Trial - Ross Harris #9

[arkansasmimi]

Ha ha!!

I was serious! :silly:

 

[gitana1]

Sorry, but that's EXACTLY how I interpret his demeanor and his hollow emotional state. It's how I believe he viewed his dead child, especially after checking on his 'progress' at lunch.

It is pretty bad though, with respect. I cringed pretty hard. Poor Cooper.

 

[Paige SC]

Sorry, I'm still not seeing how any or all of these "coincidences" or "abnormalities" that people keep pointing to in any way add up to murder.


Can someone of the belief that the State has proven premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt please lay out the case for me? Tell me which pieces of evidence paint that picture so clearly that you think it is "unreasonable" to conclude that Ross forgot Cooper that day.

TIA.

Here's a VERY loose analogy.*

I start my day & stop at the store. I grab a scratch off and win $100. Then I enter a random drawing at work and win $5000. I stop off at the local bar after work and enter a raffle. Guess what? 50,000! Then I go back to the store & get another scratch off plus a bonus lottery ticket. I win them both. Easy $1million. All in one day. There MAY be searches on my phone about how to cheat the system and or increase my odds illegally but really, that's just coincidence. ‎

So either a) I cheated or b) had a level of luck that defies the laws of statistics. *One in 300 billion kind of luck.

Am I just really lucky or am I a cheater? ‎

 

[Paige SC]

It is pretty bad though, with respect. I cringed pretty hard. Poor Cooper.

Yep, it's horrific and to think his dad thought so little of him, that is a very bitter pill to swallow. That poor child. I pray the jury will come to a reasonable & just verdict.

 

[katydid23]

But, Katie, the defense does not have to convince the jury - they merely have to raise the doubt.

Yes, Ross said he thought he took Cooper to day care. "I swore I did." That fits the overall pattern of parents who mistakenly believe their kids are safely at day care, whether they have a specific memory of it or not.

I am not a lawyer, so you are probably correct. But I was looking at this as an Affirmative Defense case.

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.


It seems to me [ and I am probably wrong] ....but it makes sense to me, that if the DT wants to claim Forgotten Baby Syndrome then they need to prove that Ross's situation fit that scenario.


Ross telling his wife that he thought he took the baby to day care, in spite of other things which make it seem improbable, does not seem very convincing.

I don't think the DT raised enough doubt so far. I bet they do a very convincing closing though.

 

[Paige SC]

I am not a lawyer, so you are probably correct. But I was looking at this as an Affirmative Defense case.

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.


It seems to me [ and I am probably wrong] ....but it makes sense to me, that if the DT wants to claim Forgotten Baby Syndrome then they need to prove that Ross's situation fit that scenario.


Ross telling his wife that he thought he took the baby to day care, in spite of other things which make it seem improbable, does not seem very convincing.

I don't think the DT raised enough doubt so far. I bet they do a very convincing closing though.

Is the DT claiming FBS? If so, has the state attacked it effectively? Or, shown how RH doesn't fit what's known about FBS?

 

[PaperDoll]

Sorry, I'm still not seeing how any or all of these "coincidences" or "abnormalities" that people keep pointing to in any way add up to murder.

Can someone of the belief that the State has proven premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt please lay out the case for me? Tell me which pieces of evidence paint that picture so clearly that you think it is "unreasonable" to conclude that Ross forgot Cooper that day.

TIA.

Well I believe he left Cooper on purpose that day. He remembered, in detail everything he did when questioned. He didn't forget his coffee or his brief case , and Coopers car seat was just inches away and I believe he saw Cooper in that car seat. I also don't believe Cooper was asleep when Ross drove out of CFA and went straight to work. He didn't forget Cooper when he went into CFA, why? It was a longer drive from his house to CFA, that is when Cooper could have fallen asleep. But instead Ross forgets after 30 seconds that Cooper wasn't there? Drives straight to work, backs his car up then pulls into the parking lot, waits 30 seconds to leave his car and still didn't spot Cooper? Then through out the day doesn't even think once that something wasn't right? There may not be any abnormalities or coincidences in my theory but Cooper died that day while in Ross' care and I believe he did it intentionally. To me you add up all the States evidence and, me, myself and I (all 3 of us) find intentional and cruelty. Oh, and yes, I'm going to throw in his attitude. The only time I saw him really tear up and feel bad, was when Leanna walked in the interview room; Ross had just found out he was being charged. The DT can poke all they want because that is their job. But did they really do their job when it came to the car seat being only a few inches away from Ross? Heck, from the pics I've seen I find it very hard to believe Ross didn't see Cooper in the car seat. Ross is tall, a big boy, I think it would be hard for him to not notice. Once again, MOO! Gosh, I should make this a canned message, I use so often here.. :tantrum:

 

[Safeguard]

Your whole post was great Paige SC but this is at the heart of it for me:



Definitely not! Especially since Cooper, although the odds astronomical about it IMMEDIATELY fell into a deep comatose-state when mere minutes before he had been squirming and active, and was completely silent and still as the inanimate objects that are so easily forgotten...like a box of chocolates. SO you know, a babbling happy toddler in the car seat almost directly in Ross' right line of vision isn't a TRIGGER or anything.

