Trial - Ross Harris #9

[Hope4More]

The video was not 'about' pets. It was about HOT CARS and the danger they present to any living thing trapped inside. Which is why Ross went right to the thought of his son being in the hot car, which he posted about below the video. The vet knows many more people leave pets in the car when they go do errands, then they do leave their children. So he figured he needed to do a pSA, jmo.

It was not about children in hot cars, which was my point.

And at risk of being overly redundant, I think it behooves one to consider the possibility Ross had reasons to misstate and misrepresent some facts to LE that had nothing at all to do with being guilty of killing Cooper on purpose. Just saying.

 

[katydid23]

That's how a lot of members here feel I'm afraid. It's impossible for a parent to forget their child in a hot car so the defense has to prove otherwise.

Guilty until proven innocent. JMO.

If the defense is putting up their theory of what happened, to counter the states theory, then they do have to show some evidence of it's plausibility.

For example, If someone uses a 'self defense' scenario, in a murder case, then they need to provide evidence to support it.

If someone uses the 'Forgotten Baby Syndrome' as a defense, then they need to provide evidence that their defendant fits the parameters of that scenario. jmo

 

[RANCH]

If the defense is putting up their theory of what happened, to counter the states theory, then they do have to show some evidence of it's plausibility.

For example, If someone uses a 'self defense' scenario, in a murder case, then they need to provide evidence to support it.

If someone uses the 'Forgotten Baby Syndrome' as a defense, then they need to provide evidence that their defendant fits the parameters of that scenario. jmo

Yes. So what's your point? Are you saying that the defense failed to prove a scenario to your liking so by default the State wins?

I'm probably misunderstanding you so help me out.

 

[katydid23]

It was not about children in hot cars, which was my point.

And at risk of being overly redundant, I think it behooves one to consider the possibility Ross had reasons to misstate and misrepresent some facts to LE that had nothing at all to do with being guilty of killing Cooper on purpose. Just saying.

But it does not matter if it was about children or pets in hot cars. The important part, imo, is that it was about the DANGERS of dying in a hot car---child or pet. So Ross had very recently seen the consequences of leaving a child or a pet in a hot car. And he even made the connection himself about what would happen to Cooper if he was left in a hot car. Hard to overlook that crazy coincidence.

If I had seen a video online about how fast a pet could die in a pool, unattended. And I commented on the video, about how much I'd hate it if my baby fell into a pool. And then days later, while having a Whisper conversation about needing a break from being a Mom, I 'forgot' about my baby, and he toddled outside and fell into the pool and drowned...would a jury have a problem with that? Or could I say that I just 'blanked' him out and forgot I was watching him...my bad, so sorry..

 

[katydid23]

Yes. So what's your point? Are you saying that the defense failed to prove a scenario to your liking so by default the State wins?

I'm probably misunderstanding you so help me out.

I was responding to the earlier contention that the defense has no need to 'prove' anything about their theory. And I am saying I disagree. If they want me to believe their explanation for what happened, then I need to accept their version as possible. And right now, I am not sure I can accept it as a valid possibility. JMO

The short time span, cramped space, and the memory triggers all around him make me seriously doubt it was totally accidental.

 

[katydid23]

I think that's what Dr Brewer was trying to explain, that it can be seconds to have the memory problem.

Makes sense to me. JMO

It only takes seconds to blank out on having the kid in the car---unless there are other things which would negate that probability, imo. Like having his car seat inches away, seeing his day care center in the rear view mirror, seeing the cup from CFA in the cup holder, or continuing the text conversation about needing an escape from his son... So many possible triggers that could negate that sudden memory problem.

 

[RANCH]

But it does not matter if it was about children or pets in hot cars. The important part, imo, is that it was about the DANGERS of dying in a hot car---child or pet. So Ross had very recently seen the consequences of leaving a child or a pet in a hot car. And he even made the connection himself about what would happen to Cooper if he was left in a hot car. Hard to overlook that crazy coincidence.

If I had seen a video online about how fast a pet could die in a pool, unattended. And I commented on the video, about how much I'd hate it if my baby fell into a pool. And then days later, while having a Whisper conversation about needing a break from being a Mom, I 'forgot' about my baby, and he toddled outside and fell into the pool and drowned...would a jury have a problem with that? Or could I say that I just 'blanked' him out and forgot I was watching him...my bad, so sorry..

