The Sidebar - Harris Trial

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone here see evidence that Ross is in shock? I followed a lot (but not all) of the trial, but don't recall discussion of shock as an explanation for Ross' demeanor. I don't have experience seeing people in shock; so if you do, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject?
 
Does anyone here see evidence that Ross is in shock? I followed a lot (but not all) of the trial, but don't recall discussion of shock as an explanation for Ross' demeanor. I don't have experience seeing people in shock; so if you do, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject?

IMO...his details, justifications, and answers are WAY too at the ready for shock. His defense team never even presented him being in shock, that I can remember. I don't buy shock. Not even a tiny bit.

JMO
 
Does anyone here see evidence that Ross is in shock? I followed a lot (but not all) of the trial, but don't recall discussion of shock as an explanation for Ross' demeanor. I don't have experience seeing people in shock; so if you do, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject?

Leann seemed like she might have been in shock when first meeting LE at Treehouse. She said she could not process it yet, and seemed like she was in denial. Non emotional but not chatty like Ross.

Ross was fully engaged, had 'emotions' but was not seeming to be 'in shock' ---imo :moo:
 
Wonder what they wanted to re-evaluate regarding the interview. Maybe his description of how he discovered Cooper? So they wanted the transcripts, not the taped interview, means they weren't looking at his demeanor but the exact words he used. So what could they be reevaluating?

To me, the two things that would immediately move me to murder is the smell and his proximity to the seat/Cooper. Those two things can't be explained away.
 
IMO...his details, justifications, and answers are WAY too at the ready for shock. His defense team never even presented him being in shock, that I can remember. I don't buy shock. Not even a tiny bit.

JMO

His memory and control are unusual for shock. His ability to use past tense of cooper is also unusual. Most parents will never use past tense.

Yesterday during voting I was speaking to a friend who lost her 10 year old daughter to brain cancer...we were talking about our kids wearing bracelets etc (her son was playing with my kids at the time) and even she spoke of her daughter in the present tense and its been 4 years since the passing. It's very hard for a parent to mentally accept let alone within 3. Hours. LH did the exact same thing at RH work
 
Wonder what they wanted to re-evaluate regarding the interview. Maybe his description of how he discovered Cooper? So they wanted the transcripts, not the taped interview, means they weren't looking at his demeanor but the exact words he used. So what could they be reevaluating?

To me, the two things that would immediately move me to murder is the smell and his proximity to the seat/Cooper. Those two things can't be explained away.

I think it was his "research and knowledge" myself
 
The more I see this - and I've watched it a few times - the clearer it becomes how adept he's been at talking his way out of things in the past.

Every time you notice that little bit more. I find myself still shaking my head in disbelief at him, even knowing what's coming.

Shock is not at work here. He's clear minded in explaining his day, in his reasoning on how it happened, (thinks) he's smoothly debating his cause against cruelty charges until he realises they're not going to budge. Worse, he's patronising and arrogant enough to tell these Detectives he's an excellent father (with references!) while his son's lying in a mortuary because of him.

I'm glad the jury asked to see this again. I'm sure this will answer more than a few questions.
 
Wonder what they wanted to re-evaluate regarding the interview. Maybe his description of how he discovered Cooper? So they wanted the transcripts, not the taped interview, means they weren't looking at his demeanor but the exact words he used. So what could they be reevaluating?

To me, the two things that would immediately move me to murder is the smell and his proximity to the seat/Cooper. Those two things can't be explained away.

I think all the little things he said on knowing about hot car deaths etc...and then of course, I think actually watching it again might actually hurt more than the first time. jmo
 
I am getting a vague feeling that maybe the jurors are kind of divided? Like one group pointed to some things in the interview that bothered them, and another group said ' No, it was not like that'---so now they want the transcript to double check and verify?
 
Does anyone here see evidence that Ross is in shock? I followed a lot (but not all) of the trial, but don't recall discussion of shock as an explanation for Ross' demeanor. I don't have experience seeing people in shock; so if you do, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject?

