LeAnna (Mom) #1

[cady]

oh. My. Gosh.

Ross authored the funeral and the obituary!!!
It just hit me. Ross is the leader. Ross i'm doing this for you...
Doh! :doh:

All posts are moo.

did he? was it pre-written or did he compose it in jail ? JMO

 

[Lovejac]

Cooper is who JRH is referencing in the text when he uses the words "my buddy". The myth is that JRH said "my little buddy". The remark has been likened to the "My Buddy" doll who scared the beeswax out of me because I thought he looked like Chuckie...from the movies.

Gngersnap, newone. It's still here guys.

 

[Virgoedge]

It is still early and I am dealing with a headcold, so if this makes no sense please don't hold it against me.

I just had another thought/speculation on why LH would be defending RH. Lots of IF's required for this to fit but:
IF she believes he's guilty/her possibly involved (Moo)
IF she were planning on being rid of him and CP
and IF $$ is a motivator
Would she want RH to not be in prison so that she could possibly sue him in a civil suit ala The Browns vs. OJ? She would need him to be out and able to draw an income. Is it even possible for a wife to sue a husband/Ex-husband for something like the death of their child? That would wrap everything up into a nice bow, no cheating husband, no child to tie them together the rest of their lives and the satisfaction of knowing that the free $$ RH thought he would have is now going to her every month.

Also, another thought re: his sexting. It is said she knew a while back that he cheated. Maybe they had an agreement that he can sext, but ONLY sext to satisfy his philandering but never to have actual physical contact. I could see him twisting her arm into agreeing to that and her convincing herself that it was ok b/c it wasn't technically cheating. Hence the lack of shock at the PCH but anger and embarrassment at it being exposed.

 

[newone]

Gngersnap, newone. It's still here guys.

whew thank you

 

[newone]

lovejac time to come clean

you moved that last night didn't you you rascal

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

But one thing has changed drastically in the years Dr Resnick has been studying this, and that muddies the waters...the coming of the Internet age.

I believe RH was the one most worried about impressions/what people thought about him. He was the one sexting images of himself to young girls, and 'broadcasting' images of himself to others in general in an attempt to impress (eg. references to his playing lead guitar in a band, exaggerated references concerning his job history, his current job situation & income, his house-hunting, running up credit card bills in the thousands, etc.). From the evidence presented so far, it would appear that RH was someone for whom money and keeping up appearances became a central driving theme in his life. So, back to the Internet...

If RH wanted freedom from his marriage and responsibilities, he had these options:

•Divorce LH and pay child support and lose face with the current circle of friends at their church and certain family members; 2 substantial losses there ($ and self-image)

•Get rid of both responsibilities--kill both his wife and child and leave the country (that's a lot of work for someone who doesn't seem to have a lot of work ethic going for him)

•Get rid of his child, (deal with the wife later)...and in so doing, play the cyber violin: engage press and garner sympathy by staging a dramatic, heart-wrenching, every-parent's-nightmare kind of death for an only child. To his wife's stoic faith add the loyal support of his church, friends, and family, and for good measure, top it all off with a dramatic "prophetic" dream account with Cooper sitting on Jesus' knee in heaven (LH taking care of the children and RH playing the guitar, of course). Just the sort of thing for viral feeds on Godvine, Youtube, and Facebook, and (as we so quickly saw), the money starts pouring in.

The third option best supports a lifestyle that is 1) childfree, 2) image-enhancing, and 3) bank-account enhancing. With no loss of face, unless of course, one gets caught. But that's unthinkable to someone who is already pretty sure of his own invincibility, intellect, and charm.

Perfect. post.
:winner:

 

[Lovejac]

lovejac time to come clean

you moved that last night didn't you you rascal

:floorlaugh: I swear it wasn't me! I'm probably going to have nightmares from even bumping it.

That movie scared the beejesus out of me :hills:

 

[newone]

Perfect. post.
:winner:

yes and then some

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

yes and then some

Watch it guys...you'll give me a swelled head. On top of this sinus infection, it might just explode.

Messy.

