Father Leaves Toddler in Car

[cash]

the ex-wife has done an interview saying it was an accident - she seems stupid

http://lawnewz.com/video/it-was-an-a...hot-car-death/

[TaupinJohn]

I think what happened to Cooper Harris was absolutely an accident, and his father, Justin Ross Harris, is innocent of the crimes he's been found guilty of, and I think there's ample evidence to prove that.

I can't list it all here, because it'd take pages and pages. But I'll list a few (shocking, I know.) Maybe at least someone will take another look at the case and at least consider the possibility that an innocent man is grieving his son from his prison cell. Not innocent of "sexting" (ugh) and not innocent of negligence, but innocent of planning and carrying out that plan to murder his son by leaving him in his car for over eight hours.

LE fed the media what it loves most: stories about parents killing toddlers, babies, et al in the most horrific of ways. The public loves these stories, and the outrage is strong. So they support the media more for more "stuff" and the media provides it, etc. etc. etc.
So the media, in an effort to make a story (after all, there were 37 hot-car deaths of toddlers that year, and not much in the way of stories were gleaned from them.) This time, if there was no story, they'd make one. And the cops had a very good reason to provide them the lies they needed for their story. Thus a story was born. And it was a pip.

Justin Ross Harris was doomed from the moment after a cop told him to get off his phone. It was, reportedly, the second time he'd asked him to get off his phone, and Harris had just reached his mother, so he ignored the cop. After all, his two-year-old son lay dead on the hot pavement; calling one's mother doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, and it didn't to him. By all accounts, he didn't hear the first request and didn't respond at all. But when asked again to hang up he responded to the interruption the way I'm sure I would have, as well. What's the RIGHT way to respond when your only child is dead, you've known for what, 10 minutes, and the whole world has just become the stage of the worst nightmare of your life?

Ross' response to that cop was, "Fuck off." I think, under the circumstances, it was, if not justified, understandable. So he said it, and it was heard by most of the people gathered around (as people tend to do.)

But cops really, really hate when people talk that way to them, especially in public. In fact, this cop hated it so much that he cuffed Harris and put him in the back of the cruiser, taking his cell phone as he did, and began going through it. And no, that is NOT his right. And it is NOT legally considered "evidence" as it was obtained during an illegal search. That's how all the "sexting" came to light; after an illegal search.

These cops were angry; being told to FO in front of a crowd of people isn't something they enjoy. So they're looking through his phone, they see some naughty pictures, and so the story began. And by "story" I mean "fictional account."

The detective in this case testified that Ross had RESEARCHED "hot car death" and "how long does it take to die in a hot car." This was during the preliminary hearing. And it was a damned lie.
Came to find out, there was a story on Harris' computer THAT HE DID NOT CLICK ON TO READ about hot car deaths.
True.
I don't know if he saw it or not, but he did not read it, and all he saw was a box that said something like, "How Long is Too Long in a Hot Car?" (and "click here for story" -- like that.)
And the "Childless Life" rumor?
His co-worker e-mailed him a link about a group of people who chose to live their lives without children.
HARRIS NEVER CLICKED ONTO IT. EVER. Despite rumors, he never read a word about it.

There was NO smell of death when Harris entered his car after work. The medical examiner said there was a "faint odor of urine" when he examined little Cooper. So those saying, "He had to smell that!" are 100% wrong. There was only a faint odor, and that was several hours later, in the ME's office. Nobody who tried to revive Cooper or was anywhere around him smelled anything, let alone a "death smell."

Detective Stoddard lied so many times in that courtroom, I am astounded there wasn't a mistrial. One of the jurors now says she was "tickled" to have been chosen to do her "duty" to Cooper. Way to be unbiased, bitch.

I've seen the video of Ross putting the light bulbs into his car. He could not have seen Cooper, despite Det. Stoddard saying "he was in" the car. No, he was NOT. He tossed them in, his chest, shoulders, and face well above the opening of the door. Unless he could see through the top of that car, he did NOT see or hear Cooper inside. (BTW: He was parked in the shade. Not a great plan for a man planning to roast his own son.)