Paige SC had a great post, very compelling narrative. Part of what made it so was that Paige stuck to what we know. I very much enjoyed her post, while I might disagree on the statistical likelihood of certain things, I loved the style. Marvelous realism. Very entertaining! (Thank you Paige SC!)

I have a harder time understanding conclusions being drawn from fiction, woven into the facts. It's one thing to state a believe that Cooper could not have fallen asleep so quickly, it's quite another to surmise that he was cavorting around in his seat singing Apples and Bananay's at the top of his lungs. Or, as some have said, to feel that surly RH saw the child then that became surly he must have touched him!

Now it's even being fictionalized that RH not only saw cooper at lunch, when he went to his car, but that the child cried out weakly for help and Ross shut the door on him again...

What made Paige's narrative so compelling is that she did not add fiction to fact, she merely worked with the likelihood of those facts being stacked together in such a way as to make an accidental senerio believable or not.

*(not a fan of the crispy crunchy post, didn't read that one before this comment!).

 

[arkansasmimi]

JMHO, there are some who are/were so hard set that RH was guilty coming into the trial, it did/does not make any difference what testimony or evidence was provided. And if the verdict goes their way, they "knew it" if not.... then they still "knew it" and the jury got it wrong. Same thing, different trial.

 

[gitana1]

Well I believe he left Cooper on purpose that day. He remembered, in detail everything he did when questioned. He didn't forget his coffee or his brief case , and Coopers car seat was just inches away and I believe he saw Cooper in that car seat. I also don't believe Cooper was asleep when Ross drove out of CFA and went straight to work. He didn't forget Cooper when he went into CFA, why? It was a longer drive from his house to CFA, that is when Cooper could have fallen asleep. But instead Ross forgets after 30 seconds that Cooper wasn't there? Drives straight to work, backs his car up then pulls into the parking lot, waits 30 seconds to leave his car and still didn't spot Cooper? Then through out the day doesn't even think once that something wasn't right? There may not be any abnormalities or coincidences in my theory but Cooper died that day while in Ross' care and I believe he did it intentionally. To me you add up all the States evidence and, me, myself and I (all 3 of us) find intentional and cruelty. Oh, and yes, I'm going to throw in his attitude. The only time I saw him really tear up and feel bad, was when Leanna walked in the interview room; Ross had just found out he was being charged. The DT can poke all they want because that is their job. But did they really do their job when it came to the car seat being only a few inches away from Ross? Heck, from the pics I've seen I find it very hard to believe Ross didn't see Cooper in the car seat. Ross is tall, a big boy, I think it would be hard for him to not notice. Once again, MOO! Gosh, I should make this a canned message, I use so often here.. :tantrum:

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. (No stones!) I I look at behavior patterns when examining criminal conduct and apply those patterns to new cases to gauge possible guilt or innocence. One thing I've noticed is that when a murder's are in the process of intentionally killing and often disposing of the bodies of their victims, they tend to go to radio silence when it comes to phone activity, social media activity, etc., during the commission of the crime. Except the truly deranged or enraged, like revenge type killers.

Ross texted about his child and other things during the ride from CFA to work, before he left the car to go into work, right? That does seem kind of odd - like it doesn't fit the murderer pattern. They are usually somewhat nervous or scared and concentrating on their evil task at hand and aren't casually chatting with others or focused on anything else while they are committing the crime or about to. With the exceptions I've listed above. Just food for thought.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

Some things such as forgetting if you just took your meds are normal. I do that at least twice a week. I've never forgotten how to take my medication, however. I've forgotten to pay bills and I've left my wallet behind in the grocery store. ‎I've also put peanut butter in the fridge and have no recollection of ever doing it. Pretty sure I've never put my baby in a fridge, though.

Medication, peanut butter & bills aren't babies. I've never left my baby behind in the grocery store. Have you? I never forgot to feed my toddler but many, many times I forget to eat.

