CONVICTION OVERTURNED GA - Ross Harris Trial Appeal, hot car death of son, Cooper

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

RANCH said:
This happened weeks before Coopers death and should not have been put in front of the jury. JMO.

people.com

Justin Ross Harris Hot Car Death Trial: Former Prostitute Testifies

Daneila Doerr testified last week at his trial that she was "very confident" she had sex with Justin Ross Harris just weeks before his son Cooper's death
people.com people.com
Click to expand...
It was relevant because it went to motive. He had many sex hook ups with various women from Tinder, during that few weeks before his child's death. And he was sexting ALL DAY and NIGHT, even while home with his wife.

So it was relevant because it showed he was not interested in being a family man anymore. He resented it and wanted out.
He even said so to some of these hook ups. That is why the underaged girl he was seeing was testifying in court. She said he talked about him leaving the marriage and he told others he had already checked out.

The day his child died, trapped in the hot car, Daddy was sexting during the drive to work, when he should have taken the baby to daycare. And he was looking at sexts in the car before walking into work, while his kid was still strapped in the car.

He was the adult, who was in charge of supervising his baby. Instead of doing so, he was sending dirty messages to underage girlfriends and random hook ups. And he was doing so ALL DAY at work.

So those sexts were relevant to the crime, in my opinion. They were the explanation for why he didn't remember that his child was stuck in the locked car.
 
Last edited:
katydid23 said:
It was relevant because sexting was consuming his thoughts and attention WHILE he was caring for his toddler. JMO
Click to expand...
You're right. RH's actions the day of Cooper's death are very relevant in this case. The problem is the State went way beyond that and that's why the Georgia Supreme Court overturned his conviction. JMO.
 
katydid23 said:
It was relevant because it went to motive. He had many sex hook ups with various women from Tinder, during that few weeks before his child's death. And he was sexting ALL DAY and NIGHT, even while home with his wife.

So it was relevant because it showed he was not interested in being a family man anymore. He resented it and wanted out.
Click to expand...
Maybe if the State limited the evidence to legal activity's to support their theory it may have been okay. The big problem is they had the jury decide if RH was guilty of sex crimes involving minors at the same time they had to decide his guilt in Cooper's death.

The Georgia Supreme Court said that's not okay. JMO.
 
RANCH said:
Maybe if the State limited the evidence to legal activity's to support their theory it may have been okay. The big problem is they had the jury decide if RH was guilty of sex crimes involving minors at the same time they had to decide his guilt in Cooper's death.

The Georgia Supreme Court said that's not okay. JMO.
Click to expand...
The problem was that the underaged teen was whom he told he was in love with her. She testified that he told her he loved her and he was texting and calling her endlessly. So that was a motive for why he wanted out of his marriage.

It just so happened she was underaged. Should they have ignored the facts of the case and the actual explanation about why his mind was diverted from caring for his child?

I think they put their case forward, and the facts were what they were. He was obsessed with a hot young teen and checked out of his married life because of it.

Watching the trial, there were a few things which made it clear that he purposely ignored the trapped child's situation.

He strapped the baby in the car seat and less than a minute later, he turned right, towards his office, and away from the day care. That was a purposeful thing, in most people's minds, who watched that video evidence. How can one believe he forgot his child was in the car 30 seconds after he put him in the carseat?

Also, if you watched the video evidence of the carseat, it was sooooooooo close to the drivers seat. It was a small compact and the seat was very long. That video was very damning because if he even looked towards the passenger seat he would see the baby out of his side eye view. And he did put things on that seat to take into work.

Also the baby was wide awake when he was placed into the car. So when he turned towards work 30 seconds later, was the baby totally silent for the entire ride? When he pulled into his parking place, he sat in the car for quite awhile before getting out to go to work. He had extra time because he didn't go to daycare drop-off. During that time he was looking at sexts.

Also, there is workplace video showing him driving around for quite awhile, looking for a parking place away from other cars---he found one and backed in. There was testimony that it was not where and how he usually parked.

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence that showed he should have known his baby was still in his car. JMO
 
katydid23 said:
The problem was that the underaged teen was whom he told he was in love with her. She testified that he told her he loved her and he was texting and calling her endlessly. So that was a motive for why he wanted out of his marriage.

