Trial - Ross Harris #5

[LyndyLoo]

Correct. It actually depends on the circumstances of each case, but if the felon in possession of a firearm accidentally shoots someone in the apartment below while his is cleaning his firearm - then no. Also, if a felon accidentally shoots someone while hunting, then no.

Oh my?? In GA ,felon's are allowed by law to even posses a firearm? Something new to me I must remember!! :facepalm:

 

[minor4th]

Oh my?? In GA ,felon's are allowed by law to even posses a firearm? Something new to me I must remember!! :facepalm:

No, it's a felony for a felon to be in possession of a firearm.

 

[Hope4More]

I actually haven't watched much at all. I've been tracking via tweets and the news. I assume if there was solid evidence that members of LE quickly got together around a table on the day Cooper died and said, we need to frame this SOB, let's fabricate evidence real quick so we can get search warrants." That would be explosive news.

Sadly for RH and his gifted defense team, nothing so demonstrably blatant as that dramatic and utterly unrealistic scenario happened. In the real world, in this case, in Cobb County, Georgia, a defendant was railroaded from a few minutes after discovering the body of his dead baby on through til trial, an effort seemingly pushed along by a single law enforcement officer, Detective Stoddard, who "knew" from the very very beginning that RH was guilty, evidence be damned, because if it wasn't there he could misstate, misrepresent, coach witnesses, alter reports, or just flat out lie to create the illusion of evidence, and if there was evidence that didn't conform to his certainty about guilt, well heck, ignoring that evidence and proceeding along as if it didn't exist was just fine.

He's thrown any number of fellow LE under the bus by providing them incomplete or incorrect or just flat out made up information on which to base their reports, recreations, etc. and then they've had to testify under oath and have those reports and recreations and their testimony (and credibility) shredded.

All that is plenty observable already, but would be even more so if Judge Staley could see her way clear to allowing the DT to do their job so that Ross Harris can be afforded his due process right to a fair trial. Jmo

 

[LyndyLoo]

No, it's a felony for a felon to be in possession of a firearm.

Oh...thanks for clarifying..but have to say your post was rather confusing ( the one I responded to) Thanks

 

[Hope4More]

There was really no Miranda violation in this case IMO. There was nothing to suppress based on the info on its face.

I do think it's possible/probable that the police accessed Ross' phone before they had a warrant, but they aren't admitting to it and it can't really be proved.

They did admit to doing so, but not a problem, because RH giving Stoddard the passcode to his phone during interrogation, before he invoked, was considered implied consent.

 

[TexMex]

Oh...thanks for clarifying..but have to say your post was rather confusing ( the one I responded to) Thanks

Many states now, Georgia included, have a process by which felons can have their gun ownership rights restored. They can apply five years after they've completed any sentence. They must not have any arrests during that time and three non relatives must vouch for them

 

[kjpaw]

Just a quick question. I see people saying Ross was exhausted that day...I realize he should've been based on lack of sleep from texting habits...but what evidence of there is that? All I recall is his friends, iirc, said he seemed totally normal. He made plans to go to a movie after work which doesn't seem like something an exhausted person would do. Just curious where that's coming from...what info exists that he was exhausted outside of "well he should have been?" Also, I've seen references that he was depressed recently. I'm also curious where that info comes from. Following this case as closely as possible but I know I miss things so TIA for the info.

 

[Hope4More]

Just a quick question. I see people saying Ross was exhausted that day...I realize he should've been based on lack of sleep from texting habits...but what evidence of there is that? All I recall is his friends, iirc, said he seemed totally normal. He made plans to go to a movie after work which doesn't seem like something an exhausted person would do. Just curious where that's coming from...what info exists that he was exhausted outside of "well he should have been?" Also, I've seen references that he was depressed recently. I'm also curious where that info comes from. Following this case as closely as possible but I know I miss things so TIA for the info.

About sleep- from the time stamps on the text record we've seen. Up til 3AM texting, texts began again at 5:30AM. Who knows if he slept at all?

Depression. Not introduced at trial, in media reports from interviews with his brother and friends.

 

[gitana1]

Involuntary manslaughter in Georgia is not a lesser included. This is why they're charging him with felony murder - there's no other homicide offense that even conceivably fits the circumstances of this case.

I'm finding that it can be. And it is also a lesser included of malice murder if there is any evidence that the death could have been an accident:

"Sigman claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request
jury charges on lesser included offenses of simple battery and reckless conduct
for the cruelty to children, aggravated battery and aggravated assault counts of
the indictment. Sigman argues that in the absence of such lesser included
offense charges for those crimes, upon which the felony murder counts were
predicated, the jury was precluded from considering involuntary manslaughter
as a lesser included offense of the felony murder counts.
Although Sigman’s attorney did not request lesser included offense
charges for the separate counts of cruelty to children, aggravated battery and
aggravated assault, he did request that the jury be charged on involuntary
manslaughter, predicated on reckless conduct or simple battery, as a lesser
included offense of the malice murder and felony murder counts. The trial court
gave the requested charges, instructing the jurors that if they had a reasonable
doubt as to Sigman’s guilt of any of the murder counts, they could consider
whether he committed the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter in either
of two ways. The trial court explained to the jury:
One [way] is a person commits involuntary manslaughter when that
person causes the death of . . .another human being without any
intention to do so by the commission of the offense of reckless
conduct. In that connection, I charge you the offense of reckless
conduct is defined as follows: A person who causes bodily harm to
or endangers the bodily safety of another person by consciously
disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act will
cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person, and the
disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care
which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation. The
other [way] is a person commits involuntary manslaughter when
that person causes the death of another human being without any
intention to do so by the commission of the offense of simple
battery. In that connection, I charge you the offense of simple
battery is defined as follows: The person commits the offense of
simple battery when he intentionally causes physical harm to
another.
In addition to the jury instructions, the verdict form, as to all the murder
counts, included options for finding Sigman guilty of murder, guilty of the
lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, or not guilty. Thus, given
the charge and the verdict form, it is clear that, contrary to Sigman’s argument,
trial counsel ensured that the jury was allowed to consider involuntary
manslaughter as a lesser included offense of the felony murder counts." BBM. May 17, 2010, S10A0776. SIGMAN v. THE STATE.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...gHLo_XX2nST6uIsJQ&sig2=tZWxw3GxzT6KxiiTmoG09Q

"Joshua Banks was indicted on charges of felony murder, possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm during the commission of
a felony. A jury found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter1 as a lesser-included
offense of felony murder,2 and guilty of the firearm possession charges.3 Banks
appeals from the convictions and the denial of his motion for new trial, contending
that the court erred by failing to include on the verdict form reckless conduct as a
lesser-included offense of felony murder. We affirm." September 26, 2014, A14A1084. BANKS v. THE STATE

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...duiW8QxkMKlCMLBWQ&sig2=BH1_c7S03jHKrLi03U5iMA

“[A] written request to charge a lesser included offense must always be
given if there is any evidence that the defendant is guilty of the lesser included
offense.” State v. Alvarado, 260 Ga. 563, 564 (397 SE2d 550) (1990). Despite
counsel’s proper request, the trial court refused to give a charge on involuntary
manslaughter as a lesser included offense of malice murder, and instead charged
the jury that involuntary manslaughter was only a lesser included offense of
felony murder. However, as explained more fully below, the very same evidence
that supported a charge of involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense
of felony murder supports the conclusion that Norris could have been guilty of
involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of malice murder." BBM. Decided: March 7, 2016, S15A1692. SEABOLT v. NORRIS

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...B6OFLKItFBLlO0NWA&sig2=1yEIF2VT2jGKhPu8OIKlmA

 

[Cardinal47]

Sadly for RH and his gifted defense team, nothing so demonstrably blatant as that dramatic and utterly unrealistic scenario happened. In the real world, in this case, in Cobb County, Georgia, a defendant was railroaded from a few minutes after discovering the body of his dead baby on through til trial, an effort seemingly pushed along by a single law enforcement officer, Detective Stoddard, who "knew" from the very very beginning that RH was guilty, evidence be damned, because if it wasn't there he could misstate, misrepresent, coach witnesses, alter reports, or just flat out lie to create the illusion of evidence, and if there was evidence that didn't conform to his certainty about guilt, well heck, ignoring that evidence and proceeding along as if it didn't exist was just fine.

