Trial - Ross Harris #4

Hope4More said:

The initial search warrants swore that RH had "admitted" to researching children (dying) in hot cars, and what the temps had to be. Children. Not dogs. Murphy wrote the search warrants based on information that could only have come from Stoddard.

And, I still don't understand why RH saying that was the incriminating in the least. I imagine it's impossible to live in Georgia, to be aware of an active governmental initiative on the subject of hot car deaths and to NOT fear it could happen to your child.

Click to expand...

Right, that initial search warrant had erroneous information. And that's pretty routine because the SW's are applied for in order to investigate and verify things. They often have incorrect/mistaken info until more tests are completed.

I think what he wrote is very incriminating. How many parents of children who died in hot cars, ever saw a video about dogs dying in a car, and then posted online that they think it would be terrible if their child died in a hot car. He may be the first one unlucky enough to do so.

And even worse, it goes to the negligence aspect. It shows that he was highly aware of the horrible possibility and he even was concerned it could happen to him. And he knew about the 'second look' campaign. In spite of all that, he did nothing to try and prevent the tragedy.

momoftwocrazies said:

Here's what I'm thinking: the travel agent.. what could LE glean from her? I'm not seeing how she's relevant at all. And there was a wealth of pertinent leads he was focusing on. Am I missing something here?

The phone call: also, not seeing how this is something he should have been focusing on. Seems like a minor dead end detail that Stoddard may not so I wouldn't consider it perjury. Again, am I missing something here?

Yes he's the lead detective but he's also human. He may not remember every single detail of this enormous investigation. He is a seasoned cop, this isn't his first rodeo, he's seen a lot of bad things. So, I don't see him planting, lying, or anything else just to get his guy in this case.

Thoughts? It's awesome to see how we are experiencing this so differently.

Click to expand...

Here's what I'm thinking: the travel agent.. what could LE glean from her? I'm not seeing how she's relevant at all. And there was a wealth of pertinent leads he was focusing on. Am I missing something here?
For one this is one of the reasons why Stoddard thinks RH was lying. Yet he didn't bother to even contact her, but contacted everyone else RH made contact with that day. She didn't fit his theory.

The phone call: also, not seeing how this is something he should have been focusing on. Seems like a minor dead end detail that Stoddard may not so I wouldn't consider it perjury. Again, am I missing something here?
Stoddard accused someone of lying and tried to get intemidate them saying they have it on video that she went in the room, she only one who could have taken. Plus, he said that RH was being untruthful about the call. How he was told by those on scene that RH was talking to someone about his child being dead. FALSE he didn't talk to anyone. Period. Was trying to twice, 1 missed call to LH and 1 to HD that ended. The other,he was in the back of the patrol car before it was even made. Call to LAA was 4:25:57 for 5min 13 sec which call would have ended at 4:31:10. 911 CAD shows RH was detained at 4:27:04.

Yes he's the lead detective but he's also human. He may not remember every single detail of this enormous investigation. He is a seasoned cop, this isn't his first rodeo, he's seen a lot of bad things. So, I don't see him planting, lying, or anything else just to get his guy in this case.
Respectfully you may not see it, but if you will go to the archived videos from today you can hear it. (Can reference it back to the archived Hearings if you don't believe Kilgore reference back to the Hearing. Pretty nteresting. Planting not sure on that one. But he did falsify stuff and possibly more things we don't realize yet. Tomorrow is another day..
Thoughts? It's awesome to see how we are experiencing this so differently

ETA: And that whole phone call discrepancy is just one of the many thing the STATE should have realized before ever getting this far. jmho

Question for those 100% certain RH planned to kill Cooper by leaving him in the car - if everything we know remained the same with exception to him being a sex addicted adulterer who sexted on the day in question... Would you still hold steady to your position? So I guess my question comes down to if you believe there is a real thing called forgotten baby syndrome?

Bc007 said:

Question for those 100% certain RH planned to kill Cooper by leaving him in the car - if everything we know remained the same with exception to him being a sex addicted adulterer who sexted on the day in question... Would you still hold steady to your position? So I guess my question comes down to if you believe there is a real thing called forgotten baby syndrome?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a real thing. I think it's a man's theory. You could take away all the double life stuff and I would still want Ross on trial. I tend to think he left Cooper there to die, I just don't think the state can prove it.

