Post Verdict - Ross Harris Trial

[GeeEm]

I agree. I have a hard time buying FBS. Granted, I don't have children so I can't relate *exactly* but I do know that when I used to take my dog to doggy daycare 3-5 days a week before work I made sure he safely got there. IMO, when any living being relies on us for their well-being it's incumbent upon us to do the bare minimum to keep them safe...especially when they can't fend for themselves. Heck, I forgot my boyfriend's mother's plant in my car overnight and felt guilty. If people are going to start slacking to the point of endangerment then I wish they'd put their precious ones up for adoption before it's too late so that people like me that physically can't have children could give them a loving home. In the mean time I will continue mentoring youth in my town and spoiling my dog and prairie dogs!

Moxie,

I take my dog with me just about everywhere I go and I don't forget about her, just heartbreaking.

In these cases, without an alarm in the car when you get out, put your cell phone in the front seat with a baby toy, people don't forget those cell phones and how could not see a stuffed animal?

Thanks,
GeeEm ~

jmo

 

[monkeypants]

Moxie,

I take my dog with me just about everywhere I go and I don't forget about her, just heartbreaking.

In these cases, without an alarm in the car when you get out, put your cell phone in the front seat with a baby toy, people don't forget those cell phones and how could you forget a stuffed animal?

Thanks,
GeeEm ~

jmo

Honestly, it's your baby. Why do you need reminders? I don't get it. Stop texting and talking while driving....concentrate and take care of your helpless baby. It's not that complicated. You don't leave your purse in the car...how in the world do you leave a baby?

 

[Seriously?]

FYI-
http://www.boed.alabama.gov/licensee.aspx

 

[GeeEm]

FYI-
http://www.boed.alabama.gov/licensee.aspx

Err Seriously?

Help me out here, what am I looking for? It took me to a dietetics and nutrition page to fill out.

Thanks ~

 

[Moxie Vi]

Err Seriously?

Help me out here, what am I looking for? It took me to a dietetics and nutrition page to fill out.

Thanks ~

You can search for Leanna Taylor and see that she doesn't have a license to work as a dietician in Alabama.

Sent from my Nexus 5X

 

[Moxie Vi]

There is a valid license for Leanna Harris. My bad!

 

[Rocco]

You can search for Leanna Taylor and see that she doesn't have a license to work as a dietician in Alabama.

Sent from my Nexus 5X

If you look at the name she was using in 2015, before her divorce, you'll see that she does have a license.

 

[Flatbush]

I just can't figure out: HOW IN THE HELL does one forget a child in a car???? ANYONE?
Guilty or not guilty, just HOW do you forget a baby??????? :cry:

I am clueless for an answer on this. When I was a young mother I BUILT my life around my daughter, got the wrinkles and grey hair to prove it. Now she has a son, he is such a joy, no way he could be forgotten. I don't get it. I seriously cannot grasp it.

 

[Seriously?]

There is a valid license for Leanna Harris. My bad!

I thought the filtered information would copy in the link. Sorry it just took you to the search.;-)


ETA: Now that I think about it, a bit odd that since February she hasn't changed the last name on her license. Maybe that would be a good idea if the association to RH is the obstacle to employment. Just sayin.

 

[Moxie Vi]

I thought the filtered information would copy in the link. Sorry it just took you to the search.;-)


ETA: Now that I think about it, a bit odd that since February she hasn't changed the last name on her license. Maybe that would be a good idea if the association to RH is the obstacle to employment. Just sayin.

Thanks for finding that information! I wonder why the license hasn't been updated to reflect her legal last name? She did have it changed back to Taylor legally in the divorce, right?

Interesting catch you made about ties to the case being a hindrance to finding work yet not having the license reflect the name change. Very observant. I assume it wasn't a priority because she might currently be employed. I'd hate to make justifications for her though because we saw what happened when she made excuses for RH. It's a slippery slope.




Sent from my Nexus 5X

 

[Seriously?]

Thanks for finding that information! I wonder why the license hasn't been updated to reflect her legal last name? She did have it changed back to Taylor legally in the divorce, right?

Interesting catch you made about ties to the case being a hindrance to finding work yet not having the license reflect the name change. Very observant. I assume it wasn't a priority because she might currently be employed. I'd hate to make justifications for her though because we saw what happened when she made excuses for RH. It's a slippery slope.




Sent from my Nexus 5X

The Patriot Act changed some things related to employment. At least in my state, which isn't Georgia or Alabama, your name must match on all documents - Social Security card, professional license and driver's license. I would assume since this is a federal law, there's consistency.

You're right, though. She may now be employed. It's just not a good idea to let the license go.