He's thrown any number of fellow LE under the bus by providing them incomplete or incorrect or just flat out made up information on which to base their reports, recreations, etc. and then they've had to testify under oath and have those reports and recreations and their testimony (and credibility) shredded.

All that is plenty observable already, but would be even more so if Judge Staley could see her way clear to allowing the DT to do their job so that Ross Harris can be afforded his due process right to a fair trial. Jmo

Ok just for the record. Without everything everybody did and everybody said do YOU believe it was an accident? I'm sorry but I just don't.

Common sense just tells me no way did Ross forget about his baby in the car seat right next to him in that not real large car. No way did he go a whole day and never remember Cooper hadn't been dropped off.

If nothing else going to his car at lunch time to deliver light bulbs would surely jog his memory. I think of my children constantly through out the day. How could he forget his?

So without any testimony from anybody Ross Harris is guilty. He was the caretaker and it was his charge to see that little Cooper was kept safe. If for nothing else he must pay for the death of little Cooper because he neglected him and Cooper died a horrible, hot death.

 

[gitana1]

Sadly for RH and his gifted defense team, nothing so demonstrably blatant as that dramatic and utterly unrealistic scenario happened. In the real world, in this case, in Cobb County, Georgia, a defendant was railroaded from a few minutes after discovering the body of his dead baby on through til trial, an effort seemingly pushed along by a single law enforcement officer, Detective Stoddard, who "knew" from the very very beginning that RH was guilty, evidence be damned, because if it wasn't there he could misstate, misrepresent, coach witnesses, alter reports, or just flat out lie to create the illusion of evidence, and if there was evidence that didn't conform to his certainty about guilt, well heck, ignoring that evidence and proceeding along as if it didn't exist was just fine.

He's thrown any number of fellow LE under the bus by providing them incomplete or incorrect or just flat out made up information on which to base their reports, recreations, etc. and then they've had to testify under oath and have those reports and recreations and their testimony (and credibility) shredded.

All that is plenty observable already, but would be even more so if Judge Staley could see her way clear to allowing the DT to do their job so that Ross Harris can be afforded his due process right to a fair trial. Jmo

Well that's a lot of highly emotional argument but how does that point to a conspiracy? Where is the evidence of that? I mean, what does "railroaded" mean? I like evidence and fact. Not emotionally charged language. If Stoddard lied and coached witnesses because he felt the defendant was guilty, without actual evidence, then any of those lies or coached testimony which were presented at trial, can be subject to scrutiny via impeachment. What I have seen is that Stoddard was challenged repeatedly by the defense, trying to show he jumped the gun, or focused too quickly and was affected by bias as a result, in his reports and testimony. Good. That happens and should be challenged. And it was. Now the jury needs to determine whether he was effectively impeached and whether his testimony is at all credible. If not, the state is going to have major problems.

But unless there is direct evidence that he told people to falsify reports or testimony that was actually presented, the trial court is correct, IMO, not to allow the defense to drag witnesses to the stand to be in essence, cross examined as to testimony that was NOT presented at trial, in order to cast a pall on the whole case. So if the state did not present any testimony or evidence stemming from Detective Murphy (?), the defense doesn't get to "cross" him as to that non existent testimony.

Oh I fully know why the defense would want to do that. I would too. And I would try. But I don't think there's any reversible error in denying that tactic.

It's a simple case. Were any of the things testified to by Stoddard or anyone else, pointing to guilt, affected by LE bias, or narrow focus? Was any of the actual evidence massaged or fabricated or distorted? The defense can absolutely impeach whoever is presenting that evidence, but not by bringing in other witnesses who did not present evidence or testimony used directly at trial to implicate Ross, unless those other witnesses are going to say, "Yeah, Stoddard told me he was lying. He also told me to lie."

I think the defense did a good job of showing possible bias and Stoddard apparently had an attitude that might further convince the jury of that. Outside that, unless the witness testified, you can't impeach them and they can't be crossed.

 

[kjpaw]

Thank you!

I haven't seen that depression info. Interesting. Makes sense with the job stuff and his sexting, etc...

