Trial - Ross Harris #4

[katydid23]

So the type of distraction makes it a crime? I don't understand.

To me, it seems criminally negligent, to be in charge of caring for a young child, but PURPOSELY creating a situation where you cannot safely do so.

If I knew my husband only had 2 or 3 hours of sleep, I would not want him driving my 2 yr old to school that morning.

Ross CHOSE to be distracted and overly tired that morning. He didn't need to be sexting until 3 am. He willingly did so, even though he was the adult responsible for a yr old child the next morning.

In my opinion, the TYPE of distraction absolutely affects whether it is criminal neglect or a tragic accident.

If the baby was teething and cried until 3 am, and so Ross stayed up with him, so he was really tired and distracted the next morning, and forgot to drop him off, and stressed about his job, then I don't think it would be seen as criminally negligent. It would be a tragic set of unforeseen circumstances.

If one is distracted by texting while driving, that is criminal negligence. If a driver is distracted by a snake that slithers out from under the drivers seat, that is an unforeseen, circumstance beyond their control.

 

[RANCH]

NO, I think they wanted the jury to know about all of the texting/sexting and random hook ups for a few important reasons.

It shows a possible motive, in that he led a double life and might have wanted to fully engage in the dark side.

Also, it was important to show that he complained about his son, and the way it drained him financially and emotionally.

And it was vital for them to see that his priority was NOT his son nor his job. His primary focus seemed to be his sexual escapades. The only was one can even imagine a parentt could abandon their child so cruelly would be if they were somewhat mentally unbalanced/sociopathic. And the sheer volume of random hook ups, sexts, calls messages, apps, etc, show us how obsessed he was.

The money motive seems pretty weak to me. If I saw some serious financial problems then this motive would maybe work for me.

I think that RH told the women he sexted what he thought they wanted to hear. I don't think he was telling them the truth. The text messages don't convince me that RH wanted to kill his son. JMO

 

[AuntB]

How about the witness who was in jail with him and said RH was acting totaaly unconcerned?

Fits with my theory mentioned previously: He's a sociopath. May or may not have planned this, but either way, he doesn't have normal human emotions, therefore acts inappropriately.

Which reminds me... His comment (regarding the vet's hot car video) about leaving his son in a hot car ended with "I would hate that" which struck me as rather peculiar wording. Seems like it may be another instance where he doesn't have genuine empathy and when he tries to pretend, it comes out a little "off".

 

[RANCH]

To me, it seems criminally negligent, to be in charge of caring for a young child, but PURPOSELY creating a situation where you cannot safely do so.

If I knew my husband only had 2 or 3 hours of sleep, I would not want him driving my 2 yr old to school that morning.

Ross CHOSE to be distracted and overly tired that morning. He didn't need to be sexting until 3 am. He willingly did so, even though he was the adult responsible for a yr old child the next morning.

In my opinion, the TYPE of distraction absolutely affects whether it is criminal neglect or a tragic accident.

If the baby was teething and cried until 3 am, and so Ross stayed up with him, so he was really tired and distracted the next morning, and forgot to drop him off, and stressed about his job, then I don't think it would be seen as criminally negligent. It would be a tragic set of unforeseen circumstances.

If one is distracted by texting while driving, that is criminal negligence. If a driver is distracted by a snake that slithers out from under the drivers seat, that is an unforeseen, circumstance beyond their control.

So RH has to be engaged in a criminal act that causes the distraction. If the State can prove he was sexting the minor and that caused him to "forget" Cooper then he's guilty of malice murder? Or would it be felony murder?

If he was tired or distracted for a "good" reason then he's not guilty.

I'm not sure if I understand the distinction.

 

[katydid23]

The money motive seems pretty weak to me. If I saw some serious financial problems then this motive would maybe work for me.

I think that RH told the women he sexted what he thought they wanted to hear. I don't think he was telling them the truth. The text messages don't convince me that RH wanted to kill his son. JMO

Well, you have seen a lot of cases here where men have killed pregnant girlfriends/wives. Or killed young children even.

And the motive is often because of the overwhelming sense of responsibility expected in being a father. It is not just financial. But if you want to ditch your wife or girlfriend, YOU CANNOT EVER DO SO if you have a child together. You will always have future wages garnished, you will be expected to have some custody time, and be responsible for their medical insurance and schooling expenses, at a bare minimum.

