Skip to comments.Police: Dad sent nude photos while boy sat in car
Posted on 07/03/2014 12:52:33 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
MARIETTA, GA. A Georgia man who police say intentionally killed his toddler son by leaving the boy inside a hot SUV was exchanging nude photos with women the day his son died and had looked at websites that advocated against having children, a detective testified Thursday.
Cobb County Police Detective Phil Stoddard testified at a hearing that evidence showed Justin Ross Harris was practically leading a double life and should not be granted bond. Stoddard described the evidence police have suggesting Harris, who is charged with murder, killed his 22-month-old son Cooper intentionally.
Harris and his wife had two life insurance policies for the toddler, one for $2,000 and one for $25,000. Furthermore, Harris' wife had become unhappy with her husband's spending habits, Stoddard said.
These two win the award for worst humans in the United States.
He should have just cut off his balls. No worries about kids.
Since that’s too little, too late. Fry the SOB!
It was not a trial, but a hearing. The Magistrate thought the evidence presented was strong enough to send it to Superior Court and deny bond. Was this a poor decision?
I never said it was a trial. I said HEARING but it was still TESTIMONY before a judge. I watched all of it real time and I mainly was unconvinced by much of the detectives testimony. I do not disagree with binding over for trial but if the prosecution doesn’t do better than the lead detective they just may not get the win on the murder charge.
...I agree that everybody has financial difficulties..
..I agree that a $25,000 life insurance on a baby was probably very cheap and the come ons are that you buy it when the baby is little and they get to have it cheaply up until adulthood...we've all seen the ads...
yep....that sounds like an alibi in the making.....
I can see your arguments about searches, etc. When asked about the specifics of them, the detective was deliberately evasive in providing them. From what website, what search engine, etc. He wouldn’t even give specific dates.
What’s going on here is that the police and District Attorney have been giving selected news organizations details that they didn’t even substantiate in the hearing. They are running a background ‘trial’ in the newspapers. They only presented as much unsubstantiated ‘evidence’ (i.e., testimony of this detective) as they could get away with. Concurrently, the D.A. beat the sexting thing to death yet provided no substantive link from it to the actual premeditation. The would not give up specifics because the evidence presented in the hearing could not be used in the trial. Ergo, just the testimony of the detective which to me was evasive and combative when questioned by the defense. In essence, he refused to concede even the smallest point where he was caught in a discrepancy.
You have a lot of conflicting stories here. The ‘officers’ at the scene supposedly said the defendant was unemotional, yet the defense put up a witness that completely debunked that. “The defendant SHOULD have known the child was in the car when he was driving....” Yet, when asked by defense, he was not even aware that the defendant is completely deaf in his right ear - the one closest to the child in the seat.
I am not saying this guy is innocent. I watched all of the televised live hearing, and what I came away with is a police detective who could not, would not give specifically definitive answers. By demeanor, design or tactic for fear of divulging specific evidence that could not be later used, this hearing gave me the impression CCPD and CCDA were only out for the publicity and the win, and they had to do this without presenting any evidence. They got what they were after.
We shall see what happens in the trial when the defense has full access to the evidence and the prosecution has to provide evidence of their claims that is not talked-over hearsay.
No, just a part of it.
Thanks. I understand the terrible thing that happened. Initially felt like many here express. After watching the whole thing, I still have the same emotion about the child, I just don’t see everything as clear cut as the prosecution has selectively leaked to the press about before this hearing. Maybe all of it will become clearly evident as the process continues. Perhaps Detective Stoddard can be compelled to be directly responsive with some evidence and not just limited and selective remembrances of hearsay he’s collected.
I think the computer stuff is EXTREMELY damning.
Yes, it may well be. But the prosecution presented no verifiable evidence regarding times, dates, which website, which search engine, whether he specifically ‘search termed it’ or clicked on a link, which anything - only “that he did it.”
They’re gonna have to show in excruciating detail at trial and that’s a good thing. They’re gonna have to show a lot of things that this detective just talked around. I think he should answer to some level of what he or she might have done, I just wonder about the murder thing - the detective did not reassure me everything is on the up and up.
You get a Gold Star!