The Sidebar - Ross Harris Trial

[arkansasmimi]

At some point I’m sure we’ll have transcripts of the testimony, but I went ahead and pulled these tweets and an article about the smell testimony from 10/4 and 10/5.

Claire Simms ‏@Claire_FOX5 · Oct 5  Georgia, USA
"To me it was unremarkable," says Brad Shumpert (Cobb County Police Department, a crime scene detective.) about smell of Cooper's body. Defense points out it was not in his report.

Craig Lucie ‏@CraigLucie · Oct 5
During cross exam the CSI says he never made a report about the smell at the scene.#hotcardeath


Carl Willis ‏@CarlWillisWSB · Oct 4
Defense: EMS personnel & medical examiner did not mention odor. Only the lead detective reported smelling "stench of death" at the scene.


http://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-ne...lay-ross-harris-trial/fbYWUAavBz2iA4SC8xQk2O/ - “On Tuesday, a prosecution witness also present at Akers Mill Square, where Harris said he first discovered his son’s body, told jurors he did not notice any odor.”

Transcrips of the trial? They are very expensive. Thankfully we have video to go back to. (love livestreaming)

James Hawkins (gave CPR) noticed smell of soiled diaper -outside the car

Anthony P (aka TJ Hawkins boss) - got inside car, front seat facing rear, Did not smell anything. **This is another instance I do not understand the Judge. Witness is asked by State if smelled anything, answered did not smell anything. THEN State asks, if possible a smell and you didn't smell, DEF OBJ... Judge I will allow... witness yes (was possible and he didnt smell)

Shumpert on cross, testified that no one on the scene discussed smell at all

Officer Foglia - from my notes, I didnt write that she was asked about smell, but I thought she was :thinking:

 

[GA_Peach]

Transcrips of the trial? They are very expensive. Thankfully we have video to go back to. (love livestreaming)

James Hawkins (gave CPR) noticed smell of soiled diaper -outside the car

Anthony P (aka TJ Hawkins boss) - got inside car, front seat facing rear, Did not smell anything. **This is another instance I do not understand the Judge. Witness is asked by State if smelled anything, answered did not smell anything. THEN State asks, if possible a smell and you didn't smell, DEF OBJ... Judge I will allow... witness yes (was possible and he didnt smell)

Shumpert on cross, testified that no one on the scene discussed smell at all

Officer Foglia - from my notes, I didnt write that she was asked about smell, but I thought she was :thinking:

Up until this point James Hawkins is the only person who has testified that there was an odor at the scene.

 

[Hope4More]

Back to Ms. Eastland's testimony on just one point.

She testified that Ross Harris took Cooper out of the car by himself, with no assistance. That contradicts the testimony of others, including that by Detective Stoddard, who acknowledged in the probable cause hearing that the ("good Samaritan" ) witness who performed CPR on Cooper also helped Harris get Cooper out of the car.

How is this relevant? Principally because of the State's narrative , pretrial and in trial already through witness testimony, that it was heartless and an indication of how RH really felt about Cooper that he would lay his baby down on hot pavement.


Reality check. Two men took Cooper out of the car and laid him down on that hot pavement. Why then is LE using the fact of where Cooper was laid down against Ross Harris?

 

[GA_Peach]

I honestly don't know. I haven't seen any evidence (yet, at least) that persuades me RH intended to harm Cooper. IMO it seems that LE initially acted on suspicions raised almost entirely by the very subjective behavior of RH, then Leanne; that, at best, they stretched what RH said as far as they could to get search warrants to go on fishing expedition of RH's phone and computers; and that they used what they found, especially the sexting, to fashion an indictment and case that IMO relies heavily upon very scanty "evidence" of intent, and upon using his unfaithfulness and sexting with minors to tell the jury he was (to simplify) a "bad person," the implicit and unsubtle message being-- and therefore capable of deliberately harming Cooper.

I'd have more confidence the State has a strong case against RH if I hadn't seen for myself that LE (to use an euphemism) was from the beginning less than straightforward with the court about what "evidence" they had, including their (inaccurate) portrayal of what RH said in custody and his emotional state.