How many other parents were put into the back seat of a patrol car at the scene? Look it up, I'll wait.
0.
How many other parents (there were 39 hot car child deaths in the year surrounding little Cooper's) were charged with murder following said death?
0.
How many other parents told the cop to "fuck off" when asked to put his phone away?
0.
That's not a coincidence, I don't even believe in coincidences like that. That's a bunch of cops who didn't like the way he acted towards them, didn't think he was respectful of them, and by God, they were gonna fix him. And by God, they did.

I hope his appeal is a successful one and he is exonerated for this terrible tragedy that will live with him every day of his life.

I get it, it's easier than looking through transcripts and preliminary hearings and depositions. But if you can't look at all the evidence, then don't form an opinion, because you're forming it on innuendo, on what someone said, and on straight-up lies.

His appeal is forthcoming, and the first article therein simply states, "The evidence did not support the decision." Well amen to that.

I pray that appeal is a successful one and that his sexting sentence (37 years? And how much do child-molesting-then-murdering-folks get again?) is reduced to a reasonable amount of years he'll spend grieving his son from a jail cell.

If you're going to throw the parents who forget their children into a cop car and take them to jail, not to EVER see the world again only moments after discovering their kids? Then you need to throw ALL OF THEM into a cop car and show them their last trip of their lives

Fly high, little guy. You were a treasure.
As for Ross? I wish him every success in his appeal, and godspeed back to the free world.

[Upset]

Sorry, but when they told him about the charges, he responded that "there was no malicious intent." Clearly he did some research SOMEWHERE. Maybe he had a library card.

[TaupinJohn]

I don't expect one would need a library card to understand "malicious intent." If you're implying his researched, "What would happen if I got caught forgetting my child in a hot car" (which he did not, that's an example) you can bet your ass that would have been shouted from the rooftops, especially if it were true, unlike the other things he "researched" on his work or home computer. Because that's where they got the idea for "child-free lifestyle" -- from a link SENT TO HIM, not sought out by him, a link he never explored or showed any interest in whatsoever. Not on a library computer, but his home computer, like anyone else uses to Google things. I highly doubt he discovered that term by "researching" anything in a library, I know I wouldn't have to.

I know what malicious intent is. I don't remember how I learned it, but I know what "malice" is, and I know what "intent" is, so maybe it's just common sense to me, and if that's the case (and it is) I don't think it's unusual at all for Ross to have knowledge of that phrase.
I'm sure I've heard it used enough on CSI-type shows to have figured it out if a general knowledge of the language hadn't already helped me do that.

He had just seen his son lying dead on the concrete of a parking lot. I don't know where his mind was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the condition to pick and choose his words. "Malicious intent" is a cop phrase, a legal term. I think he did pretty well to use it, it was a concept they were familiar with, and it was absolutely true. So in my opinion, he nailed it. Nothing to see there, and I did try.

As far as saying the term itself, I don't think it's a reach to say "it wasn't with malicious intent." I mean, he was using what I assume he imagined was the formal wording for saying so, but what he was essentially saying was, "I know. My son is dead and it's my fault. But I didn't mean for it to happen; I didn't do this with malice (or "with desire to inflict harm" on my child, by definition.)

Simply stated, what he said was, "I know my neglect caused this, but it wasn't intentional."

I don't really see anything telling in that. And I do appreciate that the language he used wasn't particular great layman's terms, but I think he was trying to use the language of the department, as that's what they'd call it, "with malicious intent." It made some people do a wtf, but when you think about it? Nah, it's not even almost indicative of guilt. That's reaching, and it's reaching really far.

As far as the statement holding up, I believe it has. He didn't do this with malice. That's the case, right there.
And it's the case with (according to every single person who's done this) everyone who's admitted to forgetting a child in a hot car. They did it, but didn't do it with malice. It was a tragic mistake, an accident, and nobody was given life for it.
Why is Ross' case different from anyone else's? Because the reasons most people have for this are lies created by LE and spoon-fed by the prosecution, but well documented as just that: absolute lies.

