Trial - Ross Harris #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
tlcya

tlcya

mother daughter sister wife friend paralegal
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
44,605
Reaction score
92,334
 
Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
No one is allowed to challenge his authority. Kilgore is doing a great job of allowing Stoddard to be Stoddard for the jury to see in real time how that "confirmation bias" thing works
Click to expand...
LMAO Stoddard was like huh? Paraphrasing:
Kilgore: have you not been trained in confirmation bias?
Stoddard:no
Kilgore: I cant question you on something you havent been trained on?
Stoddard No

Too funny example ... :thinking:
Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
 
I agree with all in agreement.

<modsnip> Just marking my spot on this new thread.

-Hugs-
 
Wondering how you guys are finding Stoddards credibility? I was expecting to feel on cross that he had what they're calling confirmation bias but all I see is a cop who is standing up for a dead kid. I was guessing the defense would find more to impeach him. Thoughts?
 
LyndyLoo said:
I realize what YOU are saying..surround people with variable shifts blah blah..I actually did work shift work, including weekends ( which wasn't always covered by daycare/but private sitters)..It was something I always made sure I had coverage..letting both parties what my schedule was..or if one of the kids had chicken pox..or was sick..or had to be elsewhere.
Daycare contracts vary..and IF you sign a contract for daily Mon-Friday.. Why the heck would you not let them know? Especially since you are ( per your suggestion paid for already..so THEY HAVE NO NEED TO KNOW scenario).suggesting YOU take 100% responsibility..yet no doubt would sue the butt of them IF something happened to your child..Why shouldn't Caregiver's also have the right to protect themselves too?

Take Ross's situation..What IF he said..I DID drop him off..just FORGOT to sign him in..SO WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM..in the meantime got rid of his body..and Daycare would spend $$$$ to disprove parent's allegation that THEY WERE responsible because they have a contract with parent/ and paid to CARE for their child??

It's a sad state of affairs tho..that Leanne heads off to work..and hubby is suppose to have child/daddy time then drop off...and she even text'd him.Everything okay, got to work etc?? How was she to know he would have a brain "F@rt " and forget within 30-45 sec's after buckling his "Joker" into his death chair?..Cooper went off into his alternate reality or Ross was finally going to be "Child Free"?? pick your poison! The car seat BTW located was midship..thus it was located within inches of his right arm/shoulder. There's no excuses for Cooper's death due to Ross's agenda in life!!
Click to expand...

Bringing this over from thread 3.

I agree, I think if schools will call about absent students, then day cares should call about absent babies and toddlers. In fact it makes even more sense because like you said there's any number of scenarios where a baby or toddler being absent should send alarm bells. It might be a pain to some parents (then don't become a parent!) but if it will save lives, why not?

I'd like to think that after this trial there's going to be a "Cooper's Law" signed into effect, written with the provision that day care centers are required to notify parents if a child does not show up on days they are supposed to. Even if it were a robocall it would be better than nothing.
 
arkansasmimi said:
LMAO Stoddard was like huh? Paraphrasing:
Kilgore: have you not been trained in confirmation bias?
Stoddard:no
Kilgore: I cant question you on something you havent been trained on?
Stoddard No

Too funny example ...
Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Click to expand...


Stoddard looked ridiculous denying he knew the term- he knew exactly what it meant. I think Kilgore asked the question to give the jury a term for what they've been hearing about Stoddard's investigation.

It really is staggering to me how much evidence Stoddard ignored and twisted/manipulated along the way to "justify" charging RH with malice murder.
 
arkansasmimi said:
JerseyGirl: #1042 I don;t think I should go back and try to catch up, no I have giggles, Stoddard is making some headway, with his pushing back a bit on "hotcar/vet" video. :)

The PSA does not in any way talk about a child in a hot car, Kilgore said.

Harris made that leap. Harris said: “That would be terrible if my son was in the car,” Stoddard said.

“You can’t do that and I watch … I watched that and I’m like that would be terrible if my son was in the car. I hate that,” Stoddard said.

Kilgore pointed out, however, that Harris never said and there was no evidence of him Googling hot car death or anything similar. That’s contradictory to what Stoddard initially testified happenedhttp://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?319821-Trial-Ross-Harris-3&p=12892026#post12892026
Click to expand...



I don't think that the googling of the hot car was the main issue. It was also very significant that he did see the video and then commented on it, talking about how terrible it would be if his son was in that hot car.

Kilgore said, mistakenly imo, ' you cannot jump to that being a child in the video, it was about dogs.' -------But Stoddard was totally correct that it was ROSS that made the jump to Cooper bing in a hot car. And when Stoddard said that in reply, Kilgore then asked him to READ exactly what he meant. And Stoddard was then able to slowly and loudly read that posted comment out to the jury.

