The Sidebar - Harris Trial #2

[BetteDavisEyes]

It's only 4:00PM here (metro Detroit), but it's 5:00 somewhere I'm having a glass of wine to celebrate the painters finishing, and I hope there's a verdict, too. :toastred:

 

[monkeypants]

Was there video of Ross entering his car at the end of the day and driving off? I do not remember that. (If so, it's probably what the jury will want to watch next)

Yup

Cue jersey girl....

 

[*JMO*]

I agree that the tossing of the lightbulbs into the car without leaning down even slightly looks unnatural.

But I am trying to figure out the motivation of that if he is guilty. Since he couldn't see him in that brief moment, it wouldn't determine if the baby was deceased or not. If he heard no sounds, that wouldn't really prove if he was alive or not since he could be asleep or unresponsive. Honestly it was such a brief moment of the door being open I'm not sure he could expect to hear anything anyway.

So what the motivation be if a guilty RH was unable to see or hear anything in that brief encounter at the car?

 

[gitana1]

Try this one, the lunch time stop starts at about the :56 mark:

[video=youtube;kotSKy2rdoY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kotSKy2rdoY[/video]

Was there video of Ross entering his car at the end of the day and driving off? I do not remember that. (If so, it's probably what the jury will want to watch next)

See above.

 

[Hope4More]

Was there video of Ross entering his car at the end of the day and driving off? I do not remember that. (If so, it's probably what the jury will want to watch next)

There was one. The man boogied. Seconds to reach car, open door, get in, and whizz off.

 

[minor4th]

The curious coincidence of RH just happening to buy lightbulbs on that particular day and just happening to take them to the car and put them in without bending down... Is another thing that I see as completely irrelevant. If you think he murdered his son then you make it into something suspicious (he was obviously going to check if his son was dead yet, for some reason!). Me, I just think he needed lightbulbs. LE checked, and he did indeed need lightbulbs. And it's tragic he never noticed Cooper at that point, but I don't see it as evidence of malice murder at all.

Same with him apparently taking an odd way to the cinema. If you think he's guilty you can come up with some motive for him doing that relating to murder, but I don't think it's evidence of malice murder. There are loads of reasons why he could have taken that way.

I know some people think this is some kind of indication of guilt, but for me the trip to the car at lunch with his friends points firmly to cluelessness/accident.

 

[SuperTmo]

Can't he see in the back seat before he even opens the door from the back Window as he approaches and grabs the door handle?

Well... I think he can, but I don't know if that's a unanimous thought. So based strictly on his head level, since the defense made a big deal about his head never going below the doorframe.

 

[NCTeacher]

Or it means "see he didn't lean into the car"

Could be... my gut says "nope."

Let's see if I'm right. Too bad we can't see the nod, the type of nod says it all.

 

[minor4th]

O/TPossible verdict in 1 of the 2 LEO shooting some on egoing on right now. . Praying that the verdict does not cause riots.

And more deputies are walking out of the courtroom. Activity picks up even more #TensingTrial;

Can't believe they're already done with that trial.

 

[sassyblue]

See above.

That video was at lunchtime.

 

[SuperTmo]

The curious coincidence of RH just happening to buy lightbulbs on that particular day and just happening to take them to the car and put them in without bending down... Is another thing that I see as completely irrelevant. If you think he murdered his son then you make it into something suspicious (he was obviously going to check if his son was dead yet, for some reason!). Me, I just think he needed lightbulbs. LE checked, and he did indeed need lightbulbs. And it's tragic he never noticed Cooper at that point, but I don't see it as evidence of malice murder at all.

Same with him apparently taking an odd way to the cinema. If you think he's guilty you can come up with some motive for him doing that relating to murder, but I don't think it's evidence of malice murder. There are loads of reasons why he could have taken that way.

There is just too much to explain away... Of course one thing is not the proof, but the totality of the evidence is very damning, IMO. I mean, I just can't make this many excuses for someone repeatedly. I'm surprised anyone can. Nobody is this unlucky.

