Mellowmelly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2016
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 6,103
I wonder if TH and ET are both present in court today ?
UK - Arthur Labinjo Hughes, 6, killed, dad & friend arrested, June 2020 #2
- Thread starter Lancslass
- Start date
- Status
It hasn’t been stated that either is not, so I assume they are.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,920
15:07KEY EVENT
'Each gave their assent to persecute Arthur into a state of physical and mental exhaustion'
Mr Hankin says the defendants carried out a 'systematic course of conduct designed to terrorise, degrade, neglect and harm Arthur physically and psychologically'.
He adds: "Together they denigrated and debased him, they dehumanised him."
Mr Hankin reminds the jury of the text Hughes sent to Tustin in early May: "Put him outside or wherever, give him away, put him out with the rubbish."
He says: "Their abuse towards him was constant. Their purpose was to devalue him, that's how they did what they did to him."
The prosecutor states it is 'contemptible' that calling Arthur a c*** was just 'plain speaking'. He adds: "Swearing demonstrates neither defendant had any respect for Arthur at all. Each gave their assent to persecute Arthur into a state of physical and mental exhaustion.
'Each gave their assent to persecute Arthur into a state of physical and mental exhaustion'
Mr Hankin says the defendants carried out a 'systematic course of conduct designed to terrorise, degrade, neglect and harm Arthur physically and psychologically'.
He adds: "Together they denigrated and debased him, they dehumanised him."
Mr Hankin reminds the jury of the text Hughes sent to Tustin in early May: "Put him outside or wherever, give him away, put him out with the rubbish."
He says: "Their abuse towards him was constant. Their purpose was to devalue him, that's how they did what they did to him."
The prosecutor states it is 'contemptible' that calling Arthur a c*** was just 'plain speaking'. He adds: "Swearing demonstrates neither defendant had any respect for Arthur at all. Each gave their assent to persecute Arthur into a state of physical and mental exhaustion.
Mellowmelly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2016
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 6,103
Well if they are, I hope they're both feeling the fear Arthur must've felt.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,920
15:11KEY EVENT
Arthur suffered 'nearly a bruise for every day of lockdown' - and potentially more, says prosecution
Mr Hankin says it is 'almost impossible to imagine the pain and suffering' Arthur would have felt at having to stand facing a wall in the hallway all day, every day.
He adds it was the 'consistent threat of retribution that ensured his compliance'.
Mr Hankin now moves on to the 130 or so bruises found on Arthur's body. He says: "Most of them will have been abusive. If even half of them were from assaults, that is nearly a bruise for every day of lockdown."
The prosecutor points out that Arthur likely suffered many more bruises in the past which had faded by June 16.
He says: "Violence was a way of life for him in lockdown. Neither Emma Tustin's limited pleas or Thomas Hughes's partial admissions begin to reflect the evidence that proves Arthur was the victim of daily beatings.
Arthur suffered 'nearly a bruise for every day of lockdown' - and potentially more, says prosecution
Mr Hankin says it is 'almost impossible to imagine the pain and suffering' Arthur would have felt at having to stand facing a wall in the hallway all day, every day.
He adds it was the 'consistent threat of retribution that ensured his compliance'.
Mr Hankin now moves on to the 130 or so bruises found on Arthur's body. He says: "Most of them will have been abusive. If even half of them were from assaults, that is nearly a bruise for every day of lockdown."
The prosecutor points out that Arthur likely suffered many more bruises in the past which had faded by June 16.
He says: "Violence was a way of life for him in lockdown. Neither Emma Tustin's limited pleas or Thomas Hughes's partial admissions begin to reflect the evidence that proves Arthur was the victim of daily beatings.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,920
15:45JAYNE THOMSON
'strong evidence Arthur was fed food and possibly even given water contaminated with salt'
Mr Hankin states the defendants employed a 'policy of depriving him access to food' in order to 'control him and increase his suffering'.
He says both Hughes and Tustin 'had to police this for it to be effective'.
The prosecutor moves on to salt. He states there is 'strong evidence Arthur was fed food and possibly even given water contaminated with salt'.
Mr Hankin tells the court Arthur was 'not on hunger strike' but was asking for food only to 'reject it only after he tasted it'.
He states Arthur's access to food was 'strictly controlled' and offers by others to feed him were 'refused' by Hughes and Tustin.
Mr Hankin also says that Arthur was given different food to the other children. He says: "Emma Tustin didn't take him upstairs to pluck her eyebrows. Salt was in the shower room. She was angry. The explanation she's given Arthur was hurling himself into furniture is demonstrably false."
