Alternate Theories

[magnolia]

My alternate theory is that this was an outcome of RH's history of leaving Cooper in the car. His habit is what prompted LH to do web searches about the dangers of leaving children in cars. RH wasn't listening to her, so she wanted proof for him to accept the basic knowledge that children can and will die if left in a closed car.

RH is lazy and is a risk taker. He liked the option of leaving Cooper in the car when it was convenient for him. I also think taking the risk - especially one that annoyed the wife - was a thrill for RH. He liked pulling one over on LH by successfully leaving Cooper in the car for short stints with no harm done.

Knowing this habit of RH, LH made sure the infant car seat was in his car. She assumed, wrongly, that he couldn't leave Cooper unattended in a car seat that was too small for him.

The habit of going out for breakfast at a fast-food place shows his laziness. He couldn't be bothered with making breakfast for himself or Cooper at home and he instead relied on the fast food. On the morning in question, he couldn't get out of the house in time for work and once again went for fast food instead of making a meal at home. Like others have suggested, he left Cooper in the car in the HD parking lot to make an appearance at work with the plans of delivering Cooper to LAA later. He either forgot or got distracted by his online habit...and then it was too late.

LH's reaction at LAA was because she knew this was a possibility. Perhaps the past incidents involved leaving Cooper while RH ran into a store, etc., and didn't involve leaving Cooper while RH actually went to work. Still, her mind immediately jumped to this possibility because LH's lazy and risky habit of leaving Cooper in the car was a real concern for her. This leaves her un-involved with the actual incident, but not shocked.

RH finally figured out he took too big of a risk and tried to cover it up. I don't think he expected anyone to doubt it was an accident "without malice."

One of the many holes in this theory is that he didn't crack a window when leaving Cooper.

I like this theory but it is LH's behavior that nixes it for me.

We have neighbors whose dog was killed recently. We all live in a neighborhood where there is very little internal traffic. My friends husband was in the habit of walking the dog with a retractable leash, although the dog loved to run after cars. My friend, very cautious, tried to argue against this practice. One day, the worst happened.

What do you think my neighbor's FIRST reaction to her husband was? I can tell you that she wasn't telling the world that he was the best pet owner ever. Of course, in time, she and her husband grieved together, but, once again, LH's first reactions and her behavior at the funeral, do NOT sound like a woman who has just lost her child because her husband refused to listen to reason.

They both googled hot car deaths. So LH knew very well what her Baby had suffered. If she had warned and argued against RH leaving the child in the car, I just don't know how her reactions to RH's deliberate negligence could be so benign.

Wouldn't you have expected her to say..."We talked about this. Why did you keep doing this?" Something like that. Not...."Well, did you say too much?"

It's ironic, because in my opinion, LH's decision to be a cheering section for her husband actually undermines him. There are too many hinky details for me to believe this was "just an accident." That leaves the theory above as RH's best case scenario short of murder. But her reaction to RH is not what one would have expected if it was just RH's willful negligence that led to this awful death.

So, for me, I am left with deliberate murder.

My opinion only, of course.

I totally understand what you mean stmarysmead. :loser: Bear in mind, Leanna was surrounded by family and friends that were very sympathetic and in full support of RH at that time. I would be very surprised if she was not on some type of anxiety antidepressant medication during that time. It's possible she was experiencing Emotional blunting — an overall unfeeling or numbness due to the medication. Yes, emotional blunting can be so severe you have and show no emotion at all. All that said, I can't base my opinion on the way I think somone should have behaved and reacted.

IMO

I requoted so everyone will know the theory we're discussing.

 

[stmarysmead]

I totally understand what you mean stmarysmead. :loser: Bear in mind, Leanna was surrounded by family and friends that were very sympathetic and in full support of RH at that time. I would be very surprised if she was not on some type of anxiety antidepressant medication during that time. It's possible she was experiencing Emotional blunting — an overall unfeeling or numbness due to the medication. Yes, emotional blunting can be so severe you have and show no emotion at all. All that said, I can't base my opinion on the way I think somone should have behaved and reacted.

IMO

I requoted so everyone will know the theory we are discussing.

Excellent post, Magnolia. I just what to counter one point...my opinion of this case is not based on any one aspect alone. My opinion that this is a murder is based on the confluence of evidence I see at this time...including , to me, LH's reactions.

