Is there anyone that believes Ross is innocent?

They knew early on he had worked with LE, he probably told them about his brother. IMO they are prosecuting a man for a criminal act KNOWING LE in another state is watching their every move. They have a solid case with plenty of evidence the will get them a true bill and a conviction.


All posts are MOO

gngr~snap said:

They knew early on he had worked with LE, he probably told them about his brother. IMO they are prosecuting a man for a criminal act KNOWING LE in another state is watching their every move. They have a solid case with plenty of evidence the will get them a true bill and a conviction.

All posts are MOO

Click to expand...

Let's not forget the nation is watching too. The charges are brilliant, imo- no need to prove intent.

I've removed all the off topic posts and the snark. If you don't want to discuss the possibility of innocence, then move out of this thread.

Stay on topic.

Salem

At this point in time, if I had to make a choice - I'd go with, he did not intentionally kill his son.

I'm sure the prosecution has more than what's been reported, and the defense has their means to counter react.

I need to have more evidence, that can not be explained any other way except for, he wanted this child dead. Before I state he wanted to kill his son.

He's not innocent in the death of his son, but he may be innocent of murder. moo :moo:

Ruby said:

He's not innocent in the death of his son, but he may be innocent of murder. moo :moo:

Click to expand...

RSBM: The felony murder charge does not need intent, just negligence. Forgetting is not an excuse, imo- it is still grossly negligent to "forget" your child in a car for so long that he dies.

momrids6 said:

RSBM: The felony murder charge does not need intent, just negligence. Forgetting is not an excuse, imo- it is still grossly negligent to "forget" your child in a car for so long that he dies.

Click to expand...

According to Charges Thread, my understanding is that intent may not be needed but willful or wanton does.

Did he intend to kill, did he want his son dead, did he willfully kill his child???
I guess lawyers and the courts can and will distinguish the difference.

At this time, for me - in my opinion, I can not judge this man a murderer, who wanted his son dead.

All we have is the information from reporters and the probable cause hearing - he has yet to be indicted, I see no reason why it will not pass the Grand Jury.
So when it comes to trial, there will be more to review. There will also be a definite charge and what punishment they are seeking.
At that time, I can decide - maybe my opinion will change, or it may stay the same?

moo :moo:

Ruby said:

According to Charges Thread, my understanding is that intent may not be needed but willful or wanton does.

Click to expand...

Wanton Grossly careless or negligent; reckless; malicious.



The term wanton implies a reckless disregard for the consequences of one's behavior. A wanton act is one done in heedless disregard for the life, limbs, health, safety, reputation, or property rights of another individual. Such an act is more than Negligence or gross negligence; it is equivalent in its results to an act of willful misconduct. A wanton injury is one precipitated by a conscious and intentional wrongful act or by an omission of a known obligation with reckless indifference to potential harmful consequences.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wanton

I am not 100% convinced that he premeditated Cooper's death.

I read the Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post article by Gene Weingarten, linked in the thread opener, long long ago. I've shared it on my Facebook thread and have passed it around my mommy friends amd I've even re-read it, because I thought it was a brilliant-well-written-thought-provoking piece. I understand completely that hot car deaths can be accidents. I don't think parents who accidentally harm their children this way should be charged with a crime. I get it how we as parents can get distracted. The article haunted me. It's specifically relevant to this case because it discusses directly whether or not hot car accidents should be charged as crimes.

I appreciate that the state was trying to show a motive (desire for a child-free life) when they brought up the sexting. But even without the sexting, the case looked pretty convincing to me from the beginning.

That said I completely agree that LE can be wrong, and they haven't convinced me of premeditated murder. (But I agree with the judge that they supported probable cause!) Given the charges, they don't have to prove premeditation. So, I think he's guilty as charged. I think it's possible he was dumb and distracted rather than malicious, but the charges could still stick anyway.

If, when I hear the remainder of the evidence and testimony, I am not convinced that this was premeditated, then I will be disappointed that LE exaggerated and prosecuted him for what ultimately is found to be an accident.

But I think he is technically guilty of what they've charged him with… they've yet to prove it was on purpose. But I think it could be on purpose, we'll see when we learn more.

momrids6 said:

Wanton Grossly careless or negligent; reckless; malicious.



The term wanton implies a reckless disregard for the consequences of one's behavior. A wanton act is one done in heedless disregard for the life, limbs, health, safety, reputation, or property rights of another individual. Such an act is more than Negligence or gross negligence; it is equivalent in its results to an act of willful misconduct. A wanton injury is one precipitated by a conscious and intentional wrongful act or by an omission of a known obligation with reckless indifference to potential harmful consequences.



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wanton

Click to expand...

Thank you for the definition - final outcome will be decided when it goes to trial.

bbm - that by definition to me, means what I am saying and the underlined is what you are saying.

At this time, for me - in my opinion, I can not judge this man a murderer, who wanted his son dead.
With what has been reported and from the hearing, I still have questions about the evidence and would not be able to condemn a person to death, or LWOP.

Agree to disagree on our view points - no problem. :seeya:
I know my opinion has no bearing on the outcome of this case, no chance I'll be on the jury :giggle:

moo etc.,:moo:

I think RH is 100% responsible for his son's death, but I do not think it was premeditated.

My hunch (reserving the right to change my mind) is that he knew Cooper was in the car at HD parking lot. He left him there "just for short time" while he made an appearance at work, and he fully intended to return within a safe period and bring Cooper to daycare. I think he has done something similar in the past either at work or elsewhere.

