TRIAL - Ross Harris #1

[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

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

My comment was in reply to the BBM in your post.

 

[yupikgirl]

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

A person dead for five hours on my unit in a well ventilated air conditioned building stinks. Bodies start to decompose immediately and the heat speeds it up.

I don't see the issue with the term decomposition from a professional....I assume it smells worse the more decomposed it gets, but that distinct smell probably remains the same just weakened in the beginning.

No idea how the jury will interpret that term/word...not disagreeing at all with your post just wondering if they will discuss that or not...guess it depends on how they define that word?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

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

RH did not consent to have his phone searched. Not an opinion or a guess. I've been reading all the pre -trial motions and have referenced them in posts on this topic.

I'm not sure what "wild accusations" against LE you are referring to? What I see is a lot of actual research being done, and careful attention being paid to pre-trial proceedings and now the testimony of the State's witnesses.

Don't know about you, but whether or I agree with anyone's opinion about anything is always secondary to the respect I feel for those who take the time and make the effort to read and /or see the evidence for themselves, and to draw their own informed conclusions. Common ground there?

 

[DexterMorgan]

1) All hot car toddler deaths are investigated to determine if it was done by accident, negligence, or with malice intent.

2) The district attorney usually makes the decision upon information gathered in the investigation report

3) I think the evidence showed negligence but the DA turned it into malice due to shows like Nancy Grace jumping on board very early.

Btw. If this case wasn't main stream; Then the DA probably would have offered a plea deal. Jmo

 

[DaleTray]

In consolidating all my thought after reading all the posts here and watching all the testimony thus far and applying common sense and problem solving.....Had RH not said Fu_ _ You to Piper and then acted like majority of society expected a grieving dad to act, I doubt we would be having this trial. LE would have done some research. Looked in the home and see all the toys, talked w Coopers teachers for their impressions, etc and would have probably taken a different approach

 

[magnolia]

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

I think you will find that the AJC Podcasts are indeed based on facts.

 

[DexterMorgan]

In consolidating all my thought after reading all the posts here and watching all the testimony thus far and applying common sense and problem solving.....Had RH not said Fu_ _ You to Piper and then acted like majority of society expected a grieving dad to act, I doubt we would be having this trial. LE would have done some research. Looked in the home and see all the toys, talked w Coopers teachers for their impressions, etc and would have probably taken a different approach

Maybe you're right. But why did they keep him for disorderly conduct. He should have been fined.

Is it protocol to hold parents in these suspicious hot car death situations before investigating?

 

[Hope4More]

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.

I really respect your saying you wouldn't be able to serve as a juror because of how strongly you feel in your gut he's guilty, same for Paper Doll, who has repeatedly made it clear she couldn't for the same reason.

 

[EquallyDivided]

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

So what you're saying is, we should judge the LE in the RH trial because LE in a seperate incident left a child in a car to die?

I'm sure that's not what you mean, but I don't understand using such a broad brush.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[DaleTray]

In consolidating all my thought after reading all the posts here and watching all the testimony thus far and applying common sense and problem solving.....Had RH not said Fu_ _ You to Piper and then acted like majority of society expected a grieving dad to act, I doubt we would be having this trial. LE would have done some research. Looked in the home and see all the toys, talked w Coopers teachers for their impressions, etc and would have probably taken a different approach

Maybe LE probably would have learned about all the sexting, etc and brought appropriate charges of neglect to manslaughter, etc but doubtful malicious charges

 

[EquallyDivided]

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

They aren't "on trial" but they are in the public eye and in public trust positions. Those are seperate, please stop twisting it to your benefit for arguments sake.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[blue22]

My comment was in reply to the BBM in your post.

Yes, I know.

And I was saying the implication was NOT that the witnesses were smart and informed, as you stated. The implication was that the witnesses were told what to say, even if it wasn't their opinion. Big difference between the two.

I simply don't agree with that opinion which is held by some. Moving on.

 

[EquallyDivided]

RH did not consent to have his phone searched. Not an opinion or a guess. I've been reading all the pre -trial motions and have referenced them in posts on this topic.

I'm not sure what "wild accusations" against LE you are referring to? What I see is a lot of actual research being done, and careful attention being paid to pre-trial proceedings and now the testimony of the State's witnesses.

Don't know about you, but whether or I agree with anyone's opinion about anything is always secondary to the respect I feel for those who take the time and make the effort to read and /or see the evidence for themselves, and to draw their own informed conclusions. Common ground there?

Again, I specifically said "I don't know if that's what happened here" so I don't know why responded this way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[PaperDoll]

Exactly. These are all the same reasons I find the charges ludicrous also! Not to mention, if this was planned, why didn't RH bother to leave some search history related to the joys of parenthood, (perhaps he might have looked into the age of a Cub scout, or cool places to bring your toddler, whatever)... or send a few texts from work suggesting that he adored his child? No, instead he thought it would be a better idea to send pics of his genitals to minors on this crucial day of days in his murder plot?

Why are all the sources that are saying, (daycare workers who saw RH with Cooper DAILY, and his EX-wife), he was a loving and devoted parent to cooper, being disregarded? They would know better than I, so I choose to believe what those who know him have to say, more than what LE would like for me to believe.

I think it also comes down to, "A little child is dead, and people want blood. They want somebody to pay.

