CNN CNN


 

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Harris Hearing

Aired July 3, 2014 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At some point after, did they bring LeAnna back and interview her, as well?

PHILIP STODDARD, COBB COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT: Yes, they did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did they note the same lack of emotion from her when they were talking to her?

STODDARD: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, did you finally see -- did - did you see emotion from the defendant at some point?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And at some point did you put the defendant and his wife in a room together?

STODDARD: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you did that, who was it that got emotional?

STODDARD: The father.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And could you tell the judge, what was he being emotional about? What was the main thing he was crying about or sobbing about or whatever he was doing?

STODDARD: Oh, it was all about him. I can't believe this is happening to me. I can't believe, you know, this happened to me. Why am I being punished for this? And it continued. It was all very one-sided.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he talk about losing his job?

STODDARD: He talked about losing his job. What are we going to do? I'm going to lose my job. I'll be charged with a felony.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did his wife ever say anything to him about what he said to police?

STODDARD: Well, she asked him -- she had him sit down and he starts going through this and she looks at him and she's like, well, did you say too much?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At some point during this conversation, did the defendant try to describe to LeAnna how Cooper looked when he pulled him out of that car?

STODDARD: He did. As they were sitting there talking and they're sitting there face-to-face and they are left alone in an interview room and he looks at her and he's like, he looked peaceful.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he describe the mouth and eyes of this child?

STODDARD: He said Cooper's eyes were closed. His mouth was closed. And he just looked peaceful lying there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, at the scene, did you and other witnesses see the child that was lying there on the pavement?

STODDARD: I did not witness Cooper on the scene. I have --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you seen the photographs?

STODDARD: I've seen the photographs and I was present during Cooper's autopsy, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did the other officers describe how he looked on the scene?

STODDARD: Yes, they did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were his eyes closed?

STODDARD: They were not closed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was his mouth closed?

STODDARD: It was not closed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in describing how Cooper looked to LeAnna, did the defendant say anything to you that brought concern?

STODDARD: And, once again, as we're watching their reunion, after he's talking about how Cooper looked peaceful and his eyes were closed and just, you know, looked like he was sleeping, he goes - and he goes, "I dreaded how he would look."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dreaded, past tense.

STODDARD: As in past tense.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Kind of common sense, detective, but are some of these things you've learned from going back and watching things again as this investigation has developed?

STODDARD: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So I guess you found evidence since the arrest to further your investigation to kind of further your opinion on this case, correct?

STODDARD: That's correct. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, the defendant, how did he say that he first

noticed Cooper was in the car?

STODDARD: The first time the defendant noticed Cooper as he was driving down the road. He went to make a lane change and he looked to his right as he was changing lanes and that's when he noticed that Cooper was lying back there. And this was as he was driving to the movie theatre.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did he say that he drove further or he immediately pulled over?

STODDARD: He drove a little bit further and then immediately pulled over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now during the day, based on the description he gave and the path he traveled by the - I guess video evidence and things of that nature, would there have been other times that he would have also turned that direction during the day when he was driving that car?

STODDARD: That's correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell the judge a little bit about when he left work that day at 4:16, 4:15, I guess, 10 minutes after he got off the phone with his wife, did he get back out to his car and linger, or how did he leave? How fast did he leave?

STODDARD: No, he was in the car mere seconds. He didn't take time to roll down a window or do anything along that line. In the car in mere seconds and the car rolls off.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How hot was it that day?

STODDARD: Um, I believe it was -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Generally?

STODDARD: Generally, like 88 degrees, I believe, in that time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And it had been a hot day during the entire day?

STODDARD: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he stated that as he pulled up, he kept the windows up.

STODDARD: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How long did it take from the time he closed the door to that car starting to roll?

STODDARD: Seconds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So the door closes, he gets in, puts the key in, turns the ignition, starts it up and drives off in two seconds. STODDARD: That's correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you spoken -- did you speak with Lieutenant Farrell (ph) in this case?

STODDARD: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lieutenant Farrell, what's his job?

STODDARD: Lieutenant Farrell's my immediate supervisor, unit commander.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, did he approach the car at any point at the scene?

STODDARD: He did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: About how long after the defendant had pulled over?

STODDARD: Over an hour.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And when he approached the car and stuck his head in -- did he stick his head in?

STODDARD: He did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When he did that, was there anything of note that he noticed an hour and 20 minutes after with the door open?

STODDARD: Yes, there was a foul odor or stench coming from the vehicle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, did you actually access that vehicle later as well?