 

[magnolia]

Excellent post, Magnolia. I just what to counter one point...my opinion of this case is not based on any one aspect alone. My opinion that this is a murder is based on the confluence of evidence I see at this time...including , to me, LH's reactions.

Thanks stmarysmead. I understand. However,my reply was based on your reply to "Inthedetails" theory. You stated the following. BBM

I like this theory but it is LH's behavior that nixes it for me.

 

[blue22]

I totally understand what you mean stmarysmead. :loser: Bear in mind, Leanna was surrounded by family and friends that were very sympathetic and in full support of RH at that time. I would be very surprised if she was not on some type of anxiety antidepressant medication during that time. It's possible she was experiencing Emotional blunting — an overall unfeeling or numbness due to the medication. Yes, emotional blunting can be so severe you have and show no emotion at all. All that said, I can't base my opinion on the way I think somone should have behaved and reacted.

IMO

I requoted so everyone will know the theory we're discussing.

I don't believe she was on a medication.

1. It would not make her suddenly like this. Her body would not just now have a reaction. If she has been on it for a while, her family and friends would know her behavior. They would be saying that this is how she is, this is consistent with her overall mood. I have not heard or read one person come out and say that her behavior is normal for her typical demeanor. (Even if they didn't know she was on meds, a stoic personality would still have been something they saw on a normal basis.) Wouldn't her lawyer in his statement, point out that her behavior is not strange for her?

2. She was acting strange THAT night. Unless she had a premonition and preemptively went to the doctor that afternoon, these meds just don't appear. Her behavior has been consistent since the moment she found out about Cooper. If she started meds right after Cooper, her demeanor certainly was not changed. (I only say this, because many people have suggested she got on these meds right after to deal with it.) My family history is deep with mental illness. While I do not claim to be an expert and don't know her, it's JMO that I don't believe she is having a reaction to meds.

 

[stmarysmead]

Yes, her behavior undoes that theory for me. That one theory.

The theory of INNOCENCE however, is negated by, as I said, a confluence of many things.

I can see where my wording might have confused you, but please accept my assurances on the latter.

 

[magnolia]

I don't believe she was on a medication.

1. It would not make her suddenly like this. Her body would not just now have a reaction. If she has been on it for a while, her family and friends would know her behavior. They would be saying that this is how she is, this is consistent with her overall mood. I have not heard or read one person come out and say that her behavior is normal for her typical demeanor. (Even if they didn't know she was on meds, a stoic personality would still have been something they saw on a normal basis.) Wouldn't her lawyer in his statement, point out that her behavior is not strange for her?

2. She was acting strange THAT night. Unless she had a premonition and preemptively went to the doctor that afternoon, these meds just don't appear. Her behavior has been consistent since the moment she found out about Cooper. If she started meds right after Cooper, her demeanor certainly was not changed. (I only say this, because many people have suggested she got on these meds right after to deal with it.) My family history is deep with mental illness. While I do not claim to be an expert and don't know her, it's JMO that I don't believe she is having a reaction to meds.

I believe the funeral was 10 days after Cooper died. That is plenty of time to experience side effects from an antidepressant.

It's also possible she was on an antidepressant before Cooper died. Many people are. Physicians tend to prescribe them very freely.

Anxiety benzodiazepine drugs like Xanax can cause a false sense of well-being. This effect would have kicked in immediately after taking.

It doesn't appear to me, family and friends are willing to speak out about anything related to this case. What good would it do for her Attorney to provide an explanation. I don't think people would accept it. It would just stir the pot even more. I'm sure he knows this.

It goes without saying, people react differently to a tragedy. Some people don't grieve and others only do it privately. A person's upbringing can also influence how someone reacts to a death and tragedy.

IMO

 

[GeorgiaSuzy]

Thank you Msollicito, not only for the post but for being at the court hearing :seeya:

Just a recap - so I can make some sense or understand what ever this thought I have, and will it even help me :blushing:

Often went with Cooper, so he would have to leave CFA and drop Cooper off, then go to work.
Sometimes went alone, so he would have to leave CFA and go directly to work.
Eat in, special treat. More work to take Cooper in/out of car seat, but did not happen as much.
I'm going to assume drive through times was all others except for when Cooper was with him for special treat time - (or do we know if JRH went into eat by himself?)

