Is there anyone that believes Ross is innocent?

[ILikeToBendPages]

"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

Cooper was twenty two months old. He'd lived though one full summer the year before, and daddy wasn't worried about leaving him in a hot car then, so why now? The checking now is hard to get pass. I posted an video about a twenty month old baby girl named Ella that sings Elvis. I look at her car seat. It's rear facing and she has the straps on her car seat at the top adjustment, and she's a small little girl. I think RH volunteering about his knowledge of that car seat, and how he knows how to do it for Coopers safety, without being asked, and the kiss in case you die doesn't help him look innocent.

 

[krkrjx]

BBM - Does this not equate to "premeditation" if he did nothing?

It can.

There can be premeditation to do something that results in someone being harmed. Likewise there can be premeditation to not take an action that might prevent harm to someone.

If at any point RH could have done something to save his son's life and he chose not to, that qualifies as premeditation.

 

[matou]

I don't think he's innocent. On the scene, he was screaming "What have I done?" "I've killed my child!" etc, etc. He admits to killing him. He then claims to have "innocently" killed his child with his claim "But there was no malicious intent." How he was able to whip out this defense so quickly after only 5 hours is crazy to me. JMO

 

[human]

Cooper was twenty two months old. He'd lived though one full summer the year before, and daddy wasn't worried about leaving him in a hot car then, so why now? The checking now is hard to get pass. I posted an video about a twenty month old baby girl named Ella that sings Elvis. I look at her car seat. It's rear facing and she has the straps on her car seat at the top adjustment, and she's a small little girl. I think RH volunteering about his knowledge of that car seat, and how he knows how to do it for Coopers safety, without being asked, and the kiss in case you die doesn't help him look innocent.

That is an excellent point. At this age he stays awake a long time, talks, sings, etc.

Why weren't they worried about it when he was an infant and fell asleep quickly and for longer periods of time with no vocalizations?

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

When a parent's priorities, time, & dedication become sexting and other internet searches of odd topics at work---it is only a matter of time before the truly important interpersonal relationship priorities take a second place. RH's priority should have been OBVIOUSLY his son in the car and yet other things were taking a priority. His phone, internet accounts, texting, sexting, will all be reviewed.
The life of that poor child in the back seat can not be reviewed.

We will see where RH's priorities lied.

It will be evident.
Now if some want to call him a good parent that simply "forgot" his priorities.......well, I strongly disagree.

Subconsciously or consiously RH is guilty of negligence at best.

moo

 

[costalpilot]

what you say is absolutely reasonable. yet a previous argument supporting guilt had about 28 "thanks", meaning the great majority on here are on board with guilt. I'm not that familiar with the supposed facts in this case, just picking it up here, reading the threads. All I know is: dad took son to chick filet, then to work, left him in hot car, in car seat that was turned correctly facing backwards, stayed at work for 7 hours while his son died in the hot car, was supposed to take the son to day care b4 going to work, sex texted a lot of women at work, once saw a video about animals dying from heat, his wife asked him if he "said too much " to LE, and has been charged with "murder". I am not sure from what I have read if "murder" in this case includes "intention" or not. But, imo, it certainly should. If state cant prove "intent to murder" they have overcharged, imo. Just because he sexted all day proves NOTHING imo, doesn't even SUGGEST anything, imo. Has it been proved that Sexually obsessed people do not love their children? This seems to me to be imaginative over reach by the state. Unless that one poster was correct, and intent doesn't matter. In that case, guilty. Dead kid in car = guilty. OTOH, sexting all day is exculpatory evidence just as much as accusatory evidence, as this post points out...imo.

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.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

He isn't innocent because his child died on his watch. But now that it was the detectives testimony that swayed me and it has been called into question and backed up with video, I don't know if I believe it was truly a deliberate act. I think that JRH has issues and he is most likely a crappy husband, but I don't see any evidence of him being a crappy father at this point and will now be waiting for trial.

I just don't know what I think any more. But without the detectives embellishing and trying to sway people? I don't know what I think.

 

[Inthedetails]

Snipped....

....yet a previous argument supporting guilt had about 28 "thanks", meaning the great majority on here are on board with guilt.....

Just because he sexted all day proves NOTHING imo, doesn't even SUGGEST anything, imo. Has it been proved that Sexually obsessed people do not love their children? This seems to me to be imaginative over reach by the state. Unless that one poster was correct, and intent doesn't matter. In that case, guilty. Dead kid in car = guilty. OTOH, sexting all day is exculpatory evidence just as much as accusatory evidence, as this post points out...imo.

Regarding the "thanks," I wouldn't necessarily jump to conclusions what they mean. I sometimes "thank" a post just because I liked the writing, or logic, or humor. If a post interests me I might "thank" it, even if I don't agree with the opinion.

Regarding the sexting, of course a sexting parent can still be a loving parent. But in this case, I think the sexting placed his child in danger. Having a beer after work while watching the kids is fine, drinking a case of beer and passing out while children are in your care is not okay. You wouldn't say a beer-drinking father is automatically a bad father, but you could use excessive drinking as evidence of neglect.

JMO

 

[al66pine]

what you say is absolutely reasonable. yet a previous argument supporting guilt had about 28 "thanks", meaning the great majority on here are on board with guilt....

. SBM BBM

Not sure if 28 thanks on a post mean that all 28 believe Ross is guilty.

Could the thanks acknowledge -
- the post raises a point of view the thankers had not previously thought of?
- the particular point may be relevant in pointing to Ross' guilt, but thankers still think he is not-guilty.
- they are still on the fence about Ross' guilt or non-guilt.

Some posters thank virtually all posts on a thread; others thank only the post opinions they agree with.

A bit O/T to issue of our beliefs about whether Ross is guilty or not guilty. Carry on.

 

[RANCH]

I just reviewed all of the posts on this thread and I didn't see a single one where the poster said that JRH is innocent. There's a few saying their open minded or on the fence but none that say "I feel that JRH is innocent."

Looks like the overwhelming majority here believes that JRH is guilty. JMO.

 

[K_Z]

I just reviewed all of the posts on this thread and I didn't see a single one where the poster said that JRH is innocent. There's a few saying their open minded or on the fence but none that say "I feel that JRH is innocent."

Looks like the overwhelming majority here believes that JRH is guilty. JMO.

Well, for me, the question isn't worded specifically enough for me to answer it. Innocent of what, specifically? RH hasn't been indicted yet!

Do I think he is innocent of any potential charge related to Cooper's death? No. Do I think he could possibly be innocent of a specific charge, maybe, or yes. I personally think a charge of first degree murder would be reaching too far, and be too risky for a jury of laypeople. Certainly I think he could be guilty of second degree murder, or manslaughter. Or the felony murder, but the neglect charge would have to be elevated from the misdemeanor. But he hasn't been charged with any of those yet, so I don't really know how to answer the question "Does anyone think RH is innocent?"

He is definitely guilty of something, IMO, that should be remedied with at least a 15+ year sentence. I'm just on the fence waiting to see what the actual charges will be, once the case has been presented to a GJ.

I don't know if that's where others are in their thinking, but that's where I'm at. Even if I think he premeditated it as an intentional murder, I'm doubtful a jury of laypeople would be able to reach that conclusion. I'd rather they charge him with lessers that are more of a slam dunk, and convict him, and put him in prison.

The Casey Anthony debacle has changed my opinion about layperson juries in high profile cases forever. I don't think it's possible to effect enough jury reform for most randomly selected laypeople in cases of more than a weeks duration, to make appropriate judgements-- which I know is another topic, and very controversial. I'm of the opinion that professional jurors would be an effective solution, but we will never see that as a viable option in my lifetime.

I'd rather see murders undercharged and convicted, and put away, than acquitted by dimwits. IMO. MOO. JMO. And all that.

 

[human]

what you say is absolutely reasonable. yet a previous argument supporting guilt had about 28 "thanks", meaning the great majority on here are on board with guilt. I'm not that familiar with the supposed facts in this case, just picking it up here, reading the threads. All I know is: dad took son to chick filet, then to work, left him in hot car, in car seat that was turned correctly facing backwards, stayed at work for 7 hours while his son died in the hot car, was supposed to take the son to day care b4 going to work, sex texted a lot of women at work, once saw a video about animals dying from heat, his wife asked him if he "said too much " to LE, and has been charged with "murder". I am not sure from what I have read if "murder" in this case includes "intention" or not. But, imo, it certainly should. If state cant prove "intent to murder" they have overcharged, imo. Just because he sexted all day proves NOTHING imo, doesn't even SUGGEST anything, imo. Has it been proved that Sexually obsessed people do not love their children? This seems to me to be imaginative over reach by the state. Unless that one poster was correct, and intent doesn't matter. In that case, guilty. Dead kid in car = guilty. OTOH, sexting all day is exculpatory evidence just as much as accusatory evidence, as this post points out...imo.

Sex addiction. Is it the same or different from other addictions?

Addiction is when it interferes with work or relationships.

I would say his issues do. I doubt if HD would say sexting at work is OK.

So, if his addiction was drugs or alcohol, would that make him more or less accountable for leaving his child?

 

[RANCH]

Well, for me, the question isn't worded specifically enough for me to answer it. Innocent of what, specifically? RH hasn't been indicted yet!

Do I think he is innocent of any potential charge related to Cooper's death? No. Do I think he could possibly be innocent of a specific charge, maybe, or yes. I personally think a charge of first degree murder would be reaching too far, and be too risky for a jury of laypeople. Certainly I think he could be guilty of second degree murder, or manslaughter. Or the felony murder, but the neglect charge would have to be elevated from the misdemeanor. But he hasn't been charged with any of those yet, so I don't really know how to answer the question "Does anyone think RH is innocent?"

He is definitely guilty of something, IMO, that should be remedied with at least a 15+ year sentence. I'm just on the fence waiting to see what the actual charges will be, once the case has been presented to a GJ.

I don't know if that's where others are in their thinking, but that's where I'm at. Even if I think he premeditated it as an intentional murder, I'm doubtful a jury of laypeople would be able to reach that conclusion. I'd rather they charge him with lessers that are more of a slam dunk, and convict him, and put him in prison.

