Thursday, June 26, 2014

Statement Analysis: Eyewitness to Vehicle Death of Child, Rodney Smith

Here is an eye witness to the dead child in the vehicle news story.   Analysis of this case is already posted.

Question for Readers: Do you think this witness is a reliable witness for the prosecution?

This is from the Nancy Grace Show.

GRACE: Everyone, breaking news tonight as we learn apparent computer Internet searches by Daddy, Justin Ross Harris, about death of animals in a  hot car.

But joining us right now exclusively, Rodney Smith, an eyewitness who sees Daddy remove the baby from the car. Mr. Smith, thank you so much for 

being with us. Mr. Smith, what did you observe?

This is a great question.  It is open ended, and although it may not appear to be anything special, "What happened?" and "What happened, next?" are the two most important questions an interviewer can initially ask.  

These questions should then be followed by questions using the Subject's own language, specifically.  

This open ended question allows the subject to begin the answer wherever he chooses, and allows the subject to enter into the Free Editing Process.

The Free Editing Process allows the subject to pick and choose his own words, and allows us to get to the truth.  
RODNEY SMITH, WITNESS (via telephone): You know, pretty much when he pulled (ph) from (ph) 

the right (ph) -- he parked probably three or four feet behind our store, the actual store that we`re 

currently working at, when he got out the car, he just started screaming, What did I do? What 

have I done? You know, he just started behaving kind of strangely to me. You know, the behavior was 

kind of, you know, suspicious to me.

"You know" shows an awareness of the Interviewer's presence (or the audience).  It is a habit of speech.  Like all habits of speech, we note what causes it to arise. 

"pretty much" reduces commitment and indicates that there is more information.  

The account begins with "You know" and the location of where he parked.  

Note next that the first pronoun the witness uses for himself is "we", and not "I" 

Note the activity of screaming having begun.  He did not say "he screamed."

Note the entrance of "me" is not about what he saw, but his editorializing of the account.  This should signal to the Interviewer that the witness is enjoying the attention and wants to be viewed as smart, or clever.  

GRACE: OK. I don`t understand. If he started screaming, What did I do, what have I done, what is suspicious about that? What did you observe 
that made you suspicious?

Nancy Grace immediately picks up on the editorializing and although it is compound (TV hosts use far too many words), it is a good question.  Tell us what you saw that made you "suspicious", using the subject's own word, "suspicious."

SMITH: Well, when it all started, we was in the -- we was in the store. And one of the employees 

came to the side of the store and said, Call the ambulance. I think the boy`s choking. Now, this is 

before (INAUDIBLE) comes out (INAUDIBLE) out of the car. And this is just as soon as the father 

pulls up.

Now, when he gets out of the car, he starts running around, you know (INAUDIBLE) He -- the boy is 

pulled out of the car, and they put him on the 

ground and they try to give him CPR, but he wasn`t reviving. But what made it seem so suspicious is 

the actions that he took, more like not in shock, 

but you know, he was more -- it was more suspicious, you know, putting on a show more than 


GRACE: When you say putting on a show, what do you mean by that?

"Putting on a show" violates Analytical Interviewing basic principle by introducing language.  This teaches someone how to lie.  

SMITH: Putting on a show. More like trying to make something seem that it`s not, or you already 

heard of, more than in shock. If my child just died, or if I killed my child, there would be teardrops 

coming down. There would be only shock. I wouldn`t know what to do. But the first  thing you 

should do is try to see what`s really going on, observe the area, pretty much see if the child is still 

breathing. He didn`t do none of  that. You know, in these situations like this, some people, you know, 

(INAUDIBLE) and you got to recuperate yourself and make sure everything`s 

in your situation, it goes right, because anything can happen.

First, "putting on a show" is the language of Nancy Grace, not the subject. 

This is the kind of witness that defense attorneys love.  He is lecturing now, on how he would react and cannot decide if he would have tears, or be in shock.  He "wouldn't know what to do" is then refuted by "but."

Note the distancing language he employs.

Note the word "child" is used.  "Child" is a signal of risk.  It would be interesting to interview him on his background and about his own children.  I like to ask,

"Any history of CPS?"

It doesn't always go well with this question, however.  

Objection:  But "child" is what is being used. 

