The Sidebar - Harris Trial

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I was a juror, one of the key questions up for deliberation would be if Ross could see or hear Cooper on the way from CFA to HD. If they believe he could, there is no possible "forgetting". If he couldn't, then it's all up for debate. I wonder if that's what wanting the doll is about.

Oh, there's plenty of room for debate about whether "could see" means "must have seen." ;)
 
I largely agree with your post. However, the DT did not lay out FBS as an explanation. They made a weak reference to false memories.

Yeah - forgetting is forgetting, and that is how the defense approached if. There's no need to call it "FBS" - they just need an explanation that it happens and why and how it happens and why people are not triggered by cues throughout the day. I think the defense presented that well enough.
 
Absolutely, but Dr. Brewer did not suggest that this was FBS. He made a brief mention of false memories.

Actually, he laid out all the components of FBS and explained how such "forgetting" was scientifically possible. False memory was only one point of his overall explanation.

He also did try to match up RH with the components-- including fatigue and stress.
 
Yeah - forgetting is forgetting, and that is how the defense approached if. There's no need to call it "FBS" - they just need an explanation that it happens and why and how it happens and why people are not triggered by cues throughout the day. I think the defense presented that well enough.

But that is a weaker defense for Ross---just plain ol forgetting. Because he should have been cued by thoughts of Cooper by seeing hi picture etc, if he just plain old forgot about him. He needs to make a case for false memory to explain why the memory cues did not work. Like when LH asks him 'if he made it to work on time.' That means did you drop our son off ok, etc. He is only protected from charges if he had a 'false memory' of doing so. If he just plain old forgot to---seems like wanton negligence, imo.
 

Great definition. I'm not sure why the judge couldn't give them something like that.

There's an ex forewoman on this jury, I wonder if she's an alternate. Wanton's a pretty basic word, I'm puzzled why they'd focus on that in particular.

Also wondering what part of the RH/Stoddard interview they're discussing since they requested the transcript. They obviously don't want to watch the whole thing again.

Frankly, I'm an attorney but at one point I looked up the word. I've had an understanding of the term but wanted to make sure I understood. These are serious charges. The possible ways to get to those charges should be totally understood. "Wanton" to me is an old-fashioned word that's rarely used.

Wanting to see the doll makes me think they aren't in agreement that it wasn't an accident so they want to determine if it's possible he wasn't visible from the back. Seeing him at lunch would also help determine if it was an accident I guess.

To me it would be a starting point. It seems like a logical request. They want to see if the doll has the same measurements as Cooper's body so they will be able to tell if the LE measurements were accurate. Sounds thorough to me and something good to do before coming to any conclusions.
 
I missed the questions.

So they still want the transcript of that interview. Did she make it clear they won't get them?

When they originally saw the video, the State had transcripts printed but there was a lot of inaudible references I remember the Defense asking about that. It was said that they were for visual aids only and not evidence
 
But that is a weaker defense for Ross---just plain ol forgetting. Because he should have been cued by thoughts of Cooper by seeing hi picture etc, if he just plain old forgot about him. He needs to make a case for false memory to explain why the memory cues did not work. Like when LH asks him 'if he made it to work on time.' That means did you drop our son off ok, etc. He is only protected from charges if he had a 'false memory' of doing so. If he just plain old forgot to---seems like wanton negligence, imo.

I was just getting ready to respond in this manner, but you said it much more eloquently. Thank you!
 
Great definition. I'm not sure why the judge couldn't give them something like that.



Frankly, I'm an attorney but at one point I looked up the word. I've had an understanding of the term but wanted to make sure I understood. These are serious charges. The possible ways to get to those charges should be totally understood. "Wanton" to me is an old-fashioned word that's rarely used.



To me it would be a starting point. It seems like a logical request. They want to see if the doll has the same measurements as Cooper's body so they will be able to tell if the LE measurements were accurate. Sounds thorough to me and something good to do before coming to any conclusions.

