Post Verdict - Ross Harris Trial

[KentuckyKaren]

OK, I am probably the only one on here that thinks the jury got it wrong. Now hear this: I believe Ross Harris is a low-down, cheating scoundrel, and I don't doubt he deserves to be in jail for other things, like sexting a 15 year old girl for example. But even after watching the Dateline episode, reading everything I could find about the case, seeing what you all have to say on here, and watching the 20/20 show, I still believe that it was a tragic accident. I suppose I will be lambasted from here to eternity by you guys, but I just had to say it. I think you're wrong. And that doesn't mean I don't care about that little boy. But I also don't just jump on bandwagons because of wanting someone to pay, when I think something was truly a horrific accident. I have many theories as to the various points made, but I won't waste time here listing them. You all seem to have made up your minds. What I saw in all of this were disturbing things, all of which point to him being a disgusting man... and I'll even go as far as to say he was probably especially distracted by his online behavior... but even then, it would be negligent homicide, not malice murder. I just don't think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did this intentionally. And the fact that his ex-wife still believes after all of it that he did not do it on purpose is really important to me. She did not "defend" him in order to stay with him, folks. She divorced him. She said she never wants to see him again. She says he ruined her life. BUT... she will NOT say that he intentionally murdered their son. Because she knows it is not true. And I may be the only one, but I believe her.

 

[MilNeumMom]

OK, I am probably the only one on here that thinks the jury got it wrong. Now hear this: I believe Ross Harris is a low-down, cheating scoundrel, and I don't doubt he deserves to be in jail for other things, like sexting a 15 year old girl for example. But even after watching the Dateline episode, reading everything I could find about the case, seeing what you all have to say on here, and watching the 20/20 show, I still believe that it was a tragic accident. I suppose I will be lambasted from here to eternity by you guys, but I just had to say it. I think you're wrong. And that doesn't mean I don't care about that little boy. But I also don't just jump on bandwagons because of wanting someone to pay, when I think something was truly a horrific accident. I have many theories as to the various points made, but I won't waste time here listing them. You all seem to have made up your minds. What I saw in all of this were disturbing things, all of which point to him being a disgusting man... and I'll even go as far as to say he was probably especially distracted by his online behavior... but even then, it would be negligent homicide, not malice murder. I just don't think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did this intentionally. And the fact that his ex-wife still believes after all of it that he did not do it on purpose is really important to me. She did not "defend" him in order to stay with him, folks. She divorced him. She said she never wants to see him again. She says he ruined her life. BUT... she will NOT say that he intentionally murdered their son. Because she knows it is not true. And I may be the only one, but I believe her.

Yes, this. Couldn't agree more. And I can't recall ever having been in favor of the defense ... And especially not a defendant who has treated his wife so callously so many times.

Pedophile? Check.
Pervert? Philanderer? Check. Check.
Negligent? Without a doubt.
Malice murderer? Maybe. But it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt (imo)

Thank God I never forgot my daughter in her car seat. But understanding the complex daily minutiae of working parents' (& others') lives, I can't say that this could never happen unintentionally.

How long does it take to forget something? Less than a second. Yes, even a child.

 

[monkeypants]

I'll respectfully agree to disagree with you both. Whole heartedly.

 

[Deleted member 182072]

I saw the interview, in part, because my husband pointed it out to me. I wasn’t interested but decided to watch it because hubby paused the tv for me so I watched it. First off, 12 jurors, 12, not one, not 2 not 3, but 12 jurors all thought he was GUILTY! I, too, believe he’s guilty. Leanna, in the interview, said she knows her husband and he wouldn’t do this to anyone and yet had she really known her husband, she would have divorced him a long time ago due to his infidelity something she said she would not tolerate. So, she didn’t know her husband like she claims. In fact no one really knows a person because some people can display one side of themselves and yet keep another part hidden, Ross was one of them. He displayed the “loving father” and he may have been, but ROSS and his double life was more important than Leanna and Cooper. He’s right where he needs to be.

ITA

http://www.myajc.com/news/local/har...ncriminating-evidence/9ZfiYMaeWEvZ1DDNVXMXcO/
“It wasn’t just one thing, in speaking to the jurors,” he said. “It was just everything. You look at one thing, maybe that can be excused. But then you look at this part and this part and this part. And the only thing that makes sense was his guilt.”

The jury said it was almost unanimous from the outset. But it only arrived at its verdict after spending days looking through hundreds of exhibits admitted into evidence.

 

[neesaki]

I'll respectfully agree to disagree with you both. Whole heartedly.

