UK - Logan Mwangi, 5, found dead in Wales River, Bridgend, 31 July 2021 *arrests, inc. minor* #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah - i did wonder about that. Because as you say he either dealt a fatal blow and is therefore guilty of murder, or if he wasn’t involved (other than the coverup) then he can’t be held responsible for not seeking attention for the actions of others because it wouldn’t have been his responsibility in a household of other adults to be looking out for Logan’s welfare. I thought he might have been charged with “causing death” if it is determined he was involved in assault but maybe not hard enough of it’s own to be the actual cause of death. But I don’t know enough about the minutiae of charges to know whether that could be a material difference (like what if the jury think eg the youth kicked Logan in the stomach but that this was not on its own the cause of death, it was violence inflicted later on by the adults in the household? Does that absolve him of causing the death of a child? Or are they different things? Does anyone on here have and answer?)
Looking at the CPS guidelines I would think the youths age is why he doesn’t have a causing or allowing charge.
The guidelines state: “Special care should be taken when considering liability of persons under 16. Prosecutors are reminded that other than for parents of V, a person cannot be held responsible for failures to take reasonable steps prior to reaching the age of 16.”
(V is what I called person B)
Manslaughter is available for all defendants as an alternative to murder. So the jury has that option available.
 
Respectfully, I disagree ... I think they couldn't have possibly known just how serious Logans internal injuries were. Not even medical professionals can assess internal injuries or beain injuries without a CT or MRI scan or an autopsy.

And ... if they had known Logan was fatally injured and were 'waiting' for him to die, they'd have been better prepared and planned for what came next.

This is no 3 way masterminded plan.

I don't believe the boy will have been in the thick of it for all of it.

I think he absolutely assaulted Logan but after that, went on about his normal day & night and when Logan was discovered dead, the 2 adults will have tried to - initially at least - keep the boy away while they decided what to do.


Have you ever seen how sick someone is that has injuries like ruptured liver and a tear in the bowels? Do you know how painful that is?

The doctor described the symptoms that would have been present. Logan would have been very pale and possibly sweaty, and in extreme pain. Even touching him would make him wince in pain. He would not be able to eat or go the bathroom without tremendous pain.

He had a broken collarbone, large bruises covering his body, and a large head wound.
And there was blood seeped into his mattress. He was sleeping in his own blood.

How could they not know he needed medical treatment?


How can we pretend they did not know how seriously injured this little boy was? Just read this long list of injuries and imagine your 5 yr old having all of them at once---you wouldn't know he needed immediate help?




The doctor said :

His internal injuries, described as so severe they were more likely to be found in a victim of a high-velocity car accident or fall from a great height, included a large tear to his liver and another to his small bowel.

[How sick do you think he would appear if he had injuries that mimicked a high velocity car accident or a fall from a great height?
He would be in severe pain, doubled over, crying and whining, if not semi-conscious at times.]

[And these injuries occurred over a span of days and weeks. So they had plenty of time to see how painful his injuries were becoming. ]

"Some of the injuries, including the brain damage, could have been caused up to two days before Logan died, Dr Williams said."



Logan Mwangi had internal injuries 'consistent with child abuse', court told | ITV News
Logan, who was three feet tall and weighed just over three stone, had 14 bruises and grazes to his head and neck alone, with dozens more to his body, legs, feet, arms and hands.

His internal injuries, described as so severe they were more likely to be found in a victim of a high-velocity car accident or fall from a great height, included a large tear to his liver and another to his small bowel.

There was also a degloving injury to the duodenum, the first part of the small intestine, which Dr Williams said was generally rare in children but that studies have found are "commonly recorded in abused children".

He had also suffered a broken collarbone and "very traumatic damage to his brain".

Dr Williams concluded Logan had died from "severe blunt force trauma".

He added: "In the absence of a high velocity accident it must be considered he died as a result of inflicted injuries made by a blow or blows, kick or kicks, impact or impacts with a weapon."

