Trial - Ross Harris #7

[DeDee]

.


Respectfully, De, what has the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt this happened and what was it they have proved? TIA

Most respectfully, mimi, are those two separate questions or just one? The Cliff Notes version is:

What the State has proven has been posted at WS in seven (7) threads with about a thousand (1000) posts each or approximately seven thousand (7000) posts total, thus far, with about three-fourths of them or about five thousand two hundred and fifty (5250) of those postings are regarding the direct and circumstantial evidence against JRH.

 

[Hope4More]

I am not sure that the State has put forth one theory. Thet have floated a few theories and will see what sticks. I see some validity in each theory.

That right there is my point.

No, the State doesn't have to prove motive, but surely it isn't asking too much of them to come up with a coherent narrative, a theory of the crime....something. But- --they haven't done so.

If Ross is guilty of malice murder, acting with intent, the premeditated murder of Cooper, what has the State argued about WHEN Ross began to plan Cooper's death? Was it in mid-May, when he sexted several ladies about wanting to be single and called Cooper a "joker"?

But then he waited until June 13 before "researching" hot car deaths? Why the wait, and why then, a month later? What was different?

**Stress, because everything was spiralling out of control? (check-argued).

** No stress, just an evolution of acting on his urges , this time to escape altogether? (check-argued).

**Randomly prompted, randomly timed, because MS. Meadows the Motive got back in touch with him that AM, causing his heart to swell with love, whereupon he set to sexting with 6 other women that day, as Cooper died? (check-argued).

All I see is a mish-mash of mush. The only constants I hear are: sex sex sex, bad bad bad, Ross is about sex and is bad (therefore he must be guilty).

 

[Hope4More]

More importantly--

Indians just tied Cubs, 6-6, bottom of the 8th. AAAARGH! See y'all tomorrow.

 

[DeDee]

no, it is also about fathers who killed their children.

But the reason I posted it is because people keep saying ' Ross loved his son so much, he could never kill him.' And this article shows that MANY of the fathers that killed their children were loving devoted fathers who had never harmed them before.

Who could forget Josh Powell, whose missing wife was Susan Powell, who locked the door and hunted his two precious sons down with an axe to kill them before finally exploding their home into fire and flames? *His brother committed suicide almost exactly one year later. "I would never hurt my boys". JP

http://abcnews.go.com/US/josh-powell-kill-sons-hatchet-fatal-explosion/story?id=15520394

 

[GA_Peach]

That right there is my point.

No, the State doesn't have to prove motive, but surely it isn't asking too much of them to come up with a coherent narrative, a theory of the crime....something. But- --they haven't done so.

If Ross is guilty of malice murder, acting with intent, the premeditated murder of Cooper, what has the State argued about WHEN Ross began to plan Cooper's death? Was it in mid-May, when he sexted several ladies about wanting to be single and called Cooper a "joker"?

But then he waited until June 13 before "researching" hot car deaths? Why the wait, and why then, a month later? What was different?

**Stress, because everything was spiralling out of control? (check-argued).

** No stress, just an evolution of acting on his urges , this time to escape altogether? (check-argued).

**Randomly prompted, randomly timed, because MS. Meadows the Motive got back in touch with him that AM, causing his heart to swell with love, whereupon he set to sexting with 6 other women that day, as Cooper died? (check-argued).

All I see is a mish-mash of mush. The only constants I hear are: sex sex sex, bad bad bad, Ross is about sex and is bad (therefore he must be guilty).

I pretty much agree with you. I have previously said that the State lacked a compelling narrative. The State's case seemed like a series of data points rather than a cohesive story.

Here's the interesting thing. We have both been following the trial threads from the beginning and have seen the differing opinions of the evidence. I have lost count of the number of posters who have claimed that this one particular evidence points to Ross's guilt. However, there is very little consensus about what that piece of evidence is. I think that could play to the State's favor when they get into the deliberation room. If people are inclined to believe Ross is guilty because of a particular thing and then that juror hears another compelling theory based on another piece of evidence, it could solidify Ross's guilt.

It could also be that the jurors favor reasonable doubt because the State did not embrace a particular theory.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Most respectfully, mimi, are those two separate questions or just one? The Cliff Notes version is:

What the State has proven has been posted at WS in seven (7) threads with about a thousand (1000) posts each or approximately seven thousand (7000) posts total, thus far, with about three-fourths of them or about five thousand two hundred and fifty (5250) of those postings are regarding the direct and circumstantial evidence against JRH.

Big Hugs De, and I do know and feel you meant that as such.
But my point is, the State just rested their case in chief last Friday morning. So respectfully, all those 7 threads (plus one that we had as a sidebar during the hurricane stop of trial) One would have to wait til the State ended their case to see if they proved anything. JMHO to do so prior would not be giving the State their full position to prove their case. Same as with the Defense presenting their case. We know the Defense does not have to prove anything. But I do think so far some reasonable doubt has came about in this trial, and it not over yet JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

JMHO I think the whole 30-40 sec thing is messing people up.

1: walk to car from inside CF (assuming that walks straight to car not speaking to anyone)
2: strap Cooper in
3: start car drive to parking lot exit...
4: depending on traffic how long can pull onto the road to go to U turn area
5: at U turn area, depending on traffic how long can pull onto road to do the U turn
6: From U Turn to when turn to go to LAA is said to be 30-40 sec, but again traffic dictates how long any of this is.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Sorry if this is a duplicate. Interesting from
Published on Nov 2, 2016
Legal Analyst Phil Holloway drives the route from Home Depot (Treehouse) parking lot to Akers Mill Square. NOTE: This is not an exact reenactment due to stoplight times. Phil's comments are not meant to be taken as any advocacy of guilt or innocence.

