Trial - Ross Harris #4

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by minor4th View Post
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.

:silly: ^^^

The Scans were done with the equipment of Mr Dustin, from the scans he made a 3D animated video which the State is going to show. (wanted to show today prior to seeing the SUV in the morning) but time ran out.

What I got from that Cross was, that the car will not be in exact replaca as it was on 6/18/14, items have been removed. Had to go put laundry in dryer so unsure if they found where they too possession of the sunglasses that were laying in seat near car seat. If they didn't take out they should still be in the car.

Also photos were not taken of the bottom of the car seat (to show whether the tilt was up (manipulated) or down (as was 6/18/14). That is one reason other than report that the error was found in first place. <(measurements being off) Also the measurements were taken diff from car seat to dash.
*I can see points on this. Def point is they will be viewing veh not as it was exactly on 6/18/14 and that there are 100's of photos to document that. Which is true. (I would want to see the car giggle)

and after all that. It burnt up time so now the jury doesn't see the video prior to seeing the car JMHO

 

[minor4th]

This detective is a good witness and obviously has testified in court before. He usually gives very brief answers or yes/no.

He comes across as honest to me. He does not try to spin it when an answer is favorable to the defense.

 

[Hope4More]

Not in 40 seconds. He uses the analogy of forgetting that you locked the garage one second after you did it, but that's to help us understand how the process can happen. But kids aren't garage doors. Like I said, we forget multiple, routine things we do, everyday, but mostly so our brains can make room for the important stuff. Like our kids. Again, in not one of those cases did the parents have a decision to make regarding a turn that was seconds after strapping in their child. We get lulled into autopilot when driving after several minutes. Not seconds.

As to what I mean by "decent" parents, I mean parents who had exhibited, like these, that they loved their child, consistently cared well for their kids, showed appropriate affection, involvement, etc. As opposed to the cases involving parents on drugs, in bars, with criminal histories or having past involvement with CPS. In those cases, charges are typically brought. Not as much in cases involving typical, middle class parents.

I think less than great parents can absolutely be guilty of negligence rather than intent. In fact, most of the hot car deaths due to crummy parents seem to involve criminal negligence. Not intent. I actually don't know one that has been proven or charged as intentional except this one.

But Ross Harris wasnt on drugs. He didn't exhibit a pattern of neglecting his kid. He didn't leave his kid intentionally in the car while he drank all day in a bar, forgetting until too late that the kid was still out there. So that brings is back to the caring parent on autopilot scenario. And all of those involved loger drives before the childcare facility turn off. Nah. Not buying it.

Thanks for that reply. And I understand what you're saying. But..again with the question of FBS being ruled out because of "seconds," and as related to actively driving.

Again, RH walked out of CFA at 9:18. He didn't reach the intersection where he was supposed to turn left until 9:24. The driving time from the Uturn (where he should have gotten into a left turn lane) to the intersection was a matter of seconds.

That leaves time for RH to have strapped Cooper in, but to not have started his car and begun driving, but I to have sat in his car for as long as 2 or 3 minutes (if he strapped in Cooper quickly) , doing whatever.

In other words, maybe only seconds of driving time, but time before that to have his brain scrambled by FBS? Or are you saying the actively driving element of time necessarily a component of FBS?

 

[Safeguard]

I haven't been on webslueths for a looong time. But I have been trying to follow this case. I do actually believe good parents can forget a child in the car under certain circumstances. I don't believe this is one.
In all the cases I've read where drugs or alcohol haven't been involved and the parents seemed decent, the "forgetting" wasn't instantaneous.

I've read Dr. Diamond and how we can instantly forget that we just locked the garage seconds after we leave because we go into automatic pilot. But a child isn't a garage door. People forget things more easily that aren't as important so they can make room for the things that are- like getting to work on time, not getting into an accident, and getting kids safely to school. Children, their well-being and safety are the most
important issues in most people's lives. Not the garage door.

In not one of the cases I've reviewed of decent parents who forgot their kid, did the forgetting occur within seconds of strapping them into the car. Pretty much all had a drive to work from the time they strapped the kid in that lasted at least 15-30 minutes or so. You know how sometimes when you're going somewhere you suddenly find yourself going the wrong way because the wrong way is to work or someplace you go regularly, and your mind has gone into autopilot? That doesn't happen in seconds. It happens after several minutes of doing the routine act of driving on the highway, lulled into the same routine from starting on the same route you always take, after several minutes of being relaxed as you drive a familiar path. That has happened to parents several minutes after they start driving. Not 40 seconds.

