The Sidebar - Harris Trial #2

[Rayemonde]

Was the girl really only 14 at the time? I thought it was 15...

 

[monkeypants]

Jmho they have stayed away from media because of how they were in beginning. They don't owe media anything. And honestly doubt if there are articles anyone would believe them or change anyone opinion. Jmho the testimony of the brother and sister in law was clear on their opinion of everything. Same with Leanna best friend.

To me that's a cop out. If you truly believe your family member is being rail roaded you would show your support. Trial after trial, regardless of the horrendous things the defendants have done,they have support behind them. I've never seen one like this before.

 

[arkansasmimi]

No matter the verdict, I respect it. Just as with the Election, it is how our systems work is in this Great Country! I don't understand the rioting protests at all.t

 

[FinallyRegistered]

To me that's a cop out. If you truly believe your family member is being rail roaded you would show your support. Trial after trial, regardless of the horrendous things the defendants have done,they have support behind them. I've never seen one like this before.

LT's BFF did address this in her testimony. (I might type it up at some point, but I need to take break for a bit.)

 

[Hope4More]

With respect: Michael's statement about 'character assassination' was made to the local newspaper in JULY 2014 & it is now nearly 2 1/2 yrs. later. The purpose of the probable cause hearing is so that the prosecution gives just enough detail to the judge so that the threshold of PROBABLE CAUSE is established, no more, no less. At that point in time, July 2014, Michael would definitely not have known everything about Ross that he knows now.

I re-watched Michael's testimony & IMO Michael told the truth. Michael looked at that jury and (paraphrasing, speaking generally...) said, yes it is true that one can be stunned by who it is who murdered a baby.

Yes indeed, that"s what a probable cause hearing is supposed to be about, and yep, that hearing was a long time ago .


Perhaps you missed the point, though? The point was, Mary, that Michael issued his statement of support for RH and disgust for LE 's handling of the case AFTER he heard the worst of the sex - related charges - that RH had broken the law by texting with minors.

Michael knew the worst there was to know and STILL supported him.

In fact, Michael supported RH even though LE was still at that time misrepresenting (euphemism) the "facts" of their case against RH.

Michael being LE himself, I'm going to speculate he knew exactly how and why it was that LE provided misleading statements on search warrant after search warrant, over many weeks, and I bet he knew better than anyone other than RH's attorneys just how ethically challenged LE's investigation was.

 

[monkeypants]

The person in this case was listed as Chelsea D. Only 1 person, a different charge for each different incident with that individual. Phil Holloway believes the other witness who was a minor is who listed in the March 2016 Indictment, she is still under 18. Chelsea D was under age at time but is 19 now, why she is named. Judge used her discretion to block their testimony and faces. Just my opinion from following trial.

Harris is accused of possessing lewd photographs of two underage girls, sending nude photos to those girls and one other and engaging in sexually explicit chats with all three. The eight-count indictment includes two counts of sexual exploitation of children and six of disseminating harmful material to a minor.

 

[monkeypants]

For anyone who is bored today and wants to read Jaynie Meadow's testimony, I have published it to the RH Witness sub-thread.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...nterviews-testimony-and-video-*No-Discussion*

(Oh, and jbj, I love the new avatar! I'm still sustaining on Taco Bell and leftover Halloween candy over here.)

FR thank you for taking the time of doing the JM testimony!!

Oooh love Taco Bell...

 

[monkeypants]

At this point IDT anyone is going to convince anyone to change their opinion. I think we just see what the jury does tomorrow and hope for a decision. I think there really isn't anyone left on the fence....at this point there is strong passion on both sides.
The absolute only thing all agreed upon, it seems, is the guilt for the minor charges.

 

[arkansasmimi]

To me that's a cop out. If you truly believe your family member is being rail roaded you would show your support. Trial after trial, regardless of the horrendous things the defendants have done,they have support behind them. I've never seen one like this before.

Whatever the reason it is their choice. Only one person I can find has said anything negative and he/she hasn't had contact with Rosfs or Leanna since 2010, so he/she is irreverent. jmho

ETA Phil Holloway made an interesting point that Kilgore may have had them not be there as added distraction. And as far as the jury or us for that matter do not know who some of the individuals were in the gallery. They jury doesn't know if ahead or wasn't there.... unless they research to see 😉 One was a reporter that has been at all the hearings. The individuals in the very back are court personnel. Jmho

 

[arkansasmimi]

At this point IDT anyone is going to convince anyone to change their opinion. I think we just see what the jury does tomorrow and hope for a decision. I think there really isn't anyone left on the fence....at this point there is strong passion on both sides.
The absolute only thing all agreed upon, it seems, is the guilt for the minor charges.

