GA - Suspicion over heat death of Cooper, 22 mo., Cobb County, June 2014, #5

[JeannaT]

Mine would have made your ears bleed. The kid started speaking understandable words at 8 months...HE NEVER SHUT UP!!!

Of course he didn't walk till he was like 16 months. Never crawled. Was getting worried.

Kids are weird. They come with their own internal clocks.

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Um hm. I had one that we had to say "my ears are tired so please stop talking for 3 minutes". All my 3 boys were very good at language and pronunciation, but only one talked excessively.

 

[sorrell skye]

You may not, But for me, In the case if I was on the jury, It would matter to me a great deal.

The charges are 2nd degree child cruelty and felony murder.

He's charged with felony murder under subsection "c", of the GA criminal code.

(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-1/16-5-1

Based on the charges, the State isn't required to prove malice (intent) in this case.

I understand your personal desire for the State to provide evidence of intent, but an empaneled juror in this case who insisted on the State proving intent would be abandoning their duty and would not be serving justice, according to the criminal statutes of Georgia.

 

[JudyBolton]

For me it is about intention. That has to be proven to me before I am convicting him of anything.

What do you think of the Sargent Pierce with 34 years of LE experience (if that is all in Atlanta then believe me - he's seen a LOT of yucky stuff) saying what he said - "What I know about this case shocks my conscience as a police officer, a father, and a grandfather."

I realize you don't believe the dad did anything intentionally wrong but why do you think a 34 year veteran of the police force would make such a statement? - on the record btw - with his name!

I do not believe we have all of the facts - I do not believe LE has all of the facts, yet - but I'm 100% certain they have more facts than we do.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Nobody would admit they considered something they were told not to consider. So I don't see where a mistrial would occur. BTW - CAN you have a mistrial after a verdict has been rendered and the verdict is "not guilty"? I don't think so. That's double jeopardy. If the judge got wind that people were considering things NOT admissable at trial - that might cause a mistrial. Not after a not guilty verdict has been rendered.

Sometimes I sit here and think . . .I really like most of the other posters here, including you - but do we live in such different worlds that we see things SO differently as in - jurors DO deliberate all though the trial although they're told not to until the end, they DO consider evidence presented even if the judge says please strike that and don't consider it, etc.

Do you not agree? Jurors, for the most part, use their BEST reasoning skills and don't become robots in the jury box. They try their very hardest to come to the truth and do that fairly, even if it means considering things they've see and heard but have been told to strike those things from their memories.

See how we go around and around in here and someone will say, "I just don't believe it" after being presented with fact after fact after fact and around and around we go?
That shouldn't happen in jury deliberations. Deliberations require facts and evidence.
I'm not talking about this case only, I'm talking all cases.
Ya can't simply say, " well I'm not convinced" sit back and kick your feet up and think you're done.

All IMO





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blue22]

What do you think of the Sargent Pierce with 34 years of LE experience (if that is all in Atlanta then believe me - he's seen a LOT of yucky stuff) saying what he said - "What I know about this case shocks my conscience as a police officer, a father, and a grandfather."

I realize you don't believe the dad did anything intentionally wrong but why do you think a 34 year veteran of the police force would make such a statement? - on the record btw - with his name!

I do not believe we have all of the facts - I do not believe LE has all of the facts, yet - but I'm 100% certain they have more facts than we do.

BBM. Yes! They always have more facts. The public never knows all the details.

In reality, I think intent is exceedingly hard to prove in a case like this. With that said, I believe just from the pieces we know, the current charges are appropriate.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I want to respond directly, but I can't.



What I will say, if my child died, I would DO and bargain with ANYONE to bring him back. I would give my own life so my son could live. No matter of the selfish world we live in, or the horrible stages he will have to go through.



My Niklet deserves a life above and beyond my own. Even knowing he has hardships coming.



(still following tos?)

Ditto


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JeannaT]

If there is an innocent verdict, and that verdict is found because they feel he didn't "intend" to do it...that is a mistrial. The can't deliberate intent. PERIOD. End of story. Intent has nothing to do with the charges before them and cannot be factored into their verdict. They can have their own opinion about intent, that is a natural thought process. What they can NOT do, is introduce that thought process into a verdict.

I think I've been misunderstood.

