I don't see how the research itself means anything.
He lied. imo
Ditto. It would be really boring if we all agreed all the time.
I think just about everyone here at Websleuths wants justice for the most part. Most are victim advocates.
IMO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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'?
Something that I wonder about: At any time would he have been required to perform an over-the-shoulder check while driving? Like backing out of a spot, changing lanes, etc. Even if for a short drive. If he had pulled in to his spot at the Chic-Fil-A or work, wouldn't he have seen Cooper in his rear view mirror or noticed him during a shoulder check when leaving? Things we wouldn't know unless we were there, but occurred to me as more opportunities for him to have noticed his son's presence.
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.
But after 7-8 hours in the heat, I think a parent would have to know the child was deceased.
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.
Sometimes it's just that simple folks.
The smell would have hit him the second he opened the door.
But he needed an audience. What good is a performance without one????
So he drove to find one ...
All IMO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He knew his son was dead. He had researched how long it would take.
This post made me think more on something ...
In light of recent (today) developments... and in lack of further developments -- I'm going to tread lightly here --
(I hope I haven't missed someone else touching on this while trying to speed-catch-up with the thread)
Has the thought crossed anyone's mind that HE might be covering for someone else? Was he SEEN taking Cooper into Chick-Fil-A? Was he SEEN buckling Cooper back into the carseat AT THAT LOCATION? I'm trying to remember, please help me -- was that what he STATED happened or was that something that was verified as fact?
That HE might have truly "noticed" on his way home from work, put some pieces together in his mind as to various comments and web searches that might have occurred over the past few days, and volunteered that HE did the searches himself?
Outside of this, I'm sure I'm not the only one to have considered that it might have been a joint effort and that HE is not solely responsible.
*** Of course, the other thought I had was that Dad was frequently forgetful/negligent and perhaps Mom googled this in an effort to demonstrate to Dad that he better "get with it"????
Leaving morality out of it for a second, it's just a reality that being with your child minute to minute is a modern luxury of developed countries. If you live somewhere where you are concerned with walking miles getting food and water every day, your toddler is probably not monitored 24/7. The modern US way of parenting is the exception, not the norm, and the average American has way more education and resources to do it than most. Plus, people do incredibly stupid things and kill themselves and loved ones all the time, and always have. Loving someone, or even just yourself, doesn't give you the knowledge to do the best thing automatically.
Obviously humans are more capable of intelligent thought, but I keep seeing cases of baby deer and bunnies being brought to authorities because their mom left them. Turns out, mom is around - she just is off eating most of the day, because that's what they do. People seem to be applying this school of thought to animals now - if you love your kids, you don't leave them where a predator or car could get to them. Unfortunately, that's not practical or innate like we pretend, when it comes to most natural environments,. Despite maternal instinct, an agitated rabbit often eats her first few litters accidentally until she "gets the hang of it." Nature generally creates a strong maternal bond, but it's not as certain as we like to portray it.
He knew his son was dead. He had researched how long it would take.
let's say a child tragically "accidentally" died after drowning or ingesting poison.
If that child's parents told police
"well golly gee, we were JUST researching 'how long does a child have to stay under water before they drown?"
or
"well golly gee, we were JUST researching 'how much poison does it take to kill a child?"
We would all be screaming for their heads.
Cooper died in a hot car and his parents allegedly told police:
well golly gee, we were JUST researching what temperatures and amount of time in a hot car can lead to a child's death.
IMO, this is very damning evidence and given any other scenario, nobody would question it shows intent.