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

[suebaloo]

I agree, that woman is pure plain evil. No question about it.

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says he did not 'fight for Arthur' as he 'did not want confrontation'
Mr Richmond asks how engaged he was with Arthur at that time.

Hughes: "I was quite withdrawn."

He adds: "Every time I got to give Arthur attention I was met with dismay."

Mr Richmond repeats the jury question from earlier and asks why he did not fight for Arthur.

Hughes: "I didn't want confrontation. I wasn't there to have the confrontation. I tried going different routes, speaking to the school. It's not a reason. I was scared of Emma's reaction. I didn't want to put me and Arthur in that situation."

Mr Richmond asks Hughes how Arthur got his bruises.

Hughes says the only explanation he was given was that Arthur had been 'throwing himself into doors and furniture'. He confirms he believed that to be true at the time.

He tells the court by that stage Tustin was showering Arthur.

Mr Richmond asks about the 'intensity of contact from Tustin' at this time, when Hughes was back at work.

Hughes: "It felt like every ten minutes. It felt very regular. Constant."

He says if he was not at work he was going to the shops adding: "I always seemed to have to go and fetch something or someone from somewhere."

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says he did not 'fight for Arthur' as he 'did not want confrontation'
Mr Richmond asks how engaged he was with Arthur at that time.

Hughes: "I was quite withdrawn."

He adds: "Every time I got to give Arthur attention I was met with dismay."

Mr Richmond repeats the jury question from earlier and asks why he did not fight for Arthur.

Hughes: "I didn't want confrontation. I wasn't there to have the confrontation. I tried going different routes, speaking to the school. It's not a reason. I was scared of Emma's reaction. I didn't want to put me and Arthur in that situation."

Mr Richmond asks Hughes how Arthur got his bruises.

Hughes says the only explanation he was given was that Arthur had been 'throwing himself into doors and furniture'. He confirms he believed that to be true at the time.

He tells the court by that stage Tustin was showering Arthur.

Mr Richmond asks about the 'intensity of contact from Tustin' at this time, when Hughes was back at work.

Hughes: "It felt like every ten minutes. It felt very regular. Constant."

He says if he was not at work he was going to the shops adding: "I always seemed to have to go and fetch something or someone from somewhere."

 

[Tinksx]

He was not equipped with the ability to deal with life's problems.
Lived with parents till 27.
He was like a child himself.
MOO

I was a teenage mum, was living with my newborn in a flat on our own from the age of 16. I had no life experience, concept of bills or any responsibilities. That newborn is now a 22 year old man who just graduated from uni, who coaches a football team on the weekends for 8 year olds and who works every hour god sends in between.


My point being, my lack of knowledge or experience of life never once put my child in danger. I had no clue what I was doing, I went from being a high school student to being a responsible parent in the blink of an eye. There was no transition or easing into adult life. I didn’t even know that you had to pay for water bills! I did know however, that this little tiny human was mine to protect and nurture and love and keep safe. I would, and did, do whatever was necessary to ensure my child’s happiness and safety was always the priority. It’s almost primal, that’s the only way I can describe it.

Whatever happened, TH was obviously lacking that primal and instinctive drive to protect Arthur. Whether that be because he only had Arthur full time for a relatively short time, lack of bond, I don’t know.

I feel like both TH and ET have taken the stand and played the victim. The only victim in this whole sorry saga is Arthur. Excuse after excuse after excuse. It’s not good enough. TH could have run for the hills, he could’ve chosen to stay with ET and given Arthur to his own parents who would’ve been more than happy to take on Arthur by what I’ve read. TH could have even had the best of both worlds - allowed Arthur to live with his parents, while having weekend access to be the “fun” caregiver.

 

[Dotta]

I was a teenage mum, was living with my newborn in a flat on our own from the age of 16. I had no life experience, concept of bills or any responsibilities. That newborn is now a 22 year old man who just graduated from uni, who coaches a football team on the weekends for 8 year olds and who works every hour god sends in between.


My point being, my lack of knowledge or experience of life never once put my child in danger. I had no clue what I was doing, I went from being a high school student to being a responsible parent in the blink of an eye. There was no transition or easing into adult life. I didn’t even know that you had to pay for water bills! I did know however, that this little tiny human was mine to protect and nurture and love and keep safe. I would, and did, do whatever was necessary to ensure my child’s happiness and safety was always the priority. It’s almost primal, that’s the only way I can describe it.