I'm not talking about "deliberating" intent. I'm talking about thinking it inside your own head and then voting "not guilty". Jury pardon. As I'm sure you know, there's not a jury finding of "innocent". "Not guilty" is the finding and if anyone asked, the juror would say I didn't feel the evidence supported a "guilty" finding.

I'm not sure the charges won't be greatly reduced as the investigation progresses, just pointing out that jurors can have stuff going on in their heads that doesn't come out their mouths.

 

[octobermoon]

I am forgetful by nature. It's irritating as all get out, but driving away after paying for food at McDonald's? Did it. Drive right past my exit that I was JUST heading for? Yep. Did I get all the way to the babysitter's one morning before realizing I was barefoot? Embarrassingly, yes. Do I make a grocery list only to leave it on the kitchen table? Only about 70% of the time.

So it's not the fact that dad left breakfast and immediately drove to the wrong exit that I can't believe. Or the fact that he pulled up and parked at his job instead of going to daycare.

It's that he didn't notice Cooper. Not at 9:30 am. Not at lunch time. Not at quitting time. Apparently, he didn't give Cooper a thought all day. I do not believe this even a little bit. Forget the smell. Just the fact that he didn't notice a human being, a person, his CHILD, was in his car on 3 separate occasions screams bull$%@# to me. He's a liar, IMO. Well, that's the least of what he is.

Excellent post! 3 times in a 7 hour period.

 

[blue22]

I think I've been misunderstood.

I'm not talking about "deliberating" intent. I'm talking about thinking it inside your own head and then voting "not guilty". Jury pardon. As I'm sure you know, there's not a jury finding of "innocent". "Not guilty" is the finding and if anyone asked, the juror would say I didn't feel the evidence supported a "guilty" finding.

I'm not sure the charges won't be greatly reduced as the investigation progresses, just pointing out that jurors can have stuff going on in their heads that doesn't come out their mouths.

Again, what's going on their heads can't impact their verdict. They take an oath. They have to deliberate the evidence before them, not the opinions in their head. If they find not guilty in their heads and don't dutifully look at the evidence before them, they are not doing their jobs, and that's actually quite terrifying.

[modsnip]

 

[who knew?]

Blue, then why go to trial? Sincerely, I really mean that. Why bother with a trial if everything needed to send him for life in prison/death penalty is already fully known and agreed to by all parties?

He's already admitted he left his baby in the car all day in the heat, and now the baby has died.

Those facts are not in question, at all, and if all you need are those facts everyone would agree he's guilty as charged.

But that's why we have juries. So they can look at it and see mitigating factors. He has not pled guilty to the crime - but has in fact, agreed that he's guilty of the very minimal tenets of the crime he's being charged with.

This is where juries come in. And sometimes, they go all the way to a "jury pardon" - meaning yes he's guilty as charged but due to the circumstances shouldn't be punished to that degree.

Whether they admit it or not, jurors if this comes to trial will be considering intent.

If it goes to trial, and if he is found guilty, what is you opinion as to what his sentence should be. What should he be charged with?

(And I do agree he has to live with this for the rest of his life. However, I personally have no idea if he would live with sorrow for what happened to Cooper, or sorrow he was caught.)

 

[popsicle]

See how we go around and around in here and someone will say, "I just don't believe it" after being presented with fact after fact after fact and around and around we go?
That shouldn't happen in jury deliberations. Deliberations require facts and evidence.
I'm not talking about this case only, I'm talking all cases.
Ya can't simply say, " well I'm not convinced" sit back and kick your feet up and think you're done.

All IMO





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes because that is called not deliberating and the judge will and has removed a juror for that and replaced them with an alternate... as he should. imo

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think I've been misunderstood.

I'm not talking about "deliberating" intent. I'm talking about thinking it inside your own head and then voting "not guilty". Jury pardon. As I'm sure you know, there's not a jury finding of "innocent". "Not guilty" is the finding and if anyone asked, the juror would say I didn't feel the evidence supported a "guilty" finding.

I'm not sure the charges won't be greatly reduced as the investigation progresses, just pointing out that jurors can have stuff going on in their heads that doesn't come out their mouths.

Which would be fine, as long as they agreed with me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The charges are 2nd degree child cruelty and felony murder.

He's charged with felony murder under subsection "c", of the GA criminal code.

(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-1/16-5-1

Based on the charges, the State isn't required to prove malice (intent) in this case.

