UK - Arthur Labinjo Hughes, 6, killed, dad & friend arrested, June 2020
- Thread starter Lancslass
- Start date
- Status
I believe TH guilty of nearly absolutely every single charge (only reason being, I am still sitting on the fence about murder. If causing or allowing a death was a charge available I would have no trouble finding him guilty), but I don’t believe he poisoned Arthur with salt. I think Ms Prior is just deflecting, like she is paid to do. Cast suspicion elsewhere, cause reasons to doubt, find loopholes and poke holes.
I’m aware this may be an unpopular opinion… but I don’t think the murder charge has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt for TH. And if any of the jurors have come to the same conclusion as me, I hope an alternative charge will be presented because I do hope, TH will be held accountable, his actions (and lack of actions) definitely contributed to Arthur’s demise. I’d hate for him to get a not guilty and there be no other alternative charge.
I mean this could all change. The trial is not over yet and I’m hoping I will be swayed towards guilty for both in terms of the murder charge.
"The jury is told Hughes was arrested at 7.30pm on June 16 last year at Birmingham Children's Hospital on suspicion of s18 assault - inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.
He was taken to Coventry Central police station before being transferred to Oldbury.
At 6.14pm on June 17 he was arrested on suspicion of murder following Arthur's death. He was cautioned but made 'no significant reply'.
Tustin was arrested on suspicion of s18 assault at 7.09pm on June 16 at Cranmore Road. She was also taken to Coventry Central before being taken to Oldbury.
When Tustin was later arrested on suspicion of murder she said: "Well you better get his dad here then."
Mr Hankin says Tustin hit her head on the cell wall and lay on her back on the floor but was not unconscious. He states she had also banged her head on the floor."
Day 23 Murder trial over death of boy, six, resumes after covid alert - updates
Sorry to be obsessive about it, but can a lawyer just throw accusations without a proof???
I know law only from WS so Im not an expert
Sorry to be obsessive about it, but can a lawyer just throw accusations without a proof???
I know law only from WS so Im not an expert
If their client is denying it is them and if there is only circumstantial evidence, a lawyer can pretty much throw out what they want (namely being their clients narrative of events). The only time they cannot is if something is an agreed fact by both sides.
Remember it’s not their job to prove anything. That’s the job of the prosecution.
Exactly. Their job is to plant seeds of doubt in the jurors minds.
I agree with you. I believe it is possible for him to have been in an extremely coercive relationship and he was unaware of how badly Arthur was being treated. It was mentioned in court today that he was out at work so he wouldn’t have witnessed everything. If I was a juror I wouldn’t convict him of murder based on what’s been said so far. We shall see what else comes out.
He was unemployed.
Leaving home and going God knows where.
That’s by the by. I think the point @Ironside was making, please correct me if I’m mistaken, was that TH seemed to spend majority of his time outside of that house, therefore wasn’t witness to all that was going on.
I have my suspicions that a fair bit of benefit fraud and cash in hand work was going on. That’s pure speculation on my part.
This is the same woman who stated she rubbed salt on her vagina and that she blames Arthur for his own death. I’d take her testimony with a pinch of salt, pun intended.
I get it.
What angered me (sorry) that it was written he went to work to earn his and his son upkeep when, in fact, he was RUNNING AWAY from his responsibilities!
That makes a huge difference, doesn't it???
Last edited:
You don’t have a thing to be sorry for
, this case has affected us all and you’re allowed to be angry. He was definitely working at some point. He also was unemployed at some point also. I find it hard to judge the employed/unemployed aspect, this all happened during the peak of covid and a lot of people lost their income through no fault of their own. Maybe that was the case here? Maybe not?
You are right.You don’t have a thing to be sorry for
He was definitely working at some point. He also was unemployed at some point also. I find it hard to judge the employed/unemployed aspect, this all happened during the peak of covid and a lot of people lost their income through no fault of their own. Maybe that was the case here? Maybe not?
I know I shouldn't get snappy but, My God, any hint of defending him makes me "see red"
To answer the salt question - sorry for the long post but it should clear up the questioning of TH today:
Ms Prior asks about Hughes' comment in hospital where he said 'it's all my fault'.
She says: "The reason you said that is because at 1pm that day you went upstairs, held that little boy down and poisoned him with salt didn't you?"