Back to the exact question you asked- do I think RH forgot Cooper in that 1 minute or 2 between CFA and the intersection? Possibly, yes, but if so, I don't believe his version of their interaction that morning.

I don't think it's very likely that a dad who took his son to a special daddy~son breakfast (not a rare event, but not routine either), then genuinely and happily interacted with him during the time at CFA, then seat belted him in with special words and kisses, would within 1 or 2 minutes forget entirely he was there, and to not remember him at least by the time he pulled into work.

But I CAN imagine RH forgetting Cooper if taking him to CFA meant little to nothing to him, if the whole morning his mind was completely elsewhere, if he essentially never engaged with Cooper that morning and instead just went through the motions, lied about any special kiss or words, and whose mind, immediately after buckling Cooper in, went entirely to thoughts and daydreams about all the women he was sexting with, simultaneously, in his online harem.

Respectfully bolded by me. I feel very strongly about how LE has handled this case. As a resident of Atlanta who has followed this case from day 1, I have seen plenty of local coverage surrounding Cooper's death. LE has made numerous misstatements about Ross's behavior both before and after the crime. Before this trial began, I stated that LE would have a credibility issue, but the issue is much worse than imagined. Maddox Kilgore did a great job during this opening statement drawing attention to this problem. He read what LE stated under oath and then he showed video to the contrary. He showed the jury three examples of this, I believe. On top of that, Detective Stoddard stated under oath that when Ross returned to his car at lunch that JRH put his head in the car, looked around in the car, exited the car, and then awkwardly paused as he returned to the office. I have seen that video (I believe that the AJC did a local story on this), and what Detective Stoddard claimed simply did not happen. I am not discrediting what LE has said simply because the DT claims that it is false. I am discrediting it because I have personally seen video evidence to the contrary. Those statements are demonstrably false. It's not a matter of he said/she said when I can see the video with my own eyes. I am bothered by this because every defendant, even the worst ones, deserves a fair trial.

Having said all of that, it doesn't change the evidence. Unless the DT shows me evidence or puts forth a compelling story that Ross was not in fact texting all day, I still believe that Ross was criminally negligent with respect to Cooper's (lack of) care. If Ross's computer/phone records indicate that he was incessantly texting as Cooper baked to death, I would find him guilty of felony murder.

Oh yay, the reply button worked.

A brief reply- I think I explained that I don't believe RH's story of being an attentive, loving father to Cooper THAT MORNING lines up with forgetting him altogether a minute or two afterwards.

So , (just logic) : either RH didn't forget him, which means he killed Cooper on purpose, or, RH was not the slightest bit attentive or tuned in to Cooper that AM, so forgetting him took little effort, and isn't even remarkable in and of itself, except of course, in that situation, forgetting resulted in Cooper's death, and the forgetting was nothing less than negligence, the degree of which is yet to be determined--that is, if the jury doesn't just go with malice murder and slam those prison doors shut on RH for life, without taking an overly long time parsing out just how negligent one must one be to be considered criminally negligent.

What evidence would convince me of premeditation? It would go a long long way to hear ACTUAL evidence that RH actively did searches, within even 2 weeks of Cooper's death , about children, not animals, dying in hot cars.

More subjectively, if the defense 's star witness Leanne doesn't provide a credible narrative on the stand (not talking displays of emotion) , I have a feeling my hinky alarm is going to go off, but absent the search evidence or the like, that alarm likely will just keep blaring, but less and less loudly as this trial fades away in my less than stellar memory.

I agree with everything you said here. I started to put in bold the part I wanted to call out, but I essentially put everything in bold rendering it useless.

As for the question of premeditation, there are a few things that could convince me.

