I have to go look again too. The judge seems to be looking at Kilgore when she suggested the case be looked up--but I didn't catch what was being said.
eta---she also said pay attention to pages 61 and 62 but I don't know what that means exactly...lol
Umm. Maybe what to say to make himself sound like a victim of forgotten baby syndrome? Wasn't that one of the critiques of his interview and then exchanges with Leanna? That he didn't say explicitly- well I THOUGHT I dropped him off at daycare?
At 11:35, it was 88 degrees at the car seat. That is time when the car seat temp matched the outside temp. At 12:45 the car seat temp was 98 degrees with the outside temp still being 88. The interior got above 100 degrees shortly before 1:00.
On 6/18/2014 the outside heat was 86 at 12:00. 87.8 at 1:00
I don't think this was a long planned, well thought out action. I think it had crossed his mind a few times and he fought against the evil urge. But on this particular morning he was especially stressed, tired and depressed, and he impulsively gave into the impulse.
ETA Rodriguez was doing CrossThey parked at 9:00 I thought, with the air having been turned to I think 67. I could be remembering wrong
Eta: my apologies, they said the a/c was set to what the car had been set to. No specific temp noted. They drove the car until it was at the full operating temp. They started monitoring temps inside the car at 9:00. It was 65 degrees in the car at 9:00 am
Because Cooper was asleep when peeps walked right by the car.
I am going to be honest. I believe that the car study is terrible science and have discredited the entire study. The witness admitted that he did not know the starting temperature of Ross's car so he just set the A/C temperature to the same level as when the car was impounded on the afternoon on June 18. The witness did not make any adjustments for the fact that Ross's car sat in the CFA parking lot for 20ish minutes. The starting temperature could have been off as much as 10-15 degrees. That is a significant variation. He also did not account for another major variable - Cooper, a heat source, in the car. I cannot accept the conclusion when the methodology and process is fundamentally flawed. I think that it is unlikely that Cooper was conscious when Ross returned from lunch.
I personally don't think Cooper would have been a heat source at lunch. In order for his body to have been a heat source, he would have to be a higher temp than inside the car. Since the car was not in the full sun and mostly protected until 2:00, I really don't think ti's possible he would have been creating heat at that time. I don't know how I feel about the heat test conducted, but I cannot be convinced he was deceased or a heat source. JMO
According to the heat study conducted in the car, what would the temperature have been at 11:21? Anyone have that handy?
I agree that he was not a heat source at lunch. However, I don't think that there is any question that the car was cooler than 98.6 degrees when Ross closed the door around 9:30 that morning. For some period of time, Cooper's body heat was contributing to the overall temperature in the car. I don't know how to quantify that, but I think that the fact that his temperature was simply ignored is shoddy work. The even bigger issue is that the starting temperature was unknown.
And the rear windows were tinted.
In this case, I don't agree that it's shoddy work. There is no way to test that, unfortunately. You can't put a living thing in there and let them bake, to get that temperature. I suppose they could guess, but IMO that would be shoddy.
Coming out of the shadows briefly, but if he was such a researcher why didn't he research how to prevent his greatest fear?
Love websleuths and the diverse opinions...always keeps me thinking.
And throwing in- if Cooper in his carseat was so impossible to miss, how was it none of those people walking by saw Cooper?
Did I miss the discussion about the HD parking lot videos Kilgore showed the jury?
The videos showed people walking very near or right by RH's car (times are my approximates, from memory): 9:35, 9:40, 10:00, and 11:21, may have missed one. The car still seems to be at least partially shaded at 11:21, though the video is pretty blurry.
Early walkby's suggest, imo, Cooper was likely asleep. The 11:21 video doesn't suggest anything good for the defense, imo, unless Cooper died between 11:21 and 12:45.
He should have found a proxy for a human. He should have found something around the same size as Cooper and something that emits heat at the same rate as a human. Like I said, my biggest issue is that he did not even have a clue what the starting temperature in the car should have been. Not attempting to replicate the impact of a small human in the car is secondary.
How do we know he would have acted differently? He was able to sext minors, go visit prostitutes, sext random women, and none of his coworkers knew.
