GA - Suspicion over heat death of Cooper, 22 mo., Cobb County, June 2014, #1

[JeannaT]

No way! If I had accidentally left my child in my car, my first thought would NOT be to cover it up. I would be grabbing him/her out of the car and calling 911.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

There is good reason to believe that's exactly what he did.

 

[Karmady]

No, it's not. I believe that would be on the warrant for his office, which has not been released.

Seriously not trying to be argumentative, but how could it be in the office warrant -- that would have been issued before they searched the computer. Assuming they even needed to get a warrant (which I assume they did, if only as a precaution)

 

[jnTexas]

Bet he usually goes in earlier also. Arriving at work around 9am there would be less people in the area to see the child and rescue him working rihgt into daddy dearest's plan....

The more I think of the things this guy did the more furious I get! Does GA have the death penalty? unfortunately his death would be quick and painless.

 

[murphy3k]

No, it's not. I believe that would be on the warrant for his office, which has not been released.

This information would probably not be stated in the search warrant. If they obtained a warrant to search his work computer, the request for the warrant would state the reasons why LE believes the area to be searched would have relevant information to the case and what they were searching for. Prior to obtaining a search warrant LE likely wouldn't have any idea what exactly would be on his work computer.

How can they include that information on a search warrant when the areas wouldn't have been searched at that time? IMO.

 

[CrazytownUSA]

I haven't read this entire thread, so this may have been mentioned -

Do parents these days use rear facing car seats for 22 month olds? We switched to forward facing well before that, mostly because the kids outgrew the rear facing ones. I can't imagine rear facing seats would have enough room for their legs???

In recent years, the advice has been to keep them in rear facing until they max out the limits of the car seat, or 2 years old.

 

[blue22]

This information would probably not be stated in the search warrant. If they obtained a warrant to search his work computer, the request for the warrant would state the reasons why LE believes the area to be searched would have relevant information to the case. Prior to obtaining a search warrant LE likely wouldn't have any idea what would be on his work computer.

How can they include that information on a search warrant when the areas wouldn't have been searched at that time? IMO.

No, but when executing a search warrant you keep a detailed log of everything found. When search warrants are released to the public, they almost always contain the log of evidence found.

 

[CherBearSTL]

There is good reason to believe that's exactly what he did.

It defies all logic that he went to his car and didn't see that child at noon. But, my response was to the person that said they believe he found the child at noon and then tried to cover it up, not that he intentionally left the child in the car.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

 

[jnTexas]

In recent years, the advice has been to keep them in rear facing until they max out the limits of the car seat, or 2 years old.

This is something I learned from this case. I had no idea of that. I will keep it in mind when I get grandbabies

 

[blue22]

Seriously not trying to be argumentative, but how could it be in the office warrant -- that would have been issued before they searched the computer. Assuming they even needed to get a warrant (which I assume they did, if only as a precaution)

As I said in another post, it would be in the information released to the public. The warrants states where they can search, what they search for, etc. When warrants are released publicly, they usually contain the log of evidence accounted for and found. Hence, we would see that if they release the office warrant.

 

[JLSChook]

When getting a search warrant for someone's home, office or car, the warrant will include all areas of search, i.e.: Computers, cell phones, etc....

LE could not have known what they found on his computer before searching it. Ever hear of supplemental reports?

 

[CrazytownUSA]

There is good reason to believe that's exactly what he did.

He just drove a few miles and got to a busy shopping center before doing so...

 

[JeannaT]

It defies all logic that he went to his car and didn't see that child at noon. But, my response was to the person that said they believe he found the child at noon and then tried to cover it up, not that he intentionally left the child in the car.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

Cher, some things that seem obvious aren't.

I would be curious if the child COULD be seen from someone opening the driver door.

I'm not talking about remembering/forgetfulnesss/priorities here, I'm solely talking about whether a rear facing child in that car seat could actually be seen from someone opening the driver door.

Signs point to no, as there was a market for mirrors that you could install so you COULD see your baby in such a position, from the driver seat.

 

[blue22]

When getting a search warrant for someone's home, office or car, the warrant will include all areas of search, i.e.: Computers, cell phones, etc....

LE could not have known what they found on his computer before searching it. Ever hear of supplemental reports?

Exactly. If they release the warrant, we would see the details of service for that warrant.

 

[murphy3k]

No, but when executing a search warrant you keep a detailed log of everything found. When search warrants are released to the public, they almost always contain the log of evidence found.

Right, which means it would be in a supplement to the search warrant. Not in the search warrant itself. There is a difference. Were that information included in a search warrant, that would indicate to me they have additional information about his intent or state of mind that day.

If not, it would indicate to me that LE is doing their due diligence by appropriately requesting search warrants for the home, office, computers, etc., in order to investigate the case.

IMO.

 

[CrazytownUSA]

It defies all logic that he went to his car and didn't see that child at noon. But, my response was to the person that said they believe he found the child at noon and then tried to cover it up, not that he intentionally left the child in the car.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

Agreed. I could ALMOST buy not seeing, since the seat was rear facing... but smelling at the VERY least a dirty diaper that had baked in the heat, I am not buying.

 

[JeannaT]

He just drove a few miles and got to a busy shopping center before doing so...

Yes. And we don't know what exactly cued him in to knowing the baby was in the back seat. Maybe a memory?

At that point, he nearly caused a wreck yanking his car into the parking lot and pulling his baby out.

To me, that's a believable reaction to the realization that the child is in the car and had never been taken to day care, if his mind wandered to that direction and he suddenly realized it although he couldn't actually see the baby.

 

[JeannaT]

Agreed. I could ALMOST buy not seeing, since the seat was rear facing... but smelling at the VERY least a dirty diaper that had baked in the heat, I am not buying.

Doing a google search, it's equally likely that a deceased person would not evacuate their bowels.

Certainly the autopsy and police report will be able to clarify that.

And in the investigation, it should be proven - by a visual experiment, whether you actually could, or could not, see the baby from the position they witnessed him to be in. It seems it's either a yes or no.

 

[tiredblondy]

I seriously do not think this guy is who everyone thinks he is...I suspect he's got another hidden side from the public.


Ok guys let me ask a theoretical question...if it was your spouse that had these charges against them and even if you'd been told not to talk about it-wouldn't you make a statement saying..I can't talk about it but I know he's innocent. Some kind of statement that supports him??? I would unless I had my doubts. We've heard nothing from his wife.That tells me a lot. Also apparently he must have said something bad to her or at her during the phone call where he told his wife the baby died because..(see excerpt from article below)...so what did he say? I suspect he called her a bad name... This is all my opinion...

'A police officer said to him, "Calm down and explain to your wife what's going on". I didn't hear what he said because I was going back in but then whatever he said triggered the police officer to say, "You need to watch your mouth" and then they put the handcuffs on him.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ake-supporters-think-twice.html#ixzz35fwnHYBm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[gngr~snap]

On other cases we have discussed what was said on 911 calls and how usually an innocent parent won't call and say their child is dead. Even when told the child is dead they refuse to accept that fact.
I wonder if what he said at the scence was what raised at least one many of the red flags that day.


All posts are my opinion only. Sent via Tapatalk

 

[CrazytownUSA]

Doing a google search, it's equally likely that a deceased person would not evacuate their bowels.

Certainly the autopsy and police report will be able to clarify that.

And in the investigation, it should be proven - by a visual experiment, whether you actually could, or could not, see the baby from the position they witnessed him to be in. It seems it's either a yes or no.

But babies generally do evacuate their bowels after eating.