Trial - Ross Harris #3

[yupikgirl]

BBM

If the autopsy has measurements that don't make sense then the State has a problem. An official autopsy is crucial in a murder case because it's supposed to give the jury hard facts. If there's something wrong with it a jury may question other "facts" that the State has presented to the jury.

JMO

Sorry I wasn't clear-they make sense to me but others think they add up to cooper being very very low in the seat and not visible. I don't know what the jury thinks but they aren't confusing to me and they are not anything more than measurements of each part of his body that show he is within the normal size range of his age. I dont think you can take those measurements and apply them to the car seat and say for certain where his head would be. It's not like he's straight up and down and flat against the seat. He is a person sitting and for me not being given by the ME the exact place he put the tape measure for example on the "rump" to measure to the next spot leaves a lot open for exactly where he was in the seat. We do know he was 33 inches tall and too tall for the seat. We also have the testimony of the detective that his head is visible.

I wish I had more time to make my post make more sense, but I'm pressed for time and can't do a proper edit right now to explain my thoughts. I think my original post was a jump off of another that I forgot to quote!

All my opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

The fact of the matter is that RH wasn't texting or drinking or high or engaged in any activity whatsoever other than driving his car between the time he left CFA and reaching the intersection where he didn't turn left instead of going straight.

If he had been texting or drinking or high when he didn't turn left, he'd be guilty of criminal negligence, and even then would not be presumed to have had intent.

And, there is no way to know whether or not Cooper would be alive if RH had "exercised self control for a few more minutes." That's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

It's obvious RH spent a lot of time texting that morning, including while he was in CFA, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't text between the time he left CFA and the time he reached the intersection. By the time he reached the intersection, he was already not in the left turn lane he needed to be in to take Cooper to daycare.

No one on planet earth other than RH knows what RH was thinking about in that stretch. Maybe he wasn't thinking about Ms. X or Y or Z at all. Maybe he was thinking about what he had to do when he got to work, or what to say in his 10:30 AM project progress meeting, or about meeting up with friends at a movie that night. There isn't any way to know.

And, reality is, RH had only slept a few hours the night before. Maybe the few seconds of not focusing had as much to do with being tired as anything else. Yah, yah, he was up late doing what he wasn't supposed to be doing. So what. Countless other parents routinely stay up past their bedtimes, having friends over, going out, enjoying being married, reading a good book, watching a meteor shower, or getting lost in any other of a thousand different activities that make time go by too quickly.

Yes, maybe they are tired the next day, and no, their choices of the night before do not mean they wake up with the designation "bad parent," any more than RH's choice of activity made him a bad parent when he woke up, likely tired, on the 18th.

Your post just made me think. We know he was up late and that he sent those texts. that he did the searches for the passport, email to the travel agent... but we don't know what else he was doing. (The State has been picking and choosing to make their case, which is what they do). But I curious if he was working on other stuff too? Seems at work he would do the same thing when he was doing work stuff. Was he doing "work" stuff? Side company stuff? Seeing how glued to electronics at work, I find it kinda hard he just sent those few texts at the time. In his case, there HAS to be more entries of something lol searches, texts tweets or something JMHO

 

[MsMarple]

But never a tear was shed.



I read somewhere. Sorry I don't have a link that the Defense team was paid in the beginning but is now being paid by the state.

I think once a defendant runs out of money the state will pick up the 'public defender' costs.

Not real sure how much they pay?

You're right, Ross was declared indigent in August 2015. No info on what the state is paying Kilgore and his team though. I would guess less than he would get with a full paying client.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_d17faf17eb1b44c993c8c3d93579c1ae.pdf

 

[JudyBolton]

You're right, Ross was declared indigent in August 2015. No info on what the state is paying Kilgore and his team though. I would guess less than he would get with a full paying client.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_d17faf17eb1b44c993c8c3d93579c1ae.pdf

They do it for the publicity.

 

[Hope4More]

And with regard to the jury my understanding is that jurors have the leeway to weigh the various testimonies and actually can infer other evidence based on their conclusions as long as they are reasonable and come from presented evidence.

IOW, if they weigh the teacher's testimony and the CCTV footage against testimony that Cooper was often asleep when Ross brought him in (I don't remember if that was testified to so take it as an example only) they are allowed to conclude whatever they find more reasonable and as such can infer that he was awake or asleep based on that.

I'm not saying the jury will do any of that, just that they are allowed to do so.

Jumping off your post...