Some of the injuries, including the brain damage, could have been caused up to two days before Logan died, Dr Williams said.
 
Looking at the CPS guidelines I would think the youths age is why he doesn’t have a causing or allowing charge.
The guidelines state: “Special care should be taken when considering liability of persons under 16. Prosecutors are reminded that other than for parents of V, a person cannot be held responsible for failures to take reasonable steps prior to reaching the age of 16.”
(V is what I called person B)
Manslaughter is available for all defendants as an alternative to murder. So the jury has that option available.

So could the jury could convict for manslaughter rather than murder even though they are not specifically charged with it?
 
Respectfully, I disagree ... I think they couldn't have possibly known just how serious Logans internal injuries were. Not even medical professionals can assess internal injuries or beain injuries without a CT or MRI scan or an autopsy.

And ... if they had known Logan was fatally injured and were 'waiting' for him to die, they'd have been better prepared and planned for what came next.

This is no 3 way masterminded plan.

I don't believe the boy will have been in the thick of it for all of it.

I think he absolutely assaulted Logan but after that, went on about his normal day & night and when Logan was discovered dead, the 2 adults will have tried to - initially at least - keep the boy away while they decided what to do.


"And ... if they had known Logan was fatally injured and were 'waiting' for him to die, they'd have been better prepared and planned for what came next.

This is no 3 way masterminded plan."



Respectfully, I disagree that they didn't know he was probably going to die. he had been very ill --possibly for weeks already. If one reads how the doctors described his medical condition, one can see how very ill and severely injured this tiny child was. He was in a very fragile state, which is why AW was sitting watch. What else would she be waiting for?

I've kept a close eye on a sick child, all night, in order to see if and/or when I might have to take them to the ER. But they had already decided he wasn't going to go the hospital. His injuries were too severe and they needed to cover that up.

So, in my opinion, she was sitting and waiting to see if he was going to die. She certainly wasn't waiting to get him any help.

I agree with you, they didn't have a master plan. But I don't think they are too bright. I think they were overwhelmed and upset by the situation and just reacted impulsively and stupidly.
 
So could the jury could convict for manslaughter rather than murder even though they are not specifically charged with it?


yes they can be convicted of manslaughter, as in the Arthur Labinjo Hughes case. The childs father guilty of manslaugher and the girlfriend guilty of murder. Both were on trial for murder.

Emma Tustin was convicted of murdering Arthur Labinjo-Hughes at Coventry Crown Court in December 2021, and was given a life sentence with a minimum of 29 years. She is being held at HMP Peterborough. Thomas Hughes was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 21 years.
 
Have you ever seen how sick someone is that has injuries like ruptured liver and a tear in the bowels? Do you know how painful that is?

RSBM - I'm not saying they didn't know that Logan was BADLY injured, I feel I stated it very clearly so as to avoid replies like yours - I'm saying that they cannot have known HOW SERIOUS his injuries were, that they were FATAL because even the best surgeon in the world can't say how bad Internal injuries are without imaging!

and not Internal bowel injuries but I did watch my then 13 year old daughter suffer an ischaemic (blood clot in the brain) Stroke and although I knew it was an emergency situation and reacted accordingly, I had no idea the extent of the resulting brain damage and ... neither did the resus team and neurologist until she'd had an MRI scan.
 
RSBM - I'm not saying they didn't know that Logan was BADLY injured, I feel I stated it very clearly so as to avoid replies like yours - I'm saying that they cannot have known HOW SERIOUS his injuries were, that they were FATAL because even the best surgeon in the world can't say how bad Internal injuries are without imaging!

and not Internal bowel injuries but I did watch my then 13 year old daughter suffer an ischaemic (blood clot in the brain) Stroke and although I knew it was an emergency situation and reacted accordingly, I had no idea the extent of the resulting brain damage and ... neither did the resus team and neurologist until she'd had an MRI scan.