I personally haven't tried to change anyone's opinion on this case or any other. Nor does others change mine. I just try g strictly facts as were presented or known from other hearings. Some of which we know but doesn't make it to trial. I feel confident there will be an appeal done as it will go towards the other 8 charges still to be tried. The legality of the information gathered from iPhone search warrant.

I have same thought s about RH sending the graphic photos as everyone else. How CCPD got them is another issue. Jmho

 

[Paige SC]

To me that's a cop out. If you truly believe your family member is being rail roaded you would show your support. Trial after trial, regardless of the horrendous things the defendants have done,they have support behind them. I've never seen one like this before.

From my perspective I think *most* family & friends stand behind the accused despite evidence contrary to their beliefs. Their testimony is usually the least compelling because it lacks objectivity, there is an inherent bias present.

*Most* of his friends & family had no idea about his alter ego and without being presented with direct evidence proving it, they'd be emphatically denying he was capable of such behavior. They knew him so well that they had no idea he was living a double life but despite his split personality there's no way he could kill his child. Oxymoron.

My take away is very few really knew RH and their testimony should be weighted accordingly. When you really know someone, you know the good and the bad. If all you know about me are my good points & you refuse to say anything revealing my character flaws (other than be forced to acknowledge the damning evidence presented) either you are lying, you aren't objective or you don't know me. Hence, you should be promptly discredited.

I think MB knows RH killed his son with malice but out of sibling loyalty he went full tilt, procedural-commando style defense. Assuming RH & MB share the same living, bio mother (despite no real proof of her existence or support, yadda, etc.,) perhaps his objective is to spare their mom the pain of having a son locked up for life. Who knows? Either way, I don't think testifying on ones behalf if synonymous with 'support.'‎

I'd like to think I would be immune from taking the same position if my loved one were on trial, but I honestly don't know what I would do. I could easy rationalize it by saying "Yes, my brother probably did it but nothing will bring back my nephew and locking my brother up for 30 years will only create more hurt and pain." It's not like he's a threat to society, I'm sure he's learned his lesson and the last two years are enough punishment for everyone." Yep, I could rationalize it.

My hunch is LT still believes she and RH have a future at the end of this trial. If he walks, there might be some temporary truth to that. At this point, LT is about the only person on the planet who'd still have him.

But seriously, where is RH's mother? Father? Bueller, Bueller, anyone?

 

[MsMtOlympus]

According to this article from 2014, Harris and Baygents are half-brothers who share a father.

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/ross-harris-jekyll-or-hyde/nhGhB/

 

[arkansasmimi]

Harris is accused of possessing lewd photographs of two underage girls, sending nude photos to those girls and one other and engaging in sexually explicit chats with all three. The eight-count indictment includes two counts of sexual exploitation of children and six of disseminating harmful material to a minor.

Again just going by that lawyer Phil Holloway interview with Cathy from court chatter.

 

[MsMtOlympus]

From my perspective I think *most* family & friends stand behind the accused despite evidence contrary to their beliefs. Their testimony is usually the least compelling because it lacks objectivity, there is an inherent bias present.

*Most* of his friends & family had no idea about his alter ego and without being presented with direct evidence proving it, they'd be emphatically denying he was capable of such behavior. They knew him so well that they had no idea he was living a double life but despite his split personality there's no way he could kill his child. Oxymoron.

My take away is very few really knew RH and their testimony should be weighted accordingly. When you really know someone, you know the good and the bad. If all you know about me are my good points & you refuse to say anything revealing my character flaws (other than be forced to acknowledge the damning evidence presented) either you are lying, you aren't objective or you don't know me. Hence, you should be promptly discredited.

I think MB knows RH killed his son with malice but out of sibling loyalty he went full tilt, procedural-commando style defense. Assuming RH & MB share the same living, bio mother (despite no real proof of her existence or support, yadda, etc.,) perhaps his objective is to spare their mom the pain of having a son locked up for life. Who knows? Either way, I don't think testifying on ones behalf if synonymous with 'support.'‎

I'd like to think I would be immune from taking the same position if my loved one were on trial, but I honestly don't know what I would do. I could easy rationalize it by saying "Yes, my brother probably did it but nothing will bring back my nephew and locking my brother up for 30 years will only create more hurt and pain." It's not like he's a threat to society, I'm sure he's learned his lesson and the last two years are enough punishment for everyone." Yep, I could rationalize it.

My hunch is LT still believes she and RH have a future at the end of this trial. If he walks, there might be some temporary truth to that. At this point, LT is about the only person on the planet who'd still have him.

But seriously, where is RH's mother? Father? Bueller, Bueller, anyone?

