Trial - Ross Harris #3

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
katydid23 said:
The searches are not the only things that point to a possibility of a guilty verdict. And he did show that original they were mistaken when they thought he made the searches himself. So I am not sure it was an outright lie on his part.
Click to expand...


Staley discussed just this issue in her Jan 2016 ruling denying the DT's motion to suppress electronic evidence, ALL of it predicated on LE's word RH had conducted those searches.

It may interest you to know she specifically cited GA code about whether or not LIES by LE on search warrant affadavits invalidated the legality of the warrants obtained.

Astonishingly, at least IMO, her ruling was that it's legally permissable for LE to lie in order to obtain search warrants, as long as the magistrate reviewing the affadavits believes there is, overall, probable cause to justify the warrants. Of course, the only info available to the magistrate is that being provided by LE.

See how that works?
 
Kilgore sure does not want the jury to see the car seat in the car.
 
Hope4More said:
Staley discussed just this issue in her Jan 2016 ruling denying the DT's motion to suppress electronic evidence, ALL of it predicated on LE's word RH had conducted those searches.

It may interest you to know she specifically cited GA code about whether or not LIES by LE on search warrant affadavits invalidated the legality of the warrants obtained.

Astonishingly, at least IMO, her ruling was that it's legally permissable for LE to lie in order to obtain search warrants, as long as the magistrate reviewing the affadavits believes there is, overall, probable cause to justify the warrants. Of course, the only info available to the magistrate is that being provided by LE.

See how that works?
Click to expand...

I am disgusted. And, yes, I am more disgusted by this than any 'junk' otherwise discussed. This hurts the rights of all humans, not just minors.
 
Harris waived his right to be in attendance when the jury goes to view the SUV.

Harris can always change his mind.

Are you satisfied with your attorneys’ representation of you” on this narrow issues, the judge asked Harris. He replied yes.

The defense has objected to the jury viewing the vehicle but the judge is allowing it. It will be driven to the courthouse for the jury to view. There are at least two locations that are suitable, the prosecution said.

Kilgore’s initial concern with having the jurors view it at the courthouse is the media taking photos.

“You all are putting the cart ahead of the horse. The media is not a concern at this point,” Superior Court Judge Mary Staley Clark.

The sheriff is going to suggest where the car should be for viewing.

Part two of Kilgore’s concern about the viewing is contrary to the motion filed by the state on April 11, 2016. That motion was the car seat could be put in the car and viewed at the crime scene. Bringing the car to Brunswick is not that.

This is inviting jurors walking up to the car to substitute their view of the car seat for what Harris was able to see or in a position to see, Kilgore said. “That’s inappropriate.”

The prosecutor said the previous motion was to allow the jury to see the crime scene.

“The crime scene is that car seat in that vehicle,” he said.
 
Hope4More said:
Staley discussed just this issue in her Jan 2016 ruling denying the DT's motion to suppress electronic evidence, ALL of it predicated on LE's word RH had conducted those searches.

It may interest you to know she specifically cited GA code about whether or not LIES by LE on search warrant affadavits invalidated the legality of the warrants obtained.

Astonishingly, at least IMO, her ruling was that it's legally permissable for LE to lie in order to obtain search warrants, as long as the magistrate reviewing the affadavits believes there is, overall, probable cause to justify the warrants. Of course, the only info available to the magistrate is that being provided by LE.

See how that works?
Click to expand...

When LE gets SW's, they don't have much information yet. Quite often the initial info in a probable cause statement is erroneous. I don't think it invalidates future evidence gained once those mistakes are seen and corrected.
 
katydid23 said:
When LE gets SW's, they don't have much information yet. Quite often the initial info in a probable cause statement is erroneous. I don't think it invalidates future evidence gained once those mistakes are seen and corrected.
Click to expand...


I'm not referring to mistakes or erroneous information, Katy, and neither was Staley in that part of her ruling. I'm referring to outright LIES, as was she.

And yes, it's called fruit of the poisonous tree, or should have been anyway, if lying to obtain warrants was considered problematic in GA. Any evidence obtained through evidence obtained illegally is considered tainted, and impermissable in a court of law.
 
I want to make sure there are no trial witness within eyeshot of the jury, including law enforcement officers, including Det. Stoddard, Kilgore said.

The prosecution is asking for an exemption for Stoddard, which the Staley Clark says she’ll allow, otherwise no other witnesses can be present.
 
JerseyGirl said:
I want to make sure there are no trial witness within eyeshot of the jury, including law enforcement officers, including Det. Stoddard, Kilgore said.

The prosecution is asking for an exemption for Stoddard, which the Staley Clark says she’ll allow, otherwise no other witnesses can be present.
Click to expand...


I'm going to pipe down for awhile after this, promise :D, but Staley might as well save the taxpayers money and just declare RH guilty herself.
 
Hope4More said:
I'm not referring to mistakes or erroneous information, Katy, and neither was Staley in that part of her ruling. I'm referring to outright LIES, as was she.

And yes, it's called fruit of the poisonous tree. Any evidence obtained through evidence obtained illegally is considered tainted, and impermissable in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Did LE LIE about those searches in the SW or were they mistaken?
 
Once we know where the sheriff wants to place it, then specific concerns can be raised, the judge said.

Kilgore wants a court reporter there for the viewing, as well for it to be recorded on video. The prosecution doesn’t have an objection to the court reporter. The judge has denied the request for the videographer.

Let’s talk about the media, Staley Clark said. “No jurors are to be depicted in anyway by the media,” she said. And they need to be at an appropriate distance.
 
I am thrilled to hear that the jury will take a field trip to see the car, hopefully with the car seat installed. :yes:

I found Kilgores argument, that placing the car seat inside the car, was somehow 'tampering with the crime scene' a ridiculous one.
 
Hope4More said:
I'm going to pipe down for awhile after this, promise :D, but Staley might as well save the taxpayers money and just declare RH guilty herself.
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with her allowing Stoddard to attend the viewing? I don't understand.
 
Kilgore was discussing a Whisper where Ross said (about Cooper) "He's awesome." He asks Stoddard if he agrees that the Whisper is inconsistent with malice or hatred against his son. Stoddard agrees.

Kilgore: "It kinda seems like he's absolutely clueless that Cooper's out there in the car doesn't it? That's what it looks like, doesn't it?"
Stoddard: "Or it could have been a reminder that Cooper's out there in the car, as he's talking about his son. It could go either way sir."

Kilgore: "It could go either way. Your way is that, that it should have reminded him that he forgot to drop Cooper off?"
Stoddard: "Yes."

Kilgore: "The other way would be (pause) that guy over there was absolutely clueless that his child's out in the car."
Stoddard: "I believe it should be a reminder that your son's out in the car."

Kilgore: "Is it your belief then that he'd forgotten he had a child altogether?"
Stoddard: "No."

I understand why Kilgore would bring up the "He's awesome" comment but I'm unsure why he went in the direction he did afterward. There have been a mountain of texts read out by both sides so far and some will be more memorable in jurors' minds than others. Hearing Ross call Cooper awesome should be one of them. However, his exchange with Stoddard might cause some jurors to wonder why mentioning Cooper didn't jog Ross' memory. Why plant that option in their minds?

And to my ears that last question just sounded like a failed "gotcha."
 
The jury is now returning to the courtroom for testimony.
 
Kilgore going after the Search Warrant info on the applications now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 1,786 (members: 179, guests: 1,607)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
1,607
Total visitors
1,786
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
606,130
Messages
18,199,284
Members
233,748
Latest member
AnnaNikiSB
Back
Top