As to the exhausted. I'm a very uneven sleeper. After work I usually run, ocassionally nap, then often get up throughout the night and sometimes get on my phone in the middle of the night/early morning. I typically only get 4-6 hours of sleep a day but I'm rarely exhausted. I realize I'm a bit off in this way . I just know everyone's sleep needs are different and I hadn't seen any even ancecdotal evidence he seemed exhausted that day. Based on most people's sleeping needs he should've been but nothing I've read indicated he actually was. Thank you very much for answering ;-)!

 

[gitana1]

About sleep- from the time stamps on the text record we've seen. Up til 3AM texting, texts began again at 5:30AM. Who knows if he slept at all?

Depression. Not introduced at trial, in media reports from interviews with his brother and friends.

Th defense will surely introduce that evidence. They're up so all we can do is wait.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Those are the typical cases. Yes. But felony murder is not limited to those scenarios. Now I can't say if sexting underage persons or obsessively sexting while driving around and caring for a kid who is strapped in your car, to the point you forget his existence in 40 seconds, is criminal negligence. The jury will have to decide. (Btw, I think the facts point to intent but the evidence isn't as strong probably as it needs to be to proven beyond a reasonable doubt). Cars and texting in general come up in criminal negligence homicide cases. Usually involving a car wreck though. The question is whether his conduct, which occurred while he had his vulnerable toddler in his care, in his car, totally dependent and strapped tightly down, rises to the level of the following:


(b) Criminal negligence is an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby.


I don't think they overcharged this guy.

And remember, involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included of felony murder in Georgia. So if they don't find felony murder, they can find involuntary manslaughter.

Please realize that having a 5 gram bag of cocaine on you is a felony.

But it doesn't mean felony murder if your child dies while you have that 5gram bag on your persons.

Btw. Lets say your child died while you was buying felony weight drugs.

Thats still not felony murder

Now if your child dies while you were trying to steal those drugs; Then that is felony murder. Jmo

 

[LyndyLoo]

Ok just for the record. Without everything everybody did and everybody said do YOU believe it was an accident? I'm sorry but I just don't.

Common sense just tells me no way did Ross forget about his baby in the car seat right next to him in that not real large car. No way did he go a whole day and never remember Cooper hadn't been dropped off.

If nothing else going to his car at lunch time to deliver light bulbs would surely jog his memory. I think of my children constantly through out the day. How could he forget his?

So without any testimony from anybody Ross Harris is guilty. He was the caretaker and it was his charge to see that little Cooper was kept safe. If for nothing else he must pay for the death of little Cooper because he neglected him and Cooper died a horrible, hot death.

I happen to agree with your take. It's one thing to have selective memory ( forgetting what's on a shopping list or put coffee on roof then drive off) THIS was HIS BABY/CHILD NOT, NOT some sort of to do LIST item!! .. Quite another to repel that memory when getting so many reminders throughout the day. Leanne texted him shortly after he got to work..asking about getting to work..Any responsible parent would have said yes..becausse he would have then recalled his actual transporting Cooper to Daycare..BUT instead he defaulted to his Sexting!!

Just as aside..Why is it at all acceptable for any employee to spend most their working hours online/texting/sexting ( no matter what the topic is)??? While I never complained..once computers became part of the tools available for workers in my workplace...AS an old schooled Nurse..I found far too many glued to computer screens ..and NOT doing their jobs!! I never complained..But sure saw how distracted employee's get and default to their own interests AWAY from their duties!! Short of a Code Blue or Pink..They would spend many hours online and reading over their shoulders occasionally IT SURE had NOTHING to do with their JOB!! Drove me crazy.

Most workplaces have records of login info and what each login searches/topics/time spent. But the bottomline it frustrated me because I felt pressure to pick up the slack to cover them!! I too wasn't one to sit around and gossip either..so always kept busy..either with patients or doing restocking supplies or cleaning up areas. Being busy in my book at work..SHOULD always be doing work business related..NOT sitting on some computer..unless it is on one's break time!! Always been a thorn in my side issue!! ( I never reported them..as I'm no SD) !!!

ETA~~ I worked in ER/Trauma Unit~~

 

[gitana1]

"With criminal negligence" being the sticky part of that statute as far as proof goes and as the predicate for felony murder.