I understand your personal desire for the State to provide evidence of intent, but an empaneled juror in this case who insisted on the State proving intent would be abandoning their duty and would not be serving justice, according to the criminal statutes of Georgia.

Intent Matters to me irrespective of the law in this case. The way the charges are anyway. That is not something I say easily.

 

[CarmelEyesD]

Why is this not more widely known about. May or may not apply in this case-but certainly in many others...

http://thefirstyears.com/ialert#carseat

 

[popsicle]

I think I've been misunderstood.

I'm not talking about "deliberating" intent. I'm talking about thinking it inside your own head and then voting "not guilty". Jury pardon. As I'm sure you know, there's not a jury finding of "innocent". "Not guilty" is the finding and if anyone asked, the juror would say I didn't feel the evidence supported a "guilty" finding.

I'm not sure the charges won't be greatly reduced as the investigation progresses, just pointing out that jurors can have stuff going on in their heads that doesn't come out their mouths.

Yes but if there are NG's and G's on the jury they have to explain their reasoning... you know, deliberate.

 

[Kip]

I would find it much easier to believe leaving Cooper in the car was unintentional if he had driven directly from home to work.

But after putting Cooper in the car at Chic-fil-A, driving to daycare had to be at the top of his mind. It seems unlikely that, in the span of a few seconds (closing the rear door, getting behind the wheel, and driving from the parking lot to street access), that one would forget their destination.

Plus, I think most parents would be talking to their child about the day..."Okay, now we're going to daycare. You're going to play and eat lunch with your friends. After nap time, I'll come to pick you up...."

I've been following these child death cases for several years and have never searched for how long it takes a child or animal to die in a hot car - I have searched for cases and ways that parents can lessen the chances of this happening.

I hope that this wasn't intentional, but if it was, I'm hoping that Connor was drugged so that perhaps he didn't suffer as much.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes because that is called not deliberating and the judge will and has removed a juror for that and replaced them with an alternate... as he should. imo

The problem is, there are far too many sheep.
Not enough assertive people that understand the job.

Too bad that's not taught in civics classes in every high school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Intent Matters to me irrespective of the law in this case. The way the charges are anyway. That is not something I say easily.

Then you, I would hope, asked to be excused as a juror. If you can't do the job, you shouldn't be there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hopingicanhelp]

we live in such different worlds that we see things SO differently as in - jurors DO deliberate all though the trial although they're told not to until the end, they DO consider evidence presented even if the judge says please strike that and don't consider it, etc.

Do you not agree? Jurors, for the most part, use their BEST reasoning skills and don't become robots in the jury box. They try their very hardest to come to the truth and do that fairly, even if it means considering things they've see and heard but have been told to strike those things from their memories.

Snipped by me

I understand what you are saying -- your mind is always working. You can tell yourself, "Don't think about this NOW because you were instructed not to" but your brain is constantly trying to comprehend the multiple bits of information you are being given -- so it might be normal throughout a trial for a juror to be swayed back and forth, guilty/innocent/not guilty/not sure and round and round.... plus, you DO frame the case based upon your own intellectual and moral standards. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a jury room full of notepads that noted various things that were vastly different -- naturally some things would probably be repeatedly noted -- the differences being based purely upon the individual's experiences and sense of the world.

The jury room deliberations is the chance to convince one another - it might be wrong according to your morals, but it's lawful, etc... the danger comes in a person (kind of like Linda mentioned) who sticks only to his/her beliefs & codes and kicks back and refuses to listen or engage.

I agree that accidents CAN happen, especially when you're out of your normal routine.

In THIS case, no way.

 

[JeannaT]

The problem is, there are far too many sheep.
Not enough assertive people that understand the job.

Too bad that's not taught in civics classes in every high school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my opinion, it's not sheep who do this. It's people who think rationally and refuse - when they've HEARD evidence that is somehow not going to be allowed although witnesses are instructed to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth". Sometimes a piece of the truth they tell isn't allowed to be considered by a juror. Although it's relevant.

I can't be the only person who knows that jurors hold things inside their heads that they don't discuss - but that influence their internal deliberations and verdict. OTHERWISE, honestly, this case would be over and done with. He's admitted to the minimum qualifications for the charges they've charged him with. Done and done. But no. There are jurors to come.