The Casey Anthony debacle has changed my opinion about layperson juries in high profile cases forever. I don't think it's possible to effect enough jury reform for most randomly selected laypeople in cases of more than a weeks duration, to make appropriate judgements-- which I know is another topic, and very controversial. I'm of the opinion that professional jurors would be an effective solution, but we will never see that as a viable option in my lifetime.

I'd rather see murders undercharged and convicted, and put away, than acquitted by dimwits. IMO. MOO. JMO. And all that.

I agree that the question of innocence is hard to answer when it's not made clear what JRH is supposedly innocent of. Is he innocent of premeditation? Or is he innocent of child neglect?

I also agree with your views about juries. I like the idea of professional juries but the cost of implementing it is probably prohibitive.

MOO.

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

I just reviewed all of the posts on this thread and I didn't see a single one where the poster said that JRH is innocent. There's a few saying their open minded or on the fence but none that say "I feel that JRH is innocent."

Looks like the overwhelming majority here believes that JRH is guilty. JMO.

Based on the information we know about RH (which isn't much, IMO), he is guilty of a lot of things but I don't believe he planned to kill his child. I'm not sure about how I feel on jail time for his negligence, I'll wait to form my opinion on that once we have more details.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

what you say is absolutely reasonable. yet a previous argument supporting guilt had about 28 "thanks", meaning the great majority on here are on board with guilt. I'm not that familiar with the supposed facts in this case, just picking it up here, reading the threads. All I know is: dad took son to chick filet, then to work, left him in hot car, in car seat that was turned correctly facing backwards, stayed at work for 7 hours while his son died in the hot car, was supposed to take the son to day care b4 going to work, sex texted a lot of women at work, once saw a video about animals dying from heat, his wife asked him if he "said too much " to LE, and has been charged with "murder". I am not sure from what I have read if "murder" in this case includes "intention" or not. But, imo, it certainly should. If state cant prove "intent to murder" they have overcharged, imo. Just because he sexted all day proves NOTHING imo, doesn't even SUGGEST anything, imo. Has it been proved that Sexually obsessed people do not love their children? This seems to me to be imaginative over reach by the state. Unless that one poster was correct, and intent doesn't matter. In that case, guilty. Dead kid in car = guilty. OTOH, sexting all day is exculpatory evidence just as much as accusatory evidence, as this post points out...imo.

RE: all the BBM above:
28 "thanks" to a post means nothing except other posters felt something in the post they thanked has merit. I would not conclude more than that.

RH is being held for negligence and intent does not have to be proven. Neither does premeditation. But LE may want to prove it to ensure a solid conviction if they chose to.

Sexting minors may be relevant when it comes to the mental health status of RH and to imply if he was happy in his marriage and family life. I don't know many wives that would be very comfortable with their hubby sexting minors (with graphic pics included). It is relevant to his state of happiness in his marriage and consequently his level of comfort in being a family man.

 

[Ruby]

Based on the information we know about RH (which isn't much, IMO), he is guilty of a lot of things but I don't believe he planned to kill his child. I'm not sure about how I feel on jail time for his negligence, I'll wait to form my opinion on that once we have more details.

I agree.

At least at this moment in time I do. Maybe down the road with more details (at trial, etc.) my opinion may change.

 

[RANCH]

RE: all the BBM above:
28 "thanks" to a post means nothing except other posters felt something in the post they thanked has merit. I would not conclude more than that.

RH is being held for negligence and intent does not have to be proven. Neither does premeditation. But LE may want to prove it to ensure a solid conviction if they chose to.

Sexting minors may be relevant when it comes to the mental health status of RH and to imply if he was happy in his marriage and family life. I don't know many wives that would be very comfortable with their hubby sexting minors (with graphic pics included). It is relevant to his state of happiness in his marriage and consequently his level of comfort in being a family man.

I sometimes will thank a post not because I feel it has merit but to support members who have a minority view. JMO.

 

[SnoopyDawgDawg]

Snipped....



Regarding the "thanks," I wouldn't necessarily jump to conclusions what they mean. I sometimes "thank" a post just because I liked the writing, or logic, or humor. If a post interests me I might "thank" it, even if I don't agree with the opinion.

Regarding the sexting, of course a sexting parent can still be a loving parent. But in this case, I think the sexting placed his child in danger. Having a beer after work while watching the kids is fine, drinking a case of beer and passing out while children are in your care is not okay. You wouldn't say a beer-drinking father is automatically a bad father, but you could use excessive drinking as evidence of neglect.

JMO

This in bold. Yep, it's a thanks button, not an I agree button.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I sometimes will thank a post not because I feel it has merit but to support members who have a minority view. JMO.

Right.....we agree.
The OP assumed that in "thanking" a post, we are agreeing with a post.
And that is not always the case.

 

[SnoopyDawgDawg]

Right.....we agree.
The OP assumed that in "thanking" a post, we are agreeing with a post.
And that is not always the case.

In fact, if we read above the names of the people who thanked a post, we see:

"The following [#] User Say Thank You to [Author of Post] For This Useful Post:"