Trial - Ross Harris #3

[katydid23]

The fact of the matter is that RH wasn't texting or drinking or high or engaged in any activity whatsoever other than driving his car between the time he left CFA and reaching the intersection where he didn't turn left instead of going straight.

If he had been texting or drinking or high when he didn't turn left, he'd be guilty of criminal negligence, and even then would not be presumed to have had intent.

And, there is no way to know whether or not Cooper would be alive if RH had "exercised self control for a few more minutes." That's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

It's obvious RH spent a lot of time texting that morning, including while he was in CFA, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't text between the time he left CFA and the time he reached the intersection. By the time he reached the intersection, he was already not in the left turn lane he needed to be in to take Cooper to daycare.

No one on planet earth other than RH knows what RH was thinking about in that stretch. Maybe he wasn't thinking about Ms. X or Y or Z at all. Maybe he was thinking about what he had to do when he got to work, or what to say in his 10:30 AM project progress meeting, or about meeting up with friends at a movie that night. There isn't any way to know.

And, reality is, RH had only slept a few hours the night before. Maybe the few seconds of not focusing had as much to do with being tired as anything else. Yah, yah, he was up late doing what he wasn't supposed to be doing. So what. Countless other parents routinely stay up past their bedtimes, having friends over, going out, enjoying being married, reading a good book, watching a meteor shower, or getting lost in any other of a thousand different activities that make time go by too quickly.

Yes, maybe they are tired the next day, and no, their choices of the night before do not mean they wake up with the designation "bad parent," any more than RH's choice of activity made him a bad parent when he woke up, likely tired, on the 18th.

I have to disagree with much of the above. For example: "The fact of the matter is that RH wasn't texting or drinking or high or engaged in any activity whatsoever other than driving his car between the time he left CFA and reaching the intersection where he didn't turn left instead of going straight. "



I don't think you can isolate and extract one minute of time and then conclude he was not engaged in any high risk activity. In reality, he was in the middle of a 20 minute conversation on his phone, about his needing a break from his family life. That was an ongoing convo that continued until he pulled into his workplace parking lot.



"It's obvious RH spent a lot of time texting that morning, including while he was in CFA, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't text between the time he left CFA and the time he reached the intersection. By the time he reached the intersection, he was already not in the left turn lane he needed to be in to take Cooper to daycare."


Correct, in that 30 second span of time, he neglected to make the turn towards daycare. So what was he thinking in that 30 second span? He was not thinking about his little passenger, even though he was having a conversation about fatherhood. I find that very odd.


"And, reality is, RH had only slept a few hours the night before. Maybe the few seconds of not focusing had as much to do with being tired as anything else. Yah, yah, he was up late doing what he wasn't supposed to be doing. So what. Countless other parents routinely stay up past their bedtimes, having friends over, going out, enjoying being married, reading a good book, watching a meteor shower, or getting lost in any other of a thousand different activities that make time go by too quickly."

Well, if he had been up late watching a meteor shower or 'enjoying being married', then it would not have been distracting him the next morning at breakfast with his son. But the sad fact is that he was up until 3 am sexting, while his wife and son laid beside him in bed, asleep. We cannot pretend he was reading Lincoln's autobiography or watching a meteor shower.



"Yes, maybe they are tired the next day, and no, their choices of the night before do not mean they wake up with the designation "bad parent," any more than RH's choice of activity made him a bad parent when he woke up, likely tired, on the 18th."

Sorry, but in my opinion, it DOES make him a bad parent. It was highly disrespectful and dishonest behavior on his part. It was even worse that he instantly began sexting again at 5 am when his son woke up. That screams 'sexual addiction' issues to me. It was not just a casual past time. Who sets up an afternoon bj at 5:30 am ?

It absolutely means he was a bad parent. He was putting his marriage in jeopardy , as well as his good, steady job. Not to mention his health and the health of his wife. And it put him in danger of going to jail for the minors involved. Let alone the dangers of meeting prostitutes in motel rooms and inviting strangers into his home. I don't know how you can say he was not a bad parent? :no:

If he was having an affair, then I would consider it his personal business and that would be between him and his wife. But this behavior, sexting until 3 am then starting back up at 5 am---communicating with 5 or 6 randoms a day---including minors, prostitutes, long time girlfriends--sending them pix of his junk and of his wife and son? ----that is CRAZY.