IMO the question of whether or not jurors believe Cooper was awake or asleep is crucial, and I think from the defense's cross of daycare workers, so do they.

It's nearly impossible to believe RH could think Cooper was at daycare if Cooper was wide awake in the backseat. Even if Cooper was entirely silent and didn't move from the time he was strapped in until the time RH parked at work, it is highly unlikely he would have remained silent for the 33 seconds it took for RH, after parking, to close his car door and walk away.

So, the testimony by daycare workers. What the defense elicited was sometimes Cooper was asleep upon arrival, sometimes he was awake. Makes sense. One of the daycare teachers testified that Cooper was usually wide awake on the days his dad had taken him to CFA.

Is that meaningful? For the jurors to decide, but I expect the defense to point out the obvious-- RH took Cooper to CFA 2 to 4 times a month, at most, and iirc, other testimony established it wasn't even that frequently. In other words, not frequently enough to be a "standard," especially with other variables at play.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Do we know if he was using the Bluetooth feature in his car that morning while he was driving or was he actually texting? Did he listen to the radio? Just wondering if there is any possibility of not hearing Cooper based on these things.

RBBM, when asked about the radio by Stoddard he gave the station 104. 7 (another member here sorry don't remember which :facepalm: but said that was a Christian channel local)

 

[PaperDoll]

Yes and when a man/woman cheats it has very little to do with the spouse- many professionals agree on this. Of course there are exceptions, but the great majority have nothing to do with their spouse and everything to do with themselves.

Edited to add: IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My opinion too Yeah, Ross told one of this "BJ givers" that his marriage was good except in the bedroom.. OH BOOHOO! :tantrum:

 

[arkansasmimi]

This is the biggest issue to me. I didn't hear a lot of the media coverage in the beginning that everyone is referencing (just didn't get a lot of airtime on the west coast I guess - actually I believe I was out of country for a couple of weeks around that time so maybe we did get coverage and I missed - it in case I am wrong!)
Everything else being shown in the trial so far is just more information that adds to (doesn't take away from) my belief that there is just NO logical way IMO to believe he wasn't aware of Cooper when he was in the car "until" he was changing lanes on his way to the movies.
I didn't realize they would have a model of the interior of the vehicle in the court (?). I think many feel this is the "biggest" evidence of all in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RBBM. it not a model as in bringing something in, it is a video. You can watch it in the link I provided earlier. GA Peach gave it to me long ago at beginning because it talked of Dr Diamond and another Def expert witness and the 3D video Motions . But after watching it, then as the trial moved on and watched again well just go and watch and pay close attention to testimony. It is an over overhead look (as if your from a helicopter looking down, or across, not on ground looking from that prespective. And the expert Mr. David Dustin, it was his first criminal trial to do this but has in civil accident reconstructions. Thing is he can't tell you how high above looking down on SUV the aerial view would be.

 

[MsMarple]

Jumping off your post...

IMO the question of whether or not jurors believe Cooper was awake or asleep is crucial, and I think from the defense's cross of daycare workers, so do they.

It's nearly impossible to believe RH could think Cooper was at daycare if Cooper was wide awake in the backseat. Even if Cooper was entirely silent and didn't move from the time he was strapped in until the time RH parked at work, it is highly unlikely he would have remained silent for the 33 seconds it took for RH, after parking, to close his car door and walk away.

So, the testimony by daycare workers. What the defense elicited was sometimes Cooper was asleep upon arrival, sometimes he was awake. Makes sense. One of the daycare teachers testified that Cooper was usually wide awake on the days his dad had taken him to CFA.

Is that meaningful? For the jurors to decide, but I expect the defense to point out the obvious-- RH took Cooper to CFA 2 to 4 times a month, at most, and iirc, other testimony established it wasn't even that frequently. In other words, not frequently enough to be a "standard," especially with other variables at play.

IMO the jury could very well conclude that Cooper was probably awake and still go with a not guilty verdict on the two murder charges, depending on how they put all the pieces of evidence together and what weight they give each piece. The sexting, the hearing loss, the Forgotten Baby testimony, the text about divorcing Leanna if it weren't for Cooper, all of it has to be carefully considered, not just one element. So who knows what it'll come down to? I sure the heck don't. :dunno:

 

[arkansasmimi]

I'm not saying this indicative of how anyone on the jury will respond to the LH-RH tape, but I just experimented on my poor DH, who knows very little about this case and who doesn't want to know more, probably in part because he was subjected to over 2 years of having to listen to me puzzle through the Arias case.

