TRIAL - Ross Harris #1

[NCTeacher]

Oh and 22months is an important time to CONTINUE taking daily pictures. They grow so fast at this stage.
RIP Coop. Lighting a candle for our little guy. Either way, he didn't deserve this.

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

This story bothered me so much when it came out (still does) that I planted a tree in Cooper's honor--a Japanese Red Maple (red because it was his favorite color). I'm pleased to say it is doing well at two years strong, and wasn't damaged by the hurricane.

 

[NCTeacher]

I think it was intentional for many reasons but I too am very disturbed by the comments "no malicious intent" and "did you say too much". There is just not much to explain these away.

We can all discuss and disagree on whether one could forget in 1 minute or whether we look behind us when backing up etc... But those comments just really stick out.
Also, Leanne not going to see her child upon learning of his death and instead wanting to see RH - huh? I just can't wrap my head around that one either.
JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think she had already said her goodbyes the night before. Remember how she said at the funeral that the previous two nights he slept in the bed with them (which was unusual) and she talked about just watching him sleep?

 

[Tawny]

My thoughts on this:

When you make up your mind that you would like something to happen, sometimes our brains subconsciously help to orchestrate it. So, even if he didn't "intentionally" take aaaalllllllll these steps to ensure Cooper's death, I think his subconscious helped him out, so to speak. Helped him forget, helped him look away at crucial moments, helped him make plans with friends.

Personally, I think he had every intention of orchestrating this, whether he did it consciously on this day, IMO, doesn't matter - end result was the same.

 

[THATchick1021]

I think it was intentional for many reasons but I too am very disturbed by the comments "no malicious intent" and "did you say too much". There is just not much to explain these away.

We can all discuss and disagree on whether one could forget in 1 minute or whether we look behind us when backing up etc... But those comments just really stick out.
Also, Leanne not going to see her child upon learning of his death and instead wanting to see RH - huh? I just can't wrap my head around that one either.
JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know everyone reacts differently. I lost my daughter. I am not a very outwardly emotional person but they literally had to take her body away from me. I do NOT understand how she chose to see Ross over Cooper. I wouldn't believe it until he was in my arms. Something's very wrong here. Im sorry but I can't see it being anything other than premeditated.

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

No. No and no again. His behavior and all the sexually-based testimony and evidence is to MOTIVE.

Example of this line of thinking:
Question: Mr. Attorney, why do you think JRH killed his son?
Answer: He wanted his burdensome toddler out of his life so he could freely pursue a sexually permissive one.
Question: Why the heck do you think that?

That second question is being answered as we speak.

What is permissible as evidence isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law. That character evidence isn't permissible in the guilt phase isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law.

The State does not have to prove motive, and "character" evidence as such isn't permissible as evidence of intent, which can, but not necessarily, go to motive. This too is not a matter of opinion, but of law.

Staley allowed in the sexting evidence, over the DT's objections, because she (exercising her discretion), bottom line, accepted the defense's contention the sexting went to intent. Not motive, and not character. Ditto the prostitutes.

Her rulings on the admissibility of evidence are final if RH isn't convicted on any of the charges he's facing, not so much, I imagine, if RH is convicted.

 

[THATchick1021]

This story bothered me so much when it came out (still does) that I planted a tree in Cooper's honor--a Japanese Red Maple (red because it was his favorite color). I'm pleased to say it is doing well at two years strong, and wasn't damaged by the hurricane.

You are awesome. At least someone gets to watch Coops memory grow. I know it's irrational but I know in the pit of my stomach that there is more to this than an accident. My oldest son was only a few months younger than Cooper. He is very aware and talks very well... Just saying.

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

I think she had already said her goodbyes the night before. Remember how she said at the funeral that the previous two nights he slept in the bed with them (which was unusual) and she talked about just watching him sleep?

Excuse me, but LE stated before this trial even began that Leanne has been cleared of any involvement whatsoever in Cooper's death. She is innocent. The end.

 

[NCTeacher]

What is permissible as evidence isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law. That character evidence isn't permissible in the guilt phase isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of law.

The State does not have to prove motive, and "character" evidence as such isn't permissible as evidence of intent, which can, but not necessarily, go to motive. This too is not a matter of opinion, but of law.

Staley allowed in the sexting evidence, over the DT's objections, because she (exercising her discretion), bottom line, accepted the defense's contention the sexting went to intent. Not motive, and not character. Ditto the prostitutes.

Her rulings on the admissibility of evidence are final if RH isn't convicted on any of the charges he's facing, not so much, I imagine, if RH is convicted.

As you said, this evidence goes to intent which CAN, but not necessarily go to motive. In this case, it undoubtedly does. While this evidence certainly tarnishes his character, the evidence is relevant and speaks to his MOTIVE for murdering his son, maliciously. Just because the state doesn't have to establish motive is a moot point, they are clearing trying to establish one--even if inferentially.

 

[Tawny]

Excuse me, but LE stated before this trial even began that Leanne has been cleared of any involvement whatsoever in Cooper's death. She is innocent. The end.

Until this changes, I think we're ok to discuss her involvement:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ies-for-Cooper-s-Case&p=10705406#post10705406

Plus there's an entire thread dedicated to her.


Mods, if I'm mistaken, please do flog me LOL!

 

[DaleTray]

With a lull in the conversation as the trial is suspended for the weekend, I would like to seek opinions prior to the subject being brought up in court. Ross' text to a single mother can be interpreted two ways. "But, we BOTH need escapes" . "Both" is defined as two. The context is very important. Does "both" infer Ross/Cooper or Ross/single mom?
Ross/single mom angle to me equates to something along the lines of Ross saying to single mom "Hey, I know we are both busy parents, but, we both need escapes"
Ross/Cooper angle equates to me something along the lines of, well, I can't find the words to express myself. I don't see where Cooper would need an escape at 22 months.
I doubt the single mom will be called to testify as she probably offers no evidence relevant to the death of Cooper. She could even be one of the underage young women Ross was texting. But maybe, if the single mom accepted the words in context of Ross/Cooper the state very well could call the young lady to testify.

 

[NCTeacher]

Excuse me, but LE stated before this trial even began that Leanne has been cleared of any involvement whatsoever in Cooper's death. She is innocent. The end.

You don't even know her name, do you expect me to take you seriously? The attorney & the investigators WITHOUT a doubt believe she knew---they revealed that at Ross's probable cause hearing back July, 2014. Just because she hasn't been charged with anything does not mean she is innocent of anything, it means they don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction on her.

 

[Hope4More]

Until this changes, I think we're ok to discuss her involvement:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ies-for-Cooper-s-Case&p=10705406#post10705406

Plus there's an entire thread dedicated to her.


Mods, if I'm mistaken, please do flog me LOL!

That was in 2014 BEFORE she was cleared by LE.

 

[NCTeacher]

With a lull in the conversation as the trial is suspended for the weekend, I would like to seek opinions prior to the subject being brought up in court. Ross' text to a single mother can be interpreted two ways. "But, we BOTH need escapes" . "Both" is defined as two. The context is very important. Does "both" infer Ross/Cooper or Ross/single mom?
Ross/single mom angle to me equates to something along the lines of Ross saying to single mom "Hey, I know we are both busy parents, but, we both need escapes"
Ross/Cooper angle equates to me something along the lines of, well, I can't find the words to express myself. I don't see where Cooper would need an escape at 22 months.
I doubt the single mom will be called to testify as she probably offers no evidence relevant to the death of Cooper. She could even be one of the underage young women Ross was texting. But maybe, if the single mom accepted the words in context of Ross/Cooper the state very well could call the young lady to testify.

I'm pretty sure he meant he and the single mom need their escapes from their unwanted realities (i.e. through their possible liaisons).

 

[DexterMorgan]

I love you folks. But I must disagree.

Because I haven't met not 1 parent that would take a picture of a toddler arriving to school for 100 days straight.

Not even 30 days.

So I don't blame Ross for stop taking school arrival pictures.

Because not even not 1 parent has been documented for taking a picture every single day of the school year of their childs arrival. Jmo.

 

[Tawny]

That was in 2014 BEFORE she was cleared by LE.

Then I would suggest alerting a mod and asking them to change the rules. If she wasn't allowed to be discussed, I'm pretty sure they'd have squashed that thread a long time ago. *shrug*

 

[NCTeacher]

That was in 2014 BEFORE she was cleared by LE.

I never heard that she has ever been cleared---please provide link. I googled it and NOTHING came up except for an article saying that her attorney was surprised she hasn't been cleared (dating to July, 2014). As far as I can remember, she passed a lie detector test, and then she went under the radar until filed for divorce.

 

[THATchick1021]

I love you folks. But I must disagree.

Because I haven't met not 1 parent that would take a picture of a toddler arriving to school for 100 days straight.

Not even 30 days.

So I don't blame Ross for stop taking school arrival pictures.

Because not even not 1 parent has been documented for taking a picture every single day of the school year of their childs arrival. Jmo.

I don't necessarily take pictures daily either but if he did it every day dropping Cooper off to daycare and then suddenly switch to not doing it at all that's suspicious

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

 

[DexterMorgan]

I never heard that she has never been cleared---please provide link. I googled it and NOTHING came up except for an article saying that her attorney was surprised she hasn't been cleared (dating to July, 2014). As far as I can remember, she passed a lie detector test, and then she went under the radar until filed for divorce.

Idk. She stormed into his job and demanded to see him and Cooper.

So I doubt she was apart of this. Jmo.

 

[Tawny]

I don't necessarily take pictures daily either but if he did it every day dropping Cooper off to daycare and then suddenly switch to not doing it at all that's suspicious

Sent from my LGMS330 using Tapatalk

That's the part that makes it suspicious. Skipping a day here and there, fine. But to do it every day, then stop suddenly...

 

[NCTeacher]

Idk. She stormed into his job and demanded to see him and Cooper.

So I doubt she was apart of this. Jmo.

I'm torn about her, a part of me thinks she knew---a part of me thinks she didn't.