The Sidebar - Ross Harris Trial

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope4More said:
Peach- sorry I missed texting , not sexting. I'm on a phone (lost my computer charging cord) so among other things, it's very difficult to reference posts when replying.

Imo it comes down to one's definition of "forgetting." Forgetting as in RH knew Cooper was in the car at 9:19AM and by 9:25AM had no awareness of where Cooper was is, imo, unbelievable, yet it is only in that context that it matters what RH was or wasn't doing that so preoccupied him that he couldn't "remember" he had "forgotten" Cooper. THEORY A

The only definition of forgetting that is plausible, again imo, is that RH believed, somehow, by the time he reached work , that Cooper WAS at daycare. If he believed Cooper was at daycare, it wouldn't matter what he did for the next 7 hours, because in his mind, Cooper was at daycare. THEORY B

ETA-- I agree that RH was "responsible for Cooper until his death," but that may or may not be relevant to the jury's decision whether or not RH was criminally negligent if they believe RH didn't intend to harm Cooper AND that he genuinely thought Cooper was in daycare.
Click to expand...

Red text in quote respectfully added by me.

Up until I read your above post last night, Theory B literally had never crossed my mind. Theory B immediately struck me as inconceivable, and I could not figure out why. However, after reflecting on this theory for several hours, here are my thoughts.

Immediately before leaving CFA, Ross knew that Cooper was in the car. By all accounts, Ross was the one who strapped Cooper into his car seat. I do not think that it is a huge leap to conclude that while Ross was buckling in Cooper he was aware that he was in the car. According to the time stamp on the CFA video, Ross finished buckling in Cooper and departed CFA at 9:19. He was aware that Cooper was in the car at that moment. Assuming that this was not a premeditated act, sometime in the next 60ish seconds Ross was no longer aware that Cooper was in the car (Theory A). If he were aware of Cooper, Ross would have turned left instead of going straight. For the remainder of his drive to the Tree House, Ross continued to be unaware of Cooper's presence in the vehicle.

I still do not understand how Theory B is plausible. If Ross had utilized the drive-thru, Theory B seems more likely. In that case, by the time he began departing CFA, it is conceivable that his brain had told him that Cooper was already at the daycare. I just do not understand how Theory B could happen since Ross was aware that Cooper was in the car at the time he departed CFA. If Theory B happened, Theory A must have also occurred because we know Ross was aware of Cooper when he was putting him in the car seat.

I hope that this makes sense.

ETA - I appreciate the dialogue. I like when my assumptions and current working theory are challenged.
 
GA_Peach said:
Great and fair question, and I have given a lot of thought to this.

Here's the difference for me. Ross's phone activity began at CFA, and it may have been before that (we don't have an exact time table because the records have not been entered into evidence). When Cooper was sitting across (or next to, etc.) from Ross at breakfast, Ross was (allegedly) on the Whisper app. I can assure you that Cooper did not have Ross's undivided attention. Ross's negligence had already begun. At the time that Ross started playing on his phone, Cooper was right there. There is no doubt that Ross could see Cooper during that time. While Ross was knowingly responsible for Cooper's care, he made a decision to be distracted, and the potential outcome of that distraction is something that could be reasonably foreseen. The foreseeability of that outcome increases exponentially if Cooper being left in a car was Leanna's worst fear or if Ross viewed a video showing the results of a child/pet being left in car. If there wasn't intent on Ross's part, I believe that Ross never broke out of that phone obsession haze. When he got in his car, his mind was on the Whisper app and never left that. He then arrived at his office where he continued to engage in activities that prevented him from recalling that he never dropped off Cooper.

For me, the texting records will be key to this case. I think that the evidence is going to show that Ross was involved in what amounted to one continuous texting conversation from his time at CFA until later in the day. He took a break while driving, but mentally, I do not believe that he ever left the conversation... in the best case scenario.

In contrast, there is nothing inherently distracting with attending a work meeting. A person at a work meeting does not make a decision to withhold his/her undivided attention to a child because the child isn't right there.
Click to expand...