Many men, especially sociopathic or narcissistic ones, begin to resent their offspring once their marriages turn sour.

And as we heard Ross say, just a few hours after his son died a gruesome death 'hey just because we lost one child, doesn't mean we can't have another...'

I know you don't have kids but you love your nieces and nephews. I am sure you would not expect your brother or sister to say that if they lost a child that day.

When I had to put our German Shepherd to sleep I swore I never wanted to have another dog again, EVER, because I was so sad. It took me a few years to get over it enough to accept another pet in the house.

 

[katydid23]

So RH has to be engaged in a criminal act that causes the distraction. If the State can prove he was sexting the minor and that caused him to "forget" Cooper then he's guilty of malice murder? Or would it be felony murder?

If he was tired or distracted for a "good" reason then he's not guilty.

I'm not sure if I understand the distinction.

Maybe it is just how my mind works, but it makes sense to me. If I asked you to watch my child while I was out of town, and you got drunk, partied all weekend, and didn't even notice that someone left the back gate open, THAT DISTRACTION would make me think you were criminally negligent.

But if something happened beyond your control, like your kitchen caught fire and you were running in and out trying to get others to safety, and my child got away during the ensuing chaos, then I would not label it as criminal negligence. It was a matter of bad circumstances that created the perfect storm.

Unless of course your kitchen caught fire because you left food cooking for 2 hours on an open flame, while you sexted someone, and smoked a bong. :wink:

 

[RANCH]

Well, you have seen a lot of cases here where men have killed pregnant girlfriends/wives. Or killed young children even.

And the motive is often because of the overwhelming sense of responsibility expected in being a father. It is not just financial. But if you want to ditch your wife or girlfriend, YOU CANNOT EVER DO SO if you have a child together. You will always have future wages garnished, you will be expected to have some custody time, and be responsible for their medical insurance and schooling expenses, at a bare minimum.

Many men, especially sociopathic or narcissistic ones, begin to resent their offspring once their marriages turn sour.

And as we heard Ross say, just a few hours after his son died a gruesome death 'hey just because we lost one child, doesn't mean we can't have another...'

I know you don't have kids but you love your nieces and nephews. I am sure you would not expect your brother or sister to say that if they lost a child that day.

When I had to put our German Shepherd to sleep I swore I never wanted to have another dog again, EVER, because I was so sad. It took me a few years to get over it enough to accept another pet in the house.

Sorry Katy but this is a case that we will have to disagree on.

I don't see any convincing evidence of guilt yet (on the murder charges) and the State is about to finish. I'm really disappointed in the sloppy work done by the lead detective. When a persons life is on the line sloppiness it's not okay.

It's going to be a pain to list that I'm talking about the malice murder and felony murder charges in almost every post. JMO

 

[human]

As a teacher, we had insurance to cover issues but not negligence.

If I did sexting in school and something happened to a child, I would be negligent. It is my duty to provide a safe environment for students.

 

[katydid23]

Sorry Katy but this is a case that we will have to disagree on.

I don't see any convincing evidence of guilt yet (on the murder charges) and the State is about to finish. I'm really disappointed in the sloppy work done by the lead detective. When a persons life is on the line sloppiness it's not okay.

It's going to be a pain to list that I'm talking about the malice murder and felony murder charges in almost every post. JMO

I would not be able to cast a ballot for GUILTY on murder charges right now either. Even though in my gut I believe he 'accidentally on purpose' left his poor child in that hot car. But the State has not proven that 100% beyond a reasonable doubt. Close though...

Dr Diamond is going to have to work really hard to make me believe he could have totally innocently forgotten him in that short a time with the car seat that close, while he was texting moments earlier about needing an escape from his son.

 

[minor4th]

As a teacher, we had insurance to cover issues but not negligence.

If I did sexting in school and something happened to a child, I would be negligent. It is my duty to provide a safe environment for students.

Yes, and you would be fired and probably sued - but would not likely be charged or convicted of murder or felony murder

 

[Zoobiegirl]

If one is distracted by texting while driving, that is criminal negligence. If a driver is distracted by a snake that slithers out from under the drivers seat, that is an unforeseen, circumstance beyond their control.[/QUOTE]

Totally off topic but the snake thing happened to my Mom although in that case it poked it's head out of one of the air vents. We've considered it one of life's great mysteries that she didn't crash! :laughing:

 

[minor4th]

Regarding child cruelty (criminal negligence) and felony murder: These are very precise legal terms of art, and they depend on decades of Georgia case law interpreting their scope and meaning as well. The standard is not based on gut feelings or moral judgments. IMO it is premature to conclude that the State has or has not proven child cruelty by criminal negligence - we need to hear the jury charge before we can try to fit the facts to the indictments.

