Trial - Ross Harris #3

[minor4th]

There follows an exceptionally damaging series of exchanges between Harris and numerous women on Kik or Whisper. Boring introduces each and asks Stoddard how Harris responds. According to Stoddard:

Harris tells one he is addicted to sex. He tells another he "hates being married sometimes, too." He tells another he misses being single. He tells another that "my wife should divorce me." He tells another "sometimes I want to be unmarried." He tells another, on May 19, 2014, "Wish I was single." That was a month before Cooper's death. He tells another, on May 23, "I settled down. Kinda regret it." He tells another on May 28, "I'm a bit miserable, too . . . No sex (in my relationship). You?" He tells another, on March 14, "I'm tired of living with my wife sometimes, lol." He tells another in January 2014, "I miss being single. ... I just want to (expletive) a lot of girls, drink a lot and have fun." He tells another in February, "You don't need a baby. It's not easy, and expensive. . . . I love my son, but that joker drains my paycheck." He tells another, in February 2014, "I have sex with strangers to block out a lot of my pain. ... I like it with strangers." He tells another "I have a sex addiction I've acted on. I kind of regret that."
===========================================================================================================

I think this is incredibly damaging info for the defense. And I totally disagree that the State was amiss for trying to bring it out for the jury to see for themselves. Ross was very unhappy with his family life. And he was totally out of control, depressed, fatigued and frustrated on the day he 'forgot' his baby in the car.

Of course it's damaging to the defense - the jury gets to hear about what a jerk Ross was and how he betrayed his wife.

But it has nothing to do with Cooper's death. His dissatisfaction with his wife does not provide a motive to kill his child. He was not unhappy with his child.

Are you trying to say that being fatigued, depressed, unhappy, overwhelmed, etc makes a parent criminally negligent?

 

[Rocco]

Of course it's damaging to the defense - the jury gets to hear about what a jerk Ross was and how he betrayed his wife.

But it has nothing to do with Cooper's death. His dissatisfaction with his wife does not provide a motive to kill his child. He was not unhappy with his child.

Are you trying to say that being fatigued, depressed, unhappy, overwhelmed, etc makes a parent criminally negligent?

It does if the jurors believe he intentionally left him in the car because he was fatigued, depressed, unhappy, overwhelmed, etc.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

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 had thought, just from tv and novels lol, that once you had invoked if you started talking again LE had to specifically ask you if you were now waving your right. This is not correct I gather.

 

[Bc007]

One thing I do not foresee happening is Kilgore chewing up Stoddard. He may try but Stoddard is not easily shaken. He will hold his own.

Stoddard ,in my opinion, has come across as unprepared, over confident and seems like he can't keep his facts vs his opinions straight. Given how poorly he has testified for the prosecution, I doubt it will take much more to further discredit him. He is easier to like than RH. That is about all he has going for him in this particular trial. At times he, along with the state, have come across like they are trying to throw everything in but the kitchen sink in effort to justify these charges. There are things that don't add up and evidence that is not very strong in the light of day.

 

[Rocco]

I had thought, just from tv and novels lol, that once you had invoked if you started talking again LE had to specifically ask you if you were now waving your right. This is not correct I gather.

I'll let Minor4th answer that but what you have said is my understanding too from my son-in-law, who is an attorney. Seems to me though they didn't ask him any more questions---he voluntarily just started talking, and they let him talk. I believe he asked them some questions but they didn't ask him any.

 

[katydid23]

Damaging as in bad character evidence, damaging as in hurtful to his ex-wife, damaging if the jury understandably thinks RH is really on trial for his prodigious infidelities. But relevant to the charges against him? No, I don't think so.

How can it not be relevant to the charges against him?

Charges:


Malice Murder
Felony Murder
Felony Murder
Cruelty to Children in the First Degree
Cruelty to Children in the Second Degree
Criminal Attempt to Commit a Felony, to wit: Sexual Exploitation of Children
Dissemination of harmful Material to Minors
Dissemination of Harmful material to Minors

 

[minor4th]

It does if the jurors believe he intentionally left him in the car because he was fatigued, depressed, unhappy, overwhelmed, etc.

Well if the jurors think he intentionally left him in the car, then it's not criminal negligence - it's intentional and pre-meditated. I think I'm not understanding your post

 

[minor4th]

I'll let Minor4th answer that but what you have said is my understanding too from my son-in-law, who is an attorney. Seems to me though they didn't ask him any more questions---he voluntarily just started talking, and they let him talk. I believe he asked them some questions but they didn't ask him any.

That's correct. After he invokes, they cannot ask him questions - even if he starts talking without prompting. They would have to get another waiver to ask him more questions. Usually once a person invokes, police quit talking to them completely to be on the safe side and avoid having evidence thrown out. Cobb County police seem to operate a little differently though ...

 

[Rocco]

Well if the jurors think he intentionally left him in the car, then it's not criminal negligence - it's intentional and pre-meditated. I think I'm not understanding your post

Isn't criminal negligence a lesser charge and don't prosecutors sometimes go with a lesser charge if they feel they have a better chance of winning a conviction? I'm asking because I don't know for sure--- obviously you would know.

 

[minor4th]

Isn't criminal negligence a lesser charge and don't prosecutors sometimes go with a lesser charge if they feel they have a better chance of winning a conviction? I'm asking because I don't know for sure--- obviously you would know.

No, it's a completely different charge.

Malice murder: The state is alleging that Ross purposely planned and deliberately killed Cooper by leaving him to die in a hot car. This charge is the one that the state has mostly been focusing on, trying to prove that Ross didn't want his child any more because he just wanted to sext and go to movies with is friends, and his wife didn't have sex with him. IMO, as I'm sure you've figured out, the State has done a lousy job of providing compelling evidence of a motive or any evidence that Ross purposely killed his child.

Felony murder: Felony murder is when a death occurs during the commission of a felony that is inherently dangerous to human life and carries a reasonably foreseeable risk of death. In this case, the underlying felony the state is alleging is child cruelty in the 2nd degree. 2nd degree child cruelty is causing excessive physical pain to a child through criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is conduct that is undertaken despite a reasonably foreseeable risk of death - it is not just an accident or mistake. It requires purposeful conduct that exposes a person to the risk of death, even if death is not intended. An example would be purposefully leaving a child in a hot car for hours, knowing it's dangerous to the child and that it could kill him, even if there is no specific intent to kill the child; or leaving a loaded gun within a toddler's reach without supervision, and the toddler gets the gun and shoots himself.

I did some research on Georgia law on these issues. A couple of examples of criminal negligence felonies that formed the predicate for felony murder convictions are:

1) A father was a drug dealer and kept his cocaine stash in an arm rest of the sofa. The father conducted his drug deals within view of his toddler daughter on a daily basis, and the stash was where the toddler could get it. The child got the cocaine, ingested it and died. The father was charged with felony murder based on 2nd degree child cruelty - doing drug deals in front of his toddler and leaving the drugs where the child could access them was criminally negligent conduct because it was inherently dangerous to the toddler and created a known risk of death.

2) A mother slid her baby down a stair banister, resulting the infant falling 5 feet to the ground. There was also evidence that the mother shook the baby to supposedly try to revive her. There was also evidence of a history of past physical abuse of the child. The jury found her actions were criminally negligent (whether the child died because of the fall or from being shaken) and found her guilty of child cruelty/felony murder.

3) There are a whole bunch of cases about felons in possession of firearms who accidentally shot someone (while hunting or cleaning a gun). In one supreme court case, the court found that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not itself inherently dangerous and was not a felony that could support a felony murder conviction. In other cases, the court found that the particular circumstances of the way a felon was using a firearm (carelessly or recklessly) made it a dangerous felony that could be the basis for a felony murder conviction.

In this case, the state has in no way made it clear what they believe the criminally negligent conduct was that would support a 2nd degree child cruelty conviction and felony murder conviction.

