Trial - Ross Harris #5

[JudyBolton]

Thank you for excellent post, and I 100% agree with you!

Cooper Harris is the victim here not RH and I think sometimes that get muddled in all of the other stuff!

Might I add, RH is the one responsible for Cooper's death not Detective Stoddard and Law Enforcement!

 

[JudyBolton]

Leeway to investigate? If you are asking for 'leeway to investigate' then you are saying that it is okay for LE to disregard our Constitutional Rights. Please don't do that.

No - I never said that. I said, if a child is dead and adults apparently responsible set off suspicions - what is the point if they are then held to a standard that every jot and tittle of every SW must be perfect. If not, we not only throw out the evidence but impugn the character of the L.E. officers by implying they intentionally lied?

 

[Hope4More]

If a child dies in a hot car, that's enough probable cause for the records of the people responsible for the care of the child to be scoured, regardless if what the suspect does or says or how they react, etc. IMO. It's a dead child. Everything related to what was going on, what the context was, whether there were distractions, if there was malice or recklessness, all of it, should be open to a search warrant just based on the mere fact that a child baked to death in a hot car. I think the judge in this case indicated as much.

No, not entirely. Staley ruled that a dead child plus cause of death unknown plus LE finding a parent responsible for the dead child present at the scene equalled probable cause to search the car, RH's phone, the Harris home, and to seize, but not search (several) of RH's computers.

Searching the contents on his computers required separate search warrants, (issued June 24), on which date the affadavits' narrative had been edited, and now included the blatant lie about the position of Cooper's seat belt straps (though photos of the car and the carseat had already been taken).

 

[JudyBolton]

If a child dies in a hot car, that's enough probable cause for the records of the people responsible for the care of the child to be scoured, regardless if what the suspect does or says or how they react, etc. IMO. It's a dead child. Everything related to what was going on, what the context was, whether there were distractions, if there was malice or recklessness, all of it, should be open to a search warrant just based on the mere fact that a child baked to death in a hot car. I think the judge in this case indicated as much.

Have to repost this!! Thanks - I've tried and tried to say this but you put it much more eloquently! :loveyou:

 

[gitana1]

I would hope jurors who couldn't accept any parent accidentally leaving a child in a car told the truth in voir dire, and that they were promptly dismissed.

Yes but were they asked that specific question? I didn't see it in the jury questionnaire. They may think they can be fair and impartial while still thinking leaving a kid in a car is not an "accident".

 

[just the facts pls]

IMO the death of a child is more than enough probable cause to investigate the parents.

If there is a death in the workplace, you can be absolutely sure that the company will be investigated to rule out any negligence or intentional cause (should there be any).

If your spouse or significant other ends up dead, you can bet law enforcement is going to crawl into every nook and cranny of your life and check every time stamp and traffic camera to make sure you weren't in the vicinity when they died.

If there is a death at a school or a day care, you can bet LE will investigate.

The idea that parents should not be investigated is incredulous to me. All that does is open the door for more parents to stage these "accidents" in the event parenthood isn't going the way they thought it would.

 

[FinallyRegistered]

No - I never said that. I said, if a child is dead and adults apparently responsible set off suspicions - what is the point if they are then held to a standard that every jot and tittle of every SW must be perfect. If not, we not only throw out the evidence but impugn the character of the L.E. officers by implying they intentionally lied?

Imply? No need for that.

We've heard the testimony under oath.

Lowest setting on the car seat? Nope.
Six-minute call? Nope
Posted a meme on Reddit about hating his kid? Nope.
Searched "child-free life"? Nope.
Searched "hot car"? Nope.

 

[Hope4More]

Yes. I indeed used the term conspiracy. There is no evidence of some wild conspiracy. Your post, however, indicated that there was in fact such evidence. But so far I haven't seen that.

Pervasive bias, confirmation bias, a DA perhaps trying out the State's brand new ability to alchemize criminal negligence into murder, and a pro-prosecution judge does not a conspiracy make. But neither does that unholy constellation make for a fair trial.

The pervasive LE bias (or a repudiation of said observation) that has tainted this case might be more apparent with a closer review of the trial?

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by JudyBolton View Post
I thought we had proof that the seat was too small? It doen't matter how it looks, his measurements were outside of the parameters of the car seat limits. This is one of the few things we should be able to agree upon as it is a black and white fact.

I can say one thing with absolute certainty - the straps should have been on the highest setting.

RBBM, I am going to assume that is your opinion. I be glad when it is addressed in trial, since they have read the measurements into the record by the ME Dr Frist and had the car seat manual spoken about. JMHO

 

[Jewels53]

Might I add, RH is the one responsible for Cooper's death not Detective Stoddard and Law Enforcement!

I agree and I am frankly tired of hearing how Detective Stoddard railroaded everyone.

I have kept quiet until today just because I don't agree with some, and I have been watching and reading.

 

[ShHolmz]

No - I never said that. I said, if a child is dead and adults apparently responsible set off suspicions - what is the point if they are then held to a standard that every jot and tittle of every SW must be perfect. If not, we not only throw out the evidence but impugn the character of the L.E. officers by implying they intentionally lied?

