Georgia Father Who Left Son in Hot Car Could Receive Death Penalty

Related topic from Quill: http://www.newsfixboard.com/t5473-justin-harris-father-of-dead-toddler-searched-online-for-how-long-it-would-take-for-animal-to-die-in-hot-car

The Georgia dad charged with killing his toddler son by leaving the boy in a hot car all day could face the death penalty, a judge said today at a court hearing.

Justin Ross Harris, 33, was denied bond and faces child cruelty and felony murder charges after he said he forgot his 22-month old son in his SUV while he was at work.

A detective said Harris spent part of the day while his son was dying in the overheated car sending explicit messages to "multiple women." One of the females Harris sexted with was 17, the detective said.

The prosecutor said that he brought up the sexting during the probable cause hearing because it "goes to the state of mind" of the defendant.

"He wanted to live a child free life," the prosecutor said.

At the end of the three hour hearing Judge Frank R. Cox denied bond for Harris because "this is a possible death penalty case."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/dad-charged-sons-hot-car-death-face-death/story?id=24416967

I hope he rots in hell.

eddie wrote:I hope he rots in hell.

The prosecutor sounds very convincing, I think. Looks like they've dug up a lot on this creep.

Lets hope he gets plenty of visitors in jail....scumbag should suffer pain....lots and lots of pain

I don't think the wife is innocent either

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I hope he rots in hell.

The prosecutor sounds very convincing, I think. Looks like they've dug up a lot on this creep.

What a horrible way for a little bubba to die.
It's beyond thinking about.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I hope he rots in hell.

The prosecutor sounds very convincing, I think. Looks like they've dug up a lot on this creep.

What a horrible way for a little bubba to die.
It's beyond thinking about.

Yeah, when you live in Texas, you're bound to get some experience with what heat can do and how it can make you feel if you're not really careful -- I've been overheated before and it's awful.

Poor child, agonising!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

What a horrible way for a little bubba to die.
It's beyond thinking about.

Yeah, when you live in Texas, you're bound to get some experience with what heat can do and how it can make you feel if you're not really careful -- I've been overheated before and it's awful.

Well I hope he rots. I really do.

http://www.news.com.au/world/justin-ross-harris-whose-toddler-died-in-a-hot-car-spent-the-day-sexting-six-women/story-fndir2ev-1226977222051

A GEORGIA man charged with murdering his 22-month-old son was sexting several women on the day of the boy’s death and had two life insurance policies on his son, a detective has testified in court.

So now we've heard about the Google search for how long it takes to die in a hot car, the sexting all day and TWO life insurance policies. Yeah, it's piling up on this guy.

I don't see all of that evidence, Ben.  What is the relevance of sexting--as untoward as it might be--to the murder of your child?  The prosecutor says the guy wants to live a child-free life?  C'mon, that's like saying if you support your mother, you undoubtedly fook her too.

Likewise, the two insurance policies.  So now the Georgia police are estate planners? There are many reasons why there are two policies. Could be an umbrella policy.  It's all too phony. Remember, right now the cops can put up any kind of shit, because all they want is to get by a defense motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Felony murder is a unique law that says if you commit a felony, and someone dies for any reason, you could be charged with murder.  Textbook example: If two men commit a burglary, the police show up and shoot one of them dead, the other one can be charged with murder even though the cop is the shootist. It's a vengeance kind of thing, used on hard (black) cons. Do you think a white jury is going to convict a white defendant, suburban father and loving husband, of that?

Here, the accused is not being charged with murder directly.  They have dropped that charge in favour of a theory that he committed felony negligence, and that constitutes a predicate felony, wherein a human died.  Ergo: felony murder.

The only way they could get a capital murder from a jury out of that would be if the guy was black.  He isn't and a white Georgia jury is not going to go along with that. Why are they doing all this phony shite?

They want to plead the guy down to a stiff sentence, and the only way to do that is to build a charge that will get by a motion to dismiss.  Balls of steel, my man. Balls of steel.

Haha... I don't really care.  If the guy's white and lives in Georgia, he's undoubtedly a racist.  The more racists they put into prison, the better I like it.  Lol.

Not saying he's guilty, just that he looks increasingly suspicious.

Guilty as a mofo... Fry him      

Life insurance on a young Child??? Suss or what

Ben_Reilly wrote:Not saying he's guilty, just that he looks increasingly suspicious.

