unsinkable Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 What I can't figure out is if he had some sort of plot to kill his son, why would he go out to the car at all? Didn't he realize that would make his story less plausible? (I'm not defending him, just saying this doesn't make sense.) Also, I find it scary that if you view a PSA for something and then do that thing, your viewing of the PSA can be held against you. I'm speaking more generally here. Just something to think about; I don't think the goal should be to have people avoid PSAs! Other searches he did were -how to survive in prison- and a sub-reddit about living child-free. I don't think the general public needs to worry about prosecution for watching a PSA, then having that bad thing happen. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 What I can't figure out is if he had some sort of plot to kill his son, why would he go out to the car at all? Didn't he realize that would make his story less plausible? (I'm not defending him, just saying this doesn't make sense.) Also, I find it scary that if you view a PSA for something and then do that thing, your viewing of the PSA can be held against you. I'm speaking more generally here. Just something to think about; I don't think the goal should be to have people avoid PSAs! Seeing a PSA is a little different than two parents each making searches about the required temperature for leaving a child in a car to be fatal. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katilac Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Yeah, but for me it's the principle of the thing. It's one thing if people have done web searches, looked at detailed maps where a body was found, searched for "chloroform" (I'm looking at you, Casey), etc. I just don't think we should publicize the idea that if you watch an PSA and then you back over your child or they eat unlocked prescription meds it will be held against you. We want as many people as possible to watch them, right? Actually, if you are aware of a potential problem and do nothing to avert it, it can and should be held against you. That's a big part of criminal culpability, both what you knew and what you should have known. But again, it sounds like they are saying he did more than listen to a random PSA. Remember, his defense is that he forgot the child in the car, not that he didn't know it was harmful. So far, they seem to have an incredibly strong case against him forgetting or misremembering: he recently searched for info, so the possibility was fresh in his mind, there was no change in routine, and the child was awake and alert in his presence mere minutes before he parked at work (no long car ride with a possibly sleeping and silent child). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paige Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 What I can't figure out is if he had some sort of plot to kill his son, why would he go out to the car at all? Didn't he realize that would make his story less plausible? (I'm not defending him, just saying this doesn't make sense.) If he planned it, I suspect he was irresistibly drawn back to the car to check on how his plot was going. He was probably wondering if his son was dead yet. Maybe he was having regrets and thought he'd swing by the car and if he heard noises from the child he would save him. Who runs out for light bulbs- just light bulbs- at lunch? Sure, maybe they needed them (I'd be checking the house to see if they were out if I was a detective) but maybe he just wanted an excuse to go by his car and check things out. The wife...I don't get how she's so sweet. If I was her, even if believed it was an accident, I would be unspeakably mad about the sexting while it happened. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I agree with the whole picture of computer searches, I just think they should leave the PSA out of it and focus on the rest. It's okay. I'll live. :) I've visited the child-free stuff after my friend told me about it and how much they seem to hate children. It was pretty annoying, although I can also see how it could be annoying to not have people believe you when you say you don't want kids. Meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katilac Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 wow, if half the stuff being presented at the hearing today is true, they are going to bury him under the jail! it's not looking too good for mom, either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 If he planned it, I suspect he was irresistibly drawn back to the car to check on how his plot was going. He was probably wondering if his son was dead yet. Maybe he was having regrets and thought he'd swing by the car and if he heard noises from the child he would save him. Yeah that makes sense. It would be hard to not check, I guess. Sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I guess I am having a hard time getting motive. Not wanting to be parents anymore? $25k in life insurance? No hell could burn hot enough if this was intentional. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 One of the stories said they are having financial difficulties. They also had two life insurance policies on the boy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 One of the stories said they are having financial difficulties. They also had two life insurance policies on the boy. On it's own, this means nothing. Many families have financial difficulties. Many have life insurance on their kids. Both dh and I have child riders on our own insurance policies, so our kids are covered by two policies. There are a lot of slightly weird things about this case though that don't make it look innocent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 One of the stories said they are having financial difficulties. They also had two life insurance policies on the boy. Totalling $27k (one for $2 and one for $25). If $27k will help a financial situation THAT much it's not all that deep of a financial hole and there are many more ways out than murder. Especially murder of your own child. Not that murdering a child would be worth any insurance payout. It sounds like maybe he was very immature and selfish and didn't want to be a father. In which case, there are still better options than murder, such as giving custody to a relative. Simply horrible. What a jackass. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 This is a man who texted a photo of his erect you know what to a teenage girl as his son was in the car dying. This is not a good or smart person. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I don't think it's any one thing that made him seem guilty, but all of it put together just seems like too much. Life insurance on its own - no problem. Searching heat related deaths in cars (especially in summer when they are already on the news) - no problem. Marital and financial issues - no problem. Add them all together, plus what the police say his attitude was at the scene, then his wife's attitude, then the sexting a teenage girl and it's just too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Sounds very weird and I'm not going to say the evidence doesn't seem damning as a whole. I'm guessing he returned to the scene of his crime at mid-day because he had second thoughts and guilt and figured maybe he could save his kid, found out it was too late, and then went ahead with the plan. It is very normal for a criminal to foolishly return to the scene of his crime and implicate himself that way. But I wanted to say that I've done a lot of research on kids dying of heatstroke in cars. Why? Because I like facts, and I believed (correctly) that facts would show that it is absolute hogwash to say kids knowingly