Trial - Ross Harris #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree. Ms. Meadows was just one of many, though seemingly way more high maintenance than the others.

I suspect the jury will consider Ms. Meadows. Her turn on the stand warrants some discussion, imo, including about RH just not being that into her by late May. But I agree there's no reason for the jury to find the RH and Meadows angle of much relevance.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am saying the fact that he may not have been interested in her any longer, or that she was by your decription "high maintenance" is not meritorious. Her testimony in my opinion, is meant to show that he would leave if it wasnt for Cooper so with the child out of the picture he is free to pursue his desires with other women.

So the defense is highlighting her mental health, and her belief that the relationship was more than it really was only as a red herring.
 
why? ... this was LH asking RH about suicide

trialwatcher ‏@thetrialwatcher 12h12 hours ago
Most damning thing today?
Wife: Do you have a plan?
Ross: No, I don't have a plan.
#rossharristrial #hotcardeath

************
Cathy ‏@courtchatter 12h12 hours ago
#RossHarris - Did anyone hear Harris say the word "Malice" in his police interview? I may have missed it. Anyone else catch that?

trialwatcher ‏@thetrialwatcher 12h12 hours ago
@courtchatter I did hear him, in my notes I commented he "all of a sudden knows the law" meaning technical terms.

Cathy ‏@courtchatter 10h10 hours ago
@thetrialwatcher I went back and reviewed it all. He didn't say Malice or Malicious Intent in what we saw today but it could be coming Mon

trialwatcher
‏@thetrialwatcher
@courtchatter @thetrialwatcher hmm thought I heard him say that. Sorry for the wrong info. Maybe I heard a commentator say is elsewhere.

‏@thetrialwatcher
@XXXX @courtchatter could be. I am going over minute-by-minute from the beginning and haven't seen it yet
11:18 PM - 21 Oct 2016

5h5 hours ago
@courtchatter @thetrialwatcher I thought the Malicious intent comment was to Officer Piper?

Cathy
‏@courtchatter
@xxxx@thetrialwatcher Det Stoddard testified in PC hearing Ross said it to him
1:17 AM - 22 Oct 2016


Who the heck is "TrialWatcher"? Not Cathy, right? Just someone on the chat whose heard what wasn't said about malicious intent? And who thought RH saying he didn't have a suicide plan was the most damning thing he said in the interview?
 
It's more than just that, imo.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/ross-harr...he-stand-in-the-hot-car-death-trial/459427636
His matter-of-fact description of what happened will be a central point of debate.

"I knew that I had done what every parent in their life fears they've done and that's just leaving their son in the car on a hot day," Harris told detectives.

Harris said this was his "worst fear"


During the second round of questioning, Harris told detectives that he recently saw a news report about a father who had left his child in a hot car. He also says he just watched a video made by a veterinarian about how hot it gets for a dog left inside a car.

"My worst fear for me is to leave my son in a hot car," Harris said.

When detectives told Harris he was going to be put into a cell and charged, Harris asked why they were charging him and with what.

"Right now, cruelty to child," Stoddard told Harris.

Harris responded by saying, "It was completely unintentionally," and telling detectives he had no history of child abuse or criminal record. "I'm a great father," he said.

Stoddard told him he was charged because his actions caused the death of his son. Harris continued to argue with Stoddard saying, "I didn't do it on purpose."

Legal analyst Esther Panitch says she believes the interview may have done Harris more harm than good.

"It essentially undoes all the efforts that the defense has made thus far. Ross Harris, in my opinion, appears to be rehearsed," Panitch said. "His ability to give details about other issues that they were asking about really go against somebody who is really caught by surprise because they were so distracted."

That is certainly one interpretation of the evidence, and I'll agree that there are pieces that raise suspicion. However, raising suspicion is nowhere near proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a circumstantial case for intentional murder, the evidence must be so strong that it excludes every reasonable inference and conclusion other than murder. We are a long way from approaching that level of proof. From the evidence we've heard, it's equally or more reasonable to believe Ross did not leave Cooper in the car deliberately.

As far as the legal analyst you mentioned, I would take any such statements like "It essentially undoes all the efforts the defense has made thus far" with a grain or two of salt - because this is the State's case in chief, and the defense has not even put on any evidence or testimony yet. One would expect the State's case to favor the State's position of course.
 
If they would stop having such long breaks and long lunch breaks maybe the trial would move faster. I do not like how 'laid back' this whole thing is.