 

[ScotAng]

Stoddard testimony and Greg Sanders from HD Security doesnt match up on some things. One especially being" RH did not bend down a bit"as Stoddard testified. Also the portion of the video where RH is walking back to the building at lunch. Where the person walks buy and RH appears on the phone. Sanders testified no RH did not turn his head, was either looking at phone or ground. LOL Stoddard, well he couldn't tell and said of the video "it is what it is" Boring in leading got him to say something else, and Def Objected but the Judge overruled. :facepalm: And the times in parking lot varies too.

What does it matter if the times are off slightly, the jury aren't going to scrutinise time when they can watch the video. Whether he turned his head isn't much of an issue either. He stops, that's clear enough. I can't definitively say he turns his head, but he turns his body. Just out of interest, I'll re-watch them on my tv screen in the morning, well a few hours now. If Kilgore crosses Stoddard on this point, he'll simply reiterate he said it is what it is, he can't say for sure. That's not going to impact the jury one way or another.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

when he said we, who did he mean by we? he and leanna from cooper? he and cooper from leanna? out of all his weird statements and hers for me that's the most telling. he knew what he was about to do. he went out at lunch to see what was happening and i don't think he had to lean all the way in cause he could still hear cooper struggling for life. i'm all for getting that car...parking its in that spot on the same day and letting him die just the way he let cooper die.

I thought he meant the original commentator on Whisper and himself? As in, "You and I both need breaks."

 

[Zoobiegirl]

When I followed this case as it happened, I really thought Ross left Cooper in the car with the intention of quickly returning to the car after making an appearance at work. I still keep that idea on the table of possibilities....but....

after seeing the trial so far, I'm very surprised that I now consider he could've intended murder. I don't think the case has been made (so far) that is beyond a reasonable doubt and (so far) I couldn't convict for intentional murder if I were on the jury. But, I'm not on the jury so I can chat about it here. I seriously wonder if he did intend this.

Whatever the case, I think he knew that afternoon at work that Cooper was dead in his car. I think he expected the public and LE to be on his side and he would even be a hero who went into advocacy for children in cars. I think he fully expected that and perhaps still does.

jmo

I thought that as well. In fact I wondered if he had made a habit if you will of taking brief trips inside somewhere and LeAnne was worried about it and so that is why he took a pic of Cooper arriving at daycare when he took him. That would be one explanation as to why he stopped as that was when they got the new front facing car seat. In my theory (lol) he would then tell LeAnne "oh you don't have to worry about me forgetting him now." I could see it being one trip too many and this time he DID get busy and forget him after he got there. Now I as well wonder if it was murder. I'm not hanging onto my old theory though.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

That was very smart of Leanna. Ross ended up being charged with murder when he spoke to police - no way should Leanna have spoken further with police. Ross shouldn't have spoken to them either IMO. Police are not your friends - they are trying to find people to put in jail.

Do you think if he had refused to speak with them without an attorney he would have been arrested then? Just curious. I get all my police/lawyer facts from mystery novels lol.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

From Ross' answer in the interrogation room, I think he thought he could sweet talk the officers into letting him go home to grieve. Ross kept bringing up how he worked for a police department in Alabama, he kept using police lingo, etc.

I had never thought of it before this case but, just in reading news articles about hot car deaths, I would have thought the parent went home and if charged it was later. Just because if it was a tragic accident that I would think the family would want to be together right after something horrible like that. It's not like finding someone standing over a corpse with a smoking gun is I guess what I mean.

 

[minor4th]

Do you think if he had refused to speak with them without an attorney he would have been arrested then? Just curious. I get all my police/lawyer facts from mystery novels lol.

He probably would have eventually been arrested, but he wouldn't have been arrested that night. And I think there's a good possibility that he wouldn't have been charged with murder if he hadn't talked to police like he did.

 

[Nonnie]

I just took time out of my day to watch the video of this dude and his ridiculous wife in the interrogation room and I call BULL$#!T. That's what I call.

I have never seen such a bunch of poor acting since the 70s. Like they didn't KNOW they were being watched. And her with her fake, "oh I'm suddenly a professional grief and crisis counselor?" WHATEVER.

HER CHILD JUST DIED.

I'm not buying it. That's the beauty of being this old, I've seen enough of this crap to not believe any of it. Then he just goes from weeping in his shoulder shaking high pitched sob to discussing what he was being charged with.

The TONE of his voice changes and so does his body language when he discusses what he is being charged with. This appears to be his bigger concern.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

I get so upset with stuff like this. They are fortunate I'm not the prosecuting attorney. Lighting would come through the roof of the courthouse.

Moving on...


This goes right along with all the boyfriends and husbands with missing partners who claim, "oh yeah, we did have a fight but I saw her walking down the road at 3AM and that was the last I saw her."


I've been on plenty of farms and I know cow $#!T when I step in it.

Thank you, thank you thank you. The thank you button wasn't enough.

I am also old and have seen a lot in my life . I have always been able to read people. If anyone's hinkey meter hasn't gone off loud and clear with this
case, then they don't have one. jmo

 

[Zoobiegirl]

A show of hands - who else is annoyed that JRH kept telling women to leave their marriages (even if they had kids!) and wouldn't take his own damn advice?

As far as JRH being *advertiser censored* shamed - well that's just rich after all the comments posted about the barely legal teenagers he targeted, including the use of their full names so that anyone can Google them and learn about their embarrassing mistakes.

First and foremost, JRH was a married man who knew better. He took vows and signed a legal contract, it was his responsibility to either fulfill his end of the bargain or sue for divorce. Most people understand that being married or having a serious relationship means staying faithful and not cheating. Most would also agree that if someone is so unhappy that they are going to cheat, the next logical step is to either work it out, seek help, or end the relationship.

Today we learned that JRH and LH had gone to marriage counseling, but apparently it didn't help. JRH also said that he deserved to be divorced. I'm not understanding his reasoning that he's staying for Cooper. I don't think he says those things because has Cooper's best interests at heart. I think JRH has JRH's best interests at heart, including protecting his own finances/lifestyle choice to be a thirty year old pervert.

A loving father would do everything they can to provide a healthy and stable environment for his child to grow up in - even if it means getting a divorce and getting his own place. A loving father doesn't spend money on prostitutes and not on a new forward facing car seat for his growing toddler. A loving father doesn't take time away from his son to get a *advertiser censored* on the side of the road from barely legal teenagers. A loving father grows up, takes responsibility, and behaves constructively about the problems of his life rather than causing chaos in his own home.

Does anyone know if cooper was along for any of these episodes? I have been wondering if maybe the fact that Cooper was starting to talk had something to do with his demise. As in "Mommy why did that strange lady have Daddy's pee pee in her mouth?" He was also getting more mobile and active and less likely to be happy with litttle or no interaction with Dad.

 

[katydid23]

Of course it's damaging to the defense - the jury gets to hear about what a jerk Ross was and how he betrayed his wife.

But it has nothing to do with Cooper's death. His dissatisfaction with his wife does not provide a motive to kill his child. He was not unhappy with his child.

Are you trying to say that being fatigued, depressed, unhappy, overwhelmed, etc makes a parent criminally negligent?

In my opinion, it does have to do with his son's death because he himself has often said that the only thing blocking his ability to leave his unhappy marriage WAS HIS SON. I see that as a very strong motive.

He said a few harsh things about his child. Like the 'little joker drains his paycheck. ' So his kid blocks him from freedom and sucks him dry financially.

I am saying that the fatigue could lead to a conviction for Criminal Negligence because the choices he made, like sexting until 3 am and then starting up again at 5 am, were what led to his tiredness and depression.

 

[katydid23]

Here is a recent case where the jury found the mother GUILTY of criminal Negligence, in spite of Dr Diamond. But they were very lenient with her in the end:

http://blog.expertpages.com/general...-a-hot-car-uses-psychology-expert-witness.htm

Jury Convicts Texas Mother for Death of Infant Daughter Left in Hot Car

Despite emotional testimony from Wakesha Ives and analytical expert witness testimony about Forgotten Baby Syndrome by Dr. Diamond, the jury of 10 women and 4 men found the defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide for Janay’s death. The jury acquitted Ives of the more serious charge recklessness causing serious bodily harm due to omission – which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years – suggesting that jurors put some degree of stock into the defendant’s case and her expert witness’s contributions.