Trial - Ross Harris #9

[arkansasmimi]

They still have some finalizing of the charging order in the morning. Then I suspect the State will have their first part of Closing, before they go to lunch. Defense after lunch and State finishing up their Closing. Then the jury will get their charging orders and go delib. Will they be sequestered? Half day of court was already scheduled for Tues due to Election Day (go vote!) So how will that reflect on everything? Will they just stop deliberations and pick back up? Is that something that the Def can argue about? Then Friday, if they get that far is Veterans Day and no court was planned. I have seen some juries break for the weekend before.

I feel for those on the jury that may be following the Election of a Lifetime and have this Lifetime of a decision literally to make. God be with them... and the rest of us Citizens of the USA!!

 

[EquallyDivided]

As to motive specifically:

What could get rid of a wife, child support obligations, a kid you overtly love but covertly complain is draining you; a boss off of your back for poor performance?

What could get you sympathy, maybe even a new career as a spokesperson? What could be more endearing to sympathetic strangers you admittedly want to have sex with as many as you can?

What could get you a down payment for a new house? How about monumental freedom to peruse your love of perversion with multiple partners? What could free up your daycare funding to pay for more prostitutes?

What if you could have all of that with ONE hands-off act that is completely plausible, and even though you would "hate it" it wouldn't "destroy or kill" you.

As a side, WHO says they would hate it if something like that happened to their kid. I wouldn't hate it, I would be destroyed or that would kill me, but I wouldn't simply hate it. It almost sounds like: I'd hate it if I won the lottery (insert sarcasm here).

MOO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

I FOR REAL FORGOT!!!

This weekend we grabbed an extra hour of sleep as we “fell back” into Standard Time and longer nights.

Daylight Saving Time ended at 2 a.m. Sunday, Nov. 6, which means you should have turned your old-school clocks back before you went to bed Saturday night, Nov. 5.

 

[JudyBolton]

As to motive specifically:

What could get rid of a wife, child support obligations, a kid you overtly love but covertly complain is draining you; a boss off of your back for poor performance?

What could get you sympathy, maybe even a new career as a spokesperson? What could be more endearing to sympathetic strangers you admittedly want to have sex with as many as you can?

What could get you a down payment for a new house? How about monumental freedom to peruse your love of perversion with multiple partners? What could free up your daycare funding to pay for more prostitutes?

What if you could have all of that with ONE hands-off act that is completely plausible, and even though you would "hate it" it wouldn't "destroy or kill" you.

As a side, WHO says they would hate it if something like that happened to their kid. I wouldn't hate it, I would be destroyed or that would kill me, but I wouldn't simply hate it. It almost sounds like: I'd hate it if I won the lottery (insert sarcasm here).

MOO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Another weird phrase (we need a dictionary of JRH utterances) - I would use that for something like, "I would hate it if the game got rained out", or "I would hate to lose my new $$ sunglasses". In fact, I would not even use that about one of my pets. Too casual and flippant but," hey, it sure is hot in the back of this patrol car!"

 

[minor4th]

I FOR REAL FORGOT!!!

This weekend we grabbed an extra hour of sleep as we “fell back” into Standard Time and longer nights.

Daylight Saving Time ended at 2 a.m. Sunday, Nov. 6, which means you should have turned your old-school clocks back before you went to bed Saturday night, Nov. 5.

Is that why I'm so tired tonight? It's only 9:00 but it feels like 10:00?

 

[pocketaccent]

I've had some time to reflect on my earlier prediction that RH will be found not guilty of murder. Of course, that's still a *very real* possibility but I don't think I'm giving the jury enough credit. I'm a bit jaded after the Casey Anthony verdict BUT sometimes I forget that for one Casey Anthony there are a dozen Susan Smiths.‎‎

‎Dudes like , they cheat, they lie. They might even complain & say they hate being married & need a break from their kid, but get real peeps! It doesn't mean they actually want to be divorced or without kids. So, like, DUH!

