Small Details that are interesting in the Cooper Harris case, #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
cady said:
I think that cemetery maintenance doesn't include cleaning up stuffed toys that get weathered and rained on and scattered. I do NOT want to offend anyone, because I understand even the public grief, but personally I think that that stuff has no place in a cemetery. Usually, flowers should be in flower stands, so that they can be removed when the die and mowing is not obstructed. It makes sense to me and I'd guess that there are rules for that cemetery.... let the tomato pitching begin....JMO JMO
Click to expand...

My aunt and I were talking recently about my grandpa's gravesite -- you can't leave anything because the mower rides his tractor -- but she was talking about all the dandelions and other weeds growing and we just laughed because he HATED dandelions -- I remember MANY summers as a child earning spending money helping him PULL acres & acres of dandelions -- my aunt was talking about how she just planned a peaceful visit to "talk" to him but went back to her vehicle to get a long screwdriver so she could pull the dandelions... I told her if he could see her he was probably thinking, "Aw, hell, just leave 'em... but thank you, sweetheart."
 
Re Evie Ivy Over comment/question re how much RH's sexting affected LE's arrest of him.

gwenabob said:
How about we replace "sexting" with something else.

What if he forgot his son in the car all day because he was preoccupied with drinking? Using drugs? Hanging out in a bar? In a house having sex. Or even went inside to sleep. Nothing immoral about sleeping. Playing video games. Chopping wood. Cleaning house. Gardening in the back yard. On and on and on. It doesn't really matter what RH was doing all day that had him preoccupied. The fact is that little boy should have been his number one priority. And in 30 seconds, he became his last priority.
Click to expand...
. BBM

On reading first day's MSM stories, I kept wondering -- what the heck was he going at work that day.
Was there something like, launching a big new HD website, or his involvement w huge new IT program, like payroll revamp, or HD buyout of another co or merger, or something putting HUUUUUGE pressure on him for weeks or months, something groundbreaking for him personally or HD in general?
Or something non-work related, like a big church event, or club perf. w his guitar, or his presentation to potential investors for his web dev biz ?
Or something personal/family related - a relative's mortal injury or death, etc.

W other child deaths in hot cars, seems there was a biiiiiig deviation from routine, or overwhelming pressure about something legit.

But this, sexting? Going to lunch w co-workers (imo, likely to have bn a ruse). w their 'web dev biz'? More sexting.

And I think, Gwenabob's point is on target. Does it matter what preoccupied him that day? What if he had been a day-long meeting w.
Pres Obama, Pope Frances, Pres. Putin, members of the G-8, Mick Jagger, Stephen Hawking, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates?
What if they as a group could have brought about world peace, eliminated hunger, eradicated contagious diseases, cured cancer, etc. - in one day?

If a meeting like that preoccupied him that day and they accomplished the above,
maybe some ppl would give RH a get-out-of-jail card. Maybe some sleuthers here would still convict.
Me? IDK.
 
matou said:
Apparently, during that conversation Ross said to her "I dreaded how he would look." And she says at some point "Did you say too much?" Both those statements are bizarro.
Click to expand...

I originally thought the statement "I dreaded how he would look" was really incriminating, but I have changed my mind. When one of my kids falls and hits her head/face, I have a few seconds of terror between the fall, and when I am able to look at her face with the hair out of the way. I always imagine a broken tooth or cut to the eye. Something horrific, and it scares the crap out of me.

If I were driving, and just realized I left my kid in the car for 7.5 hours, I would be filled with dread between the time I saw the top of his head, and the time I pulled over and got to my child.
 
blue22 said:
Actually, he said nothing about a specific amount of time in the hearing.

STODDARD: When he reaches in, he comes up, he opens up the door. And as he's reaching in, turns his head a little bit. He's in there, he has a clear view, and he kind of turns his head and then just tosses the light bulbs into the car.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: After he does that, does he hang out at the car very long or anything of that nature?

STODDARD: No.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: What does he do?

STODDARD: He shuts the door, turns around and immediately starts walking into the Home Depot.
Click to expand...

The AJC article talked about a discrepancy in how long RH sat in his car when he got to work not how long he spent at the car during the lunch break light bulb drop off. BBM

Stoddard, prompted by prosecutor Chuck Boring, said or strongly insinuated that Harris:

Sat in his Hyundai Tucson for 30 seconds after parking it that morning, with his son just inches away, before heading into work;
Returned to the parked SUV after lunch on the pretext of putting a package inside and had a “clear view” of the interior;
Paused during his walk back to the office, apparently worried that a man who passed him in the parking lot would see his son inside the vehicle.

Later, in his closing arguments, Boring highlighted how long it supposedly took Harris to get out of the car that morning. “That morning, he waits 30 seconds in that car … 30 seconds with that child right beside him,” he said.

But the video shows that Harris was in the car for less than 15 seconds, during which he put the vehicle in park, turned off the engine and then gathered his smart phone, computer bag and drink before sliding out of the driver’s seat.
Click to expand...

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/loca...nbox_apr2013_ajcstub1#63de08bc.3823475.735434
 
gwenabob said:
How about we replace "sexting" with something else.