If I was to put quantities, 10 often, 5 sometimes, 1 special treat - shows me to put higher weight on routine leaving CFA, drop off Cooper, then go to work.
So autopilot from CFA would not be go directly to work.
Not sure if this makes sense to anyone else, but it helps me out :thinking:

Reason why I was stuck on this was I saw a newscast, or video, or was it a report? - Where a Dr. or Scientist was explaining in how the memory works, and how one can quickly in an instant forget - and go on autopilot. Or if the action was out of the ordinary also forget. According to this, he may have forgot the act of putting Cooper in his car seat after CFA (special treat 1), but he more often (weight of 10) had routine of leaving CFA, dropping off Cooper, then go to work.

my opinion, etc., :moo:

I read that same article about memory, and the basal ganglia or "autopilot" effect! The articles linked in Websleuths really helped me to keep an open mind and to understand that this can happen to anybody. And then I watched the Probable Cause Hearing and found too many coincidences and oddities for me to think this was an accident.

Still, I do enjoy playing Devil's Advocate and bringing up those points the Defense is sure to use at trial. So while not proposing an alternate theory, I'd like to address some points that may be open to interpretation.

1 - "Mr. Harris told his wife that Cooper looked peaceful, with his eyes and mouth closed". The defense will say Mr. Harris was just trying to spare his wife from the gruesome truth about Cooper's appearance. Maybe that's the truth; who would be so cruel as to give her a vivid description of her dead child?

2 - "Mr. Harris should've smelled decomp when he opened the car door at lunch or when driving towards the theater". The defense will just list other parents who drove all the way to daycare to pick up their child while the dead body was in the car with them the whole way. They never noticed an odor, and didn't have to claim they lacked the sense of smell. I recently asked a question about odor on the Q and A thread, cuz personally I would've thought there'd be an odor.

3 - "Taking Cooper to daycare and Chick-fil-A was a normal routine for Mr. Harris". This is hazy for me at best. LE testified at the PCH that Mr. Harris took Cooper inside Chick-fil-A 2 or 3 times a month. That's not a regular schedule to me, that's 2 or 3 random visits a month. As you said in your post above, we need to know whether the norm the rest of the month was for Mr. Harris to take Cooper to daycare, then go to Chick-fil-A and then to work, or if he & Cooper went thru the drive thru, then to daycare, then work. If the former was the norm, then he really could've gone on autopilot after leaving Chick-fil-A and forgotten Cooper. And is Chick-fil-A the only fast food place around there for breakfast? Who's to say he ate there every morning, and didn't rotate between McD's, BK, et al? Those might involve slightly different routes or even be past the turn off to daycare, making it even more likely that he could've gone on autopilot.

4 - "He backed into the parking space at work BETWEEN TWO PARKED CARS". OMG - I'd absolutely have to look over my right shoulder to do this and Cooper would've been visible unless .... there were 2 or 3 empty spaces between those cars. LE didn't make that clear at the PCH, but said Mr. Harris had no backup camera and would've had to use his side mirrors and rearview mirror. In my car when I look out the rearview mirror I only see the road. I don't see my backseat; there aren't any cars driving in my back seat so why would I aim it downward? Unless this is a parent thing and y'all aim your rearview mirror down to see the child and just rely on your side mirrors, I wouldn't expect him to see the back seat. However, if those 2 parked cars that he backed between only had ONE empty parking space between them, Mr. Harris would HAVE to look over his shoulder to back up and WOULD see Cooper, IMO. Nobody backs up that good.

5 - "He noticed Cooper when he looked over his right shoulder to change lanes on the way to the theater". That's not odd, that's about the only way I'd have seen him, too: by checking my blind spot before moving from the center lane to the right lane. LE needs to find as much CCTV as they can between Chick-fil-A and the Treehouse to prove Mr. Harris changed lanes that morning. I've seen some posts say he would've seen Cooper when making a right turn, but that's not so. You don't look over your shoulder to make a right turn (a regular old 90 degree right turn), but you do in order to change lanes (unless you're old and your neck is very stiff).

