The murder case has also exposed disputes over what therapists, doctors and child welfare workers knew before a boy died.
MILTON, Ontario — The murder trial of Becky Hamber and Brandy Cooney has become more than a case about two defendants, with testimony also tracing what professionals around the family knew about restraints, confinement and household control before a 12-year-old boy died in 2022.
That broader question matters because the defense has tried to show the women were not operating in total secrecy. Hamber and Cooney, who have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges, say their methods were known in some form to outside agencies and were part of an effort to manage two boys with serious behavioral and mental health needs. Prosecutors say awareness by others does not excuse what happened inside the home and does not change the core allegation that the older child, identified as L.L., was abused, starved and kept in degrading conditions before his death.
Evidence at trial showed that concerns about the household did not begin with the emergency call in December 2022. A therapist who had worked with the family testified that she objected to restraint practices before the death and denied that she had ever approved the use of zip ties, a claim the defense had raised. Court also heard arguments over whether Children’s Aid Society workers had been told enough, seen enough or acted strongly enough when they learned of parts of the discipline system. Cooney testified that the couple had not received enough support and blamed outside agencies for failing to help with the boys’ needs. The Crown, however, used records and questioning to suggest the women continued some tactics even after being told not to use them.
That clash over oversight unfolded alongside stark evidence from the home itself. Prosecutors described a basement-centered regime that included wet suits, helmets, tents, cameras and long confinement in bedrooms. The older boy was found unresponsive, soaking wet and covered in vomit. Medical testimony said he weighed 48 pounds. The exact cause of death remained uncertain, but possibilities discussed in court included hypothermia and cardiac arrest connected to severe malnourishment. Prosecutors argued that whatever label medicine ultimately put on the final moment, the larger picture was one of chronic deprivation. The defense argued that the women were seeking help for possible eating problems and that the boys’ behavior made ordinary caregiving impossible.
The dispute over who knew what is important partly because it changes how the public reads the evidence. If agencies, clinicians or other adults had warning signs, then the case reaches beyond criminal blame and into institutional responsibility. The younger brother’s testimony added force to that issue. He described punishments, silence rules and restraints that, if accepted as true, suggest a level of control difficult to square with unnoticed family stress. Prosecutors also pointed to private messages in which the women insulted the boys, referred to themselves as jailers and discussed the possibility that the older child might die. Those messages gave the Crown a way to argue that outsiders may have seen fragments, while the defendants knew the full reality.
The trial’s timeline has sharpened that question. Police began investigating after the boy’s death in late December 2022. Charges followed, and the case eventually moved to a judge-alone trial that began in September 2025 in Superior Court in Milton. Over months of testimony, the court heard from experts, investigators, caregivers and the surviving brother. The women face charges including first-degree murder, confinement, assault with a weapon connected to the alleged use of zip ties, and failing to provide the necessaries of life. In final arguments, the defense said the evidence shows a badly strained home and flawed adults, not deliberate killing. The Crown said the pattern was so severe and so sustained that criminal liability is the only reasonable conclusion.
The courtroom record now holds two stories at once. One is the direct case against Hamber and Cooney. The other is a quieter account of meetings, reports, warnings and opportunities that may have failed to interrupt the decline of a child who, according to testimony, had become visibly emaciated. Neither story erases the other. Instead, they overlap. That is why witnesses beyond police and doctors have mattered so much in this trial. Their evidence has helped show whether the household was hidden from systems meant to protect children, or whether those systems glimpsed the truth but never fully confronted it.
Currently, the next court date is April 24, when Justice Clayton Conlan is expected to provide an update on his ruling. Whatever he says then, the case has already raised questions not only about guilt, but about how many warnings a child can show before adults act.
Author note: Last updated April 18, 2026.