The content of that article was put out there to debunk as much as possible of the testimony that was given in the PCH. Damage control is all it is. It's obviously condoned by the defense team so, I'm not buying anything from this info. They're trying to keep this from getting OK'd by the grand jury IMO.
They've got a long way to go to convince me this guy is innocent. There are no if's, ands, but's or maybe's for me. If the grand jury says this man needs to stand trial, so be it. That will be the defense's time for excuses, alibi's and spin.
I agree that this is defense spin and the AJC trying to be "balanced" to prevent lawsuits.
But I think RH has one insurmountable problem. When a parent "forgets" a child, we want some reason to understand why they forgot. This is such a horrific way for a child to suffer and die, in my opinion, most people need to balance the thought of that suffering with some...genuine, understandable reason...to explain the forgetting.
If there had just been a death in the family, a serious medical diagnosis, family breakup...something we can say is causing enormous mental distress...I think a jury can be persuaded to balance the suffering of the child with a compassionate understanding of the parent's blanking out.
But in this case, there is no denying that this Baby was forgotten in mere moments. And there is no denying what was captivating his Father's mind that day, as Cooper scratched his little face in agony...it was Dad's own fascination with his penis. Ross'penis and his sexual gratification kept him from responding to...that CFA cup he brought in from the car, or the email from daycare, or any mention of his "little Buddy" during the day. This is why he forgot Cooper. Everything else in his life, as the brother tells us..was hunky-dory.
Who cares if their finances were okay, or he claimed to "love" this child, or he spent 15 or 30 seconds in the car...the reason his Baby died that horrific death, the reason Cooper was so forgettable is because his Father was disrespecting his marriage and his workplace, and all moral decency by sexting underanged girls.
This is not per SE a moral judgement. I don't care if someone drinks, bit if you drink to such an extent that you kill someone, you are a killer. I don't care if someone sexts, but if you sext to the extent that you are incapable of remembering your own child for an entire day...and because of that, that child suffers and dies in a terrible fashion...you are a KILLER.
All this defense spin does not change these key elements. If you shoot and kill someone because your temper us your weakness, you are a murderer. In my opinion, if sexting is your weakness, and it makes you amnesiac and incapable of remembering a child you kissed moments ago, you aren't much different from the guy who kills because he cannot control his temper. Someone died horribly because there is something you can't control....temper or instant sexual gratification.
This man deserves nothing less than lots of prison time.
Just my opinion.