What if that day he forgot about the dangers he had previously learned about? The dangers to his child would still be real, he just wouldn't realize it. JMO

 

[katydid23]

That 19 year old juror will most likely follow the herd in my opinion. I base that on what I see at work with the young men we have and how I remember myself as a 19 year old guy. JMO.

I agree. But if there are 2 or 3 others in agreement with him, he might stand his ground. IDK

 

[katydid23]

What if that day he forgot about the dangers he had previously learned about? The dangers to his child would still be real, he just wouldn't realize it. JMO

But he and his wife have said it was one of their biggest fears and they spoke about it often. So I cannot see him forgetting about the dangers of leaving a baby in a hot car. It is a pretty ingrained notion, imo.

 

[katydid23]

It was not about children in hot cars, which was my point.

And at risk of being overly redundant, I think it behooves one to consider the possibility Ross had reasons to misstate and misrepresent some facts to LE that had nothing at all to do with being guilty of killing Cooper on purpose. Just saying.

OK, so because one thinks Ross is lying and distorting things, I should give him the benefit of the doubt? I am supposed to figure out which things he is being dishonest about and use that as a reason to think he is not guilty? :thinking:

 

[Safeguard]

Here's the thing about those other stories, imo, and what DOES make RH's case unique.

Unlike any other case I'm aware of, RH's window of opportunity for forgetting can be narrowed down to those specific few minutes between leaving CFA and the intersection, at the latest.

We don't know how quickly other parents forgot their kids, precisely because their drives from home to work, etc WERE longer than RH's. Those other parents forgot, went to work or wherever, and didn't " remember " until hours later.

We have no way of knowing when and how quickly they forgot, because THEY had no way of knowing.

BTW...the fact that RH's window of forgetting was so short is not evidence to me that he couldn't have had FBS, it's evidence to me that he either did, or that he plain vanilla forgot. I simply do not believe the man planned to murder Cooper and feign FBS, then chose a route that would record his every move and would document his forgetting within minutes and seconds, making that forgetting seem impossible to many, and implausible to others.

Nothing could have been simpler than driving Cooper straight to work, parking where Cooper couldn't have been seen, and waiting until he left work to "discover" him. IMO, one has to turn things pretty much inside out to think RH premeditated killing Cooper, and it flat out is unbelievable that Ross knew of FBS and yet chose a scenario that was completely unlikely to be viewed as such.

Absolutely! That's what I don't understand. Why on earth would anyone choose this method to murder a child?

It makes no sense to me at all. If this is a premeditated murder, here's a guy who works in IT, he could have factory reset his phone anytime, prior to committing this master crime...

There are so many things that fairly scream that RH had no idea he was going to be looked at, or scutinized, which is pretty basic knowledge if your child dies in your care.

Disregarding the total ridiculousness of this 'plan' for anyone to try and pull off, I can't find one single case of anyone, ever, being convicted of premeditated murder of a child by Hot Car Death. Not one.
So Ross is the first parent ever?

 

[RANCH]

It only takes seconds to blank out on having the kid in the car---unless there are other things which would negate that probability, imo.

The State hasn't done a good job in proving that it has to take longer than what the defense expert testified to. JMO

 

[RANCH]

I agree. But if there are 2 or 3 others in agreement with him, he might stand his ground. IDK

I doubt it. Besides,there wont be 2 or 3 going against the majority in this case. 19 year olds are not going to be leading a group of people deciding whether someone spends the rest of their life in prison.

He will be a follower. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Sure, but I still think it's meaningless. I constantly forget what I was going to do immediately after I thought about doing it.

YES, if what you are doing is kind of trivial, it is easy to forget. I go to the garage to get a lightbulb and then forget what I needed there. It is a mundane task to change the lamp's bulb. So I am not concerned about it and forget when I get into the garage.

But if my 3 yr old was in the bath tub, then I doubt I would forget he was in there. I might grab a fresh towel from the hall closet, but I would not forget my boy was in a vulnerable, dangerous place.

If you are driving your 22 month old baby around the city, you need to stay on point, and in focus. Not doing so is NEGLIGENCE, imo.