That was a big error in judgment on Kilgores part, imo. He actually emphasized a very troubling comment by the defendant, tried to refute it then Stoddard hit it again. That was a big mess up by the DT imo.
 
arkansasmimi said:
JerseyGirl: #1042 I don;t think I should go back and try to catch up, no I have giggles, Stoddard is making some headway, with his pushing back a bit on "hotcar/vet" video. :)

The PSA does not in any way talk about a child in a hot car, Kilgore said.

Harris made that leap. Harris said: &#8220;That would be terrible if my son was in the car,&#8221; Stoddard said.

&#8220;You can&#8217;t do that and I watch &#8230; I watched that and I&#8217;m like that would be terrible if my son was in the car. I hate that,&#8221; Stoddard said.

Kilgore pointed out, however, that Harris never said and there was no evidence of him Googling hot car death or anything similar. That&#8217;s contradictory to what Stoddard initially testified happenedhttp://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?319821-Trial-Ross-Harris-3&p=12892026#post12892026
Click to expand...



I don't think that the googling of the hot car was the main issue. I think it was also very significant that he did see the video and then commented on it, talking about how terrible it would be if his son was in that hot car.

Kilgore said, mistakenly imo, ' you cannot jump to that being a child in the video, it was about dogs.' -------But Stoddard was totally correct that it was ROSS that made the jump to Cooper being in a hot car. And when Stoddard said that in reply, Kilgore then asked him to READ exactly what he meant. And Stoddard was then able to slowly and loudly read that posted comment out to the jury.

That was a big error in judgment on Kilgores part, imo. He actually emphasized a very troubling comment by the defendant, tried to refute it then Stoddard hit it again. That was a big mess up by the DT imo.
 
Bringing over from last thread: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?319821-Trial-Ross-Harris-3&p=12892697#post12892697
Quote Originally Posted by LyndyLoo View Post
Just thought I would bring a sure fire deterrence for anybody who could ever possibly leave their child in the car surrounding child normally going to preschool/daycare or elementary for that matter. Since Ross's situation actually points to much aberrant behaviours, distractions etc etc etc.. His knowledge of car heat causes of horrendous death to not just youngsters but pets as well.

I am in no way blaming the Daycare Centre..however..IF Cooper's routine was to be dropped off by parent, signing in etc..WHY couldn't it be mandated..IF Child didn't turn up as usual ( regardless of which parent) not call designated parents/priority but have both contact info . When Cooper didn't turn up..and neither parent called ahead to advise..some sort of reason..then auto call to contacts to verify as to the why?

I know IF such a routine was in place..even if calling momma first..she would have said..hummm Ross was dropping Cooper off..is he NOT there?..Next call Ross..asking Ross where is Cooper?? In THIS case..Ross would have been forced to check his car..and Leanne would have known right away..Ross did not drop Cooper off!!

Personally, I don't buy Ross's forgot routine one bit... How could he..less than a minute after buckling Cooper into seat/giving kisses and kind words (of goodbye ) ..he somehow forgot his " Beloved son"??? It is just too convenient to claim that ...The child was buckled in his seat less than 6 inches from his right arm!! What parent doesn't sense their child's presence??? I'm not talking about going into a bar, gets drunk and forgets..He went into work..continued his sexting and texting...and the one call asking if he got to work okay wasn't even responded to!

But, I guess my point is..maybe for parent's so irresponsible as Ross..would NOT make such a plan or mistake IF they knew if they did..THEY would be outed within an hour or two!!

Even Ross admits he was leading a double life..but it became obvious his non-public alternate "Sex Addicted life style" took over..to the point his wife and son were NOT priority much less considered important!
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by arkansasmimi View Post
Unless there is a reason to call and check up on a child ages infant - 4/5 (beginning school age) there is no reason for a DAYCARE to call the parents. What if the parents work varied shifts? are they suppose to give the DAYCARE a copy of each parents schedule? We are not talking about SCHOOLS, the care givers should know where their children are. **yes schools here do the automated calls too, not sure if it starts in middle school or at elementary. But again THIS case is DAYCARE.
Click to expand...
Quote Originally Posted by LyndyLoo View Post
I realize what YOU are saying..surround people with variable shifts blah blah..I actually did work shift work, including weekends ( which wasn't always covered by daycare/but private sitters)..It was something I always made sure I had coverage..letting both parties what my schedule was..or if one of the kids had chicken pox..or was sick..or had to be elsewhere.
Daycare contracts vary..and IF you sign a contract for daily Mon-Friday.. Why the heck would you not let them know? Especially since you are ( per your suggestion paid for already..so THEY HAVE NO NEED TO KNOW scenario).suggesting YOU take 100% responsibility..yet no doubt would sue the butt of them IF something happened to your child..Why shouldn't Caregiver's also have the right to protect themselves too?