Eta: I don't think I'm 100% on the intent issue. I 100% believe he was neglectful.

Hope4More said:

He perjured himself on the stand in both those instances, and those were just the first two off the top of my head.

Dishonest, yes, but that isn't even what bothers me the most about him. What bothers me the most, and what I find frightening, is what he represents, that being the power of the State to decide, without any actual evidence, that someone is guilty of a crime as serious as murder, and then to pursue a conviction by any means necessary, with the justification that the ends justify the means.

Not in a democracy, they don't.

Click to expand...

I don't see where it was perjury? He said he was mistaken when he first put that in the SW. And he said that now he stands by the fact that RH clicked on the links, although he didn't really search for them. So he is pushing the envelope perhaps, and parsing words---but perjury? I am not so sure.

You say there is no evidence that it was a murder. I think it is up to the jury. But this detective came from the crimes against children department. He has seen a lot of vile, evil ugliness in his career. So I can understand why he might be suspicious and see things in a jaded way. Especially when he sees how close the car seat was and how short it was from CFA to the daycare exit. Who wounding think it was intentional? Especially after seeing the texts from that exact time, saying he needed an escape from the responsibilities of family life. I think it was a logical deduction that this was on purpose, not an accident at all.

Once they got a better software program they found that he did not actually do those searches. That is problematic---granted. And it may mean he is found Not Guilty of premeditated. But I am not going to accuse the detective of framing him or being nefarious. I think he was looking for JUSTICE for little Cooper, nothing more.

blue22 said:

Weird. I have in my notes that Cooper would usually eat at home or daycare. I thought Killgore tried to get Stoddard to say things in the way he wanted him to (so as to "catch" him) over and over and it repeatedly didn't go his way. IMO those are mistakes that make him look a bit desperate. He needlessly harassed multiple women on stand, and tried to humiliate them. He accidentally made a point for the state at least twice today. (That I an remember of the top of my head.) He's focusing WAY too much time on people walking by, and it looks desperate.

I was not implying Kilgore is not good. I just don't understand the endless praise, that's all. He is good, yes. But IMO, that's it.

IMO

Click to expand...

The teachers testimony did not reflect that he ate at home more than school. Stoddard plain did not have a clue.
He did not needlessly harass any witness. He Cross examined them. Direct only asks questions or read chat/texts that they wanted to bring out. But not the whole context. And that is what Cross is for and did. Just like JM, State did note bring out the fact that per her testimony on Direct alone..she testified spoke or textex every day. Not true. They also made it sound like RH was chasing after her someone that didn't want contact from him. Neither of which were true and proven by Cross.

Again the individuals in the parking lot. Proved he didn't do a thorough investigation there, nor did he make note in his report of allegedly giving date/times of those very people walking by car.

Bc007 said:

Question for those 100% certain RH planned to kill Cooper by leaving him in the car - if everything we know remained the same with exception to him being a sex addicted adulterer who sexted on the day in question... Would you still hold steady to your position? So I guess my question comes down to if you believe there is a real thing called forgotten baby syndrome?

Click to expand...

For me it is 3 main things, maybe 4.

1. the extremely short time span. 30 seconds later he believes he dropped off the baby? Hard for me to accept that he got so deeply in thought that he totally forgot his baby was there in that 30 seconds...

2. The closeness of the baby seat to the drivers seat. It protrudes so far from the back seat that it was just inches away from the drivers seat.

3. His statements about hot cars being his and his wife's greatest fear. And his posting about that online---how terrible it would be if his kid was in a hot car accidentally.

4. His whining and complaining about his child blocking his ability divorce and his saying the joker drained his paycheck.

So the sexting is just icing on the cake, imo.

arkansasmimi said:

JMHO, his demeanor was same as in the other Hearing I watch. He got carried away trying to "explain" a few times and finally caught himself. He was Lead Det and had this HIGH Profile case, that from every single Hearing and now trial, he responds "I don't recall" or I don't remember"

Something kinda funny to me today was when Stoddard gave him the call log from the iPhone5 extraction and the State exhibit. First Stoddard said they were similar but not the same. Stoddard said they better be the same or going to have to shut court down as there a huge problem.

