- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 47,328
- Reaction score
- 118,142
In addition, an exclusive interview with Harris’ brother, Michael Baygents, and a review of the transcript of the three-hour hearing reveal an emerging counter-narrative to the damning story about Harris that swayed public opinion. For instance, a thorough reading of the transcript suggests that prosecutors may have created a false impression by claiming that he searched the Internet for information about children and pets dying in hot cars.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/defense-for-toddlers-dad-writes-its-own-story/ngh3p/
I question how this is being questioned. AJC may have been given access to the surveillance video from HD (although I'll be damned if I know how that came about as LE and DAs are not in teh habit of releasing such things to the press before trial IME) I refuse to believe that AJC or RH's brother have been given access to the computers or the exact searches that were done. So the BBM is hard for me to figure. You have LE - who has the evidence say one thing and this article suggesting that that is not what they have. Based on what? A thorough reading of the transcript?? I've read it fifty times if I have read it once. I also watched the hearing live. Nothing i that transcript suggests the veracity or lack thereof of Stoddard's testimony about the searches. The brother's say so ostensibly based on RH telling him that is NOT what I searched?
Yeah, think I will take everything in this article with a grain of salt.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/defense-for-toddlers-dad-writes-its-own-story/ngh3p/
I question how this is being questioned. AJC may have been given access to the surveillance video from HD (although I'll be damned if I know how that came about as LE and DAs are not in teh habit of releasing such things to the press before trial IME) I refuse to believe that AJC or RH's brother have been given access to the computers or the exact searches that were done. So the BBM is hard for me to figure. You have LE - who has the evidence say one thing and this article suggesting that that is not what they have. Based on what? A thorough reading of the transcript?? I've read it fifty times if I have read it once. I also watched the hearing live. Nothing i that transcript suggests the veracity or lack thereof of Stoddard's testimony about the searches. The brother's say so ostensibly based on RH telling him that is NOT what I searched?
Yeah, think I will take everything in this article with a grain of salt.