That One Key Piece of Guilty Evidence

[LinasK]

A person who is coughing due to something obstructing their airway IS choking *and* making a sound. Choking means difficulty breathing due to an airway obstruction. That's what I meant, sort of a coughing or gasping sound.

Actually, technically no. When you are choking, you are not able to make any sounds, vocalizations, or coughing due to the obstruction of the airway. Aspirating (often confused with choking) is when liquids go down into your windpipe and you start coughing. I know from 13 years of medical experience being a Speech Pathologist.

 

[LinasK]

Really?????? A person choking doesn't make a sound?????? You don't have to be a former medic (which I was 100 years ago) to know that SOMETIMES, in fact, a LOT OF TIMES, A PERSON CHOKING DOES indeed MAKE A SOUND.

Are you confusing choking with aspiration??

 

[Hippiemomof5]

Kirbys, I am a Certified Child Passenger Safety Technician. http://cert.safekids.org/

Current research shows clearly that child should be in rear-facing seats at least until age 2.

Height & weight are factors, but the child's individual development is more important.

Yes, strap adjustment is critical for safety.

That car seat may or may not have fit Cooper, but the car seat is NOT the problem here.

Thank you!!! My children all rear faced well beyond a year, until they outgrew their seats by weight, and there's so much misconception!

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Actually, technically no. When you are choking, you are not able to make any sounds, vocalizations, or coughing due to the obstruction of the airway. Aspirating (often confused with choking) is when liquids go down into your windpipe and you start coughing. I know from 13 years of medical experience being a Speech Pathologist.

Mild choking allows people to cough and make sounds still. Complete obstruction means they can't make sounds. It is possible to be choking and making sounds at the same time.

http://www.chkd.org/Patients-and-Families/Health-Library/Way-to-Grow/Choking-Adult/

This link better explains what I'm trying to say.

 

[TeaTime]

Spent some time reading here. If there is any evidence that makes me cringe it is the statement RH made to LH while in the interrogation room "I dreaded what he would look like". Then when LH said to LE at the Treehouse, minutes after announcing that RH must have left CH in the car and being told that CH was dead, 'this was my worst nightmare". Then of course, "did you say too much?". No hysterics, no tears, no crying by either of them. Very odd statements and very odd behavior on both their parts.

RH lied to Leanne, telling her the baby looked peaceful. I get that part. But for him to say he 'dreaded' what the child would look like after a hot car death is beyond explanation. Furthermore, the child did not look peaceful so how could he pretend to be comforted by his 'peaceful' repose when he saw for himself the agony the child endured.

LH talked to RH on the phone for 1 minute, according to LE, at (IIRC) 3:15pm. She got to the daycare at 4:51 pm and her immediately response to the child not being there was to announce the hot car scenario. Unless this was a huge topic in the household, it seems very strange for her to even think this. However, she had received the text from RH "when are you going to pick up my buddy?" so she knew RH didn't have him. Maybe she quickly concluded this was in fact the only answer.

RH didn't get the promotion he was anticipating, meaning they weren't going to be looking for a house as the landlord stated. He also didn't get the Chick-Fil-A job. He just learned that one of the girls he was sexting was 16 during some of his nasty-grams. The marriage was in trouble and there may have been some financial problems.

He may have done this intentionally or he may be just a big goof ball that is so self-absorbed that he thinks only of what he is doing at the moment and nothing else.

His words and actions, as reported by witnesses, do not match a grieving father. Neither do LH's. If this was intentional I think she was in it too.

Too hinkey for me.

RH stated that he has no sense of smell. Surely everyone that knows him would know this if it is true. It may explain why he didn't smell the stench from the car.

Just my humble opinion. His own words may tell the tale.

 

[BrownRice]

LH talked to RH on the phone for 1 minute, according to LE, at (IIRC) 3:15pm. She got to the daycare at 4:51 pm and her immediately response to the child not being there was to announce the hot car scenario. Unless this was a huge topic in the household, it seems very strange for her to even think this. However, she had received the text from RH "when are you going to pick up my buddy?" so she knew RH didn't have him. Maybe she quickly concluded this was in fact the only answer.

You would think if this couple was so obsessed with leaving their child in a hot car (as evidenced apparently by watching videos, web searches, discussions, etc.), they would have come up with a simple foolproof plan - i.e. Ross leaves his phone, wallet, Home Depot badge, etc. in the back seat. This makes no sense Cooper was "forgotten" if Ross was so concerned about this.