1) I am extremely interested in the car seat information. The current information surrounding that is hazy at best. It sounds like Ross and Leanna only had one car seat that properly fit Cooper. If the two of them were essentially splitting Cooper's pick-up duty, why did they only have one car seat? That doesn't make any sense to me, and if nothing else, it shows that they both have extremely poor judgment. Were the straps on the smallest setting, and if so, why? Our kids all outgrew the smallest settings on the infant car seat around when they were 3 months old. Am I really to believe that Cooper was in an ill-fitting seat for nearly 20 months? [Personal thoughts as an Atlanta resident - If the straps were really at the lowest setting, Ross would have likely struggled to get Cooper buckled in. Given the heat and humidity levels on the day of Cooper's death, he would have been been sweating by the time he was back in the driver's seat. It's just another reason that makes it hard to believe that he forgot Cooper.]

2) Leanna's testimony will be huge in this case. Since the DT has strongly hinted that Ross won't be taking the stand, she will be his voice. Has Ross ever left Cooper in car before? Did Leanna immediately jump to the conclusion that Ross left Cooper in a car? If so, why?

3) Any of the internet related activity could sway me. However, I think that internet activity alone would make it hard for me to draw the conclusion that Ross intentionally left Cooper in the car. Although hot car deaths may have been Ross's biggest fear, why didn't he do anything about it? While I believe that criminal negligence will not be hard for the prosecution to prove, Ross's internet activity could completely seal the deal for me.

4) Generally speaking, are there things that just don't make any sense? Are there things out of place? For example, did Cooper have a daily school bag, and if it was left behind or in Ross's car on the day of Cooper's car, that would raise serious red flags. Did Ross tell his friends he was going to be late to a 5:00 movie at 3:45 (as testified to by Ross' friend and co-worker, Alex, during the PC hearing)? How did JRH know he was going to be late? Ironically, these are things that I don't believe will be evident until the defense witnesses take the stand. The people who know Ross best run the largest risk of exposing these not so little things. In the end, does the totality of the evidence push one over the reasonable doubt threshold?

On a personal note, I really struggle with the fact that Ross "forgot" Cooper in a matter of seconds. I especially struggle knowing the layout of that particular intersection, and I am confused by Ross's chosen route to the movie theater. At this point in time, I believe that Ross was negligent but have not seen any evidence to prove that there was an intent to harm Cooper.

 

[Hope4More]

I believe her testimony to be the most credible up until this point. Her description of the scene fits very well with witnesses 2 & 3. She didn't seem to be pushing one narrative, and unlike some of the other witnesses, she was not convinced her memory was better today than 2 years ago.

I agree she was a credible witness overall. What I found interesting was that the State felt a need to call her as a witness (and not until March 2016), especially since she couldn't testify about what happened when RH first pulled in, or whether or not RH did CPR, didn't have anything different or new to say about RH's being on the phone or his utterances, and especially, was willing to testify that she found it weird that LE would arrest a father who had just lost his baby.

Why did the State have her testify? IMO they did because they needed to have her testimony that she found RH's behavior "weird," and "odd," no matter what else she could or could not contribute, and they needed that because of evidence to the contrary.

Murphy interviewed Ms. Eastland by phone on July 9, 2014. She did NOT say on the 9th that she found RH's behavior odd, in fact she said she saw "nothing suspicious" about anything he did or said, and that in her opinion, the behavior she witnessed looked like someone " coming to terms" with what had just happened .

Her statement was given one day before RH's probable cause hearing that led to his being indicted on multiple felony murder charges, a hearing that focused in no small part on RH's allegedly "not normal" behavior at the scene .

 

[GA_Peach]

Back to Ms. Eastland's testimony on just one point.

She testified that Ross Harris took Cooper out of the car by himself, with no assistance. That contradicts the testimony of others, including that by Detective Stoddard, who acknowledged in the probable cause hearing that the ("good Samaritan" ) witness who performed CPR on Cooper also helped Harris get Cooper out of the car.

How is this relevant? Principally because of the State's narrative , pretrial and in trial already through witness testimony, that it was heartless and an indication of how RH really felt about Cooper that he would lay his baby down on hot pavement.


Reality check. Two men took Cooper out of the car and laid him down on that hot pavement. Why then is LE using the fact of where Cooper was laid down against Ross Harris?

I did not find her testimony to be credible. First, she contradicted what all of the other witnesses said about Cooper being left alone on the pavement for a period of time. Second, she was the only one to state that Ross got Cooper out of the car with no assistance. Third, her testimony and that of Leonard Madden, who has not yet testified at the trial but was on the stand during the PC hearing, are inconsistent. She stated that Leonard Madden was still at Cinco's, but he stated that he was on the scene. Witness #7 (Dale, who was leaving the Subway) testified that he saw Leonard pull in around the same time as Ross did. Last but not least, she swore under oath that she never said what she just listened to herself say on the audio recording.

I agree she was a credible witness overall. What I found interesting was that the State felt a need to call her as a witness (and not until March 2016), especially since she couldn't testify about what happened when RH first pulled in, or whether or not RH did CPR, didn't have anything different or new to say about RH's being on the phone or his utterances, and especially, was willing to testify that she found it weird that LE would arrest a father who had just lost his baby.

Why did the State have her testify? IMO they did because they needed to have her testimony that she found RH's behavior "weird," and "odd," no matter what else she could or could not contribute, and they needed that because of evidence to the contrary.

Murphy interviewed Ms. Eastland by phone on July 9, 2014. She did NOT say on the 9th that she found RH's behavior odd, in fact she said she saw "nothing suspicious" about anything he did or said, and that in her opinion, the behavior she witnessed looked like someone " coming to terms" with what had just happened .

Her statement was given one day before RH's probable cause hearing that led to his being indicted on multiple felony murder charges, a hearing that focused in no small part on RH's allegedly "not normal" behavior at the scene .

I freely admit that I do not understand the prosecution's approach to this trial.

 

[GA_Peach]

I agree she was a credible witness overall. What I found interesting was that the State felt a need to call her as a witness (and not until March 2016), especially since she couldn't testify about what happened when RH first pulled in, or whether or not RH did CPR, didn't have anything different or new to say about RH's being on the phone or his utterances, and especially, was willing to testify that she found it weird that LE would arrest a father who had just lost his baby.

Why did the State have her testify? IMO they did because they needed to have her testimony that she found RH's behavior "weird," and "odd," no matter what else she could or could not contribute, and they needed that because of evidence to the contrary.

Murphy interviewed Ms. Eastland by phone on July 9, 2014. She did NOT say on the 9th that she found RH's behavior odd, in fact she said she saw "nothing suspicious" about anything he did or said, and that in her opinion, the behavior she witnessed looked like someone " coming to terms" with what had just happened .

Her statement was given one day before RH's probable cause hearing that led to his being indicted on multiple felony murder charges, a hearing that focused in no small part on RH's allegedly "not normal" behavior at the scene .

BBM

Although she did testify that Ross's behavior was weird, I did not get the sense that she found it "suspicious." She found it odd in the sense that it is not what she would have expected. IMO she thought Ross's behavior was equally as weird as him being in the back of the patrol car. If the State wanted me to believe that this witness found Ross's behavior suspicious, they failed.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I agree she was a credible witness overall. What I found interesting was that the State felt a need to call her as a witness (and not until March 2016), especially since she couldn't testify about what happened when RH first pulled in, or whether or not RH did CPR, didn't have anything different or new to say about RH's being on the phone or his utterances, and especially, was willing to testify that she found it weird that LE would arrest a father who had just lost his baby.

Why did the State have her testify? IMO they did because they needed to have her testimony that she found RH's behavior "weird," and "odd," no matter what else she could or could not contribute, and they needed that because of evidence to the contrary.

Murphy interviewed Ms. Eastland by phone on July 9, 2014. She did NOT say on the 9th that she found RH's behavior odd, in fact she said she saw "nothing suspicious" about anything he did or said, and that in her opinion, the behavior she witnessed looked like someone " coming to terms" with what had just happened .

Her statement was given one day before RH's probable cause hearing that led to his being indicted on multiple felony murder charges, a hearing that focused in no small part on RH's allegedly "not normal" behavior at the scene .

