The Sidebar - Harris Trial #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
hmmmmmm... Only one reason to request to see this, and it was written all over Ross's face. I would say (speculation) some strong personalities are pushing malice in the jury room.
 
So maybe the lightbulbs are a big contention for the jury?
 
I wonder how freaked out Ross is each time the jury requests video reviews?
 
I wonder if they are divided on the malice charge. Would they have to get a consensus either way on that charge, to move on to the others?

They haven't actually deliberated that long. I wonder if they are divided, at all. There sure is a lot of evidence to consider.
 
Hope4More said:
Seizing this opportunity!! What sense do you make of RH looking up name change then, and seeing a directory that includes a divorce checklist? ;). :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the welcome, everyone.

About that, when the subject came up in this thread, I decided to try it myself on the internal portal. Now obviously, the content now is not what it was 2.5 years ago, but searching "name change" returns only HR links for stuff like legally changing your name. "Name change Outlook" displays the exact form you need at the top to make the change as I did. Searching "divorce checklist" returns LOA (leave of absence) links. The only way i could find anything similar to a divorce help guide was to search "divorce separation".
 
[video=twitter;796795421066596352]https://twitter.com/courtchatter/status/796795421066596352[/video]
 
Veronica Waters ‏@MissVWaters 3m3 minutes ago

The #RossHarris video lasted seconds. They only watched one camera angle today, not the other two. 🤔 @wsbradio
 
katydid23 said:
So maybe the lightbulbs are a big contention for the jury?
Click to expand...

Maybe Ross's hesitation with opening car door with others too close to car would be able to see Cooper..as the interior light would automatically come on lighting up the interior?? That could very well be why he hesitated opening the car door..because he KNEW Cooper was in there?? :thinking:
 
[video=twitter;796796958958649345]https://twitter.com/VinniePolitan/status/796796958958649345[/video]
 
Just speculating, but I think rewetting the videos makes it appear there might be some division within the jurors. If they all agreed, upon what happened . they would not need to rematch these clips. I am thinking there are two 'camps' and they have agreed to rewatch certain things to try and come to agreement. jmo

ETA:: why would spellcheck change 'rewatching' to rewetting?
 
katydid23 said:
So maybe the lightbulbs are a big contention for the jury?
Click to expand...

I think that lightbulb trip to the car is what makes me sure this was intentional. It doesn't seem like LH was harping on him to bring home lightbulbs. She didn't text and remind him or ask him if he did it so it isn't like he was so worried he would forget them and have to deal with an angry wife over it that he HAD to put them in the car right away. He managed to bring the rest of his stuff (like his work bag) home daily I assume, so he could have put the bulbs with that and brought it all out at the same time.
 
[video=twitter;796796818034147328]https://twitter.com/RossHarrisTrial/status/796796818034147328[/video]
 
Hope4More said:
I have many not my best ideas. ;)

Now, not being facetious. IMO this discussion about lightbulbs perfectly illustrates the fundamental wisdom of our jury system.

Let's say the jury thinks that tossing in of the lightbulbs is significant enough to discuss as potential evidence of malice. How to assess the significance of just that one act, the tossing of lightbulbs?

Doesn't it depend on just what we're discussing, which is, part of what each juror would bring to the discussion (overtly, or in their own thoughts) is their own notion of whether or not it's normal" to throw lightbulbs into a car?
(WONK ALERT)

The jury system, if jurors are impartial and diligent (and I believe most are), is designed to force a group of strangers to reach a consensus. Jury deliberations are guided by what the law requires, but unavoidably and mercifully can't be divorced from the individual and collective experience brought to bear by the jurors themselves.

Is it significant that RH tossed the lightbulbs? Only if that particular group of jurors, based in part on their own experience of light bulb handling, reach a consensus that it is.
------
Uber wonky, I know, but I always marvel at the process. :)
Click to expand...

I think there will be strong opinions among the jurors. Very strong. But I am hopeful that unlike us, they didn't go into deliberations with their kinds made up. So they are going to maybe view the evidence much differently than ANY of us. I believe that those of us convinced one way or the other simply view the evidence in a way that confirms our biases. Because it is no coincidence that everyone who thinks Ross is innocent would toss light bulbs into a car and everyone who doesn't would not. (P.S., I had to struggle with my bias greatly to realize and admit that I definitely could toss light bulbs into my car. I mean there is a reason I break so much stuff!).

But for me, it;s just the raft of "coincidences" that befell poor Ross that day. There have been too much.
1. He just happened to decide it was imperative to stop at his car to drop off lightbulbs he purchased on the day his son died in the car, instead of taking them to his workspace.
2. He just happened to be the type of personality who thinks lightbulbs are important enough to go out of your way to take to the car during lunch, but not important enough to place them on the backseat or at least not toss them in without looking.
3. He just happened to remember every last detail of his day, but "forgot" that he went back to his car at lunch, when his son lay there dying, and coincidentally omitted that one, horrible fact from his detailed account of the day to investigators.
4. He just happened to not be the type to turn around when backing up between two parked cars.
5. He just happened to take a longer route to the movies that day. One that conveniently had him turning right and "discovering" Cooper in a crowded parking lot.
6. After entering the restaurant wide awake, running around inside it (according to him), being awake enough to kiss Daddy on the cheek and say "school", Cooper just happened to be so exhausted that he instantaneously fell asleep and made zero noise for the next 40 seconds in the car, or any time after.
7. Ross just happened to forget his son after having recently watched a news report about a FBS dad turned advocate recently before Cooper's death, who taught him about the look back campaign.
8. Ross just happened to not "look again" that day, despite saying that's what he does to make sure his worst fear didn't come true.
9. He just happened to watch a hot car video from a vet five days before Cooper died. He just happened to commented that he did not want that to happen to his son, not dog. Yet he just happened to totally forget what he just saw, on the day he drove his son.

I mean I could go on and on. For me, at a certain point, it's too much.
 
katydid23 said:
Just speculating, but I think rewetting the videos makes it appear there might be some division within the jurors. If they all agreed, upon what happened . they would not need to rematch these clips. I am thinking there are two 'camps' and they have agreed to rewatch certain things to try and come to agreement. jmo

ETA:: why would spellcheck change 'rewatching' to rewetting?
Click to expand...
Because you googled glory hole?

Dadgum predictive correct!
 
[video=twitter;796797734162497536]https://twitter.com/NatishaLance/status/796797734162497536[/video]
 
katydid23 said:
Just speculating, but I think rewetting the videos makes it appear there might be some division within the jurors. If they all agreed, upon what happened . they would not need to rematch these clips. I am thinking there are two 'camps' and they have agreed to rewatch certain things to try and come to agreement. jmo

ETA:: why would spellcheck change 'rewatching' to rewetting?
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily. I think watching those videos would be a great starting point to deliberations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 68 more.
Total: 1,468 (members: 69, guests: 1,399)

Online statistics

Members online
69
Guests online
1,399
Total visitors
1,468
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,841
Messages
18,193,365
Members
233,589
Latest member
Checkyourhead
Back
Top