GA - Suspicion over heat death of Cooper, 22 mo., Cobb County, June 2014, #11

[Cinnamon]

For those of you fortunate enough never to have to bury a child, insurance claims must be filed by the primary holder and much of the money goes to cover the cost of funeral and burial. If RH was the primary holder, he would have to give instructions to family members on how to file for funeral money. Since RH did not attend the funeral, he was obviously not involved in its organization or financial logistics. Of all the bits of information and evidence, this is the LEAST relevant and suspicious.

More interesting is the question of why LH is protecting RH. It's almost as if she feels sorry for him.

Thanks for your post, Bratislava. But didn't the HD Homer fund pay for Cooper's funeral? If they paid for the funeral, then insurance money wouldn't be needed for that purpose. IDK. Just something I've wondered about every time the insurance topic comes up.

 

[Bratislava]

There's something that I've been trying to form into words, but I'm having a hard time. A lot of actions do seem pretty clueless. It almost strikes me as if he is kind of delusional maybe? Like maybe he lives in his own reality where he is always right and he doesn't even have any clue how others see him? Maybe it has worked for him for a long time and he's been able to mask his true, disturbed self--but as he's taken this step and become bolder, now the facade is crumbling around him. He just acts like he doesn't give a chit what anybody else thinks in this whole entire episode. JMO

I think it's all surreal to him. Impossible. Unreal.

Add to that the guilt over CH's death and LH's humiliation- all those Christian paragons of males leading and protecting the family are falling like dominos. I think that RH, like all those *advertiser censored*-"addicted" men I met at that church, doesn't see the link between being a deceitful husband and being an idiot. JMO.

 

[Lyra500]

I found it on Youtube. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNDWN8KDVSM

Thank you for posting this TorisMom003 - an incredibly powerful film.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't remember what the detective said in court exactly but that is how I understood it. RH picked up his phone pretending to be on a call just to watch the guy walk clear from his car, then he went inside. Did anyone think there was an actual call at that time??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, y'all!

I don't know but now we know there wasn't.

 

[Bratislava]

Okay, but now I still want to hear more about the testosterone issue.

That's a BIG DEAL for American men, especially ones that like football and bass guitars and all that big boy wangle-dangle.

This is not small fry when you start getting shots so you can maintain an erection. And, according to LH's comment, it seems to have preceded RH's sexting and online infidelity. Maybe he and LH have been working on it from way back?

 

[Bratislava]

Exactly, Matou!

Now tell me how this fits in with the rest of what we know. Because this medical history has GOT to part of any picture we want to paint about RH's sex life, marriage, and future plans. It lies at the core of his socialization and gender identity.

 

[carole]

From this video the reenactment seems to show that he nosed into the park, rather than reversing. I know there was discussion about that earlier.

I tried to find the hearing on Wild About Trial's website - have no clue where it could be now. :dunno:

It was on their front page - all I had to do was click on it.

Maybe the complete hearing is on you tube - everything seems to be on you tube :thinking:

You can find it in the Websleuths media thread, post #133.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-22-mos-***-MEDIA-LINKS-***-NO-DISCUSSION***

 

[Cinnamon]

I tried to find the hearing on Wild About Trial's website - have no clue where it could be now. :dunno:

It was on their front page - all I had to do was click on it.

Maybe the complete hearing is on you tube - everything seems to be on you tube :thinking:

Here ya go:

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/one_off/misc-courtroom-video-archive/

 

[RainCheck]

I am so confused about the charges and what they mean. If they do not have to prove intent, what is the point? That just means, basically, that he was grossly negligent? How can any crime without intent possibly lead to a death penalty case? And what is the felony he was committing leading to Cooper's death? I usually have a handle on legalities in most cases, but not this time.

2nd degree child cruelty would be the felony he was committing. I'm not sure he will be eligible for the DP if they don't charge him with premeditated capital murder. I guess the point with the law was if you committed a crime against a child so heinous it caused their death, it shouldn't matter if you only meant to really hurt them, you should still be eligible for the death penalty. With the new law if you cause such cruel harm to a child they die, you can only serve a max of 30 years if you didn't mean to kill them, but only cause them extreme suffering and injury. I think I'm explaining it correctly, but I'm not a lawyer so who knows!

 

[JudyBolton]

For those of you fortunate enough never to have to bury a child, insurance claims must be filed by the primary holder and much of the money goes to cover the cost of funeral and burial. If RH was the primary holder, he would have to give instructions to family members on how to file for funeral money. Since RH did not attend the funeral, he was obviously not involved in its organization or financial logistics. Of all the bits of information and evidence, this is the LEAST relevant and suspicious.

More interesting is the question of why LH is protecting RH. It's almost as if she feels sorry for him.

It was my understanding that Home Depot covered all of the funeral expenses for CH - am I wrong?

 

[krkrjx]

(edited for space)

On another note, I worked with a mega-chuch's sex addiction program a few summers ago and it was the most depressing experience of my life. I can't tell you how many men text teens during the day- and how normal and nice and godly these men appear on the outside. I can't tell you how pathetic the program was, telling all these men it was the "culture's" fault rather than their own. Some of these men actually dared say that watching *advertiser censored* or sexting with other women was good for their marriage because it made them "better leaders" who could "treat" their wives with more patience. I gave a few of those guys a piece of my mind and then promptly changed churches.

