US: Dad 'killed toddler left in hot car'

[webfact]

Father 'killed toddler left in hot car'

US: -- A man accused of killing his toddler son by leaving him inside a hot car will stand trial, a judge has ruled.

A detective told a Georgia hearing the evidence suggested Justin Ross Harris killed his son Cooper intentionally and the tragedy was not due to negligence.

Cobb County Detective Phil Stoddard said Mr Harris had looked at websites advocating against having children

The judge refused bail, meaning Mr Harris, who says he forgot his son was in the car, will remain in jail.

Mr Harris was supposed to drive his 22-month-old son to nursery on the morning of 18 June but he told police that instead he drove to work without realising his son was strapped into a car seat in the back.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28155468


-- BBC 2014-07-04

[Scott]

What a horrible way to die.

[ClutchClark]

I think we all agree this was a horrendous death and since the father has not had his day in court there is really nothing this thread can do except further exploit this poor child.

Is it necessary to keep it active?

[Scott]

It is news and it is in the world news section. However, you don't have to read or comment if you don't want to.

[WitawatWatawit]

Right, Scott. It also serves as a way to rejig our memories of past incidents that may have slipped below the radar - like the 3yo toddler left in a school van all day last year and who eventually died. I don't recall any follow up to this.

[SOTIRIOS]

....what a lowlife piece of sh*t......

[Ulysses G.]

The implication is that he "forgot" about his baby baking in the sun for 7 hours, because he had taken out a big insurance policy on him. If it is true, there can be no doubt that true evil exists.

[rethaier]

He forgot his child was in the car? What an imbecile. He must be a very busy man with a lot on his mind. Does he really think anyone will believe this pathetic excuse?

[Puyai]

Hang him.

[submaniac]

A beautiful child...with the angels now. Rest in peace.

Edited July 4, 2014 by submaniac

[Berkshire]

The implication is that he "forgot" about his baby baking in the sun for 7 hours, because he had taken out a big insurance policy on him. If it is true, there can be no doubt that true evil exists.

I was wondering about motive when this story first came out, but the insurance policy clearly is one. Apparently, it's not for a huge amount, but incentive nevertheless.

[submaniac]

Simply having an insurance policy on a toddler is a red flag for me. I didn't even know you could do it. Normally a person buys life insurance to make sure their spouse and/or children are taken care of if they die. I did not even know it was possible to have a life insurance policy on a toddler. I have never heard of that before.

[capcc76]

The implication is that he "forgot" about his baby baking in the sun for 7 hours, because he had taken out a big insurance policy on him. If it is true, there can be no doubt that true evil exists.

Both and and the mother had researched on various computers what temperature it had to be for child to due in car, how long it would take and etc. He apparently was having a relationship with a 17 year old and had been reading a life without children blog. They were in financial trouble, but had a $2,000 and a $25,000 life insurance policy on the child.

He went back out to the car at lunch to allegedly put something in his car. Not sure if it was CCTV or in his statement. I also read that the fast food restaurant where they ate breakfast that morning was only a minute away from child care center. The mother went to pick the child up at day care. Day care told her the child was never dropped off and the mother began saying I bet he left him in the car.

The father apparently never called 911, only began CPR when someone suggested it, made 2 calls to other before police arrived and said F you to a police officer when they asked him to get off the phone so they could ask about the child.

[bkkjames]

speechless. a mix of sadness and anger.

[smileydude]

This story shows the darker side of a human's capability to think. Our intelligence is a double-edged sword for humanity.

Hopefully justice will be served due to the technological crumbs of intent left behind.

Edited July 4, 2014 by smileydude

[neverdie]

speechless. a mix of sadness and anger.

Sadly, any two morons can lie down together and make a child. Doesn't make either of them a parent, just two sad individuals that <deleted> and made another life.

No real mother or father could allow for such stupidity.

Once found guilty, he should be slowly roasted over a spit fire, very slowly and at low heat. Only as he is dying will he realise what he has done to this poor innocent child. Straight to hell with this b@stard.

[submaniac]

OK, if you suddenly decide you don't want to be a parent anymore...OK that's one thing. This child was a beautiful toddler and he would not have had a hard time being adopted. There are thousands of parents lined up to adopt...killing him?!?!? Even a dog does not deserve to die by heat stroke in a car, let alone a little baby.

