How many generations back did it go wrong for Arthur

[iwanttobeonleave]

The awful case of Arthur L-H has got me thinking about the long term causes of these situations. Clearly all three adults involved were completely despicable but why? What's caused this and where did it go wrong?

Can this level of disfunction happen in one generation or would there be a history of it if one looked back a few generations?

Just such a completely desperate case, the poor, poor child.

I’ve been wondering about him taking Arthur to tustins with him. Possibly he knew Arthur would tell his grandparents what his dad was doing to him and Hughes didn’t want to risk that.

Or alternatively I wondered if Hughes parents insisted he bring Arthur with him in an attempt to make him be a fully responsible parent. Perhaps they said, as it sure many grandparents would, “he’s your son, you have to raise him”. Hughes brother also commented that Hughes had changed when he met tustin, became an unpleasant character. maybe Hughes was planning on moving in with her and leaving Arthur but his family thought if they made him take Arthur the relationship wouldn’t last and Hughes would leave her and come home.

@“NameChangerSundayDriver”

For all of your long post I have not re-quoted here, and for this last paragraph -

“There but for the grace of God go I and all that. I don’t know what the answer is, but cases like this do make me count my blessings.“ -

Thank you.

@CloudyStorms

His mother isn't the one responsible for his death here so I'm a bit uncomfortable with her past being seen as where it went wrong tbh. There are two people responsible for his death.

She killed a man.

@NameChangerSundayDriver so much respect for you, thank you for sharing your story x

I'd like to hear more about events leading up to the mother murdering her boyfriend, as it could turn out that Arthur's murder was even more avoidable that we now know.

I’m making this point repeatedly wherever I see this discussion along with how she seemed to be a high functioning adult until she met Hughes. Hughes whose child’s personality changed markedly in school before Tustin even came along. Hughes who devised the most emotionally abusive punishments towards his 5/6 year old - eg telling him he was taking Arthur to see his loving grandparents and uncle only to take him back home after driving around pretending to he going there, who slashed to pieces and destroyed all Arthur’s most precious possessions, who allowed and encouraged his girlfriend to abuse his child and whose child expressed at school that he was worried his father was going to kill him.

Yes I would like to know much more about Hughes.

@EurghCobwebs yes but she didn't kill her son

ET sent TH video of his child in pain. To please him? Maybe. Otherwise why. TH told her to 'end him'.

I also do not think TH;'s role has been fully explained. Not just manslaughter, IMO.

Also of note is that his mothers conviction was originally quashed, she was later given an 11 year sentence for the killing. 11 years, out in 5-6 with good behaviour. For a killing? Makes me think that there were strenuous mitigating circumstances around the decision to pass that sentence.

I'm sorry for my posts last night. It's not an excuse but I'd been drinking and all the stuff that usually I live with came back.

These situations have happened forever and keep happening and things really could be done about it, but the political will isn't there. Nothing much gets done, except more loaded onto the shoulders of a social services system that only barely works becuase 1) there's 1% of capacity for the need out there and 2) a fair few social workers go into it for their own twisted reasons. Ive worked with both the very very good and the very bad.

There is no solution. There is no will to put anywhere near enough money and training and support systems into action.

But I'm sorry for being a tosspot last night.

@LondonWolf

Also of note is that his mothers conviction was originally quashed, she was later given an 11 year sentence for the killing. 11 years, out in 5-6 with good behaviour. For a killing? Makes me think that there were strenuous mitigating circumstances around the decision to pass that sentence.

As far as I could see they reckoned it had been tit for tat in terms of violent behaviour between the couple and it just so happened that she killed him first, it could have equally have been the other way around.

I think there was a bit of speculation during the first trial that she may have exaggerated the threat and abuse from the partner and was trying to use self defence and wasn't believed. I think court comments said something about Olivia being the only person who truly knew what happened that day. She probably didn't look cowed enough to play the innocent victim - and we don't know if she was or was the aggressor.

Another of those cases of match and fire?

The Mum's case is manslaughter. What TH did? Not just manslaughter. Conspiracy to murder? Manslaughter with intent? I don't know but it is not the same as stabbing somebody in a violent drunken fight, it's a completely different level of crime and should not be called the same thing

This is from when Arthur’s mother was sentenced.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-guilty-killing-boyfriend-second-24436256
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-guilty-killing-boyfriend-second-24436256.amp

She killed a man.

She did, but she is an alcoholic who alleged that he was abusing her at her trial.

As for Thomas Hughes' malign influence on Emma Tustin, he is clearly a nasty piece of work, but I read several articles in the papers yesterday about how ET was already manipulative, selfish and unhinged in before she met TH. One ex bf and the father of one of her DC, testified at the trial as to her extreme behaviour, but he wasn't believed by the police/SS at the time.