left in cars under any circumstances for any time period are in serious danger. I have been to those informational sites many times. My kids are too old for this to be a real concern, but if anything happened to them, yeah, there would be evidence that I did research on things that kill kids. Other things I have researched for similar reasons include SIDS and accidents from drop-side vs. non-drop-side cribs and car seat safety differentials and probably lots more. I'm not plotting against my kids, I'm fighting the fear-hype-BS industry. I also wonder about stuff people don't even seek out but comes across their computer screen. Like those ads that are automatically generated based on the fact that you looked at something else on Amazon.com or clicked on someone's link on facebook. Or those spam emails that you discover, to your disgust, are explicit porn ads. Or when you accidentally click on an ad you never intended to look at, and that generates all kinds of other nonsense in your computer. Or the fact that you visit a website that hosted a story that you may or may not have sympathized with or cared about. How much of that is going to be used as "evidence" if anything ever happens to our kids? This isn't the first case that had me wondering about this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Sounds very weird and I'm not going to say the evidence doesn't seem damning as a whole. I'm guessing he returned to the scene of his crime at mid-day because he had second thoughts and guilt and figured maybe he could save his kid, found out it was too late, and then went ahead with the plan. It is very normal for a criminal to foolishly return to the scene of his crime and implicate himself that way. But I wanted to say that I've done a lot of research on kids dying of heatstroke in cars. Why? Because I like facts, and I believed (correctly) that facts would show that it is absolute hogwash to say kids knowingly left in cars under any circumstances for any time period are in serious danger. I have been to those informational sites many times. My kids are too old for this to be a real concern, but if anything happened to them, yeah, there would be evidence that I did research on things that kill kids. Other things I have researched for similar reasons include SIDS and accidents from drop-side vs. non-drop-side cribs and car seat safety differentials and probably lots more. I'm not plotting against my kids, I'm fighting the fear-hype-BS industry. I also wonder about stuff people don't even seek out but comes across their computer screen. Like those ads that are automatically generated based on the fact that you looked at something else on Amazon.com or clicked on someone's link on facebook. Or those spam emails that you discover, to your disgust, are explicit porn ads. Or when you accidentally click on an ad you never intended to look at, and that generates all kinds of other nonsense in your computer. Or the fact that you visit a website that hosted a story that you may or may not have sympathized with or cared about. How much of that is going to be used as "evidence" if anything ever happens to our kids? This isn't the first case that had me wondering about this. Or those programs that take a picture of your wang and send it to underage girls. /end sarcasm 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katilac Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Sounds very weird and I'm not going to say the evidence doesn't seem damning as a whole. I'm guessing he returned to the scene of his crime at mid-day because he had second thoughts and guilt and figured maybe he could save his kid, found out it was too late, and then went ahead with the plan. It is very normal for a criminal to foolishly return to the scene of his crime and implicate himself that way. But I wanted to say that I've done a lot of research on kids dying of heatstroke in cars. Why? Because I like facts, and I believed (correctly) that facts would show that it is absolute hogwash to say kids knowingly left in cars under any circumstances for any time period are in serious danger. I have been to those informational sites many times. My kids are too old for this to be a real concern, but if anything happened to them, yeah, there would be evidence that I did research on things that kill kids. Other things I have researched for similar reasons include SIDS and accidents from drop-side vs. non-drop-side cribs and car seat safety differentials and probably lots more. I'm not plotting against my kids, I'm fighting the fear-hype-BS industry. I also wonder about stuff people don't even seek out but comes across their computer screen. Like those ads that are automatically generated based on the fact that you looked at something else on Amazon.com or clicked on someone's link on facebook. Or those spam emails that you discover, to your disgust, are explicit porn ads. Or when you accidentally click on an ad you never intended to look at, and that generates all kinds of other nonsense in your computer. Or the fact that you visit a website that hosted a story that you may or may not have sympathized with or cared about. How much of that is going to be used as "evidence" if anything ever happens to our kids? This isn't the first case that had me wondering about this. No one is going to think you are plotting against your kids unless the very thing you are searching for happens to them within days. They are not talking about stuff that randomly popped up on his screen; they can tell the difference. For example, they even mark the distinction between 'visiting' and 'searching.' You might decide to visit a site or sub-site because you see information on it appears on the screen. For example, I could click on the Peace Hill Press ad I see on this very page, and that's visiting. If I started off on Google's main page and entered "Peace Hill Press," that would be a search. Do note that even a visit requires a click. Now, it is possible to click on a link and get directed somewhere very different, but that's a hijack and it's generally porn. Besides, he admitted to the search, they both did. There is no claim at all that it was accidental. Like all evidence, it is one piece of a puzzle. He would not get convicted solely because of it. Or those programs that take a picture of your wang and send it to underage girls. /end sarcasm I hate those, lol! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The mother of Cooper Harris is now being investigated in his death as well. http://www.today.com/news/police-scrutinize-mother-over-toddlers-death-hot-car-1D79887209?cid=social_20140707_27362806 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted July 7, 2014 Share Posted July 7, 2014 The mother of Cooper Harris is now being investigated in his death as well. http://www.today.com/news/police-scrutinize-mother-over-toddlers-death-hot-car-1D79887209?cid=social_20140707_27362806 I'm only surprised it took this long. Poor Cooper. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I've been watching for updates on this case, looks like dad is going on trial in January. http://www.people.com/article/justin-ross-harris-toddler-hot-car-death-wants-murder-charges-dropped 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted December 11, 2015 Share Posted December 11, 2015 This case continues to haunt me. I looked for an update and saw that the trial is now set for Feb 22nd. I wish I could just forget about it, but the idea that a parent could intentionally leave a toddler to roast to death is a hot car is so sickening I just can't get past it. http://m.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/hot-car-death-case-returns-to-court-trial-date-exp/nnztP/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.