TRIAL - Ross Harris #1

[DexterMorgan]

He didnt pick up food voluntarily. School staff asked him to pick it up

They only asked him because he offered it. Jmo.

Because no teacher will ask you to pickup anything. Especially if you are running late everyday.

And if they do ask you ; Then that is very telling of the professionalism or the thoughts that it was okay to use Ross as a errand boy.

So imo. Ross told them that it was okay and he would pick them up food when needed.

Maybe he did it so they will treat Cooper with extra care.

Idk

 

[Hope4More]

It's possible. Cooper was away for most of the day, though. RH's bigger car iirc (actually spec, though pretty sure that was stated, will check) was the family car, therefore it makes sense that should be the car the baby travels in most often. Unless she took Cooper for drives in the evenings and weekends, by herself ...

I could believe a breakdown in communication, considering what we know, to date, of the marriage. If it weren't for the fact a hot car child-death was a big fear of them both. That LH immediately leapt to the assumption that's exactly what happened, yet without hesitation 'stood by her man', and chose to go straight to him rather than to see and hold her son for potentially the last time. Words spoken when they were re-united. No breakdown in communication there. The lot of it, it's just too many leaps for me.

With a presumption of innocence, imagine the guilt both would have felt. RH for being responsible for his baby's death, and quite likely , for choosing to spite Leanne by not taking those photos of Cooper's arrival at daycare, something that had he continued doing might have alerted Leanne that she hadn't received that daily reassurance, prompting her to call RH or daycare, perhaps in time to save Cooper's life.

And Leanne? Guilt for not insisting that he do so, for not switching the car seat, and if I read her right, feeling guilt for not being the wife she " should " have been that would have kept RH happy, and if happy, he wouldn't have been so distracted that day, etc.

I have little doubt but that Leanne holds herself at least equally responsible for Cooper's death.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

I'm not able to watch live feed.... Did they say when these websites were accessed?

It was April 17th or 18th 2014. Will try to confirm date for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JerseyGirl]

Defense asks Yeagar if he was ever told by detectives that “Harris stated (during an interview) that he recently researched, through the internet, child deaths inside vehicles and what temperature it needs to be for that to occur." Yeagar says he was not told that and didn't specifically look for that. The defense says it was in the search warrant.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/ross-harr...the-ross-harris-hot-car-death-trial/457089519

 

[blue22]

This particular defense attorney is wording his inquiries really weirdly. At times, it's hard to understand what exactly he's getting at. I think the witness seems to also be also struggling to understand.

 

[DaleTray]

Not to be nitpicky...

But even if Ross brought them requested food, it's still voluntarily.

With that said, I don't find an issue with bringing food. JMO

I equate school staff requesting food then the dad not bringing it....to complaining of food to wait staff

 

[JerseyGirl]

I am not listening to this morning's witnesses so please forgive my ignorance. I will try and catch up over the weekend. Did Leanna Harris learn about Cooper's death on TV? Was she watching the news about Ross and Cooper on TV?

According to the testimony, I *think* so:

Houston said he found out about Cooper’s death a short while later while still at the office. He told jurors that he knew something was wrong when a security officer showed up with Leanna Harris, Cooper’s mother.

Houston says Leanna Harris came in full steam asking, “Where’s Ross? Where’s my son?”

Moments later, [there was a] TV in the lobby, turned to breaking news about a dead child.

As they all watched the news unfold, Houston says Leanna’s emotions went “from hot to not” and she became “cold.”

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/ross-harr...s-she-watched-news-of-hot-car-death/457128238

 

[Inthedetails]

Yeager says he found Ross Harris has accessed Reddit five times using the term "childfree" on his work computer.

Yeager says Harris specifically typed into the browser reddit.com/r/childfree. The other four times were just things he clicked on in connection with that initial search.

One of the articles was titled, "Dating is nearly impossible."

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/ross-harr...the-ross-harris-hot-car-death-trial/457089519

Could he have specified "child free" because he wanted sext/sex partners who themselves didn't have kids? In other words, he wasn't into moms.

Just speculating....jmo

 

[JerseyGirl]

Defense says Yeagar didn't find any evidence that Harris had researched hot car deaths over the internet. Yeagar says he doesn't know because he didn't look for that. He says his analysis didn't find that specifically but he passed along the search history to detectives, who then looked into it further.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/ross-harr...the-ross-harris-hot-car-death-trial/457089519

 

[minor4th]

This is not looking good for the state. Is this in front of the jury?