STODDARD: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And why did you do that?

STODDARD: We executed a search warrant of that vehicle later on that night.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you executed that search warrant, and you went inside that vehicle hours later, did you notice anything?

STODDARD: Yes, it smelled like it was foul odor. You know, it smelled like decomposition or death.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, just to prove the elements of this crime show -- did you speak with the M.E. about whether this child would have suffered cruel or excessive physical pain?

STODDARD: We did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. What did he say? Would it have been a painful death? STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you notice any -- were there any injuries to the child's face?

STODDARD: There were.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what were those?

STODDARD: The way it's explained, there were several marks on the child's face. It would have come from the child or a scratch being made while the child was alive, and then not healing, not scabbing over or anything like that and just soon after he passed away.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were there any injuries to the child -- back of the child's head?

STODDARD: Yes. There were abrasions to the back of the child's head.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to turn your attention, talk a little bit about motive and intent in this case and about evidence you may have recovered regarding that. First talking about negligence and motive. Specifically on the day of the incident, on June the 18, 2014, in reviewing the computers and phones and things like that of the defendant's, did you uncover anything and what he was doing during that day while his child was out in the car?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. What did you uncover?

STODDARD: He was having up to six different conversations with different women, it appeared, from the messages from Kick (ph), mostly, which is a messaging service.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And is that a computer related messaging service?

STODDARD: It is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And these conversations he was having with these females, were these -- of what nature were they?

STODDARD: The most common term would be sexting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were photos being sent back and forth between these women and the defendant during this day while the child's out in the car?

STODDARD: Yes. There were photos of his exposed penis, erect penis, being sent. There were also photos of women's breasts being sent back to him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, did you actually -- have you located every one of these girls that he's had contact with?

STODDARD: I have not. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you located any of them?

STODDARD: I have located two of them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. The first one, I won't use the user name, but I guess let me, for lack of a better term, the older one, did you speak with her?

STODDARD: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what did she say?

STODDARD: She stated that she had first met Ross, and she knew him as Ross, through Scout (ph), which is another messaging service. And that he had met up and that he wanted to hook up with her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did she talk to you and confirm the nature of what you saw on these chats back and forth?

STODDARD: Yes, she did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Now, I'm going to turn your attention, was there also another girl that you met, and that you've spoken with?

STODDARD: I have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And how old is that girl?

STODDARD: She is 17 at this time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How old was she when the defendant began these --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, I'm going object. I mean I let a little bit of this go, but I don't see how this has anything to do with anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your honor, it goes --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is something that's going on during the -- during the middle of the day. I don't think it's relevant. What would be relevant would be the time period when the child was initially left in the car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your honor, this goes to negligence through the day, what he's doing through the day instead of worrying about his kid. It also goes to motive and marital problems between he and his wife and his unhappiness.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm unclear as to the time frame. Do you have a --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I'll clear it up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so these messages and these chats, do they start in the morning?

STODDARD: They do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And did they continue throughout the day?

STODDARD: They do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And when did they end?

STODDARD: Around 3:00 that afternoon.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So about an hour before he left.

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Overrule the objection.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now the 16-year-old girl, were these chats of the -- or now 17, they started when she was 16.

STODDARD: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did these -- were these sexually involved as well?

STODDARD: They were.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Did she send him a picture that day?

STODDARD: She did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Of what?

STODDARD: She sent a picture of her exposed breasts.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did he send any pictures to her?

STODDARD: He did. He sent a picture of his exposed erect penis.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, we talked a little bit about these computers. Have you guys done examinations on these computers?

STODDARD: We have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you finished with your examination of these computers?

STODDARD: We've only scratched the surface.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, based upon your review of these computers and other devices that he's had contact with, is it obvious that he has deleted some of the things from cross referencing these computers and phones and items?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now I'm going to turn your attention again, like I (ph) said, motive as to his marital status, issues he's having and his state of mind. Did the wife tell you anything, they were having any problems in their marriage?