It just so happened she was underaged. Should they have ignored the facts of the case and the actual explanation about why his mind was diverted from caring for his child?

I think they put their case forward, and the facts were what they were. He was obsessed with a hot young teen and checked out of his married life because of it.

Watching the trial, there were a few things which made it clear that he purposely ignored the trapped child's situation.

He strapped the baby in the car seat and less than a minute later, he turned right, towards his office, and away from the day care. That was a purposeful thing, in most people's minds, who watched that video evidence. How can one believe he forgot his child was in the car 30 seconds after he put him in the carseat?

Also, if you watched the video evidence of the carseat, it was sooooooooo close to the drivers seat. It was a small compact and the seat was very long. That video was very damning because if he even looked towards the passenger seat he would see the baby out of his side eye view. And he did put things on that seat to take into work.

Also the baby was wide awake when he was placed into the car. So when he turned towards work 30 seconds later, was the baby totally silent for the entire ride? When he pulled into his parking place, he sat in the car for quite awhile before getting out to go to work. He had extra time because he didn't go to daycare drop-off. During that time he was looking at sexts.

Also, there is workplace video showing him driving around for quite awhile, looking for a parking place away from other cars---he found one and backed in. There was testimony that it was not where and how he usually parked.

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence that showed he should have known his baby was still in his car. JMO
Click to expand...
If the State concentrated on that one individual it may have been okay. Instead they used multiple unrelated cases that prejudiced the jury.
Georgia's highest court found that much of the evidence presented in 2016 "was needlessly cumulative and prejudicial" and should have been excluded from trial.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is the State screwed up and this case will have to be retried. I knew this back in 2016 when the verdict came in and I'm glad to see the GSC has overturned this conviction. JMO.

people.com

Ga. Dad Who 'Sexted' with Women as Young Son Died in Hot Car Gets Murder Conviction Overturned

On June 18, 2014, Justin Ross Harris' son Cooper died of hyperthermia at 22 months old after spending hours buckled in his car seat in the back of an SUV parked outside his father's workplace
people.com people.com
 
katydid23 said:
The problem was that the underaged teen was whom he told he was in love with her. She testified that he told her he loved her and he was texting and calling her endlessly. So that was a motive for why he wanted out of his marriage.

It just so happened she was underaged. Should they have ignored the facts of the case and the actual explanation about why his mind was diverted from caring for his child?

I think they put their case forward, and the facts were what they were. He was obsessed with a hot young teen and checked out of his married life because of it.

Watching the trial, there were a few things which made it clear that he purposely ignored the trapped child's situation.

He strapped the baby in the car seat and less than a minute later, he turned right, towards his office, and away from the day care. That was a purposeful thing, in most people's minds, who watched that video evidence. How can one believe he forgot his child was in the car 30 seconds after he put him in the carseat?

Also, if you watched the video evidence of the carseat, it was sooooooooo close to the drivers seat. It was a small compact and the seat was very long. That video was very damning because if he even looked towards the passenger seat he would see the baby out of his side eye view. And he did put things on that seat to take into work.

Also the baby was wide awake when he was placed into the car. So when he turned towards work 30 seconds later, was the baby totally silent for the entire ride? When he pulled into his parking place, he sat in the car for quite awhile before getting out to go to work. He had extra time because he didn't go to daycare drop-off. During that time he was looking at sexts.

Also, there is workplace video showing him driving around for quite awhile, looking for a parking place away from other cars---he found one and backed in. There was testimony that it was not where and how he usually parked.

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence that showed he should have known his baby was still in his car. JMO
Click to expand...
I followed this case back in 2014, but I did not do so here on WS.

Back then, I had a hard time believing he was guilty. I believe that was due to these reasons:
- His wife sticking by him.
- The cruel and heinous nature of purposely killing a child in a hot car created my own emotional barrier of disbelief.
- The realization that if JRH did it on purpose, then others who had left children in hot cars may also have done it on purpose. My mind and heart didn’t want to face that reality.

But now, years have passed, and I’ve followed many heinous cases. I am thinking more rationally about how this could have happened. I do think a retrial is the right thing to do, based on prejudicial evidence. That said, the evidence may truly contain the motive.

