Post Verdict - Ross Harris Trial

[Rocco]

She had a few opportunities to ditch the humiliation before Cooper's death. She caught him. *advertiser censored* addiction, he said! Marched him to the church to disclose. She knew the accountability guy was in place, but according to her testimony, she did not know that guy called it quits. She wasn't interested enough to find out, be supportive of his abstinence (which was the goal, right? but didn't exactly work). When did the humiliation quotient max out? After he killed Cooper?

I think we all have responsibilities for our lives......choices are made and consequences just fall into place.

After the killer was arrested, she found out about all his other escapades. Was that enough humiliation to divorce him? Guess not since she continued to visit him in jail for almost 2 more years and waited until a few months before the trial to divorce him. One would think it would have been humiliating to testify on his behalf after it was clear that the man she married was not only a killer but a pervert, but again---guess not. Strange woman.

 

[Seriously?]

After the killer was arrested, she found out about all his other escapades. Was that enough humiliation to divorce him? Guess not since she continued to visit him in jail for almost 2 more years and waited until a few months before the trial to divorce him. One would think it would have been humiliating to testify on his behalf after it was clear that the man she married was not only a killer but a pervert, but again---guess not. Strange woman.

Indeed. And here we are yet again talking about sympathy/empathy for the convicted felon and his devoted wife.

All the while there's a dead 20 mo/o completely innocent, helpless little boy in the ground without a gravestone. Every time I think about Cooper I'm reminded of how he died. That's where my sympathy goes.

 

[EquallyDivided]

Opinions aside, it's ahistorical and factually inaccurate that "women's lib" was in any way responsible for many families needing two working parents to survive financially. Didn't work that way.

Thank you for your valuable and insightful input and explanation.

 

[Aleph]

I was taken aback by this as well. They know he is a gross predator who has solicited and had sex with minors. They know that beyond a shadow of a doubt. They must realize that even if it was an accident by some standard, his nasty behavior and habits were a contributing distraction. I believe he did plan it, but I completely understand believing it was FBS and being determined to prove the legal case of it in court. But I can't imagine being torn up over Ross' personal misfortune. Dude is not worth anyone's tears. I just don't get it.

I wonder if men are quicker to normalize or dismiss the predatory stuff. Or perhaps Ross has "charmed" them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Seriously?]

Just finished latest episode of AJC's Breakdown podcast. Host Bill Rankin interviewed DT post-verdict. At one point, Kilgore asks Rankin to turn off his recorder because Carlos Rodriguez was sobbing and needed a moment to compose himself. Kilgore's statements in this particular interview also contained a level of conviction that IMO went beyond the standard practice of defending a client to the media. Whole DT seems to be genuinely convinced that Harris did not kill Cooper intentionally. Why? Do they have information that we don't? (I'm being serious here, no snark intended.)

iTunes link for those interested:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/breakdown/id992983540?mt=2

Oh my. Do any of the lawyers on the Harris side have professional boundaries? Anyone? Just oh, my.

 

[GA_Peach]

Just finished latest episode of AJC's Breakdown podcast. Host Bill Rankin interviewed DT post-verdict. At one point, Kilgore asks Rankin to turn off his recorder because Carlos Rodriguez was sobbing and needed a moment to compose himself. Kilgore's statements in this particular interview also contained a level of conviction that IMO went beyond the standard practice of defending a client to the media. Whole DT seems to be genuinely convinced that Harris did not kill Cooper intentionally. Why? Do they have information that we don't? (I'm being serious here, no snark intended.)

iTunes link for those interested:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/breakdown/id992983540?mt=2

If the DT is so convinced of Ross's innocence with respect to the malice murder charge, why did they not present a better case? If I am being honest, I did not hear one thing from a single defense witness that made me doubt Ross's culpability. In fact, each witness that the DT put on the stand made me more confident in Ross's guilt. Dr. Brewer provided the moment where I realized and gasped that Ross did not forget Cooper.