 

[SeeMamaRun]

But one thing has changed drastically in the years Dr Resnick has been studying this, and that muddies the waters...the coming of the Internet age.

I believe RH was the one most worried about impressions/what people thought about him. He was the one sexting images of himself to young girls, and 'broadcasting' images of himself to others in general in an attempt to impress (eg. references to his playing lead guitar in a band, exaggerated references concerning his job history, his current job situation & income, his house-hunting, running up credit card bills in the thousands, etc.). From the evidence presented so far, it would appear that RH was someone for whom money and keeping up appearances became a central driving theme in his life. So, back to the Internet...

If RH wanted freedom from his marriage and responsibilities, he had these options:

•Divorce LH and pay child support and lose face with the current circle of friends at their church and certain family members; 2 substantial losses there ($ and self-image)

•Get rid of both responsibilities--kill both his wife and child and leave the country (that's a lot of work for someone who doesn't seem to have a lot of work ethic going for him)

•Get rid of his child, (deal with the wife later)...and in so doing, play the cyber violin: engage press and garner sympathy by staging a dramatic, heart-wrenching, every-parent's-nightmare kind of death for an only child. To his wife's stoic faith add the loyal support of his church, friends, and family, and for good measure, top it all off with a dramatic "prophetic" dream account with Cooper sitting on Jesus' knee in heaven (LH taking care of the children and RH playing the guitar, of course). Just the sort of thing for viral feeds on Godvine, Youtube, and Facebook, and (as we so quickly saw), the money starts pouring in.

The third option best supports a lifestyle that is 1) childfree, 2) image-enhancing, and 3) bank-account enhancing. With no loss of face, unless of course, one gets caught. But that's unthinkable to someone who is already pretty sure of his own invincibility, intellect, and charm.

It's so hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of premeditated filicide but option 3 makes sense to me based on what we know of JRH. Thanks for summarizing it so well!

This scenario means LH is innocent though which I'm not sure I agree with because her behavior is so odd. However, it's really hard for me to imagine 2 parents planning the murder of their child because he's cramping their style. I just can't make LH fit in any scenario.

1: she thinks it was an accident so she's standing by her man because she believes him to be innocent but that doesn't explain "did you say too much" and knowing what happened to Cooper before anyone told her what had happened.

2. She wasn't in on it but was suspicious of JRH's plans or he had threatened her with his plan. This explains the things she said at daycare and at the police station. But, it does not explain why she didn't take Cooper and run before he could be hurt by his father unless she thought JRH would never follow through with it. This also doesn't explain why she's standing by JRH now.

3. She's in on it and very bad at acting. Maybe she found out that JRH didn't get the promotion and was seeking solace in other woman. Maybe they talked about divorce but neither wanted Cooper or they realized together that the least damaging course for their reps was an accidental death followed by an amicable separation which is common after a child dies. Maybe she just thought he'd be better off dead than being a child of divorce. Again, call me naive, but I have a hard time imagine TWO parents planning the murder of their child in this way.

4. ??? I don't know! This woman confounds me!

 

[SeeMamaRun]

Quick questions:

Is filicide always premeditated by definition? Or would something like shaken baby syndrome count as filicide?

How often is a child's murder premeditated and planned out? Do we know? I assume it's often masked as being an accident or the child simply disappears.

 

[newone]

It's so hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of premeditated filicide but option 3 makes sense to me based on what we know of JRH. Thanks for summarizing it so well!

This scenario means LH is innocent though which I'm not sure I agree with because her behavior is so odd. However, it's really hard for me to imagine 2 parents planning the murder of their child because he's cramping their style. I just can't make LH fit in any scenario.

1: she thinks it was an accident so she's standing by her man because she believes him to be innocent but that doesn't explain "did you say too much" and knowing what happened to Cooper before anyone told her what had happened.

2. She wasn't in on it but was suspicious of JRH's plans or he had threatened her with his plan. This explains the things she said at daycare and at the police station. But, it does not explain why she didn't take Cooper and run before he could be hurt by his father unless she thought JRH would never follow through with it. This also doesn't explain why she's standing by JRH now.