Well, there's two things going on: (1) he's being charged and they are letting everyone know what it is; and (2) they are giving out the evidence, coupled with their theory, so everyone is being led by the ring in their nose to see the prosecution's point.  

An inference is but two facts, sitting side-by-side.  But the act of making an inference is to simultaneously make a suggestion that you connect those two facts.  That's what the Georgia cop is doing.  Along with stating a legal case, he is trying to taint a jury pool.

As a lawyer, and even a former prosecutor, I see right through it.  You formerly saw instinctively the key question about the Internet search is the remoteness of it; because of your own experience, you didn't allow yourself to be led.  Likewise, I know insurance and why and how much people buy.  

As far as stexting and porn, it's just your average grease stain that you use to make someone look unappealing and objectionable.  It's common practice.

I don't know how you can defend him. Pray tell WHY would someone have life insurance (not health insurance) on a child under 2?

Is Georgia normally cold or something?

Cause the whole I forgot my son all day in the car is not a good enough excuse... I'd still fry him even if he did 'forget' cause someone that forgets there own child all day in a hot car is of no value to society anyway.

veya_victaous wrote:Guilty as a mofo... Fry him      

Life insurance on a young Child??? Suss or what

HEY!!!!Whoa there pardner .......ive got life insurance on the 2 juniors and Mr. C as well as accidental death and disability....it is common practice here with big employers.....cost about $2.00 a paycheck....ive also got extra life insurance on me.....and Mr. C has the same for all of us too.

my guess is that his life insurance on the child came from his employer Home Depot.

that being said I'm still saying he did it.

veya_victaous wrote:I don't know how you can defend him. Pray tell WHY would someone have life insurance (not health insurance) on a child under 2?

Is Georgia normally cold or something?

Cause the whole I forgot my son all day in the car is not a good enough excuse... I'd still fry him even if he did 'forget' cause someone that forgets there own child all day in a hot car is of no value to society anyway.

^see above

Pfft forgot USA stupidness regarding health and insurance   

Stoddard said that when Harris stopped on his way to a 5pm movie, he pulled over and took Cooper out of the car. Stoddard said Cooper was dead when his father pulled him from the back seat.

So he didn't even check the boy when he finished his shift and started driving.

Guilty or so stupid he deserves to be guilty

veya_victaous wrote:Pfft forgot USA stupidness regarding health and insurance   

Stoddard said that when Harris stopped on his way to a 5pm movie, he pulled over and took Cooper out of the car. Stoddard said Cooper was dead when his father pulled him from the back seat.

So he didn't even check the boy when he finished his shift and started driving.

Guilty or so stupid he deserves to be guilty

I think that's the point that most people feel, veya.  But to say that is to confuse negligence with criminal issues.

I've been involved in hundreds of wrongful death cases, as the lawyer for one side or the other.  A lot of times in depositions people would like to kill the other guy...and it's only negligence.  Sure someone is dead, but no one did it intentionally.  That's the difference between criminal and negligence.

This case blurs the line.  And we are doing that a lot lately.  People trying to make names for themselves, I guess.  But ask yourself if it is good to destroy the focus like that.

There's one very interesting side point.  The state has not charged the wife/mother, although she too made an Internet search on infants killed in overheated cars before the fact.  She could easily be charged with the same crime as the same evidence points to her.

But if they charged her, they would have an embarrassment on their hands.  Per force they would have a conspiracy.  If Internet search is evidence of intent to murder, and two people did it, ergo there was a conspiracy to murder the child.  Because a conspiracy implies a deliberate act, that would push the charge right back up to actual murder...and in the 1st degree, because conspiracy means malice aforethought.  Meaning, the death sentence for both father and mother.

The move to charge him with felony murder, rather than 1st degree murder, probably has to do with avoiding a charge against her.  But, at some point they are going to have to charge her as well...most likely when the press figures this out.

Keep that in mind as you watch the state maneuver around in the system.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Not saying he's guilty, just that he looks increasingly suspicious.

Well, there's two things going on: (1) he's being charged and they are letting everyone know what it is; and (2) they are giving out the evidence, coupled with their theory, so everyone is being led by the ring in their nose to see the prosecution's point.  

An inference is but two facts, sitting side-by-side.  But the act of making an inference is to simultaneously make a suggestion that you connect those two facts.  That's what the Georgia cop is doing.  Along with stating a legal case, he is trying to taint a jury pool.

