GUILTY UK - Star Hobson, 16 months, murdered, Sep 2020 *arrest*

One final thought, I've been thinking it a while, this relates back to a couple of weeks ago when SB was testifying.

A bit of a big deal was made about her being Romani. Not quite playing the race card, but waving the card to show it off. A big deal was also made about her being bisexual, so a minority within a minority.

It doesn't seem fair because Star was mixed race, FS is financially vulnerable and working class, and also borderline disabled due to her IQ. Despite claiming to not be gay, FS is also evidently bisexual.

If SB's minority/marginalized status are made a fuss of, then so should everyone else's. Or it just gives the impression that SB is automatically a bit of a victim.
 
I’m somewhat confused as to why this case hasn’t got the levels of interest on here that Arthur’s has. Three threads compared to 9 pages?!

I haven’t commented much on either because to be honest I can only take so much and it’s not much, but it seems like baby Star has been completely forgotten about.

I’m interested @squish why you think that FS should get a relatively lenient sentence. I followed the trial up till about day 20, so maybe I missed a lot, but to me being thick or even learning disabled doesn’t excuse someone from knowing you just don’t treat a baby like Star was treated. FS had the wherewithal to know that the injuries didn’t happen when Star was with her; surely even the stupidest person could figure out in that case who was causing them.

It seemed like FS had plenty of support around her in the form of her mum, her sister and her friends, so the fact that she carried on letting the person who was battering Star look after her shows a high degree of culpability IMO. Ultimately going out drinking was far more important to her than Star’s wellbeing.
 
I wondered myself why this terrible story has not caught the public eye so much as little Arthur's. We have not forgotten about her here. The thought of her, a little baby girl, in the hands of that monster (seen on a webcam slapping and punching her) is unbearable.

I can't forgive FS either. She knew, it was in the texts that she knew 'The amount of marks on this baby is ridiculous.' 'She doesn't get bruises like that when I have her.' And yet, for the sake of nights of drinking, Star's safety, happiness, health, and eventually her life itself, were sacrificed.
 
I’m somewhat confused as to why this case hasn’t got the levels of interest on here that Arthur’s has. Three threads compared to 9 pages?!

I haven’t commented much on either because to be honest I can only take so much and it’s not much, but it seems like baby Star has been completely forgotten about.

I’m not sure, it feels like there is a lot more to debate in this case as well. Star’s case also didn’t get as much national news as Arthur’s case either, which I suspect is because the media are nervous of the same-sex couple and traveller aspects and getting accused of discrimination. Same reason, in part, why social workers failed Star. I didn’t hear about the case until relatively recently. I have tried to promote it a few times on Arthur’s thread.

But, on tattle.life, a gossip forum, Star’s case has 9 threads and has generated a lot of interest, more so than Arthur’s case. Maybe it has balanced out. The rules are more lenient there and there is a LOT to talk about with regards to social media. SB's family are wrong uns. So are certain other involved parties to this case, which I can’t allude to here.

I’m interested @squish why you think that FS should get a relatively lenient sentence. I followed the trial up till about day 20, so maybe I missed a lot, but to me being thick or even learning disabled doesn’t excuse someone from knowing you just don’t treat a baby like Star was treated. FS had the wherewithal to know that the injuries didn’t happen when Star was with her; surely even the stupidest person could figure out in that case who was causing them.

It seemed like FS had plenty of support around her in the form of her mum, her sister and her friends, so the fact that she carried on letting the person who was battering Star look after her shows a high degree of culpability IMO. Ultimately going out drinking was far more important to her than Star’s wellbeing.

You stopped following just before FS took the stand, it is very clear from how she presents that she is genuinely a simpleton. A few pages back you can see me wondering if she’s really that thick, or if she’d just been brilliantly coached by her team. People on tattle have long speculated if she’s learning disabled. It turns out that she has an IQ of just 70 - equivalent to a 9 year old child - and was also found to have a high level of a trait called compliance, meaning that she defers to people she perceives to be in authority. This explains some of her behaviour in court, where she was unceremoniously acquiescing to many of the negative things that the prosecution were saying about her. She has admitted many things that make her look bad, without explaining them. For example, her baby had been living with her grandparents for 2 months, and FS decided to take her back on a whim, purely because she thought Star looked adorable in her new clothes. FS was asked, did you not consider for a moment the effect this would have on Star? "No." Did you not consider the effect this would have on your grandparents? "No." When asked if her behaviour to Star on various videos was cruel, she admits it, and says she didn't think it was at the time.

If someone is convicted of causing/allowing the death of a child, they get a lesser sentence if they themselves are the victim of domestic violence, coercive control, or are learning disabled. All of these are factors for FS. I do think this is fair, for the following reasons.

SB was 26-27 years old and of a normal intellect, FS was 18-19 and intellectually challenged. She played with dolls until she was 16 years old. She came from an unstable background. Already this is not an equal partnership.

Multiple witnesses have confirmed that SB was violent towards FS on a number of occasions. Multiple witnesses - friends and family of FS - have also confirmed that they themselves were frightened of SB and what she might do if they angered her.

SB was jealous and would phone or text FS hundreds of times when FS was out. FS would sometimes FaceTime SB for 12 hours overnight to prove she wasn't with anyone. SB was allowed to sleep with whoever she wanted (except one ex girlfriend, who SB was carrying on with anyway), while FS was not. SB would play mind games, by sometimes not being controlling and saying "it's your night", and not messaging FS, or outright ignoring her.

FS deferred to SB, due to her inherent compliance and trusting those more intelligent than herself, due to fear of what SB would do to her or her family if she disobeyed, and due to SB's threats that she would commit suicide if FS left.

SB was staking a claim on Star, and wanted to change her name to SB's late mother's name. At some points she complained to FS that she (SB) wasn't being treated like a parent. SB was insistent on taking Star between 11-13th September, when she was caught on CCTV battering Star, even though FS wanted her back half way through.

SB didn't allow FS to let Star see most of her family members. FS went along with this, due to the social services reports, and SB telling her that her family were trying to take Star away.

SB was more experienced with children than FS and demanded that Star have a strict routine and discipline, even from 6 months old. FS deferred to her, as she does with her mental characteristics. She went along with SB's abusive tactics like making her stand at the wall, and thinking that Star was tantrumming or attention seeking when really she was in pain. SB additionally tried to convince FS that Star was a horrible brat who would ruin her life and who thought nothing of her mother (at the wise old age of 16 months).

SB was trained in first aid, and told FS that Star would be fine and not to call 999. FS deferred to her, as she always did.

When Star died, SB told FS that armed police were waiting outside the hospital, and that they would both be done for murder. FS went along with SB's demand to say that they both found Star at the same time. I don't believe that FS is bright enough to create a lie like this, so I think it's the truth.

There is much, much more that I'm not remembering, but the overall picture is that SB is a predatory, sadistic and controlling person, while FS is very vulnerable and a victim of SB herself. FS family have said that she was obsessed with SB in a way that she hadn't been with any relationship before.

FS did not have a good support network; she had a number of willing babysitters, but overall, she did not have the support that most mothers have. Especially not from Star's father, who was also violent to FS. The only reliable support she had was from her grandparents, who SB banned her from seeing due to their social services report.

On the other hand, FS did engage with SB's abusive discipline tactics, and did things off her own back that she now admits were cruel, such as scaring Star for the fun of it, scaring her awake, ordering her to walk up stairs then making her stand against the wall for a prior event that Star wouldn't remember.

She also was a lazy mother, who prioritised her partying, and her wants above Star's needs. It didn't even occur to FS for the most part that some of the things she did were hurtful to Star - such as abruptly ripping her away from her great-grandparents - because she didn't even think of anyone else's feelings in the first place, including Star's.

Also, when SB was trying to drive her car off a cliff with FS in it, FS had enough about her to save her own skin and grab the steering wheel.

Even after SB's severe assaults on Star on the 13th finally gave FS cause for concern about SB's conduct, and said "stay away from us" and that she never gets bruised like that with me. FS later changed her mind and was asking SB if she would have Star soon, but Star was killed before that happened.

FS's own family describe her as selfish and lazy. I do believe that if FS had exactly the same mental faculties, but had the personality trait of being caring rather than selfish, then SB's abuse wouldn't have gone so far.

It's for this reason that I personally feel that FS is guilty of causing/allowing the death of a child, but there are one hell of a lot of mitigating factors. She will always be like catnip to predators, and she will never be capable of looking after a baby. But I don't think she is an evil person or a danger to society. When judging her actions, remember she has the mental age of a 9 year old.

I do not think she is guilty of murder, because SB clearly made efforts to hide the serious physical abuse from FS, showing that SB did not think she could convince FS that abuse that severe was acceptable. FS had expressed her concerns about Star's injuries from her time in SB's care. Even though she later changed her mind about SB staying away from them, it shows that outright injurious behaviour was not something that FS was on board with.

I think that SB had got away so far with beating Star so severely, that she thought she could have a quick punch while FS was in the toilet, and it would all be fine. She had seriously injured Star before and she had recovered, which explains her lack of urgency to call 999, and her lack of urgency when the paramedics finally arrived.
 
