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

[Cherwell]

I can't see much evidence it was AW who delivered the fatal injuries.

With so many injuries I'm not sure if it's possible to determine which one was "fatal", and if all three contributed to them I don't think it matters.

 

[Alyce]

I wonder if it is about Aw's potential testimony? She has to make a quick difficult decision about what to do. Her attorney may be trying to set that up, but with certain agreements and stipulations?

I think it may be slightly too early for PR ( Peter Rouch, aw's QC ) to raise that issue right now. JC still has to finish being questioned by him and then - potentially - to also be questioned by the youth's QC and - an absolute certainty - to be questioned by the Prosecution - before aw gets her turn.
My guess is it's more likely to be JCs QC who is trying to modify/restrict the line of questioning against his client.
Or it could just be general housekeeping matters. It does seem to be going on and on, but with 3 defendants I guess that any matter that one QC ( or even the Prosecution ) puts foward for consideration, will impact on the others and create further discussion.

 

[Alicethroughtheglass]

12:38PHILIP DEWEY
Evidence
Mrs Justice Jefford tells the jury an issue has arisen with some evidence and work has had to be done by the barristers to look at the evidence before it is presented.

She said this has disrupted court proceedings, and the process will continue today.

As a result the trial will not be able to proceed today and the jury will be sent home until 10.30am on Monday.

 

[Dotta]

12:38PHILIP DEWEY
Evidence
Mrs Justice Jefford tells the jury an issue has arisen with some evidence and work has had to be done by the barristers to look at the evidence before it is presented.

She said this has disrupted court proceedings, and the process will continue today.

As a result the trial will not be able to proceed today and the jury will be sent home until 10.30am on Monday.

Surprise, surprise

 

[Tortoise]

Oh perhaps it was something to do with him allegedly accessing and controlling her bank account.

 

[Skigh]

12:38PHILIP DEWEY
Evidence
Mrs Justice Jefford tells the jury an issue has arisen with some evidence and work has had to be done by the barristers to look at the evidence before it is presented.

She said this has disrupted court proceedings, and the process will continue today.

As a result the trial will not be able to proceed today and the jury will be sent home until 10.30am on Monday.

I am pleased we now know why court proceedings have been disrupted .

 

[Sherlockhames]

Oh perhaps it was something to do with him allegedly accessing and controlling her bank account.

I wondered this. And if she can prove he has access to her account etc, then maybe her defence still stands/holds water etc that the phone use during the night could have been him. Still not sure how the light going on and off while JC and the youth were out can be dealt with to exonerate her and support her story that she was asleep all night though…

 

[altyg]

12:38PHILIP DEWEY
Evidence
Mrs Justice Jefford tells the jury an issue has arisen with some evidence and work has had to be done by the barristers to look at the evidence before it is presented.

She said this has disrupted court proceedings, and the process will continue today.

As a result the trial will not be able to proceed today and the jury will be sent home until 10.30am on Monday.

I've never known anything like it! usually, they have case management hearings before the case is heard so that they have everything in order to proceed with the hearing

 

[Tortoise]

I wondered this. And if she can prove he has access to her account etc, then maybe her defence still stands/holds water etc that the phone use during the night could have been him. Still not sure how the light going on and off while JC and the youth were out can be dealt with to exonerate her and support her story that she was asleep all night though…

It was more than the light, the curtains were opened too.



"John Hipkin QC, for the youth defendant, cross examines Michelle Claxton.

He makes reference to the curtains in Logan’s bedroom opening after Cole and his client leave the house, with Cole holding Logan’s body.

The barrister said there was a 54 second gap between Cole and the youth leaving the house and the curtains opening.

Ms Claxton confirms this."

2.43am, John Cole and the youth defendant are seen walking up the side path to 5 Lower Llansantffraid. Cole is carrying Logan’s body, the prosecution says.

2.44am: Curtain in Logan’s bedroom is pushed open and bedroom light is switched on. Curtain is closed again.

2.48am: Light in Logan’s bedroom goes off.

Prosecution closes cases in Logan Mwangi murder trial

 

[Dotta]

I understand it is a new evidence, as it is yet to be presented.

 

[altyg]

I think it may be slightly too early for PR ( Peter Rouch, aw's QC ) to raise that issue right now. JC still has to finish being questioned by him and then - potentially - to also be questioned by the youth's QC and - an absolute certainty - to be questioned by the Prosecution - before aw gets her turn.
My guess is it's more likely to be JCs QC who is trying to modify/restrict the line of questioning against his client.
Or it could just be general housekeeping matters. It does seem to be going on and on, but with 3 defendants I guess that any matter that one QC ( or even the Prosecution ) puts foward for consideration, will impact on the others and create further discussion.