I do believe he wanted out of his marriage, but surely he understood he could do that and still remain a father. If I am to believe her side of the story, his wife would have taken full custody of Cooper, had that been JRH’s desire.

However, JRH stood to lose money to legal fees, child support and possibly alimony, as well as lose the house and assets in a divorce settlement.

Did they find any evidence that JRH was researching child support payment commitments, or the financial implications post-divorce?

I would find that type of web search history VERY telling.

JMO
 
Last edited:
katydid23 said:
The problem was that the underaged teen was whom he told he was in love with her. She testified that he told her he loved her and he was texting and calling her endlessly. So that was a motive for why he wanted out of his marriage.

It just so happened she was underaged. Should they have ignored the facts of the case and the actual explanation about why his mind was diverted from caring for his child?

I think they put their case forward, and the facts were what they were. He was obsessed with a hot young teen and checked out of his married life because of it.

Watching the trial, there were a few things which made it clear that he purposely ignored the trapped child's situation.

He strapped the baby in the car seat and less than a minute later, he turned right, towards his office, and away from the day care. That was a purposeful thing, in most people's minds, who watched that video evidence. How can one believe he forgot his child was in the car 30 seconds after he put him in the carseat?

Also, if you watched the video evidence of the carseat, it was sooooooooo close to the drivers seat. It was a small compact and the seat was very long. That video was very damning because if he even looked towards the passenger seat he would see the baby out of his side eye view. And he did put things on that seat to take into work.

Also the baby was wide awake when he was placed into the car. So when he turned towards work 30 seconds later, was the baby totally silent for the entire ride? When he pulled into his parking place, he sat in the car for quite awhile before getting out to go to work. He had extra time because he didn't go to daycare drop-off. During that time he was looking at sexts.

Also, there is workplace video showing him driving around for quite awhile, looking for a parking place away from other cars---he found one and backed in. There was testimony that it was not where and how he usually parked.

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence that showed he should have known his baby was still in his car. JMO
Click to expand...
This is my thoughts exactly. I followed this case obsessively. I watched every court day and read everything i could at the time. I think they got it right the first time. It was right in my eyes that they included that RH was sending d**k pics from the works toilet while his child was left in the car to die. It was obvious to me he was totally over being married and having a child. H wanted out and be free to live a single unattached life. Nobody forgets a child being strapped into your car in 30 seconds. I hope he gets GUILTY again.
 
LinasK said:
No it hasn't! No justice for poor baby Cooper who died a horrendous death all because his father didn't want to be a father anymore...
Click to expand...
Leanna's statement:
"While this will not change anything about my day-to-day life, I do hope it shows people what those closest to the case have been saying from the beginning. Ross was a loving and proud father to Cooper. At the same time Ross was being a terrible husband. These two things can and did exist at the same time."
 
LinasK said:
No it hasn't! No justice for poor baby Cooper who died a horrendous death all because his father didn't want to be a father anymore...
Click to expand...
The prosecution should have given some thought to poor Cooper before they bent over backwards to prejudice the jury against the defendant. There was no way that conviction was going to be upheld given how they behaved. Convict on the evidence.
 
Mary456 said:
Leanna's statement:
"While this will not change anything about my day-to-day life, I do hope it shows people what those closest to the case have been saying from the beginning. Ross was a loving and proud father to Cooper. At the same time Ross was being a terrible husband. These two things can and did exist at the same time."
Click to expand...
Sorry, not buying it. Loving fathers don't intentionally leave their sons in hot cars to die. This was no accident, only staged to look like one.
 
Emerald1328 said:
I mean…when he got to work, he drove down an aisle, backed up between two cars and pulled forward to park. Are you telling me that, while backing up he didn’t look behind him or use his rear view mirror and see his baby boy in the back?
Click to expand...

Whether he looked or not -- his elbow was likely touching the car seat -- and his son's head which reached a bit over the top arch.

That's a smaller SUV, that's a good-sized car seat.

When this happened, I was a certified Child Passenger Safety Technician, Welcome! | National CPS Certification . (Let it lapse after I changed jobs.) In some vehicles, I would have doubts, but in this case, none at all.