Clicking on 'child free anything' doesn't mean he actually, yanno, wanted to BE child free or anything. Furthermore, stumbling on 'hot car death of any breathing organism' certainly doesn't mean he wanted his kid to die in a hot car. I mean 'cmon! I'd hate to think what they'd find in MY search history. I once researched why my female dog humps my arm and I wound up trolling a beastality forum (true story.) WELL... I can promise you that's no fetish of mine!
‎
Having repeated discussions about 'hot car deaths' so much so that it was an admitted fear of RH's could be just plain 'ole bad luck. Real, real bad luck. Like, REALLY BAAAD. You know what they say, sometimes people create their own worst fears!‎

He could have forgotten to take his toddler to day care after a 40 second car ride. Never mind having JUST eaten breakfast with the little fella. Not probable but indeed not statistically impossible. I mean, I once bought a box of chocolate covered strawberries, drove home, left them in the car and 8 hours later they were beyond salvagable. TOTALLY RUINED. Either way, 40 seconds or 40 miles, what's the difference?!‎ You need to look at the BIG PICTURE. When taken in context there's absolutely NO difference between chocolates and children. NONE. ‎

He could have overlooked his child in the car at lunch (one step above completely impossible but that step is nothing short of a MOUNTAIN of possibility.) After all, not like he was expecting him to be IN the car. So tired of having to state THE OBVIOUS. ‎
‎
Amid the distinct & unmistakable odor of death, he could have, I don't know? just not smelled ANTHING UNUSUAL? He could have even failed to detect his son's stiff corpse while driving IN the stench filled car. Okay, okay, FULL DISCLOSURE: Statistics on this one have to be at MINUS-MINUS-0%-AS-IN-ZERO-PERCENT, but whatever. As far as I know there's nothing in the Universal Book of Absolutes stating it's humanly IMpossible, so THERE!

By the way and FYI--> Rear facing cars eats aren't *ALWAYS* a good thing. They CAN make you instantly forget you have a baby in one. And I mean instantly as in the blink of an evil eye. This isn't hyperbole, folks. Time to demand warning labels, flashing lights and sirens. IMMEDIATE CALL TO ACTION.
‎
After dragging his dead toddler in full rigor out of the car and onto the scalding hot asphalt, some observers found his overall behavior to be somewhat suspicious...but not ALL observers. Keyword is ALL, folks. A-L-L. SPELL IT!‎

I mean the list goes on and on but you get the gist.

Any one of these things is indeed possible, some things like infidelity are commonplace and really have no bearing on whether someone would kill their baby. Other things listed have happened before, it's not like this is the first time a child has died in a hot car.

But after giving the guy a pass a half dozen times, the picture just doesn't get any clearer. The only conclusion one can *reasonably* draw is that the man intended, with malice and a depraved heart, to kill his baby.

It's just not humanly possible to rationalize RH's behavior in the weeks leading up to the events of June 18th, but even if I could I'm still left with trying to justify that fateful day as little more than coincidental, perpetually missed happenstance. The totality of it all is just too much to overcome. Too, too much.

True, there is no smoking gun. A gun is helpful but not critical to a successful procesuction. The evidence presented in this case is pretty much based on what we know about human behavior, abnormal human behavior, motive, character, etc. Yes, the state has the burden and it's a MAJOR one - as it should be. But people HAVE been convicted on far less (sometimes even decades after a crime.)‎
‎
So, with all that said I am upping my odds to 80/20 in favor of guilty of malice murder.‎

All the above is MOO.
**

Since I know which side you are on, I was like 'Wha?, 'Huh?', 'he/she changed the side?', then when I got to the chocolate covered strawberry part, I got the gist.

I smelled a little bit of Juan Martinez in you.
I can picture him carrying on like that as you did, then get to his point. BAM!!!

 

[minor4th]

Sorry, I'm still not seeing how any or all of these "coincidences" or "abnormalities" that people keep pointing to in any way add up to murder.

Can someone of the belief that the State has proven premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt please lay out the case for me? Tell me which pieces of evidence paint that picture so clearly that you think it is "unreasonable" to conclude that Ross forgot Cooper that day.

TIA.

