Trial - Ross Harris #3

[Bravo]

Okay. It is my BIRTHDAY---and I will take this moment to be grateful that both my kids are alive and well, and I have a beautiful baby grand daughter, and they are all meeting hubby and I at a sports bar to watch the SeaHawks game. I will be drinking margaritas very soon. :toast:

:Happybirthday:

 

[yupikgirl]

You said your husband said he thought she was cold and could see why he was sexting. I disagreed with that and said so because it's absolutely ridiculous to blame her AT ALL for the sexting he was doing. You posted it---I responded.

No need to get snarky and call my post a whiz by just because I haven't posted yet on this thread---doesn't mean I haven't read most of the posts----including yours.

I agree no matter what she acted like in the marriage- there is no excuse to go outside your marriage. You do have the choice to leave the marriage first. Blaming her or saying she contributed to him doing that is ridiculous. If he was unhappy with her and needed more sexually he is an adult and could have left the marriage- IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PaperDoll]

I agree no matter what she acted like in the marriage- there is no excuse to go outside your marriage. You do have the choice to leave the marriage first. Blaming her or saying she contributed to him doing that is ridiculous. If he was unhappy with her and needed more sexually he is an adult and could have left the marriage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also get tried of listening to men complain about their wives "in the bedroom". A wife can be GREAT in the bedroom and the husband will still cheat IMO. It's not about "performance" it's the ego.. MOO! Maybe Ross wasn't giving his wife what she wants..

 

[just the facts pls]

I agree no matter what she acted like in the marriage- there is no excuse to go outside your marriage. You do have the choice to leave the marriage first. Blaming her or saying she contributed to him doing that is ridiculous. If he was unhappy with her and needed more sexually he is an adult and could have left the marriage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you! I am not a huge fan of the institution of marriage BUT if someone gets married it is their responsibility to fulfill their part of the vows and legal contract they signed on for.

If JRH found himself unbearably unhappy with LH, he could have separated and filed for divorce. It's not like he wasn't making enough money to go out, rent a room or something, and file for divorce. It only cost LH 212$ to file for divorce. LH's temperament does not appear to be a future ex that would give him a lot of grief - quite the opposite. He could have found other single guys to share an apartment with if he needed to. JRH was not bereft of options, but for whatever reason he chose to cheat instead of living honestly.

The most disturbing aspect of this case is that he told JM that he would leave LH if not for Cooper. Right there blows away the idea that he was having his cake and eating it too. He was clearly unhappy in his marriage and the only thing keeping him from escaping (in his mind) was Cooper.

 

[Hope4More]

Cont.

Ms. X replies by, natch, talking about herself, feeling drained by husband and kids, etc. She makes it very clear she doesn't resent her kids, she resents her husband. She isn't expressing a desire to be "free" of any of it.

If RH can relate to feeling drained by an unsupportive or unappreciative wife or in general sucky wife, he doesn't say so. That's not where his mind is. His mind is still on not being able to go out with friends. In other words, he's still thinking about the movies and perhaps a fight from the night before.

He says- " I love Cooper, but we both need our escapes. ". Can't tell you how unremarkable I find that comment . Parents do need escapes, aka breaks. I'm willing to bet the reason why he prefaced the comment about escape with mentioning Cooper is that Leanna typically brought up Cooper when she objected to his going out with friends.

 

[RANCH]

I also get tried of listening to men complain about their wives "in the bedroom". A wife can be GREAT in the bedroom and the husband will still cheat IMO. It's not about "performance" it's the ego.. MOO! Maybe Ross wasn't giving his wife what she wants..

I don't think we will ever know if Leanna was great in bed or not. Same with Ross.

Regardless, RH is the one we know had the problem with his marriage vows. I'm not sure if the jury will be able to consider the why with the evidence given to them.

JMO

 

[just the facts pls]

I also get tried of listening to men complain about their wives "in the bedroom". A wife can be GREAT in the bedroom and the husband will still cheat IMO. It's not about "performance" it's the ego.. MOO! Maybe Ross wasn't giving his wife what she wants..

Yes it works both ways doesn't it? It is not just LH's responsibility to keep JRH happy. JRH has to do his part to make the marriage work too. He's not doing that when his free time was full of movie dates with his buddies and roadside blow jobs from barely legal teenagers.

It's hard to believe we're living in the year 2016 and we're still having these conversations.

