The Sidebar - Harris Trial #2

[yupikgirl]

I actually really agree with on the reason for the search.i watch that show as well and it's a pretty thin excuse IMO.

Everyone is so crazy hung up on whether he researched hot car deaths its insane, I've had to roll and scroll over these posts because they play ZERO part in this trial. He cleared his cache regularly...there is NO way to know what he searched for, when he searched it and how many times if at all!! gotta call out my animated movie quotes and "let it go" peeps. It's a rabbit hole.

All we need to know if his knowledge is WHAT RH HAS TOLD US HE KNOWS. Plain and simple. He told us he knows it exists, he told us he watched a video, a psa and LH tells us there was a long standing conversation between them, we know he was at some point doing a second look as we told us this, he told us he knew he should have put his brief case back there. WE KNOW BECAUSE HE SPOKE THE WORDS! <modsnip>


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly. In his interview he talks about it. He references "look again". He talks about being an advocate. What he searched for and what he read about doesn't matter. He knew and didn't do anything THAT DAY to prevent it.

In the beginning I actually felt that it was an accident. Even after he sexting etc. didn't change my mind. It wasn't until later that I changed my mind. I do believe this can be an accident. I also believe accident or not the parent should be charged with something. I also feel that in accidents the parent likely feels there is no punishment worse than what already happened. I see where the jury will struggle with this. Especially if they feel he's guilty. It's horrible.


EDIT- oops sorry didn't read your whole post thoroughly LOL didn't mean to repeat what you said

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[monkeypants]

The reason why LE found the "child-free," and "what's life in prison like" searches, " and his vet video viewing , is because he didn't in fact clear the cache on his Mozilla browser.

You're right that it can't be known, definitively, that he never searched FBS cases on any device, ever. What we do know is that RH didn't try to delete those other "incriminating" search records, and that the State conceded there was no evidence RH conducted searches on hot car deaths or FBS or child negligence/ cruelty statutes, or malicious intent.

I'm comfortable concluding, as a trial watcher, that it is highly unlikely he did those searches, on any device. If a juror, having to rely on evidence alone,there is no basis for asserting that he did.

So what he cleared it on his other devices, are you saying he would only do research on that one browser? Because he told you that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[yupikgirl]

Link please

Yes would love to see this. If the link was posted I missed it...I'll look and bring one over if I find it. I like to see what the talking heads are saying as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[yupikgirl]

So what he cleared it on his other devices, are you saying he would only do research on that one browser? Because he told you that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Pretty sure his entire history except that day was gone from his phone.

I don't want to keep repeating that though so I'll double check. But he obviously used his phone all the time LOL. You can recover deleted history from iPhones. But just like computers stuff gets written over so you can't get it all.


And not to say it again but not finding evidence of it doesn't really matter- he showed in his own words he knew a lot about it. He got it from somewhere.

Prosecutor even talked about the word "research" in his closing. However Ross came to know what he did about hot car deaths- it can be called research. He somehow gathered the information from somewhere to repeat it to the detective.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[monkeypants]

Pretty sure his entire history except that day was gone from his phone.

I don't want to keep repeating that though so I'll double check. But he obviously used his phone all the time LOL. You can recover deleted history from iPhones. But just like computers stuff gets written over so you can't get it all.


And not to say it again but not finding evidence of it doesn't really matter- he showed in his own words he knew a lot about it. He got it from somewhere.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn't matter if he never ever searched for anything other than we already know he did. He told us what he knows from his own freaking mouth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[monkeypants]

If I stab someone directly thru the heart by what I call an accident (maybe I tripped while holding a knife) are you going to defend me by saying I never did any searches on how to stab someone thru the heart? Or are you going to believe me when I say I've watched a video showing what happens if someone gets stabbed in the heart, if I saw a psa saying no one should ever get stabbed and if my husband and I spoke frequently over a period of years about how dangerous it is to get stabbed in the heart and how afraid my husband is of it and I say I've never done anything like that before. I know how dangerous it is to walk around with a knife etc...

Now add in evidence gleamed from my devices that show I was really wanting a different life but I was stuck in the one I had, then it just happens the person I tripped and stabbed was in fact the one person that held the key to my freedom and a different life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[yupikgirl]

It doesn't matter if he never ever searched for anything other than we already know he did. He told us what he knows from his own freaking mouth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes I agree. If I'm a juror I'm going on his words in the interview. His actions that day. Then I'm going to listen to his attorneys explanation since he won't tell us and decide. I'm not going to get hung up on research. Because intent can be formed in an instant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tlcya]

Circular debate gets everyone nowhere but irritated.

Post your opinion and why and then scroll and roll if you must. Agree to disagree about various points on the case if you must.

Tonight is the premier of the Docu Series The Killing Season. What that means for this thread is that if things turn contentious and members start bickering it may be closed for review until mods and admin have time to address the issue after the premier. They may not have time to do so until tomorrow.

I know nobody wants to see the thread temporarily closed for review.

 

[monkeypants]

Yes I agree. If I'm a juror I'm going on his words in the interview. His actions that day. Then I'm going to listen to his attorneys explanation since he won't tell us and decide. I'm not going to get hung up on research. Because intent can be formed in an instant.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gregjrichards]

This is an interesting article it's lawyers and trial experts assessing the case and each of them give their opinions on what the verdict will be for each count. Apologies if already posted.

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/r...s-weigh-in-on-the-ross-harris-trial/350707305

 

[Hope4More]

So what he cleared it on his other devices, are you saying he would only do research on that one browser? Because he told you that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

LOL. And you believe him that hot car deaths were his greatest fear, etc. ...(wait for it) because he told LE that?

