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

[Linda7NJ]

I think a sheep would be someone who doesn't think for themselves and just follows the crowd.

Exactly. See it happen all the time in those after trial interviews with jurors.
Or they're tired and just want it over with and go home.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JeannaT]

Good night all. Signing off to do family time. ;D Interesting conversation, as always.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But he knew that he had been in the hot car all day - did he think he had just been sleeping and sudden woke up and started choking? He got into the hot just minutes before this happened -

For me this is gut reaction from a parent who just realized his child is there and not breathing.
If he is innocent I can see this being a thought that the child was choking. IT seems to me to be a reasonable reaction to the sight of his child.

I'm still :fence:

But I need to see what is reasonable and what is not.

 

[anyoldtime48]

Leanna Harris hasn't been charged in the death of her son, 22-month-old Cooper. But a search warrant released Sunday said the woman went onto the Internet before the child's death to search for information about children dying in cars.

http://www.wltx.com/story/news/nati...e-familys-electronics-in-sons-death/11706147/

And where or where is that search warrant available online? Been looking all dang day for a media source to post it.

Anybody found it yet?
TIA

 

[LinasK]

Didn't get back to the other thread in time:

Groom's cakes are not exclusive to the South. I live in No. CA. When I planned my own wedding 20 years ago, I learned about them in a wedding planner book and decided I wanted one. I picked the flavor- chocolate with raspberry filling and the theme- bride & groom Godzillas on the top and DH loved it! Everyone got it eat it. It turned out better than my wedding cake- which they did screw up because they didn't listen to what I wanted!

 

[RANCH]

Here's the Georgia statute for cruelty to children with second degree bolded.

§ 16-5-70. Cruelty to children


(a) A parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of or having immediate charge or custody of a child under the age of 18 commits the offense of cruelty to children in the first degree when such person willfully deprives the child of necessary sustenance to the extent that the child's health or well-being is jeopardized.

(b) Any person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the first degree when such person maliciously causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain.

(c) Any person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the second degree when such person with criminal negligence causes a child under the age of 18 cruel or excessive physical or mental pain.

(d) Any person commits the offense of cruelty to children in the third degree when:

(1) Such person, who is the primary aggressor, intentionally allows a child under the age of 18 to witness the commission of a forcible felony, battery, or family violence battery; or (2) Such person, who is the primary aggressor, having knowledge that a child under the age of 18 is present and sees or hears the act, commits a forcible felony, battery, or family violence battery.
(e)(1) A person convicted of the offense of cruelty to children in the first degree as provided in this Code section shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.

(2) A person convicted of the offense of cruelty to children in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.

(3) A person convicted of the offense of cruelty to children in the third degree shall be punished as for a misdemeanor upon the first or second conviction. Upon conviction of a third or subsequent offense of cruelty to children in the third degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced to a fine not less than $1,000.00 nor more than $5,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than three years or shall be sentenced to both fine and imprisonment.

If I'm understanding things correctly, in order for felony murder to apply, the state must show "criminal negligence" on JRH's part for second degree child cruelty. If not, than involuntary manslaughter would be a possible charge.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/

 

[believe09]

I do think that the search warrant information is morphing some in the headlines and sound bites. The warrants indicate that bio dad and bio mom stated they had researched hot car deaths.

As for bio dad's lame statement (jmo) about choking-little man was in full rigor according to witnesses when he was taken out of the seat. Heat accelerates it. Witnesses state that the baby was still in the shape of the car seat while someone was trying to perform CPR. It seems unlikely that he was making any kind of noise.

 

[Sincerely]

I've raised three kids...and a fur baby...single mom...two/three jobs...sleep deprived...allergy induced...medicated even at times...never forgot my children...or dog..even when I just had one with me...never ever forgot! I have left groceries...I have forgotten my phone...even my credit card...but never someone helpless when strapped down in a car seat...I can't imagine! It breaks my heart to think about this little guy wondering where daddy's at. All alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Starry Night]

I fully believe most people do this accidentally, either because they don't understand the dangers of heat or they legitimately forgot the child was in the car. Obviously, the police believe this is more to this case. The headlines are confusing me - first the have the police denying the searches as crazy rumors, then the warrant surfaces, then the mom did the searches? There are definitely people out there who would stage a murder this way, but I need more information. What do we actually know at this point? Was warrant info just prematurely leaked? Or were the police referring to something else as rumors?

Dear Law Student:
I don't know exactly how to get this across to you-but new parents usually fall literally in love with their children. That said, none of these type parents would ever ever not take care of their child minute to minute.

 

[matou]

I haven't found the warrant that was released today. If anyone has it, can you post it here and in the media thread? TIA

 

[Linda7NJ]

This is not a hard one for me. If he saw his child was not breathing, To assume he was choking is not far from what a parent might think.



Children choke silently. It was not like he was claiming the child was screaming, He saw the child was blue and thought he is choking.



This makes sense to me.

And he missed the fact his car reeked, his baby was stiff and blue?????