[Jingthing]

I reckon the guy is probably guilty.
HOWEVER, I have a problem with the trend to use internet search history to prove convictions.

In the U.S. there is supposed to be freedom of thought ... in my view, that includes freedom to imagine, freedom to research, etc.

It used to be about privacy of library books you check out.

Now people basically have no privacy.

While the research will help hang this guy and I understand the logic of it ... in reality a person's topics of curiosity don't PROVE anything.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Jingthing

[Baerboxer]

The implication is that he "forgot" about his baby baking in the sun for 7 hours, because he had taken out a big insurance policy on him. If it is true, there can be no doubt that true evil exists.

Both and and the mother had researched on various computers what temperature it had to be for child to due in car, how long it would take and etc. He apparently was having a relationship with a 17 year old and had been reading a life without children blog. They were in financial trouble, but had a $2,000 and a $25,000 life insurance policy on the child.

He went back out to the car at lunch to allegedly put something in his car. Not sure if it was CCTV or in his statement. I also read that the fast food restaurant where they ate breakfast that morning was only a minute away from child care center. The mother went to pick the child up at day care. Day care told her the child was never dropped off and the mother began saying I bet he left him in the car.

The father apparently never called 911, only began CPR when someone suggested it, made 2 calls to other before police arrived and said F you to a police officer when they asked him to get off the phone so they could ask about the child.

Unbelievable that human beings and parents could behave like this.

[jaapfries]

What a horrible way to die.

It is, apparently, the MOST horrible and tortuous way to end life ! ! !

RIP to the little man: 22 months; you never had a chance ! ! !

[hawker9000]

I reckon the guy is probably guilty.

HOWEVER, I have a problem with the trend to use internet search history to prove convictions.

In the U.S. there is supposed to be freedom of thought ... in my view, that includes freedom to imagine, freedom to research, etc.

It used to be about privacy of library books you check out.

Now people basically have no privacy.

While the research will help hang this guy and I understand the logic of it ... in reality a person's topics of curiosity don't PROVE anything.

True. The internet searches alone don't "prove" anything. But as evidence, and part of a bigger picture showing motive & intent, what's the problem with it? Moreover, it's HARDLY the extent of the evidence against him, now is it?

Is your issue privacy? On the internet? You must be joking. If there's one thing about anyone's activities on the internet that everyone by now understands, it's that there's no privacy there! Not even your email. Not even your encrypted email. Certainly not where Big Brother is concerned.

I suspect the outcome of this case would be the same with or without the internet browsing anyway. Honestly now, could YOU "forget" leaving your child in your car for 7 hours?

[Jingthing]

Honestly, I don't think a person's internet searches should even be ALLOWED in court UNLESS the internet activities THEMSELVES were illegal. Which they were not. I realize the press has reported them but that's different than what's entered in a trial. As far as guilt or innocence, at the very least there is culpability in the death from gross neglect. the question is whether it was premeditated murder. I understand the public has tried and convicted the man already and I'm inclined to agree he looks guilty of murder. But fair trials matter too.

[khaosai]

Tragic story.

RIP

[hawker9000]

Honestly, I don't think a person's internet searches should even be ALLOWED in court UNLESS the internet activities THEMSELVES were illegal. Which they were not. I realize the press has reported them but that's different than what's entered in a trial. As far as guilt or innocence, at the very least there is culpability in the death from gross neglect. the question is whether it was premeditated murder. I understand the public has tried and convicted the man already and I'm inclined to agree he looks guilty of murder. But fair trials matter too.

'Seems to me that saying that this man's internet search should not be "allowed" is like saying that evidence of a man seen sharpening a knife in preparation for a stabbing shouldn't be allowed... What's your basis for insisting that an internet search is or should be considered "confidential" and beyond the reach of even a probable cause search? Do you have some expectation of legal confidentiality with your ISP or a website like you might with your doctor or your lawyer or your minister (or your wife...)? If he'd asked a friend or a shopkeeper or a schoolteacher or consultant or random guy on the street for the information verbally (or in writing), they all, along with any documentation, could be subpoenaed and required to testify truthfully, and their testimony would've been entirely admissable... Why is this different?

