1476 users online (298 members and 1178 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 68 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1006
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    9,238

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by EquallyDivided View Post
    Just a reminder: LE didn't get any of their evidence because of a routine traffic stop.

    They found a dead baby lying on hot asphalt.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
    Of course. And LE always investigates. As they should. That was never in dispute by anyone, including RH's defense attorneys.

    The problems arose in how LE approached their investigations, and in that I'm not even referring to the search warrants or anything that came next.

    I haven't been able to find a single hot car death case in any state in which the involved parent was charged with felony murder the same day, before search warrants were even obtained , much less executed, and in which the parent was sent directly to jail without being given bond. It doesn't happen.

    And it happened in this case with no solid evidence whatsoever, except for LE's immediate assumptions based on little more than RH's demeanor and a suspicion that RH was on the phone with a co-conspirator.
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasmimi View Post
    RBBM, as long as we are reminding, that is not why they had RH iPhone5 to begin with. Also LEO didn't "Find a dead baby on hot asphalt, the baby was put there trying to do CPR. 911 was called and then Gallimore and Folgia had a wreck in front of the crime scene, so they came upon the the scene not called to it. Just trying to keep in context. JMHO
    1. It was not a routine traffic stop.

    2. They found a dead baby lying on the hot asphalt.

    Neither of those two points make an exclusionary statement.

    That is stand-alone evidence.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
    Everything is my opinion, unless I tell you it's not.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4,121
    Quote Originally Posted by FinallyRegistered View Post
    Sure, but Stoddard had no right to enter RH's phone without a search warrant, and yet, he was asking for the password. Twice.

    June 2014 Supreme Court Ruling
    "The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought," the ruling said. "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant."

    Quote from CNN: "The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that police may not search the cell phones of criminal suspects upon arrest without a warrant -- a sweeping endorsement for privacy rights.

    "By a 9-0 vote, the justices said smart phones and other electronic devices were not in the same category as wallets, briefcases, and vehicles -- all currently subject to limited initial examination by law enforcement."

    Honestly, I'm not going to blame Stoddard on this one. He DOES have a right, because Ross allowed him to look. Ross wasn't smart enough to say no.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,343
    Quote Originally Posted by keeponsearching View Post
    I took the last three days away from Coopers trial. Hoping today is the day. I am getting concern for how long it is taking, anyone else? Or do you think its just coming down to decide on which to charge him with.
    There are a lot of charges for them to consider. I'm glad they're taking their time... Hopefully it means they are considering the charges and the evidence carefully and trying to make sure justice is done.

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by FinallyRegistered View Post
    Sure, but Stoddard had no right to enter RH's phone without a search warrant, and yet, he was asking for the password. Twice.

    June 2014 Supreme Court Ruling
    "The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought," the ruling said. "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant."

    Quote from CNN: "The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that police may not search the cell phones of criminal suspects upon arrest without a warrant -- a sweeping endorsement for privacy rights.

    "By a 9-0 vote, the justices said smart phones and other electronic devices were not in the same category as wallets, briefcases, and vehicles -- all currently subject to limited initial examination by law enforcement."


    It's not as simple as that, apparently, especially since there is the matter of the legality of the LE's initial seizure of his phone at the scene. Wheee is THAT a complicated issue, but crucial of course, because they couldn't search it without a search warrant if they didn't already have it their possession..


    Two warrants are required - one for the phone itself, a second to search the contents of the phone.

    LE already had the phone. The SW they obtained the same night for the phone, 3 hours after RH's interview with Stoddard ended, was for the phone itself, not for searches on the phone.

    But...Staley ruled that RH gave implied consent for LE to search those contents when he agreed to give LE his passcode. I don't believe any Georgian appellate court is going to disagree with her interpretation of the applicable laws.
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    809
    The double standards in this thread are astounding. On the one hand, 15 year old girls who are asked to send pictures of their genitals to an adult man share blame for their actions. It doesn't matter that these girls don't have fully formed brains and that the man's actions are illegal. The girls are not "blameness."

    On the other hand, we have a grown man, who has experience in LE, give LE his phone password, and people are crying foul. If he didn't want his phone searched, Ross should not have given them his password. He would have been completely within his right to deny consent.
    Last edited by GA_Peach; 11-14-2016 at 11:14 AM.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    8,020

    The Sidebar - Harris Trial #3

    arkansasmimi - I can't quote your post from the last thread but wanted to say something about your comments on the search, warrants, probable cause and "fruit of the poisonous tree."

    I think there is virtually no chance the search warrants will be invalidated on review or that any further acquired evidence will be suppressed.

