begin with new questions about the case of the Georgia father charged with murder after leaving his 22-month-old son in a hot car. An investigation by the Atlanta sum constitution finds that security... See More
begin with new questions about the case of the Georgia father charged with murder after leaving his 22-month-old son in a hot car. An investigation by the Atlanta sum constitution finds that security camera video does not show what the authorities say it does. ABC's linsey Davis is here with that story. Reporter: In addition to the security video, "The Atlanta journal constitution" suggests the internet searches were also misrepresented. According to the paper, there are several discrepancies, some of them striking. In fact, the reporter we spoke to says authorities may have, in fact, overstated some of their case. This morning, what some are calling troubling discrepancies in the case against Justin Harris, the Georgia father accused of murder after leaving his 22-month-old cooper in a sweltering hot car while he went to work. What was testified to and what was then characterized in follow-up was different, I think, than what I saw. Reporter: Bill torpy, a reporter with "The Atlanta journal constitution" says he reviewed evidence not released to the public including a surveillance video from the home Depot corporate office where Harris worked and during a July 3rd hearing prosecutors and police pointed to the amount of time he remained in the car before heading into his job. It's around 30 seconds from the time he parked the vehicle to till the time he gets out and shuts the door. Reporter: But when torpy reviewed that they saw something different. He was in the car for about 15 seconds, maybe a little less. Reporter: Another discrepancy. Prosecutors said the surveillance video showed Harris went out to lunch with co-workers and returned to the car with some lightbulbs suggesting once again he could see his sun in the backseat. He's in there. Reporter: But according to torpy. His arm and maybe his shoulder was in but his head remains above the roof line. Reporter: The prosecution also suggests Harris became worried when another man walked past him in the parking lot. He kind of stands there for a little bit as the guy walks past him. Reporter: But the ajc investigation found Harris seemed oblivious to the other man. He keeps walking plucking at the phone. Reporter: He pleaded not guilty to murder and second degree child cruelty. His half brother who testified on his behalf -- He loved his son very much. Reporter: Told the "Ajc" police and prosecutors rushed to judgment and he and Harris were planning to take their vacations on an October cruise proof that Harris had not planned to kill his son. He characterizes his brother's arrest as a character assassination. ABC news reached out to Harris' defense team and the prosecution including the detective who testified and no one would comment on these details. Okay, thank you. We'll bring in Dan Abrams for more on this. Your take on the newspaper's investigation? This is a good story. I think it's an important story but, remember, he's not charged with intentionally trying to kill his child. I think that's really important. No question the decorative in this proceeding in this hearing strongly suggested that he -- they believe this was premeditated but the actual charge that he's facing here, right now at this point, does not involve intentional conduct. It just involves recklessly or being grossly negligent in leaving his child in the car and the child, therefore, dieing, so in that sense, it may not affect the case as much as the article seems to suggest. But the article has suggested and "The Atlanta journal constitution" are saying the discrepancies are striking. That's the word they use, "Striking." Yeah, I found them to be interesting and important and exactly the sort of arguments you would see a defense attorney make. I think that they were -- some of them were a little troubling but, look, what you may have here is police officers who investigated this case and became convinced that he was guilty and then started looking at everything through that lens. That's not okay. That's not the way you want police officers to investigate. But I think that this article to me at worse suggests that. Again, you have to come back to what he's charged with and say, okay, does this now fundamentally change the case? Meaning, would the judge have looked at this case differently if he'd known what we saw in this article and the answer is much of what was in this article came out in the hearing. It was part of the cross-examination, et cetera. So definitely some new, important details here but to me doesn't it willy change the case. You don't think the authorities overstated their case. I think that the police officer if this article is accurate may have overstated the case but I don't think it's going to lead to the case getting dismissed. I don't think it would have led the judge to have done anything differently. Thanks.
This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.