Whatever happened, TH was obviously lacking that primal and instinctive drive to protect Arthur. Whether that be because he only had Arthur full time for a relatively short time, lack of bond, I don’t know.

I feel like both TH and ET have taken the stand and played the victim. The only victim in this whole sorry saga is Arthur. Excuse after excuse after excuse. It’s not good enough. TH could have run for the hills, he could’ve chosen to stay with ET and given Arthur to his own parents who would’ve been more than happy to take on Arthur by what I’ve read. TH could have even had the best of both worlds - allowed Arthur to live with his parents, while having weekend access to be the “fun” caregiver.

You are a super Mum

I have already written in this thread what I think about TH many times.

Now, with more info I see a man with:
- self esteem at the lowest point,
- avoidant personality.

What are the causes for such personality in an adult?
Wiki explains it very well.

I repeat - TH and ET are monsters and their place is a cell for life.
MOO

 

[ChloLo]

I may be preaching to the choir with this information, but, in case anyone doesn’t know, when you call a witness as “your” witness, you’re not allowed to ask leading questions. Under cross examination leading questions can be asked. This is a way of testing the evidence.

 

[Carroll520]

I was a teenage mum, was living with my newborn in a flat on our own from the age of 16. I had no life experience, concept of bills or any responsibilities. That newborn is now a 22 year old man who just graduated from uni, who coaches a football team on the weekends for 8 year olds and who works every hour god sends in between.


My point being, my lack of knowledge or experience of life never once put my child in danger. I had no clue what I was doing, I went from being a high school student to being a responsible parent in the blink of an eye. There was no transition or easing into adult life. I didn’t even know that you had to pay for water bills! I did know however, that this little tiny human was mine to protect and nurture and love and keep safe. I would, and did, do whatever was necessary to ensure my child’s happiness and safety was always the priority. It’s almost primal, that’s the only way I can describe it.

Whatever happened, TH was obviously lacking that primal and instinctive drive to protect Arthur. Whether that be because he only had Arthur full time for a relatively short time, lack of bond, I don’t know.

I feel like both TH and ET have taken the stand and played the victim. The only victim in this whole sorry saga is Arthur. Excuse after excuse after excuse. It’s not good enough. TH could have run for the hills, he could’ve chosen to stay with ET and given Arthur to his own parents who would’ve been more than happy to take on Arthur by what I’ve read. TH could have even had the best of both worlds - allowed Arthur to live with his parents, while having weekend access to be the “fun” caregiver.

You are so right, he had so many options available to him, he just didnt seem to care enough to change anything. Thinking with his d@%$ by the sounds of it. I think what you said about him lacking that primal awareness to protect Arthur hits the nail on the head and could very well be due to the fact he didnt have him full time before this.
Also...has he shown any emotion at all since hes been up on the stand, i dont think he has

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says Tustin was 'cruel' and 'nasty' by ripping Arthur's duvet from beneath him
Mr Richmond moves on to June 15. Hughes says he was not aware Tustin woke Arthur up by ripping the duvet from underneath him.

He says: "It's cruel, nasty, there's no need to do that. She could have asked him in a different way. She chose to do that."

Hughes denies he was being 'deliberately cruel' to Arthur or that he was aware he was being cruel.

He says he thought he was being 'reasonable' given what he was told about Arthur's behaviour.

Mr Richmond asks Hughes how much he was aware of what was actually happening at the time, now he has spent 17 months in custody reading the papers and viewing the evidence.

He says: "Not an awful lot. The only thing I was aware of was his behaviour. I wasn't aware of the bits around it. I was only aware of the recordings."

Hughes adds he was 'fairly confident' Tustin was telling him the truth at the time.

"I didn't see a reason she would lie to me," he says

 

[SpursGyal]

Typo on the header again.

Hughes says he did mean 'digging Arthur's grave' comment literally

Mr Richmond asks about the text exchange where Hughes made reference to digging Arthur's grave, while Tustin was at Catherine Milhench's home.

He confirms he did not mean it literally and says: "Frustration got the better of me."

Asked to reflect on it now Arthur is dead, Hughes adds: "Horrible comment to make, I don't like it. At the time I didn't think anything of it."