    Can you explain why you think this is an issue?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    Last edited by minor4th; 11-14-2016 at 11:09 AM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Great State of Texas
    Posts
    7,614
    39 page ruling denying fruit of poisonous tree motion

    http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_6d1c...8d534ff345.pdf

    IMG_1869.JPG

    Corpus Christi, Texas

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    I don't think there was any "escalation" either, though I surely do see why the State wanted to press that narrative.
    RSBM.

    I don't know. He googled age of consent, so he presumably knew what he was doing was illegal, yet he carried on. If one of the underage girls had offered to meet up with him for sex, would he have said no? I find that hard to believe. But we will never know for sure.

    I'm glad he got caught before he could meet up with any underage girls (as far as we know), but I feel very sorry for the girls and women who got dragged into this mess. How absolutely traumatic to have to testify in court about then sexting you did. Even if the underage girls willingly sent the pictures, they could not have foreseen the consequences! Their hormones are all over the place and they are discovering their sexuality and experimenting, and they probably though that what they were doing was harmless and completely anonymous, and I hope they have not been too traumatised by all this.


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    8,020
    Quote Originally Posted by TexMex View Post
    39 page ruling denying fruit of poisonous tree motion

    http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_6d1c...8d534ff345.pdf

    IMG_1869.JPG
    Thanks for finding this.

    It will be subject to appeal once there is a final judgment in the case. But it is almost impossible to have a search warrant invalidated on appeal.

  12. #27
    BetteDavisEyes's Avatar
    BetteDavisEyes is offline "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    21,795
    VERDICT WATCH - Day 4 | Experts anticipate verdict in hot car death trial

    Arielle Gatlin and Michael King , WXIA 8:27 AM. EST November 14, 2016

    Jury deliberations resume Monday morning in the Ross Harris hot car death trial. Court was dismissed Thursday afternoon in time for the three day Veteran’s Day weekend...

    http://www.11alive.com/news/local/ro...rial/351673657

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by GA_Peach View Post
    The double standards in this tread are astounding. On the one hand, 15 year old girls who are asked to send pictures of their genitals to an adult man share blame forvgeir actions. It doesn't matter that these girls don't have fully formed brains and that the man's actions are illegal. The girls are not "blameness." On the other hand, we have a grown man, who has experience in LE, give LE his phone password, and prople are crying foul. If he didn't want his phone searched, Ross should not have given them his password. He would have been completely within his right to deny consent.
    I'm sure we could fill up a whole separate thread with posters accusing other posters of having double-standards, lapses in logic, opinions based on speculation or emotion rather than the facts or evidence , biases for and against the defendant....the list of possibilities is long, eh?

    One's poster's double standard is another poster's perspective that two points like the ones you note, are in fact completely unrelated, both as matter of law and factually.

    Fact check.. That 15 year old girl claimed she was 18 , and willingly exchanged sexually explicit photos with a man who thought she was 18. The exchange of photos wasn't the transgression. That came when RH found out she was a minor and didn't stop what he was doing, immediately.
    Last edited by tlcya; 11-15-2016 at 09:11 PM. Reason: repair broken quote
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    9,238
    Quote Originally Posted by GA_Peach View Post
    The double standards in this thread are astounding. On the one hand, 15 year old girls who are asked to send pictures of their genitals to an adult man share blame for their actions. It doesn't matter that these girls don't have fully formed brains and that the man's actions are illegal. The girls are not "blameness."

    On the other hand, we have a grown man, who has experience in LE, give LE his phone password, and people are crying foul. If he didn't want his phone searched, Ross should not have given them his password. He would have been completely within his right to deny consent.
    Agree. I believe that some things morally wrong are different legally. I def think RH is wrong about the sexting minors. I def think the minors were wrong too. 2 different things to me (minors are not on trial here but are equally wrong. JMHO no way they can be justified not to know what they did was wrong) And again, on the phone, just going by what surely will be an appeal issue because Def has already brought it up in hearings. Why RH did or didn't assert his right to not give password /not give. We have no clue.

    JMHO, my opinion doesn't make a hill of beans on any outcome of this case. Or the other either. I would think the State and Defense know more about what is what than any of us. I just following along.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    9,238

Page 2 of 68 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Sidebar - Ross Harris Trial
    By tlcya in forum Cooper Harris
    Replies: 259
    Last Post: 01-27-2017, 09:13 PM
  2. The Sidebar - Harris Trial #2
    By tlcya in forum Cooper Harris
    Replies: 1081
    Last Post: 11-14-2016, 09:47 AM
  3. The Sidebar - Harris Trial
    By tlcya in forum Cooper Harris
    Replies: 1034
    Last Post: 11-10-2016, 09:01 AM
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-03-2013, 05:53 PM
  5. Penn State Sandusky Trial #11 (Verdict - GUILTY!)
    By ynotdivein in forum Jerry Sandusky General Discussion threads
    Replies: 2348
    Last Post: 06-30-2012, 02:09 PM