Take Ross's situation..What IF he said..I DID drop him off..just FORGOT to sign him in..SO WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM..in the meantime got rid of his body..and Daycare would spend $$$$ to disprove parent's allegation that THEY WERE responsible because they have a contract with parent/ and paid to CARE for their child??

It's a sad state of affairs tho..that Leanne heads off to work..and hubby is suppose to have child/daddy time then drop off...and she even text'd him.Everything okay, got to work etc?? How was she to know he would have a brain "F@rt " and forget within 30-45 sec's after buckling his "Joker" into his death chair?..Cooper went off into his alternate reality or Ross was finally going to be "Child Free"?? pick your poison! The car seat BTW located was midship..thus it was located within inches of his right arm/shoulder. There's no excuses for Cooper's death due to Ross's agenda in life!!
Click to expand...
<modsnip> that wasnt the question. You stated the daycare should have that responsibility. And as far as we know they did notify when were not going to be there.

ETA: BBM, but that is not what happened here. And guess you haven't caught up yet, Ross never said or searched "child free"
And there is a ton of stuff to pick apart in this crazy case without bringing so much "what if's" like that RH never denied leaving the child in the car. Or blamed anyone other than himself.
Last edited by arkansasmimi; Today at 07:47 PM.

THX tlcya, I kept trying to edit ;)
 
momoftwocrazies said:
Wondering how you guys are finding Stoddards credibility? I was expecting to feel on cross that he had what they're calling confirmation bias but all I see is a cop who is standing up for a dead kid. I was guessing the defense would find more to impeach him. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Just for starters, you didn't see a problem with Stoddard maintaining, from the beginning all the way through his trial testimony, that RH made a call lasting 6 minutes that he couldn't have, given he was detained and had had his phone confiscated?

Did you see any problem with Stoddard testifying that RH hadn't followed through on contacting the travel agent, that the agent had initiated contact , when Stoddard was in possession of an email sent by RH to the agent initiating their exchange?
 
katydid23 said:
I don't think that the googling of the hot car was the main issue. It was also very significant that he did see the video and then commented on it, talking about how terrible it would be if his son was in that hot car.

Kilgore said, mistakenly imo, ' you cannot jump to that being a child in the video, it was about dogs.' -------But Stoddard was totally correct that it was ROSS that made the jump to Cooper bing in a hot car. And when Stoddard said that in reply, Kilgore then asked him to READ exactly what he meant. And Stoddard was then able to slowly and loudly read that posted comment out to the jury.

That was a big error in judgment on Kilgores part, imo. He actually emphasized a very troubling comment by the defendant, tried to refute it then Stoddard hit it again. That was a big mess up by the DT imo.
Click to expand...


The initial search warrants swore that RH had "admitted" to researching children (dying) in hot cars, and what the temps had to be. Children. Not dogs. Murphy wrote the search warrants based on information that could only have come from Stoddard.

And, I still don't understand why RH saying that was the incriminating in the least. I imagine it's impossible to live in Georgia, to be aware of an active governmental initiative on the subject of hot car deaths and to NOT fear it could happen to your child.
 
in the previous thread, someone questioned whether or not RH's car window(s) is/are tinted. The answer is, YES:

hotcar5n-4-web.jpg
article-2662877-1EEE807200000578-861_634x380.jpg
 
Hope4More said:
Just for starters, you didn't see a problem with Stoddard maintaining, from the beginning all the way through his trial testimony, that RH made a call lasting 6 minutes that he couldn't have, given he was detained and had had his phone confiscated?

Did you see any problem with Stoddard testifying that RH hadn't followed through on contacting the travel agent, that the agent had initiated contact , when Stoddard was in possession of an email sent by RH to the agent initiating their exchange?
Click to expand...

I did not see a problem with either one. Or maybe just a minor hmmm.
 
katydid23 said:
I don't think that the googling of the hot car was the main issue. I think it was also very significant that he did see the video and then commented on it, talking about how terrible it would be if his son was in that hot car.

Kilgore said, mistakenly imo, ' you cannot jump to that being a child in the video, it was about dogs.' -------But Stoddard was totally correct that it was ROSS that made the jump to Cooper being in a hot car. And when Stoddard said that in reply, Kilgore then asked him to READ exactly what he meant. And Stoddard was then able to slowly and loudly read that posted comment out to the jury.

