The case of the man who cooked his son in his car

@boomerang,

Quote:

It's amazing to think that if he'd only done a couple of things differently that he would have gotten away with it.

There is a good chance that his wife however will get away with her part of murdering the child even so.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I been following this case where the man went to work and let his two years old son in the hot car for many hours, by accident he had claimed and by design according to the police.

Now of course the police seized all his computers including his work computer and found all kinds of neg. information about him by doing so.

He and his wife both had done searches concerning how long it take for an animal or a human baby to died in a car before the event.

He had gone onto child free website that promote the idea of living a life without children.

An at work while his son was being cook to death he was engage not in doing work but in sexing women online including a 16 years old.

Now this guy is earning his living being an IT guy for Home Depot so if he was planning on offing his son you would think that he would had not have all this very very neg information on his computers.

You can indeed do searches without leaving any trace or wipe beyond recoverable traces of his online romance relationships and so on.

Hell as a fall back position he could have had his own computers unreadable by anyone else.

In any case, the idiot was once more an IT guy for a major company so why did he leave such information on his computers if he was planning on killing his son when it should be well within his abilities to not do so?

What is on his computers seems to imply he is guilt and yet the very fact such information is on his computers to be found imply that he is not guilt also!

Opinions????????

1. Does "neg" mean:
A. negligent
B. negative or
C. something else ?

2. R u saying that he was FRAMED before the murder
by someone else who wanted to assassinate his son
by cooking him in a car ??

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

1. Does "neg" mean:
A. negligent
B. negative or
C. something else ?

negative

Quote:

R u saying that he was FRAMED before the murder
by someone else who wanted to assassinate his son
by cooking him in a car ??

Not at all I am just explaining why I am very surprise that any semi intelligence man with computer/network training would leave such a trail behind him if he was indeed planning ahead of time to killed his son.

I had frankly come to the conclusion that he is likely to be guilt as charge but I still can not understand why he allow all this computer/network information that point to his guilt to exist.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I 'll bet u $1OO that he gets convicted.
That was a nasty thing to do; slow-cooking.
He cud have given him up for adoption without murdering him; un-called for.
I 'm glad he didn 't shoot him.
Thay 'd still be blaming us for it.

R u going to the Friends of NRA dinner on Sept. 19th
at the Hilton Palm Beach Airport??
See u there ?
I 've got my ticket all ready !

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

You must be gutted that someone is being punished for murdering a kid after you started this thread to protest his innocence.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You must be gutted that someone is being punished for murdering a kid after you started this thread to protest his innocence.

Sorry I did not protest his innocence and you might wish to look at my first posting on this thread.

My question from the start was why if he is guilty would someone with his computer/network background would leave so must computer evidences pointing to his guilt.

Here is my first statement on this thread concerning this question.

Quote:

What is on his computers seems to imply he is guilt and yet the very fact such information is on his computers to be found imply that he is not guilt also!

Opinions????????

In any case, just for example using a search engine such as duckduckgo instead of google and his browser in privacy mode while doing the searches in question would have let no evidence of those searches on or off his computers.

Information he should had known being an IT guy.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I know if you'd plotted a murder you'd be able to cover up your tracks far more effectively, and you're upset that he didn't.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I know if you'd plotted a murder you'd be able to cover up your tracks far more effectively, and you're upset that he didn't.

You are a very strange person indeed to be able to come up with the above nonsense from my postings on this thread.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

I know what you're like, you always give the benefit of the doubt to child killers/abusers, and blame the victim. I'm surprised you've not said the kid brought it on himself for screaming too much.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

R u taking my bet ?

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I know what you're like, you always give the benefit of the doubt to child killers/abusers. . .

It is fundamental to American law (and, I thought, to English law. . . correct me if I am rong)
that defendants in criminal litigation r always entitled to the benefit of the doubt
and trial juries r so charged by their courts of service.

Thay must acquit, unless thay r certain of factual guilt BEYOND all reasonable doubt.

David

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I know if you'd plotted a murder
you'd be able to cover up your tracks far more effectively,
and you're upset that he didn't.

I favor the victim in this case.
He shud be avenged.
However, in a well crafted murder, there is no evidence thereof.
After a while, its victim simply is no longer found in society.

maybe like Jimmy Hoffa

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

That's not the same as automatically, (and aggressively,) demanding innocence. This thread is one of many. On another thread BillRM described someone watching graphic child pornography on a plane as a "useful member of society." This was child pornography so graphic that other passengers needed counselling after just glimpsing such material. BillRM painted watching child pornography as a victimless crime, he showed no concern for the child victims, instead preferring to talk about what computer security programmes the criminal should have employed.

He constantly argues for lesser sentencing for the perpetrators of sex crimes, arguing that it's impossible for a woman to be raped once she's had a drink. At the same time, (as I'm sure you'll remember,) he argued that the State of Texas should be allowed to execute a man without examining DNA evidence that could have exonerated him.

I have formed my opinion of BillRM over many years, his motivation and response in starting this thread has just strengthened my opinion.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

On another thread BillRM described someone watching graphic child pornography on a plane as a "useful member of society."

So a world famous research engineer is worthless due to him having a sickness that cause him to look at such images?

If Einstein for example had have that sickness he would had been a worthless member of society also?

Once more for the crime of just having such materials and not directly harming an y child I would think that the best solution in most repeat most cases is mental health treatments and long term monitoring.