I hadn't read about this case for about a year and forgot about a lot of the details. I had moved from guilty to just horrible negligence (brought on by all of his sexting). I'm moving back to guilty.

 

[hikerchick]

This is only my personal opinion, although I have 4 young children...Cooper should never have been in that rear-facing car seat period. If I remember correctly, all of my children were out of these types of seats at/or very shortly after their 1st birthdays. Taking this further, under no circumstances should Cooper have been in that seat with the belts set on the tightest setting. This and this alone convinced me of his guilt. Having that seat set on the setting at which you do when you bring a brand new baby home from the hospital can have no other explanation than that you wanted to make sure it was as tight as possible so he couldn't free himself. Even Cooper being of a smaller size (which has been debunked in court and he doesn't appear THAT small in pictures) wouldn't have required this. And then when you add the fact that there was another car seat that had been in this car, it had been removed (with the excuse being a trip home in mom's car), and this rear facing one installed in it's place only go to make this look as bad as possible. There are simply way too many incidences and occurances within this case to logically be acceptable. One thing, two things, three things...maybe even four things (although that is where I really start saying hmm...) could/might be believable and chaulked up to coincidence but when you have the plethora of incidences and occurances we have here, it just isn't logical no matter how many explanations you come up with.

That's not actually true. Now kids are supposed to be RF until 2 yrs/30 lbs. Now, he shouldn't have been in *that* seat due to his torso length, but he should have been in a larger rear facing seat.

 

[cebee]

The one part that I cant get past is how SHORT the drive was between Chick Fil A and work. No way a child would not have been yacking away!!! Probably talking the whole time dad was sitting in the parking lot before going in to work. IF he had not taken Cooper to breakfast... MAYBE we could assume he dozed off. But in 1-2 minutes? Nope. No way.
WHile I believe he totally intended the poor little guy to die- IF IF IF it was not his intent, the only thing I can think of is did he leave him in the car thinking he would run in, make an appearance at work- then sneak out, take him to daycare, and get back to work without anyone noticing he was missing. Maybe he had done this before. Does daycare keep records of what time a child is dropped off? Maybe it was his pattern. But this time he got waylaid- maybe did totally forget him- and the whole light bulb/ home depot trip was him suddenly realizing OH *****... but knowing it had to be too late... one glance tells him yes... and he spends the rest of the day coming up with a scenario that fits...if he is NOT guilty of planning it... this is the ONLY scenario I can come up with that fits...

 

[TeaTime]

Oh, and another thing that sent chills up my spine is the Judas Kiss. RH said that Conner kissed him and he kissed Conner after putting him in the car seat at Chick-Fil-A, because if they got in a wreck and he died, he wanted Conner's last memory to be that he loved and was loved. Most of us kiss our babies just because, not that we are thinking of dying and leaving lasting memories in the mind of a 2 year old or of the baby dying before we can say goodbye. I think he kissed CH because he wanted HIS last memory of CH to be the kiss as in "I sent him to Heaven with a goodbye kiss so he knew he was loved".

I am starting to lean on the side of intentional murder and it hurts my heart.

 

[BrownRice]

I really wonder if the sexting is going to be his only chance at a free ticket here. I can assume the defense is going to totally play this up. Ross was a sex addict, a philandering husband, a worthless employee. He was on his phone 24 hrs a day (just guessing, have no idea, but he probably was!) trying to flirt with numerous women, scheduling his next hook up, etc. that he was completely disassociated with the fact his kid was right with him. Really, that's the only thing the defense will be able to use. And then bring on the sex addict doctors to back it up.

 

[DaleTray]

Oh, and another thing that sent chills up my spine is the Judas Kiss. RH said that Conner kissed him and he kissed Conner after putting him in the car seat at Chick-Fil-A, because if they got in a wreck and he died, he wanted Conner's last memory to be that he loved and was loved. Most of us kiss our babies just because, not that we are thinking of dying and leaving lasting memories in the mind of a 2 year old or of the baby dying before we can say goodbye. I think he kissed CH because he wanted HIS last memory of CH to be the kiss as in "I sent him to Heaven with a goodbye kiss so he knew he was loved".

I am starting to lean on the side of intentional murder and it hurts my heart.

I may be mistaken but I recall reading about the departure kisses but I don't think LH meant JRH kissed CH this departure and this departure alone. I was under the impression JRH stated he kissed Conner every time they departed in case they had a wreck or something.