6 - "When he finally noticed Cooper he drove a bit further before he turned into the strip mall, screeching his tires and stopping in the middle of the road". To me, that's not odd if it was the first place he could safely pull over. Screeching his brakes and stopping in the middle of the strip mall lanes seems like a normal panic response to me, but it's being made to sound as if it was done solely to draw attention to himself. I can't tell one way or the other.

So Ruby, I can see your alternate theory as a possibility and surely one that the defense will likely pursue.

 

[Ruby]

I read that same article about memory, and the basal ganglia or "autopilot" effect! The articles linked in Websleuths really helped me to keep an open mind and to understand that this can happen to anybody. And then I watched the Probable Cause Hearing and found too many coincidences and oddities for me to think this was an accident.

Still, I do enjoy playing Devil's Advocate and bringing up those points the Defense is sure to use at trial. So while not proposing an alternate theory, I'd like to address some points that may be open to interpretation.

1 - "Mr. Harris told his wife that Cooper looked peaceful, with his eyes and mouth closed". The defense will say Mr. Harris was just trying to spare his wife from the gruesome truth about Cooper's appearance. Maybe that's the truth; who would be so cruel as to give her a vivid description of her dead child?

2 - "Mr. Harris should've smelled decomp when he opened the car door at lunch or when driving towards the theater". The defense will just list other parents who drove all the way to daycare to pick up their child while the dead body was in the car with them the whole way. They never noticed an odor, and didn't have to claim they lacked the sense of smell. I recently asked a question about odor on the Q and A thread, cuz personally I would've thought there'd be an odor.

3 - "Taking Cooper to daycare and Chick-fil-A was a normal routine for Mr. Harris". This is hazy for me at best. LE testified at the PCH that Mr. Harris took Cooper inside Chick-fil-A 2 or 3 times a month. That's not a regular schedule to me, that's 2 or 3 random visits a month. As you said in your post above, we need to know whether the norm the rest of the month was for Mr. Harris to take Cooper to daycare, then go to Chick-fil-A and then to work, or if he & Cooper went thru the drive thru, then to daycare, then work. If the former was the norm, then he really could've gone on autopilot after leaving Chick-fil-A and forgotten Cooper. And is Chick-fil-A the only fast food place around there for breakfast? Who's to say he ate there every morning, and didn't rotate between McD's, BK, et al? Those might involve slightly different routes or even be past the turn off to daycare, making it even more likely that he could've gone on autopilot.

4 - "He backed into the parking space at work BETWEEN TWO PARKED CARS". OMG - I'd absolutely have to look over my right shoulder to do this and Cooper would've been visible unless .... there were 2 or 3 empty spaces between those cars. LE didn't make that clear at the PCH, but said Mr. Harris had no backup camera and would've had to use his side mirrors and rearview mirror. In my car when I look out the rearview mirror I only see the road. I don't see my backseat; there aren't any cars driving in my back seat so why would I aim it downward? Unless this is a parent thing and y'all aim your rearview mirror down to see the child and just rely on your side mirrors, I wouldn't expect him to see the back seat. However, if those 2 parked cars that he backed between only had ONE empty parking space between them, Mr. Harris would HAVE to look over his shoulder to back up and WOULD see Cooper, IMO. Nobody backs up that good.

5 - "He noticed Cooper when he looked over his right shoulder to change lanes on the way to the theater". That's not odd, that's about the only way I'd have seen him, too: by checking my blind spot before moving from the center lane to the right lane. LE needs to find as much CCTV as they can between Chick-fil-A and the Treehouse to prove Mr. Harris changed lanes that morning. I've seen some posts say he would've seen Cooper when making a right turn, but that's not so. You don't look over your shoulder to make a right turn (a regular old 90 degree right turn), but you do in order to change lanes (unless you're old and your neck is very stiff).

6 - "When he finally noticed Cooper he drove a bit further before he turned into the strip mall, screeching his tires and stopping in the middle of the road". To me, that's not odd if it was the first place he could safely pull over. Screeching his brakes and stopping in the middle of the strip mall lanes seems like a normal panic response to me, but it's being made to sound as if it was done solely to draw attention to himself. I can't tell one way or the other.

