The Sidebar - Harris Trial

[SuperTmo]

According to the ME he only has some oj and potatoes in him. So I don't think he really ate at either place, which makes it even more curious. RH stated that cooper got a sausage biscuit "like he always did" but he had no sausage or biscuit in him...

I think RH said he ate it.

 

[GA_Peach]

I saw a guy who was just telling LE what he thought they wanted to hear. He thought that if he said the right things and showed them what a responsible guy he was, they would accept it was all a mistake and let him go home. He may have decided to omit the part about returning after lunch because he knew that would make him look more suspicious and reduce his chances of being released right away. That still doesn't mean he killed Cooper on purpose.

Here 's where it gets sticky for Ross IMO. There was no testimony from the DT to suggest that Ross was saying those things to smooth things over with the police. The videos were not impeached so why would we just throw out Ross's words? What reason do we have to believe that Ross was not telling the truth? If we immediately dispense anything that makes Ross look guilty, of course, we are going to end up with a not guilty verdict.

There are multiple pieces of evidence that have been questioned in this case. When multiple witnesses report conflicting information, it's fair to cast that information aside. However, Ross's statements were not only made to Detective Stoddard but also to LH. In a sense, those statements were corroborated. On what basis should Ross's statements be ignored?

 

[Hope4More]

It in itself doesn't mean he killed him on purpose. But if it had been truly a tragic accident, I wonder if he would have had the clarity of mind to even think so strategically so soon after the tragedy.

There's a (theoretical) gray area in between, one that seems consistent with RH's personality, and with his conversation with Leanna that night.

As in....he plain vanilla forgot, and was too preoccupied during the day to remember, even when prompted (a later on FBS, even). That it hadn't occurred to him until LE brought up lightbulbs at lunch that he should have remembered then, at least. For this scenario- that he did remember later in the afternoon, (sexting stopped then, iirc) which is why he texted Leanna about his little buddy.

And ..he just didn't feel he should be held accountable because it was an accident, after all.

But nah. I still think it was an accident and he didn't know until he looked to his right.

 

[Rayemonde]

Here 's where it gets sticky for Ross IMO. There was no testimony from the DT to suggest that Ross was saying those things to smooth things over with the police. The videos were not impeached so why would we just throw out Ross's words? What reason do we have to believe that Ross was not telling the truth? If we immediately dispense anything that makes Ross look guilty, of course, we are going to end up with a not guilty verdict.

There are multiple pieces of evidence that have been questioned in this case. When multiple witnesses report conflicting information, it's fair to cast that information aside. However, Ross's statements were not only made to Detective Stoddard but also to LH. In a sense, those statements were corroborated. On what basis should Ross's statements be ignored?

He wasn't under oath when he was talking to LE and he didn't testify in court, so he couldn't be cross-examined on what he said in the videos. The jury will just have to decide for themselves how much of what he said they think is true or false. We know he has a history of lying and deceit, so why take everything he said in the videos as gospel truth? They jury will have to use the testimony they have heard, plus their own judgement, to decide.

 

[Hope4More]

Here 's where it gets sticky for Ross IMO. There was no testimony from the DT to suggest that Ross was saying those things to smooth things over with the police. The videos were not impeached so why would we just throw out Ross's words? What reason do we have to believe that Ross was not telling the truth? If we immediately dispense anything that makes Ross look guilty, of course, we are going to end up with a not guilty verdict.

There are multiple pieces of evidence that have been questioned in this case. When multiple witnesses report conflicting information, it's fair to cast that information aside. However, Ross's statements were not only made to Detective Stoddard but also to LH. In a sense, those statements were corroborated. On what basis should Ross's statements be ignored?

Don't ignore them. Accept them at face value. Looked at that way, he didn't lie about anything, unless one believes everything he said was a lie because he murdered Cooper.

He could have forgotten about the lightbulbs. His friend Alex forgot the trip even when asked directly by LE -- "did you go anywhere else at lunchtime?"

 

[blue22]

He wasn't under oath when he was talking to LE and he didn't testify in court, so he couldn't be cross-examined on what he said in the videos. The jury will just have to decide for themselves how much of what he said they think is true or false. We know he has a history of lying and deceit, so why take everything he said in the videos as gospel truth? They jury will have to use the testimony they have heard, plus their own judgement, to decide.

This point has been interesting to me. (And I'm just jumping off your post, I'm not meaning this directed at you! These are just general thoughts.) There are clearly people here who believe he is innocent and forgot, and those that don't. I have seen those that do believe he forgot, state the same thought. If he is known to be a liar and deceive, how can a person cherry pick what is the truth? He said it was an accident, but how can that be so quickly believed? Because he said? I thought we shouldn't take his word at gospel truth? Just thinking out loud.

 

[just the facts pls]

Here 's where it gets sticky for Ross IMO. There was no testimony from the DT to suggest that Ross was saying those things to smooth things over with the police. The videos were not impeached so why would we just throw out Ross's words? What reason do we have to believe that Ross was not telling the truth? If we immediately dispense anything that makes Ross look guilty, of course, we are going to end up with a not guilty verdict.

There are multiple pieces of evidence that have been questioned in this case. When multiple witnesses report conflicting information, it's fair to cast that information aside. However, Ross's statements were not only made to Detective Stoddard but also to LH. In a sense, those statements were corroborated. On what basis should Ross's statements be ignored?

BBM. Yes and thank you.

I hope the jurors took it to heart when the judge told them that they have to find him guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt" and not beyond "all doubt." Reasonable doubt requires reason.

There's over a thousand pieces of evidence and I'm sure there's a thousand ways to compartmentalize each one and create an explanation for each one. Just because an explanation is possible doesn't mean it's plausible or fits with the rest of the situation as it presents itself.

 

[GA_Peach]

He wasn't under oath when he was talking to LE and he didn't testify in court, so he couldn't be cross-examined on what he said in the videos. The jury will just have to decide for themselves how much of what he said they think is true or false. We know he has a history of lying and deceit, so why take everything he said in the videos as gospel truth? They jury will have to use the testimony they have heard, plus their own judgement, to decide.

For starters, we can corroborate much of what Ross said through independent sources. We have videos with time stamps. We have testimony from Alex and Winston, both of whom testified under oath and were cross-examined. While I certainly would not view Ross's statements as "gospel truth" as you stated above, I have no reason to throw out Ross's narrative and explanation either. If Ross thought he was making himself look favorable, it was another instance of poor judgment on his part. If this was truly an accident, Ross would have no need to twist facts into a LE-appealing narrative.

 

[Hope4More]

Exactly, only potato in his stomach (could that be hashbrowns from CFA?) **ETA**: it's gotta be hashbrowns from CFA, which are actually more like tater tot medallions. Who whips up potatoes at home for breakfast on a routine day?

Another question, he seems to be late a LOT. I don't see him making it a priority to be 30 to 40 minutes early to that (was it?) 5:00 movie, that he says he's running late. It doesn't seem like RH's style. Just another non-routine behavior we can chalk up to "unluckiest person ever" syndrome.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Nah, not evidence of anything, imo, except the likelihood he was just giving himself time for a brief hookup beforehand, after hot and heavy sexting all day.

 

[monkeypants]

Nah, not evidence of anything, imo, except the likelihood he was just giving himself time for a brief hookup beforehand, after hot and heavy sexting all day.

No hook up texts or communications were found, however, to substantiate that theory.

 

[Bravo]

Again not cherry picking who I thank. Yesterday was horrid here for me. Posting and thanking. Last eve had a brief window of time. 2 diff. lappys and 2 diff. browsers. Hinky again so thanks all. If I thank too many it gets worse.I continue to test it and my patience Grrrrrrr.......

 

[Hope4More]

For starters, we can corroborate much of what Ross said through independent sources. We have videos with time stamps. We have testimony from Alex and Winston, both of whom testified under oath and were cross-examined. While I certainly would not view Ross's statements as "gospel truth" as you stated above, I have no reason to throw out Ross's narrative and explanation either. If Ross thought he was making himself look favorable, it was another instance of poor judgment on his part. If this was truly an accident, Ross would have no need to twist facts into a LE-appealing narrative.

Leanna: did you say too much? Yes, he did. Consider the irony, if it was an accident, of RH telling LE things he thought would demonstrate how much he cared about Cooper and that he was aware of the dangers of hot cars, only to have exactly those statements be used as "evidence" of his guilt.

 

[Rayemonde]

This point has been interesting to me. (And I'm just jumping off your post, I'm not meaning this directed at you! These are just general thoughts.) There are clearly people here who believe he is innocent and forgot, and those that don't. I have seen those that do believe he forgot, state the same thought. If he is known to be a liar and deceive, how can a person cherry pick what is the truth? He said it was an accident, but how can that be so quickly believed? Because he said? I thought we shouldn't take his word at gospel truth? Just thinking out loud.

He said it was an accident. I'm not taking that as gospel truth just because he said so - of course he would lie and say that even if it was premeditated murder. But I don't think there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it on purpose. You need evidence beyond what the defendant said, because of course people will lie to get themselves out of trouble, and people will falsely confess to crimes they didn't commit, and some people are just compulsive liars who lie all the time for no reason. I don't put a lot of stock in what RH says, but that doesn't make him a murderer.

 

[Hope4More]

No hook up texts or communications were found, however, to substantiate that theory.

Ross was a man who knew where to find a prostitute if he was so inclined, so I'm not sure the absence of texts means he wasn't gonna try to hook up.

 

[Cardinal47]

It still seems strange to me that not one person showed up in that court room to support Ross. I don't believe I have ever seen that in any trial I have ever watched. Nobody.

 

[blue22]

He said it was an accident. I'm not taking that as gospel truth just because he said so - of course he would lie and say that even if it was premeditated murder. But I don't think there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it on purpose. You need evidence beyond what the defendant said, because of course people will lie to get themselves out of trouble, and people will falsely confess to crimes they didn't commit, and some people are just compulsive liars who lie all the time for no reason. I don't put a lot of stock in what RH says, but that doesn't make him a murderer.

As I said, I was jumping off your post...not intending to dissect your statement. And I agree, there absolutely needs more to convict. I also completely agree with your statement, "I don't put a lot of stock in what RH says, but that doesn't make him a murderer."

That's the problem, the same people saying that (not meaning you,) believe he's innocent because he said so. If one can't put stock into what RH says, it should go both ways. IMO

ETA: I also believe there is not legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict of malice murder. I do believe he committed that act, though. I felt the same way about the Casey Anthony trial.

 

[Inthedetails]

Just catching up after a day of not being able to check in.

Interesting questions from the jury today. I wonder why they wanted the transcript instead of the video - perhaps indicates a disagreement over specific words Ross said, and some jury members don't want the discussion to be about how he (and his wife) LOOKED in the interview room? Just a hunch.

So 1/2 day down....how many to go?

jmo

 

[DaleTray]

An angle I just don't get, is, I consider JRH an intelligent man. He, at least, isn't ignorant. Which makes me wonder why he didn't at least delete the Whisper and Kik apps if he planned the murder. But, more importantly to me, why did he waive his rights? If he thought LE was onto his death plan, he would have asked for a lawyer. And probably would have had some type of lawyer search in his search history. I feel him well smart enough to know to lawyer up quickly if he had something to knowingly hide.

 

[katydid23]

He said it was an accident. I'm not taking that as gospel truth just because he said so - of course he would lie and say that even if it was premeditated murder. But I don't think there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it on purpose. You need evidence beyond what the defendant said, because of course people will lie to get themselves out of trouble, and people will falsely confess to crimes they didn't commit, and some people are just compulsive liars who lie all the time for no reason. I don't put a lot of stock in what RH says, but that doesn't make him a murderer.

It doesn't make him a murderer if he LIES about the tragic death of his son. But it sure makes me even more suspicious of his claim that it was totally innocent. If your child dies in a tragically innocent accident, WHY LIE about anything to LE? No need to do so if it was just an accident. JMO

 

[blue22]

Just catching up after a day of not being able to check in.

Interesting questions from the jury today. I wonder why they wanted the transcript instead of the video - perhaps indicates a disagreement over specific words Ross said, and some jury members don't want the discussion to be about how he (and his wife) LOOKED in the interview room? Just a hunch.

So 1/2 day down....how many to go?

jmo

I think by end of day Friday. I don't count the charges related to minors as needed to be deliberated on. JMO