Going into this trial, going off of news reports, I wanted this guy to fry. Just listening to the pros case thus far, I really haven't heard enough to convict him of anything beyond endangerment. Or maybe. I've heard a few strong points that are being overshadowed by far too many non points and also the great points the defense has been able to score.
The points that pros has scored for me: 1. close proximity between breakfast and work/daycare. 2. Lunch visit to car, I can't imagine him not seeing or smelling Cooper during this. 3. The time it took for him to pull over "noticing" Cooper. 4. The weird phone call, him Not rushing and staying at Coopers side. 5. Not wanting to drive at lunch. Is this enough to convict??
All the rest, including the minor and all the women seems to overshadow the above. And pros is just focusing on this too much, and it feels sensational. People don't like to feel they are being shown a piece of shocking but irrelevant info meant to be decisive. It feels dishonest. Especially after being told motive isn't necessary, if that's what they're trying to prove.
Unless there's some kind of bombshell that was kept out of opening, I just don't think there's enough to convict. If a jury won't convict Casey Anthony, I'd be surprised if JRH will be.
There are major differences between the two. So much is known here that wasn't there. We know when Cooper was last alive. We know when he died. We know how. We know who left him in the car. We know what RH was doing while Cooper died. We know what happened in Cooper's life the day he died. Etc.
If he is not convicted of at least negligence, I will be completely shocked. I think proving intent in this case is impossible, but they have already showed RH was negligent.
JMO.