Most people think Ross DID research and show an interest in "child-free lifestyle."
Most people think Ross DID Google, "How long does it take a child to die in a hot car?"
Most people think Ross DID check inside that car at lunchtime to see if his son was alive.
Most people think they could NEVER forget a child in a car. 39 people did that in 12 months in this country. So SOMEONE could, and dozens did.
Most people think Ross HAD TO HAVE noticed an odor on his lunch hour. There wasn't one, even four hours later, when discovered.

These are lies. If the public is going to condemn him, I wish they'd find some facts supporting their case, because I've got this really certain feeling than an innocent man is never going to walk free again, and that's just pissing me off.

[Dangitbawb]

TaupinJohn, you raise some very valid points, he could have used you as his attorney! I say this because when it comes down to a trial, it really isn't about right or wrong, as much as the justice system would like us to believe. It's about winning or losing. We all had to find that out the hard way with Casey Anthony. Whoever does the best homework and puts on the best show in the courtroom is the one that wins. Since I wasn't there when this happened, I have no way to know his guilt or innocence, I can only go by what was reported in the media to form an opinion. The crap you see on TV where the defense lawyer is fighting to the death for their client, investigating and interviewing everyone they can, spending sleepless nights obsessing over what clue they can find to turn the case around is all bullshit for the most part. Most defense lawyers don't give 2 shits about your well being unless you have a ton of money, they would rather try to negotiate a plea deal with the DA to minimize the consequences you are facing so they can get your payment for a minimal amount of work. And, of course if you have no money to speak of, you might as well let the public defender escort you to your new jail cell. I have a brother-in-law who is an attorney, he informed me half of these cases are decided on the golf course.

9 years ago I was accused by a former neighbor of running over her toe with my motorcycle. Long story short, her husband used to be a friend of mine, until he started hanging out with her, a former "exotic dancer". I stopped any communication with him, and one day encountered her at the grocery store. She started her usual skanky confrontation, I told her to leave me out of her crap and rode off. A week and a half later cops showed up at my door to arrest me for 2nd degree felony assault with a deadly weapon. If I had been home I would have ended up spending a 3 day weekend in jail, cops were doing a "holiday roundup" where I wouldn't have been able to make arrangements to get out until the following Monday, it being the 4th of July weekend. Lucky for me, at the last minute I decided to go to my girlfriends house that evening, and some other neighbors tipped me off. I hid out, got an attorney that Monday and arranged for bail before I turned myself in, and only sat in jail for a couple of hours. My attorney turned out to be a real dumbass, he even had the audacity to tell me that "at the end of the day, he still got to go home". Fired him, got ANOTHER attorney. I explained to him my situation, and then he explained to me the cold hard truth. If you saw my bike, it would have been impossible to run over her toe without breaking her leg, my bike has chrome engine guards that stuck out on either side, it would have taken her down. Attorney said it didn't matter, I would have to hire a motorcycle expert to the tune of $6-8000 to testify on my behalf. Not to mention his fee's, which could run into $20,000 or more. Unfortunately there were NO cameras watching the parking lot to help my case. All she had to do was get up on the stand and give an award winning performance and if the jury bought it I was facing 2-20 years. Since I had never been in trouble before, more than likely I would have been given several years of probation, but that's quite a gamble. I was also asked by my attorney to look up how many felony cases were tried in Ft Worth the previous full year... There were 249 total cases, and the DA won 221 of them. Not very good odds in my favor.

In the end my attorney met with the DA and worked out a deal where if I pled "no contest" to a reduced charge of a Class A misdemeanor, I would be put on deferred adjudication for 2 years, and as long as I stayed out of trouble it would be dismissed. It was against my better judgement, but both my attorney and brother-in-law said it was a "sweetheart deal" and I took it. I stayed bitter about this situation for quite some time, I couldn't believe someone could just up and accuse me of something I absolutely did not do, and get away with it. I was out about $7000 by the time this was over, but in the end I had to suck it up and get on with life. I never had to do any time, my record is finally clear and it's as if it never happened. Do I believe there are innocent people in prison? Absolutely, I almost became one of them. I learned a very hard lesson on exactly how our criminal justice system works, doesn't matter if you're guilty or innocent. The DA wants his win, the attorney doesn't want his reputation sullied by a loss, and neither really wants a trial, so unless you are accused of a truly horrific crime, take the path that minimizes your risk.

