The Sidebar - Harris Trial #2

[bellesnwhistles]

You may be right.

Can you add why the conclusion could be that ? What is it about the lightbulb trip that would indicate the jury maybe looking at the Malice part?

Maybe trying to determine whether or not you'd be able to see coop from that angle. Also maybe to see if he turned to look back.. either way I hope jurors give insight after the trial

 

[monkeypants]

If his head didn't dip below the doorframe of the car, do you think the jury will use this as their "aha" moment that it WAS malice or it was NOT malice? Would the odd way he tossed the bulbs in be the aha moment?

Can't he see in the back seat before he even opens the door from the back Window as he approaches and grabs the door handle?

 

[ScotAng]

If his head didn't dip below the doorframe of the car, do you think the jury will use this as their "aha" moment that it WAS malice or it was NOT malice? Would the odd way he tossed the bulbs in be the aha moment?

From the report on the younger/older jurors' interaction, that's what it's sounding like to me.

Maybe some wanted to point out just how unnatural Harris' flat-against-the-car stance was. No one does that. The nod from one juror to another sounds like one person at least was convinced of something. (Malice.)

 

[Rayemonde]

The curious coincidence of RH just happening to buy lightbulbs on that particular day and just happening to take them to the car and put them in without bending down... Is another thing that I see as completely irrelevant. If you think he murdered his son then you make it into something suspicious (he was obviously going to check if his son was dead yet, for some reason!). Me, I just think he needed lightbulbs. LE checked, and he did indeed need lightbulbs. And it's tragic he never noticed Cooper at that point, but I don't see it as evidence of malice murder at all.

Same with him apparently taking an odd way to the cinema. If you think he's guilty you can come up with some motive for him doing that relating to murder, but I don't think it's evidence of malice murder. There are loads of reasons why he could have taken that way.

 

[monkeypants]

For me, I just can't come up with a plausible reason to even go to the car at lunch. It's a small bag that he could have just brought up to his desk. Coulda put them in his bag that he remember to grab instead of his kid.

 

[arkansasmimi]

O/TPossible verdict in 1 of the 2 LEO shooting some on egoing on right now. . Praying that the verdict does not cause riots.

And more deputies are walking out of the courtroom. Activity picks up even more #TensingTrial;

 

[minor4th]

What the heck is this jury doing? Weren't they paying attention while these videos were being played? LOL

 

[TexMex]

Chillin out after our run. Waiting on a verdict

 

[monkeypants]

The curious coincidence of RH just happening to buy lightbulbs on that particular day and just happening to take them to the car and put them in without bending down... Is another thing that I see as completely irrelevant. If you think he murdered his son then you make it into something suspicious (he was obviously going to check if his son was dead yet, for some reason!). Me, I just think he needed lightbulbs. LE checked, and he did indeed need lightbulbs. And it's tragic he never noticed Cooper at that point, but I don't see it as evidence of malice murder at all.

Same with him apparently taking an odd way to the cinema. If you think he's guilty you can come up with some motive for him doing that relating to murder, but I don't think it's evidence of malice murder. There are loads of reasons why he could have taken that way.

Well he could have cleared all these lingering questions up if he got on the stand. He's going down for the minor crap so it's not like he is incriminating himself. He could have explained it all and maybe none of us would be here arguing...

 

[EquallyDivided]

Ugh, work work work! I try to chime in during breaktime, but I barely catch up, much less comment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[Maisiebelle]

Can't he see in the back seat before he even opens the door from the back Window as he approaches and grabs the door handle?

The rear windows were tinted. I'm not sure how dark they were though.

 

[NCTeacher]

I appreciate the typical reasonable doubt insights, but it's the 11th hour. They are watching this video ONLY on the malice charge. A nod from one juror to the other means: what I thought I was looking for has been confirmed.

It my be something on reasonable doubt, but my gut says it was a malice nod.

I correctly predicted the election outcome after the three major swingers came down. Let's see if I correctly predict this.

Jury will be hung or go malice---and I think we'll know very shortly.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Here is the video again:

[video=youtube;ejbNodQF36A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejbNodQF36A[/video]

That video is such bull crap. Jmo

Ross is guilty. Jmo.

He was just too hunky dory while throwing those light bulbs in the drivers seat.

Imo.


He would have placed them in the passenger or back chair. Jmo.

Ross killed Cooper on purpose.

 

[Hope4More]

If the jurors are requesting and rewatching the lightbulb trip, they must be talking about MALICE. Treating it as a gotcha moment/hit the nail on the head. MOO.

I would agree with you if the also asked for a tape measure.

The precise measurements wouldn't matter. Would be more a question of, can we trust that the doll fit into the seat the way LE said it did when they made that video?

Just speculation in any case, but it's logical, anyway, if they're working off the list of reasons the DT presented for reasonable doubt.

 

[monkeypants]

Chillin out after our run. Waiting on a verdict


View attachment 104437

Will you adopt me? I truly like your life lol

 

[minor4th]

This is my thought. Did he chuck his work bag in in an unnatural way when he got to the car after work? Intentionally avoid looking towards the backseat? Why would he behave that way if he had no idea Cooper was there?

Was there video of Ross entering his car at the end of the day and driving off? I do not remember that. (If so, it's probably what the jury will want to watch next)

 

[gitana1]

What the heck is this jury doing? Weren't they paying attention while these videos were being played? LOL

It's funny. I really think websleuthers know this evidence much better than they. Most here have had a long time to analyze, replay, rewind, etc. They haven't. I wonder what the impact will be.

 

[NCTeacher]

What the heck is this jury doing? Weren't they paying attention while these videos were being played? LOL

LOL. Literally. I lol'd.

 

[Hope4More]

If the jurors are requesting and rewatching the lightbulb trip, they must be talking about MALICE. Treating it as a gotcha moment/hit the nail on the head. MOO.

I appreciate the typical reasonable doubt insights, but it's the 11th hour. They are watching this video ONLY on the malice charge. A nod from one juror to the other means: what I thought I was looking for has been confirmed.

It my be something on reasonable doubt, but my gut says it was a malice nod.

I correctly predicted the election outcome after the three major swingers came down. Let's see if I correctly predict this.

Jury will be hung or go malice---and I think we'll know very shortly.

Reasonable doubt applies to all the core charges though, one by one.

 

[monkeypants]

I appreciate the typical reasonable doubt insights, but it's the 11th hour. They are watching this video ONLY on the malice charge. A nod from one juror to the other means: what I thought I was looking for has been confirmed.

It my be something on reasonable doubt, but my gut says it was a malice nod.

I correctly predicted the election outcome after the three major swingers came down. Let's see if I correctly predict this.

Jury will be hung or go malice---and I think we'll know very shortly.

Or it means "see he didn't lean into the car"