guilty.

 

[ScottishSam]

I think the only evidence of him saying “he’s my son, it’s my business” has come from ET and her witnesses.

I’m absolutely not defending him, but I don’t think he would have treated Arthur like this if he hadnt of met ET, I think there is something in that.

It is right what you say that he put more value on the pregnancy than Arthur.

I want him to get the longest prison sentence possible and for him to have his own treatment dished out on by the other inmates. I just think it’s complex why and how he did it.

Andrew questioned the pink chair and was told to mind his own business I think.

I don’t think he’s going to be found guilty on the salt charge. The rest, yes. Murder by the secondary thingymajigg (can’t remember the name) he’s guilty. Murder by his hand physically, not guilty.

Is the salt charge on his sheet? I genuinely don't believe he knew about the salt.