Answer:  Correct. Except now he used the possessive pronoun "my", bringing it 'home' and 'personal.'  

My first question would be: 

Do you have a child of your own?

If he does not, the language is just the language of context and the objection is sustained.  If he has a child of his own, we have a different direction for the interview.  (lots more information) 

Note also, that the first thing "you" should do, is not what he would do.  This is an example of distancing language.  

Some parents will say, "The first thing I would have done if this was my son would have been to..."

GRACE: Were you there, Mr. Smith, when you saw the child -- when the child was pulled out of the car?

Analytical Interviewing violation:   The first question was good, but the second question suggests the answer.   Did he see the child in the car?  Or, as suggested, when the child was pulled out of the car.  

Do not ask compound questions.
Do not ask leading questions.
Do not teach your subject how to answer your questions. 

Of course, on television, the host is not seeking information as the primary objective, but to focus upon self.  This is how job security works.  If the questions are all open ended, and without commentary, it is great for information, but may not get the Interviewer ratings.  This is why "tot" is often used, and shill commentators using silly contrarian arguments are brought in:  entertainment before information.  

The question is "where were you?"
SMITH: Yes, ma`am. It was two gentlemen. I don`t know their name or anything like that. Two 

gentlemen, they were trying to give him CPR, but 

the boy wasn`t reviving. He wasn`t, you know, coming back or anything like that. That boy looked 

like he`d been dead for quite a while.

He didn't answer the question, though this may have been more about him trying to get information out and not listening.  
Note that the "child", is not his now, but belonging to the father, he is not "the boy" while being revived, but "that boy" when appearing dead.

The change of language is justified by the context.  

"for quite a while" is editorializing.  What made you say "for quite a while"? would be my next question.  Is he still editorializing, or did he actually see something, instead of a tv report, that he could recognize?

Remember, this witness clearly wants to sound important.  
GRACE: He did?

SMITH: Yes, ma`am.

GRACE: Why do you say the boy looked like he`d been dead for quite a while?

Good question! 

SMITH: Well, you know, the (INAUDIBLE) you know, you can only go off what you (INAUDIBLE) 

And how the story is playing out now is exactly what 

He now reveals information about his own source:  story.  He seeks to elevate himself to knowing status.  

Is he now speaking from memory of what he saw, or...

from "the story" released to the news?  Listen carefully to his words:

I thought it was. It wasn`t word for word, but (INAUDIBLE) When he pulled up, he got out the car 

like that, then the next step was taking the boy out  of the car and trying to revive him. 

Note the chronology 

The boy 

looked like he`d been (INAUDIBLE) I didn`t touch the 

boy or anything, but just the outlook of it. 

Here he reports what he did not do.  

The boy looked like he`d been (INAUDIBLE) like, he`s drained, dehydrated.

And pretty much, when me and the other co-workers was sitting out on the curb right in front of the 

Note he gives the body posture of himself and others:  sitting

Note the change of language, boy, child, back and forth. 

child, I was telling them it looked like the  boy had been sitting there for quite a while.

A defense attorney would like a witness like this for the prosecution. 
GRACE: Well, were you there when the father called the wife on the phone?

SMITH: Yes. That`s when the crowd started coming. That`s after the police came. The police pulled up 10, 15 minutes right after the whole 

incident occurred.

GRACE: What did he say to his wife on the phone?

SMITH: Well, when he was on the phone he said -- he was explaining what was going on, as in, you know, Our child is dead. And you know, he 
was -- he was -- he was in a bit of a -- I don`t have a good word for it. But he was -- he was -- he was acting out, pretty much.

Note first he says, "well", which is a pause to think.  He needed to think before he spoke, yet he avoided answering the question.  
Take this along with the change of language above.  

Do you feel he is reliable?

"He was explaining..."  No, what did he say?  

"our child is dead" is not a quote. 

"pretty much" he was "acting out."

The witness does not report what the man said to his wife.  
GRACE: What do you mean he was acting out?

SMITH: He was just pretty much -- I can`t -- I can`t get past anything but putting on a show because I know how I would feel. I`ve got a  
child. He just turned 1 on June the 7th, so I know how I`d feel with the child. And the first thing that I would want to do is to call the police 
and try to run my child to the hospital. Those are the first two things, but call the police and ambulance, 911, is the first thing.

