Trial - Ross Harris #3

[minor4th]

What they are likely to hear is testimony by Leanna that it was typical for Cooper to fall asleep quickly in the car (some kids do, it really isn't that uncommon), and that she knew Cooper was unusually tired that morning because he hadn't slept well the previous two nights.

It really doesn't matter if Cooper was asleep or not. It's completely possible for him to be quiet without being asleep.

BTW - we do already have testimony that Cooper was sometimes asleep when Ross brought him in to daycare, so of course it's possible he did fall asleep.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Grrr post went bye bye lol try again
RBBM, IF the bag was in the same place, or in the front area as was photographed by CSI that evening... Then he would not have had to reach anywhere other than over to front of front seat, looking no where but that area. Grab it, grab drink and exit veh. IF he had the radio on, and if his veh is like mine (as in radio continues to play for a few seconds until either turn off, open door or it stops after that xx seconds) oh and grab his phone from where ever it was if not in pocket already. No reason to look anywhere past the front seats.

Having said that, Parking lot video does not tell the State/Det/Def/ or public watching what was going on in that car once RH came to a stop... got his bag, drink and exited or if the radio was still on. I curious if the radio was on when the car was pulled over to a stop? Have not heard that asked yet.

:thinking: typing this ^^ out just reminded me of CSI Shumpert photo and Def Cross, when *(correction was Ludwig) said that he bet when takes photos that glad took some after the fact. CSI agreed *going to go find and ss that photo* There is a reason Kilgore made comment as he did.
A/C was testified to be on. We saw alot of condensation on the ground in crime scene photos that CSI Shumpert took. That was a lot of dampness on the hot pavement, when pic taken. My veh does not drip that much water while my car is idle with engine and a/c on.

View attachment 103522

Hmmm...So interesting.. Ludwig asking about if the car was on or off. Shumpert thinks the car was on but turned off and keys left on and dinging. Asked about the 95 deg noted on temp of car... direction of vent, arrow pointing up and LO to right of that.. makes the whole having him stand down and look at podium make perfect sense. *Ludwig makes note that all photos show every angle of the car seat in his photos. When he got to scene, Piper car with RH was leaving the scene. **Shumpert describes the traffic as reg heavy flow traffic. Ludwig asked if aware that other people had moved Cooper prior to ME removing the sheet or the other Officers had did CPR. Very interesting in looking back also about " "the smell" Shumpert was there 2 hours, was there when ME Inv left with Cooper. Left after breaking down scene immediately.

Veh had been off for a bit, a/c condensation proves it.

start at mark 1:03:38
[video=youtube;BW56EHRt1lM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW56EHRt1lM[/video]

 

[Hope4More]

It really doesn't matter if Cooper was asleep or not. It's completely possible for him to be quiet without being asleep.

BTW - we do already have testimony that Cooper was sometimes asleep when Ross brought him in to daycare, so of course it's possible he did fall asleep.

I disagree. Strongly disagree, even. Cooper could have been awake and quiet enough for RH to not get into that left lane immediately after pulling out of CFA, he could even have been quiet all the way to the Treehouse, but I find it impossible to believe he would have stayed silent when his dad parked where it wasn't his daycare, then sat in the car for 33 seconds before getting out and closing the door.

Every child is different, but no child I've ever been around who was awake would have stayed so quiet and so still s/he wouldn't have been noticed for those 33 seconds.

 

[turaj]

I find it kind of interesting that the jury members are already asking the judge when this trial will be over? She told them testimony should conclude Thanksgiving.

I don't remember a jury ever asking that question in the middle of testimony!!

i so agree and noted this as a very strange request. she has now already told t hem they can have Nov. 22-27 off...i think the judge needs sto speed things up...less 30-40 min. breaks. this a really expensive for the taxpayers with all of the attys and judge and staff staying in hotels/meals etc. and jurors are already asking about schedule.

 

[1&2&3]

I do not see where the fact of Cooper being asleep when RH parked the car will make any difference.

As a parent, RH was in total charge of Cooper. Whether he was awake, asleep, or sitting quietly, it was RH's responsibility to get him to daycare. He failed 100%! There are no reasons or excuses acceptable.

The rest of RH's activities that day are even more convincing to me that this was not an accident. If I was on the jury, there would be nothing that would change my mind. RH was not a caring, loving responsible parent or adult on that day.