As for JRH, I do think it was premeditated and he might not be the only one involved. That is just my opinion. JRH was already mentioning becoming an advocate against child hot car deaths while Leanna was in the interview room with him!
I mostly read, not post, and thank the posts I agree with.
Hope everyone has a good weekend!

I so agree on the "laid back" nature of this trial.They keep this up gonna be jury problems etc. As for this interview I think so many attributing this behavior to "shock" not sure about that. Leanna laying around at his feet is one of the most bizaare things I have seen...and I really cannot wait to see how the def. has molded her testimony to their needs. I think they may regret putting this woman on the stand who really has said some daming things.
 
When this first happened in 2014, I believed Ross intentionally killed Cooper and tried to make it look like an accident. My opinion was based on what I read in the media and to some extent the initial pre-trial hearing.

I remember arguing with my mother about it and trying to persuade her that it was not an accident. My nephew's wife (EB) is from Marietta and actually knew the Harris family and went to the same church. My mom relayed that EB didn't believe it was intentional based on her knowledge of Ross. I thought: yeah, that's because the guy is leading a double life and is really a closet psychopath (LOL).

My strong opinion was based on these factors that were reported in media or testified about at the hearing:

1. It was less than a mile down the road when he supposedly forgot his son. He had to look at Cooper to make the requisite u-turn, lane changes and right/left turns

2. RH and LH were having severe financial difficulties, and they had taken out a life insurance policy on Cooper.

3. Ross buckled Cooper into a car seat for infants and tightened the straps on the lowest possible setting (assuring the child could not escape is what I thought).

4. At lunch time Ross got in his vehicle to see whether Cooper was dead yet, but he lied to cops about it.

5. Ross showed no emotion or reaction at the scene or thereafter in custody.

6. Ross had researched child hot car deaths in the days leading up to the death - and specifically researched how hot it has to be and how long it takes a child to die in a hot car.

7. Ross was part of a "child free" community and didn't want children.

8. Ross made comments that he wanted to be free of his wife and child.

9. "Did you say too much?"

10. "When are you picking up my buddy?"

11. Ross parked in a remote location against a tree line instead of his normal spot, to conceal the child in the car, and he backed in the parking space -- unlike every other day.

12. Ross researched how to survive in prison and he researched the criminal statutes related to crimes against children right before the incident

13. When informed he was being charged, Ross immediately recited the child cruelty statute to the detective - "there was no malicious intent"

14. Ross refused to allow detectives access to his phone by trying to conceal his phone and then refusing to provide detectives with the access code.

15. Ross never called 911 or attempted CPR

There might be more I think of later.

Every one of these items has either been refuted by the State's own evidence or has now been placed in context, giving it a totally different meaning than what the prosecution presented early on.

I came into this believing he was guilty of murder, but I was willing to keep an open mind and evaluate the actual evidence in the context of a trial. This far into the case, and the prosecution's claims have all crumbled. And it's not just a matter of differing interpretations of evidence - it has come to light that the police and prosecutors actually lied about much of the evidence and completely misrepresented the rest.

I'm still open to the possibility that the State will ultimately provide something strong against Ross, but I'd think they would have presented that before now if they had it.
 
When Detective asked JH to described that morning, JH went into great detail of what he would of done after CFA. Not what he did that morning, until after he explained how he usually dropped Cooper off. The car seat regulations, the final kiss to Cooper. All very strange to say. He could remember all that, but not Cooper.

The video with Leeann was really not what I expect. I think his crying was for himself. I think he thought he could walk right out after talking to Detective, and when he heard the charges and said ok, he was surprised.
 
It is far too disturbing. More so than yesterday. Wasn't that Cooper's mother with Ross?

Not one tear. No emotion. Did she ever even say Cooper's name?

LH got down to business of looking for lawyers and ph #s for Home Depot.

LH kept gently touching and consoling Ross. Ross seldom touched LH. He fussed about jail's uncomfortable bed and metal toilet.

When she left, they hugged but did not kiss.

That was odd and unusual behavior for a mother, without tears or remorse, to console her husband after he killed their baby. "I'll be alright", she stoically informed Ross. "We'll get through this".

BS meter is far into the red hot fire zone. She wasn't even shocked. She wasn't saddened. *** ****. No other reason to act that way with JRH :moo:

I imagine the state will be asking her some serious questions about her behavior and words after finding out. I would really wonder how many parents in this situation would go to the husband (cause of the death) rather than want to see her son...disbelief is normal and most would have to see him immediately. That alone makes me wonder about her. I know there will be comments about everyone reacting differently etc. okay maybe but some reactions are indicative of some sort of very distorted view of the universe and I think that is where she comes in. Can you imagine plotting your legal defense within minutes of finding your child??? And....if past history is any indicator she will be pregnant again with some new loser.
 