In the case of Justin Ross Harris, this was about as high profile as it gets, the kind of case where careers are made and ruined, he had no choice but to go to trial. Take a plea deal and get 20 years, or go to trial and get life, either way you have no future. And he lost, whether it was by overwhelming evidence or a lack of legal representation, he rolled the dice and he is done.

[Upset]

I don't expect one would need a library card to understand "malicious intent." If you're implying his researched, "What would happen if I got caught forgetting my child in a hot car" (which he did not, that's an example) you can bet your ass that would have been shouted from the rooftops, especially if it were true, unlike the other things he "researched" on his work or home computer. Because that's where they got the idea for "child-free lifestyle" -- from a link SENT TO HIM, not sought out by him, a link he never explored or showed any interest in whatsoever. Not on a library computer, but his home computer, like anyone else uses to Google things. I highly doubt he discovered that term by "researching" anything in a library, I know I wouldn't have to.

I know what malicious intent is. I don't remember how I learned it, but I know what "malice" is, and I know what "intent" is, so maybe it's just common sense to me, and if that's the case (and it is) I don't think it's unusual at all for Ross to have knowledge of that phrase.
I'm sure I've heard it used enough on CSI-type shows to have figured it out if a general knowledge of the language hadn't already helped me do that.

He had just seen his son lying dead on the concrete of a parking lot. I don't know where his mind was, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the condition to pick and choose his words. "Malicious intent" is a cop phrase, a legal term. I think he did pretty well to use it, it was a concept they were familiar with, and it was absolutely true. So in my opinion, he nailed it. Nothing to see there, and I did try.

As far as saying the term itself, I don't think it's a reach to say "it wasn't with malicious intent." I mean, he was using what I assume he imagined was the formal wording for saying so, but what he was essentially saying was, "I know. My son is dead and it's my fault. But I didn't mean for it to happen; I didn't do this with malice (or "with desire to inflict harm" on my child, by definition.)

Simply stated, what he said was, "I know my neglect caused this, but it wasn't intentional."

I don't really see anything telling in that. And I do appreciate that the language he used wasn't particular great layman's terms, but I think he was trying to use the language of the department, as that's what they'd call it, "with malicious intent." It made some people do a wtf, but when you think about it? Nah, it's not even almost indicative of guilt. That's reaching, and it's reaching really far.

As far as the statement holding up, I believe it has. He didn't do this with malice. That's the case, right there.
And it's the case with (according to every single person who's done this) everyone who's admitted to forgetting a child in a hot car. They did it, but didn't do it with malice. It was a tragic mistake, an accident, and nobody was given life for it.
Why is Ross' case different from anyone else's? Because the reasons most people have for this are lies created by LE and spoon-fed by the prosecution, but well documented as just that: absolute lies.

Most people think Ross DID research and show an interest in "child-free lifestyle."
Most people think Ross DID Google, "How long does it take a child to die in a hot car?"
Most people think Ross DID check inside that car at lunchtime to see if his son was alive.
Most people think they could NEVER forget a child in a car. 39 people did that in 12 months in this country. So SOMEONE could, and dozens did.
Most people think Ross HAD TO HAVE noticed an odor on his lunch hour. There wasn't one, even four hours later, when discovered.

These are lies. If the public is going to condemn him, I wish they'd find some facts supporting their case, because I've got this really certain feeling than an innocent man is never going to walk free again, and that's just pissing me off.

Wow. I just saw another story about somebody killing their kid via hot car, and stumbled across this thread again. I never knew you responded to my post, so my apologies for this delayed response which you will most likely never read. LOL

I didn't mean to imply that the murderer was unfamiliar with the phrase "malicious intent." My point was that PEOPLE DON'T TALK THAT WAY, or, more specifically, a grieving (innocent) parent wouldn't have expressed himself with legal jargon. I think in 100 cases out of 100, you'd get some slight variation of "I didn't do it on purpose!"

I'm just glad the court system worked for once.