So Ruby, I can see your alternate theory as a possibility and surely one that the defense will likely pursue.

Thank you GeorgiaSuzy - you bring up some points I did not think of, after reading your post it was like, that should of been a given (lol).
Like #3 - I never thought about another fast food place. I was just hyped up about CFA - rode the wave of tunnel vision I guess.

#1,2&6 - agree/nothing to add.

#5 - 100% agree - different type of movement to turn right vs. changing lanes.
Like to add - grabbing an item from the front passenger side seat or floor. Unclear if his computer bag was on the floor or on the seat. Thought I saw it stated as "in front of passenger side seat" - either way no need to turn backwards.

#4 - This one I will have to wait for trial, to me it's most crucial to this case. Still no clear statement of how he parked his car and that will make a big difference if he saw Cooper. The details are hinged on who's doing the reporting. I got the impression he backed up as he was in the isle of the parking lot, then pulled forward into parking space (no need to look back, could use only mirrors). Other reports state differently so I can not conclude if he saw Cooper when he parked.
I have seen it stated in the reenactment video that the car seat would not be visible from rear view mirror, but I have dissed those videos due to not using the exact same equipment or body measurements. It would not be fair to pick only the items that are favorable to my point. It's informative that you can not see the back seat from your rear view mirror, and stands to reason it should be aimed at the road behind. Good point, parents may have it in direction of child to keep watch. It's important to know how was RH's rear view mirror positioned, and did he need to look behind when parking.

No getting away from it, he caused his own son's death. There's already guilt, anguish, horror, and all ugly emotions combined, living with him for the rest of his life. That's just if it was an accident, and add the vilest of evil on top of that if it was intentional. I would not want to be a juror, having my decision determine his punishment. Before I include myself into such an evil mix, I'd want to be more than 150% sure he did this intentionally. The prosecution would probably strike me from the get go.

 

[magnolia]

Bumping

HEY! Your attention please! This is not the mental health thread. This thread is for discussing alternative theories of what happened.

If you don't have an alternative theory - then move along.

Please stay on topic here.

Thanks,

Salem

New Rule for this thread! Listen (Read) up, here, please.

Every post on this thread should look something like this:

I think such and such (insert alternate theory here) happened because (insert reason(s) here).

If your post does not read in this manner, it will be removed. There are other threads in this forum for discussion of other aspects of the case. Please use them. There is no longer a general discussion thread.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[EvilSoup]

Bumping

Thanks! I learned early on in my time here that SOME alternative theories were not on the table. The mental health/illness idea is one many of us considered, but yes, it is not allowed! Thanks for the reminder.

 

[MyBelle]

Thank you GeorgiaSuzy - you bring up some points I did not think of, after reading your post it was like, that should of been a given (lol).
Like #3 - I never thought about another fast food place. I was just hyped up about CFA - rode the wave of tunnel vision I guess.

#1,2&6 - agree/nothing to add.

#5 - 100% agree - different type of movement to turn right vs. changing lanes.
Like to add - grabbing an item from the front passenger side seat or floor. Unclear if his computer bag was on the floor or on the seat. Thought I saw it stated as "in front of passenger side seat" - either way no need to turn backwards.

#4 - This one I will have to wait for trial, to me it's most crucial to this case. Still no clear statement of how he parked his car and that will make a big difference if he saw Cooper. The details are hinged on who's doing the reporting. I got the impression he backed up as he was in the isle of the parking lot, then pulled forward into parking space (no need to look back, could use only mirrors). Other reports state differently so I can not conclude if he saw Cooper when he parked.
I have seen it stated in the reenactment video that the car seat would not be visible from rear view mirror, but I have dissed those videos due to not using the exact same equipment or body measurements. It would not be fair to pick only the items that are favorable to my point. It's informative that you can not see the back seat from your rear view mirror, and stands to reason it should be aimed at the road behind. Good point, parents may have it in direction of child to keep watch. It's important to know how was RH's rear view mirror positioned, and did he need to look behind when parking.

No getting away from it, he caused his own son's death. There's already guilt, anguish, horror, and all ugly emotions combined, living with him for the rest of his life. That's just if it was an accident, and add the vilest of evil on top of that if it was intentional. I would not want to be a juror, having my decision determine his punishment. Before I include myself into such an evil mix, I'd want to be more than 150% sure he did this intentionally. The prosecution would probably strike me from the get go.

I think your theory holds weight and it will be proved he did this intentionally but I'm confused by some of your other points and here's why:

#1. Why lie about it? Why mention it at all?

#2. The defense listing other parents who didn't acknowledge the smell is useless as a defense. It is impossible to prove what people did or did not smell nor is it relevant. Other parents have been guilty of this crime.

#3. It will be difficult to persuade a jury that the defendant went on autopilot in a drive under two minutes no matter where he went to stuff his face.

#4. When you look out your rear-view mirror you ONLY see the road but I don't agree with your comment. I think most of us see what the rear view mirror captures, which is whatever is in the range of the mirror in the interior of the car.

#5. Cooper was not in Ross' "blind spot." I think not just old people look over their shoulder to make a right turn or that Cooper wasn't seen because "nobody backs up that good." GMAB.

#6. I have yet to see any proof the strip mall was the "first place" Ross could pull over but maybe that's because I don't believe there was no odor of death in the car or that he didn't see his son's head protruding above the car seat.

JMO

 

[gngr~snap]

I think your theory holds weight and it will be proved he did this intentionally but I'm confused by some of your other points and here's why:

#1. Why lie about it? Why mention it at all?

#2. The defense listing other parents who didn't acknowledge the smell is useless as a defense. It is impossible to prove what people did or did not smell nor is it relevant. Other parents have been guilty of this crime.

#3. It will be difficult to persuade a jury that the defendant went on autopilot in a drive under two minutes no matter where he went to stuff his face.

#4. When you look out your rear-view mirror you ONLY see the road but I don't agree with your comment. I think most of us see what the rear view mirror captures, which is whatever is in the range of the mirror in the interior of the car.

#5. Cooper was not in Ross' "blind spot." I think not just old people look over their shoulder to make a right turn or that Cooper wasn't seen because "nobody backs up that good." GMAB.

#6. I have yet to see any proof the strip mall was the "first place" Ross could pull over but maybe that's because I don't believe there was no odor of death in the car or that he didn't see his son's head protruding above the car seat.

JMO

After leaving work...
The strip mall was in fact the last place he could pull over for a mile or two.
He passed more than one hotel, a Costco, a large shopping mall, a Bank of America, several stores including a Sears Auto Body shop and a major bookstore before he crossed the highway to turn into the pizza joint.
He had an agenda. Imo

All posts are MOO.

 

[Ruby]

I think your theory holds weight and it will be proved he did this intentionally but I'm confused by some of your other points and here's why:

#1. Why lie about it? Why mention it at all?

#2. The defense listing other parents who didn't acknowledge the smell is useless as a defense. It is impossible to prove what people did or did not smell nor is it relevant. Other parents have been guilty of this crime.

#3. It will be difficult to persuade a jury that the defendant went on autopilot in a drive under two minutes no matter where he went to stuff his face.

#4. When you look out your rear-view mirror you ONLY see the road but I don't agree with your comment. I think most of us see what the rear view mirror captures, which is whatever is in the range of the mirror in the interior of the car.

#5. Cooper was not in Ross' "blind spot." I think not just old people look over their shoulder to make a right turn or that Cooper wasn't seen because "nobody backs up that good." GMAB.

#6. I have yet to see any proof the strip mall was the "first place" Ross could pull over but maybe that's because I don't believe there was no odor of death in the car or that he didn't see his son's head protruding above the car seat.

JMO

I'm not sure how this post will turn out, I'm going to try my best to respond.
I'm using different posts for my answers and to re:quote multiples are intimidating for me :blushing:

#1, 2 and 6 - I was either agreeing (could be a possibility) or had nothing to add to GeorgiaSuzy's post.

#1 - to answer your post - I did not think of why RH said Cooper looked peaceful, just agreeing with GeorgiaSuzy that it was a possibility from her post.

#2 - this may have been a nothing to add - just thought it was interesting info that was researched by GeorgiaSuzy. To respond to your post, yes, other parents have been guilty of murdering their child in this manner. If it's impossible to prove what people did/didn't smell or is irrelevant, then it should not be used as a point of proof for the prosecution for judgement on RH.