Re: commentary on the JM witness:

My comments actually have nothing to do with the substance of her testimony or her credibility or whether she is helpful to the State or not.

My comments were directed at her attitude and mannerisms. They bugged me, and they would have also bugged me if she had been a defense witness.

It's similar to my opinion and comments about the judge being too chatty and irreverent during a child murder trial and her weird way of speaking and phrasing things (as well as chewing and picking her teeth on the bench). I have also gotten the impression that she is not actually paying close attention most of the time (maybe playing Texas Hold 'Em on her computer or checking out Twitter LOL)
 
I apologize, as I am struggling to keep up with the trial, as well as this thread. I have been following as closely as possible.

This recording of RH and LH in the interview room is very, very strange. What mother would be more concerned with comforting her husband immediately following the grusome death of her baby? She shows NO real emotion. Something is very off about these two. Something doesn't jive. Where was LH's grief?

going to get blasted for these comments. ..but in some past cases where behaviors are off like this and comments do not make any sense to most of us the participants are operating in a different zone...often due to religious beliefs...not the classic religion that many us us follow but an extreme interpretation of the bible...both here were involved in a church and you hear many references to this is God's will etc. Leanna has this all rationalized. I would like to know much more about her...she is pathetic as evidenced in this video. I think for most of us to try to understand them may be impossible. I think we will get some insights when she is on the stand.
 
When this first happened in 2014, I believed Ross intentionally killed Cooper and tried to make it look like an accident. My opinion was based on what I read in the media and to some extent the initial pre-trial hearing.

I remember arguing with my mother about it and trying to persuade her that it was not an accident. My nephew's wife (EB) is from Marietta and actually knew the Harris family and went to the same church. My mom relayed that EB didn't believe it was intentional based on her knowledge of Ross. I thought: yeah, that's because the guy is leading a double life and is really a closet psychopath (LOL).

My strong opinion was based on these factors that were reported in media or testified about at the hearing:

1. It was less than a mile down the road when he supposedly forgot his son. He had to look at Cooper to make the requisite u-turn, lane changes and right/left turns

2. RH and LH were having severe financial difficulties, and they had taken out a life insurance policy on Cooper.

3. Ross buckled Cooper into a car seat for infants and tightened the straps on the lowest possible setting (assuring the child could not escape is what I thought).

4. At lunch time Ross got in his vehicle to see whether Cooper was dead yet, but he lied to cops about it.

5. Ross showed no emotion or reaction at the scene or thereafter in custody.

6. Ross had researched child hot car deaths in the days leading up to the death - and specifically researched how hot it has to be and how long it takes a child to die in a hot car.

7. Ross was part of a "child free" community and didn't want children.

8. Ross made comments that he wanted to be free of his wife and child.

9. "Did you say too much?"

10. "When are you picking up my buddy?"

11. Ross parked in a remote location against a tree line instead of his normal spot, to conceal the child in the car, and he backed in the parking space -- unlike every other day.

12. Ross researched how to survive in prison and he researched the criminal statutes related to crimes against children right before the incident

13. When informed he was being charged, Ross immediately recited the child cruelty statute to the detective - "there was no malicious intent"

14. Ross refused to allow detectives access to his phone by trying to conceal his phone and then refusing to provide detectives with the access code.

15. Ross never called 911 or attempted CPR

There might be more I think of later.

Every one of these items has either been refuted by the State's own evidence or has now been placed in context, giving it a totally different meaning than what the prosecution presented early on.

I came into this believing he was guilty of murder, but I was willing to keep an open mind and evaluate the actual evidence in the context of a trial. This far into the case, and the prosecution's claims have all crumbled. And it's not just a matter of differing interpretations of evidence - it has come to light that the police and prosecutors actually lied about much of the evidence and completely misrepresented the rest.

I'm still open to the possibility that the State will ultimately provide something strong against Ross, but I'd think they would have presented that before now if they had it.


I'm getting kicked off everytime I try to post a reply longer than a few sentences, so I'll keep this short. Thanks for that list of what you thought before trial. I think it's impossible to overstate the corrosiveness to the legal process of LE being allowed to misrepresent their suspicions as evidence obtained , and to feed the media those misrepresentations.

