Small Details that are interesting in the Cooper Harris case, #1

[Nali87]

He was STRAPPED IN THE INFANT SEAT. He was! There is NO WAY to strap a child in tight enough in a regular seat belt that he can't get out. Unless maybe you duct tape them to the seat? And there is no way a child that age would stay seated, especially if he is in distress. He would be trying to get out of the car.

If he wasn't strapped in, that would have been EXTREMELY RELEVANT in the probable cause hearing to prove negligence for not only leaving him in the car but also not following the car seat laws.

I apologize if this is too blunt but everyone else is politely dancing around this line of thinking and it's simply not even a possibility that he wasn't strapped in.

Eyewitness quote: Artiyka also believes the baby had been dead for many hours before Harris pulled the child out of the car.
‘The baby was a grey/blue color, not its natural color. I know he was in the car seat but when the dad placed him on the ground his legs stayed in the same sitting position, as if he was laying on the ground with his knees up in the air stiff. It wasn’t natural.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ake-supporters-think-twice.html#ixzz38YyTIOsq

You're right. That would probably makes LE's case against him stronger.

 

[fruity]

Regarding the 'get to work' text, is the reply 'ok'?

If it was a question the answer probably would have been yes. If the answer is 'ok' it makes me think the 'get to work' part was a direction/command/suggestion. I guess we will have to wait for a time stamp if it is used in the trial.

 

[CHERIE.T]

No way did Cooper fall asleep in that short drive from CFA. Cooper suffered a horrendous and long death in the hot car he was locked inside. My apologies for not accepting diminishment that Cooper did not suffer tremendous agony for up to two hours or longer.





What movements was Cooper capable of making while strapped tightly into the small infant seat? Mostly none. He was strapped into an infant's car seat that he'd outgrown.

Why would Cooper fall asleep within moments of leaving CFA if he thought/assumed he would be arriving at his day care within a cpl of blocks or a cpl of minutes? That is, if the male driver would have taken him to daycare. I propose that Cooper verbally reminded the driver 'he missed the turn to go to LAA' and/or at least asked his driver why he wasn't dropped off at school especially once the vehicle was stopped and parked at HD?

May I urge researching hyperthermia straight away. The topic is covered extensively in the threads. It is a horribly brutal way to suffocate and die. It takes dreadfully slow time while the body's temperature climbs higher and higher but when core temp reaches 107*; humans die. Up to two hours of agonizing events took place during Cooper's hyperthermia before he died. He did not sleep through any of his death nor was he medicated with pain reliever.

This beautiful 22mo baby boy did not fall asleep nor become too weak to get himself out of his infant's seat. At 22mo, Cooper was never capable of applying adequate pressure to release the buckles that held him constrained in the inferno.

moo and all that jazz

EXCELLENT POST DeDee:goodpost:

 

[CarolinaMoon]

IMO, JRH was handcuffed and DETAINED, not arrested, at the scene because of his behavior. He disobeyed a police officer's instructions to get off the phone and cursed at her. He was more than likely un-cuffed at the police station and a preliminary interview took place. JRH told his "story" while being questioned. I'm sure he was arrested 5 hours later. LE should have, and probably did read him his rights.

Let's hope all went down legitimately and none of the video will be excluded at trial unless mutually agreeable to prosecution and defense.

 

[CHERIE.T]

He was STRAPPED IN THE INFANT SEAT. He was! There is NO WAY to strap a child in tight enough in a regular seat belt that he can't get out. Unless maybe you duct tape them to the seat? And there is no way a child that age would stay seated, especially if he is in distress. He would be trying to get out of the car.

If he wasn't strapped in, that would have been EXTREMELY RELEVANT in the probable cause hearing to prove negligence for not only leaving him in the car but also not following the car seat laws.

I apologize if this is too blunt but everyone else is politely dancing around this line of thinking and it's simply not even a possibility that he wasn't strapped in.

Eyewitness quote: Artiyka also believes the baby had been dead for many hours before Harris pulled the child out of the car.
‘The baby was a grey/blue color, not its natural color. I know he was in the car seat but when the dad placed him on the ground his legs stayed in the same sitting position, as if he was laying on the ground with his knees up in the air stiff. It wasn’t natural.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ake-supporters-think-twice.html#ixzz38YyTIOsq

cbm

THANK YOU for saying it.

 

[gngr~snap]

Regarding the 'get to work' text, is the reply 'ok'?

