How sad. I tried to make a case on DU for Dad just being a complete idiot at first. Now I believe it was most likely premeditated murder with both parents involved.

to someone who would have loved the kid.

They could have arranged for a private adoption where no money changes hands at the outset, but somehow, some way, they are compensated for "time, travel and legal expenses" well over what they'd normally need. Or they're paid handsomely for preparing a detailed medical history for the child's future--any frigging excuse will do.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has a couple of kids that are adopted (Irish mother, kids born in BOLIVIA--now that's international).

I'll bet he paid a pretty penny for them, too.

If they didm;t want to be parents *and* needed money… they could have found an out.

Disgusting, absolutely horrible. That poor baby.

They wouldn't get the sympathy and love from the community they thought they would get from losing a child; in my mind that is part of the motive, a narcissistic desire to be the center of attention for their loss.

They may have had to lie to relatives but they had the right to cede parental control to an adoptive parent if they so wished.

I think, if TWO life insurance policies on a frigging child is any indication, they wanted MONEY.

And that penis-texting asshole wanted something else as well.

What a depraved pair. I hope they spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

That might be short, though--I believe Alabama has the death penalty, and they may get a jury that doesn't cotton to killing kids in hot cars...

And definitely right about Alabama. They won't get many breaks in the justice system. Nor should they.

we have the death penalty, too, though. and if he makes it for any time into gen-pop...

sP

with AL college football tee shirts or something.

i am pretty sure it was in GA. but, yes, the family seems to be rooted in Tuscaloosa, AL (where the funeral was held).

sP

The family has roots in Alabama

said he wanted a child free life.

$27,000 is not a huge amount of money to kill your baby over (as if ANY amount would be enough for NORMAL people). If it were him alone, I'd say he wants to be free of his responsibilities. Maybe they both felt that way!

So the answer to your question is likely right under your nose.

Testimony just now: Girl he was sexting with asked Josh Harris: "Do you have a conscience? "He said: "No."

He did research on "surviving prison" on a child-free forum on Reddit.

I visit child-free forums frequently, but I am not child-free after test-driving a baby and roasting him. This guy is a MONSTER. And so is his wife.

strong, it is a HUGE taboo. If people would stop being such fucking phonies, some adoptive parents somewhere would be so fucking happy right now.

I thought of this during the Casey Anthony case also, though she was not found guilty, I have a feeling if that child had been placed with an adoptive family she would be alive and well today also.

"Did you say too much", this is an open and shut case.

Psychopaths.

Throw the whole encyclopedia at them.

Ross liked to spend money...

too bad that is also against the law, Mr. child free life.

You insure the EARNER, so the baby can go to college. The only insurance a baby needs is health insurance.

but even those i would think are few and far between... i have always wondered about baby-insurance.

sP

It was $5000 each, offered for free through our work insurance. We also had good policies on each of us (though I wasn't working at the time).

Truthfully, just thinking about something happening to our sons made us both sick. Neither of us could imagine living if they weren't around.

Diabetes runs in my family, and my brother (diagnosed at age 5) was never able to get affordable life insurance. When he died at 26, there was nothing for his wife and son...

When our kids were born, we had the opportunity to buy whole life policies, and we pay a bit more in premiums for the guarantee that our daughters can always buy additional life insurance at "milestones"...when they turn 21, when they marry, when they have a child of their own, etc.

Typically, though, working class people don't do that kind of thing--they insure, if they insure anyone, the EARNER, so the non-earner (or the poor one in the couple) can have enough money to keep paying the bills. They'll insure the lower earner to a lesser extent, enough to pay for, say, day care and sitters, and stuff like that, if they insure the other parent.

Two policies on a toddler? Unnnnh huhhhh...

than just term life insurance. As someone else said, there is no reason to insure children, except to bury them, and that amount should be just enough to bury them. No parent should want to profit from their child's death. Also, you buy insurance for a period of time, usually a ten year policy or twenty year policy, 30 year ect. If you have an infant who doesn't have diabetes but it runs in the family, what is to stop an insurance company for asking for medical records or a physical when you go to renew the policy 20 years later when the child is 20 or 21 years old? In fact why wouldn't they since most policies brought by parents don't extend beyond the time that the child reaches adulthood. My job's group life insurance policy allows me to buy life insurance for my dependents (under 18) along with my policy but only while they were minors and the value of coverage was nominal ($5000) and for a spouse for a maximum of $10,000 regardless of whether they are a dependent, but the spouse value is limited to $10,000; about the amount needed to bury them.

Most life insurance policies, that I am aware of, don't allow you to insure other adults (other than a spouse and then that spouse is usually a party to the policy unless again as in the example I gave above, it's some nominal amounta), unless you have an insurable interest in them, because you don't want to encourage people to have a motive to profit from the deaths of others. The usual acceptance is in a legal "partnership", because a partnership is the one business entity that ceases to exist upon the death of one of the partners. A life insurance on the partnership, allows the surviving partner or partners to buy out the deceased partner's "partnership interest" from their heirs without forcing a dissolution of the partnership's assets upon their death, and usually that policy is purchased by the partnership.

The "bit more" was in reference to the ability for our daughters to continue to increase the insurance amount at milestone points in their lives, regardless of their health status.

I agree, no parent should want to profit from the death of their child, but I don't agree with the contention that there is no reason to insure a child except to pay for burial expenses. I believe that we had a very good reason to buy life insurance for our daughters, i.e., we wanted to ensure that they would always have life insurance, even if health issues should come up later in their lives. My family lived the result of a husband and father dying with no life insurance, and we wanted to make sure our daughters weren't in that position.

