TRIAL - Ross Harris #1

[EquallyDivided]

bbm
r/childfree has always been a pretty controversial subreddit. Most redditors are " aware of the existence" of it. (it's not a website unto itself btw). Many people, myself included, have checked out that sub just to see for ourselves what all the hype is about. Even if RH had subscribed to that sub, it would mean absolutely nothing. He never posted a thing there.


Most of the time I find Non-Users opinion of how people use Reddit laughable! JMO

**Oh and fwiw, you can click on any topic from Reddit front page, or hyperlinked within a post, and it will take you to different subs. Could that mean he didn't actually type in the url manually, but was instead automatically redirected? Yes. yes it does.

I'm going by testimony - is that wrong? I applaud your extensive knowledge of all things reddit. I only use it for Roast Me entertainment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[cricket49]

Forgive the info dump, I'm catching up here. Of course this is all MOO, IMHO, IIRC, etc...

And for what it's worth, macro analysis speaks volumes to me, and I feel like some of the micro is an attempt to mislead.

1. Searching for child free Vs typing in the URL shows that he was aware of the existence of this website in such a familiar way, that he knew the Web address and didn't need to search for it. I would assume he has used the website in the past, if he knows the direct Web address.

Snipped by me due to length

Did he use a computer to view this site or another device such as a phone? If he used a computer and had the page bookmarked would it show up as entered by URL instead of searching? Or if he used a phone and pulled up by prior history would that show up as entered by URL?

I do not know how the IT information was downloaded or displayed in the report. The reason for these questions is I never enter a website by URL since it is pulled up by prior history or sites that are bookmarked. 15+ years ago it seemed that entering the URL address was more common.

 

[Threeplus1]

I've forgotten stuff. But the difference is this wasn't a set of keys. He had just walked in with, been talking to, interacting with, carrying, feeding this child! Heck, his body was probably still sweaty from the exertion of leaning into the middle of the SUV to strap Cooper into the car seat at the time he went through the intersection! And nothing triggers a reminder? Not seeing the car seat (even if he could not see Cooper)? Not seeing pictures on his desk? Wasn't there a cup from CFA in his car or something? Fwiw, one of my sons would fall asleep instantly in the car. Seriously, before we would exit the driveway, he could be out. But I'm not buying that Cooper instantly fell asleep on the very day dad "forgot" he was in the car minutes after having breakfast with him.

And I agree that the sexting and websites and underage sexting shows that this "family man" was not at all who friends and family thought he was.

 

[Niner]

Finally caught up and wanted to make a few comments.

It's entirely possible that they didn't smell decomposition, and that's why they are saying they didn't. I don't think in this case its fair to assume they are being "really careful to avoid." Do you want them to say they smelled something they didn't? I have used the "smells like death" comment when describing a mouse that died in an air vent at work. It was a smell unlike anything I've smelled, but describing it as "decomposition" would have never crossed my mind.

** I am NOT comparing Cooper to a mouse.

re bold - or they didn't know "what" decomp smelled like... just a "dirty diaper" smell, etc. And no one asked them about any "smell" during the whole incident. Only in court do they ask them... :thinking:

snipped by me...
Bells and whistles perhaps went off because that meant hours since death and due to the rigor mortis.

Just adding to this - and maybe WHY he didn't stop sooner with the "smell" or even when he first opened the door to his car at work....


Just as this quote says:

The point of the smell is would Ross have immediately noticed it upon first getting in his hot car that had the windows up.

Especially since the odor would have been much stronger.

So he would have looked around the inside of the car at the work parking lot before taking off.

Tawny Love your Avatar!

snipped by me...
LE had his phone. RH wasn't telling them what they wanted or expected to hear, or hears what they want to hear, including about that internet research, or..they take what he said about watching a TV show and clicking on a vet PSA and twist his words to come up with what was unquestionably the most incendiary piece of "evidence" in the search warrants, not to mention, if one looks at the thing...the ONLY piece of "evidence" in the warrant applications.

I think they looked at his phone, saw that he had been sexting all day, and believed they had found their motive. I imagine they were convinced on the 18th that their search warrants would give them access to evidence aplenty, enough to bury that little slight exaggeration about RH's searches.

I know some States have changed their laws about looking at someone's phone without a search warrant - is Georgia one of them. Otherwise, I would think that they can NOT look at his phone...

 

[Safeguard]

I'm going by testimony - is that wrong? I applaud your extensive knowledge of all things reddit. I only use it for Roast Me entertainment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

No. Not wrong. But when you posted: "Most of the time, I find armchair quarterbacks in these situations laughable."

I found that to be insulting to those of us, who are just trying to make some sense of a crazy and often painful world, and looking to see some real justice.

 

[EquallyDivided]

bbm
r/childfree has always been a pretty controversial subreddit. Most redditors are " aware of the existence" of it. (it's not a website unto itself btw). Many people, myself included, have checked out that sub just to see for ourselves what all the hype is about. Even if RH had subscribed to that sub, it would mean absolutely nothing. He never posted a thing there.




No. Not wrong. But when you posted: "Most of the time, I find armchair quarterbacks in these situations laughable."

I found that to be insulting to those of us, who are just trying to make some sense of a crazy and often painful world, and looking to see some real justice.

I'm sorry if you felt I was being insulting to you in particular, (I wasn't) but there have been some people in here making very pointed accusations about LE - and the reports that were written. Accusations in which are extremely damning.

I'm not aware of LE being accused of leaving a baby in a car to die, or being on trial.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[blue22]

I'm confused. Who said all the witnesses perjured themselves about what they smelled?

People were speculating that the witness testimony was suspicious and carefully worded, so as to avoid certain phrases. (Like avoiding saying decomposition, so the defense couldn't press them on it.) If they were purposefully NOT accurately describing their smell, that's perjury. If they didn't really smell something and later claimed they did, that's also perjury.

 

[magnolia]

I'm sorry if you felt I was being insulting to you in particular, (I wasn't) but there have been some people in here making very pointed accusations about LE - and the reports that were written. Accusations in which are extremely damning.

I'm not aware of LE being accused of leaving a baby in a car to die, or being on trial.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Are you opposed to this as well? http://breakdown.myajc.com/episode/episode-2/

 

[Hope4More]

Finally caught up and wanted to make a few comments.




re bold - or they didn't know "what" decomp smelled like... just a "dirty diaper" smell, etc. And no one asked them about any "smell" during the whole incident. Only in court do they ask them... :thinking:





Just adding to this - and maybe WHY he didn't stop sooner with the "smell" or even when he first opened the door to his car at work....


Just as this quote says:



Tawny Love your Avatar!





I know some States have changed their laws about looking at someone's phone without a search warrant - is Georgia one of them. Otherwise, I would think that they can NOT look at his phone...

Hi Niner-!

No, it is impermissable in GA for LE to go into a suspect's phone without a warrant. Which is why the defense asked that all evidence from that phone be excluded from evidence (in their 12/2015 Motion to Suppress, in which they made a formal, on the record allegation the State had gone into RH's phone without a warrant).

 

[magnolia]

People were speculating that the witness testimony was suspicious and carefully worded, so as to avoid certain phrases. (Like avoiding saying decomposition, so the defense couldn't press them on it.) If they were purposefully NOT accurately describing their smell, that's perjury. If they didn't really smell something and later claimed they did, that's also perjury.

I think a smart, informed witness, would avoid using the word "decomposition" to describe an odor coming from a deceased person that had been dead for five hours. IMO

 

[Bethan]

You don't think they would want the witnesses to allude to a similar smell? If Stoddard said decomposition, I would think they'd want the witnesses to allude to the smell of death or decomp. (Not necessarily using those words, but suggesting it.) Sweat, dirty diapers...do not do that. It does nothing to support Stoddard's statements. I just can't get behind the theory that these witnesses (all of them that smelled something) are perguring about what they smelled.

JMO

Would a member of the public necessarily know what a decomposing body would smell like??
I don't think so!
Far more believable they should put it in their own words. " A smell of dirty diapers" , "a smell of stale sweat" or even "the smell of death".

I don't think a member of the 'lay' public would necessarily describe a bad smell, as the smell of 'decomposition'.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[blue22]

Would a member of the public necessarily know what a decomposing body would smell like??
I don't think so!
Far more believable they should put it in their own words. " A smell of dirty diapers" , "a smell of stale sweat" or even "the smell of death".

I don't think a member of the 'lay' public would necessarily describe a bad smell, as the smell of 'decomposition'.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree, I don't either.

The idea that every single witness would lie is absurd, IMO.

 

[blue22]

I think a smart, informed witness, would avoid using the word "decomposition" to describe an odor coming from a deceased person that had been dead for five hours. IMO

That wasn't the speculation, though. The speculation was that LE formed the opinions of witnesses for them.

 

[Safeguard]

I'm sorry if you felt I was being insulting to you in particular, (I wasn't) but there have been some people in here making very pointed accusations about LE - and the reports that were written. Accusations in which are extremely damning.

I'm not aware of LE being accused of leaving a baby in a car to die, or being on trial.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Ok. Thank you for that explanation. I see where your coming from now. I still don't think it's fair to belittle posters for questioning authority. (I wish more people would!)
LE brought these accusations after all.They do have to answer to the, (we.the) people who employ them. We have a right to question their behavior, and to discuss that here.


That said, no way do I envy the job of LE!

 

[EquallyDivided]

Are you opposed to this as well? http://breakdown.myajc.com/episode/episode-2/

I haven't listened to any of the podcasts (if that's what it is) I'm pointing out that LE is not the one that's on trial, and that the comments about what is or isn't in the statements thus far have been minor issues. If LE has done something illegal, it's a seperate venue.

For what it's worth, I prefer to watch and listen to trials, evidence and read statements from direct sources instead of media, pundits or news outlets. If I ever hear NG say BOMBSHELL TONIGHT one more time, I might throw something at my TV. Additioanlly, I don't need the added hype or sensationalism those other sources use to sell the public. I just want the facts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[colette]

I'm sorry if you felt I was being insulting to you in particular, (I wasn't) but there have been some people in here making very pointed accusations about LE - and the reports that were written. Accusations in which are extremely damning.

I'm not aware of LE being accused of leaving a baby in a car to die, or being on trial.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Actually in the last thread I posted a link about 2 LE and a child left in a police car. It seems a mother left her child in the car while she had a romp in the sack with her supervisor. They both fell asleep and the child died. The boss said he did not know the child was in the car. At that point no one was arrested. The mother has since been charged. The child was 3.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-patrol-car-for-hours/?utm_term=.77521a327456

 

[Hope4More]

I'm sorry if you felt I was being insulting to you in particular, (I wasn't) but there have been some people in here making very pointed accusations about LE - and the reports that were written. Accusations in which are extremely damning.

I'm not aware of LE being accused of leaving a baby in a car to die, or being on trial.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

LE are always "on trial" in a trial, in the sense they are agents of the State bringing charges against defendants who are presumed innocent. If they testify in court (rather a given in criminal cases) they are not immune from having what they did and said on behalf of the State questioned or challenged, nor from being impeached.

That could all happen in secret, in a closed court, so the public would never have information enough to challenge and question the State's case or actions taken by the State's agents, such as LE.

Mercifully for trial watchers, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly and unambiguously upheld that we the public have a fundamental, constitutional right to be present at trials, and the press, a only slightly more restricted right to same.

The State is acting in our name. We have the right (and IMO, even an obligation) to not only be "present," but to be witnesses as to whether or not the State is following the rules, or if they are abusing their fearsome power

 

[Safeguard]

Actually in the last thread I posted a link about 2 LE and a child left in a police car. It seems a mother left her child in the car while she had a romp in the sack with her supervisor. They both fell asleep and the child died. The boss said he did not know the child was in the car. At that point no one was arrested. The mother has since been charged. The child was 3.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-patrol-car-for-hours/?utm_term=.77521a327456

Another incredibly sad death... Beautiful little girl.

The quoted post in your last post attributed to me, due to a broken quote, but it is actually a post made by EquallyDivided...

 

[pet friend]

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

I don't think that @ all irrational, to feel a set of circumstances on a gut level. I also can't get past aspects of this case. I would not make it as a juror because I am so emotionally invested & believe beautiful Cooper was murdered.

 

[EquallyDivided]

Ok. Thank you for that explanation. I see where your coming from now. I still don't think it's fair to belittle posters for questioning authority. (I wish more people would!)
LE brought these accusations after all.They do have to answer to the, (we.the) people who employ them. We have a right to question their behavior, and to discuss that here.


That said, no way do I envy the job of LE!

I understand, I am LE and I question authority AND keep LE in line quite often - I totally get it!

But, some of these wild accusations go a bit too far for me.

Also, when I want to search without a warrant...I say "I'm going to look at your phone (or purse, or car...etc) ok? And they almost always say "OK" in response. That's called a consent to search. I don't know if that's what happened here, but that's how I would have done it, and it presume RH is the type of guy who would respond "OK".

I make a statement and they affirm. I don't ask a solid question. If I said "Do I have permission to search your ____ without a warrant" I would always get a "No".

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk