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

[ChloLo]

Finally found the details of the cruelty charges.
It’s listed from charge two, so I’m going to assume that charge one is murder

 

[RusselSprout]

Thanks for that last post and highlighting parts @Tortoise it really helped me understand better about the salt poisoning

 

[Tortoise]

20th June 2020

Hughes and Tustin, who is not the boy’s biological mother, were arrested on suspicion of murder by West Midlands Police.

After three days in custody they were tonight charged with causing or allowing the death of a child.

Hughes and Tustin will appear before Birmingham magistrates on Monday

Dad and his girlfriend are charged over the death of his six-year-old son

22nd June 2020

Thomas Hughes, 27, and Emma Tustin, 31, both of Cranmore Road, Shirley, Solihull, were charged with causing or allowing the death of a child.

They were remanded in custody by Birmingham magistrates to appear at the city's crown court on 20 July.

Shirley death: Man and partner in court over his son's death

20th July 2020

Arthur’s father Thomas Hughes, 27, and his partner Emma Tustin, 31, of Cranmore Road, have been charged with causing or allowing the death of a child.

No pleas were entered at today's hearing and both were remanded in custody ahead of a plea hearing at the same court on October 27.

Couple in court over death of six-year-old Birmingham City fan in Solihull

17th December 2020

Arthur's father, Thomas Hughes, 27, and his partner Emma Tustin, 31, of the same address, denied murder at Birmingham Crown Court on Thursday.

They were both remanded in custody and are awaiting a trial date.

The couple were originally charged with causing or allowing the death of a child, but were charged with murder on 17 December last year.

They also deny charges of assault, ill treatment and neglect or abandonment of a child.

Arthur Labinjo-Hughes: Couple deny six-year-old's murder

 

[Dotta]

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

What an interesting post!
Ms Prior's claim isn't as random as it previously seemed.

 

[Tinksx]

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

I like your long posts, they’re always very informative and helpful.

So basically, TH enters the house and is not seen on cctv for 6 minutes. This is where ETs defence is alleging that TH administered salt to Arthur.

Up until ET was made aware of the fact she was charged with the salt poisoning, she failed to mention anything about TH going upstairs.

Both are blaming the other.

From that post, I am certain in ETs guilt.

Its stated that Arthur would have been poisoned over a period of time, with one final bolus being administered at the end. ET was the one who prepared and gave food to Arthur.

If TH had administer that final dose of salt at 1:00pm, I am 100% certain ET would have stated in her initial interviews that TH took Arthur upstairs and Arthur started screaming/crying/was distressed. I cannot imagine any child being “held down” (according to Ms Prior) and meekly swallowing salt quietly.

ET is seen on cctv with salt.

22 minutes for ET to disappear off camera and upstairs, with no other witnesses present.

6 minutes for TH to disappear upstairs, with 3 witnesses in the house.

My money is on ET.

 

[Mellowmelly]

I'm wondering how long she was poisoning Arthur with the salt. Did she start doing it from the day he and his dad moved in ? I think TH definitely is tge passive type who will do anything to avoid confrontation, I myself am like that but when it comes to my kids it's a different story. I once knew someone who I used to meet up with so our todlers could play together but when the person started picking at things about my child, it made me so angry because my child wasn't doing anything wrong. I didn't confront the person but I did cut them out of mine and my child's life, no explanation given.

 

[Dotta]

My money is on ET.

Or BOTH of them.

 

[Bluebear15]

I sincerely hope it's at least 25 years. The Brits are not known for being hard on child murders.

I hope so too. What I've noticed is that we give child murderers who are strangers high sentences (quite rightly), however the sentences for child murders involving parents are much lower. It's almost like the judicial system considers those crimes less vile which is shocking.

 

[Tinksx]

Or BOTH of them.

I admire your stance and passion Dotta, but for me personally, I cannot get onboard. I am firm in my belief that the salt poisoning was caused by ET and her alone.

 

[Dotta]

I admire your stance and passion Dotta, but for me personally, I cannot get onboard. I am firm in my belief that the salt poisoning was caused by ET and her alone.

Hugs!!!

 

[Tinksx]

Hugs!!!

Right back at ya

 

[JayWill]

I hope so too. What I've noticed is that we give child murderers who are strangers high sentences (quite rightly), however the sentences for child murders involving parents are much lower. It's almost like the judicial system considers those crimes less vile which is shocking.

Same with domestic violence.

 

[Tinksx]

I hope so too. What I've noticed is that we give child murderers who are strangers high sentences (quite rightly), however the sentences for child murders involving parents are much lower. It's almost like the judicial system considers those crimes less vile which is shocking.

Same with domestic violence.

I’ll never understand why more emphasis isn’t placed on the abuse of trust? It makes it more aggravating in my opinion.

 

[Dotta]

I’ll never understand why more emphasis isn’t placed on the abuse of trust? It makes it more aggravating in my opinion.

Absolutely!
Just like in case of teachers, police, etc.

 

[ChloLo]

Slightly off topic, but talking about parents who murder their children and domestic violence. I wonder if it’s sort of linked to the old system of patriarchy. Women and children were ‘owned’ by the head male of the house and they could dispose of them or sell/trade them as they saw fit. English law started to be created during feudal times and under patriarchy. While society has moved a great deal forward, I think some of those old attitudes still have an influence. It was only in 1991 that raping your wife became illegal.

 

[Tinksx]

Slightly off topic, but talking about parents who murder their children and domestic violence. I wonder if it’s sort of linked to the old system of patriarchy. Women and children were ‘owned’ by the head male of the house and they could dispose of them or sell/trade them as they saw fit. English law started to be created during feudal times and under patriarchy. While society has moved a great deal forward, I think some of those old attitudes still have an influence. It was only in 1991 that raping your wife became illegal.

I tend to agree. Times and the world have changed, yet some legislation and laws haven’t and therefore do not reflect the seriousness of some offences. It was only in 2015 that coercive control was made a criminal offence. Until then, psychological, emotional, verbal and financial abuse were null and void and probably deemed, “part and parcel” of a relationship.

 

[Mellowmelly]

I tend to agree. Times and the world have changed, yet some legislation and laws haven’t and therefore do not reflect the seriousness of some offences. It was only in 2015 that coercive control was made a criminal offence. Until then, psychological, emotional, verbal and financial abuse were null and void and probably deemed, “part and parcel” of a relationship.

I think its only fairly recently that smacking your child became illegal aswel if I'm correct ?

 

[SpursGyal]

I think its only fairly recently that smacking your child became illegal aswel if I'm correct ?

I don’t think it is illegal in England.

 

[ChloLo]

I don’t think it’s illegal. It should be! It’s contradictory because no child should experience physical abuse but smacking your child isn’t illegal.
Edit to add: I looked up the law, it’s illegal if it’s not a “reasonable punishment” here’s the legislation.

 

[Tinksx]

I don’t think it’s illegal. It should be! It’s contradictory because no child should experience physical abuse but smacking your child isn’t illegal.
Edit to add: I looked up the law, it’s illegal if it’s not a “reasonable punishment” here’s the legislation.

I think it plays out as - you can smack/slap as long as it does not leave a mark and as long as it’s not a regular and repetitive action. If marks are produced, depending on the severity it starts escalating from cruelty, assault, ABH, wounding, GBH etc…

I think the reasonable part is there in cases like, your child attempts to run out into a busy road and you grab them to stop them. You leave a grip mark or bruise. That would be reasonable in that situation.

The whole smacking children to “teach them” doesn’t sit right with me at all. How many times have you been cut off by someone not using their indicator for example? How many times have you decided “I’m going to teach you!!” and decided to give them a smack? Chances are never. And if you did, you would be charged with common assault.

No child should ever live in fear. No adult should ever intimidate a child. Unfortunately it happens a lot and there really does need to be some sort of revision of the laws. This case being an example, TH defence is that he was using “discipline” but it went “too far….”