Is a child dying of hyperthermia in a car a proximate cause of texting? Is that a foreseeable risk of death that most reasonable people would take measures to prevent? Is texting an inherently dangerous activity by its nature or by the circumstances of the texting that morning?

Personally, I don't think there's a case for criminal negligence here ---> felony murder; especially when the Ga. Supreme Court has ruled that a felon possessing a firearm is not an inherently dangerous felony when that person accidentally shoots and kills someone - and couldn't be the predicate felony for a felony murder charge.

But as I said before, we'll have to see how the jury is charged - and you never know with a jury.

Yeah. I really can't say either. It will depend on the jury. But I wouldn't say it would be texting per se that is the proximate cause, but obsessive texting (possibly while exhausted from obsessive texting), while driving, caring for and transporting an extremely vulnerable child, who is helpless and trapped in a car seat with no means of fending for himself.

But is that a possible cause of a foreseeable risk of death? I don't know. I do know that there will be jurors who can't even accept any parent accidentally leaving a child in a car, so they might find that even if logically, it isn't really a foreseeable risk. I mean this is the era where any small accident involving a kid is considered a result of "negligence" on the part of the parents, because it is prima facie evidence that the parents weren't hovering sufficiently enough. Geez, even parents of kids who don't get hurt at all, but are left alone or allowed to play outside without an adult are subject to CPS removal of their kids, charges, etc.

So I venture to guess there will be extreme outrage on the part of many jurors at the thought that Cooper was left in that car, even if there is zero showing of recklessness, foreseeability, malice, intent, etc.

 

[gitana1]

Please realize that having a 5 gram bag of cocaine on you is a felony.

But it doesn't mean felony murder if your child dies while you have that 5gram bag on your persons.

Btw. Lets say your child died while you was buying felony weight drugs.

Thats still not felony murder

Now if your child dies while you were trying to steal those drugs; Then that is felony murder. Jmo

I know. But none of that is analogous to the current situation. He wasn't committing a crime that was unrelated to the death of his kid. In this case, the underlying felony would be criminal negligence or child cruelty. Without a strong showing of intent I think child cruelty is out. So we are left with criminal negligence. Is it criminally negligent to be obsessively texting/sexting while caring for and transporting a totally dependent, helpless kid, in a car? Bottom line.

Not every underlying felony for felony murder has to be a violent or aggressive one.

 

[JudyBolton]

I actually haven't watched much at all. I've been tracking via tweets and the news. I assume if there was solid evidence that members of LE quickly got together around a table on the day Cooper died and said, we need to frame this SOB, let's fabricate evidence real quick so we can get search warrants." That would be explosive news.

And if you only read some comments here - you would assume that is exactly what happened! What would happen if SW were disregarded if there were even the slightest mistake (head leaned inside car or head outside of car?)

At some point we either trust LE to make reasonable judgements or we consider everything they say and do to be suspect. Sadly, I see that attitude more and more in our country. If a 22 month old has baked to death in a car and LE with years of experience believe something is wrong - should they not have some leeway to investigate?

 

[just the facts pls]

Some thoughts about today:

1. The 3D scan shows the same thing we learned when photos were taken of JRH's car in the evidence garage - the car seat was fit snug between the two front seats and Cooper's head would be immediately visible to the right of JRH. JRH would have been tall enough to see down inside the car seat.

More to the point, if JRH claims to have "discovered" Cooper when merely turning his head to change lanes, then he should have seen Cooper's head when he reached for his briefcase.

2. The issue with the search warrant feels like a major diversion. My job as a juror would be to determine guilt based on the evidence presented to me. The evidence that convicts JRH is on his phone, not his computer or other devices seized in the search warrant. Since JRH gave LE the password for his phone, he consented to have that information available to police. JRH was being charged that day, so the phone would have gone immediately into evidence.

Let's say we throw out everything about searches and viewing history. There is still enough evidence to convict JRH beyond a reasonable doubt. The timestamped conversation he was having about escaping his son was only moments before shutting the door on Cooper. Here I am being a broken record again: you cannot forget about your child while you are talking about them.

