Prosecutors say the messages show the women knew a 12-year-old was failing and kept abusing him anyway.

MILTON, Ontario — Closing arguments in the murder trial of Becky Hamber and Brandy Cooney turned on the women’s own words, as prosecutors told a judge that years of messages showed contempt for two boys in their care before one child died in December 2022.

The case matters now because the evidence has moved from testimony to final legal argument, and a judge-alone ruling process is nearing its next public step. Hamber, 46, and Cooney, 44, have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges tied to the death of a 12-year-old boy identified in court as L.L. and the treatment of his younger brother. The immediate question is whether the Crown proved that the couple’s control, restraint and neglect were not just harsh parenting but criminal acts that led to death.

Prosecutors used the last days of argument to tie thousands of pages of texts to a timeline that began years before the boy’s death and tightened in the final weeks of his life. Crown attorneys said the messages showed the women discussing wet suits, helmets, exercise, food limits and long periods of bedroom confinement as routine tools, not emergency measures. One message cited in court included the phrase “shiver shiver dumb f—,” which the Crown said reflected open cruelty while the boys were left cold. Another message that prosecutors highlighted came about a month before the death, when Cooney wrote that she thought the child was suddenly going to die and that she would go to jail. Crown attorney Monica MacKenzie said that line showed knowledge of risk, not surprise after the fact.

The Crown argued the records did more than show anger. Prosecutors said the texts placed the women inside a running decision-making process in which the boys were spoken about as burdens, monitored by cameras and treated as people to be contained. Court heard that the home was even described in one exchange as a prison, with the women referring to themselves as jailers. By the time first responders were called in December 2022, the older boy was found in the basement, soaking wet, unresponsive and covered in vomit. Medical testimony presented earlier in the trial said he weighed 48 pounds. A forensic pathologist said the exact cause of death could not be fixed with certainty, but possibilities discussed in court included hypothermia and cardiac arrest tied to severe malnourishment. Those unknowns remain central because the defense says uncertainty about the cause of death undercuts a murder conviction.

The message evidence also gave the judge a way to compare what was said in private with what was said in court. During the trial, the defense argued the women were dealing with two deeply troubled boys who had serious behavioral and mental health problems, including self-harm risk, toileting issues and aggression. Cooney testified that wet suits, tents and restraints were used to stop injuries, keep order and manage bathroom accidents. Defense lawyer Monte MacGregor said the texts were ugly and reckless, but he argued they reflected dark humor and frustration rather than proof of homicidal intent. That defense position asked the court to separate language from conduct. The Crown’s position was the opposite: the language matched the conduct, and both showed the same pattern of dehumanizing treatment over time.

Procedurally, the case is at a narrow but important stage. The trial began in September 2025 in Superior Court in Milton and proceeded without a jury, leaving the verdict to Justice Clayton Conlan. The women face charges that include first-degree murder, confinement, assault with a weapon tied to the alleged use of zip ties, and failing to provide the necessaries of life. The younger boy’s account, along with medical experts, therapists and investigators, formed much of the evidentiary record before closing arguments ended March 27. Conlan said the case would return to court April 24 for an update on the status of his ruling. It is not yet clear whether that date will bring a full verdict or only a progress report on when his decision will be delivered.

Even in a case driven by records, the courtroom heard from people who tried to explain what those records meant in lived terms. The younger brother described a home where speaking could be punished, where the boys were locked away for long periods and where the older child sometimes took blame to protect him. A therapist who worked with the family testified she had concerns about restraint practices years before the death and denied that she had approved the use of zip ties. The defense, meanwhile, pointed to child welfare workers and health professionals who knew about parts of the household routine and, they said, did not stop it. That dispute has given the trial a wider reach beyond two defendants, raising questions about what others saw, what they understood and what they failed to challenge before the boy died.

For now, the evidence phase is over and the case sits with the judge. The next milestone is April 24, when the court is expected to say where the ruling process stands and whether a final decision is close.

Author note: Last updated April 18, 2026.