And it should be Ross since Cooper was in his care. If Ross was such a loving devoted father, why did he leave Cooper in the car to die? What made him "forget" his son? Can anyone out there prove he forgot? Where is the hard evidence of that? Does this mean that every "loving" parent who has left their child in a hot car than ended in death, isn't guilty? What if a parent actually wanted to kill their child in a hot car then claim it was a accident, how does one go about proving it was intentional? How does one prove it was a accident? Love or not, Cooper died while in the custody of his dad, a dad who, IMO did it intentionally. :gaah:

 

[Safeguard]

In consolidating all my thought after reading all the posts here and watching all the testimony thus far and applying common sense and problem solving.....Had RH not said Fu_ _ You to Piper and then acted like majority of society expected a grieving dad to act, I doubt we would be having this trial. LE would have done some research. Looked in the home and see all the toys, talked w Coopers teachers for their impressions, etc and would have probably taken a different approach

Agree. People don't like RH and they want someone to blame so... wala, RH must have murdered his kid.

People keep insisting things they can't possibly know, must be true. From the way car must have smelled, ( When I provided a link to much evidence to the contrary in similar cases! but nope, it must have reeked!), to what RH must have thought, noticed, or been thinking without any possible way to know these things.

We all want to believe we would never behave like RH and maybe we wouldnt. But "Experience is the Biggest Killer of Theory" as the saying goes.

And... Ross pissed off LE. That will cause them to up the charges. No I don't have a link for that info, But I have seen it a gazillion times. Yes if cops don't like you they will often make someone's life miserable using trumped up charges, just because they can.

 

[DaleTray]

And it should be Ross since Cooper was in his care. If Ross was such a loving devoted father, why did he leave Cooper in the car to die? What made him "forget" his son? Can anyone out there prove he forgot? Where is the hard evidence of that? Does this mean that every "loving" parent who has left their child in a hot car than ended in death, isn't guilty? What if a parent actually wanted to kill their child in a hot car then claim it was a accident, how does one go about proving it was intentional? How does one prove it was a accident? Love or not, Cooper died while in the custody of his dad, a dad who, IMO did it intentionally. :gaah:

This sort of goes that RH must prove he was not acting malicious. Its 100% the state that brought charges and must prove RH did act malicious. Many of us may want RH to defend himself but thats not how the game is played

 

[MsMarple]

It's my understanding that search warrants were issued for the electronics. The defense filed a motion to supress based on their claim that the warrants were issued without proper probable cause - i.e. they were unlawfully issued. If there were unlawful warrantless/no consent searches then I agree it's a problem.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_dbef8061398142dd9b406b218b0985d8.pdf

While I'm at it, here's the conversation Ross had during his breakfast with Cooper. IMO it's reasonable to speculate that during this conversation Ross decided he had enough of fatherhood. IMO it's also reasonable to speculate that he made a purposeful decision to keep going at the intersection. My point is that we really don't know what was in his mind that day but it's just as likely he made a really bad decision as it is that he simply forgot about Cooper minutes after clicking him into his carseat and telling him he loved him and kissing him - just in case one of them died.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_295551dff44141fb94f76339ccf8ed7c.pdf

Sorry - my reply/quote is off again but this isn't aimed at anyone in particular anyway.

 

[magnolia]

And it should be Ross since Cooper was in his care. If Ross was such a loving devoted father, why did he leave Cooper in the car to die? What made him "forget" his son? Can anyone out there prove he forgot? Where is the hard evidence of that? Does this mean that everyone "loving" parent who has left their child in a hot car than ended in death, isn't guilty? What if a parent actually wanted to kill their child in a hot car then claim it was a accident, how does one go about proving it was intentional? How does one prove it was a accident? Love or not, Cooper died while in the custody of his dad, a dad who, IMO did it intentionally. :gaah:

BBM -- Respectfully PaperDoll, neither the public or the defense is responsible for proving anything. The burden of proof rests with his accusers.

 

[Hope4More]

They aren't "on trial" but they are in the public eye and in public trust positions. Those are seperate, please stop twisting it to your benefit for arguments sake.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Unless I misunderstood you, what I understood you to say is that (unspecified) "wild accusations " are being made here against LE. The one example you offered, without certainty, is that RH likely gave LE permission to search his phone, presumably in response to discussion that LE apparently searched RH's phone without a warrant. He didn't give permission. Not a wild accusation.

Did I misunderstand what you said about LE "not being on trial " here? I understood that to mean that somehow it isn't proper to question their investigation, handling of witnesses, reports, assumptions, misstatements, and yes, their credibility and ethics.

I don't have any interest in twisting words or arguing for the sake of arguing. I feel unapologetically as strongly about the sanctity of our legal and judicial system as others here feel about individual crimes and victims. And I get really fiesty if I'm told to salute, obey, look the other way, or else.

 

[Safeguard]

It's my understanding that search warrants were issued for the electronics. The defense filed a motion to supress based on their claim that the warrants were issued without proper probable cause - i.e. they were unlawfully issued. If there were unlawful warrantless/no consent searches then I agree it's a problem.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_dbef8061398142dd9b406b218b0985d8.pdf

While I'm at it, here's the conversation Ross had during his breakfast with Cooper. IMO it's reasonable to speculate that during this conversation Ross decided he had enough of fatherhood. IMO it's also reasonable to speculate that he made a purposeful decision to keep going at the intersection. My point is that we really don't know what was in his mind that day but it's just as likely he made a really bad decision as it is that he simply forgot about Cooper minutes after clicking him into his carseat and telling him he loved him and kissing him - just in case one of them died.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_295551dff44141fb94f76339ccf8ed7c.pdf

Sorry - my reply/quote is off again but this isn't aimed at anyone in particular anyway.

Wow OK then. I didn't realize he kissed his son just in case one of them died!

Now that I have that fact, I agree He must have been planning this for years! Probably during the pregnancy even. /s

And to think he was acting like a devoted dad the whole two yrs!