Hughes: "No."
Evidence of Dr Coulthard - Day 21 of trial
Children's kidney consultant is first witness of the day
The first witness called to give evidence today is Dr Malcolm Coulthard, a children's kidney consultant.
The jury is told the condition of hypernatremia relates to raised sodium levels in the blood.
Dr Coulthard states: "Our bodies do not tolerate variations in salt concentration."
He explains the normal range is 135 to 145 millimole per litre (mmol/L) and adds: "Children with sodium levels above 145 would raise alarm bells, much higher there would be really serious alarm bells and red flags."
Dr Coulthard tells the court there are three things which typically cause hypernatremia, two of which are dehydration and an abnormality in the kidney.
He states the third 'rare' cause is salt poisoning where a 'child has been administered so much salt even their incredibly powerful normal kidney mechanism to get rid of salt is overpowered'.
Arthur's left kidney was smaller than normal and 'non-functioning'
Dr Coulthard explains the function of a kidney.
He says: "Most people are born with two. It is the organ that filters the blood and excretes waste products as urine. They make urine. Quite a crucial part of understanding the way they work, they are incredibly busy organs, they filter a phenomenal volume of fluids every day and produce a relatively tiny amount of concentrated and perfectly produced urine with exactly the right amounts of water and salt."
Dr Coulthard confirms people can live with only one kidney. An X-ray image of Arthur's kidneys is shown on the court screens.
The jury is told Arthur's left kidney was smaller than normal and 'non-functioning'. Dr Coulthard states it had none of the filters and tubes you would expect to see and was instead a 'mishmash of cells and scarring'.
He adds: "Essentially this child was either born with a kidney which didn't develop or it somehow became scarred. There is no way of knowing that. What is clear is this kidney didn't contribute to his function at all.
"It was a non-kidney."
By contrast Arthur's right kidney was significantly larger than normal, the court is told. Dr Coulthard confirms it is likely the right kidney had grown larger to compensate for the left.
Arthur "severely hypernatremic'
Dr Coulthard confirms that despite the non-functioning left kidney and enlarged right kidney, Arthur would have had 'normal' kidney function overall.
He adds there is no evidence that Arthur had chronic kidney disease or that he did not have the ability to regulate the salt and water balance in his body.
Dr Coulthard explains what happens if a child does not have enough water. He says: "If you pass a lot of urine and you are unable to drink to keep up you become like a person in the desert who just doesn't have enough water to drink, the volume of water goes down, the volume of blood goes down and you collapse."
Prosecutor Jonas Hankin states Arthur had his 'blood gas taken' upon arrival at the children's hospital emergency department at 3.46pm - on June 16, 2020.
He says: "He was found to be severely hypernatremic."
Dr Coulthard confirms that is correct. He repeats the maximum normal blood sodium level would be 145 millimoles per litre (mmol/L). He states anything about 150 would be a red flag and anything above 160 'extremely high'.
Mr Hankin states the reading of Arthur's blood sodium level was 181.7mmol/L. The second was 184mmol/L.
'You almost never see blood sodium this high' - doctor
Dr Coulthard continues: "You almost never see blood sodium this high. Most doctors would never see blood sodium this high. The standard machines are not calibrated to measure higher than this because why would you? Because you don't expect to see them this high."
Dr Coulthard confirms that one set of Arthur's blood sodium results was sent off for laboratory analysis which would have been the 'gold standard' in terms of reliability.
The reading came back simply stating it was higher than 180millimoles per litre (mmol/L). Dr Coulthard says that effectively means the reading was 'off the scale'.
The expert witness goes on to state that saline solution given to Arthur as well as medication to increase his urine would not have affected the blood sodium readings.
Dr Coulthard confirms that Arthur's head injury would not explain the salt levels.
Salt poisoning is 'the only possible explanation' - court told
Mr Hankin turns to the expert's conclusions on the cause of Arthur's hypernatremia.
He says: "Was Arthur, in your opinion, salt poisoned?"
Dr Coulthard: "Yes."
The expert states the only two potential causes of blood sodium levels as high as Arthur's, are salt poisoning or 'very, very severe dehydration'.