It is for some reason difficult for me to find the right words to express the distinction between what I think you are saying and what I'm trying to say about the relevance of RH's texting. I'm not even entirely sure we disagree, lol.

One last attempt. Question: in terms of finding criminal negligence- as opposed to malice murder- do you think it matters what caused RH to be distracted, or why it is he "forgot" Cooper was in the car? Or, does the simple indisputable fact that RH left Cooper in the car rather than delivering him safely to daycare, whatever the reason, suffice to find him guilty of criminal negligence?

If the latter, then I don't see how his texting or sexting is relevant, or his preoccupation with said.
 
Hope4More said:
It is for some reason difficult for me to find the right words to express the distinction between what I think you are saying and what I'm trying to say about the relevance of RH's texting. I'm not even entirely sure we disagree, lol.

One last attempt. Question: in terms of finding criminal negligence- as opposed to malice murder- do you think it matters what caused RH to be distracted, or why it is he "forgot" Cooper was in the car? Or, does the simple indisputable fact that RH left Cooper in the car rather than delivering him safely to daycare, whatever the reason, suffice to find him guilty of criminal negligence?

If the latter, then I don't see how his texting or sexting is relevant, or his preoccupation with said.
Click to expand...

I don't think being distracted meets the requirements for malice murder, but I do think that distraction establishes criminal negligence. IMO there is a difference between making a conscious decision to willfully engage in an activity that impairs a person's ability to fully care for his child and forgetting.

I know that this will not be a popular opinion, but I do think that it is possible for a parent to truly forget a child in a car. In those cases, I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for the parent as I cannot fathom how I would live with the knowledge that I killed my child. It would be a fate far worse than death itself. However, I do not think that is what happened in the JRH case.

Does that answer your question?
 
GA_Peach said:
Red text in quote respectfully added by me.

Up until I read your above post last night, Theory B literally had never crossed my mind. Theory B immediately struck me as inconceivable, and I could not figure out why. However, after reflecting on this theory for several hours, here are my thoughts.

Immediately before leaving CFA, Ross knew that Cooper was in the car. By all accounts, Ross was the one who strapped Cooper into his car seat. I do not think that it is a huge leap to conclude that while Ross was buckling in Cooper he was aware that he was in the car. According to the time stamp on the CFA video, Ross finished buckling in Cooper and departed CFA at 9:19. He was aware that Cooper was in the car at that moment. Assuming that this was not a premeditated act, sometime in the next 60ish seconds Ross was no longer aware that Cooper was in the car (Theory A). If he were aware of Cooper, Ross would have turned left instead of going straight. For the remainder of his drive to the Tree House, Ross continued to be unaware of Cooper's presence in the vehicle.

I still do not understand how Theory B is plausible. If Ross had utilized the drive-thru, Theory B seems more likely. In that case, by the time he began departing CFA, it is conceivable that his brain had told him that Cooper was already at the daycare. I just do not understand how Theory B could happen since Ross was aware that Cooper was in the car at the time he departed CFA. If Theory B happened, Theory A must have also occurred because we know Ross was aware of Cooper when he was putting him in the car seat.

I hope that this makes sense.

ETA - I appreciate the dialogue. I like when my assumptions and current working theory are challenged.
Click to expand...


I think part of why it's difficult to find the right words to work through the "forgetting in one minute " problem is that it is IMO next to to impossible to have any intuitive understanding of how it could happen. I completely understand why so many flat out reject that it was possible, period, and as I've said, IMO providing a plausible explanation to the jury on that will be the DT's most formidable hurdle to clear.

I know this scenario isn't directly comparable , and yes, a purse is not a child, and I'm not trying to trivialize the difference, etc:

Last year I went to a gas station on my way to taking four 13 year old boys to an amusement park for my DS's birthday. My son was feeling somewhat carsick before we reached the gas station, and when I pulled in , he got out of the car, thinking he might actually vomit.