Honestly, "wanton" should not even be in jury instructions or the law because it is not a word people use.

But the judge can't give them a definition because there is no precise "legal" definition So it's supposed to have its plain meaning that people give it.
 
Ross' laughter yesterday and today and his fist bumping remind me of the type of criminal who wants to feel part of the team. He longs to belong and be part of an authority group but can't quite cut the muster. This is the type of person who is often narcissistic - feels they're superior and deserve accolades but has a deep, underlying insecurity that they're not. And is typically mediocre in intelligence and ability yet is never getting the respect and positions they feel they are owed.
He may actually be enjoying some of this. Feeling important. And feeling that he's one of the guys.

I have had some weird clients. I instruct them sternly to never giggle, laugh or act casually in court. (All my trials are bench trials except one incredible jury trial, but either way...). Court is a serious process and I want to make sure that they are observed always taking it seriously. They can smile after orders are issued.
 
But that is a weaker defense for Ross---just plain ol forgetting. Because he should have been cued by thoughts of Cooper by seeing hi picture etc, if he just plain old forgot about him. He needs to make a case for false memory to explain why the memory cues did not work. Like when LH asks him 'if he made it to work on time.' That means did you drop our son off ok, etc. He is only protected from charges if he had a 'false memory' of doing so. If he just plain old forgot to---seems like wanton negligence, imo.

I think the jury got an explanation about the forgetting and the science behind it as well as an explanation that in these situations the person believed they have taken the kid to day care so the cues don't work all the time.

But I think what the jury has to decide is not that complicated.

Either the State proved it was deliberate murder or they didn't. If they did, then guilty of malice murder.

If they didn't, then JRH forgot Cooper in the car. If he forgot Cooper in the car in the first instance, was it an simple accident or was there criminally negligent behavior that caused this result? Accident --> not guilty; criminally negligent --> guilty of 2nd degree CC, felony murder.
 
Yeah - forgetting is forgetting, and that is how the defense approached if. There's no need to call it "FBS" - they just need an explanation that it happens and why and how it happens and why people are not triggered by cues throughout the day. I think the defense presented that well enough.

I agree, but only up to the point about cues. Brewer did a fine job explaining the difference in kinds of cues, direct (call from daycare) and indirect (coffee cup, photos of Cooper) , and how it is that indirect cues would not necessarily trigger recall.

But....IMO, the State's cross was especially effective on this point. That while each indirect cue might have been insufficient to prompt RH to recall, each cue did make it more likely that RH would remember. There were a lot of cues, as the State made clear, yet RH did not remember.

There is where Diamond's testimony might have made a significant difference. I've read up on some of his cases in which he lists a similarly long set of missed cues, of the same kind or even more direct. But....this jury didn't get that info/perspective.
 
Here's (my) transcript: :p

Video shows Ross Harris waiting in the interview room at Cobb police headquarters. He is visibly upset and begins crying. "Oh God!" he is heard saying.

Harris is seen and heard breathing heavy, sobbing with his head down in the video. In the courtroom, Harris closes his eyes while watching video of himself.

The video shows Harris standing in the interview room alone, leaning against a wall, still breathing very heavily and visibly shaken. He sits back down, then stands up again.

Harris is seen pacing around the room in the video. He crosses and uncrosses his arms across his chest. In the courtroom, Harris watches the video with his face resting on his palm.

Harris%20interrogation%20room%201.jpg


Harris is offered a snack and more water, but declines. A detective enters the room and searches Harris.

Harris tells detectives he has a degree from the University of Alabama, is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and has no medical conditions.

Harris agrees that he understands his Miranda rights and he signs them.

Harris describes the morning of June 18, 2014 and how he and Cooper had breakfast at Chick-fil-A. Then, Harris says he put his son in his car seat. "I strapped him in, I tightened him up, I gave him a kiss, he gave me a kiss."

Harris says he left lunch with some work friends. They had planned to see a movie that afternoon.