If RH is convicted of malice murder, I am convinced that no matter how much jurors genuinely believed themselves impartial, their verdict was influenced by the unrelenting deluge of media stories premised on bad faith representations by LE.
 
He pi$$ed the cops off for sure Gallimore and Folia (who had a wreck right at the scene so there adrenaline was already going, they have no idea what they just came upon, they were not dispatched to the scene. And correct, he wouldn't do anything if it were nothing more than a real accident. I don't think he had time to assume anything to be honest. But on his demeanor, depends on who you believe. Many witnesses said different on their orig statements, even the LEO stated different in their orig reports. When directly asked about them. Ferrell said in his report THE SUPERVISOR, that he was crouched between the ME Inv and CSI, neither one of them said he was there. WHY Lie? He was there, because lol State asked one of the officers or CSI Shumpert who that was, but it wasn't were he said he was in an official report.

Ok, and I mean this respectfully HONEST, IF it true that they had their hinky meters go off (and I think a good Det would have those radars out) WHY then all the untruthful SW? Why the untruthful testimony? Why change evidence (car seat) Thats what I don't get. If they broke the law, charge them with the evidence for the charges they equate to. And why not arrest a prostitute that you have had a sting on, gave $ she accepted it, wore a wire (worked yet malfunctioned when time to save the conversation) use only 1 photo (book in photo) allegedly shred that 1 photo. Write a report and swear to it truthfulness and factual yet the number you swore to that took of the prostitute tablet is not the same one you have in evidence?

Why all this mess? If they have evidence to file charges? Why make it look like something inappropriate going on? Can you imagine any other cases these officers worked on do you think they may not come under scrutiny too? What if you were RH? I saying if you were him and this was happening to you. NOT what you think you would have done but after the fact from the parking lot on. If someone says they would just take their punishment... well then they JMHO would have to be guilty of something to plea. Here there is testimony and evidence under oath, saying things don't jive. JMHO

BBM

I completely agree with your last two paragraphs. I honestly don't understand it, and I don't even think that it helps their case. To the average person, the details of Ross returning to his car at lunch don't matter - did he put his head inside the car, or did he just open the door? The average person finds it suspect that he returned to his car at lunch on the day his son died. Why say Ross searched for "child-free" life when he simply clicked on the link? The list goes on and on. IMO, if LE had stated the truth from the beginning, their case would actually be stronger because there would not be these overwhelming credibility issues.

IMO the ironic thing is that when you throw out all of LE's inconsistencies there is still plenty of legitimate evidence to convict Ross of felony murder. And I still don't believe the State has proven beyond a reason doubt that there was intent on Ross's part to kill Cooper. To what end were all of the misstatements made?

Based on the police interviews from June of 2014, I think that LE was utterly repulsed by JRH and felt he had to be convicted. In accordance with that end, they got overzealous and exaggerated a few things here and there. I am not sure if their intent was to misrepresent, or if in their excited emotional state, their interpretation of certain events and quotes was given meaning that simply was not there. For example, when Detective Stoddard (DS) saw JRH return to his car at lunch, a fact that JRH forgot, did that seem so hinky to DS that he actually recalled JRH getting into the car? In any event, it doesn't matter. LE needs to get it right, and they have clearly made many missteps along the way.

Admittedly I am extremely bothered by two of LE's other actions. First, the manipulation of the car seat. There is NO excuse for that. There was absolutely no reason for any detective or officer to alter the car seat in any way. While I can't stand JRH, the car seat manipulation is practically equivalent to planting evidence. Second I cannot get over how quickly JRH was arrested at the scene. While JRH should have cooperated, LE made no attempt to diffuse the situation before throwing him in handcuffs for the next several hours. At one point, JRH said that he calmed down and asked for the handcuffs to be removed. It just doesn't sit right with me.

Having said everything, the above things don't change much of the evidence, and I still believe that there is overwhelming legitimate evidence to convict JRH of felony murder. I do believe an investigation and potential charges stemming from LE's actions need to be considered.
 
I'm getting kicked off everytime I try to post a reply longer than a few sentences, so I'll keep this short. Thanks for that list of what you thought before trial. I think it's impossible to overstate the corrosiveness to the legal process of LE being allowed to misrepresent their suspicions as evidence obtained , and to feed the media those misrepresentations.

If RH is convicted of malice murder, I am convinced that no matter how much jurors genuinely believed themselves impartial, their verdict was influenced by the unrelenting deluge of media stories premised on bad faith representations by LE.