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tambo]

You can't just believe the defense. You have to look at the evidence and decided if the defense's argument is valid. If you believe the defense AND the evidence supports their arguments, then you believe they are right. You can't just willy nilly decide they are right, without deliberating over the evidence. The evidence has to support the verdict.

I was on a jury where a woman believed the prosecution and would not deliberate the evidence. She was replaced, because she was not fulfilling her duty.

you also have to determine if the people that testify are being truthful. shocking I know, but people lie on the witness stand alot.

 

[blue22]

I fully believe most people do this accidentally, either because they don't understand the dangers of heat or they legitimately forgot the child was in the car. Obviously, the police believe this is more to this case. The headlines are confusing me - first the have the police denying the searches as crazy rumors, then the warrant surfaces, then the mom did the searches? There are definitely people out there who would stage a murder this way, but I need more information. What do we actually know at this point? Was warrant info just prematurely leaked? Or were the police referring to something else as rumors?

-There was a leak
-People did not believe that and thought is was made up, or people did believe. (Like with most leaks, IMO)
-The rumor was substantiated in one warrant, except that the leak was that he searched about animals, and the actual search was about children. The warrant was released not leaked.
-And addition warrant came out regarding his wife's searches. The warrant was not leaked, it was released. It was just released a few days after the other warrant

I just did bullet points, because that makes it easier for me. I'm sure someone would be happy to do a list of what we do know, at this point. I am too tired to try and be concise. Sorry!

 

[katydid23]

This is not a hard one for me. If he saw his child was not breathing, To assume he was choking is not far from what a parent might think.

Children choke silently. It was not like he was claiming the child was screaming, He saw the child was blue and thought he is choking.

This makes sense to me.

WAIT a minute. He KNEW by that time that his child was sitting in that heatbox for 7 hrs. So why would he think he was blue from 'choking'?

 

[blue22]

you also have to determine if the people that testify are being truthful. shocking I know, but people lie on the witness stand alot.

Yes, they certainly do. I would consider their testimony part of the evidence they deliberate as a jury.

 

[LinasK]

From the other thread (now closed) - You said you could forget things in a manner of seconds. You also said you had 3 kids. Could you forget your kids in a manner of seconds? As the Mom of 2 boys, I never, ever could. Not in a few seconds, not if we drove for 12 hours straight. Not even when they are with their Dad and not in my physical custody (I wake up from naps in a panic, looking for them!) As other parents have posted, they have forgotten their kids in the car for minutes, not 7 hours or even 3 hours! That's just irresponsible, especially when your child is a toddler who can't fend for him/herself!

I know! When I saw the Google Maps image of Chick-Fil-A & Home Depot- it's right down the block. You can see one from the other. Not possible to forget in such a short period of time

 

[lawstudent]

You can't just believe the defense. You have to look at the evidence and decided if the defense's argument is valid. If you believe the defense AND the evidence supports their arguments, then you believe they are right. You can't just willy nilly decide they are right, without deliberating over the evidence. The evidence has to support the verdict.

I was on a jury where a woman believed the prosecution and would not deliberate the evidence. She was replaced, because she was not fulfilling her duty.

It always has to be kept in mind though that it's not who has the better story - the burdens are not equal. It's about the evidence the prosecution put forth to prove the charges specified - the jury can disregard the stories of both or either if they want, and pick their own story. The only required question is whether or not the evidence supports the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution went with deliberate murder and the defense went with total accident, the jury could think that it was accidental/negligent death staged to look like an accident, and either pick a lesser charge if it were available or acquit.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

WAIT a minute. He KNEW by that time that his child was sitting in that heatbox for 7 hrs. So why would he think he was blue from 'choking'?

I want to reiterate I am working from the possibilities. Not from what I know or think absolutely. I am still weighing it all.

I think if a parent snapped to the realization that their child was in the back of the car, Innocently, And saw their child blue, They would think they were choking. I don't think the first thought would be my child is dead. Parents are usually in full denial if their child dies. I can see this if he really is innocent, and this was a true accident.

 

[blue22]

For me this is gut reaction from a parent who just realized his child is there and not breathing.
If he is innocent I can see this being a thought that the child was choking. IT seems to me to be a reasonable reaction to the sight of his child.

I'm still :fence:

But I need to see what is reasonable and what is not.

His reaction was actually to pull his stiff,greyish blue child out of a seat, leave him with a stranger to perform CPR, and go and make some phone calls. I think it's pretty clear that he knew his son was dead and not choking. JMO.

 

[lawstudent]

-There was a leak
-People did not believe that and thought is was made up, or people did believe. (Like with most leaks, IMO)
-The rumor was substantiated in one warrant, except that the leak was that he searched about animals, and the actual search was about children. The warrant was released not leaked.
-And addition warrant came out regarding his wife's searches. The warrant was not leaked, it was released. It was just released a few days after the other warrant

I just did bullet points, because that makes it easier for me. I'm sure someone would be happy to do a list of what we do know, at this point. I am too tired to try and be concise. Sorry!

Thank you. So what did the police dismiss as rumors in that press conference? Was it reported that he had in fact performed such searches, when in reality the truth was he had told them that and they thus have seized the computer to see if it's true? I figured that might explain it - that it wasn't confirmed yet.