Hughes says he was embarrassed and annoyed that Arthur had supposedly misbehaved at someone else's home.

Describing what he did when he arrived at Ms Milhench's home, he says: "I spoke to Arthur in the doorway in a forceful tone. Shouted at him. Made my feelings known of his behaviour."

He denies he hit him. Hughes says as he put Tustin's son in the car he was told Arthur fell over.

Describing the journey back home he says: "Wasn't the best. I was annoyed by Arthur's behaviour. I was stressed. There was tension in the car. Emma seemed aggravated, embarrassed because of Arthur's behaviour."

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says he was trying to 'scare' Arthur into behaving
Mr Richmond moves on to June 16.

Hughes admits his language to Arthur when they returned to Catherine Milhench's home was 'disgraceful' adding it was an 'overflow from the day before'.

He says he was trying to 'scare him into behaving' but accepts the tactic was not working and had never worked.

Hughes says: "I just wanted him to think about his behaviour, why it had come to that, and apologise for it."

He denies ever wanting to 'give up' Arthur or wishing he no longer lived with him and Tustin.

Hughes tells the court he contemplated just upping and leaving with Arthur but he felt Tustin was 'an important part of his life and I didn't want him to feel a sense of rejection from another important person'.

Asked how things were with Tustin at that point he says: "A struggle, constantly snapping at each other."

And of Arthur he adds: "Not as they was before. A struggle again."

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes denies ever 'pressure-pointing' Arthur
Hughes tells the court on June 16 he intended to take Tustin's children out to buy a birthday cake for her, and then if Arthur behaved he was going to take him out on his own to buy a birthday card for his father - Arthur's grandfather.

Describing Tustin's reaction to the latter idea he says: "It was met with 'if you do that don't come back here'."

Hughes says his own approach to his parents had 'softened' by that stage.

He confirms while they were at Ms Milhench's home he slapped Arthur for being 'fidgety' whilst standing in the isolation area.

He says: "I had Emma 'he's doing this, doing that, you've got to tell him'. Constant, constant theme and frustration got the better of me."

Hughes says he slapped Arthur on the back of the legs. Mr Richmond asks a number of questions about 'pressure pointing'.

Hughes denies he ever pressure pointed Arthur. He says he only ever squeezed his neck in an affectionate way and once again refutes he ever pressure pointed him.

The trial adjourns for lunch.

 

[Dotta]

Hughes denies ever 'pressure-pointing' Arthur
Hughes tells the court on June 16 he intended to take Tustin's children out to buy a birthday cake for her, and then if Arthur behaved he was going to take him out on his own to buy a birthday card for his father - Arthur's grandfather.

Describing Tustin's reaction to the latter idea he says: "It was met with 'if you do that don't come back here'."

Hughes says his own approach to his parents had 'softened' by that stage.

He confirms while they were at Ms Milhench's home he slapped Arthur for being 'fidgety' whilst standing in the isolation area.

He says: "I had Emma 'he's doing this, doing that, you've got to tell him'. Constant, constant theme and frustration got the better of me."

Hughes says he slapped Arthur on the back of the legs. Mr Richmond asks a number of questions about 'pressure pointing'.

Hughes denies he ever pressure pointed Arthur. He says he only ever squeezed his neck in an affectionate way and once again refutes he ever pressure pointed him.

The trial adjourns for lunch.

Thanks for all the updates.
Although they play havoc with my blood pressure!

 

[Tinksx]

It’s the sheer lack of accountability or responsibility from either of them that’s driving me up the wall!

That poor boy did not kill himself. Neither did he pack up his bags and move into ET house of his own accord.
ET definitely murdered Arthur.
TH definitely put Arthur in that dangerous situation to begin with (as well as being an active participant to the “discipline”).


These two are beyond redemption, how they cannot see that genuinely astounds me!

 

[Tinksx]

You are so right, he had so many options available to him, he just didnt seem to care enough to change anything. Thinking with his d@%$ by the sounds of it. I think what you said about him lacking that primal awareness to protect Arthur hits the nail on the head and could very well be due to the fact he didnt have him full time before this.
Also...has he shown any emotion at all since hes been up on the stand, i dont think he has

The only part I have read that seemed to convey emotion was when TH was asked if he still loved/was in love with ET, in which he answered, “Noooo”

That’s all I’ve seen.