RBBM

I don't agree with this. As someone from Atlanta, we were hit with story after story over the first few weeks. During those same weeks, it became clear that there were serious problems with the accuracy of LE's testimony. I can say with full confidence that I never expected the media narrative to play out in court. If anything, the media reports had me questioning LE heading into the trial.

However, I don't trust the media for anything so I may not be the best judge!
 
Can someone please clear something up for me? What did Ross and Cooper order at CF? Did Cooper eat or did JRH just order a soda?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Can someone please clear something up for me? What did Ross and Cooper order at CF? Did Cooper eat or did JRH just order a soda?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Based on what I could gather, Cooper ate part of a sausage biscuit. JRH ate a chicken biscuit as well as Cooper's leftover sausage biscuit.
 
RBBM

I don't agree with this. As someone from Atlanta, we were hit with story after story over the first few weeks. During those same weeks, it became clear that there were serious problems with the accuracy of LE's testimony. I can say with full confidence that I never expected the media narrative to play out in court. If anything, the media reports had me questioning LE heading into the trial.

However, I don't trust the media for anything so I may not be the best judge!


I base that belief on the fact of Staley being forced to grant a change in venue because she was hard pressed to find jurors who hadn't already decided he was guilty, the fact most of the current jury acknowledged they had followed the news to some degree, and the fact that even here, after ample opportunity to read about and watch LE's pretrial whoppers and misses being debunked, the same misses and whoppers keep being presented as "evidence" of RH's guilt.

That said, I trust juries to get it right, so am hoping I never have a reason to doubt the reasons for the verdicts handed down by this jury. :)
 
Based on what I could gather, Cooper ate part of a sausage biscuit. JRH ate a chicken biscuit as well as Cooper's leftover sausage biscuit.

It seems that Ross often ate his own and Cooper's breakfast.
 
BBM

I completely agree with your last two paragraphs. I honestly don't understand it, and I don't even think that it helps their case. To the average person, the details of Ross returning to his car at lunch don't matter - did he put his head inside the car, or did he just open the door? The average person finds it suspect that he returned to his car at lunch on the day his son died. Why say Ross searched for "child-free" life when he simply clicked on the link? The list goes on and on. IMO, if LE had stated the truth from the beginning, their case would actually be stronger because there would not be these overwhelming credibility issues.

IMO the ironic thing is that when you throw out all of LE's inconsistencies there is still plenty of legitimate evidence to convict Ross of felony murder. And I still don't believe the State has proven beyond a reason doubt that there was intent on Ross's part to kill Cooper. To what end were all of the misstatements made?

Based on the police interviews from June of 2014, I think that LE was utterly repulsed by JRH and felt he had to be convicted. In accordance with that end, they got overzealous and exaggerated a few things here and there. I am not sure if their intent was to misrepresent, or if in their excited emotional state, their interpretation of certain events and quotes was given meaning that simply was not there. For example, when Detective Stoddard (DS) saw JRH return to his car at lunch, a fact that JRH forgot, did that seem so hinky to DS that he actually recalled JRH getting into the car? In any event, it doesn't matter. LE needs to get it right, and they have clearly made many missteps along the way.

Admittedly I am extremely bothered by two of LE's other actions. First, the manipulation of the car seat. There is NO excuse for that. There was absolutely no reason for any detective or officer to alter the car seat in any way. While I can't stand JRH, the car seat manipulation is practically equivalent to planting evidence. Second I cannot get over how quickly JRH was arrested at the scene. While JRH should have cooperated, LE made no attempt to diffuse the situation before throwing him in handcuffs for the next several hours. At one point, JRH said that he calmed down and asked for the handcuffs to be removed. It just doesn't sit right with me.

Having said everything, the above things don't change much of the evidence, and I still believe that there is overwhelming legitimate evidence to convict JRH of felony murder. I do believe an investigation and potential charges stemming from LE's actions need to be considered.


Imo, LE making "errors" in the June 18 search warrants because they were in an "excited emotional state" is actually more damning than exonerating, even if true. They are entrusted to do exactly the opposite - to put aside their emotions and personal belief, to follow the law, and to protect the rights of suspects.

In any case, even if LE succumbed to lesser impulses on June 18 because of their emotions, it stretches credulity they were still in the same state of excitement by June 24, when they included in their search warrants narrative the absolute lie about Cooper's seat belt straps.

I simply don't see their initial response being driven by anything other than clear eyed certainty, without any evidence , that RH was guilty of murder..
 