The DT seems to be emotionally invested in Ross's innocence, but on what grounds? IMO, they did not present a single piece of evidence to discredit anything that the State put forth. If Ross's story was so compelling, why did they keep it to themselves? Instead, a real estate agent and a travel agent comprised over 10% of their witnesses. In what may have been the most bizarre moment of the trial, Dr. Brewer starts asking CB questions from the stand after CB had moved on to a different line of questioning, Why was Ross bringing his guitar into work? Was he going to play it? I cannot comprehend why the DT believes Ross is "not guilty." If they had something to debunk all of the evidence, why did they not present it? Color me confused by all of this.

ETA - I have a friend who used to work with MK and CR, but I feel so awkward asking her about this case. I would love to know if she has any insights.

 

[Seriously?]

In this podcast, I heard a very strong faith-based relationship between the DT, RH and LT. References are made to Cooper being in paradise. RH talks to CR about taking his child to church. LT's faith guides her. Paraphrasing here that MK said four grown men prayed together and cried together after the verdict. The tape had to be stopped for sobbing. It seems to me religion became a common bond that united them all despite RH's offenses. Almost as if a church-going believer couldn't possibly be guilty of such unspeakable acts. Besides, he said he didn't do it on purpose and wants to be an advocate............they believed that.



I also think they fell for his manipulative behaviors to portray himself as a victim.

 

[Runlove]

I may have misunderstood. I thought one of the witnesses who testified about their physical relationship was a minor when they started hooking up. I know that at least one of the girls he was messaging he told to "make him a dirty old man" when he found out she was 15

 

[PaperDoll]

IMO there wasn't anything the DT could have done better. How do you explain away the car seat and how close it was to Ross; the jurors saw the car first hand. There is no way Ross didn't see Cooper in the car that day. Ross' SUV was small and Ross is big, there were so many opportunities for him to notice Cooper and he did notice him and choose to leave him to die, that was his plan. The DT has to defend Ross, that is their job and they are going to continue to stick to their defense. 12 jurors, ALL of them found RH guilty on ALL accounts. 12, not 1, not 2, not 3 etc.. but all 12.

 

[Rayemonde]

12 jurors, ALL of them found RH guilty on ALL accounts. 12, not 1, not 2, not 3 etc.. but all 12.

Yeah, that bothered me because some of the charges were contradictory so I don't see how he could be guilty of all of them. It make me think the jury didn't fully understand the charges. Jmo.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

The only possible thing I could think of is that with the publicity of the case they were worried it might get vandalized so they were waiting until after the trial when hopefully people are involved with something else. ??? But even t hat is a stretch. I am so sorry about your loss (((hugs))).

I think it's because any extra money she had went to attorneys - both hers and JRHs.

 

[ScotAng]

Oh my. Do any of the lawyers on the Harris side have professional boundaries? Anyone? Just oh, my.

I don't get the emotion at all. Unless it was more about the frustration of losing a case they thought had not been proven.

I understand they're religious. I understand everyone has a right to a fair defence. What I cannot understand is the hypocrisy.

I'm not turning this into a religious debate, but I don't understand how you can have a practise that specialises in defending child molesters and other dregs, and still take the moral high road, religiously. It doesn't compute to me. And yes I know someone has to do it, but I'm not so sure they would wax lyrical about religion. Please, no offence intended, it just seriously reeks of hypocrisy to me.

I learned a lot about Kilgore and Lumpkin, the latter being so religious to the extent his friends tease him. Both seem like fine men IRL. I don't have any 'bad feeling' towards them personally, yet I have a problem with that ^^. More bizarre from my pov as I'm not a particularly religious person.

I now believe they hung their collective hats on Dr Diamond's testimony. They would have spent quite a bit of time with him. He may have been the force behind them actually believing it was some kind of accident, by way of distraction. The no-show was more than devastating to their case. imo

Understandable they would be upset on that score. To vouch for his upstanding character though, is beyond ridiculous.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Yeah, that bothered me because some of the charges were contradictory so I don't see how he could be guilty of all of them. It make me think the jury didn't fully understand the charges. Jmo.

