I predict the jury will not be hung. There will be a conviction or acquittal on the murder charges.
I predict the jury will not be hung. There will be a conviction or acquittal on the murder charges.
Oh, I think you need to do some Googling But don't forget to clear your cacheOk, jumping in here, have been reading along when I can. I don't want to google it (per someone's warning!). Can someone tell me what the GH reference means? DM me if its not appropriate to explain it in the forum. TIA.
Do you have 5-6 days to spare?Is there thread that lists the videos of the trial? I want to watch while I have internet access. Thanks
IMO that is the most implausible, unless it is variation of malice murder. If he plain vanilla forgot (was thinking about his next text, whatever, doesn't matter) as opposed to having a FBS brain scramble, I find it impossible to believe he wouldn't have been triggered by the AM (or PM) cues to remember he'd left Cooper in the car , and if he remembered and didn't race out to try to save him, then he didn't want him to be alive.
Negligently distracted? I don't think that's a thing. Even for criminal negligence, there has to be some purposeful activity that is inherently dangerous to human life.
I feel sure the state would have found some form of a Google search if RH was researching previous hot car deaths and excuses/patterns
Ok, jumping in here, have been reading along when I can. I don't want to google it (per someone's warning!). Can someone tell me what the GH reference means? DM me if its not appropriate to explain it in the forum. TIA.
I anxiously await the Judge's jury instruction charges to explain so I can comprehendSo the state has to prove he
1) Purposely left him in the car to die for one of the variation of motives they presented despite not needing to present motive at all. I.e. wanted a divorce although texted he was happily married less sex life or for money reasons because "that joker drains his account" which ..... Kids do exactly that.
2) Prove sexting the minor caused the death and show that he should have known sexting a minor could lead to him leaving his child, whom by all accounts he adored, in the car leading to his death.
3) They at a min hope the jury thinks texting in general while in the company of your child could lead to negligence that one should know danger could come to the child.
3 is the closest they got IMO and is that an option for the jury? Is that criminal neglegance? Brings me back to my question ... when does an accident become criminal? In GA you have to have some kind of intent or knowledge harm can come ... That's what I understand it to be.
I will be interested to see if the defense puts up any type of defense as it relates to the minor situation. Or are they hoping the jury forgets? I can't imagine it would be worth trying.
I predict the jury will not be hung. There will be a conviction or acquittal on the murder charges.
Not with how often he cleared his cache...who knows what was on his computers and phone ...
Has anyone ever heard of a case of a parent leaving a baby in a hot car for several hours for the specific purpose of killing the child?
I went to the link above. Read all related articles provided.
OMG, the dad's 911 call was so so so sad. The whole story is so very sad.
Was RH ever diagnosed with ADD or ADHD? Needing prompts like the text "get to work, OK?" from his wife may have been the pattern in his life all along. Even a coworker said that he forgot things that were told or asked of him in a short amount of time.
I think acquittal on the felony murder charge is only going to be possible if jurors understand their jury instructions. If they vote to convict on child cruelty in the 2nd degree, no further burden of proof need be met to convict on felony murder, correct?