Trial - Ross Harris #4

[blue22]

I do agree that I saw nothing that indicated Ross was on a scouting mission at lunch.

I tend to agree. I do think the video is still bad for the defense, however. Actually, I think it's very damaging and compelling. His son was right there, possibly (even if just a slight chance) alive. And his own father didn't even remember him. He was strapped in, dying from the inside out. Horrendously dying. And Ross was RIGHT THERE. Flippantly throwing light bulbs in. He remembered them and he was so close to Cooper, but didn't remember him.

 

[Bc007]

Ross was not on autopilot from CFA to HD. He said in the interrogation room:

“I've never left him in the car. I’ve taken him to daycare a million times."

http://www.ajc.com/news/minute-minu...ross-harris-trial-oct/cIq8I3w0axb7DNla1XIMNI/

Which leads me to believe Ross takes Cooper to daycare every morning.

Except that he doesn't take him everyday. That's been pointed out by Ross, his wife and the daycare.

 

[Hope4More]

BBM,

At this point if I was a juror, the fact that he lied (lying by omission) about the light bulb trip to the car is all I need to vote guilty on all counts. No way he just forgot about that trip to the car.

Instead I believe he saw or heard little Cooper suffering greatly. He chose not to discover him yet. He didn't want Cooper revived. He closed the door. This is like stabbing someone over and over. I'm getting so upset..

Yet a friend who picked up RH for lunch and ate lunch with RH and went to HD with RH to buy lightbulbs and who dropped RH off by his car afterwards and who knew at that point, being interviewed by LE , that Cooper was dead , also didn't remember that trip to buy lightbulbs when asked to recount his interactions with RH that day and a chronology. He had far more time to think about that day and review it in his mind than did RH, who was recounting the day to LE just a few hours after finding his baby dead and himself under suspicion.

Does the friend not remembering make him automatically guilty of anything? No? Then why assume that one fact alone, of all the facts in this case makes RH guilty of malice murder?

 

[Bc007]

I tend to agree. I do think the video is still bad for the defense, however. Actually, I think it's very damaging and compelling. His son was right there, possibly (even if just a slight chance) alive. And his own father didn't even remember him. He was strapped in, dying from the inside out. Horrendously dying. And Ross was RIGHT THERE. Flippantly throwing light bulbs in. He remembered them and he was so close to Cooper, but didn't remember him.

I posted a link about a dad who was on trial for this very same thing. Guy was at work all day(forgot he didn't drop the kid at daycare becuase he got a phone call) and 3 times his car alarm went off during the day. He looked out the window from his office to see why and never saw anyone near or messing with his car so he disable the alarm. 3 times!!!

 

[blue22]

I just watched the security video of Ross going to the car at 12:30pm. It's really grainy, but he appears to walk right up to the car and toss in the bag; not pausing at all, and his head was above the car. So if he did intend to leave him there why would he not check for a minute to see if he was dead? Didn't the autopsy say he was most likely dead by 11am? So based on the prosecutors case I would expect he would check his state; realize he was dead; then alarm others and pull Cooper out. Why wouldn't this be a better plan by RH? I would also expect that people at work would notice that he was off that day, but they said he seemed normal. Another point I made - was there a psychological evaluation done on RH? It seems he would need to be a sociopath or biploar to do this and there would be some evidence of mental illness or the defense would bring in a witness to state this. The witnesses they brought in showed he is a sex addict, but I would expect other behaviors that show other types of mental issues(bi-polar or sociopath).

There was a psychologist on the defense list. Dr. Bhushan Agharkar. He was on the list at the time of jury selection. I don't know if he still is, though

 

[JerseyGirl]

at the end of the day:

Staley Clark was on the verge of going into recess when lead defense attorney Maddox Kilgore tells her he wants to "perfect the record" regarding his motion for a mistrial earlier in the day.

Kilgore objected strenuously to the jury's viewing of Harris's SUV in the courthouse parking lot this morning. Calling this brief trip an "absolute disaster," he moved for a mistrial immediately afterward. Staley Clark denied the motion.

She hears Kilgore, notes his comments for the record and then recesses the trial for the day.

http://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-ne...ross-harris-trial-oct/hpXi49piPXWQipBaaPuiOL/

 

[Hope4More]

My issue with that theory is that Ross did not go inside to eat on those days. In that way his CFA experience on June 18 was not exactly the same as when he went after dropping Cooper off at daycare.

Since we haven't heard Dr. Diamond's testimony yet, I have no idea whether he will or won't be able to offer a plausible scenario that takes all the variables of the 18th into account, including what you mention. We'll see.

Hopefully the jury will keep an open mind, because at this point they simply don't have the testimony yet to conclude it was "impossible" for RH to "forget."