Surely that wouldn't be allowed? to have restrictions on the questioning of a defendant would not be justice

 

[Alyce]

Surely that wouldn't be allowed? to have restrictions on the questioning of a defendant would not be justice

a good QC can always try to get something made inadmissible by virtue of it being detrimental to his client’s defence.

 

[ChloLo]

Rouch also started a line of questioning that went against agreed facts. When he asked JC about if it was him that tried to put the shoulder back in.

It could be something new, it could be something in JCs evidence that contradicts with some other evidence. Monday will be interesting.

 

[tedtink]

It was more than the light, the curtains were opened too.



"John Hipkin QC, for the youth defendant, cross examines Michelle Claxton.

He makes reference to the curtains in Logan’s bedroom opening after Cole and his client leave the house, with Cole holding Logan’s body.

The barrister said there was a 54 second gap between Cole and the youth leaving the house and the curtains opening.

Ms Claxton confirms this."

2.43am, John Cole and the youth defendant are seen walking up the side path to 5 Lower Llansantffraid. Cole is carrying Logan’s body, the prosecution says.

2.44am: Curtain in Logan’s bedroom is pushed open and bedroom light is switched on. Curtain is closed again.

2.48am: Light in Logan’s bedroom goes off.

Prosecution closes cases in Logan Mwangi murder trial

RSBM

2.43am, John Cole and the youth defendant are seen walking up the side path to 5 Lower Llansantffraid. Cole is carrying Logan’s body, the prosecution says.

2.44am: Curtain in Logan’s bedroom is pushed open and bedroom light is switched on. Curtain is closed again.

2.48am: Light in Logan’s bedroom goes off.

I wonder if she has a history of sleepwalking too?

 

[Cherwell]

I wonder if she has a history of sleepwalking too?

Maybe that's the "new evidence" they want to bring in

 

[tedtink]

I suppose they'll suggest that it was JC checking her phone history that night (rag flag for coercive control) when she was asleep and that it was JC who accessed the banking app. (Checking up on her)
The videos weren't really watched in full, so whoever was watching it was quite erratic viewing IMO and seemed to be between the bedroom 'visits'.
Also the dialler app, they could suggest JC was seeing who AW had called, checked FB messages etc.

I just don't know how they'll try to explain away the light and curtain (53 seconds?) after JC and Y left the house cos we know it wasn't the air fryer now for sure

This isn't necessarily what I believe, but just a thought.

JMO

 

[Dotta]

This newest issue/evidence must be connected to JC's testimony, b/c it appeared "out of the blue" in the middle of him taking the stand.

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Oh perhaps it was something to do with him allegedly accessing and controlling her bank account.

I don't believe this is the evidence holding up the trial today.

Given the couple was engaged and planned to marry this year, I don't think accessing the bank account is of issue. It's not an unknown or unusual practice.

More recently, I followed a case where the boyfriend was convicted of murdering his pregnant girlfriend (her body never recovered). Evidence of the defendant using the victim's bank card and withdrawing cash from her account was not admissible because, on occasion, she'd previously given him permission to use her bank card.

 

[Cherwell]

I don't believe this is the evidence holding up the trial today.

Given the couple was engaged and planned to marry this year, I don't think accessing the bank account is of issue. It's not an unknown or unusual practice.

More recently, I followed a case where the boyfriend was convicted of murdering his pregnant girlfriend (her body never recovered). Evidence of the defendant using the victim's bank card and withdrawing cash from her account was not admissible because, on occasion, she'd previously given him permission to use her bank card.

That's not the point.
They have been trying to show that it was AW using the phone. Whoever it was accessed her bank account, so if he was able to do so, it muddies the waters.

 

[Dotta]

I don't believe this is the evidence holding up the trial today.

Given the couple was engaged and planned to marry this year, I don't think accessing the bank account is of issue. It's not an unknown or unusual practice.

More recently, I followed a case where the boyfriend was convicted of murdering his pregnant girlfriend (her body never recovered). Evidence of the defendant using the victim's bank card and withdrawing cash from her account was not admissible because, on occasion, she'd previously given him permission to use her bank card.

I agree.
But, if he indeed had an access, why to deny it?
It is not a big deal for a couple.