Trial - Ross Harris #5

[JerseyGirl]

Precisely because he wasn't the primary driver. The rear facing seat was safer. And, to believe Ross was the primary driver is to believe it was Ross who drive Cooper to any and all extracurricular activities outside of daycare, which kinda contradicts the Ross was an uninvolved, diffident, only for show dad storyline.

Ross was the primary driver in the mornings to Cooper's daycare.

 

[rob]

I'm too old, but I have many relatives, friends, coworkers who are parenting children. They get the infant seat, then the car seat, then the booster seat. The families that have one parent dropping off a child and another picking the kid up, either have 2 seats of the same age group (one per car) or they take the seat out and leave it at the childcare for the other to use. None use the infant seat forever. The kid doesnt' fit right. I think a toddler in an infant seat, facing backward, would get either severe whip last or a broken neck in a collision, because they are not properly protected by the seat, their head is too high. MOO

 

[katydid23]

So, is it correct that the DT will begin with calling Det. Murphy as their 1st witness?

Here is recent testimony about Det Murphy:




Kilgore is returning to his questioning about Det. Murphy.

Officers can apply for warrants online. On the application, they state facts that they know to be true and correct. The detectives can talk to a magistrate judge directly.

A whole bunch of these search warrants were done by Det. Murphy, Kilgore said.

“If you become aware of any misstatements or errors in the case … do you have a mechanism by which to let anyone know about that?” Kilgore said.

And that information has been used to obtain a search warrant.

You can ask for legal advice from the district attorney’s office, Stoddard said. Or you can ask for a new search warrant, the detective explained.


[ so it looks like the testimony will be about the search warrants? and any errors or problems with them?]

 

[Hope4More]

Precisely because he wasn't the primary driver. The rear facing seat was safer. And, to believe Ross was the primary driver is to believe it was Ross who drive Cooper to any and all extracurricular activities outside of daycare, which kinda contradicts the Ross was an uninvolved, diffident, only for show dad storyline.

And, vicariously, to Judy. Yes, I'm saying I believe it's perfectly OK for perfectly responsible parents to decide for themselves whether or not their own children fit into the carseats bought for them, using the manufactures' specifications as a guideline, not some immutable one size fits all absolute standard that must be conformed to or else.

And, you or others may have spent a great deal of time discussing inches and recreations, but I assure you I didn't, because I haven't understood very much of that testimony and tuned it (and discussion of it ) out.

 

[Hope4More]

Ross was the primary driver in the mornings to Cooper's daycare.

Yes . To daycare. But not necessarily overall.

 

[JudyBolton]

Amen.



BBM

If Leanna was the primary driver of Cooper, why in the world would Ross and Leanna have originally put the new car seat in Ross's car? Did they want Cooper to be in the smaller seat for a larger portion of the time? I think that the daycare records combined with our knowledge about the movement of the car seat certainly points to Ross being the primary driver. None of this changes the fact that they should have had TWO car seatss. Of course, you are free to interpret the data how you see fit.

Also the day care is RIGHT THERE by JRH's office. I can see her occasionally picking him up (maybe she got off work before he did) but it makes no sense that the parent who can practically walk to the day care from their job would not be the primary person to drop off and pick up the child.

 

[GA_Peach]

Precisely because he wasn't the primary driver. The rear facing seat was safer. And, to believe Ross was the primary driver is to believe it was Ross who drive Cooper to any and all extracurricular activities outside of daycare, which kinda contradicts the Ross was an uninvolved, diffident, only for show dad storyline.

BBM

Unbelievable and wow. You are stating that Ross and Leanna knowingly moved Cooper from the (in your opinion) safer rear-facing car seat into the (in your opinion) less safe larger, forward-facing car seat for a long drive to Alabama. You can continue to twist the facts however you would like to fit your narrative, but I am done with this conversation.

 

[Seriously?]

Liability for manufacturers doesn't really fit into this discussion of children's safety in cars, in my opinion. There are recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics to address this issue. For parents who place their children's safety above convenience, there are clear guidelines.
https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/state-advocacy/Documents/CPS.pdf

I find it interesting that several posters have commented about wanting to look away from the various viewings that would portray Cooper in the car. I'm a broken record on this, but once again that child literally baked in that vehicle. There was nothing "peaceful", as his reportedly devoted father stated or natural about the way he died. He was in agony, trapped and without anyone to rescue him. I would imagine he tried although without the dexterity, to unbuckle himself. Just think about that for a moment. His little legs were stiffly bent at his knees. RH says "peaceful".
I do realize the trial is not about how he died but the manner of death. However, the disregard of this child's life is striking - to me. From my experience, it is more common for non-offending parents/caregivers to collapse into each other to be consoled. Crying, sobbing - feeling weak. Didn't see that - not even close. Just another behavior I noted from the interviews..........on more than one occasion, RH was clearly able to take a couple of swigs from the water bottle, swallow without the loud sobs. Very controlled. Doesn't mean he killed Cooper on purpose..........it is another behavior of note.

I wonder how deeply LE dug into Cooper's history. I do think there was neglect - without question there was neglect. The unanswered question for me is was there a history and pattern of neglect. Some of these facts about Cooper would lead me to gather more information about his short life. There is not enough information available to the public to answer the question. I'm not assuming there was..............I simply want to know more. Fatal child trauma should be taken a little more seriously.