IMO, you cannot isolate that one minute when he supposedly forgot about his son, and say it was an innocent accidental mistake. Because that minute was smack dab in the middle of a manic phase of sexting/texting/fantasizing and was in the middle of a conversation where he expressed his desire to take a break from parenting duties. Therefore,his behavior in that minute was affected by his fatigue, lack of sleep, and his manic behavior. The distraction that led to this tragic gruesome death was of his own making. imo:cow:

 

[katydid23]

I'm not saying this indicative of how anyone on the jury will respond to the LH-RH tape, but I just experimented on my poor DH, who knows very little about this case and who doesn't want to know more, probably in part because he was subjected to over 2 years of having to listen to me puzzle through the Arias case.

I asked him to watch the first 10 minutes of the tape. His first (strongest) response was-- "wow, she isn't even crying. Why's that? That's really weird".

Then-- "he looks like he's genuinely grieving- didn't you tell me the State claimed he wasn't?"

And by the end of 10 minutes--"well, I can see why he was sexting or whatever. She seems as cold as they get."

-----
Also, he's a civil trial attorney, not criminal, but he was surprised LE was allowed to tape this after RH had invoked.

Yes, she does seem really cold about the baby's death. I would have expected, as someone described upthread, a mother melted into a puddle on the ground. I think I would have been unable to hold any kind of meaningful conversation so soon after my child's horrible death.

However she was VERY loving and accepting and forgiving towards her husband. Shockingly so. My husband accidentally lost our puppy for a few hours, and I think I was more angry at him that day than LH was at her husband for forgetting their son.

 

[RANCH]

Yes, a completely warped and prejudicial picture, imo, since they will be outside the car, looking in, aware that Cooper was in the car and had died, as opposed to being RH, inside the car, in the front seat, and imo, unaware that Cooper was in the car.

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.

 

[just the facts pls]

Lack of sleep or no lack of sleep, JRH was texting about his son and his disappointment with his family life only moments before shutting Cooper in the car.

You cannot "forget" someone when you are talking about them, because they are in your mind.

Lack of sleep or no lack of sleep, JRH held Cooper, talked to Cooper, took him inside Chik-Fil-A, told him he loved him, strapped him in his car seat, heard Cooper say "school" only minutes shutting him in the car for the last time.

I've been tired and pulled all nighters, but I have not forgotten someone is next to me only a few minutes after shaking their hand or talking to them.

Let me see if I have this correct: JRH was so tired he forgot Cooper but not so tired that he didn't forget light bulbs and had enough energy to sext his girlfriends while juggling his work and planned go to a movie with buddies after work? Why wasn't he napping during lunch instead of going to the publix? Why didn't he tell his buddies he was just too damn tired to see a movie and he needed to get home straight away to get some sleep? Nope, just nope.

 

[Hope4More]

I have to disagree with much of the above. For example: "The fact of the matter is that RH wasn't texting or drinking or high or engaged in any activity whatsoever other than driving his car between the time he left CFA and reaching the intersection where he didn't turn left instead of going straight. "



I don't think you can isolate and extract one minute of time and then conclude he was not engaged in any high risk activity. In reality, he was in the middle of a 20 minute conversation on his phone, about his needing a break from his family life. That was an ongoing convo that continued until he pulled into his workplace parking lot.



"It's obvious RH spent a lot of time texting that morning, including while he was in CFA, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't text between the time he left CFA and the time he reached the intersection. By the time he reached the intersection, he was already not in the left turn lane he needed to be in to take Cooper to daycare."


Correct, in that 30 second span of time, he neglected to make the turn towards daycare. So what was he thinking in that 30 second span? He was not thinking about his little passenger, even though he was having a conversation about fatherhood. I find that very odd.