IMO his only shock is when he learns he is charged and going to a cell.

My now fiance, boyfriend at the time, hit a tree and was injured while skiing. He had a partial collapsed lung and a broken pelvis. As soon as they found him, he begged that the person who called me be calm. He was more worried about how I would be emotionally than he was physically.

When I received the call, I was screaming! I started crying immediately. He was injured, but at the time I did not know to what extent.

I understand this is a very different scenario, and everyone reacts differently. One of the many issues I have with this case is how unemotional BOTH JRH and LH were. One of them, OK that's their personality, but both of them...it's just odd. When you are aware of a potential danger, most people are hyper vigilant about it. In this case, JRH goes on and on about what he should have done to prevent this, he knew what to do, but blatantly didn't do it. For example, put his bag in the back with Cooper, or make a "second look".

To me, JRH saw the hot car scenario as something many people have done, and "got away with", to his own admission, he was aware of a parent whom became an advocate. For LH, this was a real fear, but IMO it was almost like it was not an "if" it would happen, it was a when. I believe she knew this is something he could do, but did not know when it would happen.

Him looking at cruises and nice houses was all part of his fantasy life. LH got on the stand and said they didn't have money for either.
 
The more I see this - and I've watched it a few times - the clearer it becomes how adept he's been at talking his way out of things in the past.

Every time you notice that little bit more. I find myself still shaking my head in disbelief at him, even knowing what's coming.

Shock is not at work here. He's clear minded in explaining his day, in his reasoning on how it happened, (thinks) he's smoothly debating his cause against cruelty charges until he realises they're not going to budge. Worse, he's patronising and arrogant enough to tell these Detectives he's an excellent father (with references!) while his son's lying in a mortuary because of him.

I'm glad the jury asked to see this again. I'm sure this will answer more than a few questions.

It does look worse the second time around. He is so matter of fact. And has justifications and explanations , all ready to go.
 
I think all the little things he said on knowing about hot car deaths etc...and then of course, I think actually watching it again might actually hurt more than the first time. jmo

Agreed, watching this again AFTER all the evidence presented is actually very interesting and pulls it all together for me.
 
There is definitely a way for the jury to arrive at malice murder IMO
 
I am getting a vague feeling that maybe the jurors are kind of divided? Like one group pointed to some things in the interview that bothered them, and another group said ' No, it was not like that'---so now they want the transcript to double check and verify?

Specific things he said... or det Stoddard said. Maybe if he said rear view mirror or not. Oh, to be a fly on the wall.
 
I am getting a vague feeling that maybe the jurors are kind of divided? Like one group pointed to some things in the interview that bothered them, and another group said ' No, it was not like that'---so now they want the transcript to double check and verify?

I'm hoping they want to view RH & LH video next
 
How many hours later from the 'incident' was his interview? He seems so calm and composed. My husband would have been melted into a puddle of grief on the floor.

The descriptions is read and video I saw Of other parents in this situation during interrogation shows what you describe or exteme shock. None show this kind of casual behavior. Or interest in talking about their personal pursuits and accomplishments.
 
The descriptions is read and video I saw Of other parents in this situation during interrogation shows what you describe or exteme shock. None show this kind of casual behavior. Or interest in talking about their personal pursuits and accomplishments.

Can you link video of another parent?
 
Yes, even though she testified for the DT, at some point I would think she must have wondered, MOO! However, she apparently tossed that out because in her own heart she couldn't believe he would do this to their child, but it did happen just like they both feared and on a hot day at that. It's hard to believe your spouse would do such a thing. yup!

I think in her heart she knows exactly what happened to him but in her head she has to deny it.
 
I think in her heart she knows exactly what happened to him but in her head she has to deny it.

Agree. To admit it she has to also admit how he had completely duped her and how in trying to hold on to him she had ironically failed Cooper
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
199
Guests online
1,879
Total visitors
2,078

Forum statistics

Threads
599,557
Messages
18,096,585
Members
230,878
Latest member
LVTRUCRIME
Back
Top