That's when Kilgore asked him about what happens when you call LAA.. then
Stoddard says you have to put in extension number..
Kilgore... and if you don't put in that number?
Stoddard: the call just sits there

Then Kilgore get the CAD from 911 calls, and makes Stoddard realize that the last call RH made was made again (butt call kind of thing) but RH didn't make it, he was already in the rear of Piper Patrol Car. Stoddard has already interviewed Michelle Gray, twice, accused her of lying and yesterday even stated he still thinks she took the call from RH.
If truth be known, he probably still thinks so tonight. But there is no way RH spoke to anyone at that number at that time. Fact.

Where were the times you think didn't go over the way Kilgore was hoping? The Objections? That a given in this case. Even on most all of those, he came back and got what he needed to prove. JMHO

Click to expand...

Admittedly I haven't seen the part you are referring to... About the phone call.

I felt that way about the vet video stuff - I get that he didn't search for the video but he had seen it (it is a compelling video) and the comment he made about it definitely makes me know that the video had an impact on him. It just went down the wrong path for Kilgore IMO.

The people in the parking lot that he didn't try to locate - I just felt like Kilgore expected more of an AHA moment the way he led up to that as well as the travel agent. Stoddards response wasn't defensive, just "no sir".

We likely disagree on the significance of these people - I don't see where they would need to be contacted for reasons already mentioned up thread by others. I am sure there are various people interspersed in RH day/month that LE didn't question or locate but we won't know of them because they aren't going to come up.
Just answering your question about when I felt that way during his testimony. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hope4More said:

I started reading up on this case in earnest this past summer, after putting it away shortly after reading about it in the news. Cases about babies and children (other than the one in Florida) disturb me too much to want to dig deep.

This case was of interest to me because of GA's new felony murder law, which allows the State to secure a murder conviction without having to prove premeditation or intent. The more I read initially, the more bothered I became about LE's investigation, and that still holds true.

Leaving all else aside, the reality is, imo, that Stoddard's pursuit of a malice murder conviction at all costs may well result in the overturning of that conviction if it is obtained. If RH is guilty of malice murder (I don't think he is), then Stoddard won't have won "justice for Cooper," he will have tainted the State's case, perhaps beyond repair to retry RH.

Click to expand...

I forget how it was worded by Def in one of the Hearings but they did say this case is a "rare" case because of charges (may be the one that the sentencing was changed) they used a word and it wasn't precedent. First something ..

blue22 said:

I don't think it's a real thing. I think it's a man's theory. You could take away all the double life stuff and I would still want Ross on trial. I tend to think he left Cooper there to die, I just don't think the state can prove it.

Eta: I don't think I'm 100% on the intent issue. I 100% believe he was neglectful.

Click to expand...

Intent is my biggest hurdle. I don't feel it was planned. I do however believe in the forgotten baby syndrome. I just don't know that it applies in this situation.

arkansasmimi said:

The teachers testimony did not reflect that he ate at home more than school. Stoddard plain did not have a clue.
He did not needlessly harass any witness. He Cross examined them. Direct only asks questions or read chat/texts that they wanted to bring out. But not the whole context. And that is what Cross is for and did. Just like JM, State did note bring out the fact that per her testimony on Direct alone..she testified spoke or textex every day. Not true. They also made it sound like RH was chasing after her someone that didn't want contact from him. Neither of which were true and proven by Cross.

Again the individuals in the parking lot. Proved he didn't do a thorough investigation there, nor did he make note in his report of allegedly giving date/times of those very people walking by car.

Click to expand...

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?

MzOpinion8d said:

He did make a 6 minute phone call. Or at least it was 5+ min, to the daycare.

Click to expand...