"And, reality is, RH had only slept a few hours the night before. Maybe the few seconds of not focusing had as much to do with being tired as anything else. Yah, yah, he was up late doing what he wasn't supposed to be doing. So what. Countless other parents routinely stay up past their bedtimes, having friends over, going out, enjoying being married, reading a good book, watching a meteor shower, or getting lost in any other of a thousand different activities that make time go by too quickly."

Well, if he had been up late watching a meteor shower or 'enjoying being married', then it would not have been distracting him the next morning at breakfast with his son. But the sad fact is that he was up until 3 am sexting, while his wife and son laid beside him in bed, asleep. We cannot pretend he was reading Lincoln's autobiography or watching a meteor shower.



"Yes, maybe they are tired the next day, and no, their choices of the night before do not mean they wake up with the designation "bad parent," any more than RH's choice of activity made him a bad parent when he woke up, likely tired, on the 18th."

Sorry, but in my opinion, it DOES make him a bad parent. It was highly disrespectful and dishonest behavior on his part. It was even worse that he instantly began sexting again at 5 am when his son woke up. That screams 'sexual addiction' issues to me. It was not just a casual past time. Who sets up an afternoon bj at 5:30 am ?

It absolutely means he was a bad parent. He was putting his marriage in jeopardy , as well as his good, steady job. Not to mention his health and the health of his wife. And it put him in danger of going to jail for the minors involved. Let alone the dangers of meeting prostitutes in motel rooms and inviting strangers into his home. I don't know how you can say he was not a bad parent? :no:

If he was having an affair, then I would consider it his personal business and that would be between him and his wife. But this behavior, sexting until 3 am then starting back up at 5 am---communicating with 5 or 6 randoms a day---including minors, prostitutes, long time girlfriends--sending them pix of his junk and of his wife and son? ----that is CRAZY.

IMO, you cannot isolate that one minute when he supposedly forgot about his son, and say it was an innocent accidental mistake. Because that minute was smack dab in the middle of a manic phase of sexting/texting/fantasizing and was in the middle of a conversation where he expressed his desire to take a break from parenting duties. Therefore,his behavior in that minute was affected by his fatigue, lack of sleep, and his manic behavior. The distraction that led to this tragic gruesome death was of his own making. imo:cow:

I'm on my out to buy a charger cord so I have my computer back instead of just this phone, on which replying adequately to long posts like this is about impossible.

An initial, brief reply-- I don't share your opinion that his "escape" text was especially meaningful at all, much less an indication he wanted to "leave his family." I also don't consider that exchange a single conversation, and I think the best evidence RH wasn't especially focused on it is that he didn't send those texts from the CFA parking lot. It wasn't like he was rushing to get anywhere that morning.

From sexting ladies testimony, I had the sense that RH had texted more than once from intersections while he waited at lights. It's just as possible that's the only reason he texted her, not out of any preoccupation with her or that exchange at all (which , btw IMO very much DID change in meaning midway).

 

[yupikgirl]

It is not a fact that he sent that one text at the intersection. You (general you) can't pick and choose what you decide is probable or reasonable. We just have no idea when he sent that text- whether he used talk to text so it was easier. Whether he waited until the light. Or whether he actually texted while driving. Only Ross knows that and he won't tell.

Edited to say- it seems logical he did it at the intersection, but then nothing he seems to do is logical so there's that HA. Me personally I only do talk to text in my car. For me it's quick and easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[just the facts pls]

Just because there's no evidence JRH beat his kid doesn't mean he was a great father. Just because he put on a show for everyone else doesn't mean that he was as good to Cooper behind closed doors as he was in public. JRH had his defense planned when he said "I have no history of child abuse." Who the heck says that? That's like saying "I haven't been caught doing this before therefore I'm innocent."

IMO JRH strikes me as the kind of father who makes a grand scene of himself to get praise for not being a dead beat, but in private he was probably plopping Cooper in front of his toys or the TV right after he got home from work.