She also called 911, so that in itself could be one reason to call her as witness, but why not get in touch with prior to March 2016? IIRC could hear RH in background on that call. My be mistaken on that.

 

[arkansasmimi]

BBM

Although she did testify that Ross's behavior was weird, I did not get the sense that she found it "suspicious." She found it odd in the sense that it is not what she would have expected. IMO she thought Ross's behavior was equally as weird as him being in the back of the patrol car. If the State wanted me to believe that this witness found Ross's behavior suspicious, they failed.

And she also didn't see RH with Cooper. I think had to put her on because she called 911 and at same time RH didn't. That was my initial thought.

 

[Hope4More]

Respectfully bolded by me. I feel very strongly about how LE has handled this case. As a resident of Atlanta who has followed this case from day 1, I have seen plenty of local coverage surrounding Cooper's death. LE has made numerous misstatements about Ross's behavior both before and after the crime. Before this trial began, I stated that LE would have a credibility issue, but the issue is much worse than imagined. Maddox Kilgore did a great job during this opening statement drawing attention to this problem. He read what LE stated under oath and then he showed video to the contrary. He showed the jury three examples of this, I believe. On top of that, Detective Stoddard stated under oath that when Ross returned to his car at lunch that JRH put his head in the car, looked around in the car, exited the car, and then awkwardly paused as he returned to the office. I have seen that video (I believe that the AJC did a local story on this), and what Detective Stoddard claimed simply did not happen. I am not discrediting what LE has said simply because the DT claims that it is false. I am discrediting it because I have personally seen video evidence to the contrary. Those statements are demonstrably false. It's not a matter of he said/she said when I can see the video with my own eyes. I am bothered by this because every defendant, even the worst ones, deserves a fair trial.

Having said all of that, it doesn't change the evidence. Unless the DT shows me evidence or puts forth a compelling story that Ross was not in fact texting all day, I still believe that Ross was criminally negligent with respect to Cooper's (lack of) care. If Ross's computer/phone records indicate that he was incessantly texting as Cooper baked to death, I would find him guilty of felony murder.



I agree with everything you said here. I started to put in bold the part I wanted to call out, but I essentially put everything in bold rendering it useless.

As for the question of premeditation, there are a few things that could convince me.

1) I am extremely interested in the car seat information. The current information surrounding that is hazy at best. It sounds like Ross and Leanna only had one car seat that properly fit Cooper. If the two of them were essentially splitting Cooper's pick-up duty, why did they only have one car seat? That doesn't make any sense to me, and if nothing else, it shows that they both have extremely poor judgment. Were the straps on the smallest setting, and if so, why? Our kids all outgrew the smallest settings on the infant car seat around when they were 3 months old. Am I really to believe that Cooper was in an ill-fitting seat for nearly 20 months? [Personal thoughts as an Atlanta resident - If the straps were really at the lowest setting, Ross would have likely struggled to get Cooper buckled in. Given the heat and humidity levels on the day of Cooper's death, he would have been been sweating by the time he was back in the driver's seat. It's just another reason that makes it hard to believe that he forgot Cooper.]

2) Leanna's testimony will be huge in this case. Since the DT has strongly hinted that Ross won't be taking the stand, she will be his voice. Has Ross ever left Cooper in car before? Did Leanna immediately jump to the conclusion that Ross left Cooper in a car? If so, why?

3) Any of the internet related activity could sway me. However, I think that internet activity alone would make it hard for me to draw the conclusion that Ross intentionally left Cooper in the car. Although hot car deaths may have been Ross's biggest fear, why didn't he do anything about it? While I believe that criminal negligence will not be hard for the prosecution to prove, Ross's internet activity could completely seal the deal for me.