[submaniac]

Honestly, I don't think a person's internet searches should even be ALLOWED in court UNLESS the internet activities THEMSELVES were illegal. Which they were not. I realize the press has reported them but that's different than what's entered in a trial. As far as guilt or innocence, at the very least there is culpability in the death from gross neglect. the question is whether it was premeditated murder. I understand the public has tried and convicted the man already and I'm inclined to agree he looks guilty of murder. But fair trials matter too.

Disagree. There are certain internet activities which are in themselves illegal, such as, for example, looking at child pornography on a website. This is the only internet activity that I can think of that is in and of itself a crime.

There is still freedom of thought on the internet in that activities which are illegal, are nonetheless legal to discuss or give instructions for. For example, there are numerous websites and books (like the anarchist's cookbook) on how to make explosives, make pipebombs, make firearm silencers, and manufacture illegal drugs like meth amphetamine. It's perfectly legal to read up on this stuff. The illegality is if you go beyond learning about it to actually doing it.

The fact that he was researching on how long it takes a child to die in a car is perfectly relevant and admissible because it demonstrates knowledge. For example, the constituent ingredients to manufacture meth amphetamine are legal to posses by themselves. Now if I get caught with psuedo ephedrine and other chemical ingredients to manufacture, it's perfectly admissible that I did an internet search on it. Why? Because it goes to whether I can argue "gee I didn't know I could manufacture meth out of this stuff". The response is "you did a big internet search and have knowledge of how to manufacture it so you can't argue that your possession of the ingredients is accidental."

The fact that he did a internet search on how long it takes a child to die in a hot car is relevant because he had a child under his care die in a hot car. He cannot argue "hey I didn't know if I left a child in a hot car for a couple hours that child would die". Hence, perfectly relevant.

And, as an aside, I have never in my life done an internet search on the subject of how long it would take a child to die in a hot car.

[capcc76]

Investigators revealed that while Harris was being questioned in the interrogation room, Leanna asked him, "Did you say too much?"

During Cooper's funeral, Leanna said she wouldnt bring her son back if she could and that she didn't blame her husband for his death.

[Cooper] wont have to suffer through the death of his [grandparents]. He wont have to suffer through the death of me and Ross, she said in the eulogy.

[3NUMBAS]

execute the pig

[capcc76]

Electrocution is too good for this POS mother.

---------

Stoddard says Harris' wife Leanne came to the day care the afternoon the boy died, June 18, and was told the child wasn't there. According to witnesses, she then said her husband must have left the toddler in the car. After learning of the death, Leanne Harris's mother told investigators she had asked her why she wasn't crying. She responded that she 'must be in shock.' Leanne Harris also reportedly said to Harris in front of investigators, 'Did you say too much?'

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/top-stories/stories/disturbing-details-revealed-hot-car-death-bond-hearing-11387.shtml?wap=0

[capcc76]

More evidence/testimony from probable cause hearing. What a POS.

---------

Later in the evening, when Harris says he first discovered Cooper's body, police say he took him out of the car and laid him on the ground. He then grabbed his cellphone as a witness performed CPR. Harris first called his wife, and then called Home Depot, where he worked.

Detectives said Harris showed no emotion as they questioned him about Cooper's death.

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/top-stories/stories/disturbing-details-revealed-hot-car-death-bond-hearing-11387.shtml?wap=0

[capcc76]

Honestly, I don't think a person's internet searches should even be ALLOWED in court UNLESS the internet activities THEMSELVES were illegal. Which they were not. I realize the press has reported them but that's different than what's entered in a trial. As far as guilt or innocence, at the very least there is culpability in the death from gross neglect. the question is whether it was premeditated murder. I understand the public has tried and convicted the man already and I'm inclined to agree he looks guilty of murder. But fair trials matter too.

Spoken like someone with something to hide. Sexual deviants, child porn freaks need to be concerned. Much better to hunt them down and lock them up based in Internet activity than waiting for them to physically harm a child.

Internet searches much better than other forms of evidence. Such evidence is not tainted by bad memory in recalling details of conversations, people driven by ulterior motives, mistaken recollection, suggested interviewing technique or people cutting deals trying to save their own skin. Evidence of his Net searches is collaborative evidence supporting physical and observational evidence.

Thank God this POS was dumb enough to search Net for such topics so this poor child's death may be properly vindicated. People with nothing to hide should not be bothered by the evidence in this case.