If it was a question the answer probably would have been yes. If the answer is 'ok' it makes me think the 'get to work' part was a direction/command/suggestion. I guess we will have to wait for a time stamp if it is used in the trial.

LH texted: Get to work ok?
RH texted back:Hell yeah!!

All posts are MOO

 

[SStarr33]

I thought I had read all the posts today. I missed someone thinking CH was killed between CFA and HD. I read a lot of posts about car seats and people not understanding how Cooper would fit into the lowest setting on the rear facing car seat which was explained with links to posts last week about the straps on the back are loose and can be pulled up over the baby's shoulders (like suspenders). I also remember discussions about maybe CH may have been buckled into the regular car seat or maybe not buckled at all. But I haven't seen anyone posting maybe Ch was killed between Chick Fil A and HD. Let me ask Inthedetails for a link.

Yes, you must have missed them.

It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[CHERIE.T]

Imo that is a 'more than a little' weird response.

 

[popsicle]

Looks like no one has any thoughts about my post so I'm going to have to do it on my own. LOL

If LE did read JRH his rights at the time he was put into cuffs at the crime scene and he waived his right to remain silent then I think all of his statements to LE will be admissible. I would assume that LE would have him waive his rights on paper and also using audio and or video recording. It would be hard for the defense to show that JRH's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination was violated.

On the other hand, if LE didn't read JRH his rights when he was obviously detained and taken to the police station the defense may be able to say that his right against self incrimination was violated. The state will have to prove that JRH wasn't in custody before being interrogated.

Interrogated means this.



Asking JHR what time he got off work wouldn't likely elicit an incriminating response. But asking if he killed his son would. So it would depend on what kind of questions LE asked before it would be considered to be an interrogation.

Sometimes LE will not want to "Mirandize" a suspect because they know it tends to silence some individuals.

So the questions are, was JRH in custody when questioned by police and was he advised of his rights?

If he wasn't advised of his rights when questioned by police was he in custody?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

MOO is based on the presser LE gave way back in the beginning when they said the evidence at the scene and details that came out during the interview with RH is what lead to his arrest... I think they probably explained to him that even though he was brought there in handcuffs, he isn't under arrest and they just want to ask him some questions. They know these tragic accidents happen to the best of parents and they just need to know what happened in order to file their report and they will also have his wife there for him very soon. After that interview, I don't he spoke to LE again. My guess is because he was then arrested and read his rights. All jmo.

 

[cady]

JMO I really cannot understand what the delay is in the DA taking this case to a Grand Jury, other than having to sift through mountains of digital information. Because RH was denied bond, he must be indicted within 90 days of his arrest. I don't know how he can be held without bond beyond that. Looks to me like there would have to be another bond hearing and he will likely be free on bond to do what we know he loves to do. That would be interesting......where would he go? Could he leave the State? Any lawyers here? I would love to understand the process explained in other than "legalese". TYIA JMO

 

[gngr~snap]

JMO I really cannot understand what the delay is in the DA taking this case to a Grand Jury, other than having to sift through mountains of digital information. Because RH was denied bond, he must be indicted within 90 days of his arrest. I don't know how he can be held without bond beyond that. Looks to me like there would have to be another bond hearing and he will likely be free on bond to do what we know he loves to do. That would be interesting......where would he go? Could he leave the State? Any lawyers here? I would love to understand the process explained in other than "legalese". TYIA JMO

"The initial investigation might last two to three weeks — if they have a person dedicated full-time to it, which may not be likely, Case said. Then, he said, as the investigation advances, each discovery could suggest fresh lines of inquiry, forcing digital investigators “to re-examine all of the devices for all of that data, and search for new evidence.”

"Testifying in the July 3 hearing, Cobb Detective Phil Stoddard said investigators had “only scratched the surface.”

"Right now, the pressure is on the investigators to scour for as much information as they can."

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/crim...link_cbpopular_bottom#d4d037ae.3826992.735440
Step 1
"Police must now complete their investigation and turn all of the evidence over to the district attorney's office. They are looking for evidence that Cooper's death was premeditated or planned."

Step 2
"The district attorney's office will launch an independent review of the evidence gathered by police. As part of that process, they will evaluate the strength of the case against Ross Harris.

Step 3
The district attorney will present evidence to a grand jury and decide which charges they plan to pursue against Harris.

The office has 90 days to indict the case before Harris is guaranteed bond by law.
http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/lo...t-in-ross-harris-hot-car-death-case/12663859/

***Today marks day 38.
They have time still.

I highly doubt he will be getting bond.



