What the court has heard so far
The trial began in mid-September, and a lot has happened.
It’s heard from dozens of witnesses, and hundreds of text messages exchanged between Hamber and Cooney while the two brothers were in their care have been read in court.
Based on the lines of questioning from the Crown and defence lawyers, we’ve been able to get a sense of their main arguments in determining the fate of the women.
The Crown is out to prove Cooney and Hamber hated the boys, L.L. in particular, set unrealistic standards and handed out harsh punishments when they were not met.
These punishments, the Crown alleges, included withholding food, forcing exercise and locking them in their rooms most of the time.
Cooney, who testified last month, denied withholding food, but admitted she and Hamber zip-tied the boys into wetsuits, hockey helmets and tents on their bed. But she said these methods weren’t used as punishments, but rather, to keep the boys safe as they were prone to harming themselves and others.
The defence has argued Cooney and Hamber loved the boys despite their significant behavioural issues. The women were doing their best to care for them without enough support from the Halton and Ottawa children’s aid agencies, doctors or therapists.