3. She's in on it and very bad at acting. Maybe she found out that JRH didn't get the promotion and was seeking solace in other woman. Maybe they talked about divorce but neither wanted Cooper or they realized together that the least damaging course for their reps was an accidental death followed by an amicable separation which is common after a child dies. Maybe she just thought he'd be better off dead than being a child of divorce. Again, call me naive, but I have a hard time imagine TWO parents planning the murder of their child in this way.

4. ??? I don't know! This woman confounds me!

I vote for your No. 2 - which explains her disbelief and inability to bust his chops --she's still processing it....and covering her own tail because she's feeling guilt == at this point ===

 

[NancyA]

It's so hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of premeditated filicide but option 3 makes sense to me based on what we know of JRH. Thanks for summarizing it so well!

This scenario means LH is innocent though

RSBM and BBM. No, it doesn't IMO. It doesn't absolve her of her parental responsibility to ensure Cooper's safety. She too googled hot car deaths by her own admission, it is her GREATEST fear, so what did she do? Nothing. No use of aides memoires in the car to remind him the baby was there, no implementation of precautionary measures such as a drop off text/call check system. No, she googled this and she still did NOTHING to prevent this happening to her child whether that be by wilful intention or accidental forgetfulness on the part of her husband.

 

[peedoffinny]

Oh I simply must know the meaning behind your screen name...please tell!

Hi Linda, I'm finally catching up and saw this post. It's Peed off in NY. I am not very creative and at the time I was so aggravated w/ my husband and the Anthony fiasco (Still am w/ both situations by the way) - and didn't think I could get away with 'pissed' off. LOL

 

[SeeMamaRun]

RSBM and BBM. No, it doesn't IMO. It doesn't absolve her of her parental responsibility to ensure Cooper's safety. She too googled hot car deaths by her own admission, it is her GREATEST fear, so what did she do? Nothing. No use of aides memoires in the car to remind him the baby was there, no implementation of precautionary measures such as a drop off text/call check system. No, she googled this and she still did NOTHING to prevent this happening to her child whether that be by wilful intention or accidental forgetfulness on the part of her husband.

Respectively, we don't know that she didn't do those things. Do we? She's not the one who left Cooper in that car. Maybe she did drive around with her left shoe in the back seat when she had Cooper. Maybe she did text JRH to see if he'd dropped Cooper off (unlikely unless he lied but we don't know texts between them on that day so it is possible). She can't control her husband. No matter how many times I told my husband that the kids should not wear coats while in their car seats, he still frequently neglected to take their coats off before buckling them in. I told him nicely, I got angry, I showed him information about the dangers involved and I tightened and re-tightened the straps so that they couldn't be buckled if the kids were wearing coats. Yet it was a constant fight throughout much of the winter. Finally, I told him that he wasn't allowed to drive with the kids if he couldn't take the steps to make sure they were safe in their seats and he shaped up. If he had gotten into an accident before I took that step and my children had been ejected from their seats during an accident would I hold some of the blame? Certainly I would blame myself but is one parent always held responsible for the neglect or actions of the other?

Just playing devil's advocate here a bit. I'm still on the fence about Leanna but my gut is saying that she is not 100% innocent.

 

[rob]

It's so hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of premeditated filicide but option 3 makes sense to me based on what we know of JRH. Thanks for summarizing it so well!

This scenario means LH is innocent though which I'm not sure I agree with because her behavior is so odd. However, it's really hard for me to imagine 2 parents planning the murder of their child because he's cramping their style. I just can't make LH fit in any scenario.

1: she thinks it was an accident so she's standing by her man because she believes him to be innocent but that doesn't explain "did you say too much" and knowing what happened to Cooper before anyone told her what had happened.

2. She wasn't in on it but was suspicious of JRH's plans or he had threatened her with his plan. This explains the things she said at daycare and at the police station. But, it does not explain why she didn't take Cooper and run before he could be hurt by his father unless she thought JRH would never follow through with it. This also doesn't explain why she's standing by JRH now.

