Setting aside all the evidence that points to this being an intentional act, the current charges do not require there to have been any intent. The charges are based on gross criminal negligence and do not require malice or premeditation (though many of us think those were present). Try to think of it this way:
-- If you fail to properly set the gears/parking brakes of your vehicle and it rolls down a hill and crashes into an elderly person and kills him or her, should the negligence be excused because you cry a lot about it?
-- If you fail to lock gate of the fence enclosing your empty swimming pool and a neighbor's kid falls in and breaks his or her neck should you be let off the hook because you feel real bad?
-- If you burn trash in your backyard and fail to put the fire out properly and it catches the neighbors' house on fire and they all die of smoke inhalation should you get nothing worse than a scolding because you would give anything for a 'do-over'?
Or do you believe that you should only get a 'bye' on causing a death by negligence if the deceased is your own flesh and blood?
P.S. The above cited examples depending on the jurisdiction could in fact be considered lesser acts of negligence than causing 'excessive mental and/or physical suffering to a child' by forgetting him in a hot car and letting him roast to death. IMO.
It's true, no intent to kill or harm is necessary. I posted this a bit ago in the poll thread:
This is what they would need to find in order to find him guilty of felony murder:
1. Ross Harris knew the likely consequences of forgetting or leaving Cooper in a hot car for hours. He had a reasonable "foresight" of the probable injuries of being left in a hot car.
2. He deliberately or recklessly disregarded the consequences of forgetting Cooper or was neglectfully indifferent to Cooper's rights and safety (did not care).
3. As a result of Ross Harris' reckless disregard of the consequences of leaving Cooper in a hot car, or as a result of his neglectful indifference to the rights and safety of Cooper, Cooper died.
4. Cooper died in a cruel and/or excessively painful manner.
It is unnecessary to find that a) Ross intended to kill Cooper. b) Ross intended to cause serious bodily harm to Cooper.
Can they find that it was a pure accident? Well, that depends on what you mean by accident. Is it an accident if a person forgets their children in car because they decided to get super high? They know it is dangerous. They should be more vigilant, but they are reckless or indifferent about the safety of their children, because their own needs, their own desires to go get wasted are more important?
Although that is not the situation here, that is a situation that could result in the same charges and it is one in which the actual death or the harm resulting from being baked in a hot car, was not intentional.
Going off the list above, here's how I think the charges could be proved:
1. Ross had recently been made very aware of hot car deaths involving children, via reading about the Georgia safe kids in cars program and by doing independent research of how long it would take a living being to die in a hot car. He was well aware of the danger to a child resulting in such an event.
2. Despite such knowledge and awareness of what could happen, Ross he didn't take reasonable precautions to prevent from forgetting Cooper, such as putting belongings he needed to take, in the back seat, attaching a note to his dash, having his wife call or text him after arrival at work, etc.
- Or, despite such knowledge and awareness of what could happen, he was quite unconcerned about the possibility of Cooper dying in a hot car, so he forget his kid in the 30 seconds it took to turn left or right out of the Chik-fil-A parking lot, and in the 2 to 3 minute drive to work, and in the 30 seconds he sat in his car before exiting, leaving Cooper behind.
- Or, despite such knowledge and awareness of what could happen, he just didn't care about what happened to Cooper and was more concerned about his own affairs, such as working, sexting, going to movie, so he just left him there, possibly knowing he left him or leaving without knowing when all the facts - 30 seconds after leaving the parking lot of Chik-fil-A, he turned the wrong direction, 3 minutes in a small car with an awake Cooper, he doesn't realize he needs to drop him off, 30 seconds parked in the lot, he doesn't realize Cooper is there, despite the fact that the car seat is jammed up against the side of his face, practically - show that he should have known.
3. Cooper died because his dad, despite clearly knowing what could happen to Cooper in a hot car:
a) took no reasonable precautions to stop from forgetting him;
b) didn't care what happened to Cooper and was narcissistically immersed in his own affairs or needs and desires instead of doing what he needed to keep Cooper safe, so he forget him;
c) knew Cooper was in the car but cared more about his own needs than Cooper's life or safety;
d) reasonably should have known Cooper was in the car, and should not have forgotten him under the circumstances, because a halfway decent parent would not have forgotten under those same circumstances.
4. Cooper died horribly with great suffering as shown by the frantic injuries to his head and face and his open eyes and protruding tongue.
I think that practically, the jury would have to find much more than a pure accident that could happen to many people - you know, a lot on the mind, little sleep, uncharacteristically quiet/asleep child during the drive, constant phone calls or distractions during the drive, a difference in routine that day, etc.
But they don't have to go all the way to finding he intended to murder Cooper or even that he intended to cause him any harm.