Also, "triggers": Several of the unfortunate parents in these cases remembered their child, in one case a foster child, after seeig or hearing something that reminds them of the kid. In the case of the foster child, the foster dad was watching tv in the evening when a news report came on causing him to suddenly recall his baby. He rushed out to the car and she was dead.
In a recent, very tragic case, an overtired dad forgot to drop his baby off. He later was picked up for lunch by his wife, IIRC. They sat down and she suddenly began talking about how cute their daughter looked that morning in her outfit and how the daycare workers would love her. The dad became silent, then white, then started screaming. He raced to his car and they found her.

Ross Harris had far too many triggers that day for me to find his story credible. That and the timing really clinch it for me.

Well...Actually in the majority of these tragedies that I have studied, The "forgetting" usually does occur instantaneously . It was the "triggered remembering" that had varied time frames..
bbm

The case you mention, (Sofia Rayne), (Really not recent. It happened in 2011 btw http://globalnews.ca/news/1356247/wh...e-experts-say/ )... Dads false memory was shattered because it was a very unusual specific event, (Tropical Day) occurring at the day care and when his wife mentioned that, he realized he never saw this event. But what if it had been an ordinary day, and he hadn't "remembered that he "forgot" until several hours later, after work? Does it really make this more "understandable" because one parent "remembers" in a shorter time-span than another parent? I'm not seeing how that matters at all.

Or as the recent case with the Firefighter, after driving around all day, running errands, in and out of the vehicle?. I read of one reporter, who confessed to have "forgotten" , his child. He headed into the grocery store, and "remembered" that he forgot his grocery list in the car. He then recalled what else he had, "Forgotten". Is that reporter more believable because he remembered before other parents?

I am just not getting the connection and all the hoopla over having had enough time, or not having had enough time. It certainly appears different for everyone.

 

[arkansasmimi]

What? Stupid bathroom break!

what is the camera not suppose to show :thinking: or who?

 

[blue22]

He comes across as honest to me. He does not try to spin it when an answer is favorable to the defense.

I agree. He is very matter of fact in either direction. I also like that when he's explaining something he looks at the jury. (That doesn't make someone a believable witness, I just think it's a nice courtesy.) I think he's been professional and honest, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

Well...Actually in the majority of these tragedies that I have studied, The "forgetting" usually does occur instantaneously . It was the "triggered remembering" that had varied time frames..
bbm
The case you mention, (Sofia Rayne), was not recent. It happened in 2011, Dads false memory was shattered because it was a very unusual specific event, (Tropical Day occurring at the day care and when his wife mentioned that, he realized he never saw this event. But what if it had been an ordinary day, and he hadn't "remembered that he "forgot" until several hours later, after work? Does it really make this more "understandable" because one parent "remembers" in a shorter time-span than another parent? I'm not seeing how that matters at all.

Or as the recent case with the Firefighter, after driving around all day, running errands, in and out of the vehicle?. I read of one reporter, who confessed to have "forgotten" , his child. He headed into the grocery store, and "remembered" that he forgot his grocery list in the car. He then recalled what else he had, Forgotten Is that reporter more believable because he remembered before other parents?

I am just not getting the connection and all the hoopla over having had enough time, or not having had enough time. It certainly appears different for everyone.

But in this particular case, WHILE he is supposedly forgetting about his son, he is actually texting someone ABOUT HIS SON, and the need to escape some of the responsibility.

So how can he forget him while discussing him?

 

[arkansasmimi]

This detective is a good witness and obviously has testified in court before. He usually gives very brief answers or yes/no.

Having gone through this again also reinterates that they screwed up and had to redo then some things didn't document. JMHO I think it was not favorable to do that for the State but if they hadn't then the Def was going to call the attention to false measurements. Which now they will even more. JMHO

 

[dlkutac]

Why wouldn't Harris have simply carried his light bulbs into the office with him, rather than pitch them into the car, Boring asks. Stoddard says he doesn't know and adds that he wouldn't throw light bulbs that he just bought.

Ironically, maybe he wanted to be sure he remembered them because their bathroom vanity was missing a few. Perhaps Leanna was adamant he remember them.

