Trial - Ross Harris #4

[blue22]

I don't know that he did it deliberately.

But I've followed enough cases here to know that often, the guilty often do things that 'make absolutely no sense' to most of us.

That being said, I can imagine that the person who had the psychological makeup to be able to justify intellectually the craven act baking their child to death to begin freeing themselves of entanglements, would also be a person who would be morbidly curious if the 'hard work' of killing the child was done by lunch time, so he could focus on Act II, The Dramatic Discovery in front of maximum audience.

I also am not sure about the intent aspect. Your explanation about why he would go back if he did intend to kill Cooper is spot on. I couldn't agree more.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Why not park the suv in the parking lot and let the jury look for themselves to see if cooper was visible.

tomorrow morning the jury is going to get a look at the car with the car seat placed inside.

 

[Hope4More]

I don't know that he did it deliberately.

But I've followed enough cases here to know that often, the guilty often do things that 'make absolutely no sense' to most of us.

That being said, I can imagine that the person who had the psychological makeup to be able to justify intellectually the craven act baking their child to death to begin freeing themselves of entanglements, would also be a person who would be morbidly curious if the 'hard work' of killing the child was done by lunch time, so he could focus on Act II, The Dramatic Discovery in front of maximum audience.

And sometimes a is just a . Not a sociopath or a murderer, but, just a .

 

[minor4th]

They did the rescan in Glynn County because the vehicle had already been transported to Brunswick.

The prosecutor showed the jury two photos – one with the extension up and the other with it down. Grimstead said that when the vehicle was rescanned the extension was up as it had been the day Cooper died.

The prosecution is going through photos of the SUV with Grimstead in front of the jury.

One depicts the car seat sitting on the floor next to vehicle before it is placed in for the rescan. Another shows a side view of the car with both passenger side doors open.

A doll the size of Cooper was put in the car seat for the scan. The doll is visible through the passenger side rear window.

In another photo taken from the driver side front door you can see the safety seat.

I guess I really don't understand what the purpose of these scans is.

 

[blue22]

I know. I know.
But I just love doing experiments don't ya know.

I had the same vehicle RH did at the time and I did an experiment, too. I'm a shorty and it was totally not accurate, but I can't help myself!

 

[JerseyGirl]

I think the defense is hating these pictures now being shown to the jury!

When you first hear about it you think it's a car seat far away from the driver. But Ross had the car seat set in the back center, facing backwards, between the front driver and passenger seats.

It's not like the car seat was behind the driver facing forward (or even backwards) or behind the passenger seat. No, this is smack dab right in his face when he looks to the right while sitting in the car.

Of course the defense doesn't want the jury to see it.

 

[blue22]

I guess I really don't understand what the purpose of these scans is.

Yeah, it's lost on me.

 

[katydid23]

Why not park the suv in the parking lot and let the jury look for themselves to see if cooper was visible.

Looks like they are taking your advice. They are doing this exact thing tomorrow morning!

 

[Rocco]

That is happening tomorrow, lol.

I really think thee hullabaloo surrounding the scan is silly. The jury is going to see the vehicle, it's a better representation anyway.

Yes but won't they be allowed to have the pictures to look at while they deliberate in case they have a disagreement since they can't discuss what they see when they view the vehicle until the case is over?

 

[minor4th]

I can't help liking Dt Grimstead :blushing:

 

[katydid23]

When you first hear about it you think it's a car seat far away from the driver. But Ross had the car seat set in the back center, facing backwards, between the front driver and passenger seats.

It's not like the car seat was behind the driver facing forward (or even backwards) or behind the passenger seat. No, this is smack dab right in his face when he looks to the right while sitting in the car.

Of course the defense doesn't want the jury to see it.

My son has a similar sized 'small' SUV. They have an 18 month old daughter with a very similar rear facing seat. When I sit in the front passenger seat, she is so close to me. And when she moves her arms around I can see her out of the corner of my eye. And even when she is sitting still, or asleep, I can see the top of her head if I just look slightly to the side.

I wish the jurors were allowed to sit inside the car.

 

[arkansasmimi]

oops just saw something we shouldn't have ...

 

[Hope4More]

I guess I really don't understand what the purpose of these scans is.

I think it's possible Mimi is the only one here who really gets it about the whole car seat tick tock and discrepancies etc. thing. Whatever " it " is.

 

[blue22]

I can't help liking Dt Grimstead :blushing:

I tend to think he's been decent for the state.

I also like the defense attorney (don't know his name) that is questioning him. I much prefer him to the other two.

 

[blue22]

oops just saw something we shouldn't have ...

What? Stupid bathroom break!

 

[minor4th]

Even though I am not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross deliberately left Cooper in the car, the proximity of the carseat to the driver seat is one of the compelling aspects of the State's case. I can understand how people could believe that Ross must have seen Cooper in the carseat when he was driving to work or when he got out of the car. Also, I don't think I've ever heard of another case where the parent/caregiver actually went back to the car another time before discovering the child dead hours later.

Those two things are hard to reconcile with an accident, I will agree. All the other junk about texting and wanting a child-free life and motive are not in any way persuasive to me though - same with most of the State's evidence.

 

[Hope4More]

When you first hear about it you think it's a car seat far away from the driver. But Ross had the car seat set in the back center, facing backwards, between the front driver and passenger seats.

It's not like the car seat was behind the driver facing forward (or even backwards) or behind the passenger seat. No, this is smack dab right in his face when he looks to the right while sitting in the car.

Of course the defense doesn't want the jury to see it.

Smack dab right in his face? Seriously, can you translate that into inches or whatnot, , as in, what was the incline/tilt of the seat- was Cooper essentially lying down, with his head next to RH? Or was the seat tilted enough towards the backseat his head was in fact not visible to RH, no matter how many (disputed) inches away the seat was from RH's front seat?

 

[monkeypants]

Even though I am not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross deliberately left Cooper in the car, the proximity of the carseat to the driver seat is one of the compelling aspects of the State's case. I can understand how people could believe that Ross must have seen Cooper in the carseat when he was driving to work or when he got out of the car. Also, I don't think I've ever heard of another case where the parent/caregiver actually went back to the car another time before discovering the child dead hours later.

Those two things are hard to reconcile with an accident, I will agree. All the other junk about texting and wanting a child-free life and motive are not in any way persuasive to me though - same with most of the State's evidence.

I agree 100% on the no other parent going back part, although I do find the extracurricular sexting activities played a major role, because they made him crave a totally different life.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

I think it's possible Mimi is the only one here who really gets it about the whole car seat tick tock and discrepancies etc. thing. Whatever " it " is.

Well if you go with the notion that the whole thing was manipulated to give the jury a misleading view of Cooper's location ... then I understand it. I think that's a possibility. Like I said earlier, I think all this attention on having to re-do the scans is really bad for the State because it makes them look like they are either incompetent or are deliberately manipulating evidence to deceive the jury.

 

[catpatrol]

Even though I am not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross deliberately left Cooper in the car, the proximity of the carseat to the driver seat is one of the compelling aspects of the State's case. I can understand how people could believe that Ross must have seen Cooper in the carseat when he was driving to work or when he got out of the car. Also, I don't think I've ever heard of another case where the parent/caregiver actually went back to the car another time before discovering the child dead hours later.

Those two things are hard to reconcile with an accident, I will agree. All the other junk about texting and wanting a child-free life and motive are not in any way persuasive to me though - same with most of the State's evidence.

Have you read about the Florida fire fighter who actually drove around and did errands with his dead son in his car, only to discover him when he was unloading groceries? It happened recently. So far I think he has only been charged with manslaughter