#3 - In response to GeorgiaSuzy, it was a question I did not think of (eating elsewhere), but would play a factor in the autopilot theory.
I fully understand your view, but will have to respectfully (somewhat) disagree. I hope I can explain myself and why - It may be difficult to persuade the whole jury, but the defense's theory did start me questioning which I'm sure there are others who are wondering the same. Is it possible to be on autopilot? If it is, then the other locations of where he ate would factor in to the routine. Another post of mine (not sure what thread anymore lol) I tried to reason out the autopilot, and from a silly deduction of the weights given to "sometimes", "often", and "special" I concluded he may not have been on autopilot. According to medical experts (?) autopilot can and does happen, and I think the defense will try to persuade.

Believe it or not - I know a married couple who both forgot their child at the babysitters, even after they got home later on in the evening from work (I was at their house).
Unbelievable part - It was only a four person business (we worked together) and the babysitter was my sister. A reminder all day and evening of their child - when I was leaving to go home (from their own home) I asked who's picking up your son? They both looked dumbfounded and shocked, they both didn't think about him not being there. ????? Would not have believed it if it wasn't for my very own experience. I may have a little different perspective of someone forgetting their child - personally, I still don't quite get it, but feel I should give the benefit of the doubt.

#4 - not sure what you do not agree with - several different views have been stated, help :blushing:

#5 - I know Cooper was not in blind spot, he was in the middle of the back seat.
The discussions I've seen disbelieve RH having made several right hand turns prior in the day without noticing Cooper until he looks back to switch lanes.
My point and the part of GeorgiaSuzy's post I agreed with was - It's a different type of movement to turn right vs. changing lanes.
I think the movement to make a right hand turn is more of a forward look, no need to twist backwards.
When changing into a right hand lane, you need to twist backwards looking behind to your right checking traffic coming up from behind.
Two different types of movements which in my opinion leaves the possibility that RH may have not seen Cooper while making a right hand turn. I also added in the grabbing of the computer bag from the passenger side front seat. Still unsure if it was "on front seat" or "in front of seat", seen it stated both ways. Either way, the movement would not have the need to look behind. Leaving the possibility RH may have not seen Cooper.

#6 - this may have been one I had nothing to add - I don't know, haven't given much thought about first place to pull over, just figured it could have been when he first notices Cooper?

Sorry for the long winded post - I really admire when someone can post their view quickly and eloquently. :seeya:
Me, it comes out in pieces of thought - which I hope can be understood.
I know that it may not be agreed with :floorlaugh: but hey, that's what makes up Websleuths :loveyou:

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

For some reason, I think the light bulb came on in RH's head when he had the conversation with LH around 4:00. Possibly, the reason he told his friends he'd be a little late for the movie was because he planned to stay at work until 5:00 due to his late arrival that morning. Then, something triggered his memory around 4:00--he ended up leaving very soon after he spoke with his wife. Maybe he said something to her then that gave her an idea that something bad had happened, and when she got to the day care and didn't find Cooper, she said the odd things she said. RH could have known when he got to his car that his baby was dead, but didn't want to have this whole scene unfold at his workplace. He might have decided to go home but wasn't able to cope anymore so he pulled over. Maybe LH wasn't acting like someone would act the first time they heard they're child was dead because she actually already knew after that phone call and had already endured the initial shock reaction.

Just one of many theories that roll around in my head--I still don't know how someone could accidentally leave their child in a car, but I am looking to grab something to help keep some faith in humanity...

 

[EvilSoup]

For some reason, I think the light bulb came on in RH's head when he had the conversation with LH around 4:00. Possibly, the reason he told his friends he'd be a little late for the movie was because he planned to stay at work until 5:00 due to his late arrival that morning. Then, something triggered his memory around 4:00--he ended up leaving very soon after he spoke with his wife. Maybe he said something to her then that gave her an idea that something bad had happened, and when she got to the day care and didn't find Cooper, she said the odd things she said. RH could have known when he got to his car that his baby was dead, but didn't want to have this whole scene unfold at his workplace. He might have decided to go home but wasn't able to cope anymore so he pulled over. Maybe LH wasn't acting like someone would act the first time they heard they're child was dead because she actually already knew after that phone call and had already endured the initial shock reaction.