I asked him to watch the first 10 minutes of the tape. His first (strongest) response was-- "wow, she isn't even crying. Why's that? That's really weird".

Then-- "he looks like he's genuinely grieving- didn't you tell me the State claimed he wasn't?"

And by the end of 10 minutes--"well, I can see why he was sexting or whatever. She seems as cold as they get."

-----
Also, he's a civil trial attorney, not criminal, but he was surprised LE was allowed to tape this after RH had invoked.

RBBM, I am not any kind of lawyer and that was my first thought when I heard Stoddard state the time for record when RH invoked. then on the stand as they were getting the authentication of video with LH, Stoddard said it would begin about 45 min after they had put RH in the cell in the area. So it started roughly about 8:15pm (45 min after he invoked) But also he started speaking to Stoddard again asking questions, so there is that - on his own. But it was done in a way to get him to respond to him, he came him brought paper to get phone numbers...told of charges again.. Doing what Det do. I just dont know how legally that goes but because RH began speaking to him again) But the Def did not object to the video being played for few reasons I am totally sure. jmho

 

[Hope4More]

IMO the jury could very well conclude that Cooper was probably awake and still go with a not guilty verdict on the two murder charges, depending on how they put all the pieces of evidence together and what weight they give each piece. The sexting, the hearing loss, the Forgotten Baby testimony, the text about divorcing Leanna if it weren't for Cooper, all of it has to be carefully considered, not just one element. So who knows what it'll come down to? I sure the heck don't. :dunno:

Juries are for sure unpredictable, and we (too) rarely hear from them afterwards how they weighed the evidence to arrive at a verdict.

Speaking just for myself though, I would convict on malice murder f I were a juror in this case and I was convinced by what had been presented that Cooper was awake, because I would find it 100% impossible to believe RH didn't know he was there. Wouldn't need to puzzle through a motive, because it wouldn't matter.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

RBBM, I am not any kind of lawyer and that was my first thought when I heard Stoddard state the time for record when RH invoked. then on the stand as they were getting the authentication of video with LH, Stoddard said it would begin about 45 min after they had put RH in the cell in the area. So it started roughly about 8:15pm (45 min after he invoked) But also he started speaking to Stoddard again asking questions, so there is that - on his own. But it was done in a way to get him to respond to him, he came him brought paper to get phone numbers...told of charges again.. Doing what Det do. I just dont know how legally that goes but because RH began speaking to him again) But the Def did not object to the video being played for few reasons I am totally sure. jmho

Did RH voluntarily answer questions after invoking his right to not answer questions? He can change his mind at any time. Once he acknowledges his understanding of his rights to not answer questions he can still freely answer any questions LE give him. JMO

 

[alwaysonmymind]

I find it kind of interesting that the jury members are already asking the judge when this trial will be over? She told them testimony should conclude Thanksgiving.

I don't remember a jury ever asking that question in the middle of testimony!!

One of the members of the jury has a planned trip during Thanksgiving. Not sure on the exact dates but believe this was the reason for the initial question to the judge.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

Did RH voluntarily answer questions after invoking his right to not answer questions? He can change his mind at any time. Once he acknowledges his understanding of his rights to not answer questions he can still freely answer any questions LE give him. JMO

After he invoked, there were no substantive questions.

If LE has asked him additional questions after he invoked, his responses would have to be suppressed, unless he signed a waiver of his rights after he invoked.

I really don't think there was anything to suppress for Miranda violations.

I do have some other real concerns about Stoddard's role in the interview and his previous testimony about the order in which things happened.

Maybe arkansasmimi can help me piece this together with video. Here's my concern:

During prior testimony at the Sept '15 hearing, Stoddard said that his first contact with Ross in the interview room was to introduce himself again and inform him that he would be charged with child cruelty and second degree murder. He testified that Ross immediately said "there was no malicious intent." And that's when he and Det Racey(?)/Murphy(?) looked at each other and started to record.

But we've seen video now of Stoddard coming in and asking him some background questions and reading Miranda rights. Later in the tape we see Stoddard inform Ross that he will be charged with cruelty to child -- this seems to be the first time anyone says anything to Ross about charges, and his reaction was "it was completely unintentional", "it was an accident".

From the video we have seen, it seems impossible that prior to the video Stoddard informed him that he was being charged with felony murder - child cruelty or that Ross responded "there was no malicious intent."

With that in mind - how coincidental is it that the one statement Ross supposedly made to Stoddard that is being used of evidence of guilt is the ONLY thing Ross said off camera, so we are left to rely on Stoddard's word.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[arkansasmimi]

T

Especially given the fact that his and his wife's 'greatest fear' was leaving Cooper to die in a hot car. If that really was his greatest fear in life, why didn't he just turn his head a few inches and look at the baby seat?

Grrr post went bye bye lol try again
RBBM, IF the bag was in the same place, or in the front area as was photographed by CSI that evening... Then he would not have had to reach anywhere other than over to front of front seat, looking no where but that area. Grab it, grab drink and exit veh. IF he had the radio on, and if his veh is like mine (as in radio continues to play for a few seconds until either turn off, open door or it stops after that xx seconds) oh and grab his phone from where ever it was if not in pocket already. No reason to look anywhere past the front seats.

Having said that, Parking lot video does not tell the State/Det/Def/ or public watching what was going on in that car once RH came to a stop... got his bag, drink and exited or if the radio was still on. I curious if the radio was on when the car was pulled over to a stop? Have not heard that asked yet.

:thinking: typing this ^^ out just reminded me of CSI Shumpert photo and Def Cross, when *(correction was Ludwig) said that he bet when takes photos that glad took some after the fact. CSI agreed *going to go find and ss that photo* There is a reason Kilgore made comment as he did.
A/C was testified to be on. We saw alot of condensation on the ground in crime scene photos that CSI Shumpert took. That was a lot of dampness on the hot pavement, when pic taken. My veh does not drip that much water while my car is idle with engine and a/c on.

 

[PaperDoll]

I have a question, does anyone know for sure that Leanna saw Ross first before Cooper?

 

[minor4th]

Motion to Quash #7, on Count 3 of charge

Prior to law going into effect 7/1/2014 this charge had a mandatory Life sentence
Prior 3/27/2014 Mandatory Life
3/27/14 GA Legislature Amended this charge 10-30 yrs
4/22/2014 Gov Deal signed the Amended Law
6/18/2014 Cooper Harris died - State going with Mandatory Life
7/1/2014 Amended Law goes into effect

Def this case is is rarest of cases

State contends that the Motion is not ripe, that shouldn't be heard until sentencing after a verdict

Def says the cases the State referencing because there is not a range of sentencing because there is a mandatory sentence (Def does not want to miss the opportunity to raise the issue.

Judge sides with State, wait and see what the Jury decides the revisit the Motion

Someone brought this up few posts back about the Law changing. Just happen to be on this same September 14, 2015 pretrial hearing
[video=youtube;uRG6yJMOARY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRG6yJMOARY&index=3&list=PLoW1SIeAWaWbJFWVaOT7hUZkxX0v2uq6l[/video]

I was the one who brought up the law changing. I did not realize it was SO soon after this happened.

 

[DeDee]

He hesitates after mentioning being dropped off at work after he ate lunch at Publix and does not mention going to his car at all. Mentions the movie at 5 pm. Also interesting to me: he said Cooper falls asleep easily when YOU are driving. Weird wording IMO.

This couple is weird. jmo Ross stumbled when attempting to explain to Stoddard how he knew so early in the morning that he was going to be late for work that day.

Re Leeanna, it was always my impression that she was the type who would pledge to remain a virgin until marriage.

After watching, several times, as she visited with her husband, without one tear, she assures Ross that she knows it was an accident and that he did not do it on purpose. There is only one reason I can think of as for why she behaved as she did during that meeting. She had already detached herself from Cooper.

"Did you say too much?"

 

[yupikgirl]

I used to own that vehicle and the radio does not play once the car is turned off. My current vehicle the radio continues to play until you either turn it off or you open the door. OT but I find that annoying to have it stay on after I turn the car off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

Just because it was possible to see Cooper in the car doesn't mean that RH did. Was he looking at his phone or just not paying any attention to the back seat? JMO.

I have thought this so many times while reading posts here.

Of course the car seat was visible from the driver seat and even from the door frame. Of course it was visible when Ross reached for his briefcase in the passenger seat.

But, just because it COULD be seen, that doesn't mean Ross took notice of it or checked on whether Cooper was in it as he turned or grabbed his briefcase.

It's not just that Ross "forgot" his son was in the car - he was on autopilot, driving straight from CFA to work like he normally did; his mind "tricked" him into thinking he had already dropped Cooper off at daycare.

So, all this talk about whether the car seat was visible in his peripheral vision is irrelevant IMO - and it's really not disputed.