 

[DexterMorgan]

Defense says Yeagar didn't find any evidence that Harris had researched hot car deaths over the internet. Yeagar says he doesn't know because he didn't look for that. He says his analysis didn't find that specifically but he passed along the search history to detectives, who then looked into it further.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/ross-harr...the-ross-harris-hot-car-death-trial/457089519

Agree. Just because you are on a site. That doesn't mean you searched for that particular thing.

Because sometimes sites automatically pop up.

 

[blue22]

This is not looking good for the state. Is this in front of the jury?

To be fair, his job was to create reports and pass them to the detectives to further research. His position is not responsible for investigating what has been extracted. IMO, the defense is trying to make it look like he didn't do his job. BUT, his job is not to investigate the extractions.

 

[Hope4More]

This is not looking good for the state. Is this in front of the jury?

Yes it is, and what I'm hearing is shocking. Shoddy work is not what happened here. I have a feeling his woefully inadequate analysis of online activity on RH's phone is going to be repeated with each of RH's devices.

 

[minor4th]

To be fair, his job was to create reports and pass them to the detectives to further research. His position is not responsible for investigating what has been extracted. IMO, the defense is trying to make it look like he didn't do his job. BUT, his job is not to investigate the extractions.

Not sure I'm following. So - all these things he's testifying as to not searching and not finding results, what does that mean? Maybe some other investigator found those results or they just weren't there?

 

[minor4th]

Yes it is, and what I'm hearing is shocking. Shoddy work is not what happened here. I have a feeling his woefully inadequate analysis of online activity on RH's phone is going to be repeated with each of RH's devices.

It makes me wonder if it was deliberate to give the cops deniability - it makes no sense though.

 

[RaeL]

They only asked him because he offered it. Jmo.

Because no teacher will ask you to pickup anything. Especially if you are running late everyday.

And if they do ask you ; Then that is very telling of the professionalism or the thoughts that it was okay to use Ross as a errand boy.

So imo. Ross told them that it was okay and he would pick them up food when needed.

Maybe he did it so they will treat Cooper with extra care.

Idk

I happened to catch this part of the questioning yesterday... Ross had called the daycare to say he was running late and would be stopping at chick fil a and bringing coopers breakfast to daycare. So the teachers said, since you are going there anyway would you mind picking up chick fil a for us too? so basically yes, they asked him, but it was because he was going to stop there on his way anyhow.

 

[Hope4More]

Not sure I'm following. So - all these things he's testifying as to not searching and not finding results, what does that mean? Maybe some other investigator found those results or they just weren't there?

If I'm understanding correctly, he wasn't asked by the State to look for any those search terms on RH's phone, and didn't so on his own for the (January? subset report, one of 2 reports he made.

The State entered into evidence today that subset report, rather than the more complete report. I'm unclear if he looked for those search terms and presented them in the 2nd report, or if he never searched for them at all.

(For anyone who didn't watch this testimony, the search terms that weren't searched for by LE include: malicious intent, murder, child cruelty, child deaths, divorce, and many many many more).

 

[Hope4More]

It makes me wonder if it was deliberate to give the cops deniability - it makes no sense though.

A cynical observer might wonder if LE's lack of curiosity about RH's online searches on his phone has anything to do with a dawning realization (after their first peeks) that they couldn't support the assumptions they made early on, nor the assertions they made in probable cause hearings about RH's online activity revealing intent.

 

[blue22]

Not sure I'm following. So - all these things he's testifying as to not searching and not finding results, what does that mean? Maybe some other investigator found those results or they just weren't there?

He sent links, information, etc. for detectives to investigate. His job is to find things that relate to key terms and send it to investigators.

He is not responsible for deciding if evidence supports a charge. He is responsible for extracting evidence that MAY RELATE to charge. He sent a report with the childfree links. That's it. He didn't investigate the links, interpret them, etc. Not his job. After he sends the report, he's not going to know what they do or don't do with the information. Or how the interpret it.

Not finding it, does not mean it wasn't there. It means it was not found during the process he was tasked to do. He was not the only one looking at devices.

 

[minor4th]

A cynical observer might wonder if LE's lack of curiosity about RH's online searches on his phone has anything to do with a dawning realization (after their first peeks) that they couldn't support the assumptions they made early on, nor the assertions they made in probable cause hearings about RH's online activity revealing intent.

That's exactly what I was getting at.