Leeway to investigate? If you are asking for 'leeway to investigate' then you are saying that it is okay for LE to disregard our Constitutional Rights. Please don't do that.

I did NOT read the comment by JudyBolton to mean "to disregard anyone's constitutional rights". We have a lot of lawyers on here (and wannabes) that want to bring the prosecution team to their knees. This has been a big topic of conversation throughout the day. IIRC it was mentioned earlier by a Verified Lawyer that the SW only needed to show probable cause

I am sure I will be corrected shortly, no worries I have my big boy panties on.

Justice for Cooper!

 

[Hope4More]

Yes but were they asked that specific question? I didn't see it in the jury questionnaire. They may think they can be fair and impartial while still thinking leaving a kid in a car is not an "accident".

Did you watch voir dire of jury 2, after change in venue? I don't remember if jurors were asked that precise question (in panels), but if they weren't, they were asked every related question but that, for obvious reasons.

 

[gitana1]

Leeway to investigate? If you are asking for 'leeway to investigate' then you are saying that it is okay for LE to disregard our Constitutional Rights. Please don't do that.

Not really. When a kid dies in a parent's care while in a hot car, that in and of itself creates probable cause to search the records of the parent caring for the child. IMO. You don't need more I think to show that there is adequate reason to see what was happening that led to the child's death and to suspect that a crime- whether negligence or more- was involved.

 

[gitana1]

Did you watch voir dire of jury 2, after change in venue?

No. That's why I asked. I haven't watched much of the trial at all. I've been reading the tweets and news reports.

 

[Maisiebelle]

If the judge allows you to deem a witness you call to be a "hostile" or adverse witness, then you can essentially ask them leading or cross exam style questions. It's a benefit for the defense if they are allowed to do that.

Thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

I have been wondering so maybe you know? Everything he said BEFORE they read him his rights.......is that admissible? Did someone read him his rights when he was handcuffed? If so I missed that.

He wasn't read his rights until he was in that interview room alone for a while. The tape allegedly started at 6pm and he involked his rights at 7:31pm per Stoddard telling him and writing down time. Then they recorded his and LH visit, yet didn't start the recorder in the interview room when Stoddard told him of the added murder charge. :thinking:

 

[arkansasmimi]

I have a question for all the sluethers on this case.

Now my question is; If you was a juror on this case

Would you rather the state had simply filed a negligence homicide case while the state was easily able to prove it?

Or would you rather hear the state stretch things for their premeditated murder or felony capital murder agenda?

:judge: If I were a juror, I would feel the same as I would a sleuther. That is if the State is going to charge anyone with anything.. especially serious felonies then they should have solid evidence to prove the charges. Not manufactured evidence or manipulated. And to prove it to me as a juror, those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And not overcharging. If you were RH would you not expect the same? And what about innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? I realize being judged in the public opening is different. But would you want to be judged on by false information that has happened in this case? Proven by the State witnesses testimony?

 

[arkansasmimi]

I have a question for all the sluethers on this case.

Now my question is; If you was a juror on this case

Would you rather the state had simply filed a negligence homicide case while the state was easily able to prove it?

Or would you rather hear the state stretch things for their premeditated murder or felony capital murder agenda?

:judge: If I were a juror, I would feel the same as I would a sleuther. That is if the State is going to charge anyone with anything.. especially serious felonies then they should have solid evidence to prove the charges. Not manufactured evidence or manipulated. And to prove it to me as a juror, those charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And not overcharging. If you were RH would you not expect the same? And what about innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? I realize being judged in the public opening is different. But would you want to be judged on by false information that has happened in this case? Proven false by the State impeached witnesses testimony?

 

[gitana1]

Pervasive bias, confirmation bias, a DA perhaps trying out the State's brand new ability to alchemize criminal negligence into murder, and a pro-prosecution judge does not a conspiracy make. But neither does that unholy constellation make for a fair trial.

The pervasive LE bias that has tainted this case might be more apparent with a closer review of the trial?

Could be. I haven't watched enough to know. Although so far I haven't seen anything to indicate he's not getting a fair trial. Frankly, I think it can be hard for LE not to form biases that affect how the case is investigated, and ultimately how the defendant or if the defendant is charged. So we have the court process, which includes probable cause hearings and the introduction of testimony/evidence, motions in limine, etc., to make sure that bias doesn compromise the defendant's right to a fair trial. I've seen nothing yet (or read), that indicates this guys isn't receiving a fair trial. No trial is going to be 100% perfect. Not all rulings will be perfect. But that doesn't mean the trial isn't fair.

My my statement was very specific. Again, my statement had to do specifically as to whether the judge committed reversible error in ruling that testimony from a detective who had not presented testimony, as to what he wrote in reports that have not been presented, would be excluded. And my statement was that you can't base such testimony on wild conspiracy theories that LE got together the day Cooper died and made a plan to frame the guy. The response was, "have you been watching the trial?" Which I think clearly indicates a belief that the trial evidences such a conspiracy. But there isn't evidence of that.

