The Sidebar - Harris Trial #2

[FinallyRegistered]

I think it's perfectly legitimate to point out that some people don't have experience dealing with the lower echelons of society. I've worked in a prison, I've worked in LE and I'm currently an investigator. I've met people and dealt with personalities that immediately made my hair stand on end, and it turns out for good reason. I absolutely believe that I've got skills that are honed through legitimate, real world experience and not from reading about evil - but seeing it and having that as my daily work environment. Obviously, there's a huge difference.

Even if it was interpreted as being harsh, no one named any names and we didn't have to use a "safe zone".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

I understand what you are saying and we have instincts for a reason.

I think the point was, no one should be bullied for a point of view. My point of view doesn't differ from the 'majority' of the people on here who think he is capable of murder/ or evil. I do, however, think it hasn't been proven. And although that is a 'book-learning' issue because it is logic and not gut, it is the law.

 

[monkeypants]

Very nice summary.

Here's one of my favorite exchanges during Kilgore's Recross:

KILGORE: Well, the fact is you are really upset with Ross because you found out that you weren’t the only woman that he was texting with; isn’t that true?
MEADOWS: It doesn’t change what I’m saying, though.

She had a boyfriend what did she care...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[FinallyRegistered]

She had a boyfriend what did she care...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good question. She might have an attachment disorder of some sort.

 

[monkeypants]

What do you mean by reverse psychology in this instance? That she hoped by constantly warning RH about the dangers of leaving children in cars that RH would leave Cooper in the car?:thinking:

Well, if he did it on purpose she certainly fed him the idea from her fears...if he was truly evil he left him in that car as the ultimate FU to LH . Not that it's true...I'm just saying...he seems to have a fairly dark side ...no telling if he has a dissociative personality disorder which enable him to do this without a conscious engaged or intact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[FinallyRegistered]

I find it odd that Boring pointed to JM being Ross's reason. In Boring's Direct Examination, he had JM read from the texts, but they glossed over one point that Kilgore noted in Cross:

MK: And at then at 12:26, he says, ‘You’re never stuck, honey. You can always leave at any time.’ And at 12:28, how do you respond?
JM: ‘No, I fought so hard for the puppy. If I left, I’m scared he would kill it or something. Please just call soon.’
MK: ‘I will, babe, just let me get back from lunch.’ And at 1:43, you say, ‘okay.’ The next day at 10:15 in the morning, you say, ‘Ross?’
JM: It’s 10:15 at night.
MK: Sorry, at night. And then you say, ‘hey’ and he responds a few minutes later and says, ‘hey, Jaynie.’* You say, ‘hi.’ He says, ‘What’s up, babe?’ If you’ll pick it up there at 10:39 on May the 29th.
JM: ‘I don’t even know why I text you. Never mind.’
MK: And he says, ‘why? I’m right here.’
JM: ‘Because you honestly don’t care anymore. You don’t leave your phone on. You don’t care.’
MK: And he says, ‘I do care. I care a lot. I really care about you but I’m afraid you’re going to leave again or I’m going to f-up you and Austin.’ And this is at 10:41. So at this point in time, you and Austin are still together?
JM: Yes.
MK: And you tell Ross, ‘He officially owes me a grand.’ And Ross says, ‘A grand? Why? Babe?’ And you say, ‘What?’ He says, ‘Why does he owe you a grand?’ - and you make reference to drugs. I assume you meant that your BF was having some problems with drugs?

Ross was concerned about breaking up JM and her boyfriend. It doesn't appear that RH wanted JM and wouldn't kill for her.

 

[monkeypants]

I find it odd that Boring pointed to JM being Ross's reason. In Boring's Direct Examination, he had JM read from the texts, but they glossed over one point that Kilgore noted in Cross:

MK: And at then at 12:26, he says, ‘You’re never stuck, honey. You can always leave at any time.’ And at 12:28, how do you respond?
JM: ‘No, I fought so hard for the puppy. If I left, I’m scared he would kill it or something. Please just call soon.’
MK: ‘I will, babe, just let me get back from lunch.’ And at 1:43, you say, ‘okay.’ The next day at 10:15 in the morning, you say, ‘Ross?’
JM: It’s 10:15 at night.
MK: Sorry, at night. And then you say, ‘hey’ and he responds a few minutes later and says, ‘hey, Jaynie.’* You say, ‘hi.’ He says, ‘What’s up, babe?’ If you’ll pick it up there at 10:39 on May the 29th.
JM: ‘I don’t even know why I text you. Never mind.’
MK: And he says, ‘why? I’m right here.’
JM: ‘Because you honestly don’t care anymore. You don’t leave your phone on. You don’t care.’
MK: And he says, ‘I do care. I care a lot. I really care about you but I’m afraid you’re going to leave again or I’m going to f-up you and Austin.’ And this is at 10:41. So at this point in time, you and Austin are still together?
JM: Yes.
MK: And you tell Ross, ‘He officially owes me a grand.’ And Ross says, ‘A grand? Why? Babe?’ And you say, ‘What?’ He says, ‘Why does he owe you a grand?’ - and you make reference to drugs. I assume you meant that your BF was having some problems with drugs?

Ross was concerned about breaking up JM and her boyfriend. It doesn't appear that RH wanted JM and wouldn't kill for her.

I absolutely think the JM aspect is right church, wrong pew.
It's not JM personally...it's the freedom and ability to have and do all the JM's he can get. He was in a relationship with JM. Maybe not physical, but sure tooting emotional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[LyndyLoo]

Well, if he did it on purpose she certainly fed him the idea from her fears...if he was truly evil he left him in that car as the ultimate FU to LH . Not that it's true...I'm just saying...he seems to have a fairly dark side ...no telling if he has a dissociative personality disorder which enable him to do this without a conscious engaged or intact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is THE reason I originally asked during the trial why didn't the defence demand a psych evaluation? IF indeed he had an underlying disorder..it would at least be a mitigating matter!! But DT instead stuck with the " Forget" theory and meanwhile demonized and painted the prosecution as being biased and malicious.

That maybe the reason I just won't buy the DT at all.. Many def. attny's exploit citizen's for the possibility they are against the Government/Pros. from past experiences. Just maybe they found one in that group sitting on the jury. But the DR. trying to paint false initial arrest..and suggesting biased investigation rings HOLLOW..

Why? because what RH did would automatically demand an in-depth investigation..plus RH's bizarre behaviour within a few hours of Cooper's death..add that to Georgia's laws..and voila..Arrest..initial charges weren't as severe ..but Grand Jury found a reason notion that it's quite possible RH did this on purpose. Not a one here would suggest that Ross's behaviour was normal or even appropriate....

I truly wish Ross had of had a psych evaluation..It sure would give a lot of insight to the man

 

[FinallyRegistered]

I absolutely think the JM aspect is right church, wrong pew.
It's not JM personally...it's the freedom and ability to have and do all the JM's he can get. He was in a relationship with JM. Maybe not physical, but sure tooting emotional.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I do think they may have been strictly friends. Boring tried to push the idea that there was a lot of sexual talk between them, but none of it was read in testimony. And they (both Boring and Kilgore) read months and months of JM/RH's texts into the record, and there is not one word of anything sexual in them (I've spent the last two days typing it out). She seemed like a very different relationship than the others he was sexting with. I agree it was an emotional bond in a way that the other sexting girls were not.

Dare I say that his relationship with JM was almost TA/JA-ish in that RH didn't want to create any waves, but did care about her ... at a safe distance.

 

[Hope4More]

He's not sincere. He's a lying liar who lies! He has a justification or a response or rationalization for everything, all the time.

I've worked in 3 different jails over the past 8 years, along with psych and substance abuse treatment. Ross Harris is just like many, many other inmates out there.

I can tell there are some people on this board who have no actual experience with people like him in real life and they're basing all their arguments on what they know from what I call "book learning" rather than real life experience with people like this. Once you've dealt with 1000 people exactly like him you realize it IS actually possible for people to be that way.

Evil exists.

First, if you get to “know” some of your fellow WS’ers, you’ll learn that many of us are survivors of personal experiences with the darkest, most disturbed people there are to be found, which by the way, is not only in the “lower eschelons.”

Second, having a background or experience in LE and related fields doesn’t always equate with getting it right or doing it right, as the example of Stoddard’s bias illustrates quite beautifully, I think.