4) Generally speaking, are there things that just don't make any sense? Are there things out of place? For example, did Cooper have a daily school bag, and if it was left behind or in Ross's car on the day of Cooper's car, that would raise serious red flags. Did Ross tell his friends he was going to be late to a 5:00 movie at 3:45 (as testified to by Ross' friend and co-worker, Alex, during the PC hearing)? How did JRH know he was going to be late? Ironically, these are things that I don't believe will be evident until the defense witnesses take the stand. The people who know Ross best run the largest risk of exposing these not so little things. In the end, does the totality of the evidence push one over the reasonable doubt threshold?

On a personal note, I really struggle with the fact that Ross "forgot" Cooper in a matter of seconds. I especially struggle knowing the layout of that particular intersection, and I am confused by Ross's chosen route to the movie theater. At this point in time, I believe that Ross was negligent but have not seen any evidence to prove that there was an intent to harm Cooper.

Thank you for the thoughtful and respectful dialogue.

Too many points to reply to all at the moment, so am zeroing in on just one. You say that the defense will have to convince you that he "wasn't sexting all day... as Cooper baked" in order to convince you he shouldn't be found guilty of criminal negligence.

This I don't understand. What difference does it make what he was doing after he arrived at work and walked into the building?

Criminal negligence attaches (or not) just after he walked into the building, because he would have already forgotten Cooper by then. If RH legitimately forgot Cooper, as in, believed he was at daycare, then what he did that afternoon is irrelevant, imo, except as bad character evidence the State wants to use against him.

 

[Hope4More]

She also called 911, so that in itself could be one reason to call her as witness, but why not get in touch with prior to March 2016? IIRC could hear RH in background on that call. My be mistaken on that.

Ross can be heard, clearly, screaming - oh my God!! repeatedly.

 

[GA_Peach]

Thank you for the thoughtful and respectful dialogue.

Too many points to reply to all at the moment, so am zeroing in on just one. You say that the defense will have to convince you that he "wasn't sexting all day... as Cooper baked" in order to convince you he shouldn't be found guilty of criminal negligence.

This I don't understand. What difference does it make what he was doing after he arrived at work and walked into the building?

Criminal negligence attaches (or not) just after he walked into the building, because he would have already forgotten Cooper by then. If RH legitimately forgot Cooper, as in, believed he was at daycare, then what he did that afternoon is irrelevant, imo, except as bad character evidence the State wants to use against him.

It matters because Cooper wasn't dead yet. Ross still could have remembered that he did not drop Cooper off at daycare and run out to the car to save him. Since Ross did not drop Copper off at daycare, I maintain that Ross's responsibility to Cooper did not cease until the time of Cooper's death. I would assert that Ross's texting habits after he arrived at work rendered his chance of recalling that Cooper was still in the car at zero percent.

For reference, I said "texting all day," not sexting all day. If Ross was permanently attached to his phone, the content of his communication didn't have to be sexual for it to be a distraction. The fact that some of Ross's electronic behavior was sexting doesn't do him any favors.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Thank you for the thoughtful and respectful dialogue.

Too many points to reply to all at the moment, so am zeroing in on just one. You say that the defense will have to convince you that he "wasn't sexting all day... as Cooper baked" in order to convince you he shouldn't be found guilty of criminal negligence.

This I don't understand. What difference does it make what he was doing after he arrived at work and walked into the building?

Criminal negligence attaches (or not) just after he walked into the building, because he would have already forgotten Cooper by then. If RH legitimately forgot Cooper, as in, believed he was at daycare, then what he did that afternoon is irrelevant, imo, except as bad character evidence the State wants to use against him.

Agree. And I also agree with GA Peach thoughts . I also know GA Peach, and have great respect for her. I know that she knows the Defense doesn't have to prove anything. Not sure some realize that on the threads sometime though. Jmho

 

[Hope4More]

Peach- sorry I missed texting , not sexting. I'm on a phone (lost my computer charging cord) so among other things, it's very difficult to reference posts when replying.

Imo it comes down to one's definition of "forgetting." Forgetting as in RH knew Cooper was in the car at 9:19AM and by 9:25AM had no awareness of where Cooper was is, imo, unbelievable, yet it is only in that context that it matters what RH was or wasn't doing that so preoccupied him that he couldn't "remember" he had "forgotten" Cooper.