Mr Hankin adds: "Emma Tustin is cruel enough to force him to drink a salt slurry. She had the will to control him completely and she was indifferent to his suffering. She remains indifferent to his suffering. She is entirely remorseless."
'strong evidence Arthur was fed food and possibly even given water contaminated with salt'
Mr Hankin states the defendants employed a 'policy of depriving him access to food' in order to 'control him and increase his suffering'.
He says both Hughes and Tustin 'had to police this for it to be effective'.
The prosecutor moves on to salt. He states there is 'strong evidence Arthur was fed food and possibly even given water contaminated with salt'.
Mr Hankin tells the court Arthur was 'not on hunger strike' but was asking for food only to 'reject it only after he tasted it'.
He states Arthur's access to food was 'strictly controlled' and offers by others to feed him were 'refused' by Hughes and Tustin.
Mr Hankin also says that Arthur was given different food to the other children. He says: "Emma Tustin didn't take him upstairs to pluck her eyebrows. Salt was in the shower room. She was angry. The explanation she's given Arthur was hurling himself into furniture is demonstrably false."
Mr Hankin adds: "Emma Tustin is cruel enough to force him to drink a salt slurry. She had the will to control him completely and she was indifferent to his suffering. She remains indifferent to his suffering. She is entirely remorseless."
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,920
15:46KEY EVENT
"That level of cruelty is difficult to comprehend, let alone in a father towards his own son."
Mr Hankin: "Both defendants deny being responsible. At least one of them is lying. And the other if he or she didn't jointly participate was certainly complicit in that violence.
"Now they point the blame at one another. At the time when social services visited they were deceiving social services into believing Arthur was safe and well in their care. It is an important example of the defendants acting with a common purpose. This deceit of the authorities and family is a recurrent theme in the evidence."
He adds: "Thomas Hughes was not manipulated into a course of conduct. On the contrary, there was evidence of gratuitous and spiteful behaviour towards Arthur by him. He was malevolent. He relished causing Arthur distress. Pretending to drive Arthur to nanny's house. It is difficult to put into words how appalling that was. He tricked Arthur and offered him hope simply to destroy it.
"That level of cruelty is difficult to comprehend, let alone in a father towards his own son."
"That level of cruelty is difficult to comprehend, let alone in a father towards his own son."
Mr Hankin: "Both defendants deny being responsible. At least one of them is lying. And the other if he or she didn't jointly participate was certainly complicit in that violence.
"Now they point the blame at one another. At the time when social services visited they were deceiving social services into believing Arthur was safe and well in their care. It is an important example of the defendants acting with a common purpose. This deceit of the authorities and family is a recurrent theme in the evidence."
He adds: "Thomas Hughes was not manipulated into a course of conduct. On the contrary, there was evidence of gratuitous and spiteful behaviour towards Arthur by him. He was malevolent. He relished causing Arthur distress. Pretending to drive Arthur to nanny's house. It is difficult to put into words how appalling that was. He tricked Arthur and offered him hope simply to destroy it.
"That level of cruelty is difficult to comprehend, let alone in a father towards his own son."
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,920
15:47JAYNE THOMSON
Arthur had been subjected to 'incomprehensible cruelty'
Mr Hankin states Hughes' and Tustin's relationship was a 'relationship of equals'.
He tells the court they are 'equally responsible for Arthur's death'. Mr Hankin states in the preceding weeks Arthur had been subjected to 'incomprehensible cruelty' which had left him in a 'miserable physical condition'.
He says: "It provided the defendants with a daily reminder of the lengths which the other was prepared to go to to cause Arthur harm."
Mr Hankin turns to Tustin's explanation of what happened to Arthur on June 16 when he collapsed of fatal injuries.
He states her description 'changed several times' and reminds the jury that one expert considered that to be a 'red flag for non-accidental injury'.
Mr Hankin: "Then we have the common sense analysis. The prosecution contends the reason Emma Tustin's description of what happened to Arthur changed several times during investigation and trial is because it's not true.
"It is not factually plausible either. It is not factually plausible even in the 14 seconds available, according to Emma Tustin's revised timeline, that Arthur climbed to the top of the stairs and propelled himself from the top floor."
Arthur had been subjected to 'incomprehensible cruelty'
Mr Hankin states Hughes' and Tustin's relationship was a 'relationship of equals'.
He tells the court they are 'equally responsible for Arthur's death'. Mr Hankin states in the preceding weeks Arthur had been subjected to 'incomprehensible cruelty' which had left him in a 'miserable physical condition'.