The point being - even though you did not know how serious her injuries were you knew to take her for treatment. You might have been shocked after the event that it was super serious, but even when you thought it was less so you took her for treatment. The point here is that Logan did have serious injuries - and even like you i don’t think they had the imagination to think he might actually die, they clearly SHOULD have sought treatment for what they might have thought were only minor injuries. But they didn’t. (Which is unconscionable given he likely could have survived with treatment).
 
True but ... teachers only see with limited vision. Children often behave very differently at school to home, contact with parents is limited and teachers aren't saints. You'd be absolutely shocked if you heard what went on and was said between staff in some* schools

*some - I'm thinking about my time working in a school where I live. I'm sure there ARE wonderful schools with a Miss honey in every classroom elsewhere.

I'd also suggest that no one ever wants to say anything 'bad' about a dead child. Even if that child were the most disruptive in a class, they're not going to say that if that child is dead. They're going to say only good things.
*not suggesting anything about Logan personally, just speaking generally*

Just like a dead 14 year old is a 'poor boy, poor child, barely a teenager' but an accused 14 year old is 'practically a grown man, as good as adult' ...


Staffrooms are safety valves for teachers where they can let off steam. Even some of the most Miss Honeyish teachers can ,amongst their colleagues ,say less than complimentary comments about some of the children.

There are always ways teachers can describe disruptive behaviour without saying it in so many words,I have seen it in other cases.

In nursery and most infant classes there is usually some daily interaction with staff.
 
Last edited:
RSBM - I'm not saying they didn't know that Logan was BADLY injured, I feel I stated it very clearly so as to avoid replies like yours - I'm saying that they cannot have known HOW SERIOUS his injuries were, that they were FATAL because even the best surgeon in the world can't say how bad Internal injuries are without imaging!

and not Internal bowel injuries but I did watch my then 13 year old daughter suffer an ischaemic (blood clot in the brain) Stroke and although I knew it was an emergency situation and reacted accordingly, I had no idea the extent of the resulting brain damage and ... neither did the resus team and neurologist until she'd had an MRI scan.
Okay, I guess it is just semantics now so we might be agreeing but using different terms. And I am sorry that you and your daughter had to endure that event.

To clarify , we can agree they KNEW he was badly injured.

And IMO, they likely knew he couldn't eat or go to the bathroom because it was so painful.

So I think the logical conclusion that any parent would have is that not being able to eat or move one's bowels would eventually result in a child's death. I think she knew he was very close to death that night. The way his body was, with his knees up to chest and his eyes open---he was in a lot of pain.

JMO IMO MOO
 
The point being - even though you did not know how serious her injuries were you knew to take her for treatment. You might have been shocked after the event that it was super serious, but even when you thought it was less so you took her for treatment. The point here is that Logan did have serious injuries - and even like you i don’t think they had the imagination to think he might actually die, they clearly SHOULD have sought treatment for what they might have thought were only minor injuries. But they didn’t. (Which is unconscionable given he likely could have survived with treatment).


Yes indeed. 80% possibility of survival if aw had sought treatment.
 
The point being - even though you did not know how serious her injuries were you knew to take her for treatment. You might have been shocked after the event that it was super serious, but even when you thought it was less so you took her for treatment. The point here is that Logan did have serious injuries - and even like you i don’t think they had the imagination to think he might actually die, they clearly SHOULD have sought treatment for what they might have thought were only minor injuries. But they didn’t. (Which is unconscionable given he likely could have survived with treatment).

Erm .... yeah, I'm not arguing that point at all? They SHOULD have sought help for Logan. That isn't in question.
 
I wonder if AW and JC will be deprived of their parental rights to the baby after the trial?
Considering the nature of this case.

I can't see how they couldn't lose parental rights. Even if found not guilty of murder a child still died under their care with horrific injuries (apparently unnoticed by them). I don't think anyone would trust them with the care of a child again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
2,473
Total visitors
2,526

Forum statistics

Threads
602,489
Messages
18,141,106
Members
231,409
Latest member
relaxininaz
Back
Top