 

[just the facts pls]

It is not a fact that he sent that one text at the intersection. You can pick and choose what you decide is probable or reasonable. We just have no idea when he sent that text- whether he used talk to text so it was easier. Whether he waited until the light. Or whether he actually texted while driving. Only Ross knows that and he won't tell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ironically, it was the defense that pointed out the gap of time between texts as if to imply "hey JRH was not being irresponsible and texting and driving." IMO this is even more incriminating because that means the last message he sent on Whisper was during those thirty seconds right before he closed the door on Cooper. Thirty seconds is a long time to sit in a car with a talkative two year old.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Just because there's no evidence JRH beat his kid doesn't mean he was a great father. Just because he put on a show for everyone else doesn't mean that he was as good to Cooper behind closed doors as he was in public. JRH had his defense planned when he said "I have no history of child abuse." Who the heck says that? That's like saying "I haven't been caught doing this before therefore I'm innocent."

IMO JRH strikes me as the kind of father who makes a grand scene of himself to get praise for not being a dead beat, but in private he was probably plopping Cooper in front of his toys or the TV right after he got home from work.

That's a bad thing?

 

[Bravo]

IMO some folks think they are great Parents by simply sharing air space. Just sayin......

 

[just the facts pls]

Another problem I have with the idea JRH was too tired to remember his son - we would see a lot more hot car deaths than 40 per year in sleep deprived parents with newborns, but we don't.

 

[katydid23]

I'm on my out to buy a charger cord so I have my computer back instead of just this phone, on which replying adequately to long posts like this is about impossible.

An initial, brief reply-- I don't share your opinion that his "escape" text was especially meaningful at all, much less an indication he wanted to "leave his family." I also don't consider that exchange a single conversation, and I think the best evidence RH wasn't especially focused on it is that he didn't send those texts from the CFA parking lot. It wasn't like he was rushing to get anywhere that morning.

From sexting ladies testimony, I had the sense that RH had texted more than once from intersections while he waited at lights. It's just as possible that's the only reason he texted her, not out of any preoccupation with her or that exchange at all (which , btw IMO very much DID change in meaning midway).

Sorry about the charger cord. I hate having to replace those suckers. Annoying and expensive.

As for the 'escape' text, I am not sure the jury will agree with you. I think it is really hard to ignore the coincidence that he was having a conversation about needing 'an escape' from his son, moments before he forgets him in the death trap. He even says ' I love may son and all, but...'------<<< that sounds very cold hearted with the knowledge of what happened moments later.

And how is it not an indication that he needed a break from his family life ? He read what the woman posted in that red box. And it made a strong enough impression that he reached out to her and commented. That is very revealing in itself.

And I am not sure how you can say it was not a single conversation? It was a conversation with one woman that began when he was at the restaurant. Why wouldn't it be one conversation?

And texting 'at the light' is still texting while driving. It is very dangerous because it is distracting and one needs to be aware of everything, like sirens, pedestrians, drunk drivers, etc. When someone texts at a light, and admittedly I have done it myself, one often is distracted still as they start at the green and begin moving.. it is risky behavior.

And how can we ignore the sad fact that if he was texting at the light, he was sealing his poor child's fate. He should not have been focused on some random lady on the net but on his son who was dependent upon him and vulnerable. :cry:

 

[katydid23]

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.

I don't see it as being super helpful for the defense to focus on his hearing issues. I know two people with severe hearing loss, one is a parent and one is a grandparent. BOTH of them spend a lot of time actually LOOKING AT THEIR CHILDREN. If you have a deficit or a disability then you need to do something to compensate for it. So only having hearing in the left ear is not a valid excuse. IMO

 

[colette]

What I wonder about was why did the person who walked right next to the car 30 min after Cooper was left alone not hear a baby crying? I figured it was because Cooper was asleep.

 

[just the facts pls]

Sorry about the charger cord. I hate having to replace those suckers. Annoying and expensive.

As for the 'escape' text, I am not sure the jury will agree with you. I think it is really hard to ignore the coincidence that he was having a conversation about needing 'an escape' from his son, moments before he forgets him in the death trap. He even says ' I love may son and all, but...'------<<< that sounds very cold hearted with the knowledge of what happened moments later.

And how is it not an indication that he needed a break from his family life ? He read what the woman posted in that red box. And it made a strong enough impression that he reached out to her and commented. That is very revealing in itself.

And I am not sure how you can say it was not a single conversation? It was a conversation with one woman that began when he was at the restaurant. Why wouldn't it be one conversation?

And texting 'at the light' is still texting while driving. It is very dangerous because it is distracting and one needs to be aware of everything, like sirens, pedestrians, drunk drivers, etc. When someone texts at a light, and admittedly I have done it myself, one often is distracted still as they start at the green and begin moving.. it is risky behavior.

And how can we ignore the sad fact that if he was texting at the light, he was sealing his poor child's fate. He should not have been focused on some random lady on the net but on his son who was dependent upon him and vulnerable. :cry:

I think it's a misconception that JRH was so consumed by numerous text messages that he forgot his kid. If I recall correctly, there was only one other person on Whisper he was talking to, going by the screen name Magnolia Blonde. Even then, it was one message he posted between talking to the woman who was tired of being married and having kids. Again I remember this because the defense was so kind as to point it out.

I'm having a hard time believing that the one message was so captivating that it would erase Cooper from JRH's mind. JRH was smart and capable enough to hold down a job while sexting several women during the course of his average work day. I doubt one message was so terribly distracting that HIS GREATEST FEAR of leaving Cooper in the car by accident would happen.

 

[PaperDoll]

I don't think this was intentional , he was just way too into himself and his ladies and his obsession. He wasn't thinking about his son, even as they had breakfast, he was sexting with women. His brain was on his penis, Cooper was invisible. Selfish oaf? yes. Intentional murderer? no.

His brain was on Cooper because he had the presence to strap him in the car seat, tell him he loved him etc... He knew what he did and he knew Cooper was in the car the whole time, JMO! He knew his coffee was in the car along with his brief case and he didn't forget those...

 

[just the facts pls]

His brain was on Cooper because he had the presence to strap him in the car seat, tell him he loved him etc... He knew what he did and he knew Cooper was in the car the whole time, JMO! He knew his coffee was in the car along with his brief case and he didn't forget those...

As evidence photos show, he would put his briefcase on the floor of the passenger side seat. He would have to turn to the right to right to grab it. Not only was Cooper was too large for his car seat, JRH is tall enough to see down into the car seat when he went to grab his briefcase.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I thought the same thing. It was almost like she set aside her grieving for one child so she could take care of her other child (Ross). Did any of you notice the "official" questions you ask to determine if someone has a high suicide risk? The specific question "have you thought of how you would do it?" That's one of the questions asked when they think you might be a risk and they are trying to determine how serious you are. I noticed she asked him that at one point. I got the feeling she thought he was a risk for that.
I really feel that LeAnna was the "grown up" in this relationship. All of that being said, their reactions are still quite bizarre.

Leanna might have seemed more mature than Ross, but both strike me as childish and self-absorbed. Perhaps they got used to their married life without a child, and having Cooper hit them like a ton of bricks. Neither seemed prepared to relinquish focus on self for a child. :moo:

 

[Rocco]

I'm not saying this indicative of how anyone on the jury will respond to the LH-RH tape, but I just experimented on my poor DH, who knows very little about this case and who doesn't want to know more, probably in part because he was subjected to over 2 years of having to listen to me puzzle through the Arias case.

I asked him to watch the first 10 minutes of the tape. His first (strongest) response was-- "wow, she isn't even crying. Why's that? That's really weird".

Then-- "he looks like he's genuinely grieving- didn't you tell me the State claimed he wasn't?"

And by the end of 10 minutes--"well, I can see why he was sexting or whatever. She seems as cold as they get."

-----
Also, he's a civil trial attorney, not criminal, but he was surprised LE was allowed to tape this after RH had invoked.

It doesn't matter what she was like. He's 100% responsible for his own actions. Blaming her in any way for what he was doing seems a little archaic.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't see it as being super helpful for the defense to focus on his hearing issues. I know two people with severe hearing loss, one is a parent and one is a grandparent. BOTH of them spend a lot of time actually LOOKING AT THEIR CHILDREN. If you have a deficit or a disability then you need to do something to compensate for it. So only having hearing in the left ear is not a valid excuse. IMO

Wasn't commenting on whether it was an "excuse" or not, just to the poster's factually inaccurate comments about his hearing loss and Bluetooth, etc.