GA - Suspicion over heat death of Cooper, 22 mo., Cobb County, June 2014, #5

[Bodhi]

There are two glaring gaps in the parents' accounts that won't allow me to believe this was just an unfortunate accident. We can debate whether it is likely Ross would have noticed the smell in the car or how likely it is to forget a toddler on such a short drive. But, for me, the overriding issue is when Ross realized he'd left Cooper was in the back seat. In all scenarios I can imagine, it would have been before Ross drove away from the office/daycare area.

The first hurdle to believing Ross's story is IMO the childcare center would have contacted one or both parents when the child did not arrive. Perhaps that can be explained away because the child had been sick and the staff assumed that he wasn't coming. I think it's unlikely for this daycare, which is a business not an in-home daycare IIRC, to not follow up with a call if a parent has not contacted them. Schools do that. It is in the child's interest and the protection of the business's interest (like liability).

The major obstacle for me is why the alarm was not raised earlier. It wasn't raised until after the father drove away from office/daycare area. To me, that weighs heavily against the parents being truthful and indicates they may have been acting in concert.

Leanna got out of work earlier than Ross and she routinely picked Cooper up then. Why didn't she go to childcare that day? If she followed their usual pattern, the alarm would have been raised as soon as she realized the child was not at childcare.

If Leanna for some reason was not picking up Cooper that particular day, she would have communicated that to Ross and probably to the daycare. But Ross was driving away from the area and told LE he was going to meet friends for drinks. So he was not planning to pick up Cooper at daycare.

It's a Catch-22. Ross's story can only be true if Leanna was picking up Cooper as usual. But we know she didn't go to the daycare or the parents would have realized Cooper hadn't been dropped off in the morning before Ross left work. I can't think of a plausible scenario that would account for this.

 

[JeannaT]

rsbm

Surely this isn't the carseat that Cooper died in, right? Someone mentioned it was much bigger than this size, which prevented the dad from seeing him from the front seat.

I think this is the carseat. This also looks like a fairly recent pic of him.

http://www.google.com/search?q=just...arris-murder-left-baby-in-car-dead%2F;640;853

 

[Spice]

**Warning-death change discussion below**

If little man were in full rigor, his jaws, his tongue...all would have been fixed and rigid. Once the fixed rigor has passed, muscles soften but it takes a while. Given the heat of the car, rigor would have happened pretty quickly I think, so I guess it is possible that dad's choking story rose out of his noon visit to the car. Especially if Cooper's breakfast expelled which is very possible as he was dying.

Maybe the stomach contents expelling is what JeannaT was talking about?

I feel kind of certain that if Cooper was in full rigor, his stomach contents and the voiding happened long before. JMO.

When Cooper was taken out of his car seat and placed on the ground, his legs remained in the same position as if he was still sitting in his car seat. They did not extend, he was not supine.

He was stiff.

One eyewitness said it was an unnatural position and she will never forget it as it disturbed her greatly. It was also stated that he was Blue/Grey.

Because he most likely died at around 10:30 A.M, and continued to swelter in that car for six more hours......

I believe the choking story was RH panicking and backing out of his original plan after passerby did not discover Cooper in his work parking lot and attempt to call 911 early on. He checked at noon to see if he had died yet. He waited for someone to discover him for the big scene to happen in work parking lot (and MUCH sooner than 7 hours) When that didnt occur he drove in the reeking car and staged the discovery in the restaurant parking lot. This is where the choking came in....and he quickly backed off of that probably when he saw that he was stiff and went back to "I forgot".

That is just my belief at this point.

Its the only thing that makes driving in a reeking car with a dead child, and then suddenly claiming choking, make sense.

 

[Melanie]

Killing your own child either by severe gross neglect or premeditatedly never makes sense to me.

Motive? What motive specifically would "make sense" to you?

Money?
Wanted to be free from the responsibility?
Jealousy?

You pick one.

I'm curious as to which one would convince you,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Linda,

In all of the cases that I've followed here at WS - it is very rare that we ever get a clear motive from the defendant. Look at Scott Peterson - he never talked. Casey Anthony - she never talked. Seth Mazzaglia - he never talked. They spun fantastical stories, but we don't know if it's truth or not. That's why motive is rarely presented to the jury -- only by atty's in their opening and closing. Not to mention Jodi Arias's fantastical stories on the stand as well. Murderers tend to be pretty good liars to make themselves look good.

The only information we can really rely on is the evidence. If there were in fact computer searches of car heat and death - that's a big problem. If we find out there's a mistress - another problem. The State is going to have to slowly build a case around solid evidence. At least that's how I have always seen it.

Just like Jodi Arias's so called motive - Travis was a pedophile who beat me. Eh, what a crock.

Not to get off topic -- just talking how motive isn't always necessary to determine if a person is guilty or not.

MOO

Mel

 

[Chewy]

There are two glaring gaps in the parents' accounts that won't allow me to believe this was just an unfortunate accident. We can debate whether it is likely Ross would have noticed the smell in the car or how likely it is to forget a toddler on such a short drive. But, for me, the overriding issue is when Ross realized he'd left Cooper was in the back seat. In all scenarios I can imagine, it would have been before Ross drove away from the office/daycare area.

The first hurdle to believing Ross's story is IMO the childcare center would have contacted one or both parents when the child did not arrive. Perhaps that can be explained away because the child had been sick and the staff assumed that he wasn't coming. I think it's unlikely for this daycare, which is a business not an in-home daycare IIRC, to not follow up with a call if a parent has not contacted them. Schools do that. It is in the child's interest and the protection of the business's interest (like liability).

The major obstacle for me is why the alarm was not raised earlier. It wasn't raised until after the father drove away from office/daycare area. To me, that weighs heavily against the parents being truthful and indicates they may have been acting in concert.

Leanna got out of work earlier than Ross and she routinely picked Cooper up then. Why didn't she go to childcare that day? If she followed their usual pattern, the alarm would have been raised as soon as she realized the child was not at childcare.

If Leanna for some reason was not picking up Cooper that particular day, she would have communicated that to Ross and probably to the daycare. But Ross was driving away from the area and told LE he was going to meet friends for drinks. So he was not planning to pick up Cooper at daycare.

It's a Catch-22. Ross's story can only be true if Leanna was picking up Cooper as usual. But we know she didn't go to the daycare or the parents would have realized Cooper hadn't been dropped off in the morning before Ross left work. I can't think of a plausible scenario that would account for this.

BINGO !:goodpost:

 

[lonetraveler]

See how we go around and around in here and someone will say, "I just don't believe it" after being presented with fact after fact after fact and around and around we go?
That shouldn't happen in jury deliberations. Deliberations require facts and evidence.
I'm not talking about this case only, I'm talking all cases.
Ya can't simply say, " well I'm not convinced" sit back and kick your feet up and think you're done.

All IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually that is exactly what happens in the jury room during deliberations, you're right, it shouldn't but it does. :facepalm:

 

[otto]

There are two glaring gaps in the parents' accounts that won't allow me to believe this was just an unfortunate accident. We can debate whether it is likely Ross would have noticed the smell in the car or how likely it is to forget a toddler on such a short drive. But, for me, the overriding issue is when Ross realized he'd left Cooper was in the back seat. In all scenarios I can imagine, it would have been before Ross drove away from the office/daycare area.

The first hurdle to believing Ross's story is IMO the childcare center would have contacted one or both parents when the child did not arrive. Perhaps that can be explained away because the child had been sick and the staff assumed that he wasn't coming. I think it's unlikely for this daycare, which is a business not an in-home daycare IIRC, to not follow up with a call if a parent has not contacted them. Schools do that. It is in the child's interest and the protection of the business's interest (like liability).

The major obstacle for me is why the alarm was not raised earlier. It wasn't raised until after the father drove away from office/daycare area. To me, that weighs heavily against the parents being truthful and indicates they may have been acting in concert.

Leanna got out of work earlier than Ross and she routinely picked Cooper up then. Why didn't she go to childcare that day? If she followed their usual pattern, the alarm would have been raised as soon as she realized the child was not at childcare.

If Leanna for some reason was not picking up Cooper that particular day, she would have communicated that to Ross and probably to the daycare. But Ross was driving away from the area and told LE he was going to meet friends for drinks. So he was not planning to pick up Cooper at daycare.

It's a Catch-22. Ross's story can only be true if Leanna was picking up Cooper as usual. But we know she didn't go to the daycare or the parents would have realized Cooper hadn't been dropped off in the morning before Ross left work. I can't think of a plausible scenario that would account for this.