Love reading your point of view and intelligent conclusions, Paige SC! I disagree though about LT having any thoughts (even deep-down inside ones) about reconciling with RH should the opportunity arise. Her disgust with Harris appeared intense as well as genuine on the stand and I also couldn't help but think by end of her cross-examination that she had doubts on his total innocence in the matter of Cooper's death to some degree.

 

[yupikgirl]

Harris is accused of possessing lewd photographs of two underage girls, sending nude photos to those girls and one other and engaging in sexually explicit chats with all three. The eight-count indictment includes two counts of sexual exploitation of children and six of disseminating harmful material to a minor.

Yes thank you. And for that it's worth I watch the trial to(not directed at you just directed at people who only get their information from testimony and point it out as if i don't). While I may mis- speak at times I'm not just pulling it out of nowhere- he was charged for two underage girls. IMO that makes him a predator which is what we were talking about at the time I posted it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[monkeypants]

Again just going by that lawyer Phil Holloway interview with Cathy from court chatter.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_dea5702bbc3849178f39bc063c0bc78f.pdf

 

[monkeypants]

Yes thank you. And for that it's worth I watch the trial to(not directed at you just directed at people who only get their information from testimony and point it out as if i don't). While I may mis- speak at times I'm not just pulling it out of nowhere- he was charged for two underage girls. IMO that makes him a predator which is what we were talking about at the time I posted it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I absolutely know you do and never meant to imply you don't! In fact I wrongly quoted you and meant to quote I think Paige who asked the question.....

Sorry....here have a cookie!

ETA I agree that he is a predator and his penchant for young girls is disgusting. Given time who knows how young he would have gone...my gawd 14, that turns my stomach...that's around 8th grade

 

[Paige SC]

Love reading your point of view and intelligent conclusions, Paige SC! I disagree though about LT having any thoughts (even deep-down inside ones) about reconciling with RH should the opportunity arise. Her disgust with Harris appeared intense as well as genuine on the stand and I also couldn't help but think by end of her cross-examination that she had doubts on his total innocence in the matter of Cooper's death to some degree

Thank you! I would have agreed with you re the above but the two things that stood out for me were: The timing of filing divorce papers is highly suspicious. Her 'disgust' wouldn't have taken that long to surface. Besides, he had been a manic perv since 2008 and she still stayed, even bringing a child into that mess hoping it would enhance the marriage.

Also, her statement of "IF I never see him again, that's fine with me." I didn't feel she truly meant what she was saying, it sounded rehearsed almost. It goes back to that whole 'self awareness' thing I touched on last night. One who feels that way would have said "I never, ever want to see that man again." There's no IF about it. In fairness to your point, I didn't pay that close of attention to the end cross exam, at least not enough to sense her doubting his innocence.
‎
But all that aside it's in the jury's hands now and I do believe they are a competent group. Even possessing the intellect of being able to follow instructions, as well as decipher what each charge means

 

[pocketaccent]

No I absolutely know you do and never meant to imply you don't! In fact I wrongly quoted you and meant to quote I think Paige who asked the question.....

Sorry....here have a cookie!

ETA I agree that he is a predator and his penchant for young girls is disgusting. Given time who knows how young he would have gone...my gawd 14, that turns my stomach...that's around 8th grade

I agree too. And really, does it matter if he was endangering 1 girl or 2 girls or 20 girls? Exploiting 1 girl makes him a predator, period, IMO.

 

[Seriously?]

Thank you! I would have agreed with you re the above but the two things that stood out for me were: The timing of filing divorce papers is highly suspicious. Her 'disgust' wouldn't have taken that long to surface. Besides, he had been a manic perv since 2008 and she still stayed, even bringing a child into that mess hoping it would enhance the marriage.

Also, her statement of "IF I never see him again, that's fine with me." I didn't feel she truly meant what she was saying, it sounded rehearsed almost. It goes back to that whole 'self awareness' thing I touched on last night. One who feels that way would have said "I never, ever want to see that man again." There's no IF about it. In fairness to your point, I didn't pay that close of attention to the end cross exam, at least not enough to sense her doubting his innocence.
‎
But all that aside it's in the jury's hands now and I do believe they are a competent group. Even possessing the intellect of being able to follow instructions, as well as decipher what each charge means

Another observation of her testimony that stands out for me relates to the computer monitoring that was instituted after one of RH's texts was discovered. I understood LH to testify that she was not aware the lying eyes partner for accountability dropped out of the agreement after a while. Considering what was known to LH at that time, it seems she would have stayed advised of that agreement - but she didn't. And moreover, the partner person didn't advise LH.

Agree strongly with your sentence about the jury.