Small Details that are interesting in the Cooper Harris case, #1

[Bratislava]

Many people are in jail/prison because of LE lies...unfortunately. I believe it to be rampant---well, that might be a little strong, but it's definitely not uncommon.

For sure. LE is like every other type of human being in the world. Some are good people who value truth and justice above all else, while others are pricks who enjoy wielding power over others.

Did I ever tell you guys about my first speeding ticket and how the cop instructed me to give him a so he could "forget" it. He was so brazen and sure of himself that he didn't mind saying this in front of my best friend, sitting passenger-side. A tool is a tool, no matter what uniform they wear. The world contains all kinds. JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Frankly, I'm more than a little stunned so many are falling over themselves to take the word of an accused murderers family member as gospel. With Zero evidence.

Shaking my head.

Im open to the possibility, SHOW ME!
Roll that video footage with a stop watch ticking...

Until I see it...ALL my faith is with the detective that was simply doing his sworn duty.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is a little stunning. What's more important? 15 seconds or the fact that police have evidence Ross was texting sexually explicit messages to an underage girl? The guy at a minimum is a sexual predator and I doubt a jury will ignore that evidence.

JMO

 

[EvilSoup]

Serious question; is JRH's name, "Ross" NOT short for [modsnip]? I thought it was since he used it for so many of his SM accts. Is it really just "Ross"? Because I have been calling him [modsnip] for quite some time, thinking it was what "Ross" was short for.....

 

[EvilSoup]

Whoa, I had not heard about this part:

"prosecutors may have created a false impression by claiming that he searched the Internet for information about children and pets dying in hot cars."

Is that from the AJC article? Can you plz post a link?

 

[SStarr33]

Is that from the AJC article? Can you plz post a link?

It is from the article we are talking about. The link and text are in the post I was responding to.

 

[cady]

Actually, he said nothing about a specific amount of time in the hearing.

STODDARD: When he reaches in, he comes up, he opens up the door. And as he's reaching in, turns his head a little bit. He's in there, he has a clear view, and he kind of turns his head and then just tosses the light bulbs into the car.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: After he does that, does he hang out at the car very long or anything of that nature?

STODDARD: No.

UNIDENTIFIED PROSECUTOR: What does he do?

STODDARD: He shuts the door, turns around and immediately starts walking into the Home Depot.

I think the 30 seconds was in reference to when RH FIRST arrived at work in the morning. He lingered a bit took his laptop and left on foot to the office. JMO

 

[New1]

Let's be clear here. There is ONE newspaper that is saying they reviewed. The family who simply cannot or will not believe Ross sexted and did all this stuff, say things about the video. They have not released the videos, nor have they said where/who the videos came from. They are also a business, and have subscription based online and they stand to make a lot of money off people who want to see the whole article. They are a family, desperately holding to the belief this wasn't a freaking pervert loser of a father.

On the flip side, you have an LE detective on the stand under oath. Risking his reputation, job, future, etc. in a VERY high profile case, on a piece of evidence that can be disproved without a doubt in the form of video. By easily, I mean VERY EASILY disproved. Something that would 100% be disproved very publicly, upon viewing in court.

I'm sorry, I will currently take the word of a detective that has literally everything to lose, over a newspaper that has everything to gain. I'm not going to be hysterical and believe this is suddenly a shoddy cop, because a newspaper and family in delusion and denial say something.

That is your right to believe the detective, I just don't. Not all of it anyway. I have always been a person who basically trusts LE, but there was just something that wasn't quite right about this one that made me distrust some of the things he said. I cannot put my finger on it, but believe me, LE does lie sometimes, even under oath. Look at Mark Furman in the OJ Simpson case when he swore under oath that he had never used the N word and was caught in that lie. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't absolutely swear that the AJC reporters are telling the truth either. I just don't know. I've seen witnesses at trials under oath that I knew were lying. i'm a doubtful, distrusting person by nature and by some of my personal experiences.

 

[Linda7NJ]

That would be highly inappropriate. In such a case, he should say "I forgot". Giving an untruthful remark discredits a witness. In this case, Det. Stoddard is a very important witness whom the state cannot afford to have discredited.

No more important than the man that "forgot" his own child and left him to DIE


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JLSChook]

It is a little stunning. What's more important? 15 seconds or the fact that police have evidence Ross was texting sexually explicit messages to an underage girl? The guy at a minimum is a sexual predator and I doubt a jury will ignore that evidence.

JMO

ITA!
Don't worry, the excuses for his perversions will start flying any day now, I'm sure. :facepalm:

 

[MyBelle]

That would be highly inappropriate. In such a case, he should say "I forgot". Giving an untruthful remark discredits a witness. In this case, Det. Stoddard is a very important witness whom the state cannot afford to have discredited.

The Judge decided what was highly inappropriate. If the defense knew the detective was intentionally lying, he had the opportunity to raise it as an issue and discredit him right there. The proof would be the video. Why didn't the defense show the video to the Judge? Why wait and show it to a newspaper? Gee, could the defense have altered the video? Desperate defenses do desperate things.....


JMO

 

[cady]

RE: name. His name is Justin Ross Harris. I think Roscoe is a screenname. JMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

Is that from the AJC article? Can you plz post a link?

IMO the operative word being "may"

Sweet little loophole huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SStarr33]

The Judge decided what was highly inappropriate. If the defense knew the detective was intentionally lying, he had the opportunity to raise it as an issue and discredit him right there. The proof would be the video. Why didn't the defense show the video to the Judge? Why wait and show it to a newspaper? Gee, could the defense have altered the video? Desperate defenses do desperate things.....


JMO

Did the defense have the video before the hearing?

 

[gwenabob]

View attachment 55367

"Cheerwine?" Is that anything like "Jesus Juice?"

 

[Linda7NJ]

That is your right to believe the detective, I just don't. Not all of it anyway. I have always been a person who basically trusts LE, but there was just something that wasn't quite right about this one that made me distrust some of the things he said. I cannot put my finger on it, but believe me, LE does lie sometimes, even under oath. Look at Mark Furman in the OJ Simpson case when he swore under oath that he had never used the N word and was caught in that lie. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't absolutely swear that the AJC reporters are telling the truth either. I just don't know. I've seen witnesses at trials under oath that I knew were lying. i'm a doubtful, distrusting person by nature and by some of my personal experiences.

Mark Furman... It was the context that was important. IMO He was working on a script's dialogue. Hardly the same as the way the defense spun it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

We also found out about a cruise with waterslides for a 2 yo that isn't allowed in any of the pool areas per health dept regulations on Carnival Cruises.
AND
A cup from breakfast with his "buddy" That yet again didn't spark a memory.

And verification about who he talked to about ins $.
RH knew HD would pay for the funeral. I am ceratin he.had seen it before between his time imterning and his 2 years of employment.
We know he just wanted his bro to get the $ so it will be there for bail.
moo

BBM. Bingo!

 

[gwenabob]

Thank you for the correction. JRH was searching for age of consent laws in GA and not for surviving prison life.

What did he think would happen during those six minutes when he was avoiding LE who had asked him once to drop the call and come speak to them yet he chose to refuse? That is brazen behavior toward sworn officers during an emergency situation.

When JRH was asked the second time to drop his call, instead of complying, he cursed at the officer. Hence, his cell phone was taken away and he was placed into handcuffs and left alone in the back of a patrol car. Wouldn't he expect to be arrested if he refused to cooperate; or if he refused to obey orders from officers responding to an emergency regarding the hot car death of his son?

moo aatj

I think JRH figured the cop was just a woman and he could speak to her in any way he wanted. After all, he was the victim here, right?

 

[MyBelle]

Did the defense have the video before the hearing?

Did they file a motion and ask for it?

 

[cady]

Just listened to Stoddard again. He did say that the parking lot (Treehouse) surveillance footage IS timestamped. ( That is how he knew what time RH parked on arrival) It was 30 seconds between parking the car and exiting it. nite all way past bedtime!

 

[K_Z]

I agree with what you are saying, however IMO that extra 15 seconds (30) would just be another added detail that may sway a juror into a guilty charge. Even though 30 seconds is not a long time to get out of your car, I would be wondering what he was actually doing for that extra 15 seconds :waitasec:

Maybe it's just me, but I think the investigators have PILES of texts and messages, and minute by minute records of activity on RH's phone and all computers he was on for June 18. I think they will be able to pinpoint every time he looked, every keystroke, every single nanosecond of activity on his phone for June 18, including matching up the activity to key points throughout the day. From wake-up and "cartoons" in bed, to the fast food stop, to the "15 or 30 seconds before he exited the car at HD", and on into the rest of RH's day. FWIW, I think we are all going to be shocked again with the volume (and content) of his messaging and "secret life". JMO, but I think there is going to be phone activity for that "15-30 seconds" before he left his vehicle.

And I ALSO think that a key tactic of the defense will be to acknowledge and use his habit of prolific phone messaging/ "networking" use as an "excuse" for why he "forgot" Cooper in the car. Just as they will have to seek to downplay the salacious content, and portray him as a "busy, distracted white collar professional", who grabbed his laptop case as he exited the vehicle, on his way into work. And hey-- RH was running late, too-- right? And so what if he had a few conversation partners on the side-- that makes him a cad, not a murderer, right? The defense has to rehabilitate RH's image-- that is job #1 for them, and the only chance RH has for leniency, IMO.