 

[Hoosgirl]

Yet a friend who picked up RH for lunch and ate lunch with RH and went to HD with RH to buy lightbulbs and who dropped RH off by his car afterwards and who knew at that point, being interviewed by LE , that Cooper was dead , also didn't remember that trip to buy lightbulbs when asked to recount his interactions with RH that day and a chronology. He had far more time to think about that day and review it in his mind than did RH, who was recounting the day to LE just a few hours after finding his baby dead and himself under suspicion.

Does the friend not remembering make him automatically guilty of anything? No? Then why assume that one fact alone, of all the facts in this case makes RH guilty of malice murder?

I know for me, I would have been absolutely horrified that I was there, at the car, when there was the remotest possibility that my son was still alive and could have been saved. That would have been etched crystal clear in my mind and absolutely unforgettable.

For his friend to not remember/mention Ross' light bulb errand at lunchtime is a totally different scenario to me. JMO!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Zoobiegirl]

I am fully aware that Cooper is dead. That doesn't change the fact that the jury has to decide if they believe the police that this was not an accident. When the defense points out all the mistakes police made, it could raise reasonable doubt that the police made the correct conclusions.

I dislike Stoddard. He was EXTREMELY obnoxious to Kilgore on cross and that is very unprofessional. Regardless of the crime (and yes I know a child died horribly) one part of his job is to testify in court. The DEF team are professional colleagues and while I understand some pushback IMO this was way beyond that. Second, he admitted on cross that he decided Ross was guilty when he looked at him in the backseat of a patrol car. In this country we are innocent until proven guilty and that should certainly take longer to determine than a look in a back seat. The police should gather the facts and then determine whose guilty, not decide that someone is guilty and then make the evidence fit.

I can't believe that no one has commented on this (at least that I have found when reading about this online) given the current racial state here. What if say a bank was robbed and there were two possibilities as to who did it. The lead detective assigned at once decides the black guy did it because he hates black guys (anyone here remember Mark Furman?) and he's just in general a sleeze. Later evidence points to possibly the other guy but he ignores that since it does't fit his first theory? :scared:Or the first guy the detective thinks did it is a religion that he hates? Or somebody his first wife likes? The options are endless. Yes, Stoddard came from Crimes Against Children, but that SHOULD mean that he would be all that more careful not to jump to conclusions.

And, bty I do not cry at once in terrible situations. In shock I am stunned and only cry later. (I am not black either just in case anyone wondered due to my earlier example). It just terrifies me that a police officer would decide someone should be in jail for the rest of their life because they don't cry when he thinks they should.

 

[MsJosie]

Ross was not on autopilot from CFA to HD. He said in the interrogation room:

“I've never left him in the car. I’ve taken him to daycare a million times."

http://www.ajc.com/news/minute-minu...ross-harris-trial-oct/cIq8I3w0axb7DNla1XIMNI/

Which leads me to believe Ross took Cooper to daycare every morning.

Wish thst question was asked of day care...or a sign in sheet presented. I had to sign in when I dropped my kids off.

 

[GA_Peach]

Yet a friend who picked up RH for lunch and ate lunch with RH and went to HD with RH to buy lightbulbs and who dropped RH off by his car afterwards and who knew at that point, being interviewed by LE , that Cooper was dead , also didn't remember that trip to buy lightbulbs when asked to recount his interactions with RH that day and a chronology. He had far more time to think about that day and review it in his mind than did RH, who was recounting the day to LE just a few hours after finding his baby dead and himself under suspicion.

Does the friend not remembering make him automatically guilty of anything? No? Then why assume that one fact alone, of all the facts in this case makes RH guilty of malice murder?

First, I am not at malice murder yet, but admittedly I am very close to becoming a fence straddler. For me, it's not that he forgot to mention that he bought the light bulbs and returned to his car. If that were the only piece of evidence pointing to Ross, then I would give zero thought to casting the light bulb data point aside. However, it's one more data point thst doesn't really add up. IMO the list of coincidental and/or unfortunate things that happened to Ross on the day of Cooper's death is getting quite long. I don't know how many more items the list can hold until I am pushed past reasonable doubt.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

I read some of Dr Diamonds theories on Forgotten Baby Syndrome last night.

I don't think he will be able to easily fit this particular case into his theory.

He talks about 3 main things contributing;

---Sudden change in routine. -----we don't really have that here. Ross usually dropped off the baby and he often took him through the CFA drive through on way to daycare. So it was not a sudden change in routine for them.

---extra stress factors------ The defense might try and say he was under stress from work. But that might be a stretch considering he was focusing on random sexting partners, not work that morning.

---fatigue-----They may try and say he was overly tired because he had been up late and then up again early. But if they focus on WHY he was awake so late, and what he was doing all that time, it will add to the potential Criminal Neglect findings, imo.


