I think RH thought the police would just interview him and not charge him with any crime. He was surprised when told that he would be charged with cruelty to a child because (being familiar with the law) he argued that his actions were unintentional and without malice.
"Knowingly" refers to some type of negligence without an intent to harm the child, ReadySet. Like the parent who doesn't want to wake the baby, so she plans to run in the store for "just a few minutes", she loses track of time, and the few minutes turns into an hour. Or the parent who has no idea how hot a car can get in just ten minutes. A few years ago there was a case in GA or TX (not sure) where a mom left her baby in the car & proceeded to spend 6 hours in a hair salon. She left the A/C running, but it quit and the baby died. She was prosecuted, and rightly so.
That makes absolutely no sense to me. Those jurors convicted him of deliberate, premeditated MURDER, so why on earth would they expect him to follow the "Look Again!" advice in the public service announcement? Sheesh!
Here's what the juror I was referring to actually said (bolded by me):
The cases you cited had aggravating circumstances, though, such as drugs, domestic violence, etc. Elizabeth Case, for example, had a history of drug abuse. She was out on bond for robbery and theft charges, fraudulent use of a credit card, and was dumpster diving when she left her son in the car. DCS had an open investigation on Dylan Levesque for drugs, child endangerment, and attempting to strangle a woman.
He was hoping they wouldn't investigate him. Obviously the reason he would lie was if he was trying to hide something, like his guilt.
I'm trying to understand why Kidsandcars.org would want to be associated with a convicted child killer like Ross Harris. Sure, people don't want to go to jail for their kids dying if it was truly an accident, but most people are motivated just by not wanting their kids to die at all.
Exactly as you said.