All posts are MOO

 

[MissJ]

Ross probably figured a cruise would be a perfect vacation...for him. LH would be plenty busy chasing Cooper all day long and then she would stay in the cabin with him at night. Which would give Ross plenty of free time to cruise the nightclubs and casinos to do his own thing.

My sentiments exactly and on my cruises there are plenty of teenagers dressed scantily and looking beautiful. Not all old folks by any means.
Though I did have a few old men who tried to chat me up.

 

[MissJ]

This is a great explanation of how the lowest setting on the car seat would work. This is also what I remember being explained on this forum or the General Forum before the Car Seat Forum was started.


kimi_SFC's post:
I have two children, and remember the transitional milestones of their car seats well. This image makes me sad, and I am coming out of mode to say this...

The straps would run behind Cooper's shoulders, like suspenders. This has been discussed before - that this would violate the manufacturer's recommendation for the straps - and they should have been adjusted to the higher levels to fit him as he grew, and then he should have been in a "big boy" seat if he simply didn't fit anymore.

It has also been discussed that these strap adjustments are not simple, and parents often continue to improperly belt their children in. The links and posts are upthread and were also in the GD threads.

The top of the belt is not rigid - so I respectfully disagree. It can be done. It would have been very uncomfortable for Cooper, especially depending upon how upright he was seated, and resisting this seating position. IMO.

Just to be clear, just because it was physically possible, doesn't make it right. It wasn't (and isn't); the increasing levels exist for safety and comfort - both of which jrh appeared to have ignored.

Thank you for your post. Seems like just another nail for RH. To me he looks very irresponsible at best. Premeditated by using the small seat Cooper could not get out of at worst. If Cooper hadn't been buckled in he'd have been all over the car screaming at the window. JMO.

 

[Lovejac]

"Under Georgia law, if circumstances are such that a reasonable person would believe that he/she were under arrest, then an arrest has occurred. If the time of arrest is in dispute, a judge will make the determination at a pretrial hearing."

"*Any incriminating statements you make while being interrogated prior to being placed under arrest are admissible in court. Keep in mind that you are under no legal obligation to talk to the police during a First or Second Tier encounter."

http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/mirand-rights-in-georgia

I can't find anything from the court system about this. I know I have seen several people get cuffed and put in a patrol car by Cobb County and I just realized,
I have never heard them Mirandize anyone.

Weird!

All posts are MOO

FWIW, I'm following the McTear trial. He's the that threw baby Emmanuel out of the car. When he was walking into jail and was aked by reporters if and why he did it, he responded "its a dirty game" Defense was trying to get that info thrown out so the jury wouldn't hear it, but the judge allowed it in. I dont know if he was mirandize at that point though.

 

[Greater Than]

Looks like no one has any thoughts about my post so I'm going to have to do it on my own. LOL

If LE did read JRH his rights at the time he was put into cuffs at the crime scene and he waived his right to remain silent then I think all of his statements to LE will be admissible. I would assume that LE would have him waive his rights on paper and also using audio and or video recording. It would be hard for the defense to show that JRH's Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination was violated.

On the other hand, if LE didn't read JRH his rights when he was obviously detained and taken to the police station the defense may be able to say that his right against self incrimination was violated. The state will have to prove that JRH wasn't in custody before being interrogated.

Interrogated means this.



Asking JHR what time he got off work wouldn't likely elicit an incriminating response. But asking if he killed his son would. So it would depend on what kind of questions LE asked before it would be considered to be an interrogation.

Sometimes LE will not want to "Mirandize" a suspect because they know it tends to silence some individuals.

So the questions are, was JRH in custody when questioned by police and was he advised of his rights?

If he wasn't advised of his rights when questioned by police was he in custody?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

My understanding is when police arrived at the scene he was on the phone. They told him to get off so they could speak to him and he said no. They told him again and he responded, "F you." That's when they took his phone, put him in handcuffs, and sat him in the cop car. He wasn't under arrest, so they wouldn't have read him his rights at that time. If he hadn't mouthed off to the cops, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been put in cuffs.

But suspects are cuffed and brought into the station for questioning every day. They're not read their rights until they have actually been placed under arrest. If the suspect asks, "Am I under arrest?" and the answer is no, the suspect is free to leave. If the suspect refuses to answer questions while being interviewed and the police don't have enough on him/her to hold them, they have to release them. Or if the suspect says, "I want to talk to my lawyer," the interview is also over.

