Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Star Hobson verdict in

754 replies

Lougle · 14/12/2021 11:08

Savannah Brockhill Guilty of murder. Frankie Smith Guilty of causing or allowing death.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
KisstheTeapot14 · 14/12/2021 16:54

@Itsnotover

I hear you. You have to really fight to have a child identified as SEN/LD.

This is a complex case and no one comes out of it well (bar the family of Frankie who tried their best but were not listened to).

As well as individuals involved, the rottenness of the system, in terms of supporting people with LD who are vulnerable parents and investigating concerns, has undoubtably played a part in Star's case and Arthur's.

Preventable and unspeakably sad.

SofiaMichelle · 14/12/2021 16:56

I'm absolutely sickened by the way some people in this thread are defending and excusing the indefensible.

'Frankie' this, 'Frankie' that.

What's wrong with addressing the evil bastard as 'Smith', as befits a convicted killer.

There's something very fucking wrong here!

Bagelsandbrie · 14/12/2021 16:58

[quote KisstheTeapot14]@Itsnotover

I hear you. You have to really fight to have a child identified as SEN/LD.

This is a complex case and no one comes out of it well (bar the family of Frankie who tried their best but were not listened to).

As well as individuals involved, the rottenness of the system, in terms of supporting people with LD who are vulnerable parents and investigating concerns, has undoubtably played a part in Star's case and Arthur's.

Preventable and unspeakably sad.[/quote]
None of the people involved in Arthur’s case had any sort of learning disability- not Hughes, Tustin or Arthur’s mother (obviously Arthur’s mother isn’t responsible for his murder, just thinking of the case as a whole). Just think it’s worth pointing that out.

Drinkingallthewine · 14/12/2021 16:58

[quote KurtWildesChristmasNamechange]@Drinkingallthewine this is what you were asking for re admitting to 8 counts of child cruelty. [/quote]
Thanks I didn't realise that those charges had been brought or that she had pleaded guilty to them.

Wrllkid · 14/12/2021 17:01

Fucking monsters. I hope they rot in hell. Bastard shits

prh47bridge · 14/12/2021 17:02

@stingofthebutterfly

Right verdict for Savanna.

Not sure about Frankie. I genuinely think she should have been found not guilty as I don't think she either caused nor allowed Star's death. There's no doubt she was a crap mother, but she wasn't charged with cruelty. Many parents have their children removed for that and don't go to jail.

However, I think she'll be in danger if she walks from court, so a short sentence is probably in her best interests.

This is a category 1 offence and appears to be at least culpability B, so she is looking at 3-8 years if it is culpability B, 7-14 years if it is category A.
Bagelsandbrie · 14/12/2021 17:04

@Itsnotover I resent being called “blinkered” because I hold a differing view to you.

Not intending to be goady at all but what do you think the correct verdict would have been regarding Smith then? Do you think, due to her IQ etc that she should have been found not guilty or face lesser sentencing? I think that’s unfathomable.

She had the intelligence to know that the bruising on Star was wrong. She knew that if SS got wind of certain photos of her / saw her on days where it was obvious she had bruising that it would create issues. If she knew that then she knew the abuse was wrong because she was attempting to hide it from people.

SB was / is a monster and there is no doubt she preyed on FS as an older and manipulative partner but I think its inconceivable to somehow be sympathetic to FS in the context of what’s happened.

prh47bridge · 14/12/2021 17:05

This is a category 1 offence and appears to be at least culpability B

Just to add, there is a possibility that the judge could put it in culpability A due to the mother's learning difficulties, in which case she is looking at 1-4 years.

DaphneDeloresMoorhead · 14/12/2021 17:09

Well the one thing that is certain is that the person sentencing has a full picture of the entire case and far more experience in sentencing serious offenders than any of us.

IncompleteSenten · 14/12/2021 17:10

I just do not understand why people who clearly do not love or want their children keep them. Why they lie to social services. Why they don't say I cannot cope, I am a danger to this child. Why they fight to keep a child they just want to hurt. Is it that they fight to keep the child because they enjoy torturing them and want to carry on doing it? I don't expect anyone to be able to answer that, it is just what goes round my head. Just - why? If you hate your child, give them up.

Unsure33 · 14/12/2021 17:14

@IncompleteSenten

I totally agree. Why not let other family members bring them up.

Novasmummy · 14/12/2021 17:17

I think they are too ashamed or embarrassed to admit they hate being a parent or don't like their child. And their parents would persuade them to keep them with them because that's the social norm. If they admitted they were harming their child they would be admitting a crime and could be prosecuted and risk being ostracised from their families.

ToughTittyWhompus · 14/12/2021 17:20

@IncompleteSenten

I just do not understand why people who clearly do not love or want their children keep them. Why they lie to social services. Why they don't say I cannot cope, I am a danger to this child. Why they fight to keep a child they just want to hurt. Is it that they fight to keep the child because they enjoy torturing them and want to carry on doing it? I don't expect anyone to be able to answer that, it is just what goes round my head. Just - why? If you hate your child, give them up.
I honestly don’t know. An ex friend of mine had her baby removed (finally) at 4 months old (after having 2DC removed and given to her ExH who has full and closed residency, she isn’t even allowed letterbox contact due to her addictions and MH issues). She should never have been allowed to keep that third baby.

6 years on, it still fucking haunts me. Baby was adopted and again not even letterbox contact granted, however baby suffered in those 4 months when there was no fucking need for it. Chance after chance was given, even after removal, even after the only person supporting her was found to be telling lies in order to help Mum get the baby back.

It’s basically Narcissism mixed with addiction issues for her. I can’t speak for anyone else.

She was charged with multiple counts of abuse and neglect, found guilty and basically got a slap on the wrist.

