Boy 'willing' participant to having feet zip-tied, co-accused says in video shown at Ontario murder trial

Ontario's former baby pleader says children's assistance societies made 'bad decisions' leading up to demise of boy

Testimony in the trial for an Ontario couple charged in the death of one boy and what Crown prosecutors have alleged was the torture of his brother in their care continues today, with co-accused Becky Hamber in the witness box in Milton.

Crown prosecutors and defence lawyers have already spent four days questioning Hamber, 46, about the way she and wife Brandy Cooney treated the brothers in their care. Hamber has maintained she loved and did nothing to hurt the boys as they were going through the adoption process.

Hamber, 46, and Cooney, 44, have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder of L.L., as well as not guilty to confinement, assault with a weapon — zip ties — and failing to provide the necessaries of life to J.L. The judge-alone trial, which began in mid-September, is before Justice Clayton Conlan in Milton Superior Court.

Hamber is also set to testify again on Friday, the last scheduled day for proceedings. Prosecutors and defence lawyers are expected to make their final arguments in March.

Now the Crown is pointing out discrepancies between what Hamber has told the court and what she says in the video. 

For example, Hamber is recorded as saying he got blisters on his feet playing soccer. She testified it was from climbing a play structure at a park. 

She says in the video the cuts barely broke his skin. In court, she says she discovered deep cuts. 

In both examples, Hamber says what she recalled in court today is true. 

Other details the Crown says don’t match up include whether or not Cooney was home, how many other ways Hamber tried to stop J.L. From picking at his blisters before using the zip ties, and if she was interviewed by police about the injuries. 

Hamber reiterates J.L. Was a willing participant and likely misremembered details when talking to police. 

“Of course I absolutely regret allowing it to happen,” she says. “But the intention behind it was not malicious, not a punishment … it came out of pure love, similar to a hockey helmet being used.” 

The couple told the court they’d put hockey helmets on the boys’ heads to stop them from injuring themselves. 

In the video, Hamber says J.L. Had picked blisters four or five nights in a row and it was a “compulsion.” 

She says J.L. Then suggested to Cooney to zip-tie his shoes on his feet so he couldn’t pick them. 

“In our exhaustion and desperation for [J.L.] to leave his feet alone, this seemed like a good idea,” says Hamber. 

She says it was a “dumb dumb moment” as parents but J.L. Was a “willing” participant. 

Later, Hamber says, she discovered he’d pulled the zip ties tighter and partially broke the skin on the tops of his feet. 

She also describes J.L. As being “psychologically fragile” and says he tended to pick at caulking in the bathroom, which caused a flood in the basement. 

“Any evidence of the scars from the detectives and doctors, I can definitely understand how that looks horrendous,” she says. 

But, she says, J.L. Caused the scars because he picked the cuts “over and over.” 

The court is now watching a 30-minute video Hamber recorded in 2023, while out on bail for charges related to J.L. But before she was charged with first-degree murder of L.L.

In the video, she says she’s recording it because her health is deteriorating and she may not live through a trial. She wants the video to be used as a kind of affidavit in the event of her death. 

Hamber begins describing her version of how J.L. Sustained the injuries to his feet.

Whether Hamber and Cooney used zip ties on the boys’ feet is important because they are charged with assaulting J.L. With a weapon — zip ties. They’ve both pleaded not guilty to that as well.

When J.L. Was removed from their care after L.L. Died in late 2022, it was discovered his feet had sustained visible injuries, the court has heard.

J.L. Testified in November that the injuries were from the times Cooney and Hamber zip-tied his feet into a wetsuit, and the restraints cut his feet. 

Hamber previously told the court the marks were from one time earlier that year when they’d zip-tied his shoes onto his feet, at his request. He’d then tightened the zip ties on his own, causing his feet to bleed. 

Hamber tells Frew the reason the injuries were still visible months later is because he picked at his scabs.  

As court resumes, Frew asks Hamber if she used zip ties on the children’s feet more than one time. 

“I don’t remember,” she says.

Frew pulls up a few examples of the women texting about zip-tying them. 

Hamber tells Frew they wouldn’t have been put directly on their feet, but used to bound the fabric around their feet. 

All four ends of the wetsuit would be zip-tied overnight, the Crown says. 

Hamber says again that she doesn’t remember. 

But in another text, Cooney tells her one of the boys had “blue bruise marks” across his toes. 

Hamber responds, “From zip ties probably.” 

Frew says that appears to show they did use zip ties around the boys’ feet. 

Hamber responds, “I don’t know. Anything’s possible.” 

Frew, who is covering a lot of topics quickly, says Hamber and Cooney were strapped for cash and became dependent on the monthly government stipend they received to care for the boys.

The boys lived with the couple for about five years and the women were trying to adopt them.

“You viewed them as your income?” Frew says.

“I did not view my children as my income, no. A monthly stipend? Yes,” says Hamber. 

The court previously heard the women received $2,070 per month to take care of the two. 

Hamber stopped working in 2018 and decided to care for the children full time, and Cooney earned around $35,000 annually, Hamber told her defence lawyer Monte MacGregor last week. 

“Was money the reason you did this?” MacGregor asked.

“Not at all,” Hamber said.

Court is taking the afternoon break and will be back at 3:25 p.m. ET.

Hamber and Cooney have both testified the boys broke their washing machine. 

Hamber now says they were initially told by a technician the reason it wasn’t working was because they’d been putting in too-small loads.

Hamber says they started doing larger loads and it broke again. 

She says she then attributed it to overuse and the multiple loads of laundry they had to do because the boys purposefully peed themselves. 

“I would suggest to you it’s a bit unfair to blame the children for that breaking, do you agree?” Frew says.

“No, I don’t agree,” Hamber says.

In 2020, Hamber told the Children’s Aid Society the boys had caused a total of $60,000, Frew says, referring to an email Hamber sent.

Justice Conlan interjects to say despite what Hamber told CAS, he’s well aware the damages don’t amount to that much. 

Hamber says one of the boys had broken a security camera that the women had set up in the washroom. 

Frew asks her if they disliked the camera there or if she’d had a conversation with them about the possible “invasion of privacy.” 

“I wouldn’t have had those conversations with them,” Hamber says. “I wouldn’t have thought about it.” 

Frew says that’s because it didn’t matter to her what they thought.

Hamber says no, it’s because she and Cooney were “juggling” many things at once. 

The Crown is going over the different ways the women have said the boys intentionally damaged their home. 

“I’m trying to figure out how you got to tens of thousands of dollars of damages the boys were responsible for,” Frew says, “beyond the typical wear and tear children bring to a home.” 

Hamber says the boys pulled off the handle of their home’s front storm door, breaking it, because they had not turned it properly. She says she told the brothers many times how to turn the handle, but they didn’t listen and therefore were responsible for breaking it. 

The door also had a dent near the bottom because, Hamber says, they’d kick it. 

Frew asks if the boys may have kicked it when Hamber locked them out of the house in the winter and they were “screaming to get back inside because of the cold.”

“It’s a possibility,” Hamber says, “to give myself a moment of breathing and distance.” 

---

---