The jury charge will be very specific; it won't just ask whether the jury finds that the State has proved child cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt or whether Cooper died while Ross was in the commission of a felony. There will be pointed questions about whether Ross' conduct was "inherently dangerous" and whether he foresaw the risk of Cooper's death but chose to disregard that risk. There will be instructions about proximate causation, and importantly there will be an instruction that an accident or mistake cannot be the basis of a criminal conviction without a criminal mindset (intentionally or with criminal negligence.)

For me, the jury charge is one of the most interesting parts of the trial.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Rayemonde]

[/B]

BBM
I think Kilgore just looked silly in that part of the cross. He may have tried to show that it was not a 'thorough ' investigation. But it seemed phony to try and make that accusation. What were any of those people, who OBVIOUSLY saw nothing, going to add to the investigation?

Of course they could have added something to the investigation. It might help to establish when Cooper was alive. What if someone who walked past around lunchtime had said "Yeah, I heard a kid crying but thought nothing of it, I assumed that their parents were in the car with them"? If someone had heard Cooper crying close to or after the time Ross put the lightbulbs in the car, that would be a very important piece of evidence.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

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 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.

Peach, why did you think he might be compared to Furman as early as that? I really haven't paid much attention to this case prior to the trial so just wondering what I'd missed.

 

[Cardinal47]

Yes but that is because the route from the house was over 20 minutes!! Apparently they'd never fed the kid breakfast and just threw him in the car every day probably still half asleep. This was apparently some huge treat to go INSIDE CF so it would have been exciting and new etc. I'm sorry but to fall asleep after that all In less than 30 seconds? I have some swamp land to sell you.

Did the state call any day care employees as witnesses? I missed some court time. Thank you.

 

[minor4th]

Did the state call any day care employees as witnesses? I missed some court time. Thank you.

Yes, they called several.

 

[turaj]

Peach, why did you think he might be compared to Furman as early as that? I really haven't paid much attention to this case prior to the trial so just wondering what I'd missed.

so agree peach...the defense is so going for those OJ moments and Det. Stoddard may have had some confirmation bias but I don't think it raises to the level of Ross getting off with no responsiblity for his son's death. This is such an obvious comparison to Fuhrman (should be int he law 101 textbook Fuhrman effect) but it falls short for me. I hope the jury sees beyond all of this.

 

[EquallyDivided]

If one is distracted by texting while driving, that is criminal negligence. If a driver is distracted by a snake that slithers out from under the drivers seat, that is an unforeseen, circumstance beyond their control.

Totally off topic but the snake thing happened to my Mom although in that case it poked it's head out of one of the air vents. We've considered it one of life's great mysteries that she didn't crash! :laughing:[/QUOTE]
DADGUMMIT, I KNEW IT!

I have specifically had this conversation with my husband. I'm so stinkin' scared of snakes I freeze and uncontrollable tears leak out of my eyes. I TOLD him I'm even scared to run over them because they could either launch into my window if it's down, or jump into the undercarriage of the car and COME THROUGH THE VENT.

I'm no sissy, I probably have more testosterone than most men, but snakes just give me inexplicable fear.

I must show your message to my husband so I can finally convince him that I was right

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

Thanks for posting the link to the other charges that RH faces.

I don't understand why the State has the same charges in this trial and also in the second trial?

Why didn't they separate the malice murder and felony murder charges from the exploiting children/disseminating harmful material to minors charges? The second batch of charges are the same type as counts 6,7, and 8 in this trial.

Did the State want the jury in this trial to know about the despicable nature of the defendant in order to inflame and anger them and to insure a guilty verdict for malice murder?

Why two trials for one defendant on the same charges? To insure a guilty verdict from at least one of two jury's? To allow the State to push things to the limit in the first trial, notwithstanding an appeal then to fall back on a conviction in the second trial?

I don't like this at all.

Bingo.

 

[turaj]

i simply do not know how you could have had this trial without showing what he did for that day and his general lifestyle...sexting and the meetings are front and center in his life. I remember def. was trying to get the sexting out.