He says: "It provided the defendants with a daily reminder of the lengths which the other was prepared to go to to cause Arthur harm."
Mr Hankin turns to Tustin's explanation of what happened to Arthur on June 16 when he collapsed of fatal injuries.
He states her description 'changed several times' and reminds the jury that one expert considered that to be a 'red flag for non-accidental injury'.
Mr Hankin: "Then we have the common sense analysis. The prosecution contends the reason Emma Tustin's description of what happened to Arthur changed several times during investigation and trial is because it's not true.
"It is not factually plausible either. It is not factually plausible even in the 14 seconds available, according to Emma Tustin's revised timeline, that Arthur climbed to the top of the stairs and propelled himself from the top floor."
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,920
15:55KEY EVENT
"Something did happen to this child. Emma Tustin, to use her own words, lost her f****** s***"
Mr Hankin: "It is typical of her that even with Arthur face down on the floor, likely gasping for air, her first thought was for herself. Then what did she do? She set about blaming Arthur, blaming him for causing his own injuries."
He states Tustin proceeded to 'dress the scene' because she 'realised she had really gone too far this time'.
Mr Hankin: "Something did happen to this child. Emma Tustin, to use her own words, lost her f****** s***."
He adds: "When you consider what she did to Arthur and the extent of the injuries that resulted and the severity of force required to cause Arthur's brain, spinal and in particular eye injuries, her intent cannot have been anything other than to cause Arthur really serious harm."
"Something did happen to this child. Emma Tustin, to use her own words, lost her f****** s***"
Mr Hankin: "It is typical of her that even with Arthur face down on the floor, likely gasping for air, her first thought was for herself. Then what did she do? She set about blaming Arthur, blaming him for causing his own injuries."
He states Tustin proceeded to 'dress the scene' because she 'realised she had really gone too far this time'.
Mr Hankin: "Something did happen to this child. Emma Tustin, to use her own words, lost her f****** s***."
He adds: "When you consider what she did to Arthur and the extent of the injuries that resulted and the severity of force required to cause Arthur's brain, spinal and in particular eye injuries, her intent cannot have been anything other than to cause Arthur really serious harm."
The brain swelling would probably make him gasp, it's Cheyne Stokes breathing. ET noted that his breathing changed which made her worried he wouldn't wake up.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,920
SBM
Check out "shaken baby syndrome", that will explain better than I can at the moment about injuries caused to eyes
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2019
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,920
Basically, the acceleration/deceleration involved in shaking causes damage to the eyes....bleeding, retina detachment etc. In addition to this Arthur’s head was banged against a hard surface, so there would be blunt force trauma aswell
OMGBasically, the acceleration/deceleration involved in shaking causes damage to the eyes....bleeding, retina detachment etc. In addition to this Arthur’s head was banged against a hard surface, so there would be blunt force trauma aswell
This is a demon in action
Helleux301
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2020
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 362
He was incredible. It really felt like he was fighting for Arthur, for justice, he couldn't of done it any better. I can't imagine anyone listening to that would doubt the guilt of murder for both of them, but we will see. I just wish he was in charge of the sentencing.
Mellowmelly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2016
- Messages
- 825
- Reaction score
- 6,103
I love Mr Hankin ! 
That was a masterpiece of rhetoric.
He absolutely gave it to them with both barrels, calmly but relentlessly. What a professional to keep his cool when no doubt feeling burning inner rage. He deployed his skill on behalf of this poor boy and gave it everything.
It was particularly important that he pointed out what had not happened… Arthur was not on hunger strike. This is how gaslighting needs to be counteracted. Chapeau.
He absolutely gave it to them with both barrels, calmly but relentlessly. What a professional to keep his cool when no doubt feeling burning inner rage. He deployed his skill on behalf of this poor boy and gave it everything.
It was particularly important that he pointed out what had not happened… Arthur was not on hunger strike. This is how gaslighting needs to be counteracted. Chapeau.
Last edited:
Ms Pritchard was also asked about an alleged remark Tustin made to her, describing Arthur as a “little f*****”, when she had “stopped him” leaving the house to go after his father.
However, Ms Pritchard was unable to tell jurors if the words allegedly used by Tustin had been about an incident on the day of Arthur’s fatal collapse.
Murder-accused stepmum pleads guilty to second child cruelty offence | ITV News
However, Ms Pritchard was unable to tell jurors if the words allegedly used by Tustin had been about an incident on the day of Arthur’s fatal collapse.
Murder-accused stepmum pleads guilty to second child cruelty offence | ITV News
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 97
- Guests online
- 3,550
- Total visitors
- 3,647