[video=twitter;793958968842276864]https://twitter.com/courtchatter/status/793958968842276864[/video]

 

[arkansasmimi]

[video=twitter;793938503281192960]https://twitter.com/courtchatter/status/793938503281192960[/video]

 

[arkansasmimi]

Trick or a Treat
[video=twitter;793175866226323456]https://twitter.com/courtchatter/status/793175866226323456[/video]

 

[GA_Peach]

JMHO I think the whole 30-40 sec thing is messing people up.

1: walk to car from inside CF (assuming that walks straight to car not speaking to anyone)
2: strap Cooper in
3: start car drive to parking lot exit...
4: depending on traffic how long can pull onto the road to go to U turn area
5: at U turn area, depending on traffic how long can pull onto road to do the U turn
6: From U Turn to when turn to go to LAA is said to be 30-40 sec, but again traffic dictates how long any of this is.

Just for clarification, it is about 30-40 seconds from CFA to the beginning of the turn lane to LAA. It is 5-10 seconds from CFA to U-turn (it's less than 100 yards). It is another 30 seconds from the start of the turn lane to the intersection.

ETA - Add about 10 seconds from parking spot to the main road at CFA.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Link to Q&A with Phil Holloway and Cathy from Courtchatter re: State
[video=twitter;791619050384175104]https://twitter.com/courtchatter/status/791619050384175104[/video]

 

[TexMex]

Phil Holloway "there is a way to get to malice"

 

[TexMex]

Holloway says is "obvious not even the cops think LH has anything to do with this"

 

[arkansasmimi]

Yeah the prompt from Leanna was her likely knowing he was slacking off. I can't believe she was driving 50 minutes to pick up Cooper after work when he worked right there. Another way he was totally taking advantage of her and she was letting it happen. JMO

:waitasec: Leanna was not driving 50 minutes to pick up Cooper after work. 50 minutes is how far Leanna drove to HER work from home. She also testified that it was their position they didn't want to leave Cooper at daycare any longer than necessary. So if she was getting off before RH she would pick him up. Or if he had an early meeting or something she would drop him off at daycare and RH pick up from daycare.

 

[katydid23]

Here is a case that Dr Diamond was not totally successful in convincing the jury of FBS:

An El Paso woman was recently convicted of criminally negligent homicide for the 2013 death of her infant daughter who was left in a hot car for 8 hours.

Jurors issued the guilty verdict despite hearing testimony from a psychiatrist expert witness who explained that the defendant suffered from “forgotten baby syndrome” which was presented as a condition that causes parents to leave their kids in cars unintentionally.

http://blog.expertpages.com/general...-a-hot-car-uses-psychology-expert-witness.htm

Despite emotional testimony from Wakesha Ives and analytical expert witness testimony about Forgotten Baby Syndrome by Dr. Diamond, the jury of 10 women and 4 men found the defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide for Janay’s death. The jury acquitted Ives of the more serious charge recklessness causing serious bodily harm due to omission – which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years – suggesting that jurors put some degree of stock into the defendant’s case and her expert witness’s contributions.

Ives will return to court in early October for a sentencing hearing, and faces up to two years in jail for her conviction. Dr. Diamond’s expert witness testimony on Forgotten Baby Syndrome may not have been fully successful, but it seems that jurors incorporated his position into their decision by selecting the lesser available charge. Forgotten Baby Syndrome is relatively unheralded in the legal community, but with the attention it has received in the Ives case more defendants may look for experts like Dr. Diamond who provide explanation why parents would leave infants unattended in hot cars.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Arkansasmimi View Post
JMHO I think the whole 30-40 sec thing is messing people up.

1: walk to car from inside CF (assuming that walks straight to car not speaking to anyone)
2: strap Cooper in
3: start car drive to parking lot exit...
4: depending on traffic how long can pull onto the road to go to U turn area
5: at U turn area, depending on traffic how long can pull onto road to do the U turn
6: From U Turn to when turn to go to LAA is said to be 30-40 sec, but again traffic dictates how long any of this is

.

Just for clarification, it is about 30-40 seconds from CFA to the beginning of the turn lane to LAA. It is 5-10 seconds from CFA to U-turn (it's less than 100 yards). It is another 30 seconds from the start of the turn lane to the intersection.

ETA - Add about 10 seconds from parking spot to the main road at CFA.

Thank you Peach! Which adds more time correct? I have seen some posts that make it seem like it only 30-40 sec from the CF to turning to LAA. And Traffic has to be figured into this time driving not just the distance. Lord knows a 100 yard mark to go anywhere if there is lots of traffic can take forever or not. But the Videos that Stoddard did I think could help either side. JMHO. I know they were informative to me. And of course your help Hugs

ETA : how do we know where the parking spot is at CFA? From Stoddard video it looked like there were a lot of spots possible. No video from parking lot. JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

Holloway says is "obvious not even the cops think LH has anything to do with this"

Yet Stoddard testimony on witness stand proves he still thinks she does. Still showing her as a suspect, nothing noted that she is no longer a suspect. Just that not actively investigating.

 

[Rocco]

Sorry for the OT but THE CUBS WON

 

[arkansasmimi]

What I was getting at about LH Mother
[video=twitter;793537173630832640]https://twitter.com/courtchatter/status/793537173630832640[/video]