Dr Coulthard confirms Arthur was passing large volumes of urine containing a lot of salt, which is the opposite of what happens in dehydration. He tells the court that salt poisoning is 'the only possible explanation'.
Mr Hankin asks if Arthur could have been poisoned 'gradually over many hours or longer'.
Dr Coulthard: "He could have been poisoned over many hours or days but he would not have reached a sodium concentration of 184 (mmol/L), by that mechanism.
"He could have been poisoned slowly and reached a level of approximately 170 (mmol/L). Beyond that is not possible. At a level of 170 (mmol/L) he would have collapsed and would have been extremely, extremely ill."
Mr Hankin asks if a 'large dose of salt' in the period of time immediately before Arthur's admission to hospital would explain it.
Dr Coulthard: "This result can only be explained by at least some or possibly all of the salt poisoning having been the result of ingesting salt in the hours before he went to hospital."
Doctor estimates 'minimum quantity of salt ingested by Arthur was 34 grams'
Dr Coulthard confirms Arthur's sodium levels remained over 180 millimoles per litre (mmol/L) for seven hours while he was in hospital.
He states: "The only way that can be explained is that he was, if you like, continuing to be salt poisoned.
"In other words if you are given so much salt that even though it's absorbed quickly and promptly by the stomach, it has so much to absorb it cannot absorb it all in a short period.
"It continues to absorb it over a period of hours."
Dr Coulthard estimates the minimum quantity of salt ingested by Arthur was 34 grams (g). In terms of a time-frame he believes it would have had to have been consumed a maximum of four hours before the first measurement was taken, but it is more likely to have been consumed 'two to three hours' beforehand, the court is told.
Mr Hankin concludes his examination-in-chief. The trial adjourns for lunch.
Cross-examination.
The trial resumes.
Mary Prior, representing Tustin, begins cross-examination.
Dr Coulthard states a kidney would have to be 'grossly abnormal' in order for blood salt levels to rise but adds that is 'completely excluded' in Arthur's case.
He also rules out dehydration.
'The reality is in this country nobody gets dehydrated to the level of 184 (mmol/L) unless they are deprived of medical care'
Dr Coulthard continues: "The reality is in this country nobody gets dehydrated to the level of 184 (mmol/L) unless they are deprived of medical care. It just doesn't happen."
Ms Prior asks if it is possible that Arthur's sodium levels could have been caused by a combination of repeated doses of salt followed by a large dose on the last day.
Dr Coulthard replies 'yes'.
Ms Prior asks if high levels of salt developing in Arthur's body over the course of a few days would have made him 'irritable'.
The expert again replies 'yes'.
Expert continues on alleged poisoning cliams
Ms Prior puts it to the expert that it would be 'extremely difficult' to deliberately poison a child with salt and would require a large quantity of salt.
Dr Coulthard agrees.
Ms Prior asks how long after the ingestion of salt would he expect to see 'significant deterioration'.
Dr Coulthard: "I think one and a half hours to two hours after administration."
Ms Prior asks if there would be a 'gradual deterioration'.
Dr Coulthard: "Not really, during the first half an hour or so the child would probably be vomiting. When you say gradual, half an hour to an hour. It would take that kind of time."
Salt poisoning allegedly took place over a number of days, court told
Ms Prior takes the expert to one of his reports where he talks about the changes he would have expected to see in Arthur after being poisoned.
Dr Coulthard says: "Distressed and upset initially followed by convulsions and/or fits."
He confirms in his report, he addressed Tustin's account that Arthur was 'throwing himself around' prior to collapse, and suggested she could have been witnessing a fit, but adds it is difficult to say without witnessing Arthur's actions himself.
Ms Prior asks if a fit would involve movement of the head.
Dr Coulthard: "It can, but typically it's arms and legs."
The expert confirms in his most recent report - dated yesterday, November 3 - his preferred option is that salt poisoning took place over a number of days followed by a 'bolus' of salt at the end.
Arthur's vitamin D levels were low which can be a sign of malnutrition, jury told
Dr Coulthard confirms Arthur's vitamin D levels were low which can be a sign of malnutrition.
However he denies it is a sign of kidney malfunction.
Ms Prior concludes her questions. Bernard Richmond, for Hughes, begins his cross-examination.
He says: "Whatever happened Arthur was given a significant dose, a bolus, of salt in the short period before his collapse?"