What if he forgot his son in the car all day because he was preoccupied with drinking? Using drugs? Hanging out in a bar? In a house having sex. Or even went inside to sleep. Nothing immoral about sleeping. Playing video games. Chopping wood. Cleaning house. Gardening in the back yard. On and on and on. It doesn't really matter what RH was doing all day that had him preoccupied. The fact is that little boy should have been his number one priority. And in 30 seconds, he became his last priority.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking possibly the thought process was somehow interrupted when leaving CFA... I don't think whatever RH did the rest of the day caused him to continue to forget...I think it's a more complex issue that involves the brain's cognitive processes--momentary distractions and how they're processed. There's been a lot of research on this phenomenon as it relates to cell phone use while driving--I read about a woman driving while talking on a cell phone who went through a red light that she was looking right at--but did not "see".

So far, I don't think this happened because RH put the baby as his last priority--I think that driving should have been his first priority at the time he left CFA, but I'm guessing it wasn't and that's what led to the final outcome of his actions that day. But, lack of information makes this nothing more than a theory that I have chosen to ride with.
 
Evie Ivy Over said:
Thanks for the feedback, tlcya...

I have a LOT of issues with people who have allowed their cell phones to become part of their being, and I also have a problem with RH for that. If you look around, a lot of children's lives are being ruined--they're not dead but they're neglected, abandoned, get in the way, etc., etc.--by parents who would rather do whatever they do on the phone than pay attention to their kids. Unless there is another angle introduced into evidence in the future, I believe the distraction of the phone did cause this to happen--in this case, it was sexting, but it could have been anything else that was the subject of distraction. Would it have been any less of a "crime" if it was something else being discussed on the calls/texts? I think that in the court of public opinion, yes...it would be less of a "crime". For me, I believe RH will suffer forever on his own--and because of the sexting, it will probably be more intense than otherwise.
Click to expand...

Once again I do not have the reference, but there was no phone texts going on in the car on his way to work when he left CH in the car.
 
lndigo said:
I originally thought the statement "I dreaded how he would look" was really incriminating, but I have changed my mind. When one of my kids falls and hits her head/face, I have a few seconds of terror between the fall, and when I am able to look at her face with the hair out of the way. I always imagine a broken tooth or cut to the eye. Something horrific, and it scares the crap out of me.

If I were driving, and just realized I left my kid in the car for 7.5 hours, I would be filled with dread between the time I saw the top of his head, and the time I pulled over and got to my child.
Click to expand...

Yes, that 3 seconds or so of time it took for him to get out of his car and take Cooper out would be the only time he should have dreaded how his child would look. I usually associate the word 'dread' with fearful anticipation which directly relates to a time factor, time leading up to a dreadful event. JMO
 
DeDee said:
LE may have felt badly about Cooper being placed, while in rigor, onto the hot pavement while the boy's killer stepped away from his child to walk around to the other side of his vehicle. Ross even goes as far as plucking leaves from a nearby tree while exclaiming: "What have I done?"

I have no idea what behavior LE would expect of the parent who had just discovered a gruesome truth: That his own negligence caused his little boy to suffer and die in a hot car. I know what I would personally expect to see:

A father sitting under the tree in the shade, gently rocking back and forth, with his baby boy cradled in his arms, while crying from agony, and expressing deep sorrow and begging for the child's [and his wife's] forgiveness. I did not expect a dad to be on the phone for six minutes while a stranger performed CPR for his baby boy and then proceed to curse the policemen who were there in response to the 911 emergency call for his only child.

A fascinating point for me is that the chances were 50/50 Ross would be caught not really forgetting his son in the hot car. Why was the risk worth it for him? If this guy researched life behind bars, then he had to suspect he may be arrested for the crime. Why was it worth it?

Does this creep risk everything to avoid child support payments? If LH is involved, why do they risk losing not only their only child but their freedom? Only parents who do not really feel love for their child could do this kind of crazy.


moo and all that jazz
Click to expand...


Who knows why people do the things they do. Some crimes are just so stupid when you think of the other options the perp had.

I still have not embraced the idea that this was a planned crime. I know that the legal definition of premeditation can be down to a matter of seconds where a person could choose to either go through with or avoid committing the crime. But long-term planning to kill this child, I am not seeing that. First of all, there was too much chance he would lose his freedom when all was said and done. Even harder for me to believe is pre-planning by both parents...for the same reason. So far for me the evidence points to negligence, and the degree of negligence involved makes it a crime. I am actually going to give RH the benefit of the doubt in one area for now: looking up how to survive in prison. If he did that, it may have been because of his actions involving a minor sex partner, cyber or otherwise.

But again, who knows why people do the things they do. What bothers me most is that the baby suffered so. If all he/they wanted to do was get rid of the child why do it in such a gruesome manner? For that reason alone I am having trouble with the pre-planned idea.
 
human said:
Once again I do not have the reference, but there was no phone texts going on in the car on his way to work when he left CH in the car.
Click to expand...

That was what RH said...Stoddard testified that he didn't know the start time of the texts.
 
