Star Hobson verdict in

[Lougle]

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

Like pp said, feel low iq defense is not so clear cut. She might not have been incentivised to do her best in an iq test if that was going to be her defense. Iq tests are notoriously contested anyway. And why does being low iq mean not being able to distinguish right and wrong in such a clear case of child abuse, we're not talking about econometric theory here? Yes she was abused and complacent but isn't protecting your child an instinct? Didn't she partake in the cruelty at all, I read that she did?

I'm sickened by these cases... Why isn't the ss being named and shamed and individuals jobs ending? Not for a witchunt but ss aren't doing their jobs. They have no accountability whatsoever except some bs reviews. The reviews all end with the same conclusions and nothing changes. The government has halved the funding to ss they're to blame too.

Are we parring kicking a door with killing a baby now then???

@midsomermurderess

What is wrong with forced medical procedures? Lack of consent, that's what is wrong. Not a path anyone with an ounce of sense would suggest going down.

Actions have consequences, for adults. I doubt either of them would consent to being sent to prison either, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

What about the consent of the child? Did Star consent to being abused, deprived of sleep, thrown down stairs, dragged along the road with broken legs, punched, kicked and stamped on??

Sometimes rights conflict and in cases like this the abusive adult has forfeited their usual rights if they need to be restricted to prevent further children being exposed to abuse.

It's just so incredibly sad. I haven't read the thread because it's just such an awful situation but wanted to put my thoughts for this poor little girl out there. God bless her.

An animal standing in a field has the instinct to protect their young! Having a low iq doesn't explain lack of maternal instinct! Anyone that can hurt a wee innocent or stand by and let it happen get no sympathy from me😡

@DottyHarmer

It is the fault of the perpetrators.

The low IQ line is weaselly at best and a horrible dereliction of duty to Star at worst. Recently a young woman left her baby to die whilst she was out partying for a week or more. She too had a “low IQ”. Funnily enough she had travelled over half the UK solo, had an active eBay account she’d set up and other social media activity, all requiring some nouse to operate.

When we think of low IQ, I think we envisage a person with substantially more difficulties than these criminals.

Yes, and posted photos of herself "partying" while her baby was dying of thirst and starvation, all alone.

Anybody defending these monsters, and objecting to them being named as such, is part of the problem IMO. Small children grasp that others need food and drink and hitting them hurts them and recognise that crying means they are sad. Any adult who apparently doesn't understand this should never be in a room with a child alone let alone be their main caregiver.

Can’t believe we are back in the same sickening situation as we were with little Arthur!! Monsters killing helpless children it’s sick ....society is sick ...two absolutely horrendous cases

And there are systems in place to stop these deaths and they have failed miserably and are not also without blame.

Another post deleted with no explanation. @MNHQ if you don't want to email me privately to explain what the problem is then can you please explain here?

@Itsnotover are you condoning the behaviour of FS??

@prh47bridge

Regarding the mother's intelligence, I note that there are people on this thread who believe they know her level of intelligence better than the clinical psychologist who assessed her. And yes, most people of low intelligence do not harm children, but they are generally significantly more compliant and suggestible than average, as was found to be the case for the mother, meaning that it was easier for someone with criminal intentions such as her partner to manipulate her and convince her that what she (Brockhill) was doing was normal and right.

Compliant, yes, but not suggestible actually. This was notable in court because suggestibility and low IQ often go together, but was not the case for FS.

@CantBeAssed

An animal standing in a field has the instinct to protect their young! Having a low iq doesn't explain lack of maternal instinct! Anyone that can hurt a wee innocent or stand by and let it happen get no sympathy from me😡

Plenty of animals also eat their young if they feel stressed or put out. Humans are a bit more complicated than the basic instincts that animals operate on...

An animal standing in a field has the instinct to protect their young! Having a low iq doesn't explain lack of maternal instinct!
Anyone that can hurt a wee innocent or stand by and let it happen get no sympathy from me

I completely agree!

Obviously some form of low IQ or MH has to be in play for anyone to do this but that doesn’t stop you from knowing right and wrong.

I work with teens where many of them will never be able to live on their own but they still know hurting someone is wrong.

I’m just shocked how many times they were reported, family members even put videos on Facebook to bring awareness to the abuse and still nothing was done.

[quote Bagelsandbrie]@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.[/quote]
Exactly.

She knew it was wrong. Her actions to try to hide it prove that so the argument of "she didn't realise it was abuse" is nonsense. All of this excusing the stupid mother makes me want to vomit. This woman abused her child. She admitted 8 charges of child cruelty so doubtless there were many, many more probably every day of this baby's life. These are just the ones they had evidence to prove. How the hell is anybody's sympathy focused on the horrific person who abused their child and stood back while their partner's abuse to their child escalated to murder? Thick of not, it is irrelevant. Animals with an IQ of 20 on a human scale know instinctively to protect their young. The apologists should be ashamed.

That poor, poor girl. Such a short life spent in constant pain and fear, for as long as she could remember. No love, no kindness. Yet sometimes, somehow she still managed this beautiful smile that we see, despite the pain.,I'm so sorry little Star. You can shine brightly now. ⭐️

The absolute bastards. I hope they are treated very harshly by other prisoners, every day they are in there.

[quote lollipoprainbow]@Itsnotover are you condoning the behaviour of FS?? [/quote]
No @lollipoprainbow

Are you questioning the Judge and suggesting she doesn’t know what she’s talking about? From your armchair perspective?

Are you saying you know better than the expert who assessed her?

If her psychology profile was so irrelevant then it would not be admissible in court.