None (ph) of those things (INAUDIBLE) what happened with this gentleman. He got out of the car, started screaming. Then he (INAUDIBLE) 

taking his child out with another...

By now you are likely questioning, not only the motive of this man, but of the veracity of his statement.  
Note "I can't, I can't" 
GRACE: Well...


GRACE: ... that you heard the police say to him, You better watch what you`re saying?

SMITH: You better watch what you`re saying because I don`t know exactly what he said to make the -- to trigger the police officer to say t
hat. But whatever he said, they said, You need to watch what you`re saying. And shortly, probably, like, not even 20 seconds after that, 

(INAUDIBLE) produced the handcuffs.

GRACE: Well, let me ask you this. Was he pulling on a tree?

SMITH: Yes, ma`am. The tree bushes. It was probably, like, two or three feet, maybe four, even, from where the boy was actually laying. He 

was just going in a circle around me and two other individuals. And he was pretty much saying, What did I do? My son is dead. I can`t believe this. 

You know, What did I do?

And he was pulling on the tree branches, which that`s what made me come to realize he was pretty much...

GRACE: Well, you also said he was walking in circles, and then he would get louder and louder when people would get close to him, saying, 

What did I do? My child is dead. He would walk in bigger and bigger circles and pull on the tree branches?

terrible leading question...

SMITH: Yes, ma`am.


Anonymous said...

sounds like he's the one who wanted to go on nancy grace but it was his coworkrs who really wintessed this

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to know what prompted the move to Georgia. The move would have been around the time of Cooper's birth. Would it be due to getting a better job or closer family support? Is it possible though that Cooper was a child of an affair and Justin found out the child wasn't his?

"Harris, a Tuscaloosa, Alabama, native, had been working at Home Depot as a web developer for just over two years.

Harris, his wife Leanna and Cooper were renting a condo off Terrell Mill Road, but hoped to buy a home." -Daily Mail

Will be interesting to see what motive is suggested.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how an affair/ not really "his" kid -- logically leads to murder

Anonymous said...

I thought they moved for his job.

There was also a friend (I thought it was a fellow employee,,I'll have to find the article), who said the father was so happy, he high fived him and said that his wife was pregnant. They were excited because they had been trying for a while. Their landlord said they are loving parents, and that they were looking to buy a home for more room for Cooper. Everyone who has come forward seems to think everything was wonderful and going great for them.

Idk, maybe all the "greatness" was causing great stress? Even if it was an actual accident, I'd imagine your mind must be under massive stress to forget your child.

Anonymous said...

there's always other side of coin behind closed doors

Anonymous said...


Jen, I think you'll be interested in this. President Obama claiming all the scandals are phony and fabricated. Whaaat?

Dacea said...

I haven't finished reading so please forgive me if I have to come back and ask further questions. I want to ask about "the child." What should he say if he doesn't have issues with abuse in his past? The little boy? I'm just trying to put myself in that situation and think of what would be appropriate.

Dacea said...

I haven't finished reading so please forgive me if I have to come back and ask further questions. I want to ask about "the child." What should he say if he doesn't have issues with abuse in his past? The little boy? I'm just trying to put myself in that situation and think of what would be appropriate.

Tania Cadogan said...

but you know, he was more -- it was more suspicious, you know, putting on a show more than

The subject introduces putting on a show then ng asks what he means by putting on a show.
AShe used his own language for the question

Anonymous said...

I don't see how an affair/ not really "his" kid -- logically leads to murder

June 26, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Hi anon, it provides a motive if the boy wasn't his and he found out about it.
If he was was having an affair or they were contemplating divorce, then again we have a motive, an if i can't have him no one can.

This isn't to say why the boy died.
What this isn't is accidentally leaving him in the car for 7 hours.
We have him parking in a quiet area not his usual spot, we have him returning to his vehicle at lunch time and allegedly not seeing the child, who would have been hot, sweaty, smelly and distressed which meant he would have noticed him there, he didn't go to the creche to collect his child which he should have done if he thought he had dropped his child there.
If he didn't go to the creche to collect his son and he knew he was in the vehicle since he took him for breakdast, then he knew his son would not be there, which blows his i forgot he was there claim out the water.