 

[arkansasmimi]

marking my spot to go back and catch up from before lunch

 

[angelainwi]

What options does the jury have to convict him of?

 

[katydid23]

I can see that perspective, but it also provided yet another occasion for the DT to question the validity of the evidence being presented to them by the State, another opportunity to shred Stoddard's credibility, and yet more conflicting testimony about whether RH could and couldn't have seen Cooper, so IMO, yes, a weak close.

That's all true. It does bring up more testimony about whether RH could see the baby or not. But I think visuals are much more impactful than endless testimony, going back and forth. That picture of the baby's big head, ballooning over the crest of the car seat, is very damaging to the DT, imo.

 

[Hope4More]

BBM

Unbelievable and wow. You are stating that Ross and Leanna knowingly moved Cooper from the (in your opinion) safer rear-facing car seat into the (in your opinion) less safe larger, forward-facing car seat for a long drive to Alabama. You can continue to twist the facts however you would like to fit your narrative, but I am done with this conversation.

Well, at least we're in agreement that ontinuing the conversation is pointless, lol.

 

[katydid23]

BACK in court----lawyers arguing about DTs 1 st witness---

 

[Hope4More]

That's all true. It does bring up more testimony about whether RH could see the baby or not. But I think visuals are much more impactful than endless testimony, going back and forth. That picture of the baby's big head, ballooning over the crest of the car seat, is very damaging to the DT, imo.

Hate to be dense, but did the DT dispute the validity of that photo or not? As in, didn't they say that photo was based on inaccurate measurements (of whatever kind, by whomever)?

 

[arkansasmimi]

JMHO I find it odd that the State is arguing about a CCPD Det who was 2nd in command in helping Lead Det Murphy, they jury has heard of this Det in prior witness testimony. This gives me the feeling it doesn't help their case. I as a juror would wonder why the State didn't call.

Imagine that the Judge does not grant the States Motion in Limine
ETA left out does not

 

[SuperTmo]

Evans has him project the 2016 scan and asks whether he can see each of those objects. He he says he can.

Prosecutors show images from a panoramic photo taken inside Justin Ross Harris' SUV, as taken by a 3D scanner, during Harris' murder trial at the Glynn County Courthouse in Brunswick, Ga., on Friday, Oct. 28, 2016. The photos were taken from approximately the eye level of a driver, but Harris' defense has hotly argued whether these "sight lines" are accurate to what Harris would have actually seen.

Rodriguez on re-cross. He has Dustin acknowledge that, before he looked around in the car in 2014, he already knew the male model (the doll) was in the car. The implication is that Dustin saw the doll because he already knew it was there. If Harris didn't know Cooper was in the car, he might not have seen his son, Rodriguez implies. He also refers to the "flyover" image of the SUV, which has no roof and no window glass, and asks whether that was an accurate depiction of the vehicle in reality. "It's just to show the spatial orientation of everything inside the vehicle," he said.

"At this time, your honor, the state rests," says prosecutor Chuck Boring.

The judge calls for the lunch break.

If this is the 2016 most accurate scan, it looks to me like the top of the doll's head is equal to or above the car seat shell, or just under. I wouldn't say he is an inch from top. Regardless of what RH could or couldn't see, there is nothing that fits FBS theory, and no way he forgot Cooper in the span of 5 minutes. Just no way. I will never believe he didn't see Cooper when he got his stuff and got out of the car or when he threw lightbulbs into the car at lunch. He saw that baby. But even on the off chance he didn't, he didn't need to see him to know he was there.

 

[JerseyGirl]

The court is back in session after lunch. The state rested its case before lunch, and now it's the defense's turn.

But the prosecution has filed a motion "in limine," which is a request that the judge exclude certain testimony before it is given. The witness in question is Det. Shawn Murphy of the Cobb police. Prosecutor Jesse Evans doesn't want to see the defense put Murphy on the stand and is arguing against his appearance.

The defense's Bryan Lumpkin argues in favor of Det. Murphy's appearance as a defense witness. He asks that the court declare Murphy a hostile witness, enabling the defense to ask leading questions. Lumpkin says he wants to ask Murphy questions about the search warrants the detective helped to prepare and execute.

Judge Mary Staley Clark denies the defense's request to lead the witness. She then asks the prosecution to argue its motion concerning the search warrants connected to Det. Murphy. Prosecutor Evans says Murphy's knowledge of the warrants and of the police interview of Harris is second-hand at best, and he has no standing to testify.

Staley Clark grants the prosecution motion to exclude Murphy's testimony. Lumpkin explains to the court what the defense wanted to ask the witness. Staley Clark says she did not preclude the defense from asking those questions; she said her ruling applies to questions to which Murphy's answers would be hearsay.

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/minute-minute-the-justin-ross-harris-trial-oct/hxhLRIbpQMr4wj0AW6dk5N/

 

[arkansasmimi]

opcorn:

 

[JerseyGirl]

Staley Clark responds: "I haven't told what you can ask him about. I have told you that I have not precluded you from calling him as a witness. That's up to you."

She tells Lumpkin to call the witness if he wants and ask the questions he wants, and the court will decide whether the questions are appropriate and the answers admissible.

The jury is not yet in the courtroom: motions in limine are heard outside the jury's presence. Staley Clark orders them back in.

 

[katydid23]

Hate to be dense, but did the DT dispute the validity of that photo or not? As in, didn't they say that photo was based on inaccurate measurements (of whatever kind, by whomever)?

YES, endlessly so....lol