 

[Rocco]

As for Leanna and her lack of her employment, I recall her attorney stating back in 2014 that she has been unable to find employment due to her connection to this case. I am pretty sure that means, due to all the heavy backlash in the public--nobody wants to hire her. Can't say I blame them---she, through no fault of her own, would stir up the gossip crowds of workplaces into a complete frenzy.

I've spoken with her on facebook personally and she was stunned that people actually are willing to donate to the Memorial Park on her behalf. In her words "surprised by all that has happened" that anyone would be willing to help. She seems very grateful to those of us who are sparing what money we can to help her memorialize her son the way he deserves to be. I am thankful to her for allowing us to help her, despite how I, myself, have treated her in the public sphere--for which, I have apologized to her personally.

Since you've spoken to her on facebook, is she aware that a very ODD page was set up on a few days ago for donations for a marker?

 

[monkeypants]

Since you've spoken to her on facebook, is she aware that a very ODD page was set up on a few days ago for donations for a marker?

I am just not buying this no money thing. I really don't think she ever intended on doing a headstone And is essentially being forced into it by the public.
Let's says it's real...it's been 2.5 years. If she saved $10 a week from day one until today she would have saved somewhere around $1400. $10 a week. She got $23,000 from the fund raiser that was paid to her as it came in..no waiting. $65 for a nice child size stone.
Call me whatever you want, but it's just not rational.

 

[GA_Peach]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/justin-ross-harris-wife-takes-social-media-guilty/story?id=43558099

Juror No. 3, Candi Parrish, told ABC News that the jurors were leaning toward guilt from the first vote.

"At first vote, all 12 [jurors] leaned toward guilty. Three were unsure completely and wanted to review more evidence," Parish said of the deliberation process.

Parrish, a 23-year-old married, stay-at-home mother, explained how she came to the guilty verdict.

"There were too many factors that played throughout his day that you wouldn't forget your child in the car,” she said. "To say he literally drove just 1/2 mile to work -- only five minutes -- and forgot his child is unbelievable. I think it is really hard to do something like that.

"He actually mentioned that he forgot to take his double-look,” she added. “He knew those steps, but he didn't take them."

 

[JerseyGirl]

IMO when the jury was able to see the car for themselves, they knew it could not have been an accident

At that exact moment I believe that's when Kilgore knew he lost the case. After that point, he seemed disinterested in trying the case any longer.

Especially when he ran back in to court at this point and screamed he wanted a MISTRIAL, based on the fact that the jurors saw the car (which both sides agreed to).

 

[JerseyGirl]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/justin-ross-harris-wife-takes-social-media-guilty/story?id=43558099

Juror No. 3, Candi Parrish, told ABC News that the jurors were leaning toward guilt from the first vote.

"At first vote, all 12 [jurors] leaned toward guilty. Three were unsure completely and wanted to review more evidence," Parish said of the deliberation process.

Parrish, a 23-year-old married, stay-at-home mother, explained how she came to the guilty verdict.

"There were too many factors that played throughout his day that you wouldn't forget your child in the car,” she said. "To say he literally drove just 1/2 mile to work -- only five minutes -- and forgot his child is unbelievable. I think it is really hard to do something like that.

"He actually mentioned that he forgot to take his double-look,” she added. “He knew those steps, but he didn't take them."

Thank you! I stopped to get a breakfast sandwich the other day before work and saw this on GMA which was playing in the background but I have been unable to find the MSM text!!!

 

[JerseyGirl]

Some post-verdict comments from both sides:

Reynolds explains Harris' actions are what made this a malice murder case.

"Not only leading up to that day but what his actions were that day," Reynolds said. "You begin seeing what his history is what his lifestyle is. You pull the curtain back on this literal second life he lead."

As lead prosecutor Chuck Boring explained the main points he thinks proved malice.

"The inside of the car, the defendants time line, his statements he made 10 minutes before locking that child in the car about needing an escape from that child I think those were all kind of key elements that went into it," Boring said.

A big court moment, Harris' ex wife Leanna Taylor testified as a defense witness. Boring explains their strategy for not calling her first. "We decided it would be much easier and a much better way to approach asking questions in a cross examination as she would not talk to us at all," Boring said.

___

Carlos Rodriguez was one of three attorneys representing Harris in his malice murder trial.

"Obviously disappointed in the outcome," Rodriguez said. He added if he had it to do over again he wouldn't change his strategy.

"Every time we go home we think of could I have asked this question differently could this have been more effective with this witness, but we are incredibly proud of the work," Rodriguez said.

CBS46 has learned the issue of jurors going outside the courtroom to view the car will likely come up again in court. "That's going to be potentially an appellate issue so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk about that right now," Rodriguez said. "We made those objections during the trial."