No cookies for me, I'm afraid. But, over here, we do occasionally serve up slivers of cake. Feel free to stop by.

 

[PaperDoll]

LOL. And you believe him that hot car deaths were his greatest fear, etc. ...(wait for it) because he told LE that?

No cookies for me, I'm afraid. But, over here, we do occasionally serve up slivers of cake. Feel free to stop by.

I'm going to take a piece of that cake, then run back to my side and eat it.. YUMMY! :happydance:

 

[arkansasmimi]

Tensing trial Mistrial

 

[minor4th]

Tensing trial Mistrial

Knew it. You think they'll retry him?

 

[Hope4More]

I'm doing a point by point comparison between what RH told Stoddard about the day/Cooper, and what he told Leanna.

Since the jury wanted to see transcripts rather than videos of both RH- Stoddard and RH-LH, I'm guessing they are interested in the same comparison.


One potentially very key point leapt out immediately. About that sausage biscuit. The significance is not about differing accounts; they didn't differ so very. But, it's RH's embellishments to LH of what he'd just told LE about the biscuit that might be problematic for the jury.

To LE- Cooper had a sausage biscuit, same as he always did.

To Leanna- a black guy was sitting in another booth, and there was Cooper, gobbling down his sausage biscuit, looking over at him, because Cooper likes strangers, which is scary, but......(paraphrased).

Leanna responds (paraphrased) : "so his belly was full, no wonder he fell right to sleep."

Oops. No, Cooper's belly really wasn't full. The ME report states that the contents of his stomach "included " potatoes, no mention of sausage, but no exclusion of the possibility he ate it either.

The problem is the ME found only a total content of 2 CC's of total content in Cooper's belly. Minuscule.


RH told both LE and Leanna that Cooper must have fallen asleep . Leanna heard that, then a bit later heard what RH told her about Cooper having a big breakfast.

She's the one who immediately connected a full belly with Cooper falling asleep (it wasn't), and just as interesting, she didn't connect Cooper falling asleep with his (supposedly )not getting enough sleep the prior 2 nights.

Wonder if the jury put those things together? And what their takeaway was if they did.

 

[monkeypants]

LOL. And you believe him that hot car deaths were his greatest fear, etc. ...(wait for it) because he told LE that?

No cookies for me, I'm afraid. But, over here, we do occasionally serve up slivers of cake. Feel free to stop by.

Nope I don't think it was his greatest fear because he never said that. But I do believe he knew all he needed to know to either prevent a hot car death (he has a very heightened sense of their existence) or create a false one. And I know that because he told us all the information needed to make that assumption, no assembly required.

ETA I'd love to have any dessert with you over tea, as long as we don't discuss the trial together lol....

Psssst the cookies are pretty darn good Tho

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

I'm going to take a piece of that cake, then run back to my side and eat it.. YUMMY! :happydance:

Once upon a time, on a Christmas Eve during WW1, French and German soldiers who had been fighting each other to the brutal death, with mustard gas and guns and bayonettes , on a hellish battleground of muddy then freezing trenches, put down their weapons and sang Christmas carols together.

First just a few French soldiers sang, then, a few German soldiers across the way joined in, then, from hundreds of those freezing trench holes on both ends of the battlefield, separated by a No Go zone of tangled barbed wire, came the joined voices of enemies who put down their battle for just that one night, for whatever reasons they had, for whatever common cause they found , immediately, given the opportunity.

Truces are lovely, eh? On any battlefield.

Like, sharing cake because folks can agree cake tastes good, doesn't matter if each and everyone eating it thinks they could improve upon the recipe.

:cake4u::cake4u:

 

[vulture]

When you look at it that way, it sounds like they rehearsed their stories ahead of time and I'd been really doubting that Leanna had anything to do with it after all when I thought she had for many months.

 

[Hope4More]

This is an interesting article it's lawyers and trial experts assessing the case and each of them give their opinions on what the verdict will be for each count. Apologies if already posted.

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/r...s-weigh-in-on-the-ross-harris-trial/350707305

So not one of those 6 or so trial experts and attorneys believes the State met it's burden of proof on malice murder, and at least several seem to suggest that the State hadn't even made a strong case for criminal negligence. Interesting.

 

[katydid23]

Ross didn't do that research, so not sure what knowledge he had of what happened to the parents responsible for the deaths of their children in hot cars.


One key context to note about how past cases were handled is the huge difference between states in related law.

Three examples: Georgia (can be charged with felony murder, even without intent); Florida ("mandatory" felony charge of aggravated manslaughter [up to 30 years in prison], even without intent; New York (charges can be as minor as a misdemeanor charge of simple negligence).


RH knew he'd be investigated (the "stick" in Deal's look twice campaign). What he couldn't have anticipated (intent or not) is that he'd be charged the same day, that LE would obtain search warrants for his phone and computers that same day, and that he wouldn't be granted bail.

All of that is what makes how LE handled his case highly unusual, in any state. Every state investigates these deaths, but those investigations can go for days, even months, before a parent is formally charged, much less kept in jail (exception Florida on the initial charge, but parents are typically granted bail and released).

We don't really know if he did that research or not. He cleared his history frequently.

But it wouldn't take any real research to know that parents who accidentally forget their kids, when on the way to work, and not drunk or high, are rarely jailed or punished. In the past they were never even charged. More recently some have been charged. But I only found one case where a parent was actually found guilty. And she was not given any jail time.