Star Hobson verdict in

[Lougle]

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

@KittenKong

I believe that both of these children had family who they had stayed with/who would have taken them in if they were allowed. They raised concerns.

These people who treated the children so badly could have passed them onto relatives to look after if they really couldn’t cope/hated the child so much that they treated them lien that - but they chose to keep them close so they could abuse them and ultimately murder them.

Down to money. You don't get much from the benefits system as a childless adult. You get a lot more if you have a child / children.

Also SB seems to me to be a sadistic bully who enjoyed abusing Star.

It’s so depressing seeing cases like this where people tried to intervene, people were willing to step up and take the child in, and this still happened.

My understanding of this case is that there was nothing more that could have been done by those concerned within the law

Which means that the system is simply not fit for purpose.

It’s scary and depressing. And it’s not even as much of an outlier as it seems. Every day on this website you read about women being forced to hand dc over to men who are not fit to live in civilised society, because … the law.

Sometimes as a thought experiment I muse on what it would mean if the lives and welfare of children were actually considered important… and it’s nothing like the world we live in.

Reading the stories about Arthur and Star broke my heart. How people could be beyond cruel to defenceless children is beyond me. Seeing the photo of Star with that bruised face made me cry thinking about how much she suffered and nothing was done.

I know it's probably an unpopular opinion but I feel like these monsters shouldn't be protected in prison. They should be as defenceless as the children they abused.

I’ve only seen bruises like that in real life (in adults) when my sister had a serious car crash, my mum had a kidney removed. and when my MIL was knocked over by a scooter.

I agree re the bruises. All of us who have children or been around them know that accidents happen, children get hurt, they trip, they fall etc. However those tend to be quite localised, a small bump with a bruise around it from banging on the edge of something. That bruise didn't have a "core" as it were, somewhere where the impact of whatever she "banged into" centred and the bruise grew around. I'm obviously no expert but you can see that that was a large object that wasn't flat that caused that,

My eldest has never been near a hospital but my youngest was there a few times needing stitches after some failed adventure. I'd rather have had SS at my door every time my child had an injury than them not attend a child in real danger.

My dd had a black eye once from where she banged it at nursery. It looked awful but there was a clear place where she hit it

Star’s cheek on the other hand was just one big bruise

I've just seen on the news that the Attorney General is reviewing the sentences
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-59683996
Sorry can't get the link to work on my phone!

the judge took into consideration her immaturity and learning difficulties and decided that she should have done more to protect Star but she chose not to rather than that she was unable to

Precisely

As ever the armchair psychologists will insist the low IQ must have meant this and that, but the judge - who unlike us heard all the info - decided it didn't "affect her function"

Well I wonder why the ‘mothers’ sentence was lower than the maximum? I just can’t get my head around the evil that could do this (and laugh at sentencing - and who was she gesturing to in the gallery?). And as for a low IQ - that doesn’t make you unable to understand the suffering in another, let alone your own baby.

The sentences were too lenient, particularly in Smith’s case, Smith’s own family think so too. The fact that Smith could be out in 4 years is a disgrace and an insult to the poor victim.

“Frank Smith, 68, Star's great-grandfather, said he hoped her killers would 'rot in jail' and asked: 'Is that all Star's life is worth? Frankie will be out in four years - how is that justice?'”

FS family tree is very complicated to make out but I’m not entirely sure Frank Smith knew her that well? His son, FS father, was in prison during her childhood. I know her Grandfather David Fawcett, who looked after Star for 11 weeks, is happy with FS sentence and still speaks to her regularly. He puts the blame on Brockhill, and says none of this would have ever had happened if Brockhill had not descended from hell onto their family.

And FS father committed suicide on the back of this, so the family is just smashed now.

Did anyone else find FS’s obsession with the Rubettes such an unusual detail? In the trial she was described as being ‘in love’ with Alan Williams.
It just seemed such an unusual choice for such a young woman. Where would she even have been exposed to the Rubettes?

@Badnightguaranteed

Did anyone else find FS’s obsession with the Rubettes such an unusual detail? In the trial she was described as being ‘in love’ with Alan Williams. It just seemed such an unusual choice for such a young woman. Where would she even have been exposed to the Rubettes?

Yes I found that odd, I'm 42 and have never heard of them. Perhaps it was through her step-grandad, David.

@Badnightguaranteed

Did anyone else find FS’s obsession with the Rubettes such an unusual detail? In the trial she was described as being ‘in love’ with Alan Williams. It just seemed such an unusual choice for such a young woman. Where would she even have been exposed to the Rubettes?

I have a dd with significant additional needs. She gets “crushes” on much older celebs but from when they were younger iyswim?

I thought on the one hand her love of the Rubettes could indicate heavy influence from family elders, (close family) eclectic musical tastes, the fact that she wasn’t a ‘follower’. Yet on the other hand perhaps it was indicative of certain psychological issues where fixation or obsession plays a major role. It seemed strange that her defence didn’t elaborate more about it, as perhaps it could have been quite revealing? But perhaps it wouldn’t have worked in her favour?

Is it that weird? We watch all the old TOTP and the Rubettes were on there. And if your mum, say, or probably gran in some people’s cases was mad on a pop star, you’d know them.

People have all sorts of peculiarities, it does not mean they have learning difficulties, low IQs, are mentally ill and it CERTAINLY does not mean they are a cruel to their own children.

There are no excuses for this young woman’s actions, and liking the Rubettes is the least of them.

@KittenKong

Well I wonder why the ‘mothers’ sentence was lower than the maximum? I just can’t get my head around the evil that could do this (and laugh at sentencing - and who was she gesturing to in the gallery?). And as for a low IQ - that doesn’t make you unable to understand the suffering in another, let alone your own baby.

The judge took all factors into account and balanced them. She took into account the fact that FS is in spite of everything grieving the loss of her daughter.

She also took into account SB's health issues. I'm not sure why that would be but it's obviously how the law is.

The judge referenced the law repeatedly in her judgement. I can't see it being overturned personality.

@KittenKong

I have family member who works in schools in pretty deprived areas, schools for kids with behavioural (generally violent) issues (so has seen a lot and is very experienced in working with ‘problem’ families and students).

He told me that he once had to beg social services on a Friday to intervene because he genuinely believed that a child in his class would not survive if left in her home environment. He’s seen some terrible home environments (he used to have to do home visits to make recommendations) and been threatened (even death threats - luckily he is unscarable), so I wonder if some of the professionals who looked into these cases were just bloody naive or scared off?

In the original thread about Star which got deleted, someone said that SS are scared of genuinely violent people so they pick on easier targets whose kids are actually ok.

Sorry if this was already mentioned as struggling to keep up with the thread.

But didn't they have to pause the trial at one point so FS could instruct her legal team on something. Would this be the action of someone with such a low IQ?

But didn't they have to pause the trial at one point so FS could instruct her legal team on something. Would this be the action of someone with such a low IQ?

Not that I remember.

She changed her version of events in court than what she had previously said in police interviews. Essentially she lied about the whereabouts of Star and SB in her police interview when the fatality happened.

I think she pled guilty to child cruelty during the trial but I can't recall exactly. Something she previously denied.

Oh yes, what actually seems to have happened was that SB had told her to say that neither of them was in the room with Star when she was injured. FS had gone along with this until this year.

Then when on the stand she said that in fact, after hearing the 'bang' she came into the living room to see Star on SB's lap.

That's why the judge said that she had put protecting SB above finding out what had really happened to her daughter.

At 11.15, I knew I had read it somewhere