BBM

That's what I'd like to know as well. Do you recall where you heard that the mother normally finished work earlier? Did that information also state at what time the child was normally checked out of daycare?

 

[tlcya]

I raised three boys. I'd say there is EVERY chance the child sat back there quietly for the ride to daycare. After he buckled him in, it's quite believable he never saw him, either.

I wonder if people who think kids babble all the time had been parents of little girls? They do seem more verbal - although this sweetie could speak clearly it's not clear he talked non-stop.

Here's the deal. When i look at a case where someone is claiming innocence, and think, "is that possible, what he is saying?"

In this case, yes to everything.

"Is it possible the child, after being strapped in to the carseat sat quietly for the few minutes it took to get to work"? yes
"Is it possible the dad didn't have a clear visual on the child both getting out of his car, putting something in the seat at noon, and then getting into the car at 4?" yes
"Is it possible that both parents had discussed their fear of hot cars and each had googled for more information, sensing they were at risk?" yes
"Is it possible daycare never reached him that day?" yes (this will turn out to be a verified fact, either daycare reached him or didn't
"Is it possible that he forgot the baby was in the car after strapping him in?" yes. Otherwise, it wouldn't be common. What is uncommon is for the forgetting to last so long the child passes away

In other cases, I start the same way. Is what the accused is saying possible in each case? In the case of Danielle Van Dam, I hit the wall with "is it possible the accused coincidentally drove all the way out to that remote spot exactly where her remains were found out in a jungly mess, states away from where she went missing, where he got stuck and had to have his car pulled out by a wrecker". No. No that's not possible it's a coincidence.

That's what I want to see in this case. Something that's not possible.

please know this comes from a place that respects your steadfast belief in the unpopular POV on this case.

All those possibles on your list. For me there are too many. Yes taken alone each is quite possible. When lumped all together like that my first instinct is to turn them all into probables and read the list that way.

"Is it probable the child, after being strapped in to the carseat sat quietly for the few minutes it took to get to work"?

"Is it probable the dad didn't have a clear visual on the child both getting out of his car, putting something in the seat at noon, and then getting into the car at 4?"

"Is it probable that both parents had discussed their fear of hot cars and each had googled for more information, sensing they were at risk?"

"Is it probable daycare never reached him that day?"

"Is it probable that he forgot the baby was in the car after strapping him in?"

and for me the answer for me is, POSSIBLE or PROBABLE either way, when added all together - NO

 

[katydid23]

I posted a link back where early stages of decomposition were discussed, and one of the common things that happens in the hours prior to death is corpses burp and fart, often causing them to lurch a little.

Gross.

But really, it's believable he heard a choking sound. All this stuff - that sounds outrageous and unbelievable - isn't.

When he saw his son was in his car seat, he had to know he had been in there for 7 hours, baking in the heat.

There is NO WAY that he could have thought Coop was 'choking.' He knew what happened. jmo :moo:

 

[Cailin Rua]

You can only allow for so many unlucky coincidences IMO.

 

[Spice]

I think we will find out that Ross left work (4:20)and staged the tragic discovery before Leanna's scheduled time to pick Cooper up at daycare.

I think he meant for a stranger to find Cooper in his work parking lot early on. Completely negating Leanna's need to pick Coop up at all. He knew the death would occur fast, as that is exactly what he searched for on the internet. HOW LONG it would take. This plan would make his story of forgetting his son more believable(as only a little time would have passed) and giving him the audience he found at the restaurant to act out his grief. I also, think he chose the restaurant parking lot based on the amount of cars and businesses in it. His work parking lot may have mostly emptied out at that time....

Cooper's death was supposed to be discovered by a passerby before noon in the work parking lot....that is why he went to check midday.

Nothing had happened. He went back in and waited some more. Nothing happened.

He got into a stinking car and drove one mile to a restaurant without calling 911 and staged the discovery there

. And he did that before Leann could pick Cooper up at her scheduled time.

MOO

 

[Chewy]

Hi Linda,

In all of the cases that I've followed here at WS - it is very rare that we ever get a clear motive from the defendant. Look at Scott Peterson - he never talked. Casey Anthony - she never talked. Seth Mazzaglia - he never talked. They spun fantastical stories, but we don't know if it's truth or not. That's why motive is rarely presented to the jury -- only by atty's in their opening and closing. Not to mention Jodi Arias's fantastical stories on the stand as well. Murderers tend to be pretty good liars to make themselves look good.