 

[TeaTime]

I really wonder if the sexting is going to be his only chance at a free ticket here. I can assume the defense is going to totally play this up. Ross was a sex addict, a philandering husband, a worthless employee. He was on his phone 24 hrs a day (just guessing, have no idea, but he probably was!) trying to flirt with numerous women, scheduling his next hook up, etc. that he was completely disassociated with the fact his kid was right with him. Really, that's the only thing the defense will be able to use. And then bring on the sex addict doctors to back it up.

His attorneys surely didn't want this information to be made public in the PC hearing but you may be correct. However, RH being a sex addict would not have any effect on my decision if I were a juror. And if they bring up this as a defense then they open up the underage girls problem too.

 

[TeaTime]

I may be mistaken but I recall reading about the departure kisses but I don't think LH meant JRH kissed CH this departure and this departure alone. I was under the impression JRH stated he kissed Conner every time they departed in case they had a wreck or something.

Still odd. Don't we kiss the babies because they are just irresistible and not because we think we may be in a car wreck and die? Does anyone think this way and is it the reason they kiss their babies? I would like to know because maybe I am off base.

 

[Hippiemomof5]

Still odd. Don't we kiss the babies because they are just irresistible and not because we think we may be in a car wreck and die? Does anyone think this way and is it the reason they kiss their babies? I would like to know because maybe I am off base.

I completely agree. I kiss them because they're irresistible. When I'm near their sweet heads, I kiss them. I don't generally think "we might be in a wreck today."

 

[flourish]

Babies' heads smell good and beg to be sniffed and nuzzled.

Poor Cooper.

 

[BrownRice]

His attorneys surely didn't want this information to be made public in the PC hearing but you may be correct. However, RH being a sex addict would not have any effect on my decision if I were a juror. And if they bring up this as a defense then they open up the underage girls problem too.

I'm not talking about the psychology of the sex addict really - more of how somebody could be distracted within 30 seconds. You're right about the minor girls, but the consequence for that is much less than murder.

 

[Kip]

The one part that I cant get past is how SHORT the drive was between Chick Fil A and work. No way a child would not have been yacking away!!! Probably talking the whole time dad was sitting in the parking lot before going in to work. IF he had not taken Cooper to breakfast... MAYBE we could assume he dozed off. But in 1-2 minutes? Nope. No way.
WHile I believe he totally intended the poor little guy to die- IF IF IF it was not his intent, the only thing I can think of is did he leave him in the car thinking he would run in, make an appearance at work- then sneak out, take him to daycare, and get back to work without anyone noticing he was missing. Maybe he had done this before. Does daycare keep records of what time a child is dropped off? Maybe it was his pattern. But this time he got waylaid- maybe did totally forget him- and the whole light bulb/ home depot trip was him suddenly realizing OH *****... but knowing it had to be too late... one glance tells him yes... and he spends the rest of the day coming up with a scenario that fits...if he is NOT guilty of planning it... this is the ONLY scenario I can come up with that fits...

BBM. Same here. I have a 2 1/2 year old granddaughter who is often quiet in the car when I'm driving her. But I can't imagine putting a child in a car seat and forgetting that he's there within a minute or two (essentially from the time Ross pulled out of the parking lot onto the street because that's when he'd have to decide which lane to get in). The 2nd piece of evidence is Ross's search for how long it takes a child to die in a car. I've been interested in the deaths of children forgotten in cars for some time, but have never searched for that - my searches have been for ways to prevent it from happening.

Your scenario about Ross possibly sneaking out later is interesting.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

For me it was when I learned that the child had been awake and inside the restaurant and that it was only a very short distance to the father's workplace. That the workplace location could almost be seen from the restaurant.

I figured no child of that age would have been quiet or fallen asleep in that short distance.

Then I heard about the internet searches and that sealed the deal for me.

 

[ms madge]

For me it's "I dreaded how he'd look". Future tense. He means, when Cooper was still alive and I was considering doing this, I dreaded what he would look like after death. That statement plus his general behaviour and demeanour afterwards and since.

 

[TeaTime]

For me it's "I dreaded how he'd look". Future tense. He means, when Cooper was still alive and I was considering doing this, I dreaded what he would look like after death. That statement plus his general behaviour and demeanour afterwards and since.

Ms madge - this made me shriek too.