My opinions only.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by arkansasmimi View Post
RBBM, I am not any kind of lawyer and that was my first thought when I heard Stoddard state the time for record when RH invoked. then on the stand as they were getting the authentication of video with LH, Stoddard said it would begin about 45 min after they had put RH in the cell in the area. So it started roughly about 8:15pm (45 min after he invoked) But also he started speaking to Stoddard again asking questions, so there is that - on his own. But it was done in a way to get him to respond to him, he came him brought paper to get phone numbers...told of charges again.. Doing what Det do. I just dont know how legally that goes but because RH began speaking to him again) But the Def did not object to the video being played for few reasons I am totally sure. jmho

Did RH voluntarily answer questions after invoking his right to not answer questions? He can change his mind at any time. Once he acknowledges his understanding of his rights to not answer questions he can still freely answer any questions LE give him. JMO

I understand the whole free to answer questions after Miranda, and also about invoking. Also about freely answering again after invoking. What I am unsure about in this case is on the video of RH after 7:31pm he invoked (near the end of first vidoe of RH alone/ not the 2nd one where he was brought into the interview room where LH already was) Stoddard comes into that room near end of video brings RH a piece of paper to get numbers from LH phone. Tells RH he is seizing his cellphone. That's when LH asks Stoddard a question (iirc does it have to be like this) RH asks Stoddard what is the procedure now .. and they have a conversation. What RH says to Stoddard then is no different than what has already said. RH did't initiate the conversation with Stoddard in 2nd video when Stoddard came back in. But RH did converse and ask questions. So I think maybe it can go both ways at that point. But at the beginning of the video taping it was not. And what they got from that video and tried to use(correction did use in SW affidavits for probable cause) came prior to Stoddard returning in the video with LH and RH. Personally not sure it an issue because the Def clearly wanted the video in by Kilgore strong loud NO OBJECTION. JMHO

 

[Hope4More]

I do not see where the fact of Cooper being asleep when RH parked the car will make any difference.

As a parent, RH was in total charge of Cooper. Whether he was awake, asleep, or sitting quietly, it was RH's responsibility to get him to daycare. He failed 100%! There are no reasons or excuses acceptable.

The rest of RH's activities that day are even more convincing to me that this was not an accident. If I was on the jury, there would be nothing that would change my mind. RH was not a caring, loving responsible parent or adult on that day.

My opinions only.

It would matter to you, hopefully, if you were on this jury and responsible for deciding whether or not the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that RH knew Cooper was in the car but left him there to die anyway, and was therefore guilty of malice murder.

 

[MsMarple]

I have a question, does anyone know for sure that Leanna saw Ross first before Cooper?

I believe a detective (Stoddard?) testified that she asked to see Ross instead of Cooper. Twice while Ross was talking with Leanna he described how Cooper looked ("peaceful"), once at about 8:30 in the video and again at about 21:25. The second time he starts by saying he just wants Leanna to know that Cooper looked so peaceful. His mouth was closed, his eyes were closed, he did not look bad, I was dreading he was going to look terrible...

Based on those comments I'd say that Leanna went straight to Ross. Around 29:00 Leanna talks about going to the Treehouse looking for Ross - no mention of Cooper.

Interestingly, in his discussion with Leanna about what happened Ross never says anything about thinking he had dropped Cooper off at daycare. What he said was that he left CFA and headed to work and that Cooper never made a sound. To me anyway, it's more like he forgot Cooper was in the car rather than thinking he had dropped him off to daycare. The distinction is that Ross doesn't have a memory, albeit a false one, of taking Cooper to daycare. That's very different than what Dr. Diamond claims happens when a parent forgets their child. The crux of his argument is that the parent absolutely believes the child is somewhere else and continues to believe that until something causes the brain to reset - such as hearing the child's name.

Ross talks and talks about how he didn't do it on purpose but not once does he say he thought Cooper was at daycare. I find that concerning.

[video=youtube;lwbQuyHUx-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwbQuyHUx-A[/video]

 

[arkansasmimi]

After he invoked, there were no substantive questions.

If LE has asked him additional questions after he invoked, his responses would have to be suppressed, unless he signed a waiver of his rights after he invoked.

I really don't think there was anything to suppress for Miranda violations.

I do have some other real concerns about Stoddard's role in the interview and his previous testimony about the order in which things happened.

Maybe arkansasmimi can help me piece this together with video. Here's my concern:

During prior testimony at the Sept '15 hearing, Stoddard said that his first contact with Ross in the interview room was to introduce himself again and inform him that he would be charged with child cruelty and second degree murder. He testified that Ross immediately said "there was no malicious intent." And that's when he and Det Racey(?)/Murphy(?) looked at each other and started to record.

But we've seen video now of Stoddard coming in and asking him some background questions and reading Miranda rights. Later in the tape we see Stoddard inform Ross that he will be charged with cruelty to child -- this seems to be the first time anyone says anything to Ross about charges, and his reaction was "it was completely unintentional", "it was an accident".

From the video we have seen, it seems impossible that prior to the video Stoddard informed him that he was being charged with felony murder - child cruelty or that Ross responded "there was no malicious intent."

With that in mind - how coincidental is it that the one statement Ross supposedly made to Stoddard that is being used of evidence of guilt is the ONLY thing Ross said off camera, so we are left to rely on Stoddard's word.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

RBBM. Stoddard FIRST made the testimony of RH saying the Malicious Intent at the Probable Cause Hearing/Bond Hearing on 7/2/14.In the video we saw on Friday 10/21/16, Stoddard and the other Det informed RH that were charging him with Cruelty to Child (or however that charge is listed). NOTHING about Murder in the 1st video of RH alone. NO mention in the 2nd video with LH and RH was Felony Murder charge stated either. As matter of fact (AND YES "FACT") from that video, Stoddard tells LH that RH can call her later on and let her know what the formal charges are and bail info if there is bail. Stoddard informs them that possible other charges could be added. So at the closing of the LH/RH video only charges told about were the Cruelty charge.

 

[katydid23]

I always thought that a jury is to only use the evidence given to them in court. Sure they can use their life experiences to decide if the evidence shows guilt or not.

I do believe that sometimes jurors do things that their not supposed to in deciding a defendants guilt. I'm not sure what your husbands profession has to do with this. He's not the one posting. LOL. JMO.

I think her husbands job has to do with her experience with juries. My father was a trial attorney and so is my brother. I worked in their firm and saw very closely what happens with juries and their decision making processes.

Being married to a trial lawyer brings one up close and personal to the way juries think and respond. I am sure she has heard her husband discuss what he did or didn't do and how it turned it because of that.

My Dad always spoke to as many of the jurors as he could after a big trial. He always wanted to know what went wrong or right with his decisions in the case. He and my brother both tried out some of their opening/closing statements on their wives and family. Like a captive audience. lol

 

[PaperDoll]

It really doesn't matter if Cooper was asleep or not. It's completely possible for him to be quiet without being asleep.

BTW - we do already have testimony that Cooper was sometimes asleep when Ross brought him in to daycare, so of course it's possible he did fall asleep.

BBM: Cooper had been going to daycare, IIRC since infancy, so I would expect him to sleep more often. That day he was pushing 2 years of age and most likely more active as time goes on

 

[Hope4More]

RBBM. Stoddard FIRST made the testimony of RH saying the Malicious Intent at the Probable Cause Hearing/Bond Hearing on 7/2/14.In the video we saw on Friday 10/21/16, Stoddard and the other Det informed RH that were charging him with Cruelty to Child (or however that charge is listed). NOTHING about Murder in the 1st video of RH alone. NO mention in the 2nd video with LH and RH was Felony Murder charge stated either. As matter of fact (AND YES "FACT") from that video, Stoddard tells LH that RH can call her later on and let her know what the formal charges are and bail info if there is bail. Stoddard informs them that possible other charges could be added. So at the closing of the LH/RH video only charges told about were the Cruelty charge.

Semantics, perhaps, because even the lesser charge of 2nd degree CC is a predicate for felony murder.

The first search warrant affidavit that night granted by a magistrate carried the charge of 1st degree CC and felony murder, and though it and the 2nd warrant granted didn't note the time issued (the 6 other warrants did), the latest it was signed off by the magistrate was likely around 7:30 (basing that on the intervals between subsequent warrants).

 

[katydid23]

Even if his head wasn't "inches over the seat" it was probably still visible simply due to how tall he was. Even rear facing you can see your child when you look back or sometimes parts of them in the mirror. Not straight on but you see parts of them. Only when my kids were infants did they sit so low in the seat was it hard to see them- if at all. It's not just his height that makes you see him he wasn't flat on the seat. He protruded outward IMO. The seat doesn't encase him LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And his arms would be visibly moving around. Every 2 yr old I have ever seen in a car was moving and pointing and flailing their arms at least some of the time.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Kinda a Perry Mason moment.. CSI Shumpert took these photos bending down looking into SUV from Drivers side. **Ludwig makes note, not from having Shumpert head above the top of car - as RH head was-) Ludwig points out can see TOP of the car seat but not down into the car seat from his position taking the Crime Scene photos at Akers Mills (this is VERY important because of the later manipulation of the car seat position/ CSI Grimstead's 7/2/14 photos with doll)

SS from the photo from video link in comment http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?319821-Trial-Ross-Harris-3&p=12888891#post12888891







From the BACK of SUV looking to the FRONT, notice car seat and where Coopers head has been shown in other photos that we do not have a date taken

 

[just the facts pls]

[/B]BBM: Cooper had been going to daycare, IIRC since infancy, so I would expect him to sleep more often. That day he was pushing 2 years of age and most likely more active as time goes on

Yes. And I know I sound like a broken record but there's footage from Chik-Fil-A showing that Cooper was wide awake and squirming around so much JRH had to keep switching arms to hold him in.

 

[PaperDoll]

I believe a detective (Stoddard?) testified that she asked to see Ross instead of Cooper. Twice while Ross was talking with Leanna he described how Cooper looked ("peaceful"), once at about 8:30 in the video and again at about 21:25. The second time he starts by saying he just wants Leanna to know that Cooper looked so peaceful. His mouth was closed, his eyes were closed, he did not look bad, I was dreading he was going to look terrible...

Based on those comments I'd say that Leanna went straight to Ross. Around 29:00 Leanna talks about going to the Treehouse looking for Ross - no mention of Cooper.

Interestingly, in his discussion with Leanna about what happened Ross never says anything about thinking he had dropped Cooper off at daycare. What he said was that he left CFA and headed to work and that Cooper never made a sound. To me anyway, it's more like he forgot Cooper was in the car rather than thinking he had dropped him off to daycare. The distinction is that Ross doesn't have a memory, albeit a false one, of taking Cooper to daycare. That's very different than what Dr. Diamond claims happens when a parent forgets their child. The crux of his argument is that the parent absolutely believes the child is somewhere else and continues to believe that until something causes the brain to reset - such as hearing the child's name.

Ross talks and talks about how he didn't do it on purpose but not once does he say he thought Cooper was at daycare. I find that concerning.

[video=youtube;lwbQuyHUx-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwbQuyHUx-A[/video]

Thank you :blowkiss: and I agree with your post. I didn't hear him say anything to anyone about thinking he had already dropped Cooper off. He couldn't even answer LE on why? He said he left CFA and then went straight to work, which is true. He proceeds to tell LE what may have happened but he couldn't really be sure. Again, and I'm always repeating myself here :crazy: but I think he did this on purpose, and I believe he knew Cooper was in the car that whole day. Where I have trouble is when he planned this. He may have been planning this for sometime but was afraid to go through with it. Or he may have made that decision after kissing Cooper and saying he loved him in case anyone dies, then deciding to go straight to work, don't pass go, don't collect $200. I think he thought he would get away with it by claiming he forgot..

 

[Bc007]

Read often but hardly ever post... hello to all! I enjoy everyone's comments.

I followed this case from the day it happened up until about a year ago. I picked it back up at the start of the trial. I always attempt to follow cases as if I was a juror and wait for all evidence presented at trial to pass judgment. The day it happened I was convinced it was a horrible accident. I live in GA and the media surrounding this case was especially heavy. With the leaked info about Internet searches and various odd comments, sexting... it was hard not to start to lean towards guilty. Now... I'm not so sure. I hope the state has more evidence than what it appears they do. So far my take away from testimony and cross is that most of the info floating around this whole time was hyped up and /or misconstrued. The police work and investigation seems forced, shotty and honestly, a little suspect now. The public already questions LE motives these days so all this conflicting testimony can easily get thrown to the way side during deliberations.