The only information we can really rely on is the evidence. If there were in fact computer searches of car heat and death - that's a big problem. If we find out there's a mistress - another problem. The State is going to have to slowly build a case around solid evidence. At least that's how I have always seen it.

Just like Jodi Arias's so called motive - Travis was a pedophile who beat me. Eh, what a crock.

Not to get off topic -- just talking how motive isn't always necessary to determine if a person is guilty or not.

MOO

Mel

Good point, this picture of RH and Cooper doesn't exactly strike me as "father and child" The boy is sleeping and completely vulnerable. The type of moment that usually elicits great tenderness in a parent. Look at his fathers face.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/...img/photos/2014/06/19/ab/c4/Ross_and_baby.jpg

 

[LisaB]

Hmmm. Well, I will say that I don't think a person should be eligible for the death penalty if there was literally no intent to harm or intent to commit a crime in their action.

There are varying degrees of culpability in the law when it comes to intent. And that goes all the way from slightly poor judgement, horribly poor judgement, to full on intent to cause harm or death. It's a gradient.

As I read this case and these charges, it looks to me, that these charges that include the death penalty could be assessed to someone who had no intent whatsoever to do any harm at all and absolutely no intent to commit a crime and no chance at "poor judgement" as they had made no judgements at all.

So. This discussion is bigger than this one case. My point is, that in a situation where it's very clear to ALL involved that a parent literally forgot their child in the back seat of the car, they could lawfully be charged the way Harris is being charged, and they could lawfully receive the death penalty although all involved - prosecutor, defense, LE, judge, jury all agree the person literally had forgotten the child until the child had passed away.

I am really uncomfortable with that.

So as an analogy, imagine a parent getting out of the car to get their child, closing their door, coming around to the child's door and falling and bumping their heads. Lying there unconscious for 15 minutes and then rousing in a completely confused way, wandering in to work being disoriented and meanwhile the poor child expires in the car.

No one in this discussion would fault that parent, IMHO. I think it would be a very very rare person who wouldn't empathize and give that parent a pass. Why? Because everyone believes it. They believe that parent could have lost that memory through a concussion.

So is that the nitty gritty of it here? Those who are willing to be empathetic believe it could happen that Harris forgot this baby, and the others frankly just don't believe anyone could forget in his situation?

I think that's it. I would love to hear what people say who have very harsh feelings toward him. Do you simply NOT BELIEVE it's possible to forget a child in that situation, and so no amount of family support, friends support, a squeaky clean past, no evidence whatsoever from anyone anywhere that he was unhappy as a dad will get you past that core believe that it's simply impossible - unlike the head injured person - for Harris to have forgotten.

(An aside, I wake myself up naturally in the morning at any time I want to, even at the crack of dawn, I have a perfect internal alarm clock. I don't use an alarm clock and never have. So I always have little patience with people who "oversleep" and miss things. Because somewhere in my mind I'm faulting them for doing it on purpose. I never do it. Why do these people need technology of an alarm or someone to come remind them to wake up? Same thing to me. I get forgetting something out of routine, I don't get people who can't remember to wake up.)

Anyway, Gitana, interesting question.

If found guilty, I do not believe the death penalty is the ONLY option. I think it is the HARSHEST available option, but think if there are minimum sentencing guidelines there is a possibility of MUCH more lenient sentences. Perhaps there are no mandatory minimums and someone could be found guilty and sentenced to time served...

 

[gngr~snap]

Wow gngrsnap, I had not heard that before. Thanks. This really adds another important element. When he was leaving work and driving, and "realized" his child was in the car (and claimed he was choking, which is impossible...)...on top of not pulling over and calling 911, he did not drive straight to the medical facility that he saw every day (2x a day) on his drive. He went to some tiny pizza shop more than 20 mins away in another mall...?!

ETA: if he noticed his son sometime after he passed the hospital, wouldn't he still turn around?!

Hi everyone :seeya: just catching up.
Kaiser isn't a hospital per say. It is a multi doctor facility with a pharmacy and xray mri ct scans etc. It has pediactrics, family doctors As well as specialists like urology, ob/gyn , ortho etc, but if someone ran in the building needing help, they would help.
Home Depot may even use Kaiser Permanente I'm not sure.
moo.