I was furious and devastated. She is very pretty, well spoken and doesn’t “look the type”.

I maintained low contact after she lost the first 2DC due to mitigating factors that I won’t go into here, but after the third baby, I cut her off.

You can’t make people engage with services.

You can’t get rid of the narrative that kids are better off with their parents at all costs.

FallingStar21 · 14/12/2021 17:20

"FS held Star under water, she was seen dragging Star by the reigns, she ignored her cries when she was trying to climb the stairs (with broken legs!) - she made her stand at the wall for prolonged periods when SB wasn't even there. She was the one who manipulated SS, constantly putting them off to avoid questions about Stars obvious bruises."

I hadn't read the details but if the above is true, all excuses of low IQ and domestic abuse go out the window for me. She is simply vile, no ifs or buts. This is like defending a killer with "low /no empathy", hence no capability of understanding a victim's pain.

KurtWildesChristmasNamechange · 14/12/2021 17:22

@FallingStar21

"FS held Star under water, she was seen dragging Star by the reigns, she ignored her cries when she was trying to climb the stairs (with broken legs!) - she made her stand at the wall for prolonged periods when SB wasn't even there. She was the one who manipulated SS, constantly putting them off to avoid questions about Stars obvious bruises."

I hadn't read the details but if the above is true, all excuses of low IQ and domestic abuse go out the window for me. She is simply vile, no ifs or buts. This is like defending a killer with "low /no empathy", hence no capability of understanding a victim's pain.

Exactly. And FS ADMITTED to 8 counts of child cruelty, meaning she KNEW these things were cruel and did them anyway. Yet people on her are sympathising with her?!
peaceanddove · 14/12/2021 17:23

A condition of Frankie's release from prison should be that she undergoes surgical sterilisation.

Hearwego · 14/12/2021 17:28

The partner was an abusive thug. Nothing more nothing less.
We can’t begin to get inside the minds of these people.
They are abusers. They bully and abuse vulnerable people. People ( children and older people ) who can’t defend themselves.
Yes they are vile narcissistic bullies.
They don’t deserve to be free and live amongst us.
What do we do with people like her?... we lock them up so they can never harm a child ever again. Ever.

Somethingsnappy · 14/12/2021 17:28

@Bagelsandbrie. I completely agree with you. And besides, even a mental age of 9 (although I've only seen that written on this thread) is not necessarily a defence. The killers of Jamie Bulger were only 10 years old in actual fact, and still were found guilty of murder.

NoNamesAvailableAnymore · 14/12/2021 17:29

I don’t think Frankie Smith is an evil bastard. She was a neglectful mother, who was sometimes cruel, she admitted cruelty in court and said that at the time she did not see some of the acts as cruel as her own father would do similar to her (such as the waking her up and laughing) but understood now that her actions were not kind.

I don’t believe she held Star underwater due to the nature of the phone call recording. She was concerned about Stars legs but did not know they were fractured, she thought Star may have Perthes Disease and wanted to take her to hospital, but was shut down by Brockhill so that the doctors wouldn’t discover the injuries she’d inflicted. Her mother agreed that she thought Star was tantrumming in the street and refusing to walk, Brockhill had told FS not to use a pushchair and force her to walk.

I also believe that Frankie was very vulnerable, with high compliance, in an abusive and manipulative relationship with an older, violent woman (with a notorious violent family) who sought out vulnerable younger girls.

And finally, which is probably the most important thing in this case, I do not believe that when Frankie left Star alone to go to the bathroom she ever considered Brockhill would seriously harm or kill her in the living room.

I do think Brockhill is an evil bastard and hope she rots in hell for eternity.

peaceanddove · 14/12/2021 17:30

@IncompleteSenten

I just do not understand why people who clearly do not love or want their children keep them. Why they lie to social services. Why they don't say I cannot cope, I am a danger to this child. Why they fight to keep a child they just want to hurt. Is it that they fight to keep the child because they enjoy torturing them and want to carry on doing it? I don't expect anyone to be able to answer that, it is just what goes round my head. Just - why? If you hate your child, give them up.
Often the child is seen as a source of income. Also, while they may hate their child they probably love having so much power over something (when they likely have very little power over anything else in their lives). And, horribly, there are people who genuinely enjoy hurting and torturing others. They like it. These people have forfeited their rights to be treated as human and should be simply destroyed like you would a rabid dog
ToughTittyWhompus · 14/12/2021 17:30

[quote Somethingsnappy]@Bagelsandbrie. I completely agree with you. And besides, even a mental age of 9 (although I've only seen that written on this thread) is not necessarily a defence. The killers of Jamie Bulger were only 10 years old in actual fact, and still were found guilty of murder.[/quote]
FS didn’t commit the murder, though. The legal definition of it, anyway.

KurtWildesChristmasNamechange · 14/12/2021 17:35

She was concerned about Stars legs but did not know they were fractured, she thought Star may have Perthes Disease and wanted to take her to hospital,

So she knew about a rare disease but only had an IQ of 70? Hmm

Come off it.

It's all very convenient imo.

DoucheCanoe · 14/12/2021 17:37

People aren't "sympathising" with Smith.

People are empathising with her.

There is a difference. Of course her background and/or intellectual ability don't excuse her actions but it is obvious that she was easily manipulated by the girlfriend and was most likely unable to speak out through fear.

She is absolutely culpable of allowing the abuse to happen though and should be sentenced as such with support on release and no access to children in the future as she's not fit to keep them or herself safe.

MONSTERSALAD · 14/12/2021 17:37

I think a member of her close family had Perthes' Disease.

Somethingsnappy · 14/12/2021 17:37

@ToughTittyWhomous, oh I know. I was just using it as an example of a mental (or actual) age not necessarily being a defence for something. In FS's case, allowing the death of a child.