The Sidebar - Harris Trial #2

[TexMex]

Do you know the name of the vet or of the video?

Dr. Ernie Ward

 

[krkrjx]

When you quit a job, it is called a separation from employment... just thinking as he at that time had just interviewed with CFA.

Question in general, if this case does NOT get the top three charges, will you feel that the jury did not do the right verdict and think of them as the jury with Casey Anthony that they couldn't add all the circumstances to add it all up to know of guilt? Is this going to be an outrage like FAC, or will more folks think it was "iffy: as to the outcome without outrage on the top three (only) verdicts.

I think I am ready to accept this jury's verdict. It feels to me like they are really trying to do the job as instructed. I didn't feel that with the CA jury. I do believe this guy is guilty of causing Cooper's death but I am not as well versed on Georgia law regarding how cases are charged as I would be if I were on the jury. Florida statutes were pretty straight forward regarding the CA charges.

As for outrage...I have already been there with the circumstances surrounding this little guy's death. I hope he doesn't walk as I do not think he is innocent. But it has to be decided based on laws and as I said, I'm not knowledgeable enough in that area. I can say one thing: If he had done this here in my state in a metropolitan setting, with all aspects of the death and all evidence being equal, he probably would not see freedom anytime soon.

 

[momoftwocrazies]

Do you know the name of the vet or of the video?

This is it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JbOcCQ-y3OY

 

[gitana1]

Too many coincidences like that for me to believe Ross is guilty of murder.

What coincidence? That he uttered something that shows consciousness of guilt? That's not unusual. It's typical of murderers.

 

[Hope4More]

How can anyone be sure, whether they knew about FBS or not, unless they are scientists? And I don't think he thought Cooper would still be alive. But I do think he would've been obsessing about it and wanting to make sure, like all murderers.

Just watched the video. Dr. Ernie Ward, on YouTube, under 5 minutes.

Don't agree that's he's a murderer, so also don't believe in your premise he was obsessing over whether his son was for sure dead yet. The only evidence of obsession that day was his entirely verifiable obsession with sexual gratification.

 

[Hatfield]

Legal separation would be related to divorce in that checklist.

If the top three charges were dismissed, I would totally feel it wasn't the right verdict. I find it hard to even talk abt the CA jury. That this jury didn't work on today points to them not being close to a decision. They're either having difficulty reaching agreement or are being thorough and reviewing the evidence meticulously. Or .....

Considering they've re-watched two longer videos and the short one today, taking breaks into account, actual deliberating hours haven't been that long. I'm satisfied they're taking it into next week.

I will be sick if all top three are dismissed, but I'll accept it. I don't think all three will be though, just throwing that in there. I definitely won't think it "iffy".

Im kinda glad they are taking their time too. I much rather have that than them rushing a verdict.

I just hope its not a sign of a hung jury.

 

[NCTeacher]

Just watched the video. Dr. Ernie Ward, on YouTube, under 5 minutes.

Don't agree that's he's a murderer, so also don't believe in your premise he was obsessing over whether his son was for sure dead yet. The only evidence of obsession that day was his entirely verifiable obsession with sexual gratification.

I cannot watch that video. :anguish:

 

[Hope4More]

What coincidence? That he uttered something that shows consciousness of guilt? That's not unusual. It's typical of murderers.

I will type up my own list of "counter coincidences," for you to take or leave, or, to tear apart, just as I so graciously did your list.

As you say, one incongruent point or two or three or twelve does not make a man guilty or innocent, but at some point the pile of incongruences adds up so high it topples over and collapses.

My list topples me over to....some things look hinky, but the isn't guilty of malice murder.

 

[katydid23]

Still upsetting no one was in court for Cooper!!

The detectives were, imo.

 

[gitana1]

No way.

What if Cooper weren't deceased yet? Then his whole murder plan is foiled and on top of that he'll get prosecuted for child endangerment. And going to the car at lunch with friends leaves a trail of evidence - videos and 2 witnesses that would raise suspicion.

No way. Not the behavior of a man who knows his baby is in the car and is deliberately trying to kill him.

I'm sorry. I totally disagree. If Cooper wasn't deceased and someone else noticed, than he simply had to start screaming that he forgot him. If Cooper was deceased, he would be in the same position he was when he "discovered" Cooper offsite. Just earlier in the day.

Ross clearly believed the police had zero reason to charge him with child endangerment after his son was found dead in his car, having been "forgotten" all day. He stated that emphatically. So what makes you think he would assume he would be charged with anything if Cooper was "discovered" while still alive?

He parked in a way that was close enough to other cars not to stand out, but also close enough that someone might have seen Cooper, even though he made sure there wasn't much visibility on one side. he knew form the get go that Cooper could be discovered at any time if someone came close enough to hear him cry, or whatever. All he had to do if that happened would be the same he did after he "found" Cooper - claim FBS.

Bottom line, he would have been anxious to know what was happening and filled with the urge to check. There was no reason make a detour to his car at that time and then casually toss the light bulbs that were so precious to him that he made sure to put them in his car at lunch, in such a careless manner and in a bizarre an unnatural way that kept him standing close and straight against the car.

 

[pocketaccent]

A real accident then many people do sympathize and feel sorry for the parents. Just like in pool deaths. Sure people also wish and get angry that the person didnt take extra precaution but they also feel sympathy for the persons. A true accident is an accident and everyone knows that so they can and do forgive.