Dr Coulthard: "Yes."
Mr Richmond: "Getting it down him is a question of mechanics, a question of overcoming his ability to resist or his desire to resist."
Dr Coulthard: "Yes."
Mr Richmond asks how long would elapse between Arthur being given a bolus of salt and him becoming 'quite unwell'.
Dr Coulthard reiterates he does not believe it would take longer than four hours, but adds it would more likely be two to three hours.
End of evidence for today
Mr Richmond asks: "Where we get to is, he was plainly salt poisoned by someone who managed to get him to take the salt whether by deception or by force?"
Dr Coulthard partially agrees but states Arthur would 'not have been deceived by the quantities of salt we are talking about here'.
Mr Richmond concludes his questions.
During prosecution re-examination Dr Coulthard reiterates Arthur's body was able to regulate salt and water and that he does not think he was severely dehydrated.
Dr Coulthard confirms in his opinion it is not physiologically possible for Arthur to have poisoned himself.
He repeats that Arthur ingested an 'absolute minimum' of 34g of salt but in reality he believes the actual amount was much higher.
Dr Coulthard states that seizures can be a consequence of salt poisoning but adds that the account Arthur was on all fours, headbutted the floor, and stated 'I don't care' when told to get up does not fit with seizure activity.
Finally, the expert confirms his opinion that Arthur would have survived the salt poisoning had it not been for his head injuries. He concludes his evidence.
The trial is adjourned until tomorrow morning.
---
(Arthur's collapse is at about 2:30pm)
ET's 1st police interview - Day 20 of trial -
Tustin said she ran into the kitchen, grabbed some water and gave it to Arthur. She said after a while Arthur spat it back out.
ET's 2nd police interview -
She said after she moved Arthur to the sofa she tried to give him a drink. Tustin stated it appeared he was drinking it but 30 seconds later he spat it back up with some food.
Tustin said Hughes tried to give Arthur some Coca Cola. She said she asked him why he was doing that because everything she had tried to give him before-hand had come back up.
TH 1st police interview - Day 15 of trial -
"I got home my partner was giving him Ribena, coke, Calpol. He had a big bruise in the centre of his head, forehead.
TH 2nd police interview -
Hughes said he arrived home and saw Arthur unconscious on the settee.
He recalled 'slapping him on the back of the head' and giving Arthur Coca Cola. He said: "I thought he might spit that back up. I would rather have him choking than have him give me nothing."
He described Arthur's eyes as 'dazed, the lights were on but nobody's home'.
---
Tustin's cross-examination by Hughes' barrister -
He presses Tustin on her claim that Hughes was alone with Arthur in the bathroom between 1pm and 1.10pm.
The barrister puts it to Tustin she has never mentioned that previously and is now 'using that window to your advantage' after listening to the evidence in relation to Arthur's alleged salt poisoning.
Tustin states she was not asked about it previously, adding she was only asked to account for her own whereabouts at that time following a recent report from one of the expert medical witnesses concerning the salt findings.
Tustin's cross-examination by prosecutor -
Mr Hankin states at 1.40pm Tustin went upstairs where she remained for 22 minutes. He adds: "The prosecution say that it is during this period you poisoned Arthur."
Tustin: "No, I was doing my eyebrows. Arthur was not poisoned by me."
---
CCTV footage - Day 23 of trial -
CCTV from living room played
The trial resumes following a short break.
Katya Saudek, junior defence counsel for Tustin, asks DC Christopher Herrick to play CCTV footage from the Cranmore Road address on June 16.
The clip shows approximately six minutes of activity in the living room.
Ms Saudek states the family returned to the address at 12.59pm but that Hughes did not appear on the living room camera until just before 1.05pm.
DC Herrick confirms that is correct.
---
DC Herrick confirms there is no activity on Hughes' phone between 12.59pm and 1.05pm on June 16. He adds that Hughes appeared on the living camera just before 1.05pm.
Murder trial over death of boy, six, resumes after covid alert - updates
Ms Prior asks about Hughes' comment in hospital where he said 'it's all my fault'.
She says: "The reason you said that is because at 1pm that day you went upstairs, held that little boy down and poisoned him with salt didn't you?"
Hughes: "No."