He should have found a proxy for a human. He should have found something around the same size as Cooper and something that emits heat at the same rate as a human. Like I said, my biggest issue is that he did not even have a clue what the starting temperature in the car should have been. Not attempting to replicate the impact of a small human in the car is secondary.
The judge suggested the attorneys look up Harper vs State, 1981.
I think this is the case but wonder what she is trying to communicate to them:
http://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/1982/38123-1.html
Harper v. State
Annotate this Case
249 Ga. 46 (1982)
287 S.E.2d 211
HARPER v. THE STATE.
38123.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
At approximately 10:30 p. m. on the night of November 22, 1980, Eva Sue Dean, Fay Hall, Horace Hamilton and the defendant, Willie James Harper, left Dean's home in Rome. They drove to the defendant's house where he went in and got a gun, which he gave to Dean to carry in her purse. They then proceeded to the American Legion in Cartersville. There the two women sat at the bar while the two men went into a back room to shoot pool. With the defendant taking side bets, Hamilton played and won consistently. Because Hamilton's winning streak was causing some unpleasantness, after about 30 minutes the defendant came out and got his gun. Hamilton continued to win, causing the other players to get upset. In the last game played, Hamilton won. When Charles Garnigan said he wasn't going to pay, the defendant approached him and shoved him in the neck with the gun. The gun fired, fatally wounding the victim. The defendant and his companions then left; two days later the defendant turned himself in to the police. Subsequently he was convicted by a jury of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
1. The defendant enumerates as error the admission of his statement to police. At a Jackson-Denno hearing the police officer who interrogated the defendant testified that he explained his rights to the defendant and that the defendant signed a waiver form and then made a statement, with the officer taking notes. When the officer then said he wanted to get the statement on tape, the defendant said he wanted an attorney. The officer stopped all interrogation and let the defendant call his attorney. The defendant testified that he asked for an attorney before he gave his statement.
*47 Having heard this conflicting testimony, the trial court ruled that the statement "was voluntarily given after he had his Constitutional Rights explained to him." We find no error. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (84 SC 1774, 12 LE2d 908) (1964); Crawford v. State, 245 Ga. 89 (2) (263 SE2d 131) (1980).
2. In his statement, the defendant described his weapon as a.38 caliber gun and said that after he left the scene of the crime, he threw it out of the car window. On May 18, 1981, Horace Hamilton accompanied the district attorney and an investigator to a point on Highway 92, where they retrieved a .38 caliber automatic pistol from a ditch. Both Horace Hamilton and Eva Sue Dean testified that this gun looked like the defendant's gun. The defendant himself testified that it was not the same gun, but admitted that it was the same model, same color, and same size as his; that it had a clip, a hammer and a safety like his; and that he did not know anything about it that was different from his.
The defendant objected to its admission into evidence because there was no proof it was the same gun as that used in the crime. The trial court admitted it, finding it was shown to be the same gun by circumstantial evidence. We find no error. Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 798-800 (92 SC 2562, 33 LE2d 706) (1972); Herlong v. State, 236 Ga. 326 (2) (223 SE2d 672) (1976); Gunn v. State, 245 Ga. 359 (4) (264 SE2d 862) (1980).
3. Defendant also enumerates as error the trial court's failure to give two charges which he requested. Having examined the evidence and the requested charges, we find that the requested charges were not adjusted to the evidence in this case. Booker v. State, 156 Ga. App. 40 (4) (274 SE2d 84) (1980), revd. on other grounds, 247 Ga. 74 (274 SE2d 334) (1981); Stevens v. State, 247 Ga. 698 (9) (278 SE2d 398) (1981).
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.[
BBM - I am not a lawyer but there has been some talk of Ross continuing to speak to LE after invoking his right to a lawyer and before said lawyer arrived. Just my guess and I could very well be wrong!
I think she referred to this case in regards to the charge she has to give the jury about viewing the vehicle in which Cooper died. She was saying that this would perhaps be the pattern she would follow...Perhaps the jury in the above case had a viewing of the crime scene?