CvT0nwYWAAA3TGx.jpg


While driving down Akers Mill Road, Harris says he got a glimpse of Cooper in his rearview mirror. "Then I lost it," Harris told the detective.

Cooper's eyes were open half-way, he wasn't breathing and he didn't have a pulse, Harris says. "I knew he was gone," Harris says.

Harris says he tried to call the daycare to tell them to have his wife stay there. Harris said others were calling 911. He tried to call his wife, but hung up when an officer arrived.

Harris says most of the time, he took Cooper to daycare. But there isn't a routine because his wife sometimes took him.

Harris says he wasn't on the phone when he left Chick-fil-A. "I was[n't] doing anything. I just left," he says.

Harris says he parked in an outdoor lot outside his office. "I actually parked under a tree," Harris says.

"When can I talk to my wife?" Harris asks. "Do you know where she is?" The detective tells Harris officers are planning to speak with her at the family's home.

Harris says he's been married eight years and that the two have a good relationship.

Harris says Cooper was riding in a rear-facing car seat because the forward-facing car seat was in his wife's car.

Harris is seen again pacing the room while waiting for detectives to return to the interview room.

CvT9AxIWAAAl6YN.jpg%20large.jpg


Detectives return to the interview room to continue asking Harris questions. Harris describes how he would drop off Cooper at his daycare.

Harris says Cooper woke up at 5:15 that morning, but when the boy fell back asleep, Harris put him back in his room. Harris said the two were running late, so he decided to go to Chick-fil-A.

Harris says Cooper began attending the Little Apron daycare at Home Depot when he was 6 weeks old.

Harris says it was the first time he had ever forgotten Cooper in the car.

Says money is fine between the couple. They have student loans and small credit card balance. He says the family was planning to take a cruise.

Harris says Cooper was smart, happy and loved to play. The boy also learned the Disney movie "Cars."

Harris says sometimes, he's gone to Chick-fil-A by himself and then gone straight to work. He says he mi[ght] may have been thinking it was one of those days. Harris says one of his biggest fears was leaving his son in a hot car.

Cooper was small for his age, weighing between 20 to 22 pounds, and he fit fine in a rear-facing car seat, Harris says.

The detective tells Harris he's going to be held in a cell and charged. "It was completely unintentional," Harris says. "I'm a great father, and I have multiple people that would back that up."

Harris says he'd rather not talk any more and is seen leaving the interview room.

After Leanna Harris was interviewed, she is allowed to speak with her husband.

CvULiRlWcAAKd30.jpg%20large.jpg


"I do not hate you," Leanna says. "I love you."

Harris says his life is over.

"I can't believe I did this!" Harris says. "Why me?"

Harris tells Leanna that Cooper looked so peaceful, and that his eyes and mouth were closed when he pulled him out of the car. “It’s my fault,” Harris says, while sobbing.

Leanna asks Harris if he wants to have more children, and he says, “Yes.”

Leanna says when she called the daycare center, she was told Cooper hadn’t been there all day.

Harris says if he could bring Cooper back, he wouldn’t. When Leanna says, “You wouldn’t?” He replies, “No, because he’s in Heaven.”

“What have I done? What have I done?” Harris says sobbing.

“I've never left him in the car. I’ve taken him to daycare a million times,” he says

Harris says he tried as hard as he could to save Cooper.

Harris taps on the table with his fingers and takes a deep breath. “Okay. Okay,” he says.

Det. Stoddard comes in and tells Harris he seized his phone but can write down some numbers.

What are the next steps?, Harris asks. He'll be sent to jail tonight, Stoddard says.

Stoddard says charges could be added.

“Does it have to be like this?” Leanna asks. “He didn’t do this on purpose.”

"By his actions, your son’s dead. I have to charge him on that,” Stoddard replies. The courts will take over from there, he says.

“Despite the charge, I appreciate the courtesy. You guys were good to me,” Harris says to Stoddard.