Last edited:
Reading through SB's defense's closing statement now.
  • She urges the jury that FS's family's statements are not credible, implying that they are homophobic. She also says that it is natural that the family will want to blame the other party, and not their own family member, for the murder of a baby. She plays the lesbian gypsy cards.
  • She has not addressed FS's low IQ, instead focusing on portraying FS as a manipulative liar pretending to be subservient to SB for the benefit of the court. The barrister demonstrates a willful lack of understand of domestic violence relationships, and plays to the idea that DV victims needs to be timid mice who never argue or fight back. She says that FS had ample opportunity away from SB to complain about her, but never did. Ignoring the dynamics of DV relationships. Everyone knows that DV victims typically go back to their partner again and again, and protect their partner from getting into trouble.
  • Regarding the CCTV of the recycling plant battering, she says to ignore both the prosecutions and SB's explainations (I have no idea why she thinks it's sensible to tell the jury to ignore SB's version of events but there we go). She says that there are rapid movements, and movements of both figures at the same time. She suggests that the prosecution are putting it into the jury's heads the interpretation of the videos, with blow-by-blow (yes, the barrister used this term) descriptions of what is happening in each clip. She implies that if they'd never had those descriptions, the jury might interpret the videos differently.
  • She denies that Star's fracture to the rear of her skull could have been caused while being beaten in the car seat, because the cushioning of the car seat would have protected her head. She then bizarrely recalls questions about whether the car seat was even there in the video, and instead Star's head was being hit into the dog grill. (Note: in SB's phone calls to her sister in jail, she said something about not having Star's car seat on this day). She says only the jury's interpretations of the CCTV matter, and to not pay in mind any previous interpretations. (I think she was trying to show the differences in interpretations by the debate on whether Star was seated in a car seat or not, to demonstrate the interpretations vary, but instead she's just made SB look even worse. She should have focused on SB's explanation of the CCTV, and what sounds like a lack of clarity of the images).
  • She says that SB has a point with her 's Defense, and that an 80kg woman in the prime of her life should have left marks if she really battered Star in that CCTV. (Never mind that FS for the first time was worried about the amount of bruises Star came back with, so she did indeed leave marks.)
  • She points out that on the 8th of September, 3 days before SB had her that weekend, there is a picture of Star in the bath covered in red marks and bruises. (I would say that is soon enough after SB last saw Star for them to also be caused by her).
  • There is soooo much leakage in SB's barrister's closing speech, such as "this was an enclosed space, with a woman in the prime of her life, inflicting blow after blow on a small child". She's the queen of Freudian slips.
  • She is claiming that Star did not get any injuries from her alleged battering on the 13th, except a cheek bruise. Therefore, there is doubt that SB actually battered her.
  • She is reminding the jury that if there is any doubt at all, then that is not enough to find her guilty. She is drawing attention to doubt as to whether Star was in a car seat, and that the jury's question of the presence and nature of the dog grill couldn't be answered adequately.
  • If SB was really going to do what the Crown claim she did that night, why did she park right in front of a CCTV camera to do it? Why did she illuminate the attacks after dark with her phone? (despite the prison phone calls showing SB didn't know if there were cameras and that she was very worried about this).
  • She claims that for SB to have abused Star in full view, it must have been a momentary loss of control - which is not what the Crown is claiming, which is a sustained and deliberate series of assaults and sustained loss of control. She said you don't lose it like that if you are the cunning and cruel person the Crown say SB is. (I;m not sure her point - SB is too clever to have assaulted Star on camera, so it can't be assault. If it was assault, that would mean that clever, cunning SB would have had to have lost control for several hours, which is at odds with the nature of a clever and cunning person? This is a terrible defense.)
  • Here, the barrister must remember that the prison phones show that SB didn't know at all whether there was CCTV there, because she starts talking about the calls, and says that SB's explainations of them were honest.
  • She draws attention to SB "I'm a No.1 Psycho" video, and her threats expressed to FS's sister about stabbing, saying words are cheap and mean nothing. She draws attention to SB's calmness in the aftermath of the attack and says she's been unfairly criticised and everyone is different. She draws attention to other instances of SB's unusual behaviour (I would have said here that none of this is relevant or makes her a murderer. This is not a good closing speech).
  • Back to the toilet break, and trying to confound the majority-male jury, the barrister says "But one thing, as a woman, FS's account of how she sorted herself out, is just not the way it is done, it's just not what you do. You sit down, sort yourself out, you have a wee at the same time. You don't interrupt things by putting bleach down the toilet, it's not just how it works." Very annoying, women do all different things when dealing with their period.
  • She says FS has guile, quick thinking and intellectual capacity to change her evidence and manipulate.
  • She says that if the suggestion is that SB cleaned up FS's pad when she went back into the flat, then why wasn't SB questioned about this? (I quite agree, the prosecution should have asked SB many things that they didn't). She's putting the idea in the jury's heads though, which is another own goal. FWIW I think SB did clean up the pad, because why wouldn't she. It takes seconds.
  • I can't be bothered with much more. I don't think SB's defense did a good job at all here. Which is great!
 
Last edited:
She denies that Star's fracture to the rear of her skull could have been caused while being beaten in the car seat, because the cushioning of the car seat would have protected her head. She then bizarrely recalls questions about whether the car seat was even there in the video, and instead Star's head was being hit into the dog grill. (Note: in SB's phone calls to her sister in jail, she said something about not having Star's car seat on this day).
I thought Star was standing up on the back seat. If she was in her car seat how is she supposed to have fallen onto the gear knob?

This barrister is…odd to say the least.
 
I thought Star was standing up on the back seat. If she was in her car seat how is she supposed to have fallen onto the gear knob?

This barrister is…odd to say the least.

The CCTV was a series of attacks over the course of about 3 hours. During the first attacks at around 6pm, Star was sat on SB’s lap in the driving seat while she beat her. Some time later, she put Star in the back. Then she kept reaching round and battering her.
 
What a waste of time for the court. But hopefully the delay will be long enough to force SB back into court so she doesn't manage to pull an Emma Tustin and hide away for the scary bits.

(It wouldn't surprise me if SB had faked her covid test, apparently she's well. I know lots of people don't have symptoms but it's apparently easy to fake those tests)
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
842
Total visitors
1,024

Forum statistics

Threads
589,938
Messages
17,927,928
Members
228,007
Latest member
BeachyTee
Back
Top