My ex and I still pay the premiums for our daughters, and will continue to do so until they are in a position to pay themselves. If they choose not to continue the insurance, it's their choice, but we don't regret for a second buying the policies.

My dad still pays a premium for it. I don't know how much it is for or really a thing about it. No family history of early deaths either. I'm 33 and still alive.

And not one, but TWO policies?

I come from a large family, we were never insured. Nor were any of our cousins and there were a zillion of those. If the child isn't ill, and you're not expecting to have to pay for a funeral and hospital expenses after the fact, it's just not a terribly good bet.

Since so many people get cremated nowadays, even the need for a "final expenses" insurance nest egg to provide for a fancy burial with a dramatic casket is abated.

Examining computers, Stoddard said, “We’ve barely scratched the surface.”

to do that to a child. If he is found guilty, I hope he doesn't have a moments peace. I hope nightmares of him burning his child alive haunt him for the rest of his natural life, but that is wishful thinking because anyone that would do that has no remorse.

doing that intentionally.

but I sure as hell would have raised that child rather than have the poor innocent suffer that fate. Everybody under the sun that isn't psychotic would.

I am sure they could have found somebody to adopt him.

The most we can hope for as punishment for this psychopath is that he will spend a VERY LONG LIFE being miserably locked up in a cell in prison hating every minute of it.

He will be fried.

Is this something about our society today? Everything can be answered by the magical internets?

I only had it at school, up until I started 9th grade (1999). Shows you how all-consuming the thing has become in a short period of time.

called 911.

or otherwise took sick so dad took him home, or to the pediatrician.

The wife works from their residence and was home all that day until she went to the daycare to pick up the child. It's how she knew Cooper could only be with her husband/in the car, since she likely saw them head off in his car that morning.

in their "care" to die of heat exposure. You have to be a malicious, foul human to do that to anyone's children, much less your own. Lump of evil shit doesn't even describe what I feel about that guy. He baked his son to death!

looks like we have a complete psychopath with no remorse... if he's found guilty i would hope he's ... well, no... i won't say that.

sP

Where is all this info coming from? Is there a link? How reliable is it? I guess I'm just looking for reasons to disbelieve this, because if it's true...well, there are no words.

They are tweeting the info as it is bring read out.
The tweets are the links.
This shite is true.

This is just horrendously horrible.

i would say they're pretty spot-on...

live from 11Alive news in ATL : http://on.11alive.com/BreakingNews

sP

What a disgusting case.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a basis behind all this.

"child-free life," "surviving prison"; sent dirty pix to under-age girls; had $25K insurance on kid; emotionless.

HE MURDERED HIS SON.

It clearly looks as if this was planned and the mom may have been aware. But I am also disturbed by this hashtag. What is wrong with our society and culture that we have to follow disturbing stories with hashtag labels like "#HotCarDeath?"

Please know, grits, this is not directed at you.

1) morbid curiosity
2) desire for revenge

people WANT to see what happens to this asshole and just how depraved he is.

sP

I want to try desperately to see what can possibly cause human beings to do the most inhuman of things. Perhaps that is an unsavory habit, but there it is.

I question the necessity in this case. This is not a significant event.

social media is all over it, or that it has a hashtag.

their baby. They weren't young, either, but adults, in their thirties, great jobs. It was a planned pregnancy. But after trying to take care of the newborn, they decided they didn't want to be parents any more. I have no idea if the adoption was open so the grandparents could visits.

I thought it was weird, but grateful that they chose that alternative.

I don't think this POS is going to have to worry about "surviving prison" because he won't. But I'd still like to see him tied up inside a sealed up car in Death Valley in August when the ambient air is at like 160 F.

And yeah, to me it definitely IS all about revenge. I'll cop to a human weakness in this case.

I generally say I oppose the death penalty across the board. Situations like these honestly try my beliefs. All about revenge for me, too.

And I'm surprised that you'd pick this case to champion it. This case, in particular, is one where circumstantial evidence is going to be used to convict. Unless the he or his wife confesses to "we planned this", this particular case is going to involve NO direct evidence that they guy murdered his son.

Granted, from what I've heard, I'm assuming he's guilty. But even if I could be 100% certain that he were guilty, I still wouldn't want to kill him, because I fundamentally believe that would be wrong. The fact that the victim was a child, or that the murder was very maliciously planned for selfish reasons doesn't change that. If I could accept that THIS case merited the death penalty, why would I not accept that someone who shoots a clerk in a convenience store merits the death penalty? Is this case more worthy of the death penalty because a toddler died than if a 53 year old clerk died? Is this case more worthy of the death penalty because the murderer researched how to get away with it than if a robber just decided to shoot a clerk?

It won't bring the child back nor will it deter future child torturers from repeating the awful actions of this douchebag.

But it will rid the earth of one lowlife piece of crap who will no longer be around to consume some more deserving human of his or her share of the earth's diminishing resources.

I'm not going to get into comparing this particular crime with others on the scale of depravity. But this was the guy's own child and he knew how much the kid was going to suffer before he died.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of the death penalty. I think it's applied unevenly along lines of class and race. I think too many innocent people are executed. But there are some crimes that just deserve an eye for an eye. My only complaint is that a needle in the arm is far too humane.

crime everyday. In a private cell. No shoelaces or razors or anything that will allow him to off himself.

the dp is all about revenge which really shouldn't play a part in justice. The dp disgusts me. It's unfair. It's barbaric. Other countries manage just fine without it. I've been against the dp and horrified by it since I was a little kid.

A few more have probably come in but most if these were pre-disclosure by the cops.

This is going to be yet another one for the books.
It's giving me the same creepy-as-fuck feeling as the Casey Anthony case.
Another poor little baby suffering at the hands of someone they trusted.

What scum.