I’m sure Stoddard did have a “gut feeling” about RH, and some of his initial suspicions were on target. Our legal system doesn’t permit those with a badge of whatever kind, though, thank God, to act on their personal “gut feelings” outside the bounds of the law. Gathering evidence is required. Diligent, ethical, and unbiased examination of the evidence is required.

The “gut feelings” of LE have been proved wrong innumerable times, sometimes early on, sometimes after the fact, sometimes after the innocent subjects of those gut feelings have been wrongly imprisoned for decades for crimes they did not commit.

Last, everyone here brings something different to the table. Dismissing as “book learning” and inferior every perspective and opinion that isn’t advanced by posters with experience in the criminal justice system (which BTW, is another rather large assumption) IMO kind of misses the point of just about everything WS is supposed to be about, and often is. Jmo.

 

[Rayemonde]

Wow!! Thank you! I went looking for that article but fell down a deep deep rabbit hole, an advocacy page which lists-with links-articles about specific hot car deaths from 2016 on back. Way back.

So the NY hot car death was..a COLD car death? Umm. How was THAT relevant to LE?

Well, what we've got is - when Cooper was 5 months old L sent R a link to a news article about a dad who left a kid in a cold car for 8 hours. The kid was was fine and R never read the email anyway. So it is doubtful that this email had anything at all to do with Cooper's death.

Then just before a month before Cooper died, L sent R a news article about a kid who climbed into a hot car when playing and was dead when he was found an hour later.

At some point R saw a TV ad about kids in hot cars, telling people to "Look Again". (If this is the correct person he mentioned to Stoddard -) It featured a dad who was an advocate, after daycare workers in Georgia left his baby in a hot car for hours. They were charged with murder, amongst other charges. The dad did not leave his own kid in a hot car and then become an advocate. the daycare workers were sentenced to prison the month before Cooper died, and there was a lot of press coverage about this, which R may or may not have seen (maybe L had been following the case and discussed it with R, hence the "We talked about it often" comment? Speculation, but if either L or R had any interest in hot car deaths I'm sure they would have taken notice of this well-publicised trial happening in their own state.

Then 5 days before Cooper died, R clicked on a link featuring a veterinarian warning people that dogs can die in hot cars. He didn't make any comment about his son at the time, and he only watched the video once.

We can't tell if it is significant that L sent R two articles about kids dying in cars (but no articles at all about kids dying in hot cars after being forgotten by their parents - one kid was forgotten in a cold car and was fine, the other kid got into the car himself whilst playing). How many other articles did L sent to R since Cooper was born and what were they about? Maybe she was a paranoid mother who sent him dozens of articles about all kinds of dangers to kids. Or all kinds of news articles about all kinds of things. And maybe he never even opened most of these emails.

 

[monkeypants]

Well, what we've got is - when Cooper was 5 months old L sent R a link to a news article about a dad who left a kid in a cold car for 8 hours. The kid was was fine and R never read the email anyway. So it is doubtful that this email had anything at all to do with Cooper's death.

Then just before a month before Cooper died, L sent R a news article about a kid who climbed into a hot car and was dead when he was found an hour later.

At some point R saw a TV ad about kids in hot cars, telling people to "Look Again". (If this is the correct person he mentioned to Stoddard -) It featured a dad who was an advocate, after daycare workers left his baby in a hot car for hours. They were charged with murder, amongst other charges. The dad did not leave his own kid in a hot car and then become an advocate.

Then 5 days before Cooper died, R clicked on a link featuring a veterinarian warning people that dogs can die in hot cars. He didn't make any comment about his son at the time, and he only watched the video once.

We can't tell if it is significant that L sent R two articles about kids dying in cars (but no articles at all about kids dying in hot cars after being forgotten by their parents - one kid was forgotten in a cold car and was fine, the other kid got into the car himself whilst playing). How many other articles did L sent to R since Cooper was born and what were they about? Maybe she was a paranoid mother who sent him dozens of articles about all kinds of dangers to kids. Or all kinds of news articles about all kinds of things. And maybe he never even opened most of these emails.