It sounds like the child had rigor mortis which would not have set in so quickly, leading me to wonder if there was cctv of him and his son having breakfast where he claimed.
If cctv doesn't show the child alive , only him then he has some awkward questions to answer.

Anonymous said...

I agree with all that Hobs, the only thing I question is, I read the other day that rigor mortis can set in quicker in a child, someone said that in a comment. What do you think, is that possible?

Anonymous said...

How annoying for someone to use "YOU KNOW" when relating a story you just questioned them about. If you knew, you would not be posing questions to them. I don't like that "you know" business, it sounds like the interviewee is trying to control your conclusions, to agree with their version of things. To me it comes across as unreliable information, or an attempt at mind control.

Unknown said...

Yeah, phony and fabricated...just like his U.S. birth certificate, lol

Thanks for posting!

Anonymous said...

I wonder if baby had develomental disabilities. as i understand they can become clearly evident at about that age. maybe father felt that was intollerable. its just a horrible guess.

John Mc Gowan said...

SMITH: "It was more suspicious, you know, putting on a show more than anything".

"GRACE: When you say putting on a show, what do you mean by that?

Peter said.

First, "putting on a show" is the language of Nancy Grace, not the subject."Putting on a show" violates Analytical Interviewing basic principle by introducing language. This teaches someone how to lie

Peter, I don't get this.It is Smith who introduces the words "Putting on a show". NG is the one entering into his language, by asking.

"GRACE: When you say putting on a show, what do you mean by that?

I thought the teachings of SA was to use the subjects own language to find out what his subjective internal dictionary definition of "Putting on a show" means to him.

It is him who brings up the subject of "Putting on a show and that it is NG who enters into his language, isn't this what SA teaches us?.


John Mc Gowan said...


Jimmy Savile Interview From 1990 Reveals Disgraced Star's Apparent Fetish For The Dead

Jo said...

This reminds me of the witnesses for Hannah Anderson. Their first statements were that she did not seem to be in fear or held against her will but as soon as they found out she was an alleged kidnap victim, they changed what they observed.

New England Water Blog said...

Here we go again:

"Do you really think I'd want to go around making a mockery of who I am?' It's really irritating to think someone could believe I would want that label.'"

elf said...

Haha! I finally figured out how to set up an account on here:D
great catch john! I was wondering about that too (putting on a show) .
Also, I wonder about the father putting physical distance between him and his son. From what the witness says two other men pulled the baby out of the car and began CPR and (I think) someone else (not the dad) called 911. Why would the dad be off running around like a chicken with its head cut off instead of trying to help or hold his baby? Why run away from your baby who is obviously in dire need of help?

elf said...

Oh! This makes commenting SOOOOO much EASIER! lol

John Mc Gowan said...

Woohoo, And, if you duplicate a post, its easy to delete. Unlike, if you are an Anon, or just adding a name, there is no way to delete it. :-). And your I D, is unique to you. :-)

trustmeigetit said...

See below. Sounds like the body would be stuff by the end of the day depending on time of death.

Rigor mortis (Latin: rigor "stiffness", mortis "of death") is one of the recognizable signs of death, caused by chemical changes in the muscles after death, causing the limbs of the corpse to become stiff and difficult to move or manipulate.[1] In humans, it commences after about three to four hours, reaches maximum stiffness after 12 hours, and gradually dissipates from approximately 24 hours after death.[2]

trustmeigetit said...

OT. This was a comment from Jane Tanner on seeing Gerry that I just came across.

Hob – Question for you…. Do you know what “footy” means? I was thinking it was a British term.

Then, what struck me was that she was commenting that Gerry had been gone a long time. I think. It is worded kinda weird so I am not positive. Sometimes the things they say don’t make sense to me.

Sure do see some flags….

JANE: "No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here."

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi trustmeigetit,

It means Football, an abbreviations thereof.

Frannie said...

What if he wasn't trying to kill his son - just set up a situation to gain public sympathy and $$$. His son gets left in the car by accident, hero dad saves him, etc...
It was just in the papers that the people that claimed they were kicked out of a KFC because their daughters face was disturbing other customers (child WAS really mauled by a family dog!)was a hoax! I don't recall the ridiculous amount of money they got from donations ( I think 6 figures) plus the bad publicity KFC had to endure.