The only definition of forgetting that is plausible, again imo, is that RH believed, somehow, by the time he reached work , that Cooper WAS at daycare. If he believed Cooper was at daycare, it wouldn't matter what he did for the next 7 hours, because in his mind, Cooper was at daycare.

ETA-- I agree that RH was "responsible for Cooper until his death," but that may or may not be relevant to the jury's decision whether or not RH was criminally negligent if they believe RH didn't intend to harm Cooper AND that he genuinely thought Cooper was in daycare.

 

[GA_Peach]

Agree. And I also agree with GA Peach thoughts . I also know GA Peach, and have great respect for her. I know that she knows the Defense doesn't have to prove anything. Not sure some realize that on the threads sometime though. Jmho

Thank you for prompting me to clarify! You are correct that the Defense doesn't have to prove anything. Let me explain what I meant. Based on what I have heard through official court proceedings AND based on what the Defense conceded in opening statements, enough information exists to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross was criminally negligent with respect to Cooper's care. IMO Ross's obsession with his phone left him distracted when it came to Cooper's well-being, and for that reason alone, Ross is guilty of felony murder.

Since my current position is that Ross is guilty of felony murder, I would need to see something to change that opinion. There are a couple of possibilities. First, the State could fail to properly introduce Ross's texting habits and internet activity into evidence. While that could technically happen, the odds are extremely small. The other possibility is that the DT is able to discredit those records. However, based on what Maddox Kilgore claimed during opening statements, the DT concedes that Ross was on his phone... almost incessantly. Therefore, the DT needs to show me something that would give me reason to no longer conclude that Ross's distraction reaches the level of criminal negligence.

For the record, I know that opening statements are not considered evidence. Second, I would never be qualified as a fair and impartial juror on this particular trial. I have access to too much information that would be considered inadmissible and prejudicial.

Peach- sorry I missed texting , not sexting. I'm on a phone (lost my computer charging cord) so among other things, it's very difficult to reference posts when replying.

Imo it comes down to one's definition of "forgetting." Forgetting as in RH knew Cooper was in the car at 9:19AM and by 9:25AM had no awareness of where Cooper was is, imo, unbelievable, yet it is only in that context that it matters what RH was or wasn't doing that so preoccupied him that he couldn't "remember" he had "forgotten" Cooper.

The only definition of forgetting that is plausible, again imo, is that RH believed, somehow, by the time he reached work , that Cooper WAS at daycare. If he believed Cooper was at daycare, it wouldn't matter what he did for the next 7 hours, because in his mind, Cooper was at daycare.

ETA-- I agree that RH was "responsible for Cooper until his death," but that may or may not be relevant to the jury's decision whether or not RH was criminally negligent if they believe RH didn't intend to harm Cooper AND that he genuinely thought Cooper was in daycare.

No worries!

It's almost incomprehensible to me that Ross believed that he dropped Cooper off at day care. I literally cannot wrap my head around that possibility. :gaah: I find it more probable that Ross forgot in the sense that he missed that item on his morning checklist. Leave house - check. Strap Cooper into car seat - check. Eat breakfast at CFA - check. [Drop Cooper off at daycare - don't even remember this is on my list.] Get to work - check.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Would it be any different if RH had a big meeting he went into or project was working on once he went into building? Broke for lunch and back to meeting? *After forgetting Cooper in car?

Unless State can show me how it would be any different or how the texting/sexting was some how related to the death I tend to agree that it just State wanting to show bad character. *I don't with agree with his infidelity or sexting to me that a totally different matter.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Thank you for prompting me to clarify! You are correct that the Defense doesn't have to prove anything. Let me explain what I meant. Based on what I have heard through official court proceedings AND based on what the Defense conceded in opening statements, enough information exists to convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross was criminally negligent with respect to Cooper's care. IMO Ross's obsession with his phone left him distracted when it came to Cooper's well-being, and for that reason alone, Ross is guilty of felony murder.