That was a big error in judgment on Kilgores part, imo. He actually emphasized a very troubling comment by the defendant, tried to refute it then Stoddard hit it again. That was a big mess up by the DT imo.
Click to expand...

Kilgore did that more than once, surprisingly. He also ended up making a point about the drive from their house being much farther than the drive from chick fil a. (paraphrasing.) He also made the point that Cooper usually eats breakfast at home. (Basically pointing out that the days he fell asleep he had a longer drive and didn't need to be awake to eat. :facepalm:)

I know everyone here just loves the guy, but he has done several things to lose my respect...and he has also made plenty of mistakes and had some bad failed gotchas. Not suggesting the prosecution is awesome, but people are all about this guy and I don't get it.
 
katydid23 said:
I don't think that the googling of the hot car was the main issue. It was also very significant that he did see the video and then commented on it, talking about how terrible it would be if his son was in that hot car.

Kilgore said, mistakenly imo, ' you cannot jump to that being a child in the video, it was about dogs.' -------But Stoddard was totally correct that it was ROSS that made the jump to Cooper bing in a hot car. And when Stoddard said that in reply, Kilgore then asked him to READ exactly what he meant. And Stoddard was then able to slowly and loudly read that posted comment out to the jury.

That was a big error in judgment on Kilgores part, imo. He actually emphasized a very troubling comment by the defendant, tried to refute it then Stoddard hit it again. That was a big mess up by the DT imo.
Click to expand...

But Katydid, they used this in a SW, that RH said he researched it. He didn't say that. Same thing with the "child free"

And Kilgore really got Stoddard on the "child free". As Alex has not talked to any of them other than that first time. State got that on record. So Stoddard lied there too. IF he knew then as Kilgore asked where and when did you learn that. He stood by his testimony. Which could come back and bite him jmho
 
From the beginning, I felt like RH intentionally left his child in the vehicle. At this point, following the trial, I still feel that way. From watching the video footage we've seen so far during the trial ... I get the sense he was doing some "acting" because he was well aware he was likely being filmed. BUT, the one thing I did see on part of that footage that has "kind of" swayed me off Cooper's death may have been intentional is when Stoddard asks Harris "how he thinks it could have happened"? That Harris left Cooper in the vehicle. Harris says something to the effect of "some days" (many days?) he goes to CF AFTER he has dropped Cooper off. I don't know if the jury caught that but I sure did. I was able to start to understand how it was possible it may actually have slipped his mind that his child was in the vehicle with him. What I can't reconcile, under that scenario though, is that he physically had the child with him, put him in the car seat at home, took him out of the car seat at CF, put him back in the car seat after they ate at CF and then ... that quick ... forgot the child was with him. It's a tough case.
 
momoftwocrazies said:
Wondering how you guys are finding Stoddards credibility? I was expecting to feel on cross that he had what they're calling confirmation bias but all I see is a cop who is standing up for a dead kid. I was guessing the defense would find more to impeach him. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Funny, I was about to post something about this.

I have not watched all of it yet, but from the comments I had read today I was expecting his demeanor to be really antagonistic. From what I have watched so far I thought he responded remarkably controlled and professional given the way Kilgore was clearly (doing his job of course) picking apart going after him!

There were a couple of times I distinctly thought " well that didn't go over the way Kilgore was hoping!"

It is interesting how we all perceive things differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
justkk said:
Funny, I was about to post something about this.

I have not watched all of it yet, but from the comments I had read today I was expecting his demeanor to be really antagonistic. From what I have watched so far I thought he responded remarkably controlled and professional!
There were a couple of times I distinctly thought " well that didn't go over the way Kilgore was hoping!"

It is interesting how we all perceive things differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I have also re-watched and it was different than I expected. I do think there is a Kilgore bandwagon thing going on. As I said above, I don't get that.
 
momoftwocrazies said:
I take it you disagree. :) How are you finding him? Dishonest?
Click to expand...

He perjured himself on the stand in both those instances, and those were just the first two off the top of my head.

Dishonest, yes, but that isn't even what bothers me the most about him. What bothers me the most, and what I find frightening, is what he represents, that being the power of the State to decide, without any actual evidence, that someone is guilty of a crime as serious as murder, and then to pursue a conviction by any means necessary, with the justification that the ends justify the means.

Not in a democracy, they don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 91 more.
Total: 310 (members: 92, guests: 218)

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
218
Total visitors
310
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,469
Messages
18,239,871
Members
234,384
Latest member
Sleuth305
Back
Top