Also, all charges being lumped together will be another issue. "We objected to those counts being tried along with the cruelty and murder counts," Rodriguez said. "We made an excellent record of that so yes that's going to be an appellate issue."

Harris' ex-wife Leanna was a big witness the defense hoped would have a bigger impact on the jurors. "It did not lead the jury to find him not guilty of the murder charges obviously," Rodriguez said. "We believe that she testified brilliantly. She was honest. She was strong which is the kind of person she is."

http://www.wtoc.com/story/33739404/...es-react-to-justin-ross-harris-guilty-verdict

 

[IBsleuthin]

I am just not buying this no money thing. I really don't think she ever intended on doing a headstone And is essentially being forced into it by the public.
Let's says it's real...it's been 2.5 years. If she saved $10 a week from day one until today she would have saved somewhere around $1400. $10 a week. She got $23,000 from the fund raiser that was paid to her as it came in..no waiting. $65 for a nice child size stone.
Call me whatever you want, but it's just not rational.

I have such a difficult time with this case that I can only come on here sparingly.

To that end I'll say this; I have some friends who lost a niece to SIDS. This was also the first grandchild in the family. This was a little over two years ago and to say that this has devastated them is an understatement.

They could not afford a headstone at the very first so they had a friend make one out of cement and they adorned it with beautiful tiles and ceramic angels ect... It was made out of LOVE.

Whenever I question someone's behavior I stand back and look at the big picture. The behavior of this mother and father in my opinion are HIGHLY questionable. And when it doesn't make sense then to me it's because it's a LIE.


What mother out there would allow her child to lie in the grave without trying to get him a nice headstone? ESPECIALLY when he died of tragic circumstances.

I smell fish in Denmark. I don't like to use the word, 'hate' but I hate them both.

 

[IBsleuthin]

Some post-verdict comments from both sides:

Reynolds explains Harris' actions are what made this a malice murder case.

"Not only leading up to that day but what his actions were that day," Reynolds said. "You begin seeing what his history is what his lifestyle is. You pull the curtain back on this literal second life he lead."

As lead prosecutor Chuck Boring explained the main points he thinks proved malice.

"The inside of the car, the defendants time line, his statements he made 10 minutes before locking that child in the car about needing an escape from that child I think those were all kind of key elements that went into it," Boring said.

A big court moment, Harris' ex wife Leanna Taylor testified as a defense witness. Boring explains their strategy for not calling her first. "We decided it would be much easier and a much better way to approach asking questions in a cross examination as she would not talk to us at all," Boring said.

___

Carlos Rodriguez was one of three attorneys representing Harris in his malice murder trial.

"Obviously disappointed in the outcome," Rodriguez said. He added if he had it to do over again he wouldn't change his strategy.

"Every time we go home we think of could I have asked this question differently could this have been more effective with this witness, but we are incredibly proud of the work," Rodriguez said.

CBS46 has learned the issue of jurors going outside the courtroom to view the car will likely come up again in court. "That's going to be potentially an appellate issue so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to talk about that right now," Rodriguez said. "We made those objections during the trial."

Also, all charges being lumped together will be another issue. "We objected to those counts being tried along with the cruelty and murder counts," Rodriguez said. "We made an excellent record of that so yes that's going to be an appellate issue."

Harris' ex-wife Leanna was a big witness the defense hoped would have a bigger impact on the jurors. "It did not lead the jury to find him not guilty of the murder charges obviously," Rodriguez said. "We believe that she testified brilliantly. She was honest. She was strong which is the kind of person she is."

http://www.wtoc.com/story/33739404/...es-react-to-justin-ross-harris-guilty-verdict

Ya, well the reason your strategy didn't matter there Rodriquez is because your client is a lying who killed his son. All the rest of this is yesterday's oatmeal.

Long ago and many years ago I fantasized about being a lawyer. I can't stand it. Appealing and arguing the defense of someone like this would haunt me to the grave.

Arguing that the jurors shouldn't have been let outside to see the very van that the child roasted in? Inexcusable. Why shouldn't have they? Because they could see the TRUTH then? It's all so beyond me I can't stand it.

 

[monkeypants]

Ya, well the reason your strategy didn't matter there Rodriquez is because your client is a lying who killed his son. All the rest of this is yesterday's oatmeal.

Long ago and many years ago I fantasized about being a lawyer. I can't stand it. Appealing and arguing the defense of someone like this would haunt me to the grave.

Arguing that the jurors shouldn't have been let outside to see the very van that the child roasted in? Inexcusable. Why shouldn't have they? Because they could see the TRUTH then? It's all so beyond me I can't stand it.

It was a crime scene that couldn't be brought into the court room. Plain and simple IMO.
You bring a knife or gun used into a trial, in this case the car WAS the weapon.