Harris tells Leanna to go to Home Depot and let his boss know what happened, leaving out the legal aspects of the situation.

Leanna asks what will happen with Harris’ job but he doesn’t know.

“If something happens, we have places to go, ok?” Harris says.

“I know you didn’t do this on purpose. I know you didn’t. I love you,” Leanna says as they hug in parting.

The video ends.


http://www.ajc.com/news/minute-minu...ross-harris-trial-oct/cIq8I3w0axb7DNla1XIMNI/
 
So he said he saw Cooper when he looked in his rear view mirror.

How did he back in to the parking space that morning at the Treehouse. He had to either turn his head or use his rearview mirror.

If he saw Cooper after 4:00 on Akers through the rear view mirror, he would have seen Cooper that morning backing into the slot using the rearview mirror.
 
Ross' laughter yesterday and today and his fist bumping remind me of the type of criminal who wants to feel part of the team. He longs to belong and be part of an authority group but can't quite cut the muster. This is the type of person who is often narcissistic - feels they're superior and deserve accolades but has a deep, underlying insecurity that they're not. And is typically mediocre in intelligence and ability yet is never getting the respect and positions they feel they are owed.
He may actually be enjoying some of this. Feeling important. And feeling that he's one of the guys.

I have had some weird clients. I instruct them sternly to never giggle, laugh or act casually in court. (All my trials are bench trials except one incredible jury trial, but either way...). Court is a serious process and I want to make sure that they are observed always taking it seriously. They can smile after orders are issued.

Eh. Maybe it just feels good to him to be around regular folks rather than the folks in jail he's been associating with for the past 2 years. ;)
 
So he said he saw Cooper when he looked in his rear view mirror.

How did he back in to the parking space that morning at the Treehouse. He had to either turn his head or use his rearview mirror.

If he saw Cooper after 4:00 on Akers through the rear view mirror, he would have seen Cooper that morning backing into the slot using the rearview mirror.

That's what I have been thinking all along. I think based on that and the fact that Ross had to reach over to get his bag from the passenger seat, he had to have seen little Cooper in the car seat before he left him in the car. If I were a juror, that would be all that I would need to know in order to determine his guilt or innocence.
 
So he said he saw Cooper when he looked in his rear view mirror.

How did he back in to the parking space that morning at the Treehouse. He had to either turn his head or use his rearview mirror.

If he saw Cooper after 4:00 on Akers through the rear view mirror, he would have seen Cooper that morning backing into the slot using the rearview mirror.

Where did he say he saw Cooper in the rear view mirror?
 
I am upset about the “wanton” thing, and here’s why …

Today is Election Day. The first time I voted for president, at the top of the ballot there were two party blocks. I colored in my affiliated party block and then went down the ballot filling in my votes. No one ever educated me that when I colored in the appropriate affiliated party at the top that that meant I voted the whole ballot for my party. To this day, ~25 years later, I am ticked off because I went into that voter booth with a deliberate non-affilated party vote and it was disregarded because NO ONE ever educated me that I designated my entire ballot to a party with that top box.

If my civic duty (jury duty or voting duty) is really this important, why not just provide some basic education, i.e. wanton, or down-ballot voting? Those jurors are going to be very ticked if they feel they have been let down by a bad system (some call this rigging, right?) if they are not educated enough to provide their civic service they whole-heartedly want to provide.

And don’t even get me started on the wording used on State Questions.
 
I wanted to say that I really appreciate those that have the courage to post as the minority. This case is not as cut and dry as most trials I have followed and can understand and respect opinions on both sides.
Actually, in this case the minority is not even that small, not compared to most threads I've followed and I can tell that the posters are not sympathetic to Ross or being deliberately contrary, I've been in threads like that.
Posters on this case seem to be rather educated and intelligent, on both sides, that's probably why I've changed my mind a few time

I've snipped this for length and hope I did so correctly as it was my first time.