Also, the very short time span from leaving CFA and forgetting the turn towards daycare being only about 30 seconds, is very problematic for them, in my opinion. I understand that 'forgetting' just takes an instant. But that has to be taken into context. There needs to be a period of time where automatic pilot kicks in. And he had just buckled the baby in, and the car seat was inches from his drivers seat. So it seems very unlikely that he could go so instantly into autopilot, while he had so many visual cues, and was also discussing him in a texting conversation.

:clap:

I don't think it fits FBS either and I think if he says so it will undermine his theory and any future testimony.

 

[FinallyRegistered]

My issue with that theory is that Ross did not go inside to eat on those days. In that way his CFA experience on June 18 was not exactly the same as when he went after dropping Cooper off at daycare.

But his drive from CFA to work was exactly the trip he took most days. That is the auto-pilot part of his drive.

 

[AuntB]

One of the things that bothers me the most (there's many) is when we observed JRH with LH. This is when we FINALLY see emotions and tears for the first time. He was crying for HIMSELF, because his freedom was in jeopardy. He never cried or showed emotion for dear Cooper.

I think he's a narcissistic/sociopath.

Whether he premeditated this crime remains unproven to me but, IMHO they've proven that in addition to narcissism, he's got an inability to empathize with others. I wonder whether the Defense might argue that what we're seeing in the video (in the back of the patrol car and at the station when Ross is alone, trying to hyperventilate) is a narcissist with sociopathic tendencies... as opposed to an intentional murderer.

 

[pocketaccent]

Yet a friend who picked up RH for lunch and ate lunch with RH and went to HD with RH to buy lightbulbs and who dropped RH off by his car afterwards and who knew at that point, being interviewed by LE , that Cooper was dead , also didn't remember that trip to buy lightbulbs when asked to recount his interactions with RH that day and a chronology. He had far more time to think about that day and review it in his mind than did RH, who was recounting the day to LE just a few hours after finding his baby dead and himself under suspicion.

Does the friend not remembering make him automatically guilty of anything? No? Then why assume that one fact alone, of all the facts in this case makes RH guilty of malice murder?

His 'unmentioned' light bulb trip is like the gas cans in the Arias trial for me.
To me, the light bulb trip means - no longer RH is free to claim he forgot to take Cooper to day care. That excuse just doesn't work in my view because I believe he saw Cooper during that light bulb trip, AND I firmly believe he did not forget that lunch-time trip at all when he was being interrogated.

 

[RANCH]

Yet a friend who picked up RH for lunch and ate lunch with RH and went to HD with RH to buy lightbulbs and who dropped RH off by his car afterwards and who knew at that point, being interviewed by LE , that Cooper was dead , also didn't remember that trip to buy lightbulbs when asked to recount his interactions with RH that day and a chronology. He had far more time to think about that day and review it in his mind than did RH, who was recounting the day to LE just a few hours after finding his baby dead and himself under suspicion.

Does the friend not remembering make him automatically guilty of anything? No? Then why assume that one fact alone, of all the facts in this case makes RH guilty of malice murder?

I'm surprised that Stoddard didn't arrest the friend for obstruction of justice for lying by omission about the light bulb trip.

 

[catpatrol]

I dislike Stoddard. He was EXTREMELY obnoxious to Kilgore on cross and that is very unprofessional. Regardless of the crime (and yes I know a child died horribly) one part of his job is to testify in court. The DEF team are professional colleagues and while I understand some pushback IMO this was way beyond that. Second, he admitted on cross that he decided Ross was guilty when he looked at him in the backseat of a patrol car. In this country we are innocent until proven guilty and that should certainly take longer to determine than a look in a back seat. The police should gather the facts and then determine whose guilty, not decide that someone is guilty and then make the evidence fit.

I can't believe that no one has commented on this (at least that I have found when reading about this online) given the current racial state here. What if say a bank was robbed and there were two possibilities as to who did it. The lead detective assigned at once decides the black guy did it because he hates black guys (anyone here remember Mark Furman?) and he's just in general a sleeze. Later evidence points to possibly the other guy but he ignores that since it does't fit his first theory? :scared:Or the first guy the detective thinks did it is a religion that he hates? Or somebody his first wife likes? The options are endless. Yes, Stoddard came from Crimes Against Children, but that SHOULD mean that he would be all that more careful not to jump to conclusions.

And, bty I do not cry at once in terrible situations. In shock I am stunned and only cry later. (I am not black either just in case anyone wondered due to my earlier example). It just terrifies me that a police officer would decide someone should be in jail for the rest of their life because they don't cry when he thinks they should.

Agreed. It was very telling when Stoddard said he felt the appropriate reaction would be for RH to stare straight ahead while he was in the back of the police car. I can't believe he would let Kilgore get that out of him.