 

[Hope4More]

I agree that the tossing of the lightbulbs into the car without leaning down even slightly looks unnatural.

But I am trying to figure out the motivation of that if he is guilty. Since he couldn't see him in that brief moment, it wouldn't determine if the baby was deceased or not. If he heard no sounds, that wouldn't really prove if he was alive or not since he could be asleep or unresponsive. Honestly it was such a brief moment of the door being open I'm not sure he could expect to hear anything anyway.

So what the motivation be if a guilty RH was unable to see or hear anything in that brief encounter at the car?

Exactly. It makes no sense, unless the presumption is RH knew he was dead and planned on putting on a show--- another layer of speculation is added on, such as, his friends drove a way too fast , or, he changed his mind.

 

[monkeypants]

I know some people think this is some kind of indication of guilt, but for me the trip to the car at lunch with his friends points firmly to cluelessness/accident.

Really cuz he's backed in and he just jumps out of the car and they drive off...it's not like they ever could see anything from their angle etc

 

[momoftwocrazies]

Anyone know at what point the juror nodded to the other juror? After the tossing of the bulbs or the pause while walking?

 

[gitana1]

I agree that the tossing of the lightbulbs into the car without leaning down even slightly looks unnatural.

But I am trying to figure out the motivation of that if he is guilty. Since he couldn't see him in that brief moment, it wouldn't determine if the baby was deceased or not. If he heard no sounds, that wouldn't really prove if he was alive or not since he could be asleep or unresponsive. Honestly it was such a brief moment of the door being open I'm not sure he could expect to hear anything anyway.

So what the motivation be if a guilty RH was unable to see or hear anything in that brief encounter at the car?

Maybe simply indecision. Wanted to check and see if he could determine whether Cooper was dead. But then couldn't bear to look: "I was afraid what he might look like." Remember, he said that. Maybe he was super stressed about it and wanted to see if he could detect anything but chickened out when it came to actually looking. Knew that if he heard no crying, Cooper might be dead. If he heard crying and anyone was near, he could simply decide at that moment to "make the discovery", even though Cooper would live.

Criminals usually obsess about their act and want to know what's going on, who's around, what is happening with the body. Is there evidence left behind. Etc. They sometimes can't stop themselves from returning to the scene, or getting involved, despite the risk.

But this dude, "I was afraid of what he might look like." He wanted to know, He didn't want to "see".

 

[SuperTmo]

The rear windows were tinted. I'm not sure how dark they were though.

From the photos of the car at the jury viewing, they were not so dark that someone couldn't see through them into the back seat. RH had hearing problems, but I haven't heard anything that would impair his vision. IMO.

 

[minor4th]

Really cuz he's backed in and he just jumps out of the car and they drive off...it's not like they ever could see anything from their angle etc

But Ross wouldn't necessarily know that - honestly, would he really risk it if he were intentionally in the process of murdering his son?

No way. I don't think so.

 

[monkeypants]

Exactly. It makes no sense, unless another layer of speculation is added on, such as, his friends drove a way too fast , or, he changed his mind.

Ok what if he really did do it by accident, but starts to realize it. He gets dropped off at the car to affirm his fear and then realizes it's too late...he has to just create a scene somewhere and plead he had no idea until that moment. So he technically could have had the opportunity to save him but makes a snap decision to let it go...possible ?

 

[minor4th]

Could be... my gut says "nope."

Let's see if I'm right. Too bad we can't see the nod, the type of nod says it all.

What nod? What did I miss?

 

[gitana1]

Anyone know at what point the juror nodded to the other juror? After the tossing of the bulbs or the pause while walking?

I think tossing. And that makes me feel they were analyzing Stoddard's testimony and found it wanting. I don;t think that look meant they are confirming toward malice.

I wouldn't be surprised by any verdict in this case except a not guilty on the last three.