in her care.

Filomena Cabral is accused of bruising the baby's right thigh, possibly with two blows of a belt.

But she denies the offence. She says she only knows about a red mark, caused when she snatched a stick from another child and accidentally hit the baby on the leg with it.

Cabral's trial ended yesterday, and a verdict from acting Magistrate the Wor.

Charles-Etta Simmons is expected on May 27.

The 32-year-old resident of Laffan Street, Hamilton has been a babysitter most of her life, the court heard.

She is accused of causing bodily harm to the child on April 3 last year. Crown prosecutor Mr. Steve Harrison told the court yesterday that the baby suffered a bruise four or five inches wide and six inches long, lasting four or five days.

Cabral told Police: "I had snatched a stick from three little boys that were playing with her. As I grabbed the stick (the baby) was right behind me and it hit her on the leg. I even took down (the baby's) pants to show her mother.'' Cabral told officers the baby cried, and that she picked her up and comforted her, said Mr. Harrison.

But he said the baby's mother recalled Cabral saying she went into a back room with the baby and another child, who was sick. The child had reached for a stick leaning against a wall and Cabral had taken it from the child.

The baby's mother was also told her child did not cry.

He said the baby's mother saw the red mark become larger and go through several colours.

Pathologist Dr. Keith Cunningham had examined photographs of the baby taken the night of the incident.

The doctor's opinion was that the injuries resulted from two "applications'' of the end of a belt, said Mr. Harrison.

There was no evidence against the baby's father or mother, Mr. Harrison added.

Mr. Harrison told Ms Simmons: "You must be drawn to the irresistible conclusion that the explanation offered by Ms Cabral is wrong and misleading, and that her explanation both to the Police and to (the mother) is an attempt by her to deflect responsibility for her own actions.'' Cabral's explanation was consistent with the way the injury looked at 5 p.m., when the baby's mother came to pick her child up, he said.

"But as the bruise blossomed that evening it showed the fundamental untruthfulness of her statement. There is simply no rational explanation for the injuries other than that they were caused by Ms Cabral.'' Mr. John Barritt, defending, told the court: "There is no direct testimony as to when these injuries occurred and as to how they occurred.

"We can't be certain how, when, where and by whom this bruise was administered.'' When the mother picked the child up there was a red mark one and a half inches long, he said. Cabral did not admit she caused the injuries photographed later that evening.

It had only emerged at the trial that there was just a red mark when the child was picked up, he said. Dr. Cunningham had worked on the assumption that the photographed marks were visible then.

The mother said she noticed the bruises at 7 p.m., after about 90 minutes of her care, said Mr. Barritt.

This is not the first time the mother has been "involved in a complaint'' revolving around one of her children, he added. Cabral was not involved in the previous case.

He recalled that the paediatrician who examined the baby, Dr. June Hill, concluded: "I don't know what caused that injury''.

Dr. Cunningham, the "lynchpin'' in the case, had admitted that looking at photographs was less than satisfactory. He also admitted the bruising could have happened before or after the baby was in Cabral's care.

Cabral did not give evidence or call any witnesses.