Evidence of bias, which I think was shown, is not enough IMO to render the judge's decision reversible error. It seems to be a reasonable ruling to me. The bias has been dealt with on cross and via impeachment and will be further dealt with through defense witnesses. That's how he continues to have a fair trial despite a ruling that the defense and its supporters don't like.

 

[GA_Peach]

RBSBM

Start at the first. It broke on the news, it was a horrible tragic thing that happen to this sweet boy. Emotion grabber Headline news. All the media that happened then... Fast forward to the PC Hearing that at was live streamed. I watched the PC Hearing and the ones after that. I had not read articles prior. But after watching the live streamed hearings, that is why so many people have hate for this man. Yes he did disgusting things online with people already online looking for the same thing he was and they hooked up. Same with the prostitute. What she did was against the law and was caught in a sting.. she not charged with anything and yet she was on probation, had pot, and took the $ from a cop.

Everyone HATES this Defendant, the media has spread so many false things ... which not just the MSM doing their normal twist of information, but the LEO who are doing the investigation and the State who are prosecuting it. Then they go to start trial and after a hard battle yet won, get the Judge to agree on a change of venue. So now have the trial going and State witness upon witness testimony is impeached! Flipping Supervisors flap out not telling truths writing reports a year later, LEO doing the same. Lead Det doesn't recall anything, evidence tampered with. Over half a dozen women paraded through and people are angry with the DEFENSE for humiliating them. (not my words). Yet no evidence from anyone that RH didn't love his son very much. None of those ladies testified to that. Even the prostitute said that. Everything that was obtained was tainted and now the public finds out that these inflammatory things said were not factual.

RH never has said he didn't leave his child in his car. Defense is not claiming that. What has everyone so riled up comes from the beginning when live stream hearings with lies was spread from sea to shining sea. The disgust from all the messages on chats, the State has used to try to say that is why RH murdered his son. Its all twisted and wrong. I do not think the sexting has a dang thing to do with RH leaving that child in the car. (nothing through the day, he had already left him their that morning) I have formed my opening from watching the trial. I still trying to keep an open mind.. its real hard now. But I will try. Maybe the State has a big gotcha at Rebuttal.

JMHO But sadly, all the reasons people hate this man is because of the flipping investigation and lies in the beginning. Its because of reading posts here I say that and believe it. I don't know the man anymore than anyone else posting here. I don't try to justify his sexting, I personally think disgusting but there are people who do it and it was legal (other than the minors-yet again they only know about them from the false statements to get the search warrant to begin with). Someone on other thread called this a witch hunt. I think now that that is appropriate description of what it has been. From testimony and evidence presented in this trial/and out of jury presence. Unbelievable.

It's interesting to hear your thoughts on this case. As you know, I have followed this case from day 1. I was drawn in for two main reasons: 1) Cooper's day care was located at my old place of employment, and 2) it is a hot car death. I have always been fascinated with how the courts handle hot car deaths. On the one hand, I cannot comprehend punishing the act of forgetting, but on the other hand, it's a parent's job to care for a child. Sorting through the facts in cases like this is an interesting endeavor, and I simply can't get enough.

Immediately prior to the case starting, I thought that Ross was an unsavory person who liked to get his jollies with random women on the internet. While I did not condone his behavior, I believed that his extra martial activities made him a bad husband. I in no way believed that it made Ross guilty of murder. With respect to his criminal responsibility for Cooper's death, I believed that the actual text messages would firmly establish criminal negligence.

Now that the State has rested I am surprised by how little my opinion has changed. I still believe that Ross's obsessive texting habits rendered him unable to properly care for Cooper, and as a result, Cooper is dead. In that respect, his texts had everything to do with Cooper's death. While the DT still needs to present its case, I would have no trouble finding Ross guilty of felony murder at this point in time.

However, the case did shock me in one way that I was not anticipating. I wasn't expecting Ross's sexting habits to move me as much as they did. I honestly find his propensity for minor and vulnerable, barely legal girls alarming. I had no idea he was attempting to court one high schooler and seemingly had no problem picking up another girl from her dorm room. He met another girl at his apartment for a quickie on his couch, and he received a BJ in the back seat of his car. IMO these are not the actions of a man who was simply unfaithful to his wife. This is a person who struggles with a real sex addition. It casts an extremely gray cloud over Ross. I know that I am not verbalizing this very well, but Ross's actions seemed to indicate that he was in a dark, downward spiral.

For me, the evidence portrayed during the trial is what caused my to find Ross so unlikable and quite frankly a threat to society. Before this trial I could not understand why Ross was denied bond, but after hearing all of the State's evidence, I believe it was the right decision.

As for the witch hunt part, I don't subscribe to that theory. Confirmation bias? Absolutely. Conspiracy theory? No. Putting aside all of the LE's testimony there is still plenty of evidence to show that Ross was negligent (his texting habits, his short drive from CFA to the TH, Cooper's proximity to Ross in the SUV, Ross's weird route to the movie theater, Ross/Winston claiming Ross was going to be late to a 5:00 movie at 3:45, and so on). I am still extremely bothered by this afternoon's ruling.