STODDARD: LeAnna stated that they were having intimacy problems.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Going back to show how far this has been in his mind and the relationship between the two of them, did some messages with even different girls from back in 2013 confirm that he had been --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, I'm going to object again. I mean if this is being offered somehow to prove motive, I don't know what in the world something back in 2013 has got to do with this at all. There's -- there has been no connection whatsoever between the events of that day and the death of this child and this fantasy texting or whatever it is. There's no connection at all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Repeat your question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. In specifically to the motive or issue of having marital problems -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me - let me hear the question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. I'm sorry. Did he have chats regarding sexual activities with other women while his wife was sleeping and while his child was in the room somewhere?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, again, what timeframe are we dealing with?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I'm sorry, this would have been back around 2013, leading up to 2014, when this happened. It's an ongoing activity of the marital issues, judge?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So your contention is that proves motive how?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It proves motive because he was unhappy in his marriage. We plan to show that he wanted to live a child-free life, or there is evidence to suggest that based on his Internet searches.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I'm still going to object, judge. If - if you're unhappy in your marriage, you get a divorce. This is -- we're a long, long way from having some sort of fantasy texting situation to the death of a child. There's no connection there at all. So I'm going to object to this. It's just not relevant.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, this is a probable cause hearing. And there's no jury. And the court will consider the evidence for whatever weight and value it should be given in the court's determination of probable cause. So overrule the objection.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And I'll just speed this along. Did -- were there sex and text messages talking about the fact that his wife knew he had cheated on her before? STODDARD: Yes, there were.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And let's talk about and move up to about two weeks before the child's death. With one of these people he was having a conversation with, did he talk about exposing himself while he's chatting and messaging this girl.

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And was he sending pictures?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did he admit to her that he was not alone while he was doing it?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what was his --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, listen, I'm -- we're getting so far afield from the events of June the 18th. This has got nothing to do with those events whatsoever.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The status - the status of his marriage and his fantasy life has got nothing to do with the events of June the 18th. We're just getting so far afield, judge. This isn't relevant to anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, this goes to his state of mind in the two weeks leading up to the death of this child.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So this occurred within two weeks?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Overrule the objection.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When she talked about him exposing himself to her on that and there being somebody else there, what did he say?

STODDARD: He said she -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm just going to object.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are we talking about? Who's she?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This other person that he is messaging with.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it one of the two we know about?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's several other girls, judge. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Overrule.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a different one. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did - (INAUDIBLE), judge.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Overrule the objection. Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't even know if it's a girl. If it's just some person, have we identified them?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, would it be less relevant if it were a man?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll get back to you on that, judge.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And from looking at the contacts, detective, did you confirm via picture and name and was this a female?

STODDARD: The profile that she put online is that she was a female.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in addition to that, we talked about fantasy and things like that. Did you confirm through texts and things like that that this was more than fantasy, that he'd actually met up for things?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And one of those occasions at Rope Mill (ph) Park in Cherokee County?

STODDARD: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, again, I mean I don't even know where to go from this. What in the world is something that he's met up with somebody, whether he has or not, last month, last year, what in the world has that got to do with the events of June the 13th?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 18th.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As Mr. Born (ph) explained repeatedly, it's what he contends (ph) is evidence of a motive. However, I think you have beat the horse to death, Mr. Born. If you'll move on to facts of the case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. And, your honor, may I take one more shot at the horse just to explain his state of mind one day later. It's not to do with the sexting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it the final question on this topic?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Detective, in that same -- on the 5th of June, he talks about being a guitar player with this girl. She asks him about cheating on his wife. Did she ask him a question about his conscience?

STODDARD: She did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did she ask him?

STODDARD: She asked -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She is who?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She is this other girl he is sexting with.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And she does -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Same response.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No way relevant to anything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Final question, he says, Mr. Kilgore (ph). I'm going to allow a question and answer and then we're moving on.

STODDARD: She says something to the fact of, do you have a conscience?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what was his response?

STODDARD: Nope.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, again, talking about the marital problems and I guess Mr. Harris' state of mind, did you learn information from talking to him and from these chats about his - how his job was going leading up to the date of death?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Where did he work?

STODDARD: He worked at the Home Depot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Now from looking at these chats and e-mails and things like that with his wife, did you learn that he was unhappy at work?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Had he been passed over for promotion?

STODDARD: He had.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was that April of 2014?

STODDARD: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Going to May of 2014, did you learn that he actually interviewed with Chick-fil-A Corporate?

STODDARD: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did he get that job or not?

STODDARD: He did not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And was he depressed?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did they have life insurance on Cooper?

STODDARD: They did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What type of policy?

STODDARD: They had two policies on Cooper. The first policy is a $2,000 policy through the Home Depot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, the second one, was this something that they got back in 2013?

STODDARD: Yes. This -- well, yes, November 2012 is when he signed up for it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. And was this something that he still had at the time of the child's death?

STODDARD: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And how much was the policy?

STODDARD: It was a $25,000 policy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, in speaking with him and from looking through the text messages and chats with his wife and things like that, were they having any type of financial difficulties?