She apparently threw herself out of an upstairs window at their home to prevent him going out with his mates to 'wet the baby's head' when their DC was born. She broke her leg. Another time, she threw herself off a multi-storey car park and gave herself appalling injuries necessitating several months in hospital and many broken bones. He said she only wanted DC for the benefit money, neglected her DC, didn't have a maternal bone in her body, and spent her child benefit on tattoos and beauty treatments. She sounds like a complete nightmare before she ever met Thomas Hughes and like it was a case of two evil people meeting up and making each other worse.

@NameChangerSundayDriver - massive kudos to you for getting out of that relationship. Thanks for sharing.

@ElephantOfRisk I read something where they said her educated background and that she was so articulate went against her. Sly and manipulative intelligence apparently.

@LondonWolf

Also of note is that his mothers conviction was originally quashed, she was later given an 11 year sentence for the killing. 11 years, out in 5-6 with good behaviour. For a killing? Makes me think that there were strenuous mitigating circumstances around the decision to pass that sentence.

Yes manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

@Ijsbear But I'm sorry for being a tosspot last night.

It takes grace to apologise

As for Thomas Hughes' malign influence on Emma Tustin, he is clearly a nasty piece of work, but I read several articles in the papers yesterday about how ET was already manipulative, selfish and unhinged in before she met TH. One ex bf and the father of one of her DC, testified at the trial as to her extreme behaviour, but he wasn't believed by the police/SS at the time.

Oh I’m not minimising Tustin’s crimes in any way. I don’t think she needed any encouraging and I don’t think he was a “malign influence” on her, that was already in her, but a decent father/person wouldn’t have allowed it to go on. He gave her permission to act, it could never have happened without him. Hughes is the common denominator to two murderous women, yet we don’t know half as much about him as we know about the women.

The Mum's case is manslaughter. What TH did? Not just manslaughter. Conspiracy to murder? Manslaughter with intent? I don't know but it is not the same as stabbing somebody in a violent drunken fight, it's a completely different level of crime and should not be called the same thing

Agree.

@Ijsbear

I'm sorry for my posts last night. It's not an excuse but I'd been drinking and all the stuff that usually I live with came back.

These situations have happened forever and keep happening and things really could be done about it, but the political will isn't there. Nothing much gets done, except more loaded onto the shoulders of a social services system that only barely works becuase 1) there's 1% of capacity for the need out there and 2) a fair few social workers go into it for their own twisted reasons. Ive worked with both the very very good and the very bad.

There is no solution. There is no will to put anywhere near enough money and training and support systems into action.

But I'm sorry for being a tosspot last night.

I don’t think you were you made some very good points.

There was one poster who couldn’t understand one particular point, but it was actually perfectly clear.

According to the sun ET also has a conviction for battery from when she was a teenager.

[quote LondonWolf]@ElephantOfRisk I read something where they said her educated background and that she was so articulate went against her. Sly and manipulative intelligence apparently.[/quote]
Women can't win, can we. One must be the perfect victim...but not too perfect.

"Too articulate", "top intellegent", I've heard that before - clever women used to be so suspected of being up to no good that they were burned as witches.

She had been convicted of manslaughter,

“ But in July last year, she had her conviction overturned by the Court of Appeal after judges ruled she may have been acting in self-defence.“ (from Mirror article posted before)

Then, that was overturned and she was convicted again and found manipulative.

@zafferana

She killed a man.

She did, but she is an alcoholic who alleged that he was abusing her at her trial.

As for Thomas Hughes' malign influence on Emma Tustin, he is clearly a nasty piece of work, but I read several articles in the papers yesterday about how ET was already manipulative, selfish and unhinged in before she met TH. One ex bf and the father of one of her DC, testified at the trial as to her extreme behaviour, but he wasn't believed by the police/SS at the time.

She apparently threw herself out of an upstairs window at their home to prevent him going out with his mates to 'wet the baby's head' when their DC was born. She broke her leg. Another time, she threw herself off a multi-storey car park and gave herself appalling injuries necessitating several months in hospital and many broken bones. He said she only wanted DC for the benefit money, neglected her DC, didn't have a maternal bone in her body, and spent her child benefit on tattoos and beauty treatments. She sounds like a complete nightmare before she ever met Thomas Hughes and like it was a case of two evil people meeting up and making each other worse.

I would not place too much emphasis on what an ex says to be honest. But she is clearly diabolical, no matter.

There was one poster who couldn’t understand one particular point, but it was actually perfectly clear.

It wasn’t. People said “that’s not what she is saying” but no one has managed to explain what she was saying.

I would go so far as to say that if TH gave the "order" to kill Arthur ("just end him"), knowing he was saying this to someone who was already abusive and violent to Arthur, his manslaughter conviction should be appealed and he should get murder.

I think he is the manipulative one and I think he meant for Arthur to die and thought he could get away with Tustin doing it for him - and taking all of the fall.