New1 said:
Somewhere on one of these threads, I posted that I was beginning to doubt some of Det. Stoddard's testimony. I posted it about a week ago, and I got somewhat slammed for saying that. I said I wanted to see those videos for myself, and some posters were adamantly opposed to thinking that Det. Stoddard might not be telling the truth. Well, well, well....seems he was not. This latest news makes me doubt a whole lot more of what he testified to. I still want to see that video where LH was said to have asked RH, "Did you say too much?" before I would swear on the Bible that's what she said. MOO
Click to expand...

Well, well, well.. we're talking about an article that is showcasing brother of defendant... LE he is, but detective he is not (and he simply can't be fully objective in this case) ... we're counting/estimating seconds here (the main sticking point) when RH was in the car that morning and we're looking at body language (lunchtime/RH walking in building as person walks past car) -- SUBJECTIVE.

Everything else? Stoddard provided all evidence available to him at the time, as they were "just scratching the surface" and the evidence at the time told him that RH did NOT have an "accident" and that he WAS a flight risk -- that's what he was there to testify to.... again, wasn't a trial. Keep in mind that the PCH took place 2-3 weeks after CH's death -- not much time for LE/prosecution to gather & review & critically assess ALL the evidence present to put forth a case. He was testifying to a TON of evidence to the best of his recollection... imo.

The jury can decide.
 
blue22 said:
Actually, he said nothing about a specific amount of time in the hearing.

STODDARD: When he reaches in, he comes up, he opens up the door. And as he's reaching in, turns his head a little bit. He's in there, he has a clear view, and he kind of turns his head and then just tosses the light bulbs into the car.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: After he does that, does he hang out at the car very long or anything of that nature?

STODDARD: No.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: What does he do?

STODDARD: He shuts the door, turns around and immediately starts walking into the Home Depot.
Click to expand...

This apparently is referencing the time it took him to drop the package of light bulbs in his car after lunch.

Here's the bit from the transcript about the 'sitting for 30 seconds' after parking at work that morning:
UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: And after he got his laptop bag, did the defendant immediately get out of the car?

STODDARD: He did not.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: So after he parks, how long does the defendant sit in his car before he actually exits to go in the building?

STODDARD: It's around 30 seconds from the time he parks the vehicle to the time he gets out and shuts the door.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: So he's sitting in there 30 seconds?

STODDARD: Yes, sir.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1407/03/wolf.02.html
Click to expand...
 
PoirotryInMotion said:
This apparently is referencing the time it took him to drop the package of light bulbs in his car after lunch.

Here's the bit from the transcript about the 'sitting for 30 seconds' after parking at work that morning:
Click to expand...

Thank you!! I am having the hardest time scrolling right now to read through the whole dang transcript.

I think they are grasping at straws here. Being asked and responding to about how long of a time perios, is quite different then saying it was exactly 30 seconds. No one ever said that.
 
blue22 said:
In the actual hearing transcript, I can't find anywhere that Stoddard himself says it was 30 seconds.
Click to expand...
I believe you. The quote you used was about the lights bulbs being dropped off and not about RH arriving at work in the morning. That's all I was pointing out.
 
blue22 said:
Actually, he said nothing about a specific amount of time in the hearing.

STODDARD: When he reaches in, he comes up, he opens up the door. And as he's reaching in, turns his head a little bit. He's in there, he has a clear view, and he kind of turns his head and then just tosses the light bulbs into the car.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: After he does that, does he hang out at the car very long or anything of that nature?

STODDARD: No.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: What does he do?

STODDARD: He shuts the door, turns around and immediately starts walking into the Home Depot.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but... was PaperDoll talking about the morning when RH arrived at work? That's what I thought, not the lunch hour/light bulbs thing... ??
 
RANCH said:
I believe you. The quote you used was about the lights bulbs being dropped off and not about RH arriving at work in the morning. That's all I was pointing out.
Click to expand...

I was actually not meaning to respond to your post. Someone above posted the part I was looking for.
 
blue22 said:
I was actually not meaning to respond to your post. Someone above posted the part I was looking for.
Click to expand...
It's all good. Stoddard did say "about 30 seconds" and the AJC say's it's less than 15 seconds. We'll find out who is right at a later time.

The 15 second or so difference may not mean a whole lot at trial. MOO.
 
SStarr33 said:
LOL, you want MSM, I'll give you MSM. One brand spanking new link and one oldie but goodie. If you want more, just go to www.google.com and type the word testilying. [modsnip]:)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/.../how-do-we-fix-the-police-testilying-problem/

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/07/n...ring-an-old-police-practice-new-scrutiny.html

[modsnip]
Click to expand...

I asked for MSM link with statistics that this happens "all the time" which was posted earlier. I believe in the USA justice system. I do not believe LE lies under oath on a witness stand in court on a routine basis or "all the time" as posted earlier. Even one wrongly convicted person is too many. I do not believe that this happens "all the time" as posted earlier. This is my last statement on this subject. This is supposed to be a forum for discussions, not arguments. Everyone has a right to have his/her own opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 3,744 (members: 194, guests: 3,550)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
3,550
Total visitors
3,744
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,133
Messages
18,168,101
Members
231,988
Latest member
GreenJenny
Back
Top