 

[just the facts pls]

I just watched the video after Raessi testified and based on what is captured I think RH using the term Malicious Intent just previous (and being the reason the officer began recording) is very believable and fits in with everything else RH says that it captured on video. In fact, I think it is a big stretch for people to think this "made up".

I found Raessi to be a very good witness and I find no reason to believe he is lying about this!

I also thought it was a good point by the state that "Malicious Intent" is not a term used in Alabama where RH got all his police dept. training... But is a charge/term used in the state of Georgia. Hmmm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was interesting to see Kilgore tussle around trying to explain why JRH said it. If JRH hadn't said it, why explain it? Not finding searches on malicious intent doesn't mean much to me. There are programs and Incognito options for your browser to cover your tracks.

Right, because JRH used to be a police dispatcher, because he is a bachelors in information management, and because he works as an IT specialist, he should just know these things even if Detective Raissi had to google them only a day or so ago?

There you have it folks - Kilgore has just proved JRH isn't a person of low-IQ. He's smart enough to remember his kid in the car, and he's smart enough to premeditate Cooper's death.

 

[Hope4More]

:silly: ^^^

The Scans were done with the equipment of Mr Dustin, from the scans he made a 3D animated video which the State is going to show. (wanted to show today prior to seeing the SUV in the morning) but time ran out.

What I got from that Cross was, that the car will not be in exact replaca as it was on 6/18/14, items have been removed. Had to go put laundry in dryer so unsure if they found where they too possession of the sunglasses that were laying in seat near car seat. If they didn't take out they should still be in the car.

Also photos were not taken of the bottom of the car seat (to show whether the tilt was up (manipulated) or down (as was 6/18/14). That is one reason other than report that the error was found in first place. <(measurements being off) Also the measurements were taken diff from car seat to dash.
*I can see points on this. Def point is they will be viewing veh not as it was exactly on 6/18/14 and that there are 100's of photos to document that. Which is true. (I would want to see the car giggle)

and after all that. It burnt up time so now the jury doesn't see the video prior to seeing the car JMHO

Mimi, do you know from what you know (cutting to the chase here, lol) to what degree the top/head portion of Cooper's carseat was angled towards the front seat?

In other words, forgetting whether or not Cooper's head was 3" over the top of the seat (which would seem to make the angle of the seat less relevant) , was Cooper's seat angled low enough towards the front seat that it was impossible for RH to not see him, if at no other time, at least when RH leaned to his right to pick up his bag, etc?

Bless you if you have an answer to that.

 

[LyndyLoo]

What parent loads his beloved child into back seat into car seat, buckles him up and has a nice hug and kiss ..then gets into front seat and gets ready to drive to next location, NOT even speak to their beloved child? Never ever heard of any parent load up their child..enter driver's seat and NOT address their child in the car with them???? Things like..All ready to go buddy? or we're off to daycare..you all settled?" or "Willl be at daycare so you can be with your friends soon?"

What parent completely divorces their child as soon as they enter the car after placing child into buckle-up mode"?? Something sure doesn't FIT in my mind :facepalm:

 

[arkansasmimi]

:seeya: No late nightcatching up at WS tonight. See yall as the Court returns... :judge:

 

[gitana1]

Thanks for that reply. And I understand what you're saying. But..again with the question of FBS being ruled out because of "seconds," and as related to actively driving.

Again, RH walked out of CFA at 9:18. He didn't reach the intersection where he was supposed to turn left until 9:24. The driving time from the Uturn (where he should have gotten into a left turn lane) to the intersection was a matter of seconds.

That leaves time for RH to have strapped Cooper in, but to not have started his car and begun driving, but I to have sat in his car for as long as 2 or 3 minutes (if he strapped in Cooper quickly) , doing whatever.

In other words, maybe only seconds of driving time, but time before that to have his brain scrambled by FBS? Or are you saying the actively driving element of time necessarily a component of FBS?

Im saying actively driving has been a component of every FBS case involving normal, non-negligent parents. You aren't lulled into autopilot while sexting in a parked car. It's the act of doing something extremely routine, like driving, on a familiar route, that creates the autopilot situation we see in caring parent, non-negligent FBS cases. Almost all the others involve drugs and/or alcohol and often a parent who leaves their kid in the care purposefully but doesn't intend to leave them there too long.

