And you believe that because the defense lawyer tells you to? They both admitted it during sworn statements, at least that's what every article I've read so far states.
And you know this...how? You are speculating just like I was, nothing more. Why would LE tell the media "this is what they told us" if it was not accurate? They know all of it is public record and everything they do will be scrutinized, especially given the current situation with police violence and misconduct across the country. I guess we just have to wait and see.
Was this in the autopsy report? That's something I just cannot read. Regardless, you can't convince me even if the kid did nothing but soak his diaper, Ross STILL should have smelled something with the car being closed up all day for SEVEN HOURS.
I think it's safe to say any reasonable person would assume the child is going to continue the behavior he was displaying in the restaurant.
Again, going on off my own personal experience here. I have yet to see any two year old, ON HIS OR HER WAY TO SCHOOL lets not forget, that wouldn't be laughing and excited. So you are saying Cooper was bubbly and chatty in the restaurant, then was instantly silent or asleep as soon as they hit the car?
And what about the lack of any real grief? I know everyone processes it differently, but it just didn't seem genuine to me. If that was my son laying on the ground they would have had to drag me away. You want to see what real grief looks like? Check out the video of Pam Hobbs when she was told her son was dead, West Memphis Three case. Again, I know everyone is different, but when comparing their reactions it presents a pretty stark contrast.
Honestly I think you are reaching, but maybe the best thing would be to agree to disagree and move on.
Glycerine-- how do I know that neither parent " admitted to " or "confessed" they had searched (LE's original claim) or even "researched" (LE backtracking on original claim, IMO, in 2015 hearing) hot car deaths?
Because I watched and rewatched the 2015 pretrial hearing (and read/watched other pretrial proceedings/info).
Again. During that hearing, the defense questioned LE in a court of law, under oath, and LE (Murphy) answered what exactly had been the basis for LE's claims RH and Leanne had conducted the SEARCHES he had earlier claimed they had, and had used as the primary grounds to obtain search warrants for computers and phones.
I've already posted what was testified to by Murphy. What I posted about his testimony was not my speculation. If you watch those proceedings you can hear his testimony for yourself.
Personally, I never rely upon the media to get the facts right about virtually anything, much less in stories like this, when what imo media tends to do is over dramatize, under research, and to prioritize ratings/readership over accuracy. And in any case, I prefer to analyze original source material myself rather than to swallow anyone else's narrative wholesale, or even in part.
Much of any case can only be a matter of speculation, because some facts will never be known, and much of the details of any case can and are disputable and subject to interpretation.
But then there are also facts, and for me facts are facts are facts. LE testified . He said what he said. There it is on video (available on YouTube, btw, if you haven't already seen the links to it a few posts ago).
Did Murphy lie to obtain those search warrants? Or just stretch the truth? Was LE justified in doing whatever they had to do to obtain the warrants, or was what they did unacceptable, a crossing of ethical lines?
Can watching something on TV be considered a search or even " research"? If one is on a unrelated webpage and clicks on a link to a video about whatever, is that considered a search or even "research?"
Imo those are questions that are least debatable, and I'm pretty darn sure some of those exact questions WILL be debated at trial, because Kilgore signalled in his opening that undermining LE's credibility will be central to RH's defense.
----
(More generally- to each his or her own, but my interest in trials is almost always primarily about the legal process itself, not about the underlying alleged crime. Usually I don't try to imagine even once what happened during the crime itself, much less set about dissecting the medical or physical details.
As a result, whatever opinion I have about guilt or innocence going into trial typically isn't fixed, is subject to change and drastic modification, multiple times, and isn't particularly important , even to myself, lol.
The exercise I appreciate most is to try to put myself in the jury's position. The defendant is to be presumed innocent, the State has the burden of proof to convince me otherwise, and the defense has some 'splaining to do....