I took my ATM card out of my wallet, then put my wallet and purse on top of the car and started pumping gas, totally distracted by watching my son on the curb looking like he was going to be sick, and trying to decide- keep going? Turn back?

I knew as i put my purse on top of the car that it was a bad idea. I consciously told myself- bad idea. Do NOT forget to pick that back up.

But.. I did forget. Finished pumping, went over to DS, discussed what to do, decided to keep going, got back in car and drove off, purse still on top of the car. In fact, I never "remembered" that I left it there. One hour later, nearing the park, I asked my DS to get the park tickets out of my purse ($400 worth of tickets!!).

It wasn't until he searched the car and couldn't find my purse that I realized I didn't have it, and even then I had to work backwards to figure out where it could possibly be, because it seemed impossible (I don't know why, literally, makes no sense) for me to believe I had actually left in on top of the car, because I did remember telling myself to pick it back up.

Sorry if that is completely irrelevant . Is it?

(Coda- no, my purse wasn't there when I returned to the gas station. All gone).
 
Peach- reply button not working again. YES it does, and thank you for that perfectly clear and enviably succinct explanation. :)

I have a feeling the jury will wrestle with the same distinctions we've been discussing, and that at least some jurors will share your view.
 
I do hope they get to put the LEO reports into evidence. Simply because giving different testimony as Gallimore apparently did. JMHO
 
Hope4More said:
I think part of why it's difficult to find the right words to work through the "forgetting in one minute " problem is that it is IMO next to to impossible to have any intuitive understanding of how it could happen. I completely understand why so many flat out reject that it was possible, period, and as I've said, IMO providing a plausible explanation to the jury on that will be the DT's most formidable hurdle to clear.

I know this scenario isn't directly comparable , and yes, a purse is not a child, and I'm not trying to trivialize the difference, etc:

Last year I went to a gas station on my way to taking four 13 year old boys to an amusement park for my DS's birthday. My son was feeling somewhat carsick before we reached the gas station, and when I pulled in , he got out of the car, thinking he might actually vomit.

I took my ATM card out of my wallet, then put my wallet and purse on top of the car and started pumping gas, totally distracted by watching my son on the curb looking like he was going to be sick, and trying to decide- keep going? Turn back?

I knew as i put my purse on top of the car that it was a bad idea. I consciously told myself- bad idea. Do NOT forget to pick that back up.

But.. I did forget. Finished pumping, went over to DS, discussed what to do, decided to keep going, got back in car and drove off, purse still on top of the car. In fact, I never "remembered" that I left it there. One hour later, nearing the park, I asked my DS to get the park tickets out of my purse ($400 worth of tickets!!).

It wasn't until he searched the car and couldn't find my purse that I realized I didn't have it, and even then I had to work backwards to figure out where it could possibly be, because it seemed impossible (I don't know why, literally, makes no sense) for me to believe I had actually left in on top of the car, because I did remember telling myself to pick it back up.

Sorry if that is completely irrelevant . Is it?

(Coda- no, my purse wasn't there when I returned to the gas station. All gone).
Click to expand...

I think the biggest struggle for the defense will be, there was nothing terribly out of the ordinary going on with Ross and Cooper that morning. (Not that has been reported, anyway.) By many accounts, he ran late a lot. He took Cooper to daycare often. You were going somewhere you don't go every day, your kid was feeling sick, you were worried about him, etc. It is a HUGE task for the defense to show that something threw Ross of so badly, that he forgot Cooper in less than a few minutes. (Sorry defnse, eating inside with Cooper isn't enough to do that.)
 
GA_Peach said:
**Snipped for Brevity **

there is a difference between making a conscious decision to willfully engage in an activity that impairs a person's ability to fully care for his child and forgetting.

**Snipped for Brevity**
Click to expand...

You have given me pause for thought GA Peach.
 
Mom cited for leaving baby in car during job interview in Troy

By John Steckroth - Digital news editor
Posted: 11:48 AM, October 12, 2016

TROY, Mich. - A 26-year-old Detroit woman was issued a misdemeanor citation for child neglect after officers found her 9-month-old baby unattended in a vehicle in Troy while she interviewed for job, according to police.