Proven incorrect today in court by documents, not hearsay
call made from RH phone but not by RH

4:25:57 - 4:31:10 (5 min 13 sec) phone extraction report

4:27:04 CAD from 911 shows RH detained - already in custody (he was immediately handcuffed and put in back of Pipers patrol car) Fumbling around all that was going on somehow called last number . Point of this is Stoddard said he was told that RH was talking to someone

Unthread someone mentioned (sorry not sure who) that if this was RH biggest fear, why hasn't he don't any research on how to prevent it, or take any actual steps to prevent it?
The more I think about it, this is a really great point.
My kids are older teens now, and don't remember hot car deaths being much of a thing discussed then (or again could be that I live in a very mild climate - even though it can get warm!).

However, I was paranoid about everything when they were babies, toddlers, even grade school age. My friends teased me about it. One big one was I was petrified someone would come in the second floor window and take my baby in the middle of the night [emoji23]. Even though we didn't really have the money to spare I insisted on getting a monitored alarm system.
I had a big fear of kidnapping for a time and constantly read up on how to discuss it with my younger kids etc...
Too many other examples to bore people with!

BUT, the point is, if you actually say something is your BIGGEST FEAR, and it sounds like there were resources giving info on preventative measures to take, why wouldn't you take them?
Me thinks it was something that he had "thought" a lot about lately, but maybe wasn't necessarily his biggest fear....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

arkansasmimi said:

The teachers testimony did not reflect that he ate at home more than school. Stoddard plain did not have a clue.
He did not needlessly harass any witness. He Cross examined them. Direct only asks questions or read chat/texts that they wanted to bring out. But not the whole context. And that is what Cross is for and did. Just like JM, State did note bring out the fact that per her testimony on Direct alone..she testified spoke or textex every day. Not true. They also made it sound like RH was chasing after her someone that didn't want contact from him. Neither of which were true and proven by Cross.

Again the individuals in the parking lot. Proved he didn't do a thorough investigation there, nor did he make note in his report of allegedly giving date/times of those very people walking by car.

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree

Bc007 said:

I'm pretty sure it was the other way around- that they never fed Cooper at home. He ate at school or they got him CF.

Click to expand...

He at at home that morning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bc007 said:

Question for those 100% certain RH planned to kill Cooper by leaving him in the car - if everything we know remained the same with exception to him being a sex addicted adulterer who sexted on the day in question... Would you still hold steady to your position? So I guess my question comes down to if you believe there is a real thing called forgotten baby syndrome?

Click to expand...

I believe that is a term that this "expert" has concocted and is profiting from his testimony. In this case the sexting behavior ties in with his personality, his motivation, and his selfishness. Someone asked if we believed JRH would have forgotten his cell phone in his car? Can we all agree with a resounding *NO*? That kind of sums it up and shows his true priorities in my opinion.

katydid23 said:

I don't see where it was perjury? He said he was mistaken when he first put that in the SW. And he said that now he stands by the fact that RH clicked on the links, although he didn't really search for them. So he is pushing the envelope perhaps, and parsing words---but perjury? I am not so sure.

You say there is no evidence that it was a murder. I think it is up to the jury. But this detective came from the crimes against children department. He has seen a lot of vile, evil ugliness in his career. So I can understand why he might be suspicious and see things in a jaded way. Especially when he sees how close the car seat was and how short it was from CFA to the daycare exit. Who wounding think it was intentional? Especially after seeing the texts from that exact time, saying he needed an escape from the responsibilities of family life. I think it was a logical deduction that this was on purpose, not an accident at all.

Once they got a better software program they found that he did not actually do those searches. That is problematic---granted. And it may mean he is found Not Guilty of premeditated. But I am not going to accuse the detective of framing him or being nefarious. I think he was looking for JUSTICE for little Cooper, nothing more.

Click to expand...

The perjury I'm referring to isn't about those searches, or the search warrants. The two instances I mentioned (there are others) relate to the 6 minute call and the email to the travel agent.

The "no evidence of murder" I referred to relates to the beginning of this case, in that parking lot, within minutes of LE's arrival. I think it's crystal clear that Stoddard believed RH killed Cooper from the moment HE arrived, if not before, when he was first called, and arrived at the scene quickly enough to talk with RH while he was still in Piper's squad car on scene.