They have to consider each charge individually, and the criteria was met for each individual charge.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Exactly!!

I get that Kilgore, Rodriguez, and Lumpkin may actually honestly believe that the death was unintentional and that a malice murder conviction was a miscarriage of justice (due to "breakdowns in the system") but the sobbing and vouching for Harris's upstanding character (there's an example of this in the podcast) really baffle me. RH gave a minor directions on administering oral sex - vouching for character is no longer a option, I'd say.

(I believe it was never proven/established that Harris had any physical contact with minors?)

MK goes on and on about how Ross consoled THEM after the verdict, how selfless this was, blah blah blah...puke!! If he's so f*cking caring and considerate, how come everything he said to Leanna in their police station meeting was "Me me me"? "Why me? What's going to happen to my job? Don't let them arrest me! A metal toilet and a hard cot!" Where was his concern then, about how horrifically his son had suffered and died???

 

[Rayemonde]

I don't get the emotion at all. Unless it was more about the frustration of losing a case they thought had not been proven.

I understand they're religious. I understand everyone has a right to a fair defence. What I cannot understand is the hypocrisy.

I'm not turning this into a religious debate, but I don't understand how you can have a practise that specialises in defending child molesters and other dregs, and still take the moral high road, religiously. It doesn't compute to me. And yes I know someone has to do it, but I'm not so sure they would wax lyrical about religion. Please, no offence intended, it just seriously reeks of hypocrisy to me.

I learned a lot about Kilgore and Lumpkin, the latter being so religious to the extent his friends tease him. Both seem like fine men IRL. I don't have any 'bad feeling' towards them personally, yet I have a problem with that ^^. More bizarre from my pov as I'm not a particularly religious person.

I now believe they hung their collective hats on Dr Diamond's testimony. They would have spent quite a bit of time with him. He may have been the force behind them actually believing it was some kind of accident, by way of distraction. The no-show was more than devastating to their case. imo

Understandable they would be upset on that score. To vouch for his upstanding character though, is beyond ridiculous.

If they're very religious they probably have strong views about forgiveness, and about not judging others.

Maybe RH has claimed to have had a conversion, and they think god wants them to clear his name. Or they might see themselves as martyrs nobly defending the lowest of the low even though it makes people hate them. JMO.

 

[monkeypants]

I think it's because any extra money she had went to attorneys - both hers and JRHs.

If it was $5000 I'd agree with you. But for $100 or less no way jose

 

[ScotAng]

If they're very religious they probably have strong views about forgiveness, and about not judging others.

Maybe RH has claimed to have had a conversion, and they think god wants them to clear his name. Or they might see themselves as martyrs nobly defending the lowest of the low even though it makes people hate them. JMO.

Maybe so.

I don't know about conversion and martyrs, lol. It's certainly a lucrative business though.

 

[ScotAng]

MK goes on and on about how Ross consoled THEM after the verdict, how selfless this was, blah blah blah...puke!! If he's so f*cking caring and considerate, how come everything he said to Leanna in their police station meeting was "Me me me"? "Why me? What's going to happen to my job? Don't let them arrest me! A metal toilet and a hard cot!" Where was his concern then, about how horrifically his son had suffered and died???

Tell us how you really feel.

You're right though, his only concern has always been for himself. The DT are all intelligent men. I don't for a minute believe they have bought into Harris hook and line. This is part of the game.

 

[Runlove]

They are great actors, if so.

 

[TexMex]

Yeah, that bothered me because some of the charges were contradictory so I don't see how he could be guilty of all of them. It make me think the jury didn't fully understand the charges. Jmo.

It's known as alternative counts form of indictment, alternative counts stating the various ways in which the single act of a crime was alleged to have been committed.
Jurors consider each count on its own then decide guilt or innocence.

This was an intelligent jury agreed on by both sides and instructed in the law by an experienced judge. IMO they understood and convicted appropriately on malice murder using the circumstantial evidence submitted at trial.

They could have decided it was an accident and voted not guilty on charges 1-5 but they found him guilty