Not for anything but he cleared his cache regularly...I don't honestly think we can determine based upon what is incomplete information. It's not there now...was it ever? We will never know. LH was absolutely clear that it was an ongoing conversation between them. RH himself deems himself extraordinarily well versed in the subject, from his own mouth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

Well, what we've got is - when Cooper was 5 months old L sent R a link to a news article about a dad who left a kid in a cold car for 8 hours. The kid was was fine and R never read the email anyway. So it is doubtful that this email had anything at all to do with Cooper's death.

Then just before a month before Cooper died, L sent R a news article about a kid who climbed into a hot car when playing and was dead when he was found an hour later.

At some point R saw a TV ad about kids in hot cars, telling people to "Look Again". (If this is the correct person he mentioned to Stoddard -) It featured a dad who was an advocate, after daycare workers in Georgia left his baby in a hot car for hours. They were charged with murder, amongst other charges. The dad did not leave his own kid in a hot car and then become an advocate. the daycare workers were sentenced to prison the month before Cooper died, and there was a lot of press coverage about this, which R may or may not have seen (maybe L had been following the case and discussed it with R, hence the "We talked about it often" comment? Speculation, but if either L or R had any interest in hot car deaths I'm sure they would have taken notice of this well-publicised trial happening in their own state.

Then 5 days before Cooper died, R clicked on a link featuring a veterinarian warning people that dogs can die in hot cars. He didn't make any comment about his son at the time, and he only watched the video once.

We can't tell if it is significant that L sent R two articles about kids dying in cars (but no articles at all about kids dying in hot cars after being forgotten by their parents - one kid was forgotten in a cold car and was fine, the other kid got into the car himself whilst playing). How many other articles did L sent to R since Cooper was born and what were they about? Maybe she was a paranoid mother who sent him dozens of articles about all kinds of dangers to kids. Or all kinds of news articles about all kinds of things. And maybe he never even opened most of these emails.

Now THAT summary is a thing of beauty.

 

[Rayemonde]

Not for anything but he cleared his cache regularly...I don't honestly think we can determine based upon what is incomplete information. It's not there now...was it ever? We will never know. LH was absolutely clear that it was an ongoing conversation between them. RH himself deems himself extraordinarily well versed in the subject, from his own mouth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But if he was well-versed in the subject, he would know that he faced an in-depth investigation and serious charges, up to and including murder, for accidentally leaving a child in a car. He would have no reason to see it as "the perfect crime", and he would be sure to delete the incriminating sexting with minors stuff off his phone.

 

[monkeypants]

Well, what we've got is - when Cooper was 5 months old L sent R a link to a news article about a dad who left a kid in a cold car for 8 hours. The kid was was fine and R never read the email anyway. So it is doubtful that this email had anything at all to do with Cooper's death.

Then just before a month before Cooper died, L sent R a news article about a kid who climbed into a hot car when playing and was dead when he was found an hour later.

At some point R saw a TV ad about kids in hot cars, telling people to "Look Again". (If this is the correct person he mentioned to Stoddard -) It featured a dad who was an advocate, after daycare workers in Georgia left his baby in a hot car for hours. They were charged with murder, amongst other charges. The dad did not leave his own kid in a hot car and then become an advocate. the daycare workers were sentenced to prison the month before Cooper died, and there was a lot of press coverage about this, which R may or may not have seen (maybe L had been following the case and discussed it with R, hence the "We talked about it often" comment? Speculation, but if either L or R had any interest in hot car deaths I'm sure they would have taken notice of this well-publicised trial happening in their own state.

Then 5 days before Cooper died, R clicked on a link featuring a veterinarian warning people that dogs can die in hot cars. He didn't make any comment about his son at the time, and he only watched the video once.

We can't tell if it is significant that L sent R two articles about kids dying in cars (but no articles at all about kids dying in hot cars after being forgotten by their parents - one kid was forgotten in a cold car and was fine, the other kid got into the car himself whilst playing). How many other articles did L sent to R since Cooper was born and what were they about? Maybe she was a paranoid mother who sent him dozens of articles about all kinds of dangers to kids. Or all kinds of news articles about all kinds of things. And maybe he never even opened most of these emails.