 

[JuicyLucy]

I think that’s pretty standard, ETs defence read out the same way to be honest. Other cases I am following play out this way too. The cracks appear once cross examination takes place. Either way, neither of these two will be found not guilty. The only charge I think TH will get off with is the salt poisoning.

Well, yes, it's standard to try, of course. I just think Hughes's counsel is doing a particularly good job. Nothing said in Tustin's testimony seemed remotely mitigating. I'm not sure I agree about verdicts. I rather fear he may get away with manslaughter on the basis he didn't know about things or was intimidated into going along with them.

JMO

 

[ChloLo]

I’m not saying this to defend Hughes. But in general men don’t have the same biological changes that women do when having a baby. For example, a woman's brain alters to be easily roused from sleep by a baby crying.

Also socially women are primarily conditioned into being the primary carer, men almost get let off the hook in this regard. There are of course exceptions.

 

[Tinksx]

Well, yes, it's standard to try, of course. I just think Hughes's counsel is doing a particularly good job. Nothing said in Tustin's testimony seemed remotely mitigating. I'm not sure I agree about verdicts. I rather fear he may get away with manslaughter on the basis he didn't know about things or was intimidated into going along with them.

JMO

Hughes counsel is doing a good job but I think he’s overselling it.

I am of the same opinion regarding the murder charge of TH, I think that one hangs in the balance, although his texts alluding to “finish him”, “dig his grave” etc… will go against him. I don’t think TH can be found guilty of manslaughter as that’s not a charge. I think that can only be an option if the judge puts it on the table, again I’m
not 100% sure about that. Was there a charge of causing or allowing a death of a child? I’d have to have a look over what the charges actually are as there are so many.

 

[SpursGyal]

That was a quick break!! I’ll update best I can


Arthur not allowed to sleep on sofa as 'he would ruin the furniture', Hughes says he was told
The trial resumes.

Mr Richmond forwards a jury question. He asks why Arthur was not allowed to sleep on cushions or the sofa after having to stand up all day.

Hughes: "It was always put to me Arthur would ruin the cushions, throws, ruin different aspects of that furniture."

Mr Richmond asks if Arthur ever deliberately threw or dropped Victor the tortoise.

Hughes: "Arthur didn't like the tortoise. He was scared of him so he wouldn't go near him."

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes 'did not think anything was wrong' when he went out on June 16

Mr Richmond returns to the events of the afternoon of June 16.

He asks what Hughes' impression was of what was happening at Tustin's home while he was out at Sainsbury's.

Hughes: "Same as normal. He was behaving as he was. I didn't think anything was wrong."

He is shown the picture Tustin took of Arthur sitting in the hallway accompanied by the text alleging he had 'copped' her in the stomach.

Hughes: "I thought she had gone to pick him up off the floor and he had swung his arms back, hit her in the stomach."

Mr Richmond asks what he understood 'won't get up for s***' to mean.

Hughes states he thought Arthur was resisting, not that he could not get up.

The court is shown the picture Tustin took of Arthur's body lying on the floor in the hallway. Hughes states the first time he saw the image was at the start of the trial.

He tells the court had he seen it at the time he would have asked what had happened to Arthur

 

[SpursGyal]

Hughes says Tustin 'used Arthur' like a ragdoll
Hughes says he had not seen the CCTV of the events inside Tustin's home at the time of Arthur's collapse until the trial.

Asked how he feels about it he says: "Angry. That's my boy and she used him like a ragdoll."

The court is played the living room footage.

Mr Richmond draws attention to Tustin holding Arthur 'by the scruff'. Hughes says he had never seen Tustin hold Arthur like that before.

Mr Richmond asks what Tustin told him happened.

Hughes: "That he had thrown himself to the floor. Had bashed his own head and that she picked him up once. He resisted and he carried on bashing his head. She come back and he was knocked out."

Mr Richmond asks how he feels having watched the CCTV footage of what happened.

Hughes: "I would rather not go into it at this point. My feelings are quite strong."

Prompted again he adds: "A lot of anger. Towards Emma Tustin. Partly towards me, mainly towards Emma Tustin."

Asked why he is angry with himself Hughes says: "My boy was put in that position and looking back I failed to act on it."