Evidence of Dr Coulthard - Day 21 of trial
Children's kidney consultant is first witness of the day
The first witness called to give evidence today is Dr Malcolm Coulthard, a children's kidney consultant.
The jury is told the condition of hypernatremia relates to raised sodium levels in the blood.
Dr Coulthard states: "Our bodies do not tolerate variations in salt concentration."
He explains the normal range is 135 to 145 millimole per litre (mmol/L) and adds: "Children with sodium levels above 145 would raise alarm bells, much higher there would be really serious alarm bells and red flags."
Dr Coulthard tells the court there are three things which typically cause hypernatremia, two of which are dehydration and an abnormality in the kidney.
He states the third 'rare' cause is salt poisoning where a 'child has been administered so much salt even their incredibly powerful normal kidney mechanism to get rid of salt is overpowered'.
Arthur's left kidney was smaller than normal and 'non-functioning'
Dr Coulthard explains the function of a kidney.
He says: "Most people are born with two. It is the organ that filters the blood and excretes waste products as urine. They make urine. Quite a crucial part of understanding the way they work, they are incredibly busy organs, they filter a phenomenal volume of fluids every day and produce a relatively tiny amount of concentrated and perfectly produced urine with exactly the right amounts of water and salt."
Dr Coulthard confirms people can live with only one kidney. An X-ray image of Arthur's kidneys is shown on the court screens.
The jury is told Arthur's left kidney was smaller than normal and 'non-functioning'. Dr Coulthard states it had none of the filters and tubes you would expect to see and was instead a 'mishmash of cells and scarring'.
He adds: "Essentially this child was either born with a kidney which didn't develop or it somehow became scarred. There is no way of knowing that. What is clear is this kidney didn't contribute to his function at all.
"It was a non-kidney."
By contrast Arthur's right kidney was significantly larger than normal, the court is told. Dr Coulthard confirms it is likely the right kidney had grown larger to compensate for the left.
Arthur "severely hypernatremic'
Dr Coulthard confirms that despite the non-functioning left kidney and enlarged right kidney, Arthur would have had 'normal' kidney function overall.
He adds there is no evidence that Arthur had chronic kidney disease or that he did not have the ability to regulate the salt and water balance in his body.
Dr Coulthard explains what happens if a child does not have enough water. He says: "If you pass a lot of urine and you are unable to drink to keep up you become like a person in the desert who just doesn't have enough water to drink, the volume of water goes down, the volume of blood goes down and you collapse."
Prosecutor Jonas Hankin states Arthur had his 'blood gas taken' upon arrival at the children's hospital emergency department at 3.46pm - on June 16, 2020.
He says: "He was found to be severely hypernatremic."
Dr Coulthard confirms that is correct. He repeats the maximum normal blood sodium level would be 145 millimoles per litre (mmol/L). He states anything about 150 would be a red flag and anything above 160 'extremely high'.
Mr Hankin states the reading of Arthur's blood sodium level was 181.7mmol/L. The second was 184mmol/L.
'You almost never see blood sodium this high' - doctor
Dr Coulthard continues: "You almost never see blood sodium this high. Most doctors would never see blood sodium this high. The standard machines are not calibrated to measure higher than this because why would you? Because you don't expect to see them this high."
Dr Coulthard confirms that one set of Arthur's blood sodium results was sent off for laboratory analysis which would have been the 'gold standard' in terms of reliability.
The reading came back simply stating it was higher than 180millimoles per litre (mmol/L). Dr Coulthard says that effectively means the reading was 'off the scale'.
The expert witness goes on to state that saline solution given to Arthur as well as medication to increase his urine would not have affected the blood sodium readings.
Dr Coulthard confirms that Arthur's head injury would not explain the salt levels.
Salt poisoning is 'the only possible explanation' - court told
Mr Hankin turns to the expert's conclusions on the cause of Arthur's hypernatremia.
He says: "Was Arthur, in your opinion, salt poisoned?"
Dr Coulthard: "Yes."
The expert states the only two potential causes of blood sodium levels as high as Arthur's, are salt poisoning or 'very, very severe dehydration'.
Dr Coulthard confirms Arthur was passing large volumes of urine containing a lot of salt, which is the opposite of what happens in dehydration. He tells the court that salt poisoning is 'the only possible explanation'.