Again, think of the times you start driving to the movies or I dinner somewhere but instead of proceeding onward, you automatically turn off in a different direction, one that happens to be to work, or wherever. That doesn't happen within seconds of starting to drive. It happens minutes later, after the relaxed, autopilot "trance" has occurred.

 

[just the facts pls]

I suppose we will never know for sure!

My point was just that I found the witness to be credible and based on the video that followed what the witness heard - it made sense to me that he would have said that. It fit, so to speak, with the rest of what he was saying to Stoddard.
If the video began and showed RH in disbelief protesting "I could never hurt my baby on purpose" or something along those lay mans lines I might wonder if just before then he had used the term "malicious intent". But in the video he is very calm and articulate and says things like "how is that against the law" when told his baby died in his car and I do believe he used the word malicious in that video as well. Something like "I didn't do it maliciously" (?) I would have to re watch.

We will just have to agree to disagree as well [emoji4]. There will be those who think the witness was telling the truth and those who don't.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM. Since Kilgore tried to explain why JRH said "malicious intent," I'm going to assume that JRH said it since his own defense isn't denying it.

You are right - when detectives told him that they were going to arrest him for causing the death of Cooper JRH asked "How is that against the law?"

Kind of shows that he'd given it thought at one point in time, if not researched it at the library or on an anonymous browser.

 

[Bravo]

1 hr. until maintenance time

 

[Seriously?]

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.

And since there was no official time of death from the ME, it's also possible this sweet little boy was comatose at that time - still breathing and still alive but perfectly still. If that was the case, we'll never know what a good trauma team could have done to save him. I don't think that was on the agenda. His death was unimaginable, which makes me even more attentive to the parents' statements about the vet's PSA advocating for pet safety.

There are many dissonant behaviors and statements here:
Confide/confess to the church to pray him out of his sexual predilections
Ongoing contact and relationships with multiple women
Bragging online about his sexual needs/urges
Boasting that he played lead guitar at this church
Hurtful comments re: LH to women strangers
Sharing pictures of his young son with strangers
Reporting his squeaky clean image to LE, including inflating his employment with LE
Profuse online presence - at work, at home, night and day
During his interview telling LE he was "losing his mind" when he couldn't recall some things (makes sense) and then able to "alpha, bravo, charlie" spelling names!!!!!!
Choosing to interview with CFA for employment, leaving HD for reasons unknown, but possibly because his performance was so poor he was fearful of being fired ( if so, he had some insight)
Stating to LE Cooper's death was his "greatest fear"; however, no safety plan in place to prevent it. (In my opinion, this is simply illogical.)
Telling one or more of his female friends (I forget how many and it really doesn't matter how many) that he'd been caught so "had to lay low".........NOT I'M DONE! I WANT MY MARRIAGE!
During the interview, LH phone buzzed and a large picture appeared on the screen........not sure if it was Cooper.....there was no emotional response if it was. If it wasn't - this is off my list.
Asking when his car would be available to LH.......seriously.........the death scene? RH is being locked up, so LH didn't need that car.

I hope RH gets the supportive therapy he needs in the prison system. I can truly hope he has access to therapists, who can appropriately address his problems and still think he deserves whatever Georgia can give him for leaving Cooper to die in that hot car.

I'm just not convinced Cooper was a priority......not that day and not in the recent past.

 

[cricket49]

1 hr. until maintenance time

So it will be shutting down in an hour. I will say goodbye now....

 

[arkansasmimi]

Mimi, do you know from what you know (cutting to the chase here, lol) to what degree the top/head portion of Cooper's carseat was angled towards the front seat?

In other words, forgetting whether or not Cooper's head was 3" over the top of the seat (which would seem to make the angle of the seat less relevant) , was Cooper's seat angled low enough towards the front seat that it was impossible for RH to not see him, if at no other time, at least when RH leaned to his right to pick up his bag, etc?

Bless you if you have an answer to that.

Cooper car seat with him in it 6/18/14 was more straight up than leaning back towards front. Manipulated makes it lean towards front more.
By how many inches, I don't know difference and neither did the Det. He was CSI at the the time(just on the stand) That was one of the questions Lumpkin asked him. BUT Coopers head would not have been in that position after he passed away vs when first put/left in car seat. Lividity showed it leaned over to his side as in slumped over/ possibly leaning a little forward. So JMHO possibly leaned away from back of the car seat

 

[arkansasmimi]

:seeya: see yall as the Court returns :judge: Have a great evening!