STODDARD: They were.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What type?

STODDARD: She was complaining about his purchasing, sporadic purchasing or overcharging credit cards.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, who was in control of the finances at this time?

STODDARD: He was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he tell you anything about his finances?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did he tell you? STODDARD: He stated that the finances were fine, that they had

recently charged up $4,000 on their credit card. And he had done that for the airline miles.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In looking at these phones and computers and things like that, were you able to examine any web searches that he may have done?

STODDARD: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First of all, I'm going to turn your attention to the, I guess, site, website, Reddit. R-e-d-d-i-t, for the court reporter. What is Reddit?

STODDARD: Reddit is a - it's an entertainment site is how it bills itself. It's a social networking, news-sharing, blogging type of site.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And on that are things called Sub Reddits within the Reddit website?

STODDARD: They are. Sub Reddits are like a subculture or a specific, you know, like or, you know, for a person.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Basically a topic?

STODDARD: A topic would be a good way to put it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were there any topics of concern, first of all, regarding death?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could you tell the judge about that?

STODDARD: He visited several sites, and these Sub Reddits, it was people who die. And, once again, it may not be the perfect -- but it's like people who die and it shows videos of people dying. And it's in all sorts of ways, from suicides to Iraq, executions, those type of videos.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, anything in looking at these Sub Reddits, turning your attention to less than two months before this child's death, did he go to any topics pertinent to this case and motive?

STODDARD: He did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what was in his mind?

STODDARD: He did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell the judge about what Sub Reddit he went to pertinent to that?

STODDARD: He went to a Sub Reddit, it was called "child-free." And "child-free" is a -- people who advocate living child-free. They advocate not having any more children and adding to the biomass, I guess, is the best way they put it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And when he went to this Sub Reddit, did he actually view and read articles or did he access articles in that topic?

STODDARD: He did. Yes, over four of them, or four.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was there anything about prison or anything like that you noticed in the web searches?

STODDARD: He did. He did also did a search how to survive prison.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A search to what?

STODDARD: How to survive in prison.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And specific -- through your - through your conversation with the defendant during his interview, did he talk to you, use legal terms and things of that nature?

STODDARD: He did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Through your searches, just this preliminary look at the -- his web searches, did he research any statutes in the state of Georgia?

STODDARD: He did. He typed in and asked for the age of consent for Georgia.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you were speaking with him, what did he talk to you and how did he speak about the charges once you told him he was being arrested first with a cruelty charge?

STODDARD: When I first spoke to the cruelty charge, he argued it and said it was an accident.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you later inform him he was also being arrested for felony murder?

STODDARD: I did. After the decision was made and looking at everything we had had gathered to that point, we did decide to charge him with murder. I brought him back into the interview room and sat him down to explain the charge to him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you told him what he was being charged with, what language did he use when responding to you?

STODDARD: He looked at me and said, but there's no malicious intent.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No malicious intent. Now, during the interview, just a little -- last few questions on the topic of probable cause. Did he discuss the issue of being afraid of children -- his child dying in a car?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did he tell you about that?

STODDARD: He said it was a fear of his.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he explain further things he did about this fear that he had?

STODDARD: Yes. He had researched watched (ph) websites on this fear. Two in particular. He had watched --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: First, let me ask you, did he watch anything on television involving an advocate?

STODDARD: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell the judge about what he said with that.

STODDARD: He watched a TV show, an advocate who had lost his child, and he -- Ross said, just like me, in a child heat related death and this gentlemen was advocating for a turnaround program. He was very conscience of this because of this advocate and the turnaround program and he said he practiced it often. And, I'm sorry, for turnaround program means actually turn around and make sure there are no children in the car with you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So he actually -- he learned about how to do that?

STODDARD: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And his claim was he didn't do it on that day, even knowing that?

STODDARD: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he talk about anything else about a video?

STODDARD: He did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And let's just -- what did he tell you at that point? Let's just talk about what he told you, first.

STODDARD: He told me that -- we were talking about, of course, you know, about Cooper's death again. And he stated that he had watched another video, and this video --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was this based on the Internet?

STODDARD: Yes, this is an Internet -- Internet-based video. And in this video a vet got on there and told him about the heat-related deaths of animals in cars and how you can't even -- if you roll down the windows, that your animal could perish in the car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And did he give you another example of how he was aware of the dangers of leaving a living thing in a car?