If Izzy would have his way the UK prison population would likely increase ten folds to match the US prison population and for no gain except for those who earn their living supporting such a large prison population.

Take note with incredibly harsh sentencing guidelines, that the majority of US federal judges disagree with, the US have no less child porn then the EU or anywhere else in the Western world.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

That's not the same as automatically,
(and aggressively,) demanding innocence.

Its not.

izzythepush wrote:

This thread is one of many.

It is.

izzythepush wrote:

On another thread BillRM described someone watching graphic child pornography
on a plane as a "useful member of society."

I remember that incident. Was he a medical doctor??
I 'm not sure. A scientist?
Let's keep our concepts intact. I was acquainted with a fellow named Grey Vanaman.
He had expertise in computers and in photografy.
He advised me on successfully getting out of some painfully distressing computer problems
I had in NY, a few years ago; i.e., to me, he was a very useful member of society.
He subsequently pled guilty to child porn, with a sentence of 6O years in federal prison;
i.e., no parole. If he had confessed to murder, I 'd expect him to get 2O years.
I must question the logic of penalizing him the equivalent of 3 murders
for taking pictures, with no allegations of sexual impropriety
(i.e., no allegations of rape nor of sodomy by anyone upon anyone).

I was not present during his sentencing (he was never my client),
but to my mind, this suggests rule by emotion, relinquishing reason.
As an American citizen, I prefer my jurisprudence to be devoid of hysteria
and to be governed by dispassionate logic.

izzythepush wrote:

This was child pornography so graphic that other passengers
needed counselling after just glimpsing such material.

Tho I remember reading of the incident,
I have no idea of what was in the porn; whips n chains, maybe??
Something un-natural? I had not heard about the counselling.

izzythepush wrote:

BillRM painted watching child pornography as a victimless crime,
he showed no concern for the child victims, instead preferring to talk
about what computer security programmes the criminal should have employed.

He constantly argues for lesser sentencing for the perpetrators of sex crimes,
arguing that it's impossible for a woman to be raped once she's had a drink.

I 'm shocked to read that; I don t doubt your word,
but r u SURE that he said that?? It strains credulity
that anyone woud say that.
This crime introduces new elements into the realm of criminal liability
that may portend jurisprudential danger, to wit: merely looking
at something makes u a criminal.
Even in the case of Julius n Ethel Rosenberg, it was NOT MERELY LOOKING,
but delivering military secrets to Stalin.
Were the other passengers (who required counselling) guilty of the crime??
Was Abraham Zapruder guilty of a crime for taking pictures of a felony??
In the America wherein I grew up, it was not a crime
to merely LOOK at ANYTHING. Government is dangerous, very dangerous.

izzythepush wrote:

At the same time, (as I'm sure you'll remember,) he argued that
the State of Texas should be allowed to execute a man without
examining DNA evidence that could have exonerated him.

I wonder Y????
From that point of vu, I dissent.
Incidentally, u give my memory too much credit.

izzythepush wrote:

I have formed my opinion of BillRM over many years,
his motivation and response in starting this thread has just strengthened my opinion.

I 'm not certain that I 've read everything
in this thread, but Bill gave me the impression
that he merely questioned the probability of
a well informed IT Tech inculpating himself as badly as has
happened in this case. If I were on that trial jury, based on
the evidence as it has been suggested to us now,
and without more, I 'd probably vote to convict him. Is he a sadist????

Bill will speak for himself, but I think that he has subtly implied
that he favors conviction in this case.

David

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

He constantly argues for lesser sentencing for the perpetrators of sex crimes,
arguing that it's impossible for a woman to be raped once she's had a drink.

I 'm shocked to read that; I don t doubt your word,
but r u SURE that he said that?? It strains credulity
that anyone woud say that.

Of course I never said any such thing only taking the daring position that an adult woman is just as responsible for her behaviors in sexual matters as a man is under the voluntary influence of drugs or alcohol.

She should not be allowed to cry rape due to the theory of her consent not being valid if she had gone drinking with a man and then consent to sex with him.
while they was both high.

Of course there are boundary conditions such as the woman can not be so high that she is not aware of her surroundings when she granted consent and surely not unconscious but other then going pass those boundary conditions a woman who had granted consent can not after the fact withdraw that consent due to her voluntary repeat voluntary use of drugs or alcohol.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Bill will speak for himself, but I think that he has subtly implied
that he favors conviction in this case.

From what I now understand it look like he did indeed murder his son and if so he surely should be found guilt and the death penalty seems call for.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Government is dangerous, very dangerous.

That I happen to agree with you one hundred percents.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I think dangerous criminals, sex offenders and murderers should be locked up for longer. I also think, unlike you, that all DNA evidence should be examined prior to conviction.

Don't insult the memory of Einstein. There's really no depths to which you won't sick.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

There's really no depths to which you won't sick.

Hey MYLADY, you should talk! This has to be one of the first posts you've ever made that did not contain any foul language . Maybe, MYLADY has had a stroke, or perhaps, MYLADY's single parent offspring has taken note of what an A-hole prick her "fadda" really is...

Always rabid in the attack and always trying to insult the poster, You MYLADY, are typical of the lower class of Society...the unwashed pricks of this Earth. You will never arise from the lower levels of society, no matter how many languages are spoken in your so-called family. You've been tainted from birth, as there is no way...to erase or repair your defective genome.

You are doomed to the sewers of despair.

0 Replies

The case of the man who cooked his son in his car

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know