The incident happened Friday at about 12:30 p.m. in the Kroger parking lot on E. Long Lake Road.

Police said a witness heard a baby crying from inside a maroon 2007 Chevy Impala. The outside temperature was 75 degrees and the baby was drenched in sweat, according to authorities...

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/mom-cited-for-leaving-baby-in-car-during-job-interview-in-troy
 
Another article about the baby left in car while mother was interviewing for a job. This shopping center is in my former neighborhood. I wonder what child care plans the woman would have if/when she finds a job?

Cops: Woman ticketed for leaving baby in car

James David Dickson, The Detroit News 12:35 p.m. EDT October 12, 2016

A Detroit woman trying to land a job in Troy last week instead received a citation for child neglect, police say.

Officers were called to the parking lot of the Kroger on the 30 block of East Long Lake on Thursday at 12:25 p.m. on a report that a baby was left unattended in a car, a maroon 2007 Chevy Impala.

A witness in the parking lot told police they heard the baby crying from inside the car. The baby, 9 months old, was “drenched in sweat,” a statement from police said. The outside temperature was 75 degrees...

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ty/2016/10/12/woman-baby-car-kroger/91946424/
 
eileenhawkeye said:
It's interesting how HLN was all ready to cover the trial gavel-to-gavel when it was originally suppose to happen in May, but for some reason, must have changed their minds between then and now.

Of course there are still 5 weeks left and they could decide to start covering it at any point, but as of right now, their decision is to not give it the Arias or Anthony treatment.

A search on HLN's website shows the last time they wrote about Ross was in April. I can only find two posts about the trial since it began on their Facebook page. I know Nancy Grace talked about the trial on her show.. But there seems to be a huge contrast between the original plan and what they ended up doing.

Why do you think that is?

HLN is located in Atlanta. Did their decision change because the trial was moved? It was only moved a few hours away, and they've traveled to Utah, Arizona, and Florida to extensively cover a trial. It's hard for me to think their original decision to give the case 24/7 coverage changed because it moved far away...but at the same time, I could easily how a trial could be very appealing if it was in their backyard. They were also suppose to cover the Andrea Sneiderman trial gavel-to-gavel before she took a plea deal, and that trial was also located in the Atlanta area, so I don't think it's far-fetched to say a trial happening in Atlanta would be considered a plus to them.

Did they have research done that showed that people's interest in the trial dropped between now and then? Why would that be? Is it because it's not as hot out anymore and this is the hot car death case?

Maybe both? Interest dropped because it's not as hot out...and with the trial moving away from Atlanta and no longer being overly convenient to cover, they decided it wasn't worth it?

The only two things I can think that changed between now and then is...the trial was moved and it's happening in the Fall instead of the Spring/Summer.

I don't have cable so this just my research from the Internet. Is HLN covering the case more than my post would imply? If not, what are they talking about?
Click to expand...

I know they have at least one reporter in Brunswick covering the case for HLN. From what I understand, Court TV was just cancelled one day, abruptly. Very sad because most of us are very interested in the legal system and how it works. The reporters and legal analysts do an important and worthy job. I wish Court TV or Tru TV or whatever they want to call it would come back.
 
Ray_of_hope said:
I know they have at least one reporter in Brunswick covering the case for HLN. From what I understand, Court TV was just cancelled one day, abruptly. Very sad because most of us are very interested in the legal system and how it works. The reporters and legal analysts do an important and worthy job. I wish Court TV or Tru TV or whatever they want to call it would come back.
Click to expand...

Yep, they suddenly cancelled Court TV for the far more educational & informative 'Lizard Lick Towing,' at least in my area.

Part of the push to keep the public informed & up to date on what really matters... *sigh*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 229 more.
Total: 4,579 (members: 230, guests: 4,349)

Online statistics

Members online
230
Guests online
4,349
Total visitors
4,579
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,313
Messages
17,967,262
Members
228,743
Latest member
VT_Squire
Back
Top