 

[Hope4More]

I know for me, I would have been absolutely horrified that I was there, at the car, when there was the remotest possibility that my son was still alive and could have been saved. That would have been etched crystal clear in my mind and absolutely unforgettable.

For his friend to not remember/mention Ross' light bulb errand at lunchtime is a totally different scenario to me. JMO!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

How could RH have been horrified by that thought if he hadn't thought it yet?

For peeps who have decided he's guilty, this is irrelevant, scroll on by. Please.

Ross Harris pulled the dead body of his son out of his car around 4:21. He was handcuffed and in a police car at 4:27, and driven away from his son's dead body so he couldn't even see what was happening to Cooper.

The interview with Stoddard began less than two hours after Ross Harris pulled the body of his dead baby out of the car, and before he was even allowed to speak to his wife, who, thanks to LE, was forced to find out her baby had died from a television newsflash.

Some peeps keep saying-" I wouldn't have been coherent, or able to stand up , or to function at all," yet expect RH to have remembered , a few hours after seeing Cooper dead, something as genuinely trivial as buying lightbulbs that day.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

What I heard was the whole story, which is --he had 2 browsers . He cleared the cache on one --was it on June 6?And never deleted anything from Firefox, which sounds like his primary browser.

I wonder if any of the jury are very computer savvy? I have been married to a computer guy for 30 years so I notice more than the average bear. I have 3 browsers on my computer and I clean my cache frequently when it gets enough stuff to slow it down. Some applications only run on one browser. You may find the interface easier to use with one browser than another. Also, you might clean your cache due to a virus or malware. Not saying that was why Ross did it, just pointing this out.

 

[GA_Peach]

But his drive from CFA to work was exactly the trip he took most days. That is the auto-pilot part of his drive.

However, Ross's drive did not normally start with buckling Cooper into his car seat. If I am being honest, I don't believe that Ross had any time to turn on autopilot. As soon as he turns out of CFA, he needs to be thinking about positioning his car to get get in the turn lane for LAA. Aside from my personal experience with that area, this was entered into evidence by Ross's friends.

I will wait to hear Dr. Diamond's testimony to see how it applies to this case. However, I am familiar with his work, and Ross's behavior and actions from June 18 don't fit into his FBS mold. Of course, as a paid expert, he will try to make the case as convincing as possible.

I dislike Stoddard. He was EXTREMELY obnoxious to Kilgore on cross and that is very unprofessional. Regardless of the crime (and yes I know a child died horribly) one part of his job is to testify in court. The DEF team are professional colleagues and while I understand some pushback IMO this was way beyond that. Second, he admitted on cross that he decided Ross was guilty when he looked at him in the backseat of a patrol car. In this country we are innocent until proven guilty and that should certainly take longer to determine than a look in a back seat. The police should gather the facts and then determine whose guilty, not decide that someone is guilty and then make the evidence fit.

I can't believe that no one has commented on this (at least that I have found when reading about this online) given the current racial state here. What if say a bank was robbed and there were two possibilities as to who did it. The lead detective assigned at once decides the black guy did it because he hates black guys (anyone here remember Mark Furman?) and he's just in general a sleeze. Later evidence points to possibly the other guy but he ignores that since it does't fit his first theory? :scared:Or the first guy the detective thinks did it is a religion that he hates? Or somebody his first wife likes? The options are endless. Yes, Stoddard came from Crimes Against Children, but that SHOULD mean that he would be all that more careful not to jump to conclusions.

And, bty I do not cry at once in terrible situations. In shock I am stunned and only cry later. (I am not black either just in case anyone wondered due to my earlier example). It just terrifies me that a police officer would decide someone should be in jail for the rest of their life because they don't cry when he thinks they should.

I don't like Stoddard either, and I think that LE should be ashamed of the way this case has been handled. I strongly believe that LE did proceed in the investigation with a strong confirmation bias. No disagreement from me on those points.. Perjury charges should be considered, but that should be addressed through the appropriate avenue.

However, I do not believe that LE targeted an innocent man and have charged him with crimes he did not commit. There could be a case made that Ross was overcharged with malice murder, but I think that there is enough evidence that the jury will consider convicting JRH on all charges (subject to change based on the DT's witnesses). IMO the text messaging history, both the content and the timing, establish the criminal negligence required for felony murder. The text messages themselves also spell out a possible motive - no more Cooper = no more Leanna = free Ross. While we were unable to hear the minors testify about Ross's sexual charges, I have not heard the DT publicly repudiate those charges. In fact, we know that Kilgore's cross on the first underage victim lasted mere minutes.

During the time that this forum was dead (between the change of venue being granted and the trial starting in October), I repeatedly communicated to my pretrial people my concern that Stoddard would be compared to Mark Furham. I said that the was the only chance that Ross had of being found not guilty on all charges related to Cooper Harris. And here we are. It angers me in ways that I care not to enumerate.