Human are unique in that we have memory and even though we are prone to forgetting things, we also come equipped with motherboard containing vast data banks known as the subconscious and unconscious. This makes it possible (even likely) to forget certain things but never forget others.

We don't remember if we just took OUR meds but we're pretty good about remembering to give our kids THEIR meds. We don't *forget* to go to work every day, even though it's as routine as taking our daily meds. I might leave my purse in a hot car for seven hours in June but I'd never leave my baby in one. I OFTEN forget where I put my carkeys (it's quite pathological) but I've never misplaced my children. Have you ever misplaced your child or left them in a hot car for seven hours?‎
‎

BBM That's a very good point I've never thought of!

In my case taking my medication twice would be life threatening. I actually did that and had to emergency call my doc and deal with it. Whole family made sure after that to have a plan in place to help me remember and a way to account for it so I don't take it twice.

I've tried, really tried, to find some excuse for what happened other than that Ross did it deliberately. In the end all my if's, ands, buts and maybes only amounted to a basket full of grammar. I just think he did it, and he meant to.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. (No stones!) I I look at behavior patterns when examining criminal conduct and apply those patterns to new cases to gauge possible guilt or innocence. One thing I've noticed is that when a murder's are in the process of intentionally killing and often disposing of the bodies of their victims, they tend to go to radio silence when it comes to phone activity, social media activity, etc., during the commission of the crime. Except the truly deranged or enraged, like revenge type killers.

Ross texted about his child and other things during the ride from CFA to work, before he left the car to go into work, right? That does seem kind of odd - like it doesn't fit the murderer pattern. They are usually somewhat nervous or scared and concentrating on their evil task at hand and aren't casually chatting with others or focused on anything else while they are committing the crime or about to. With the exceptions I've listed above. Just food for thought.

And didn't delete anything off his phone or computer :thinking:

 

[momoftwocrazies]

And didn't delete anything off his phone or computer :thinking:

Maybe he was on the fence but during that less than one minute ride from CFA to work, when he sent the message about needing escapes, he made the decision. He works in technology, he would know deleting things would make him look guilty.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

For sure there were some where alcohol or drugs were involved.

I've been assigning those to a third category. 1) FBS 2) meant to do it and 3) should NEVER have been responsible for the kid in the first place!

 

[gitana1]

And didn't delete anything off his phone or computer :thinking:

True. But that last part, surprisingly, isn't a typical pattern of behavior for murderers. Even in our tech savvy world. I think probably because most criminals aren't that bright. I mean if they've already convinced themselves to do the crime, they likely have convinced themselves they are going to get away with it. In Ross' case, I don't think he banked on such an intensive investigation or that sexting would be connected to his son's death. But the activity during what was essentially the commission of the crime? That's confusing.

 

[Hope4More]

I think in this case the defense does actually have to convince many people. Because many people don't believe it is possible to forget your kid in the car like that at all. Unless you're either being totally neglectful due to drugs, alcohol, not caring/putting your needs over your kid's, or intended to do it. That's why arrests and charges are par for the course in these cases- society doesn't comprehend the possibility of FBS.

And that's where Dr. Diamond and his educating us comes in. Why are people taking for granted the fact that few of us believed FBS was at all possible until we began to read of the cases Dr. Diamond explains? I believe that almost all of us started from the position of incredulity and anger when we heard about such cases UNTIL we started reading articles featuring Dr. Diamond's research.

So, for many out there, it takes convincing that FBS is even a thing at all. Which is why experts are needed in these cases, on behalf of the defense. It kind of like when the world was immediately appalled and mostly felt casey anthony probably murdered her kid due to her behavior afterward. It took a grief expert to testify to give a plausible excuse for the jury for her behavior in partying, etc., in order to convince the jury, I think.

No. This is not a case of the state having to prove he didn't kill Cooper on purpose. It's a case, IMO, of proving that there is an alternate explanation that, in the absence of drugs, alcohol or other obvious neglect, rules out murder. And I'm not saying that's how it is supposed to be per the laws of the state. I just think that's the actual reality.

Voir dire, second try, spoke directly to this, tried to weed out jurors who found it impossible to believe anyone could forget a child in a car, because, you know, a child is not a cup of coffee, a purse, leftovers,etc. etc.

I've been reading up on a great number of hot car cases, and what leaps out as much as anything else is that public opinion isn't always a universal rejection of the possibility the deaths were accidental. Instead, opinion seems very much influenced by LE's initial handling of the scene and investigation, and by who the responsible parent was - mom or dad, "pillar of the community" or average Joe.