They are partners. It doesn't mean Ross Harris used.KP.
http://my.kp.org/homedepot/

 

[JeannaT]

please know this comes from a place that respects your steadfast belief in the unpopular POV on this case.

All those possibles on your list. For me there are too many. Yes taken alone each is quite possible. When lumped all together like that my first instinct is to turn them all into probables and read the list that way.

"Is it probable the child, after being strapped in to the carseat sat quietly for the few minutes it took to get to work"?

"Is it probable the dad didn't have a clear visual on the child both getting out of his car, putting something in the seat at noon, and then getting into the car at 4?"

"Is it probable that both parents had discussed their fear of hot cars and each had googled for more information, sensing they were at risk?"

"Is it probable daycare never reached him that day?"

"Is it probable that he forgot the baby was in the car after strapping him in?"

and for me the answer for me is, POSSIBLE or PROBABLE either way, when added all together - NO

Well, in a court room, you're dealing with "beyond a reasonable doubt". And yes, I think most of those things are "probable". It's actually probable that the daycare didn't reach him or we would have heard about that, IMHO. I will say, though, that some jurors seem to think criminal cases are like civil ones - where you have to determine what is "probable", not that what they're being accused of is beyond a reasonable doubt. I think jurors misunderstand that - and that's why the Innocence Project has their hands full. Because jurors vote guilty if something is likely.

 

[MyBelle]

No there's not! Having taken kids to the ER before, and my friends have, I can tell you you can arrive with a injured child who needs stitches, their stomach pumped, broken bones set, burns treated, and there's no investigation unless something looks very, very "off".

If a child dies I'm sure there would be an investigation but if everything otherwise seems normal with the parents there is no investigation.

<modsnip> Who said anything about an ER? The father didn't take the child to an ER. This case has involved a police investigation from the beginning.

 

[otto]

Is this a generic photo of a child, or is it a photo of this child?

http://www.ljwd.org/tag/justin-ross-harris/

 

[nursebeeme]

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/06/30/georgia-toddler-hot-car-cooper-harris-leanna-funeral

hln seems to have more of Mom's statement from the service ^^^

 

[katydid23]

Has there been any explanation for why the father forgot not only to drop off his son at daycare, but why he also forgot to pick him up from daycare? Did he forget that he had a son, or did he believe that his wife was picking him up? How did he forget completely about picking him up as well? According to the father, he was on his way to meet friends when he suddenly discovered his son in his car, so he also forgot to pick him up.

There are reports saying that Mom usually picked the child up from daycare because she works part time. So the question remains, what time did she usually pick him up.

 

[JLSChook]

One evening while I was cleaning out the blow up pool, my 3 girls decided they wanted to get in the hot tub. (2- 1/2, 6, 9) I was standing maybe 20ft away and the 2 oldest put their foot in and decided they better go potty first. As they climbed down the baby came out on the patio behind them and was standing there. I looked down, flipped the pool over and laid it on the ground. When I looked up all 3 of them were gone. The thought formed in my head... I wonder if she followed... and then, OMG and I ran as fast as I could and she was laying in the hot tub. I pulled her out, laid her on my lap and breathed into her once and she coughed and cried and was fine. When their Dad came home he just didn't get why I was so upset. Once the girls were in bed I went into a full panic attack, couldn't breath and he ended up calling 911 and my parents.

I don't even know what all I was saying... I know he explained what had happened to the police and everyone there. I do remember my Mom asking me... why didn't you just call me, I would have come over to be with you... my reply? And say what? That I almost killed your grand-daughter? Needless to say the paramedic asked if he could upstairs and check her out.

Even though I was paying attention and my reaction was the right one, because that thought was in my head about if she followed her sisters into the house was enough to guilt me horribly because what if I had assumed she followed them into the house?

Anyway, as I dealt with that experience in the following days, I knew that I would have never lived to bury her if the outcome had been tragic. It took 15 yrs to stop beating myself up. I took a chainsaw to the hot tub, cut it in half and called trash pick-up but the picture in my head of her in that tub is forever ingrained.

There is nothing wrong with you imo.
Sorry this is so long.

Oh popsicle! I just want to give you a great big hug! :grouphug: That must have been horrifying.