3. She's in on it and very bad at acting. Maybe she found out that JRH didn't get the promotion and was seeking solace in other woman. Maybe they talked about divorce but neither wanted Cooper or they realized together that the least damaging course for their reps was an accidental death followed by an amicable separation which is common after a child dies. Maybe she just thought he'd be better off dead than being a child of divorce. Again, call me naive, but I have a hard time imagine TWO parents planning the murder of their child in this way.

4. ??? I don't know! This woman confounds me!

I'm with you on number 3.

 

[K_Z]

Respectively, we don't know that she didn't do those things. Do we? She's not the one who left Cooper in that car. Maybe she did drive around with her left shoe in the back seat when she had Cooper. Maybe she did text JRH to see if he'd dropped Cooper off (unlikely unless he lied but we don't know texts between them on that day so it is possible). She can't control her husband. No matter how many times I told my husband that the kids should not wear coats while in their car seats, he still frequently neglected to take their coats off before buckling them in. I told him nicely, I got angry, I showed him information about the dangers involved and I tightened and re-tightened the straps so that they couldn't be buckled if the kids were wearing coats. Yet it was a constant fight throughout much of the winter. Finally, I told him that he wasn't allowed to drive with the kids if he couldn't take the steps to make sure they were safe in their seats and he shaped up. If he had gotten into an accident before I took that step and my children had been ejected from their seats during an accident would I hold some of the blame? Certainly I would blame myself but is one parent always held responsible for the neglect or actions of the other?

Just playing devil's advocate here a bit. I'm still on the fence about Leanna but my gut is saying that she is not 100% innocent.

BBM. A little OT, but I have to respond here. I have never, one single time, ever heard anyone advised to remove a child's outerwear before putting the child into a car seat! And I'm a health professional! I also live in the "way far" north, where it is below zero for weeks to months on end in winter-- it would be downright dangerous to remove a child's outerwear and put them in a cold car here! I have never seen a single parent do this, or even talk about it.

If this were common practice, there would be PSA's all over the place telling parents to remove outerwear. That is just not possible, or practical, in most colder climates. And "pre-warming" the car isn't always possible, either, like if you have been at work or in a store. Heck, a mom at my child's daycare frequently brought her toddler without a coat or shoes-- just a diaper and onsie, in the dead of winter, and she had child protective services on her case pretty quickly. Daycare even gave her some outer wear and sox/ shoes-- and still she brought the child with bare legs and feet, no blanket or clothing.

Getting parents to properly clothe their children in winter, and actually USE a carseat for kids older than one, is a MUCH bigger problem here. Elementary school sends notice after notice home about boots and outerwear all winter long, and makes the kids without proper footwear and outerwear take from lost and found to go outside. Parents are given info on free resources from local churches to get outerwear, etc.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

It's so hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of premeditated filicide but option 3 makes sense to me based on what we know of JRH. Thanks for summarizing it so well!

This scenario means LH is innocent though which I'm not sure I agree with because her behavior is so odd. However, it's really hard for me to imagine 2 parents planning the murder of their child because he's cramping their style. I just can't make LH fit in any scenario.

1: she thinks it was an accident so she's standing by her man because she believes him to be innocent but that doesn't explain "did you say too much" and knowing what happened to Cooper before anyone told her what had happened.

2. She wasn't in on it but was suspicious of JRH's plans or he had threatened her with his plan. This explains the things she said at daycare and at the police station. But, it does not explain why she didn't take Cooper and run before he could be hurt by his father unless she thought JRH would never follow through with it. This also doesn't explain why she's standing by JRH now.

3. She's in on it and very bad at acting. Maybe she found out that JRH didn't get the promotion and was seeking solace in other woman. Maybe they talked about divorce but neither wanted Cooper or they realized together that the least damaging course for their reps was an accidental death followed by an amicable separation which is common after a child dies. Maybe she just thought he'd be better off dead than being a child of divorce. Again, call me naive, but I have a hard time imagine TWO parents planning the murder of their child in this way.