Mr Hankin asks if Arthur could have been poisoned 'gradually over many hours or longer'.
Dr Coulthard: "He could have been poisoned over many hours or days but he would not have reached a sodium concentration of 184 (mmol/L), by that mechanism.
"He could have been poisoned slowly and reached a level of approximately 170 (mmol/L). Beyond that is not possible. At a level of 170 (mmol/L) he would have collapsed and would have been extremely, extremely ill."
Mr Hankin asks if a 'large dose of salt' in the period of time immediately before Arthur's admission to hospital would explain it.
Dr Coulthard: "This result can only be explained by at least some or possibly all of the salt poisoning having been the result of ingesting salt in the hours before he went to hospital."
Doctor estimates 'minimum quantity of salt ingested by Arthur was 34 grams'
Dr Coulthard confirms Arthur's sodium levels remained over 180 millimoles per litre (mmol/L) for seven hours while he was in hospital.
He states: "The only way that can be explained is that he was, if you like, continuing to be salt poisoned.
"In other words if you are given so much salt that even though it's absorbed quickly and promptly by the stomach, it has so much to absorb it cannot absorb it all in a short period.
"It continues to absorb it over a period of hours."
Dr Coulthard estimates the minimum quantity of salt ingested by Arthur was 34 grams (g). In terms of a time-frame he believes it would have had to have been consumed a maximum of four hours before the first measurement was taken, but it is more likely to have been consumed 'two to three hours' beforehand, the court is told.
Mr Hankin concludes his examination-in-chief. The trial adjourns for lunch.
Cross-examination.
The trial resumes.
Mary Prior, representing Tustin, begins cross-examination.
Dr Coulthard states a kidney would have to be 'grossly abnormal' in order for blood salt levels to rise but adds that is 'completely excluded' in Arthur's case.
He also rules out dehydration.
'The reality is in this country nobody gets dehydrated to the level of 184 (mmol/L) unless they are deprived of medical care'
Dr Coulthard continues: "The reality is in this country nobody gets dehydrated to the level of 184 (mmol/L) unless they are deprived of medical care. It just doesn't happen."
Ms Prior asks if it is possible that Arthur's sodium levels could have been caused by a combination of repeated doses of salt followed by a large dose on the last day.
Dr Coulthard replies 'yes'.
Ms Prior asks if high levels of salt developing in Arthur's body over the course of a few days would have made him 'irritable'.
The expert again replies 'yes'.
Expert continues on alleged poisoning cliams
Ms Prior puts it to the expert that it would be 'extremely difficult' to deliberately poison a child with salt and would require a large quantity of salt.
Dr Coulthard agrees.
Ms Prior asks how long after the ingestion of salt would he expect to see 'significant deterioration'.
Dr Coulthard: "I think one and a half hours to two hours after administration."
Ms Prior asks if there would be a 'gradual deterioration'.
Dr Coulthard: "Not really, during the first half an hour or so the child would probably be vomiting. When you say gradual, half an hour to an hour. It would take that kind of time."
Salt poisoning allegedly took place over a number of days, court told
Ms Prior takes the expert to one of his reports where he talks about the changes he would have expected to see in Arthur after being poisoned.
Dr Coulthard says: "Distressed and upset initially followed by convulsions and/or fits."
He confirms in his report, he addressed Tustin's account that Arthur was 'throwing himself around' prior to collapse, and suggested she could have been witnessing a fit, but adds it is difficult to say without witnessing Arthur's actions himself.
Ms Prior asks if a fit would involve movement of the head.
Dr Coulthard: "It can, but typically it's arms and legs."
The expert confirms in his most recent report - dated yesterday, November 3 - his preferred option is that salt poisoning took place over a number of days followed by a 'bolus' of salt at the end.
Arthur's vitamin D levels were low which can be a sign of malnutrition, jury told
Dr Coulthard confirms Arthur's vitamin D levels were low which can be a sign of malnutrition.
However he denies it is a sign of kidney malfunction.
Ms Prior concludes her questions. Bernard Richmond, for Hughes, begins his cross-examination.
He says: "Whatever happened Arthur was given a significant dose, a bolus, of salt in the short period before his collapse?"
Dr Coulthard: "Yes."