Same here. I think she desperately wants to hold on to the 'it was an accident' belief because by doing so it supports her own denial that she was married to a monster, and she can feel less guilt and less responsibility for trusting him with their child which lead to Coopers death. Its the only way she can deal with it, and also feel better about herself. JMO

 

[Trvl4Lyfe]

I wonder if she would be willing to help with his appeals somehow...Just saying because SHE believes in his innocence.

 

[MilNeumMom]

I'll respectfully agree to disagree with you both. Whole heartedly.

ITA
The jury said it was almost unanimous from the outset. But it only arrived at its verdict after spending days looking through hundreds of exhibits admitted into evidence.

Same here. I think she desperately wants to hold on to the 'it was an accident' belief because by doing so it supports her own denial that she was married to a monster, and she can feel less guilt and less responsibility for trusting him with their child which lead to Coopers death. Its the only way she can deal with it, and also feel better about herself. JMO

I wonder if she would be willing to help with his appeals somehow...Just saying because SHE believes in his innocence.

<snipped for space, respectfully>
Thank you all for agreeing to disagree and being so kind about it. I could argue against the points that you raised, and you could argue very well against mine. But in the end I don't think we'll agree. Thanks for being so respectful-You made my day better

 

[borndem]

Originally Posted by KentuckyKaren

OK, I am probably the only one on here that thinks the jury got it wrong.

>>>Respectfully snipped to save space <<<

KentuckyKaren, whether or not I agree with your feelings & opinions, I certainly support your giving them. You certainly watched & read & thought, and your opinion is just as valid as anyone else who posts. And I am thankful that we all live in a country where this type thing is supported, allowed and protected.

Keep up the good work, Sleuthers!

 

[rob]

This was two odd birds that came together, got married and started a family. Then when the new wore off, um, they both wanted out and not be saddled with caring for the child. I think in her mind it was wrong for a child not to have both parents together and she sent the baby straight to heaven. What could be better than that?
I will always believe she was complicit in the murder, or she wouldn't continue to try to explain away RH's behavior and guilt.
After he sits in prison a few decades and figures out the appeals aren't going to get him, he may have a story to tell.
moo

 

[Deleted member 182072]

This was two odd birds that came together, got married and started a family. Then when the new wore off, um, they both wanted out and not be saddled with caring for the child. I think in her mind it was wrong for a child not to have both parents together and she sent the baby straight to heaven. What could be better than that?
I will always believe she was complicit in the murder, or she wouldn't continue to try to explain away RH's behavior and guilt.
After he sits in prison a few decades and figures out the appeals aren't going to get him, he may have a story to tell.
moo

Disagree about her involvement in the murder but agree that she certainly opened herself up to speculation by being hostile and defensive when defending RH. She has frustratingly refused to acknowledge he lived a double life and won't even give a candid response about his sexting minors, etc. She simply says he was &#8220;lost&#8221; or going down a &#8220;destructive path."

I understand she is in denial and needs to convince herself that it was an accident, but it still makes me wonder what else she is holding back and protecting him from.

 

[MrX]

OK, I am probably the only one on here that thinks the jury got it wrong.

No, you're not alone. I know of several people who have said the case never would have been pursued to this degree in Berkeley or Seattle. The whole thing reminded me of that old movie "I am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang." I guess the only solace is that it was always going to be a dozen years for the underage sexting, and a lot can happen in that time.

 

[monkeypants]

No, you're not alone. I know of several people who have said the case never would have been pursued to this degree in Berkeley or Seattle. The whole thing reminded me of that old movie "I am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang." I guess the only solace is that it was always going to be a dozen years for the underage sexting, and a lot can happen in that time.

See and I see the solace as being at least he's never getting out since there was no death penalty [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Simply Caustic]

See and I see the solace as being at least he's never getting out since there was no death penalty [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Just my opinion but as a parent, (and looking at my 17 month old toddler as I type this) - even if it was an accidental death, I would be blaming and beating myself up for ETERNITY. Life in prison? Sure why not? Especially since he had no other kids to pull through for...
I understand that no one wants to go to prison...but the soul-crushing guilt and self-loathing that would fester inside the heart of any parent who did this...well, I would imagine it would take many months at minimum to come out of the mental fog (nod to Jodi arias, there).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[monkeypants]

Just my opinion but as a parent, (and looking at my 17 month old toddler as I type this) - even if it was an accidental death, I would be blaming and beating myself up for ETERNITY. Life in prison? Sure why not? Especially since he had no other kids to pull through for...
I understand that no one wants to go to prison...but the soul-crushing guilt and self-loathing that would fester inside the heart of any parent who did this...well, I would imagine it would take many months at minimum to come out of the mental fog (nod to Jodi arias, there).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure unless you did it on purpose like ross. That's why he was only worried about the cot and metal toilet.....no pleading to die and trade places with his only child.

 

[Simply Caustic]

Sure unless you did it on purpose like ross. That's why he was only worried about the cot and metal toilet.....no pleading to die and trade places with his only child.

I personally believe he did it intentionally. I've discussed the case with coworkers who were shocked I was convinced on such "flimsy" evidence - but I think the totality of the evidence spells out a man desperate to be child-free, saddled with a sexually unsatisfactory marriage and cheating with prostitutes etc...who wanted what he wanted, when he wanted it. Cooper got in the way. Jmo of course.

His reaction to police was incredibly bizarre. Can't correlate that with the trauma of finding out your son was trapped in backseat roasting to death. Such a strange, disturbed man imo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LinasK]

No, you're not alone. I know of several people who have said the case never would have been pursued to this degree in Berkeley or Seattle. The whole thing reminded me of that old movie "I am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang." I guess the only solace is that it was always going to be a dozen years for the underage sexting, and a lot can happen in that time.

BBM. Why? The West Coast doesn't advocate child killings. California has the Death Penalty. Without rehashing all the eivdence I'll say to Karen, this was murder made to look like an accident so you don't look any further and he gets all the sympathy.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

When she arrived at the daycare she said “Ross must have left him in the car… there’s no other explanation. Ross must have left him in the car.”

In that interrogation room, I found it sickening how her biggest concern was whether Ross was going to leave her now that their son was dead.

I found it sickening that she asked if he would want to have more kids. Seriously WTF.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

OK, I am probably the only one on here that thinks the jury got it wrong. Now hear this: I believe Ross Harris is a low-down, cheating scoundrel, and I don't doubt he deserves to be in jail for other things, like sexting a 15 year old girl for example. But even after watching the Dateline episode, reading everything I could find about the case, seeing what you all have to say on here, and watching the 20/20 show, I still believe that it was a tragic accident. I suppose I will be lambasted from here to eternity by you guys, but I just had to say it. I think you're wrong. And that doesn't mean I don't care about that little boy. But I also don't just jump on bandwagons because of wanting someone to pay, when I think something was truly a horrific accident. I have many theories as to the various points made, but I won't waste time here listing them. You all seem to have made up your minds. What I saw in all of this were disturbing things, all of which point to him being a disgusting man... and I'll even go as far as to say he was probably especially distracted by his online behavior... but even then, it would be negligent homicide, not malice murder. I just don't think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did this intentionally. And the fact that his ex-wife still believes after all of it that he did not do it on purpose is really important to me. She did not "defend" him in order to stay with him, folks. She divorced him. She said she never wants to see him again. She says he ruined her life. BUT... she will NOT say that he intentionally murdered their son. Because she knows it is not true. And I may be the only one, but I believe her.

She divorced him as a legal strategy to make her testimony more powerful.

If you had asked her before this happened if she thought her husband was texting a teenager and sending and receiving nude pics with said teenager, would she have believed it? No, she said so herself.

If you had asked her before this happened if she thought her husband had hired a prostitute, do you think she would have believed it? Again, no.

If you had asked her before this happened if she believed her husband would intentionally kill their child, well...she wouldn't have believed that, either. But it happened.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Yes, this. Couldn't agree more. And I can't recall ever having been in favor of the defense ... And especially not a defendant who has treated his wife so callously so many times.

Pedophile? Check.
Pervert? Philanderer? Check. Check.
Negligent? Without a doubt.
Malice murderer? Maybe. But it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt (imo)

Thank God I never forgot my daughter in her car seat. But understanding the complex daily minutiae of working parents' (& others') lives, I can't say that this could never happen unintentionally.

How long does it take to forget something? Less than a second. Yes, even a child.

I believe 100% that this *can* happen accidentally. I just don't believe it was accidental in this instance.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Sure unless you did it on purpose like ross. That's why he was only worried about the cot and metal toilet.....no pleading to die and trade places with his only child.

He complained about being. too. hot. In the back of the police car. While his dead son lay on the hot pavement, in rigor mortis, with his little legs bent and in the air and his hair ripped out and scratches on his face from clawing at his skin while he slowly baked to death.

I will never be able to get past that. And then the metal toilet and small cot on top of that. And "no malicious intent".