 

[katydid23]

The State hasn't done a good job in proving that it has to take longer than what the defense expert testified to. JMO

We all see and hear things differently which is why juries are so unpredictable. I thought that Boring did a great job pointing out the memory triggers that Ross had when he was driving to work and when he arrived. So even if he 'forgot' quickly, there were plenty of memory cues which should have triggered him. Like the text conversation he was having ABOUT HIM, when he supposedly forgot about him.

 

[RANCH]

YES, if what you are doing is kind of trivial, it is easy to forget. I go to the garage to get a lightbulb and then forget what I needed there. It is a mundane task to change the lamp's bulb. So I am not concerned about it and forget when I get into the garage.

But if my 3 yr old was in the bath tub, then I doubt I would forget he was in there. I might grab a fresh towel from the hall closet, but I would not forget my boy was in a vulnerable, dangerous place.

If you are driving your 22 month old baby around the city, you need to stay on point, and in focus. Not doing so is NEGLIGENCE, imo.

Katy, you're supposed to say you "would not forget he was in there" and not that you would "doubt I would forget he was in there."

The word "doubt" suggests uncertainty about your memory which would tend to help the defense and not the prosecution. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Absolutely! That's what I don't understand. Why on earth would anyone choose this method to murder a child?

It makes no sense to me at all. If this is a premeditated murder, here's a guy who works in IT, he could have factory reset his phone anytime, prior to committing this master crime...

There are so many things that fairly scream that RH had no idea he was going to be looked at, or scutinized, which is pretty basic knowledge if your child dies in your care.

Disregarding the total ridiculousness of this 'plan' for anyone to try and pull off, I can't find one single case of anyone, ever, being convicted of premeditated murder of a child by Hot Car Death. Not one.
So Ross is the first parent ever?

What if it was not really 'premeditated' but more of a sudden impulse.

Ross was a slacker that used avoidance and denial as a way to cope with things he didn't want to deal with anymore. His way of dealing with issues at work was to duck out on work meetings, avoid the calls, and leave early, come in late. He had to know that at some point it was going to crash and burn. But did he try and fix the situation by staying to talk to the team leader, asking for help to finish his unfinished project? No...he just ignored it.

Ross was unhappy with his marriage. But would not divorce because of his son. His son was in the way of his freedom. Ross had pondered the dangers of hot car deaths. He even knew of a grieving father who became an advocate and traveled around as a spokesman, about the dangers. Ross said to his wife, hours after the tragedy, that maybe that is what he should do too.

I don't think he premeditated the 'forgetting' longer than a minute or so. I think he had the horrible impulse to set it in motion and just did so, spontaneously. he had zero impulse control.

Once he made that decision, he just blanked it all out in his mind. He went on cruise control and hoped it would be like the other cases he knew about. No one investigated fully, a parent that makes such a tragic mistake. They are scolded, interviewed, and then they go on their way, to grieve with friends and family. He didn't think anyone was going to get his cell records and investigate his apps, imo.

But he did a lot of stupid things without thinking things true. He sexted minors, sending pictures of his junk to a 14 yr old. How stupid does an IT guy have to be to do that???? He was not Albert Einstein. He was pretty stupid in spite of his obvious intelligence.

We don't know if any of the other hot car deaths were 'on purpose' or not. They were not investigated fully in many instances. That is changing now, thank goodness.

 

[RANCH]

We all see and hear things differently which is why juries are so unpredictable. I thought that Boring did a great job pointing out the memory triggers that Ross had when he was driving to work and when he arrived. So even if he 'forgot' quickly, there were plenty of memory cues which should have triggered him. Like the text conversation he was having ABOUT HIM, when he supposedly forgot about him.

Are these "triggers" a guarantee to elicit a memory from everyone, all of the time, in every kind of circumstances?

 

[katydid23]

Katy, you're supposed to say you "would not forget he was in there" and not that you would "doubt I would forget he was in there."

The word "doubt" suggests uncertainty about your memory which would tend to help the defense and not the prosecution. JMO

There are doubts and then there are reasonable doubts. I doubt I would ever forget my toddler grand baby is in the bath tub. In fact, it is not reasonable that I would do so. :wink:

 

[RANCH]

There are doubts and then there are reasonable doubts. I doubt I would ever forget my toddler grand baby is in the bath tub. In fact, it is not reasonable that I would do so. :wink:

I think you missed my point. I do like posting with you so I'll ask you a question. Do you think this jury will convict RH with Malice murder? That's the most important charge in my opinion and the one that will define this case.