Mr Richmond: "Getting it down him is a question of mechanics, a question of overcoming his ability to resist or his desire to resist."
Dr Coulthard: "Yes."
Mr Richmond asks how long would elapse between Arthur being given a bolus of salt and him becoming 'quite unwell'.
Dr Coulthard reiterates he does not believe it would take longer than four hours, but adds it would more likely be two to three hours.
End of evidence for today
Mr Richmond asks: "Where we get to is, he was plainly salt poisoned by someone who managed to get him to take the salt whether by deception or by force?"
Dr Coulthard partially agrees but states Arthur would 'not have been deceived by the quantities of salt we are talking about here'.
Mr Richmond concludes his questions.
During prosecution re-examination Dr Coulthard reiterates Arthur's body was able to regulate salt and water and that he does not think he was severely dehydrated.
Dr Coulthard confirms in his opinion it is not physiologically possible for Arthur to have poisoned himself.
He repeats that Arthur ingested an 'absolute minimum' of 34g of salt but in reality he believes the actual amount was much higher.
Dr Coulthard states that seizures can be a consequence of salt poisoning but adds that the account Arthur was on all fours, headbutted the floor, and stated 'I don't care' when told to get up does not fit with seizure activity.
Finally, the expert confirms his opinion that Arthur would have survived the salt poisoning had it not been for his head injuries. He concludes his evidence.
The trial is adjourned until tomorrow morning.
---
(Arthur's collapse is at about 2:30pm)
ET's 1st police interview - Day 20 of trial -
Tustin said she ran into the kitchen, grabbed some water and gave it to Arthur. She said after a while Arthur spat it back out.
ET's 2nd police interview -
She said after she moved Arthur to the sofa she tried to give him a drink. Tustin stated it appeared he was drinking it but 30 seconds later he spat it back up with some food.
Tustin said Hughes tried to give Arthur some Coca Cola. She said she asked him why he was doing that because everything she had tried to give him before-hand had come back up.
TH 1st police interview - Day 15 of trial -
"I got home my partner was giving him Ribena, coke, Calpol. He had a big bruise in the centre of his head, forehead.
TH 2nd police interview -
Hughes said he arrived home and saw Arthur unconscious on the settee.
He recalled 'slapping him on the back of the head' and giving Arthur Coca Cola. He said: "I thought he might spit that back up. I would rather have him choking than have him give me nothing."
He described Arthur's eyes as 'dazed, the lights were on but nobody's home'.
---
Tustin's cross-examination by Hughes' barrister -
He presses Tustin on her claim that Hughes was alone with Arthur in the bathroom between 1pm and 1.10pm.
The barrister puts it to Tustin she has never mentioned that previously and is now 'using that window to your advantage' after listening to the evidence in relation to Arthur's alleged salt poisoning.
Tustin states she was not asked about it previously, adding she was only asked to account for her own whereabouts at that time following a recent report from one of the expert medical witnesses concerning the salt findings.
Tustin's cross-examination by prosecutor -
Mr Hankin states at 1.40pm Tustin went upstairs where she remained for 22 minutes. He adds: "The prosecution say that it is during this period you poisoned Arthur."
Tustin: "No, I was doing my eyebrows. Arthur was not poisoned by me."
---
CCTV footage - Day 23 of trial -
CCTV from living room played
The trial resumes following a short break.
Katya Saudek, junior defence counsel for Tustin, asks DC Christopher Herrick to play CCTV footage from the Cranmore Road address on June 16.
The clip shows approximately six minutes of activity in the living room.
Ms Saudek states the family returned to the address at 12.59pm but that Hughes did not appear on the living room camera until just before 1.05pm.
DC Herrick confirms that is correct.
---
DC Herrick confirms there is no activity on Hughes' phone between 12.59pm and 1.05pm on June 16. He adds that Hughes appeared on the living camera just before 1.05pm.
Murder trial over death of boy, six, resumes after covid alert - updates
You are right.
I know I shouldn't get snappy but, My God, any hint of defending him makes me "see red"
Please don’t think its a case of me defending him, I fully hold him accountable for Arthur’s demise in a manner of ways. I just don’t find him guilty of murder by the “legal” definition.
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 118
- Guests online
- 2,516
- Total visitors
- 2,634