I came to this conclusion by considering RH's personality and behavior. He's lazy, takes risks, lives in the moment, is selfish and immature, likes to be with people, doesn't have a good work ethic or ambition, avoids problems with distractions rather than taking action to solve problems. I do not think it crossed his mind to murder his child. If he did want out of the marriage, he would do so (and was doing so) in a passive-agressive way by being a selfish jerk whose wife either put up with him or left.

I also don't see where he makes any goals and then actually does anything to achieve them. He wants to be VP at HD, but shows up late, leaves early and sexts on the job. He wants a start-up business but he and his buddies go to the afternoon movies rather than busting butt to get the company off the ground. He wants a new house, but spends money rather than saves it.

I really don't think he has it him to want to murder his child or to actually make a plan and follow it.

What I do think is that he got distracted by his dingaling at work and forgot his child was in the car. I think he knew either before lunch or at lunch, but - in his problem-avoiding way - neglected to do anything about it. I think his "discovery" was fake and when he walked away to talk on the phone, it was once again his passive problem avoiding characteristic showing. The guy can't face up to any responsibility.

But he didn't plan it this way. He did, however, let it happen. It was his inaction rather than his action that caused the death of his child.

JMO, all speculation and hunches.

As I posted elsewhere, I started off feeling that he had done this intentionally. But as I have read more about the case, and some of the links to other information, I am not really sure.

It is hard to believe that someone would deliberately choose such a horrible way to kill a child, so you have to go a long way to convince me that someone did.

Tink

KALI said:

I think that he thought about it for weeks, maybe months, and I think that he absolutely planned the demise of little Cooper.
I think that he is a wolf in sheep's clothing, in all areas of his life. ALL.

Similar to Mark Hacking and Scott Peterson.

I really hope I'm wrong. But I don't think I am, sadly.
The defense would not want me on the jury, that's for sure!

Click to expand...

I agree.

I am still somewhat on the fence as to whether he premeditated it, which is what I assume the question is. There is no doubt at all he left Cooper in the car.

One wierd thing has nagged at me since the hearing. If it was premeditated, wouldn't he have NOT sexted on the day it was planned for? That just seems like crime 101 for me. You have to know that if something like this happens LE is, at the very least, going to check your phone, don't you? So, to me it would point more toward guilt if there was no sexting that day.

I know that's a wierd, convulated reason to doubt intent, but what can I say.

I've watched the hearing, which wasn't a trial. I'm inclined to believe that there is more to this- perhaps from both sides, and the defense hasn't had an opportunity to present anything. So, I think it a little unfair to use HLN to convict him. I do believe that there is an absolute chance that this wasn't premeditated murder, but an accident. What he's guilty of, I don't know. I won't say he's innocent, because his son is dead.

chlban said:

I am still somewhat on the fence as to whether he premeditated it, which is what I assume the question is. There is no doubt at all he left Cooper in the car.

One wierd thing has nagged at me since the hearing. If it was premeditated, wouldn't he have NOT sexted on the day it was planned for? That just seems like crime 101 for me. You have to know that if something like this happens LE is, at the very least, going to check your phone, don't you? So, to me it would point more toward guilt if there was no sexting that day.

I know that's a wierd, convulated reason to doubt intent, but what can I say.

Click to expand...

Interesting. You bring up a point that helped push me into forming the opinion Harris has a personality disorder. I think that most killers of premeditated murder go into it with the mindset that they'll never get caught. The defense attorney certainly tried his best--and failed--to persuade the Judge that the sexting had nothing to do with Cooper's death.

JMO

The thread topic is: Is there anyone that believes Ross is innocent?

My answer is that while I respect everyone else's opinions, I do not believe he is innocent.

I do not believe he is innocent. Poor little baby Cooper, rest in peace little man. Can't imagine the horror you went through.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I do think there's the slightest chance this was all unintentional. Toddlers can fall asleep amazingly fast when they're overly tired and are finally given an opportunity to rest -- my son was capable of running laps at his grandparents' house for several hours, the very picture of a bundle of energy, and by the time we would have him in his carseat his eyes were already rolling back in exhaustion and he'd be out like a light.

I can only believe this was unintentional if RH forgot from the outset, not if he parked the SUV intending to take CH to daycare after checking in at work and only then forgot. As much as I respect all the thought that went into that theory, RH had seen the safety video the second time only five days before and would have had to be keenly aware of the growing peril his son was in. Every clock he passed in his workplace would have reminded him of the timer in the video, and he would have had no reason to do anything but make an excuse he was getting coffee or using the restroom, bolt out to the SUV and drop CH off at daycare, then rush back hoping nobody had noticed.

The more released about this case, though...I'm not sure if an entire deli case would be enough for the Swiss cheese theory of forgetfulness.

"A local psychologist and criminal profiler agree police will be looking at Justin Ross Harris’ habits, his testimonies and the evidence he left to determine who Harris was before he was arrested June 18"

http://www.mdjonline.com/view/full_story_no/25490723/article-Profiler--doctor-analyze-Harris


That was a bit of a downer. Wasn't RH deaf in the RIGHT ear?

Why did the psych totally ignore the fact that he sexted someone under 18.?
wow.
All posts are MOO

"What wasn’t normal .......Harris apparently didn’t remember his child for seven hours".

"Crowder said Harris could have chosen to watch the video either to learn or to be entertained"

"What made Harris want to watch the video, Crowder said, is what will decide if he intentionally left his child in his car."

"You use deceptive behavior to reinforce what you want people to believe...
.... you don’t use deceptive behavior for the truth,” Crowder said."

http://www.mdjonline.com/view/full_story_no/25490723/article-Profiler--doctor-analyze-Harris

All posts are MOO