Does anyone know why LH divorced RH? I mean we can't know for sure but what was actually out there in the news about it? I just wondered what determined her to suddenly not support him anymore....I think that is a valid question even if we may never know.
 
I haven't paid much attention to the specifics of what photos were sent and received during RH's sexting on the 18th. It occurs to me that if LE (after searching his phone) believed from the photos themselves that RH was sexting with a minor (s?) that might well have contributed to their impulse to nail him to a wall.
 
I am not Hope4More, nor do I intend to speak for Hope4More. But since I have spoken on the various witnesses,as they testified, and this one too I will respond.
JMHO:

*) I think all witnesses have been discussed, I don't think any "wanted" to be as none of them that I can remember contacted LEO. E Smith, the one prior to J Meadows her friend contacted CCPD on 7/10/14 iirc. J Meadows, State mentioned her in their OS, and completely colored her testimony/relationship with RH totally different than it actually was. Her own text messages impeached her testimony or what the State was trying to get out.

*) When J Meadows got involved and kept herself involved with this 30+ year old man that SHE through her own testimony "fell in love" with and went back and forth with him, his son Cooper was alive and well. *at the end, JM testified that RH would get mad at Cooper or because of him sometimes, and when asked who she told that to prev she said no one asked, evidently that was not true per her previous testimony. She also is one who wrote a letter and gave to the Defense Attorney to give to RH. About how much she knew he loved Cooper and would never harm him. The others testified that RH loved his son, and spoke well of him but she only one who wrote a letter & gave his Attorney.. so was different too.

*) J Meadows out of know where, said that RH was going to leave RH and come be with her. When asked were there plans ..no but

*) When you say "because she is pretty" does that mean your saying the other 6 or so ladies were not pretty? I don't remember anyone saying they were not. I know I didn't nor do I have think it is relevant to what he is on trial for (their looks)

*) Bitter over the witness? Why would we be bitter over this witness? She was bitter, I encourage you to go back and re watch the testimony of both State and Def.

*) As far as "Because they seemed to have more of a relationship and that isn't part of your narrative of what RH was thinking about on that day or the days leading up to it? "
Once again, if you watched and listened to the testimony of this witness, you will see that she continued to bring her self back into him, after here again and gone. She testified that she had every day contact with RH either by phone or text. She was impeached by her own text messages of having her phone off or KIK off from May 30 until June 13. Then she was texting back and forth and boom gone again. The State was trying to prove something by the post that RH made the morning of 6/18/14 where he posted paraphrasing "gone again, makes me sad" She was scorned, she wanted to be relevant as far as being a witness.
JMHO she is a relevant or irrelevant as all the others. It was just her composure and mannerisms, and her testimony that was interesting to most of us. But most of all for me, SHE was the only one who appeared to have an agenda to get back at him. Not for being a witness but for something else. She had saved ss of text messages from 2013 between her and RH where he was saying talking about not leaving LH because of Cooper, yet per more recent text messages RH and LH marriage was doing better (as far as JM knew from texts).

I have watched all the women's testimony and read most if not all of the discussion around it.

I am not arguing about "what" her demeanor is while testifying. Most of the testimony is about stuff in black and white - messages, as was most of the women's testimony. Frankly, I don't think how the women "felt" about RH will matter to the jury. Nor will any of the "missed days" of contact between these two. It doesn't matter when it is all taken as a whole as is the intent of all of the testimony combined.

I too believe she probably has hard/negative feelings about RH! But I just don't think it matters - the fact is, she is another woman he was "involved" with, there is no denying that. And I think most would agree that he definitely was more into this one. I think most people are smart and objective enough to weed out the emotions she has around him and look the whole of her testimony for what it is. And actually I do believe very much that he talked about being with her in the future - with zero intent of that happening. I don't think there was ever a "plan". Just more lies. Young girls - especially emotionally vulnerable ones - like to hear stuff like that.

Again, all of these little details won't matter when she is added to the pile of women. Whether the jurors believe it is part of the negligence or intent, it's up to them. They got to see the testimony.

And the whole point of my earlier post was just because when I read the banter from some regarding this witness (and other of the women) it was just almost "gleeful" discussion to see them get called out for things on cross. I guess it would be one thing if they had been chomping at the bit to get on the stand and do their part to send RH away, but I just didn't see that from any of them. They didn't even want to be there.

JMO - sorry if I got the wrong impression from those posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
244
Guests online
4,487
Total visitors
4,731

Forum statistics

Threads
592,330
Messages
17,967,557
Members
228,748
Latest member
renenoelle
Back
Top