Every action he took after that, imo, was predicated on his certainty that RH was guilty and the evidence would prove it. And when the evidence didn't support his conclusions, he ignored it (at best), and altered reports , etc. to make the evidence conform. On and on, through his testimony today.

Bc007 said:

I mentioned this in thread 3- almost all the major evidence used to charge Ross and hold him until trial has been shown to have been twisted or fabricated. That's a problem especially when it was previously discussed under oath by the state's key whitness and contradicts current testimony at the criminal trial! The lead investigator saying in the stand something to the effect of " oh that was before we had an expert review such and such" doesn't cut it for me when dealing with someone's freedom and presumption of innocence. Ok so here is the running list of issues I see for the state; there are those computer related issues that turned up false or twisted into something it wasn't, the car seat placement problem and measurement, the state's expert who tested and evaluated the temp in the car yet didn't account for Cooper's body temp nor did he take the humidity level into account. Oh, then we have 6 minute phone call that couldn't have taken place due to RH being detained in the back of the cop car. All the the confusion with who smelled what at the scene. What else?

Click to expand...

That was on the expert in regards to the alleged watching the vet video twice. It was a 5/6 min video but was clicked on 2 times like 1 second apart (or matter of few sec) like a pause and play. No way to have watched it twice in full. Stoddard said he only met with him once and had not read his final report. When asked something else *could have been what did the final report say?* Cant remb but Stoddard said would have to asked the expert. Kilgore said "we will ask the expert"

Bc007 said:

Intent is my biggest hurdle. I don't feel it was planned. I do however believe in the forgotten baby syndrome. I just don't know that it applies in this situation.

Click to expand...

Intent was my biggest hurdle too. It didn't make sense in some ways.

But forgotten baby syndrome makes no sense in this case, imo. It makes sense in some cases. And I do believe that someone can go on automatic and totally forget something. But I don't think that is what happened here.

I think that he contemplated 'disappearing' his son for awhile. He wanted to leave his wife but did not want to be tied to her for 18 years and be on the hook for all that money and custody time. If it was just the two of them he could just walk away and do a 50/50 split.

He loved Cooper as an extension of himself. But he disrespected him and took him for granted. He lived a double life and only 'half' of him wanted a child. And as he said, 'just because we lost one, doesn't mean we cannot have another one..."

I think he knew he was close to being fired from his job. he was way behind on his project, co-workers were talking...that is never a good sign for a contract employee.

He didn't get the back up job he had just applied for at CFA. He was now sexting randoms until 3 am and starting up again at 5 am, including 14 yr olds in the mix. He was going down the drain fast, imo. I think he was feeling desperate at that point.

While sitting at breakfast with his son, he sees that quote in a red box, about giving oneself totally to ones family. and getting nothing in return. He clicks on it and agrees with the lady who wrote it. He commiserates with her and says he needs an escape too.

Minutes later, he misses the turn off to daycare. I strongly believe that he made that decision in that 30 second span. It was premeditated, but only by seconds.

He never deleted anything because he really did not believe anyone was going to do an investigation. It was a simple accident, like the ones he had just seen reported in the news...

RANCH said:

It's amazing to me that a detective on this case could be impeached about anything. Either he's sloppy or he's intentionally lying to the jury. Neither are good.

Makes me wonder if he has tampered or hid some important exculpatory evidence. JMO

Click to expand...

That's what I am wondering.

I think Kilgore's cross examination today was effective. Even if the jury is not keeping track of every detail that Stoddard fudged, I think they would have gotten a good idea today that Stoddard has been biased from the beginning and he is still so single-minded that he filters out any information that does not support his theory. That's enough for any reasonable person to question the credibility of anything Stoddard says.

Even in his testimony the other day, Stoddard still stuck to his story that Ross was all the way in the car frame when he dropped off the lightbulbs and specifically that there was nothing blocking his view of the car seat. He says that despite the fact that Ross' head never went below the top of the car - so the CAR was blocking his view of the car seat.

It also sounded really unreasonable for Stoddard to say it's impossible Ross momentarily forgot about going to Home Depot at lunch when one of the other two guys forgot as well when he was initially telling detectives what happened that day.