I find any man who engages in sexting with underage persons to be less than a "better leader" but for me, the fact that RH may have engaged in this type of activity is irrelevant to the tragedy. What is relevant is whether he was doing it that day, in particular early in the day, because that points toward him being more into this than he was in parenting his child. The boy needed to be the focus of dad's attention at least until he was placed in the care of someone else. For dad to be on his phone at all during this time is not acceptable--for him to be on it engaged in sexting is, IMO, what takes this case from simple negligence to criminal negligence. Not because sexting is necessarily a crime but because doing it when you are supposed to be tending to a child's needs points to wanton disregard for the safety/welfare and in the case, the LIFE of the child.

IMO.

 

[Ruby]

I too thought the insurance policies were suspicious - but when telling my father this tidbit of info, his comment was that's common for parents to get. Gerber Life promotes it, especially with in that amount $20-25K, and highlights that the child can have access later on for college etc. His view point was, what's so sinister about it, it's proactive for future purposes. Just another perspective of the same scenario.

my opinion etc., and all that jazz.

 

[RainCheck]

Thanks for your post, Bratislava. But didn't the HD Homer fund pay for Cooper's funeral? If they paid for the funeral, then insurance money wouldn't be needed for that purpose. IDK. Just something I've wondered about every time the insurance topic comes up.

I have been lead to believe the Homer Fund paid for the funeral. Maybe JRH needed the insurance money for a retainer for his lawyer?

 

[popsicle]

Hope he really didn't need the ins money because he isn't going to be getting it any time soon if at all imo.

 

[SStarr33]

Thanks for your post, Bratislava. But didn't the HD Homer fund pay for Cooper's funeral? If they paid for the funeral, then insurance money wouldn't be needed for that purpose. IDK. Just something I've wondered about every time the insurance topic comes up.

When did they discuss the insurance and when did HD say they would pay for the funeral?

 

[Lyra500]

For those of you fortunate enough never to have to bury a child, insurance claims must be filed by the primary holder and much of the money goes to cover the cost of funeral and burial. If RH was the primary holder, he would have to give instructions to family members on how to file for funeral money. Since RH did not attend the funeral, he was obviously not involved in its organization or financial logistics. Of all the bits of information and evidence, this is the LEAST relevant and suspicious.

More interesting is the question of why LH is protecting RH. It's almost as if she feels sorry for him.

But his family did not need money to pay for the funeral. HD paid several thousand pounds to cover the cost of the funeral.

 

[MsMarple]

Second degree cruelty to a child is the charge, and that is a felony. If someone commits that crime and it causes the child's death, that qualifies as felony murder. Or, per the new GA law--second degree murder.

Felony murder has no degree attached. It is homicide that results from the commission of another felony. As such, the homicide itself does not have to be proven. The related felony does, however, have to be proven.

The new GA law provides for a charge of second degree murder in child abuse/cruelty cases. It is not known if Harris will be held liable under the new law because his alleged crime was committed prior to the law being in effect. However, I believe that he will be held liable under the new law and that this will not be a death penalty case. I base my belief on the available evidence to date, but I reserve the right to change my position on that if/when other evidence becomes known (that points to intent or that proves he at some point became aware that Cooper was in the car).

That's the way I understand it too. There's speculation that LE may change or upgrade the charges so hopefully we'll get a clearer picture soon.

The link that someone posted earlier to an attorney (who's not connected to the case) explains the law and also says a felony murder charge based on a felony negligence charge is legally permissable but not usually done.

He goes on to cite a similar case he handled (children left alone died in a house fire) and says in that case he argued that criminal negligence doesn't warrant a felony murder charge.

He also said, in part:

It appears that the Georgia Supreme Court has not directly addressed this issue in child cruelty cases. I believe a well-researched argument to the District Attorney at this point could convince him not to pursue felony murder charges based solely on criminal negligence. Of course, if the State pursues first degree child cruelty charges then this argument will not work.

http://www.pagepate.com/defend-justin-ross-harris-five-things-to-do-now/

 

[Lalettab]

From what I've read, the Homer Fund paid them 10,000. That would be enough to cover a very minimal funeral, anything more than that would be more expensive. At least that's based on what I've seen other people pay and what I've seen on the internet. Considering the fact that LH has to be missing at least some amount of work (if she's working at all) and the amount of debt it's been pointed out that they're in, the insurance policy might be what they're counting on to keep from losing their house etc.

 

[Bratislava]

I find any man who engages in sexting with underage persons to be less than a "better leader" but for me, the fact that RH may have engaged in this type of activity is irrelevant to the tragedy. What is relevant is whether he was doing it that day, in particular early in the day, because that points toward him being more into this than he was in parenting his child. Not because sexting is necessarily a crime but because doing it when you are supposed to be tending to a child's needs points to wanton disregard for the safety/welfare and in the case, the LIFE of the child.

What I heard from the sex "ad-dicks" was that it is impossible to sext at home and so the only time you have is on the drive to work and in the bathroom at work. Some men drive to parks on their lunch breaks for this purpose. It's more like a compulsion than an addiction. But it's not the sort of thing you "schedule" in. Which is why it was such a problem for these men. Like this one guy who was so mad that he gave his wife a night out with her friends and then settled the kids down to watch Veggie Tales while he watched YouPorn on his iphone.

 

[Baznme]

If that is true, he is done.

Am I losing it or did I not hear Det. Stoddard describe this last Thursday during the hearing?