So now it looks like the mother also researched child deaths in hot cars on the Internet. Shit, that kid never had a chance.
Well, “getting away with it” can happen in the courtroom, not the police lab. You can get arrested, and still get acquitted.
But yeah, in the past, most murders went unsolved, because it was virtually impossible to solve a stranger murder unless the person was caught red-handed, or there was a very reliable witness who could persuade a jury-- and that witness had to either know the guilty person, and be able to provide the police with a name, or provide such a spot-on description that a police sketch would lead to an arrest.
As far as that went, even non-stranger murders ended up being mostly circumstantial, and sometimes that left juries with reasonable doubt. Just ask Lizzie Borden. That was about the best circumstantial case ever, and she was acquitted. It leave the Borden case ask technically “unsolved” in many people’s minds, although not so much in the minds of the police of Fall River, MA.
Of course, that’s the far past. Fingerprinting, blood-typing, photography, and later, video surveillance improved things, and microscopy helped a lot as well (for examination of hair and other fibers, comparison of bullets, et al.). So did improved autopsy techniques that could look for all sorts of toxins, and in the 1970s, the slow move from elected coroners, who were not always doctors, to physician MEs doing autopsies.
It got easier and easier, by leaps and bounds all through the 20th century, to solve a murder. DNA was huge, but Ted Bundy was caught and convicted without DNA, and Wayne Williams was caught with good old surveillance, and convicted with carpet fiber analysis-- the first such case in the US.
In other words, it was ridiculously easy to get away with murder right up until the turn of the 20th century-- the first fingerprint case was in 1902.
RE: the toddler who died, and was probably murdered: is it at all suspicious that he was in a rear-facing seat? Babies are usually in front-facing seats as soon as they are a year old. At some point, a rear-facing seat becomes less safe, because the child’s legs are too long for it. This kid was almost two.
I’m suspicious on two levels: one is that the car seat was rear-facing to make the story more believable, and the other is that the child was very small, either because he was neglected, or because there was something wrong with him, and whatever was wrong with him may have motivated the murder.
Actually, rear-facing until at least 2, preferably 3, ideally 4, is the current medical advice. There are special convertible rear-facing car seats specifically for this. But most parents face the kid forward well before that point because the kid HATES not being able to see what’s going on and lets this fact be very loudly known. The fact that this kid was almost 2 and still rear-facing actually argues against this child having been neglected or abused prior to his death.
How could a four-year-old be in a rear-facing seat? wouldn’t their knees be at their chin?
This whole thing is chilling, but to me the child has a strange pleading look in his eyes in the picture Siam Sam cited. After the fact observation, but still …
Eta, and now the mother “talks about having more children”??? Cant Children’s Protective Services do an intervention at some point?
Something like this?
Quite similar! I was mentally running mine to the clothing of the driver (the band would therefore be outside) but very similar.
The ‘solve’ rate has actually gone down since the 1960’s.Additionally, Cops are always certain they’ve got the right guy, and they’re frequently wrong. If you add in wrong convictions to the pile of ‘got away with it’ (because the real murderer did), the solve rate suffers more.
That was interesting, thanks.
Still, it was ridiculously easy to get away with murder prior to the 20th century, relative to the 20th & 21st as a whole, which was what I was getting at.
And, FWIW, the article you linked does note that the police frequently have a pretty good idea who committed a crime, but can’t gather enough evidence for an arrest because of lack of witness cooperation.
That is quite chilling, but it made me think: *everyone reading this thread *has now also researched child deaths in hot cars, on the Internet.
The Harris case seems suspicious to me, not only because of the internet search, but because he seems to have stopped for breakfast with the baby beforehand. He wasn’t driving straight from home to work on auto-pilot, which is when most of these things happen. If he did murder his child, he’s made things ten times harder for the poor souls who do this accidentally.
I vividly remember the day I was driving, lost in thought, and when the baby in the back seat made a noise it startled me because I had momentarily forgotten he was back there. It was a harmless thing, but I can easily extrapolate that to a horrific lapse.
We’ve all read this thread. Not everyone has necessarily Googled “How long does it take a baby to die in a hot car, and how hot should the car be?” If anyone reading this thread has a child under two, DON’T GOOGLE THAT! If you already have, clear your cache, browser history, and cookies.
On the subject, this guy seems to have Googled this from his work computer. Did he do it on the day his son died, because wow, is that a red flag. Even if he did it on a different day, I wonder if using the work computer is especially suspicious?
I guess me saying " Cops are always certain they’ve got the right guy, and they’re frequently wrong" was too subtle. Cops think they know who committed a crime, BUT THEY’RE FREQUENTLY WRONG. False convictions are a real problem in our justice system.
True - there is certainly a scale of magnitude here, but simple participation here is probably enough to raise suspicion of premeditation, if any of us was unlucky enough to have this happen to us.
It makes no sense. Some of the cases I’ve read about involve a parent who doesn’t normally have the child in the car at that time, so they unconsciously revert back to their normal routine. Taking that child to work was that man’s normal routine, and it’s twice as fishy that nothing occurred to him when the time came to pick his child up from the on-site daycare.
Bolding added. This is kind of an important question.
I find the idea that “they’re guilty because of their search histories” to be an extremely dangerous one. It’s entirely reasonable for someone to search for something like this. We need a lot more information, like what was the exact search query wording, what else did they search for, etc.
If I were on the jury, I’d want to see STRONG other evidence before convicting on a flimsy internet search history.
It looks bad for the parents and though I think they probably did it intentionally, I don’t think internet searches are enough proof of intent to convict on.
Well, and the father apparently did search “animals,” not “22-month olds.” If it turns out that the ASPCA started running a PSA the day before regarding not leaing animals in cars now that summer is upon us, and the father watched a program the night before that carried the PSA, then there’s a reasonable explanation for his looking such a thing up, and it may just be a horrible coincidence that his son died in a similar way. The DA will try to say that he got the idea from the PSA, but if I were on the jury, I’d need more than that.