RH was placed under arrest only after he willingly answered questions when the police interviewed him. He didn't refuse to talk, and he didn't ask to speak to his lawyer. He has a background in law enforcement, so he knew the drill. When he was placed under arrest for child endangerment his response was, "But it was an accident." Then when he was told he was also under arrest for murder his response was, "But there was no malicious intent." He truly thought by offering all that information it would vindicate him (how he buckled Cooper in tightly for safety, leaving him in a hot car was his biggest fear - which is why he viewed the video of the vet demonstrating the effects of being left in a hot car, as well as the TV show about the advocate of "turn around" who lost their child in a hot car, so he could learn safety precautions to take so it would never happen to him, how they had gone to breakfast together that morning, and he kissed him, as he always did, in case they got into an accident he wanted Cooper to know that daddy loved him), but it did just the opposite.

I don't see any reason why his interview would be inadmissible. MOO

 

[Greater Than]

FWIW, I'm following the McTear trial. He's the that threw baby Emmanuel out of the car. When he was walking into jail and was aked by reporters if and why he did it, he responded "its a dirty game" Defense was trying to get that info thrown out so the jury wouldn't hear it, but the judge allowed it in. I dont know if he was mirandize at that point though.

BIB - I'm not following that trial but if he was walking into jail, then he was already under arrest, which means he would've been mirandized. Being placed under arrest and read your rights go hand-in-hand. Am I missing something?

 

[gngr~snap]

RH is a big guy, you aren't supposed to swear at an officer. They were asking him questions and none of his answers made sense. He had a dead baby in rigors in his car. ( when he pulled up)
They cuffed him and put him in the car so to keep it from escalating.

They also have a policy that a person must be cuffed when sitting in the back of a patrol car.

They would also have dash cam video of what happened.
All posts are MOO

 

[AuburnTxTiger]

Nobody suggested that at all. I clearly stated that I DID NOT think Cooper was killed anywhere but in that car. Someone is not reading clearly (and or I am not writing clearly, which could be the case!!).

My point had nothing to do specifically with the buckling. My point was an appreciation for questioning everything. Period. That's it.

Again, for the 3rd or 4th time, I do not think Cooper was killed anywhere but the car.

Thanks for the clarification. That is how I remembered all the post.

 

[AuburnTxTiger]

I wonder how people think Ross killed Cooper in between CFA and HD?

The post above #2154 was in response to Inthedetails. I asked Inthedetails for a link of who thought Ross killed CH between CFA and HD. This is his response:


Inthedetails
Inthedetails is online now Registered User

Join Date
Jul 2014
Posts
32

Quote Originally Posted by AuburnTxTiger View Post
I thought I had read all the posts today. Did someone post that they thought there was a possibility that CH could have been killed in the short time between Chick Fil A and HD? Do you have a link? I would like to read the reasoning behind that thought. Since this is such an emotionally charged case and posters either think 100% RH should be guilty of some charge and sent to prison and others think 100% that it was an accident, it has been difficult for me to keep up. This reminds me of an SEC football game with opposing fans trading remarks, very adamant that their team is the best. LOL
Nobody suggested that at all. I clearly stated that I DID NOT think Cooper was killed anywhere but in that car. Someone is not reading clearly (and or I am not writing clearly, which could be the case!!).

My point had nothing to do specifically with the buckling. My point was an appreciation for questioning everything. Period. That's it.

Again, for the 3rd or 4th time, I do not think Cooper was killed anywhere but the car.

Last edited by Inthedetails; Today at 12:29 AM. Reason: typos

 

[PaperDoll]

I know, it's just too hard and painful to imagine. From what I've read, when they "forget" due to an interruption in their cognitive process, it's like the forgotten action was complete--in their minds it was and they carry on as if they had done they were supposed to have done. It's truly bizarre....

I understand, to a point, what you are saying. This was his child that he forgot, not other things that are as important as his own child. I forget things more now than ever, but important things I don't forget. It really isn't hard to remember to take your child to day care especially after having spent time with him at Chick-fli-a then a minute later forgets??? I really don't get that part, I just don't. He didn't forget to go to work, he didn't forget to sexted, he didn't forget to get lightbulbs, nor did he forget to take his briefcase out of the car but he forgets his son???? His little buddy that he just had breakfast with, strapped him in the car and chooses (my words) forgets (RH's words) to not take him to day care? Sorry, I keep repeating myself here.. :crazy: