The Sidebar - Harris Trial #3 *VERDICT - GUILTY*

Status
Not open for further replies.

tlcya

Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
42,081
Reaction score
63,485
Now that the Defense and State have concluded their closing arguments, the jury's work will begin.

This is a place to gather, chill, hang out and discuss the trial while the jury deliberates.

Remember to do so in a respectful way, acknowledging that not all your fellow members feel as you do about this case. It's okay to disagree and still enjoy one another's company. After all, no matter your opinion on this case, you all share much more in common than following this case.

Agree to disagree if you must, scroll and roll when necessary and when all else fails make use of your ignore button.

Time for some downtime.

Sidebar #1
Sidebar #2
 
I think that today will be the day. Justice for Cooper!
 
Hoping today is the day! :praying:

Here are two questions the jury asked so far ...

1. What do the videos show?
Early on in deliberations, the jury asked to review three videos from the day Cooper died: Harris’ interview with lead detective Phil Stoddard, his reunion with now ex-wife Leanna Taylor in a police interrogation room, and his return to his SUV at lunchtime.

2. What does “wanton” mean?
Jurors asked the court to define “wanton,” which appears in the definition of criminal negligence — “an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby,” according to Georgia law. That means Harris knew his son could be hurt as a result of his actions, in this case, his serial sexting with online strangers. The judge declined to provide a definition.

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local/ross-harris-trial-2-questions-arise-in-jury-delibe/ns7qD/
 
Agree, but we also do not know for how long he had been doing the texting, sexting, meeting people for bj, prostitutes. We heard from one lady that he had sext with that he some way had a hook up with a male, but that all. (not that I do not believe if for a sec honestly) But again, iirc the earliest we KNOW about is 2013, so very possible sadly that he could have been doing for longer. We only know about the time frame prior to him getting his records looked at because of a search warrant on his electronics. And again I do not condone it. He should be held responsible, but I do see those being appealed on because of the SW and the Motions of how the SW was written. Would those records have been found in a normal investigation if they had not been looking for the alleged hot car death searches that allegedly RH said he made? That is what the SW was fo to check the phone because it had internet capabilities. Defense filed motion Dec 2015 fruit of the poisonous tree....

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

The principle that prohibits the use of secondary evidence in trial that was culled directly from primary evidence derived from an illegal Search and Seizure.
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation. Like the exclusionary rule, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine was established primarily to deter law enforcement from violating rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The name fruit of the poisonous tree is thus a metaphor: the poisonous tree is evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation by law enforcement. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence later discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation. The poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from a criminal trial.
Assume that a police officer searches the automobile of a person stopped for a minor traffic violation. This violation is the only reason the officer conducts the search; nothing indicates that the driver is impaired by drugs or alcohol, and no other circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime. This is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fruit+of+the+Poisonous+Tree



I don't think there was any "escalation" either, though I surely do see why the State wanted to press that narrative.

Ross Harris hooked up with a college-aged woman to have her give him a BJ as early as 2012. So at least 2 years prior to Cooper's death he had already gone beyond just sexting. His initial contact with at least 2 of the 3 minors also dated back months, and iirc, the contact with one minor stretched back 2 years before Cooper's death.

Who knows if prostitutes were a "new thing, " but I somehow doubt it, and in any case, I don't see paying for sex (was it 3x's) as an escalation from sexting with minors.

We don't even know if RH was spending more time sexting in May or June than he had done in February or April 2014, or in November 2013, to choose previous months at random.

Start to finish, first day of the investigation on through the last day of trial, LE and the State have misrepresentated /taken out of context much of RH's online activities, everything from searches that were never made to twisting the definition of sexting to make their narrative work (Boring, closing: "RH was sexting at the intersection. ". Bull).

In doing the timeline for June 18 part of what struck me is how little his work day conformed to the State's portrayal of a man who sat there sexting all day - 6 women, or was it 36, doing little to nothing else, and most provocatively, sexting as Cooper died.


RH surely didn't seem to be much focused on work for long stretches, but neither was he sexting all day from what I can tell, and neither did he seem to be sexting in the AM before lunch.

Despite Frist's funky testimony on the point, Cooper was most likely dead well before RH seems to have begun sexting, after lunch, when he replied to a message sent by the woman who had given him that *advertiser censored* in 2012 , telling him she was horny. (**That sexting exchange: 1:17-2:30)
 
I took the last three days away from Coopers trial. Hoping today is the day. I am getting concern for how long it is taking, anyone else? Or do you think its just coming down to decide on which to charge him with.
 
I took the last three days away from Coopers trial. Hoping today is the day. I am getting concern for how long it is taking, anyone else? Or do you think its just coming down to decide on which to charge him with.

There may be some who can't decide. Heck, look at us here (WS), we have different views on what happened. ;)
 
Just a reminder: LE didn't get any of their evidence because of a routine traffic stop.

They found a dead baby lying on hot asphalt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 
Originally Posted by keeponsearching View Post
I took the last three days away from Coopers trial. Hoping today is the day. I am getting concern for how long it is taking, anyone else? Or do you think its just coming down to decide on which to charge him with
.
There may be some who can't decide. Heck, look at us here (WS), we have different views on what happened. ;)
:) Agree..And WS has had more delib time than they have had too. They got the case on 11/8/2016 half day court due to election. Full days Wed and Thurs, but they also have watched the video of RH/Stoddard, RH/LH/Stoddard and the lunch video. Had full lunch times and multiple breaks.

JMHO, some did't wait for State to finish their case in chief/wait for Def/closing arguments,... just straight to verdict. I personally will not be shocked no matter what the verdict is.
 
Just a reminder: LE didn't get any of their evidence because of a routine traffic stop.

They found a dead baby lying on hot asphalt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

RBBM, as long as we are reminding, that is not why they had RH iPhone5 to begin with. Also LEO didn't "Find a dead baby on hot asphalt, the baby was put there trying to do CPR. 911 was called and then Gallimore and Folgia had a wreck in front of the crime scene, so they came upon the the scene not called to it. Just trying to keep in context. JMHO
 
Duffie Dixon 11Alive Verified account ‏@DuffieDixon 14m14 minutes ago

Jury in the #RossHarris murder trial got a late start this morning. Resumed deliberations behind closed doors at 8:45 am #11Alive
 
Just a reminder: LE didn't get any of their evidence because of a routine traffic stop.

They found a dead baby lying on hot asphalt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Sure, but Stoddard had no right to enter RH's phone without a search warrant, and yet, he was asking for the password. Twice.

June 2014 Supreme Court Ruling
"The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought," the ruling said. "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant."

Quote from CNN: "The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that police may not search the cell phones of criminal suspects upon arrest without a warrant -- a sweeping endorsement for privacy rights.

"By a 9-0 vote, the justices said smart phones and other electronic devices were not in the same category as wallets, briefcases, and vehicles -- all currently subject to limited initial examination by law enforcement."

[video=cnn;crime/2014/06/25/tsr-toobin-cell-phone-supreme-court-ruling.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/index.html[/video]
 
[video=twitter;798171658506805248]https://twitter.com/DuffieDixon/status/798171658506805248[/video]
 
Just a reminder: LE didn't get any of their evidence because of a routine traffic stop.

They found a dead baby lying on hot asphalt.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Of course. And LE always investigates. As they should. That was never in dispute by anyone, including RH's defense attorneys.

The problems arose in how LE approached their investigations, and in that I'm not even referring to the search warrants or anything that came next.

I haven't been able to find a single hot car death case in any state in which the involved parent was charged with felony murder the same day, before search warrants were even obtained , much less executed, and in which the parent was sent directly to jail without being given bond. It doesn't happen.

And it happened in this case with no solid evidence whatsoever, except for LE's immediate assumptions based on little more than RH's demeanor and a suspicion that RH was on the phone with a co-conspirator.
 
RBBM, as long as we are reminding, that is not why they had RH iPhone5 to begin with. Also LEO didn't "Find a dead baby on hot asphalt, the baby was put there trying to do CPR. 911 was called and then Gallimore and Folgia had a wreck in front of the crime scene, so they came upon the the scene not called to it. Just trying to keep in context. JMHO
1. It was not a routine traffic stop.

2. They found a dead baby lying on the hot asphalt.

Neither of those two points make an exclusionary statement.

That is stand-alone evidence.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
 
Sure, but Stoddard had no right to enter RH's phone without a search warrant, and yet, he was asking for the password. Twice.

June 2014 Supreme Court Ruling
"The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought," the ruling said. "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple — get a warrant."

Quote from CNN: "The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that police may not search the cell phones of criminal suspects upon arrest without a warrant -- a sweeping endorsement for privacy rights.

"By a 9-0 vote, the justices said smart phones and other electronic devices were not in the same category as wallets, briefcases, and vehicles -- all currently subject to limited initial examination by law enforcement."

[video=cnn;crime/2014/06/25/tsr-toobin-cell-phone-supreme-court-ruling.cnn]http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/supreme-court-cell-phones/index.html[/video]

Honestly, I'm not going to blame Stoddard on this one. He DOES have a right, because Ross allowed him to look. Ross wasn't smart enough to say no.
 
I took the last three days away from Coopers trial. Hoping today is the day. I am getting concern for how long it is taking, anyone else? Or do you think its just coming down to decide on which to charge him with.

There are a lot of charges for them to consider. I'm glad they're taking their time... Hopefully it means they are considering the charges and the evidence carefully and trying to make sure justice is done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
1,907
Total visitors
2,096

Forum statistics

Threads
589,949
Messages
17,928,071
Members
228,012
Latest member
cbisme
Back
Top