The defense even pointed out the gap of time in the conversation between messages to show when JRH was at Chik-Fil-A and when he arrived at his workplace. JRH was engaged in a continuous conversation about dissatisfaction with being married with kids.

3. The realtor was pointless but confirms my suspicions that JRH's major point of defense is that he's an upper class man with financial standing, and is therefore somehow more worth being given the benefit of the doubt than other defendants. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if JRH had come from the trailer park or a ghetto, nobody would be willing to twist themselves into pretzels to defend someone so obviously guilty.

There was no need to bring up his credit score unless you trying to prove that JRH is too upper class to go to prison. Imagine the precident this sets for poorer defendants who have crappy credit scores but are truly incapable of murder.

Important note: the juror's instructions are to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt requires actual reason. With all the phone evidence submitted into court, i.e. Whisper, kik, and text messages (along with photos of car and car seat position, length of trip between Chik-Fil-A to Treehouse, Chik-fil-A security footage, interview footage, eyewitness testimony) the State has done more than enough evidence to prove that JRH was unhappily married, was resentful of his child, and desired a life outside of being married with a kid. Every claim of the defense has been disproven. There's no reason for me to give JRH the benefit of the doubt and assume he simply forgot Cooper.

I don't think it's a leap to malice murder, in fact it's the only logical conclusion.

 

[Hope4More]

Well that's a lot of highly emotional argument but how does that point to a conspiracy? Where is the evidence of that? I mean, what does "railroaded" mean? I like evidence and fact. Not emotionally charged language. If Stoddard lied and coached witnesses because he felt the defendant was guilty, without actual evidence, then any of those lies or coached testimony which were presented at trial, can be subject to scrutiny via impeachment. What I have seen is that Stoddard was challenged repeatedly by the defense, trying to show he jumped the gun, or focused too quickly and was affected by bias as a result, in his reports and testimony. Good. That happens and should be challenged. And it was. Now the jury needs to determine whether he was effectively impeached and whether his testimony is at all credible. If not, the state is going to have major problems.

But unless there is direct evidence that he told people to falsify reports or testimony that was actually presented, the trial court is correct, IMO, not to allow the defense to drag witnesses to the stand to be in essence, cross examined as to testimony that was NOT presented at trial, in order to cast a pall on the whole case. So if the state did not present any testimony or evidence stemming from Detective Murphy (?), the defense doesn't get to "cross" him as to that non existent testimony.

Oh I fully know why the defense would want to do that. I would too. And I would try. But I don't think there's any reversible error in denying that tactic.

It's a simple case. Were any of the things testified to by Stoddard or anyone else, pointing to guilt, affected by LE bias, or narrow focus? Was any of the actual evidence massaged or fabricated or distorted? The defense can absolutely impeach whoever is presenting that evidence, but not by bringing in other witnesses who did not present evidence or testimony used directly at trial to implicate Ross, unless those other witnesses are going to say, "Yeah, Stoddard told me he was lying. He also told me to lie."

I think the defense did a good job of showing possible bias and Stoddard apparently had an attitude that might further convince the jury of that. Outside that, unless the witness testified, you can't impeach them and they can't be crossed.

Conspiracy was your term, not mine. And I too like facts and evidence,. In fact, I can be quite pesky on that subject. There is nothing mutually exclusive, though, about liking and even insisting upon facts and evidence, and marshalling facts and evidence to make an "emotional argument ," though in truth, I don't think I did anything of the sort.

What is being railroaded? Being railroaded in this case is about unchecked bias, which began within minutes, based on subjective notions of behavior , a f-ck you to a short cop, and RH trying to call his wife, and infected the investigation and then the State's case from that point on.

I don't have 2 hours to review for you the entire pretrial sequence of search warrants being used as fishing expeditions in search of evidence to prove an apriori conclusion of guilt, how reports suddenly materialized, how the info in reports was based on conclusions Stoddard wanted reached......there's simply too much to summarize, sorry, even before trying to recap weeks of trial.

I understand what you're saying about impeachment. Have you followed the trial closely enough to be familiar with how the State has used hearsay objections to impede the defense's cross of witnesses who are LE, and who worked with and for other LE witnesses who have testified at this trial on matters brought up on direct?