I suggested this experience for the jury before the trial, and encourage this now:

Arrange your own experiment using a mid-sized GM SUV and a correctly installed rear-facing car seat. Set the driver's seat for a driver of about 6' tall, maybe 6'1".

Get ready to back that vehicle between 2 others.

Your right hand is on the passenger seat, your right elbow is -- in the car seat.

Ross Harris' right hand was on the passenger seat, Ross Harris' elbow was on Cooper's head.


More than my humble opinion, but your mileage may vary, please lather, rinse, repeat.
 
Laughing said:
Whether he looked or not -- his elbow was likely touching the car seat -- and his son's head which reached a bit over the top arch.

That's a smaller SUV, that's a good-sized car seat.

When this happened, I was a certified Child Passenger Safety Technician, Welcome! | National CPS Certification . (Let it lapse after I changed jobs.) In some vehicles, I would have doubts, but in this case, none at all.

I suggested this experience for the jury before the trial, and encourage this now:

Arrange your own experiment using a mid-sized GM SUV and a correctly installed rear-facing car seat. Set the driver's seat for a driver of about 6' tall, maybe 6'1".

Get ready to back that vehicle between 2 others.

Your right hand is on the passenger seat, your right elbow is -- in the car seat.

Ross Harris' right hand was on the passenger seat, Ross Harris' elbow was on Cooper's head.


More than my humble opinion, but your mileage may vary, please lather, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
This and the lunchtime trip to see if the baby was dead yet .....er......um.......put lightbulbs in the car sealed it for me.
 
meanmaryjean said:
This and the lunchtime trip to see if the baby was dead yet .....er......um.......put lightbulbs in the car sealed it for me.
Click to expand...
This. ^^^
The lunchtime trip was the main evidence -- my .02.
More than anything else.
R.H. would have noticed his son was still in the car then.

Also difficult to believe R.H. would've driven away from his workplace at the end of his shift, for even a few miles, without noticing his son.
 
Ross Harris is a very creepy guy. His behavior at the scene with police and bystanders was bizarre, and his police interview and apparent forced tears where troubling.

But the trial judge made a serious error in allowing the prosecution to conflate his sexting and unfaithfulness with murder. Had Harris been convicted based upon the evidence and his actions that day, we would not be having this conversation. And I think it's fair to say that most of us who support the overturning of the conviction hope he is re-tried. Cleanly, this time.
 
HarmonyE. said:
Ross Harris is a very creepy guy. His behavior at the scene with police and bystanders was bizarre, and his police interview and apparent forced tears where troubling.

But the trial judge made a serious error in allowing the prosecution to conflate his sexting and unfaithfulness with murder. Had Harris been convicted based upon the evidence and his actions that day, we would not be having this conversation. And I think it's fair to say that most of us who support the overturning of the conviction hope he is re-tried. Cleanly, this time.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don't like it when the state "stacks the deck" against a defendant by bringing in unfair evidence and overcharging to guarantee a conviction.

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. JMO.
 
That GEORGIA's SC overturned his conviction is absolutely amazing. Didn't think there was a snow ball's chance in hell this would happen, but have thought & argued here from the beginning that the State's refusal to sever those charges was an egregious error.

Harris had a constitutional right to a fair trial. He was deprived of that by overly aggressive prosecutors & a transparently, brazenly biased judge. Justice has been done.
 
RANCH said:
I agree. I don't like it when the state "stacks the deck" against a defendant by bringing in unfair evidence and overcharging to guarantee a conviction.

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. JMO.
Click to expand...
bolding and emphasis is mine
I have no issue with that at all !


The trip to the car at noon, RH's driving for a time after work without noticing little Cooper, and even before that -- the morning turn to his workplace instead of daycare and the parking in a secluded spot away from his usual spot (where no one could see/hear Cooper) are all troubling.
In my way of looking at this sad case.

I'm going to keep following this case for a time and I think he may get convicted again even without the sexting evidence.
There were too many other elements at play that made for doubts.
But we will see how this turns out with the new trial.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 134 more.
Total: 1,898 (members: 135, guests: 1,763)

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
1,763
Total visitors
1,898
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,253
Messages
18,105,965
Members
230,993
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top