Anonymous said...

Support appears to be fading for the Cobb County father charged with murder after leaving his 22-month-old son in a hot car.

Justin Ross Harris, 33, is charged with murder and second-degree cruelty to a child in the death of his son, Cooper. Harris told police that he forgot to drop his son off at daycare on June 18.

Harris initially garnered an enormous amount of online support after police filed murder charges against him. Thousands signed an online petition urging Cobb County District Attorney Vic Reynolds to drop the charges.

However, police issued a new arrest warrant on Wednesday that offered more details into the events surrounding the boy's death. In it, police said that Harris and his son had breakfast at a Chick-fil-A on Cumberland Boulevard on the morning of the incident. The warrant states Harris placed his son into rear-facing car seat a little after 9 a.m.

WARRANT: Read the criminal warrant for Justin Harris

Harris should have turned at the intersection of Paces Ferry Rd and Cumberland Parkway to head to Cooper's daycare. Instead, he went straight through the intersection and proceeded to work.

When 11Alive's Ryan Kruger tested it on Thursday, the drive from the Chick-fil-A to Harris' office took less than three minutes. Harris told police it was enough time for him to forget his son was in the backseat.

Cooper Harris's daycare is located at the Home Depot Corporate Headquarters off Paces Ferry Road. His father works at the Home Depot "Treehouse Office" located about a mile away on Cumberland Parkway.

At 4:16 that afternoon Harris left work for the day and traveled north on Cumberland Pkwy toward the Akers Mill shopping center, instead of south toward his son's daycare. Police say he pulled over into the shopping center when he realized his son was incapacitated.

After the new information was released, organizers of the online petition shut it down. A message posted on Thursday read:

Hello, I think that based on the recent developments this petition is no longer relevant. I still pray that this was truly an accident. If that is the case, the DA now knows that the community does not want Justin prosecuted on murder charges.

Cooper Harris' mother, Leanna Harris, has managed to avoid the intense media spotlight focused on her husband. Police say both Justin Harris and his wife remain under intense scrutiny, but only the father is charged.

The police department stated publicly for the first time on Wednesday that they do not believe Cooper's death was an accident.

People who witnessed Justin Harris

when he discovered his son's body at Akers Mill had differing opinions on his guilt.

Cooper will be buried on Saturday in Alabama.

More than $20,000 has been raised for the Harris' family, but that funding appears to have stalled as well.

trustmeigetit said...

Thanks John for the meaning if footy.

Then if this lil boys funeral is Saturday, the autopsy is done then?

And I think it's even more unlikely if he just had breakfast WITH his son that the 3 min drive after was not enough to forget his son.

My only thought initially was if he didn't normally take his son to daycare and it was just this day that would be understandable. But it seems to me, unless the child had another day care or if this was a new job...that clearly was a regular routine for him.

John Mc Gowan said...

JANE: "No, I, phew, again, I would probably guess Gerry’s back was more towards me, .because I would have thought if I’d have seen him I would have definitely probably stopped and said ‘Oh you’re in trouble, you’ve been long, we think you’ve been watching the footy’, you know, but. Because I think that’s almost when I went to acknowledge them, that’s almost what went through my head, you know, is to sort of give a bit of abuse about the fact he’d been so long, but. So I would imagine his, maybe his back was to me, but. And, again, in that way, that would make more sense, because I don’t know Jez, so it’s not like I would have gone ‘Oh hi Jez’, you know, that way, so. Yeah, I, I honestly, I can’t remember now which way they were. But I do, I stand by the fact I’m sure they were nearer than right over here."

Spot the red flags. I may have just highlighted the whole paragraph.

trustmeigetit said...

Yes John, her just telling us she saw Gerry took so many extra words, qualifies etc,

I still get frustrated with the "eyes for lies" blog. She also saw the video this came from and says she believes her.

I'm convinced all those that believe her in a more public capacity (Nancy Grace, Jane velez etc) are saying they believe them to avoid a lawsuit.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi trustmeigetit,

I have had a few, to say the least, disagreements with "Eyes" aka Renee.

