I agree. I really don't understand the State's motivation for misrepresenting so many things. IMO it doesn't even bolster their case; in fact, it has done nothing other than harm it.
However, the jury is likely unaware of what has been previously reported in the media. While the DT will use this against the State, it won't look nearly as bad to an impartial juror as it does to those of us who have been following this case in the media.
It is my opinion that this case is not going to be made by a single piece of evidence. There will not be a smoking gun when it comes to either negligence or intent. However, when the jurors get into the deliberation room I believe the verdict will come down to how they view the totality of the evidence. A majority of the comments made on this forum that have refuted the State's narrative are plausible. However, how plausible is that the all of those coincidences are merely coincidences? At some point, everything taken together becomes overwhelming evidence pointing to JRH murdering his child. It's easy to refute isolated data points, but when everything is viewed together, will the jury be able to say it's reasonable to overlook those same things?
Is it possible to forget Cooper in the time it takes to make the U-turn after leaving CFA?
Is Ross on autopilot because he normally goes back to work when leaving that area although he took Cooper inside CFA, which is outside his norm?
Why didn't Ross call daycare to say that Cooper was going to be late?
How often did Cooper arrive after 9:30? How often was daycare not called when Cooper did not show? [Don't think that either of these two items were addressed in trial.]
Why was Cooper in a car seat where he exceeded the height requirement?
Why were his straps not on the highest setting?
How could Ross not notice Cooper when he returned to the car at lunch?
Why was Ross's memory not jarred when he drove by CFA at lunch?
Why did Ross take a roundabout way to the movie theater?
How could Ross miss Cooper being in the car when he was mere inches from him?
Why was Ross so concerned about his guitar being damaged by the heat when he could not remember his own child?
Was Ross distracted by his sexting?
Did his extramarital affairs have him yearning to be "single" again?
How could Ross not have smelled Cooper?
Why didn't Ross see Cooper when he was on his way to the theater?
Why did Ross tell his friend that he would be late to the movie when he left in plenty of time?
None of these things taken in isolation scream guilt to me, but as the totality of the evidence builds, the State's case becomes more compelling. At the end of the day, Ross isn't guilty or not guilty because he prefers to cook his hamburgers on a gas grill instead of over charcoal. However, the State is arguing that Ross's wants an easier, freer life. The DT shouldn't give them any ammunition or data points. IMO that statement does nothing to help the defense.... I did get a good laugh when I heard it unfold though!