Since my current position is that Ross is guilty of felony murder, I would need to see something to change that opinion. There are a couple of possibilities. First, the State could fail to properly introduce Ross's texting habits and internet activity into evidence. While that could technically happen, the odds are extremely small. The other possibility is that the DT is able to discredit those records. However, based on what Maddox Kilgore claimed during opening statements, the DT concedes that Ross was on his phone... almost incessantly. Therefore, the DT needs to show me something that would give me reason to no longer conclude that Ross's distraction reaches the level of criminal negligence.

For the record, I know that opening statements are not considered evidence. Second, I would never be qualified as a fair and impartial juror on this particular trial. I have access to too much information that would be considered inadmissible and prejudicial.



No worries!

It's almost incomprehensible to me that Ross believed that he dropped Cooper off at day care. I literally cannot wrap my head around that possibility. :gaah: I find it more probable that Ross forgot in the sense that he missed that item on his morning checklist. Leave house - check. Strap Cooper into car seat - check. Eat breakfast at CFA - check. [Drop Cooper off at daycare - don't even remember this is on my list.] Get to work - check.

If nothing else maybe it will force some to realize they are too attached to their phones. One reason I don't use mine for anything but talk and some texting. Look at how many are distracted on phone and driving.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I need to drop out of conversation until I hear/see more evidence and testimony lol. So are we getting a new thread for trial this week? I think I saw earlier we were. See y'all in the morning :loveyou:

 

[GA_Peach]

Would it be any different if RH had a big meeting he went into or project was working on once he went into building? Broke for lunch and back to meeting? *After forgetting Cooper in car?

Unless State can show me how it would be any different or how the texting/sexting was some how related to the death I tend to agree that it just State wanting to show bad character. *I don't with agree with his infidelity or sexting to me that a totally different matter.

Great and fair question, and I have given a lot of thought to this.

Here's the difference for me. Ross's phone activity began at CFA, and it may have been before that (we don't have an exact time table because the records have not been entered into evidence). When Cooper was sitting across (or next to, etc.) from Ross at breakfast, Ross was (allegedly) on the Whisper app. I can assure you that Cooper did not have Ross's undivided attention. Ross's negligence had already begun. At the time that Ross started playing on his phone, Cooper was right there. There is no doubt that Ross could see Cooper during that time. While Ross was knowingly responsible for Cooper's care, he made a decision to be distracted, and the potential outcome of that distraction is something that could be reasonably foreseen. The foreseeability of that outcome increases exponentially if Cooper being left in a car was Leanna's worst fear or if Ross viewed a video showing the results of a child/pet being left in car. If there wasn't intent on Ross's part, I believe that Ross never broke out of that phone obsession haze. When he got in his car, his mind was on the Whisper app and never left that. He then arrived at his office where he continued to engage in activities that prevented him from recalling that he never dropped off Cooper.

For me, the texting records will be key to this case. I think that the evidence is going to show that Ross was involved in what amounted to one continuous texting conversation from his time at CFA until later in the day. He took a break while driving, but mentally, I do not believe that he ever left the conversation... in the best case scenario.

In contrast, there is nothing inherently distracting with attending a work meeting. A person at a work meeting does not make a decision to withhold his/her undivided attention to a child because the child isn't right there.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Imo. Who goes to a movie directly after work on a weekday?

Now I wonder whose idea was that. Him or his friends.

Then he texted his wife and asked if she could pick up Cooper.

But still nothing sunk in that he never dropped off Cooper.

So I think he told her that so it would look like he honestly thought he dropped him off in the eyes of LE.

Plus he knew that the daycare would have looked at him as if he was crazy upon him saying to them that I'm here to pick up Coop.

Plus he really didn't want to have to fake cry in front of the teachers when acting like Oh No. My son is still in the car.

Plus he probably wanted his wife to get the bad news about Cooper never showing up from them and not him.

So imo. Ross knew before leaving work that Cooper was in that car.

But of course he waited until he was out of the work parking lot before going through with the side show. Jmo.