Dotta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2021
- Messages
- 11,675
- Reaction score
- 71,467
No, it was JC who said that.I thought she admitted doing it ? Because her father used to do it to her, so it was all ok
No, it was JC who said that.I thought she admitted doing it ? Because her father used to do it to her, so it was all ok
What are these "legal submissions" in the middle of Closing Speech?
Isn't it too late for them?
He said: “It’s not part of the prosecution’s case Angharad Williamson deliberately burnt Logan’s neck. Not one question about this burn was asked by the prosecution and the evidence was not put to the expert witnesses…. It’s another lie invented by Mr Cole, you submit you can put that immediately to one side.
I thought she admitted doing it ? Because her father used to do it to her, so it was all ok
No she didn’t admit to it, she said she had told Cole her dad used to do that to her as a child, and now Cole is using that knowledge to try and pin something on her that didn’t happen.
We do not know it did not happen or if the hot teaspoon was a cover up for another way he received the burn, a cigarette or hot tap for example.
Oh, I was waiting especially for it
Oh, well...
This mention of the youth showing the punch to the temple to render somebody unconscious, was chilling.
I've just pulled up the testimony re the spoon. As Dotta and Lucy said, it was JC who mentioned it.
AW denied it all.
The burn was reported to social services as accidental. My take is that - because they thought it might be brought up in the trial ( from social services records ) - they created the story of the teaspoon.
I suspect they probably put Logan's head under the tap to frighten him, because he was not happy in the shower.
MOO of course.
David Elias questioning JC.
Mr Elias asked: “The jury also heard about a burn on Logan’s neck?” Cole said: “Basically me and Angharad were in the kitchen. He was running around, being quite boisterous. Angharad took the teaspoon out of her coffee and put it on the back of his neck.”
Mr Elias asked if Cole was concerned about that and the defendant replied: “Yes. She said it wasn’t a big deal and her dad used to do it to her. I said: ‘You can’t do that’ and we reported it to social services as an [accidental] burn.” Mr Elias asked: “Did you agree to go along with that?” Cole said: “Unfortunately yes.”
David Elias questioning AW
Mr Elias said: “You lost your temper with him when you put a tea spoon in the back of his neck."
Williamson said: ““No, I’ve never burnt my son on the back of his neck.”
The defendant said her father would tap her on the back of her hand with a spoon and had told Cole about it in confidence.
She said: “I think it’s absolutely disgusting. My son burnt himself on the back of a tap. It wasn’t circular. I loved my son dearly, I would never hurt him.”
But that still leaves the phone unaccounted for.still on catch up from Peter Rouch closing
15:40Philip Dewey
'What did John Cole say in evidence?'
Mr Rouch turns to the prosecution’s case that Williamson was awake in the night.
He said: “The prosecution described it as if it was a done deal and couldn’t be disputed. The curtains being moved and lights switched on and off and her phone was used at the time she was asleep. The danger is you are told something like this and adopt the position.
“Firsty the movement of the curtains and operation of the lights in Logan’s bedroom. The prosecution say as John Cole and (the youth) left at 2.43am the only person who could have been responsible for that activity was Angharad Williamson.
“If Angharad Williamson is not responsible for that activity when it’s either John Cole or (the youth), one of them having returned to the flat. Our case is it must have been (the youth).
“Firstly we can see (the youth) leaving the flat and coming back to the flat. There’s no movement or activity in Logan’s room when we can see (the youth) on the CCTV footage. The CCTV footage doesn’t exclude (the youth) from being in Logan’s room.
“What did John Cole say in evidence? He said when he left number five he was not aware (the youth) was with him. He said he was first aware when (the youth) was by the river. He said he would have walked around with Logan’s boy with (the youth) in tow and would have told him to back inside.
“If John Cole was carrying the body of a dead five-year-old child he’s not going to have (the youth) walking with him as he’s carrying the body. John Cole knew (the youth) was with him when they left the flat. (The youth) did what he was told to do.
“John Cole agreed all (the youth) had to have done was jump over the front wall and he was back in the house in seconds. If he did it was not captured on CCTV…..
“Who knows what (the youth) and Mr Cole had been doing minutes before in Logan’s bedroom when his dead body was taken out of that bedroom.
“(The youth) goes back out over the wall and they both return on the CCTV on the path. Activity in Logan’s bedroom, was it established without question it must have been Angharad Williamson, was it established without question Cole and (the youth) left shoulder to shoulder.”
Logan Mwangi murder trial jury hears closing speeches
15:56PHILIP DEWEYBut that still leaves the phone unaccounted for.
Wasn't it the closing speech for Williamson not the youth?
Do you think they will stall sending the jury out to deliberate until after Easter?
Thank you15:56PHILIP DEWEY
Phone
Mr Rouch refers to the use of Williamson’s phone.
He said: “Have the prosecution made you sure Angharad Williamson was using her phone that night.
“Angharad Williamson said all of them watched YouTube on her phone, she was the main financial provider which is why her phone was always in credit. John Cole was not well off and his phone was never in credit.
“The video concerning an ingrown toenail which John Cole had a problem with and the video of the BMW was of no interest to Angharad.
“There’s no fingerprint to establish who was looking at YouTube that night, nothing exclusive to say it was Angharad WIlliamson. Anyone could have been with that phone, all it shows was someone was operating that phone and watching YouTube.”
The barrister also makes reference to the Barclays app and says the password used would only enable the user to access the balance, which he said Cole would frequently do.
He added: “As far as the rest of the app activity is concerned, app activity can be generated by manual use of a phone itself or the app itself can refresh automatically and can show active usage.
“When you test the evidence of the light in Logan’s bedroom, the curtain moving and Angharad Williamson’s phone it shows how important a trial is and how crucial it is to test the evidence
“The prosecution opening left no doubt that Angharad Williamson was awake. No it doesn’t. We ask you to be truthful to your affirmation and try the case on the evidence.
“If she was asleep or may have been and therefore not awake, when John Cole took out the body, that fits in with other evidence.”
Interesting how JCs barrister Elias took 2 hours to give his closing speech whereas AWs barrister Rouch is still going after 5 hours. He's really pleading her case.