 

[yupikgirl]

I also get tried of listening to men complain about their wives "in the bedroom". A wife can be GREAT in the bedroom and the husband will still cheat IMO. It's not about "performance" it's the ego.. MOO! Maybe Ross wasn't giving his wife what she wants..

Yes and when a man/woman cheats it has very little to do with the spouse- many professionals agree on this. Of course there are exceptions, but the great majority have nothing to do with their spouse and everything to do with themselves.

Edited to add: IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

You said your husband said he thought she was cold and could see why he was sexting. I disagreed with that and said so because it's absolutely ridiculous to blame her AT ALL for the sexting he was doing. You posted it---I responded.

No need to get snarky and call my post a whiz by just because I haven't posted yet on this thread---doesn't mean I haven't read most of the posts----including yours.

Sigh. Took the time once to explain what seemed to be misunderstood, but with all respect, will pass this time. There was no snark, a whiz by isn't what you seem to think, you still don't understand my point, there isn't any need for you to, and moving right along......

 

[Hope4More]

Okay. It is my BIRTHDAY---and I will take this moment to be grateful that both my kids are alive and well, and I have a beautiful baby grand daughter, and they are all meeting hubby and I at a sports bar to watch the SeaHawks game. I will be drinking margaritas very soon. :toast:

Happy, happy birthday! Glad you're off celebrating & thinking about happier things.

 

[JudyBolton]

Fact check.


1. The "lady" testified that RH used Bluetooth precisely because he DID have hearing loss, and Bluetooth compensated for the hearing loss because it broadcast throughout the car.

2. The "lady" testified she was aware RH had hearing loss.

----
It is a matter of opinion only, not fact, whether or not Cooper was awake and making noise, asleep, or awake and silent. People being "sure" till the cows come home one way or another about Cooper awake or asleep doesn't make opinion fact.

And RH "surely" hearing Cooper depends on Cooper being awake, making noise, making noise loud enough to not be drowned out by a radio on (if it was), and making noise loud enough to be heard by a man with hearing problems in his right ear that couldn't be compensated for in this case by reading lips, filling in conversational blanks, etc.

----
The only texts send by RH between walking out of CFA around 9:18 and approx 9:55, 25 minutes after arriving at work, were 3 texts sent at 9:24, most likely while stopped at that intersection, and very likely not with a handheld phone.

This is one of those things that jurors will have to decide for themselves without evidence as it cannot be proven one way or the other. They will rely on their common sense, their life experiences with other toddlers in cars, etc.

I believe the majority of opinion here (VERY unscientific survey) casts doubt on the scenario that Cooper ate at Chick-fil-a, was awake and alert, and fell asleep less than 90 seconds later without making movement or sound to alert JRH of his presence. If he were a tiny infant, I would be more likely to believe it. (just based on my experience with my own children.)

 

[RANCH]

This is one of those things that jurors will have to decide for themselves without evidence as it cannot be proven one way or the other. They will rely on their common sense, their life experiences with other toddlers in cars, etc.

I believe the majority of opinion here (VERY unscientific survey) casts doubt on the scenario that Cooper ate at Chick-fil-a, was awake and alert, and fell asleep less than 90 seconds later without making movement or sound to alert JRH of his presence. If he were a tiny infant, I would be more likely to believe it. (just based on my experience with my own children.)

BBM

So the jury can decide something happened without any evidence to support it? I'm not sure that's their job. JMO

 

[Hope4More]

I don't think we will ever know if Leanna was great in bed or not. Same with Ross.

Regardless, RH is the one we know had the problem with his marriage vows. I'm not sure if the jury will be able to consider the why with the evidence given to them.

JMO

They'll have Leanna's testimony (and demeanor on stand) to consider, and they'll have that video.

What either is like in bed hadn't occurred to me to think about, and can't say I have any interest in starting to think about it now.

I feel safe in saying all the jurors watching that video will think Leanna's behavior is "odd," for lack of a better one word description. A mother has just lost her baby and she isn't crying. Her lack of tears and apparent lack of concern for Cooper for 45 odd minutes is in ironic contrast to RH who is visibly distraught for 45 minutes and the only one of the two to talk about Cooper, again and again, and to express grief over Cooper's death.

I think it's possible for that video to backfire on the State because of their starkly contrasting behavior-- after all, he's the one on trial for killing their son, not her, and for no better reason than allegedly just wanting to be "free."