STODDARD: He did. He said when he was working for Tuscaloosa, a canine was left in one of the PD vehicles and died within 10 minutes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to turn your attention to this video. You

talked about these web searches that you did, or you -- the examination you did to look at his web searches. Did you find a web search on his work computer, the Lenovo, related to what he had described to you?

STODDARD: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you actually find the video on there that he described to you?

STODDARD: I did.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could you tell the judge in detail what this video depicts?

STODDARD: The video, and I believe it's - I might get the name wrong. It's like Ernie Ward (ph). And he is a veterinarian. And he's a very - he's an advocate for, of course, you know, animal care. And the veterinarian decides to do a demonstration about the dangers of leaving your animal in a car. So he goes out to a car, he sits in the car in the middle of the summer. It appears to be very hot outside. And he sits there for 30 minutes. And as he -- the video is about six minutes long. And through this video, he's showing you times and he's showing you temperature. The temperature in the car gets to over 117 degrees or around 117 degrees. And he starts to explain how horrible a feeling it is to be in this car. And he goes over it several times. He goes, this is horrible. He goes, imagine if you couldn't move. If I wasn't a thinking person, I could reason through this. That they are just trapped here in this car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now, this video, was it something that you -- looking from your examination, that he viewed once?

STODDARD: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many times did he view it?

STODDARD: He viewed it twice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, detective, what day did he view this video last, according to the examination of that computer?

STODDARD: According to our examination, he viewed it on June 13, 2014.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Five days before the child's death?

STODDARD: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, those are all the questions I have for probable cause. Do you want me to go ahead? I have some questions regarding bond with the detective? Should I go ahead now or reserve?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Might as well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Thank you, your honor. OK. First of all, on the issue of flight, where the defendant would be

a risk of flight, do you have any concerns? Is there any evidence that you've learned through this case that he may be a risk of flight?

STODDARD: I do. I do believe he would be a risk for flight.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: OK. I know we're hanging on every word. We have to get a quick break in. We are back with this probable cause and bond hearing out of Cobb County, Georgia, involving the death of a 22- month-old little boy. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: All right, welcome back.

You've been watching, and here he is, this is the defendant. He is charged with felony murder in the state of Georgia for leaving his 22- month-old son Cooper in a car on a 90-something degree day back on June 18th. And so we've been listening to this detective testifying, just jaw-dropping testimony as he's been questioned by the assistant district attorney in Cobb County. We're about to dip back in and listen to this probable cause hearing, which has now turned into questioning as part of a bond hearing.

But quickly, Holly Hughes, you have been in the courtroom wearing the hats of both - you know, on both sides.

HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, HUGHES & MANNING: Yes.

BALDWIN: The biggest takeaway, and there are many nuggets that have come out of this, is possible motive.

HUGHES: Right. Absolutely. And this is where you see Defense Attorney Maddux Kilgore (ph) trying desperately to stop that testimony. This extra marital affair doesn't matter because when you look at something this awful, this murder of a young child, you know, the prosecution is saying, this is a horrible crime. But a jury is going to want to know, but why would a loving dad do that? He's been portrayed, as we see the pictures, he's holding him, they're smiling, they look like a happy family. So the prosecution is now laying out for this judge in the probable cause hearing the sexting, the pornographic pictures that he is sending to underage girls at this point.

BALDWIN: Sixteen year olds, 17 year olds.

HUGHES: And that's why you see the defense vehemently saying, judge, it's not relevant. It looks like a character assassination going on.

BALDWIN: Sunny Hostin and Ashleigh Banfield are also standing by.

I mean, I tell you, ladies, I have pages and pages and pages of notes here listening to this. I don't know where to begin, Ashleigh Banfield. Is it, you know, with the three minutes that it took him to go from this Chick-fil-A with his little son who was happy and walking through this restaurant to work, or to these videos, or to the sexting? Where do we begin? ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, HOST, CNN'S "LEGAL VIEW": I'm far beyond it. I'm beyond the drive. I'm beyond the drive. I lost my lunch at the insurance policies on the children. I lost my lunch when the mother had the reaction before knowing anything about what happened and getting to the daycare and saying, the child must have died in a hot car. I lost it when there was no reaction from either of these two parents and yet strangely when they were talking together and didn't think anyone was listening, the father said to her, I dreaded how he would look. And that's according to the investigator on the stand.

I could go on and on. But when you talk motive and you've got somebody who's looking on a website for advocating living child-free, it's what we call in the business a bad fact. There's so many bad facts.

BALDWIN: We have much more to talk about. Sunny Hostin also standing by.