If you are a regular reader of her blog, she is no more than the average at spotting deception using Body language and Micro Expression. 65%, she may disagree.

She tells us that she is a "Truth Wizard". Tested by Dr Paul Ekman.

Natural – « Wizards Project »
Most people do not seem to perceive microexpressions in themselves or others. In the Wizards Project, Drs. Paul Ekman and Maureen O’Sullivan studied the ability of people to detect deception. Of the thousands of people tested, only a select few were able to accurately detect when someone was lying. The Wizards Project researchers named these people “Truth Wizards”. To date, the Wizards Project has identified just over 50 people with this ability after testing nearly 20,000 people.[10] Truth Wizards use microexpressions, among many other cues, to determine if someone is being truthful. Scientists hope by studying wizards that they can further advance the techniques used to identify deception.

Now i am not refuting that she has undergone this test. (I do though, would like to see a copy or screen shot of her certificate.

A few months back, (I will try to find it). I asked her, why when you conclude deception or truthfulness, you do NOT explain how you came to your conclusion.

Her reply was. (this is not a quote, but, dam near to it) I stopped disclosing, how, why and what it is that i see to conclude xyz. Because, she claimed that people were stealing her knowledge. Now, as some may know, she travels far and wide to teach, LE etc. So, why hasn't Dr Ekman kept his knowledge and research spanning over 30 years to himself.? Answer, money.

So, ok. We have to take her word when she says one or the other. Be she right or wrong. The latter is very rare spoken about.

To my knowledge, she has never come out and said, on tv, in the middle of a trial, or an accusation and so on that the person is guilty or innocent.

Yes, she may say it on her blog. But as far as i know, and i will hold my hands up if she has, been on tv, during allegations of a crime and put it out there, one way or the other.

I recall, she was asked what her opinion was on the Charlie Rogers case. And if memory serves me correct, she sat on the fence, or concluded she was telling the truth.

All my opinion of course.

Tania Cadogan said...

The father's behavior is off, you don't forget you have a child in your car after you took him for breakfast, got him out the car, fed him , put him back in the car, got in yourself and drove off. The child is likely wide awake and making a noise. As we all know, three is the liar's number (mark McClish), how convenient that it is a 3 minute drive from chick-fil-a to his workplace, unless he has serious mental health issue regarding memory, he knew the child was there yet drove straight to work rather than to the creche.

This screams then of premditation not accident.

Given that he parked in a quiet area of the parking lot, not in his usual place, he then was seen going to his car during his lunchbreak, the fact he did not drive to the creche where his son would have been,instead he drove to a shopping centre, all of which contradict his claims of accidentally forgetting.

If he had forgotten his son was in the car, he would have parked in his normal spot, he would likely have been alerted by others using the parking lot that a child was in his vehicle, or that someone would have noticed and alerted staff.

The child would have been screaming and crying , he would have been heard most likely.

He would have seen or at least smelled him when he returned to his vehicle at lunchtime and thus called 911.

Failing that, come home time he was have smelled the child in his car if he hadn't seen him, he would have driven to the creche to collect his child on the remote chance he hadn't seen nor smelled him.

On finding his child not in the creche then he would have checked his car assuming we buy his story he didn't see him the whole journey nor smelled him all whilst calling 911 to report a missing child, hard to do if the creche say he wasn't signed in in the first place and assuming he still hadn't seen or smelled the corpse in his vehicle.

He chose a public place to enact his distressed father scene, the my child is choking spiel.

Maybe he thought the car being so hot would conceal the fact he was long dead and since he was warm to the touch had only just stopped breathing.

However, skin pallor is a good indicator of death, the child would have been blue grey with possible pooling of the blood in his feet legs and bottom ( it would pool in the lowest areas and is a good tell as to how long a body has laid in one position and if the body has been moved) also rigor mortis which takes hours to happen and then vanish.

If the child was in rigor then it is possible they could have worked out a time of death ( i am not ssure how a liver temp would work given the child basically cooked to death)

An autopsy would reveal the last meal eaten and also how long ago it has been eaten which would also point to a time of death.

They would also be checking cctv at the restaurant to see if he went in as claimed and is the child was with him or he was alone.

if he went in alone then he has huge problems, he lied and if he lied, he had a reason to lie.