Which is the point about what jurors make of her behavior, if they find it relevant at all. RH is supposed to be so utterly soulless that he killed his son on purpose in the most brutal way imaginable, but he is also essentially on trial for his marital infidelities (am not referring to the minors).

Difficult to imagine those infidelities won't be discussed by the jury, and if they are, yes I hope the jury considers what they saw in the video and realizes there were likely understandable reasons for RH to feel unhappy in his marriage, other than his own baggage.

 

[JudyBolton]

BBM

So the jury can decide something happened without any evidence to support it? I'm not sure that's their job. JMO

Yes, having been a juror 3 times and my husband is a trial lawyer, jurors bring their own personal life experiences into the jury room, whether we like it or not. I wasn't saying it was their "job", I was saying that they do it.

 

[RANCH]

Yes, having been a juror 3 times and my husband is a trial lawyer, jurors bring their own personal life experiences into the jury room, whether we like it or not. I wasn't saying it was their "job", I was saying that they do it.

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.

 

[gregjrichards]

Do we know yet is Ross Harris is going to take the stand? Or do you think his defence attorney's have advised against it.

 

[just the facts pls]

This is one of those things that jurors will have to decide for themselves without evidence as it cannot be proven one way or the other. They will rely on their common sense, their life experiences with other toddlers in cars, etc.

I believe the majority of opinion here (VERY unscientific survey) casts doubt on the scenario that Cooper ate at Chick-fil-a, was awake and alert, and fell asleep less than 90 seconds later without making movement or sound to alert JRH of his presence. If he were a tiny infant, I would be more likely to believe it. (just based on my experience with my own children.)

Yes, and also all of Cooper's teachers have testified he was an outgoing and talkative child.

Their testimony is evidence admitted into court. Nobody here is making up anything, though I think anyone paying attention to the trial would see that for themselves.

It is only logical that Cooper was wide awake and talking since footage from Chik-Fil-A shows him as alert and squirming around, and he said "school" as JRH was buckling him in. It's highly unlikely Cooper fell asleep, especially at his age. It's not a far reaching guess, it's logical conclusion.

 

[just the facts pls]

One observation I made about JRH's interview with police is the way he talked. Deafness can affect the way a person talks and can be intelligible to others. JRH was not only easily understood, but conveyed what he was saying very clearly.

The Hyundai is a very small SUV. I was surprised to see how small it was. Cooper would not have had to make much noise to be heard by anyone in the car, and sound waves would bounce off the windows. It's not like he was sitting in the very back of a full size van. Also, it's not logical to conclude that it was impossible for JRH to hear a talkative toddler only inches from his head if his left ear has compensated for the lack of hearing in his right.

 

[Hope4More]

Just because it was possible to see Cooper in the car doesn't mean that RH did. Was he looking at his phone or just not paying any attention to the back seat? JMO.

RH, telling Stoddard what had happened, said he first saw Cooper after work, driving, when he was making a right hand turn, and that his first response was he thought he "must be seeing things."

That sounds like what I can imagine a first thought would be. Must be seeing things because he can't be there because he's at daycare, about to be picked up by Leanna.

Reality is, RH hasn't said, that I'm aware of, that he didn't see the car seat. Maybe he saw it, maybe he didn't, imo it doesn't really matter in any case, in the sense it is very easy to not see (as in, not register seeing) something that is always in the same place, and has no immediate relevance.

If RH thought Cooper was at daycare, seeing the car seat would have been meaningless. LE knows this, which is why IMO they manipulated the position of the car seat, and why they asserted (falsely) that Cooper's head was visible over the top of the seat.

 

[RANCH]

One observation I made about JRH's interview with police is the way he talked. Deafness can affect the way a person talks and can be intelligible to others. JRH was not only easily understood, but conveyed what he was saying very clearly.

The Hyundai is a very small SUV. I was surprised to see how small it was. Cooper would not have had to make much noise to be heard by anyone in the car, and sound waves would bounce off the windows. It's not like he was sitting in the very back of a full size van. Also, it's not logical to conclude that it was impossible for JRH to hear a talkative toddler only inches from his head if his left ear has compensated for the lack of hearing in his right.

BBM

I work with someone who is not deaf but has hearing problems. He speech is normal. RH is not deaf as far as I know, he has hearing problems. Maybe I'm wrong. JMO