4. ??? I don't know! This woman confounds me!

bbm

#4--me, too. I'm [still straining to be] on the fence about LH at this point. If it helps, I don't think this scenario would be impossible to have happened with RH being the main instigator and (for whatever reason) her also being led/manipulated into going along with the plan, or at least taking part in a CYA for her "leader" after the fact. I don't see her as a weak person, but I also get the feeling she's got some role conflict going on in her head (is she primarily loving spouse or loving mom--and by the way, who is she MOM to...?) Get the feeling LH at least started as the only 'adult' half of that marriage. JMO.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Respectively, we don't know that she didn't do those things. Do we? She's not the one who left Cooper in that car. Maybe she did drive around with her left shoe in the back seat when she had Cooper. Maybe she did text JRH to see if he'd dropped Cooper off (unlikely unless he lied but we don't know texts between them on that day so it is possible). She can't control her husband. No matter how many times I told my husband that the kids should not wear coats while in their car seats, he still frequently neglected to take their coats off before buckling them in. I told him nicely, I got angry, I showed him information about the dangers involved and I tightened and re-tightened the straps so that they couldn't be buckled if the kids were wearing coats. Yet it was a constant fight throughout much of the winter. Finally, I told him that he wasn't allowed to drive with the kids if he couldn't take the steps to make sure they were safe in their seats and he shaped up. If he had gotten into an accident before I took that step and my children had been ejected from their seats during an accident would I hold some of the blame? Certainly I would blame myself but is one parent always held responsible for the neglect or actions of the other?

Just playing devil's advocate here a bit. I'm still on the fence about Leanna but my gut is saying that she is not 100% innocent.

Good post. Have to say, I notice that sometimes with couples, there's an uncanny attraction to "opposites" in the responsibility department. Based on LH's work history and manner, it wouldn't surprise me if RH was attracted to her b/c she was a responsible mama type who could also mother (as in 'spoil, cater to') him. The sort of wife who would be long-suffering, responsible, doing the stuff he wouldn't do while making excuses for him why he couldn't do it...(and, possibly even fueling her own self-esteem in the process because she sees herself as indispensible to the partnership and smooth running of the home). Even though this is at the same time enabling and communicates truthfully right back to the 'leader' that he really doesn't pass the muster in so many departments.

 

[SeeMamaRun]

BBM. A little OT, but I have to respond here. I have never, one single time, ever heard anyone advised to remove a child's outerwear before putting the child into a car seat! And I'm a health professional! I also live in the "way far" north, where it is below zero for weeks to months on end in winter-- it would be downright dangerous to remove a child's outerwear and put them in a cold car here! I have never seen a single parent do this, or even talk about it.

If this were common practice, there would be PSA's all over the place telling parents to remove outerwear. That is just not possible, or practical, in most colder climates. And "pre-warming" the car isn't always possible, either, like if you have been at work or in a store. Heck, a mom at my child's daycare frequently brought her toddler without a coat or shoes-- just a diaper and onsie, in the dead of winter, and she had child protective services on her case pretty quickly. Daycare even gave her some outer wear and sox/ shoes-- and still she brought the child with bare legs and feet, no blanket or clothing.

Getting parents to properly clothe their children in winter, and actually USE a carseat for kids older than one, is a MUCH bigger problem here. Elementary school sends notice after notice home about boots and outerwear all winter long, and makes the kids without proper footwear and outerwear take from lost and found to go outside. Parents are given info on free resources from local churches to get outerwear, etc.

I'm in Iowa and we have pretty harsh winters but the warnings about coats and car seats are everywhere when the temperatures start to drop. The straps just aren't tight enough when wearing a coat because the fabric compresses when under pressure. AAP says, " Bulky clothing, including winter coats and snowsuits, can compress in a crash and lead to increased risk of injury. Ideally, dress your baby in thinner layers and tuck a coat or a blanket around your baby over the buckled harness straps if needed" http://patiented.aap.org/content2.aspx?aid=6042

It's a pain in the rear but I put the kids' coats on backwards and then take them off once they are seated. Then I buckle them up and use the coat as a blanket over the buckles!