ETA Meant to add that I could see where he may have wanted to parlay this into some money making adventure by being an advocate going on tour around the country giving speeches or something.

Regardless of his guilt or not he comes across very arrogant to me so I would not put it past him if that was his motive.

BBM, I agree that could have been his motive. He wanted to cheat and have sex with strangers anytime he wanted but Cooper stood in the way. So instead of being a good daddy, he decided to become an advocate for children left in hot cars. Mighty stupid motive for sure but it was his!

I believe his decision to leave Cooper in the car was made spontaneously in the morning of June 18th, either as he was buckling up Cooper at Chick fil A or in the HD parking lot when he noticed that he forgot to drop Cooper off (it took him ~30 seconds to commit).

 

[pet friend]

I go back to RH being asked by one of the people he was texting with if he had a conscience & his reply was "nope".

 

[katydid23]

Just watched the video. Dr. Ernie Ward, on YouTube, under 5 minutes.

Don't agree that's he's a murderer, so also don't believe in your premise he was obsessing over whether his son was for sure dead yet. The only evidence of obsession that day was his entirely verifiable obsession with sexual gratification.

And you don't think it is ultra-hinky that he posted a comment on that hot car video----about hating it if his son was left in a hot car. Then 5 days later, it happens? I can't get past the hinkiness of that.

 

[gregjrichards]

Im kinda glad they are taking their time too. I much rather have that than them rushing a verdict.

I just hope its not a sign of a hung jury.

I really agree with this everyone in the jury needs to walk away from this knowing they took it seriously and made the correct conclusion and be able to live with it. I am glad they are taking it so seriously.

Thanks for all your updates everyone.

 

[Magdalyn]

Ok suppose he wanted to kill his kid so he could be "child free" or get divorced or pursue a carefree life of sexting or pursue the hand of Ms Meadows or avoid paying for orthodontics in 10 years ....or whatever other crazy motive you might buy into - why would he do it in a way that will almost certainly get him arrested and likely convicted of a felony?

This would be a really stupid way to plan and carry out a murder if you were actually trying to get away with it.

Big difference between the two. Jodi was crazy and her motive was crazy too. It's not like she tried to make it look like an accident.

Cooper's death was not the result of an emotional meltdown that had been building for months like Jodi did. It's the kind of death that has happened hundreds of times by accident. If the jury is going to find him guilty of murder, it's going to have to make sense to them. None of those motives make sense, and none of the surrounding actions and circumstances look like a guilty man trying to hide his crime.

I know you know this...whatever motivates a person to kill someone doesn't have to 'make sense' to the juror, for we are not murderers, murder does not 'make sense' to us. It is helpful to be shown by the State that the logic appeared to make sense to the person who committed the murder.

You totally ignored the Ganesh Ramsaran case I sited. He killed his wife and the mother of his children instead of just divorcing her. He was shtupping her 'best friend'. In their house sometimes. Does it 'make sense' to kill your faithful and innocent wife and mother of your children instead of divorcing her? No. Nevertheless, the jurors had no problem seeing that in Ganesh's head, this was a viable solution for not having to deal with the old ball-and-chain anymore.



It doesn't have to be logical to us, or the jurors (for in what world do we all see murder as logical?) to find the defendant guilty. It's helpful to see what the murderer's logic was, however.

 

[Hope4More]

This is it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JbOcCQ-y3OY

Fwiw, the video doesn't talk about shade or trees at all. Also, the good vet is sitting in the car for 30 minutes. He talks about how dogs would experience the heat, but his narration is just as much about how HE is experiencing the heat.


A small leap indeed imo for RH or anyone else to imagine (briefly, before the thought really sinks in) a child going through that--" I'd hate to think of my child being in that car.."

 

[matou]

Leanna told police that she and Ross "talk about it a lot" r.e. children dying in hot cars.

 

[katydid23]

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?

Here is my theory. I think that he wanted his friends to drop him off at the car so he could find his son, with an 'audience' of his friends and a video to support his shock and surprise.

But the car backing out forced his friends to speed off. OH OH, now what?

He knew he was on camera and he could not be seen looking into the car. So he quickly tossed the bulbs in while visibly keeping his head above the car. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Fwiw, the video doesn't talk about shade or trees at all. Also, the good vet is sitting in the car for 30 minutes. He talks about how dogs would experience the heat, but his narration is just as much about how HE is experiencing the heat.


A small leap indeed imo for RH or anyone else to imagine (briefly, before the thought really sinks in) a child going through that--" I'd hate to think of my child being in that car.."

Exactly. So why didn't he do anything to prevent it from happening to his son? He knew about putting his satchel in the back seat, or taking the second look, as a precaution. Sounds like criminal neglect, to me.

 

[ScotAng]

Fwiw, the video doesn't talk about shade or trees at all. Also, the good vet is sitting in the car for 30 minutes. He talks about how dogs would experience the heat, but his narration is just as much about how HE is experiencing the heat.

A small leap indeed imo for RH or anyone else to imagine (briefly, before the thought really sinks in) a child going through that--" I'd hate to think of my child being in that car.."

He mentions how frustrated he is as he sees the trees (moving) with the wind blowing, but can't feel the breeze in the car. This is an adult, in a car for 30 minutes, with the windows cracked, talking about dogs. Yet, still RH comments about his child.

I do believe someone will need to quote me, or give their own opinion on that video.