@catinboots123

Enforced sterilisation? Hanging? This thread is a disgrace to civilised society. These women have committed terrible, terrible crimes. And they will have a loss of liberty as the law sees fit. Hopefully for a very long time. But prison is a punishment. It is the most awful punishment. Please don't descend into a baying mob asking that they get punished twice.

You've clearly had no experience in prisons. It isn't the most awful punishment. I honestly don't think 'a loss of liberty' with a flat screen tv, three meals a day and a phone in your cell is a fitting punishment for killing a one year old child.

@Itsnotover that only holds true if you believe that the current legal system is appropriate in terms of the sentencing guidelines and things that are classed as mitigating factors that the judges have to consider, by law.

A key part of the democratic process, and a key reason we have separation of judiciary and politicians, is that in a democracy we are entitled to question that framework of law and precedents and sentencing guidelines that judges follow, and ask for it to be changed to be more appropriate, and recognise that some crimes have been treated too severely/ leniently: to change those laws and precedents.

I don't think anybody has been criticising whether the judge has done their job of following the rules they are currently required to follow. What people are questioning is whether those rules are appropriate or need to be updated.

@DottyHarmer

I am actually quite angry about the low IQ defence. Why would a low IQ equate to the propensity to cruelty? At what “number” low IQ does someone get a free pass? Surely if someone is incompetent then they do not stand trial. If someone is competent, then they have to face justice in a court of law. If you are going to excuse criminals on the basis of low intelligence, then you are going to have to empty most jails.

I don’t think they were using the IQ to excuse her of cruelty, certainly not how I read it when following the trial, her barrister even said on the stand that he doesn’t excuse her being a lazy neglectful shit mother.

They used the IQ stance more for the ‘causing or allowing’ charge (they knew there was not enough evidence to convict frankie of murder / manslaughter, and she wasn’t in court for a cruelty charge) she had to know SB was harming star, and she was allowing the abuse by knowing exactly what SB was doing and failing to safeguard her from that abuse, they argued her low IQ was a mitigating circumstance because she was easily lead, very compliant and less likely to put 2 and 2 together like a ‘normal’ person would, so she would believe SB bullshit about what ‘accident’ caused what bruise and not think to question it like we would, therefore she didn’t knowingly allow or cause stars death. Frankie only became suspicious about a week before star died and the texts she sent prove that, star was never left with SB unsupervised after that date apart from when FS went to the toilet the day star died.

No idea why anyone thinks those showing empathy for frankie are letting her off the hook. She was a shit mother, I don’t think anyone disagrees with that, star should definitely of stayed with Anita and David, but I don’t think frankie knew the extent of what SB was doing and I do think her low iq played a part in piecing it all together. SB was incredibly manipulative and frankie was her perfect prey.

It’s so easy for people to form their own view on it but the evidence does state she has lower intelligence than 98% of the population, low iq affects all sorts, the way they think / interpret / problem solve for starters.

@Maddison12 don't make assumptions about me that have no basis.

What experience of the female prison estate do you have? It's all flat screen tellys and gourmet food is it?

Go back to your copy of the Daily Mail

That also applies to the entire process, the adversarial model which doesn't even aim to get to the truth, the bias, the vest interest witnesses, the cross-examination of vulnerable people and attempts to discredit them, the fact that the level of access to justice depends on financial means, etc (not talking about this trial here, I mean in the broader "justice" system).

To assert that if the judge is a good egg following the rules in place right now then all will be hunky dory is naive in the extreme. And that is not a criticism of the judge but the system within which the judges and court proceedings operate.

This is it. It's not about 'condoning' FS's behaviour. It's about understanding that life and people are nuanced and complex and that it really isn't necessarily as simple as 'she's just rotten to the core'. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that FS was ever a good or fit mother. The point is that there are circumstances in her life that made her more vulnerable to a manipulative and abusive individual like SB. In another context, it might have gone the other way - she seems very easily influenced by the people around her. AGAIN, I point out the Milgram experiment, which shows just how easy it is to get people to go along with you if they think you have authority over them somehow. How hard would it have been to convince not-very-bright, overly compliant FS that SB knew better and was doing this for Star's own good? Not very, I suspect.

Enforced sterilisation? Hanging? This thread is a disgrace to civilised society.

I don’t believe in the death penalty but I absolutely agree with enforced sterilisation. Obviously it should only be used in extreme circumstances but killing your child is definitely one of those circumstances.

She will either keep having children in the future who will go straight into care which is already at breaking point with not enough foster carers or adoptive parents. Or she will keep them and it will have to go through the same torture and abuse as star.

@Itsnotover

I agree with your words . In those circumstances. I don’t want o go into a full explanation but I know someone of a similar level of IQ who lives with his parents . He was taken in by someone in his “ support “ group and it was actually quite frightening the influence that person had on him and changed him.. it took months for the reason to come out and counselling for him afterwards. I would have thought 100% he would have turned to his parents for help . But. He was completely guided by this person and believed every single word they said.

So on this one I bow to the judges summing up of the situation.

I think also that it’s understandable for social services to have the wool pulled over their eyes once but 5 complaints including those of close contacts is too much to ignore . But also I have heard people complaining when there have been innocent injuries and SS “ are too heavy handed “

Children do have bumps and bruises all the time and they did not have the videos that the court saw or phone records , however that photo is shocking and should have been investigated further . So the family did the right thing and reported and probably then being cut off was another red flag and they should have kept on reporting or turning up at their door .

I am not excusing SS and they should have investigated further , but what rights do you want them to have? I think definitely linking up with police reports is 100% needed.

As for the commmens of the government funding it is us that fund in our taxes . We pay social services . And we therefore need to vote for higher taxes and NI .