For me... Ross has been proven to be an awful husband and a perv. That said, he seems well liked by everyone who knew him. I also won't be surprised if the defense goes down a path of social awkwardness or some kind of attention disorder. At a minimum, he clearly has an addictive and obsessive personality. I also think he is a talker and craves attention. My take on all his extreme details to the police was an effort to tell them what happened while still attempting to paint a good picture of himself and let them know how well he typically cared for and loved his kid. He seemed nervous and in shock to me. I think that is why he mentions the car seat video and properly installing it etc. Other times I do agree with many commenters here that he seemed over the top. But by all accounts he loved his son and loved being a father. One text already presented he claimed to be happily married with exception of his sex life. He didn't lie about having a wife or kid which he easily could have. I'm sure the defense will discuss in great detail all this couple went through to conceive in the first place. I'm almost back to thinking he was extremely distracted, irresponsible and selfish. This cost him his greatest gift in life but when did it cross over into criminal territory. That's the question I find myself asking daily. Maybe the state is sitting on a bombshell whiteness, but as it stands, if the jury is thinking like me, when does an accident become a crime? I don't like the guy but he has been in jail all this time and most of the info about the case that helped keep him there is bogus (it seems). I know some of the parents in other cases like this have never charged yet some were. Why? There are documented cases of these poor people who sincerely thought their children were at school. So they talk about them as if they are and many discover these poor babies in the car only after attempting to pick them up from school. A firefighter just made this same mistake last week. He was charged. A principal of an elementary school left her child in the car after a change in her morning routine. For whatever the reason or wherever the distraction comes from... This unfortunately has happened before and it seems lcriminal charges don't always follow. Why? I understand Ross has additional charges involving the underage girl he inappropriately communicated with and those are clearly valid charges, but I don't see how they can prove those specific texts caused 100% of the distraction that lead to Cooper's death. I think they may have over charged him which backfires often. I can't see them getting anywhere close to premeditated, malice murder.

Other than asking when they can go home, has the jury asked any testimony related questions?

Sorry for rambling....

 

[Hope4More]

I believe a detective (Stoddard?) testified that she asked to see Ross instead of Cooper. Twice while Ross was talking with Leanna he described how Cooper looked ("peaceful"), once at about 8:30 in the video and again at about 21:25. The second time he starts by saying he just wants Leanna to know that Cooper looked so peaceful. His mouth was closed, his eyes were closed, he did not look bad, I was dreading he was going to look terrible...

Based on those comments I'd say that Leanna went straight to Ross. Around 29:00 Leanna talks about going to the Treehouse looking for Ross - no mention of Cooper.

Interestingly, in his discussion with Leanna about what happened Ross never says anything about thinking he had dropped Cooper off at daycare. What he said was that he left CFA and headed to work and that Cooper never made a sound. To me anyway, it's more like he forgot Cooper was in the car rather than thinking he had dropped him off to daycare. The distinction is that Ross doesn't have a memory, albeit a false one, of taking Cooper to daycare. That's very different than what Dr. Diamond claims happens when a parent forgets their child. The crux of his argument is that the parent absolutely believes the child is somewhere else and continues to believe that until something causes the brain to reset - such as hearing the child's name.

Ross talks and talks about how he didn't do it on purpose but not once does he say he thought Cooper was at daycare. I find that concerning.

[video=youtube;lwbQuyHUx-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwbQuyHUx-A[/video]

RH doesn't say explicitly he thought he dropped Cooper off, but he definitely alludes to that, it's just very difficult to hear. Start listening around 12:00.

 

[katydid23]

I find it kind of interesting that the jury members are already asking the judge when this trial will be over? She told them testimony should conclude Thanksgiving.

I don't remember a jury ever asking that question in the middle of testimony!!

I have seen it happen when it begins to approach the Holidays. Everyone wants to make travel plans or already has family holiday events planned etc. So they need to know what to do about Thanksgiving etc.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I was the one who brought up the law changing. I did not realize it was SO soon after this happened.

I thought it was but was unsure at time.

Just want to point out that those are dates taken straight from Ludwig arguing the Motion to Quash. NOT my compiling of information. Factual information from the Hearing.

Notice if you watched that portion of Hearing, the State does not dispute, State contends that the Motion is not ripe, that shouldn't be heard until sentencing after a verdict .

Very interesting too is the next section last for that day 9/14/15 was the legal stuff over Charges 6,7,&8.

Sept 15, 2015 next day was when Stoddard was back on the stand.