As a lawyer, and even a former prosecutor, I see right through it.  You formerly saw instinctively the key question about the Internet search is the remoteness of it; because of your own experience, you didn't allow yourself to be led.  Likewise, I know insurance and why and how much people buy.  

As far as stexting and porn, it's just your average grease stain that you use to make someone look unappealing and objectionable.  It's common practice.

Again. I am not saying that he is guilty, Quill. I am saying that the facts are making him look suspicious.

I completely understand that there could be an alternate explanation for those facts. I, for one, reserve judgement when I don't have all the facts.

But it looks suspicious, no doubt about that.

veya_victaous wrote:I don't know how you can defend him.  Pray tell WHY would someone have life insurance (not health insurance) on a child under 2?

Is Georgia normally cold or something?

Cause the whole I forgot my son all day in the car is not a good enough excuse... I'd still fry him even if he did 'forget' cause someone that forgets there own child all day in a hot car is of no value to society anyway.

I agree.

Sick bastard hope he gets burnt to death.

SEXY MAMA wrote:Sick bastard hope he gets burnt to death.

I agree. Absolutely.

eddie wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:Sick bastard hope he gets burnt to death.

I agree. Absolutely.

People doing the nasty with children and animals should receive the same treatment back

Im sure we will see a sudden drop in the crime rate then

SEXY MAMA wrote:

eddie wrote:

I agree. Absolutely.

People doing the nasty with children and animals should receive the same treatment back

Im sure we will see a sudden drop in the crime rate then

It looks like they are getting ready to charge the mother, under the theory discussed.  This was reported on Good Morning America, on ABC News. Both parents independently searched the Internet for child deaths in cars.  That forces the premeditated charge, raising the death penalty for both.

They were having financial problems, but the two insurance policies were for $12,500 each...hardly a good dinner on the town in San Francisco.  Why would these two conspire to kill their child?

The missing element is motive.

Original Quill wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

People doing the nasty with children and animals should receive the same treatment back

Im sure we will see a sudden drop in the crime rate then

It looks like they are getting ready to charge the mother, under the theory discussed.  This was reported on Good Morning America, on ABC News. Both parents independently searched the Internet for child deaths in cars.  That forces the premeditated charge, raising the death penalty for both.

They were having financial problems, but the two insurance policies were for $12,500 each...hardly a good dinner on the town in San Francisco.  Why would these two conspire to kill their child?

The missing element is motive.

well if you are in serious debt $25000 is a lot of money but like I said the insurance policies probably came from their employers (see above).....

I want to know WHY the mother showed up at day care and when told the boy was not there said the dad must have left him in the car????? did they make a habit of this??? and why did she say she wouldn't bring the child back if she could because the world is broken?

I think the problem is that there are too many motives.

Cass wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It looks like they are getting ready to charge the mother, under the theory discussed.  This was reported on Good Morning America, on ABC News.  Both parents independently searched the Internet for child deaths in cars.  That forces the premeditated charge, raising the death penalty for both.

They were having financial problems, but the two insurance policies were for $12,500 each...hardly a good dinner on the town in San Francisco.  Why would these two conspire to kill their child?

The missing element is motive.

well if you are in serious debt $25000 is a lot of money but like I said the insurance policies probably came from their employers (see above).....

I want to know WHY the mother showed up at day care and when told the boy was not there said the dad must have left him in the car????? did they make a habit of this??? and why did she say she wouldn't bring the child back if she could because the world is broken?

I think the problem is that there are too many motives.

But there is evidence of a conspiracy.  That means a premeditated plan.  I can see that evidence is rolling out and more is known.  They may have been a mess as parents, but this is evidence of a plan.

What was the motive of the plan?

As far as the insurance policies are concerned, what is "serious debt?" $25,000 is chump-change in anyone's language. That's not murder-your-kid money.

^quill I would hardly call it chump change.....to some that would seem a fortune....people have been robbed or killed for a couple of bucks.....

Anyhoos off to get ready for friends lunch. happy 4th

Cass wrote:^quill I would hardly call it chump change.....to some that would seem a fortune....people have been robbed or killed for a couple of bucks.....

Anyhoos off to get ready for friends lunch. happy 4th

Yeah, I see some low-lifes doing crimes for that kind of money, but this doesn't sound like those types of people. My god...I've been in debt, and you handle it. Hell, I've had a monthly credit card bill that's more than $25,000. You don't kill for it...especially, you don't kill your own kid, with all the complications that such entails.