Just one of many theories that roll around in my head--I still don't know how someone could accidentally leave their child in a car, but I am looking to grab something to help keep some faith in humanity...

But the light bulb didn't come on when he chucked the light bulbs into the car with his dead baby?

Oh the iorny. (Baez)

 

[popsicle]

But the light bulb didn't come on when he chucked the light bulbs into the car with his dead baby?

Oh the iorny. (Baez)

Or when he sent the message asking when she was picking up his buddy...

 

[EvilSoup]

Or when he sent the message asking when she was picking up his buddy...

Ugh. What a worthless piece of excrement. How someone that vile had a part in creating a lovely being like sweet Cooper, I will NEVER understand!

 

[Inthedetails]

For some reason, I think the light bulb came on in RH's head when he had the conversation with LH around 4:00. Possibly, the reason he told his friends he'd be a little late for the movie was because he planned to stay at work until 5:00 due to his late arrival that morning. Then, something triggered his memory around 4:00--he ended up leaving very soon after he spoke with his wife. Maybe he said something to her then that gave her an idea that something bad had happened, and when she got to the day care and didn't find Cooper, she said the odd things she said. RH could have known when he got to his car that his baby was dead, but didn't want to have this whole scene unfold at his workplace. He might have decided to go home but wasn't able to cope anymore so he pulled over. Maybe LH wasn't acting like someone would act the first time they heard they're child was dead because she actually already knew after that phone call and had already endured the initial shock reaction.

Just one of many theories that roll around in my head--I still don't know how someone could accidentally leave their child in a car, but I am looking to grab something to help keep some faith in humanity...

I'm going to merge your ending with my beginning. I think he left Cooper in car at HD, intending to return to the car shortly to bring him to daycare, but got distracted by his sexting and forgot about his child. I think he remembered before or at lunchtime, but also knew it was too late. I didn't know what to think of his "discovery" and the shopping mall scene, but I think you have a good idea that he was racing home for LH to take care of it. That's why he left early - to catch her in time before she left for daycare. You're right, imo, that he couldn't take it, either because of the smell or simply the horror of what he did overwhelmed him and he had to get out of the car. The frenzy to get to the phone at the shopping center parking lot was because it was prominent in his mind to get to LH.

I think he is 100% responsible for the death of Cooper, but I don't think he planned it.

JMO and hunch.

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

I'm going to merge your ending with my beginning. I think he left Cooper in car at HD, intending to return to the car shortly to bring him to daycare, but got distracted by his sexting and forgot about his child. I think he remembered before or at lunchtime, but also knew it was too late. I didn't know what to think of his "discovery" and the shopping mall scene, but I think you have a good idea that he was racing home for LH to take care of it. That's why he left early - to catch her in time before she left for daycare. You're right, imo, that he couldn't take it, either because of the smell or simply the horror of what he did overwhelmed him and he had to get out of the car. The frenzy to get to the phone at the shopping center parking lot was because it was prominent in his mind to get to LH.

I think he is 100% responsible for the death of Cooper, but I don't think he planned it.

JMO and hunch.

Yeah...I've had the same thought--that RH left Cooper in the car on purpose--either meaning to return and he got distracted, or possibly someone else was coming to pick him up and they got distracted. Whatever the case, I think that call with LH was the defining moment for him, and that he knew Cooper was dead when he got in the car. Wonder if they have him on surveillance when he left work? Nothing was said about his movement across the parking lot (i.e., running, walking fast, etc.), or how long he was in the car before he took off, or did I miss that?

Re: His comment about "no malicious intent"...maybe he was able to get a hold of his brother (or someone else) during the time he realized what happened and when he pulled over--it sounds like he may have had a very recent conversation with someone about that.

 

[gngr~snap]

That comment alone proves it was premeditated to me. Who even says that?

This sounds about right.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/criminal-minds/201203/five-reasons-people-get-away-murder
"Even if they commit murder by accident, they are not the types of people who will seem agitated or sad. Rather, they think strategically, realizing that they must come up with a story quickly in order to divert attention away from themselves. They mislead police, stage crime scenes and destroy evidence. They don't want to get caught and will stop at nothing to avoid getting caught."

All posts are MOO