I have been more confused by this case I'm dizzy from whipping back and forth! I haven't been so much on the fence as on a swing over it! But here's my :twocents:: I truly, madly and deeply dislike Stoddard. to the point where I'm itching to throw everything he said out, but I know I can't do that. His whole idea of there being a correct way to show grief, (I'm one of those people who assess the problem, deal with it, and then fall apart), his literal persecution of the poor daycare worker who could have lost her job (and more!),
his "manipulation" of the media by releasing incorrect and inflammatory info, the whole ball of string!!!

BUT, here's where I come back to when I swing the other way over the fence: :fence: The inside of RH car is REALLY small. I couldn't get over that. It looked like she should have been diving that car. I don't know how he was comfortable in it. So really, for me anyway, I keep coming back to how did he not see him? Cooper was alert in CFA, said school when he got back into car so he was excited about it. Somebody (maybe Peach?) said he not only had to forget Cooper in that few a time, he also had to forget he had just ate breakfast inside CFA too, as in you might forget what you went to get in the kitchen but you remember you were just watching tv. That rang true to me.

I don't necessarily think he plotted for any time, I just think maybe it was a more sudden thing. But I acknowledge there are holes in this theory. There would certainly be "better" ways to plot this out, as in parking somewhere else, not going to the car at lunch, time of discovery and more; and several peeps whose opinions I respect have explained these.

Sociopaths can "love' their victim as long as that's beneficial to them and as someone else said, they may be hard to spot but once you've seen one it gets a lot easier.

A final point I would like to make. Have you noticed that many of these children in these cases are around the same age? That's important. These toddlers are starting to get around pretty good, explore their environment and TALK. Just like CA, Ross has stuff he hides. All that sexting, sooner or later Cooper is going to say something to the effect of "why is there a picture of (insert anatomical part here ) on Daddy's phone? And you know it's just easier to get around for a quick BJ when you don't have to account for the "little joker."

Ross really did have two lives. The upstanding family man viewed highly at church etc. Then the other side where he admitted he just wanted to "f*ck" as many women as he could. It's really interesting to ponder why he had problems in that area with his wife but not all these other women. I think an in depth psych eval would be telling.

I have really enjoyed my time with all of you all, this is my first case here.

And now with something funny (after all these horrible things): I freely admit I am a :cuckoo:, at least a little and probably more. Let me take you back to my youth, when dinosaurs roomed lol. I was in a dorm, second year of college, and got an obscene phone call. Except I didn't REALIZE it was one? They guy kept asking me if I would be interested in fellatio. Well I had NO idea what he was talking about. I guess I must have said "what?" a couple of times, and THEN I said, :drumroll: "If your're trying to sell something like siding I live in a dorm and they keep it real nice" :hilarious: I don't know why I thought it was vinyl siding, can't remember. Any who the obscene caller hung up on me!

Hope that leaves you all with a smile!
 
But that is a weaker defense for Ross---just plain ol forgetting. Because he should have been cued by thoughts of Cooper by seeing hi picture etc, if he just plain old forgot about him. He needs to make a case for false memory to explain why the memory cues did not work. Like when LH asks him 'if he made it to work on time.' That means did you drop our son off ok, etc. He is only protected from charges if he had a 'false memory' of doing so. If he just plain old forgot to---seems like wanton negligence, imo.

IMO something to keep in mind is that while DD has practically trademarked "Forgotten Baby Syndrome" and has become the big kahuna in hot car deaths it doesn't mean that every other scientist studying memory is in lock step with him. I think much of DD's research is valid but he's not the only one researching. We saw that with Dr. Brewer, who has a slightly different notion about cues and triggers. Which leaves me scratching my head as to why Kilgore would have scheduled both doctors to provide expert testimony in the first place. And why was Dr. Agharkar scratched too?

It seems like FBS would have been the "catchier" defense as opposed to "he just plain forgot" but that's JMOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
433
Total visitors
531

Forum statistics

Threads
608,465
Messages
18,239,792
Members
234,378
Latest member
Moebi69
Back
Top