I also expect them to do tox exams to see if he was given anything perhaps to make him drowsy etc.

trustmeigetit said...

John - it bugs me with the Mccann’s especially.

I don’t see it on there anymore….but at one point she rated herself as highly accurate and stated she was right about 37 out of 39 cases.

But what kills me, is that she’s actually done hundreds of cases. HUNDREDS. And most of which we don’t know the truth. Simple acquittal or found guilty does not mean truth as we all know.

AND… you don’t take a spelling test with 100 words, miss 60 but then say you got 39 out of 40 right. No. You failed. So how does she say 37 out of 39 when she has hundreds of cases.

Plus….she also used cases like Amanda Knox and Drew Peterson. Saying she was right that they were lying. Not only do we not really have solid factual proof… but I think most of us regular folks, even before SA thought they are lying. And both deny any guilt… So we don’t know for sure. She also used Adam Baker saying he was innocent and she called it way back when. Well, I still think he helped his wife dispose of his poor daughter Zahra. And again, just because he was not convicted or charged does not mean she was right about him.

So the fact that she markets herself as an lie detection expert annoys me.

Oh, she also think Mark Redwine is telling the truth AND… that Elaine is lying. REALLY?

I even asked her once how she can think the Mccann’s are innocent even with all the evidence that points towards guilt. Her response was it was just her gut feeling. She also insists that Kate and Gerry did search for Madeleine. She says she said she did in her book. WOW.

I think she makes a lot of good guess. Nothing more.

Ill stick to SA. It is the best tool out there.

Baxtie said...

Hi Hobnob, I don't have children. What do you mean that the father could have smelled the child at lunch time? Is that because he likely pooped or peed in his pants?

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi Baxtie
It is possible, if not likely the child would have soiled themselves, given the heat in the car though he would have smelled a very hot and sweaty child. The child would have been highly distressed as well had he still been conscious.

Unknown said...

To John and Trustmeigetit|: I am so glad you voiced your opinions about the eyes for lies blog. I have been reading it for about 6 months now and last week realised that I really didn't have a good feeling about her ability and much more importantly the author herself. She does not appear to have a healthy transparency or authenticity in her communication,. I too was surprised at her belief in the innocence of the McCanns but for her to believe in Mark Redwine after all the video evidence of who and how he is was the final straw for me.

She is far too non committal in her writings and because of this it is not possible to evaluate her 'talent' ahem :D

I have actually enjoyed reading the comments on there (cos she rarely comments lol)

OldPsychNurse said...

When the dad pulled his car over, he got out and began to "make a scene" where others could see him. He wanted to draw people to his car so they would start CPR and he wouldn't have to do it. He didn't want to put his mouth over his smelly, dead child's stiff, sweaty lips. (Grrrrrrrrr!)

Anonymous said...

Some quotes (finally) from the mother:

"Am I angry with Ross?" Leanna Harris said at the funeral in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. "Absolutely not. It has never crossed my mind. Ross is and was and will be if we have more children a wonderful father. Ross is a wonderful daddy and leader for our children."

There's more, including a statement from Justin Ross Harris, who called from jail during the funeral:

"Thank you for everything you've done for my boy," he said. "Good life. (Inaudible) No words to say. Just horrible. (Inaudible) I'm just sorry I can't be there."

Excuse me while I go and barf....

OldPsychNurse said...

Bowel and bladder control is lost upon death. The hot car would have reeked of feces at lunchtime. At
4 pm, the car would have reeked of feces and "expired meat".

The dad got in this smelly, hot car and drove 10 minutes before finding an audience where he could begin his "performance".

Anonymous said...

Why did she call her husband "a leader for our children?" A leader? Did she live in a paramilitary household?

elf said...

Lol @ stealing her knowledge. How does a person steal knowledge, I wonder? Too funny :)

JenB said...

I was raised in a very conservative, fundamentalist environment and this language of husband as leader is normal among such groups. Maybe the Harrises are Southern Baptist.

I am surprised he didn't apologize when calling into the funeral. If I had caused the death of my child, I would need to profusely apologize and throw myself on the mercy of everyone who cared for my child. So weird he was "just sorry he couldn't be there," rather than just sorry he killed his child.