TBH how much "research" does one need to be extremely well versed in a hot car death? Quite honestly all ya need to know is in the title really. You can read one article, be told a story, watch a psa, watch a you tube video and voila...you know all there is to know really.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[FinallyRegistered]

Rayemonde & Hope4More - Since you two are doing the digging on these hot car car deaths, have you seen anything for the period of time that RH was a dispatcher in Tuscaloosa, Alabama?

 

[monkeypants]

But if he was well-versed in the subject, he would know that he faced an in-depth investigation and serious charges, up to and including murder, for accidentally leaving a child in a car. He would have no reason to see it as "the perfect crime", and he would be sure to delete the incriminating sexting with minors stuff off his phone.

I really don't think he thought the "investigation" would entail anything more than checking his criminal record, CPS record and getting all of the people he knew to give their loving wonderful accounts of Saint Ross. He plays guitar in the church for gosh sakes! I truly don't think it entered his mind on any level that face value wasn't all that was going to be necessary. And he had that ace in spades...on the surface who would ever suspect? But he was so cocky he screwed himself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[monkeypants]

But if he was well-versed in the subject, he would know that he faced an in-depth investigation and serious charges, up to and including murder, for accidentally leaving a child in a car. He would have no reason to see it as "the perfect crime", and he would be sure to delete the incriminating sexting with minors stuff off his phone.

Collectors collect...it's a sickness and obsession, they don't delete. Even after looking up the penalty for breaking the law and what federal prison is like.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

Collectors collect...it's a sickness and obsession, they don't delete. Even after looking up the penalty for breaking the law and what federal prison is like.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"Collectors" usually refers to pedophiles and their secret stashes of highly specific *advertiser censored*, kept for their own gratification or to be shared with other pedophiles with similar specific twisted interests.

RH was not a pedophile. He was, however, a man who never cleared his cache (aka "deleted his search history") on the browser he used daily for everything but his web development work. His true "collection" is the mishmosh detritus of what were apparently his thousands of completely random searches.

 

[EquallyDivided]

First, if you get to “know” some of your fellow WS’ers, you’ll learn that many of us are survivors of personal experiences with the darkest, most disturbed people there are to be found, which by the way, is not only in the “lower eschelons.”

Second, having a background or experience in LE and related fields doesn’t always equate with getting it right or doing it right, as the example of Stoddard’s bias illustrates quite beautifully, I think.

I’m sure Stoddard did have a “gut feeling” about RH, and some of his initial suspicions were on target. Our legal system doesn’t permit those with a badge of whatever kind, though, thank God, to act on their personal “gut feelings” outside the bounds of the law. Gathering evidence is required. Diligent, ethical, and unbiased examination of the evidence is required.

The “gut feelings” of LE have been proved wrong innumerable times, sometimes early on, sometimes after the fact, sometimes after the innocent subjects of those gut feelings have been wrongly imprisoned for decades for crimes they did not commit.

Last, everyone here brings something different to the table. Dismissing as “book learning” and inferior every perspective and opinion that isn’t advanced by posters with experience in the criminal justice system (which BTW, is another rather large assumption) IMO kind of misses the point of just about everything WS is supposed to be about, and often is. Jmo.

1. I am the one who spoke about "lower echelons specifically, so don't associate that to the wrong persin.

2. Nobody said A SINGLE WORD about LE using gut feelings to criminalize someine, so I'm not quite sure why there were 2 paragraphs dedicated to it.

3. Just because "book learning" is so obviously a trigger word here, does not make it a wrong assumption. Someone can have a superior viewpoint and express it without being slaughtered.

4. WS is supposed to be about different people bringing in different ideas and opinions. But sadly, there are some posters who respond with dissertations when they disagree with others.

 

[Hope4More]

1. I am the one who spoke about "lower echelons specifically, so don't associate that to the wrong persin.

2. Nobody said A SINGLE WORD about LE using gut feelings to criminalize someine, so I'm not quite sure why there were 2 paragraphs dedicated to it.

3. Just because "book learning" is so obviously a trigger word here, does not make it a wrong assumption. Someone can have a superior viewpoint and express it without being slaughtered.

4. WS is supposed to be about different people bringing in different ideas and opinions. But sadly, there are some posters who respond with dissertations when they disagree with others.

With all due respect, I think your line " someone can have a superior viewpoint without being slaughtered " is exactly the perspective I was responding to in that post.



Succinct enough ?