I know statutes for this cases vary so much state by state it's difficult to understand how they're addressing the same "crime." A dad in CT (pillar of the community) who did exactly what Ross did, but who is facing a misdeamor charge and a penalty of one year in prison, tops. A dad in FL, a public defender (pillar of the community) who didnt even drive anywhere, just left his kid in the car, in a state where a dead child in a car results in an automatic charge of aggravated manslaughter, who may not be charged with anything at all, ditto the teacher in Ohio (average joe, but bonus points for being a teacher) who forgot her child in a car in a school parking lot all day.

The greatest rarity is for a parent to have been charged the same day, without any investigation at all. It just doesn't happen very often, and when it does, in the cases I've read about, that parent gets out on bail.

But not Ross.

No, there is a lot that is different about perceptions of this case than folks "naturally" rejecting the possibility this was an accident.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Voir dire, second try, spoke directly to this, tried to weed out jurors who found it impossible to believe anyone could forget a child in a car, because, you know, a child is not a cup of coffee, a purse, leftovers,etc. etc.

I've been reading up on a great number of hot car cases, and what leaps out as much as anything else is that public opinion isn't always a universal rejection of the possibility the deaths were accidental. Instead, opinion seems very much influenced by LE's initial handling of the scene and investigation, and by who the responsible parent was - mom or dad, "pillar of the community" or average Joe.

I know statutes for this cases vary so much state by state it's difficult to understand how they're addressing the same "crime." A dad in CT (pillar of the community) who did exactly what Ross did, but who is facing a misdeamor charge and a penalty of one year in prison, tops. A dad in FL, a public defender (pillar of the community) who didnt even drive anywhere, just left his kid in the car, in a state where a dead child in a car results in an automatic charge of aggravated manslaughter, who may not be charged with anything at all, ditto the teacher in Ohio (average joe, but bonus points for being a teacher) who forgot her child in a car in a school parking lot all day.

The greatest rarity is for a parent to have been charged the same day, without any investigation at all. It just doesn't happen very often, and when it does, in the cases I've read about, that parent gets out on bail.

But not Ross.

No, there is a lot that is different about perceptions of this case than folks "naturally" rejecting the possibility this was an accident, none of it in RH's favor.

:yeahthat: :goodpost:

Next 2 days are going to be ullhair: Goodnight and prayers for peaceful rest to all fftobed: :bed:

 

[Zoobiegirl]

Thanks, gitana!

BTW, Stoddard used the unfortunate word "research" in the sw but I can easily see why he got the impression that Ross had researched hot car deaths and how hot it got inside, based on these statements. If Stoddard had just said Ross "talked about" or "told me about" instead of using researched I think most people would agree with him. It does sound like Ross invested a lot of time into the subject of hot car deaths. It's hard not to be suspicious.

It really is like he's explaining FBS to the detectives and then saying that's what happened to him.

I mentioned, as did someone else, the experience of having a loved one die and though it was expected it still didn't seem real. He sure adjusted awful fast.

 

[Hope4More]

Cutting to the chase. I think what the jury finds will depend on what they choose as a starting point for deliberations. If their starting point is whether or not it was possible for Ross to have forgotten Cooper and to have not remembered him for the rest of the day, I think it's possible for them to find him guilty of malice murder.

If their starting point is whether or not the State proved Ross had intent, I think they're going to reject malice murder, but find that his very ability to forget Cooper and to not remember him, given all the cues, is enough to find him guilty not criminal negligence and 2nd degree CC, no matter how the judge instructs them on the law.

And, I'm not going to be surprised at all if they hang on one or more of the core charges.

No matter what the outcome, have to say this is the first time following a trial on WS that I will be unambivalently glad when it's over and done.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

BBM. If you ascribe to this theory, then you cannot then attach to the idea that any of his texting was done in a permanent sense. Nor could you buy that the red-haired girl with apparent emotional issues (name escapes me atm) was motive for wanting to be child free. He was obviously willing to say anything to get laid. His conversation tailored to each new candidate. That is one of the problems in this case. There has been no solid evidence that he was looking for a drastic change. He already was sexting, having sex on the side, plus appearing to live a "normal" life, which was also important to him. I don't see compelling evidence that proves he wanted to rock his world to this extreme.

You are correct in the dearth of solid evidence. That's been, frequently, the case in these hot car deaths. But if he did want to be free of CH and LH then it stands to reason he was not expecting this to rock his world, but that it would all be gravy. Police would think this was just another tragic case, then that would be an explanation for divorce, sympathy grabber in the future and a new career to boot.

Edited to add I have experience with a sociopath in the family so maybe it's easier for me to see him that way.