 

[justkk]

I'm glad that Websleuths allows all opinions in these case's and not just the majority. I've been with the majority on some cases here and in the minority on others. It is much easier to post with the majority than with the minority.

I call them how I see them is all I can say. JMO

I too am glad - it sure wouldn't be very interesting to only read comments from people who believed exactly as we do! I have learned so much here, and often by people who are of different opinions than mine!
I was simply responding to a post that said something like "I don't think the recordings of RH sound suspicious or bizarre to MOST people who don't already believe he is guilty" and "his behavior was exactly like EVERY other parent who has killed their child this way"
So please do not misinterpret what I said to say that I only think the majority opinion is what matters. I don't. And I believe that we all end up in the minority depending on the case.
I also started my post by saying that I respectfully disagree. Because I don't agree with the particular post, but I respect the poster
JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Paige SC]

Watching the police interrogation tape again is illuminating. First, I note how casually Ross talks about himself as he is being frisked. Sorry, I didn't hear or read about one of the other parents acting this way. He says he worked for the police department, calm, conversational tone, as a dispatcher. He then says his job is going "great". Enthusiastic tone. Then, "I like my job." And he is a guitar player, "I'm the lead guitar player at [unintelligible]." Casual, calm tone. Around minute 27.

[video=youtube;vOkKqENIBww]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOkKqENIBww[/video]

But it's at 1:23:15, where he starts talking about his knowledge of FBS and how to prevent it, the dangers, etc. To me, it is clear that he is trying to get the detectives to associate his case with the case he just saw on the news, trying to explain it away. Sort of like: "I'm a good, concerned dad. I would never do something like that. But there was this news report and it happens." The context right before he made these statements was he was asked how he thinks this happened and was asked to explain how it happened and he started talking about how going into CFA with his son was different 'I never go into CFA" and how he just failed to turn to daycare and his mind just made him keep going. That's when he brings up this other case and the vet video. I think like many criminals he is not that bright:

"I would never leave him in the car. I just watched news reports, there was a news report of a guy who did this, just like me. And now he's an advocate for when you park, you turn around and look again and I've been doing that because the worst fear of my..for me is to leave my son in a hot cart. And then recently I saw a vet on the internet who said even if you have your windows rolled down and regardless, I;m going to show you how hot it can get in the car, if you think you can just leave your pets in the car, roll your windows down down, 5 minutes, you can't do that. And I watched that and [unintelligible] it would be terrible if my son were in the car, and I would hate that. When I was working for Cumberland Police, we had a canine officer leave his dog in the car, for 10 minutes...[his tone here is, to me, one used when someone is explaining to someone, step, by step, exactly how something simple works] um and dog died of heat exhaustion immediately upon [unintelligible] black suburban. Um, so that happened. [Explaining how this occurs]. I;m aware. I just can't believe... [incredulous tone. Wonderment. Not grief, anger or shock]."

http://lawnewz.com/video/watch-justin-ross-harris-police-interview-played-in-court/

Translation: "So, FUNNY THING. And it's almost like super ironic and stuff but not really. I heard on the news about a child who died in a car, which really flipped me out because the child's dad was SO my doppelganger! And like, I thought what a bummer that would be if it happened to my kid because it's my worst fear. Very worst! But the dad became this super hero advocate so that's pretty cool. Then see, then I watched a video from a vet who was talking about the dangers of leaving pets in a car. For real, I had no idea how quickly temps rise in vehicles. NONE! I mean it's sorta common sense but in the abstract, not really? So the video was really informative and helpful and I again thought how horrible it would be if that happened to my son because I know I'd never leave my DOG in there. HELLO?! Because like I told you it's my worst fear. Oh, yeah, did I mention I used to work in law enforcement? Not to name drop or anything but I am. Anyway they had a dog die of this very thing. Which reminds me, I can't believe I just baked my kid to death in a car!! He was crispy, like crunchy crispy! mean, WOW. Unbelievable, huh? I'm getting hungry, can one of the detectives bring me a sammich?"‎

 

[katydid23]

During direct or maybe re-direct he said he did not see anything of what he knew of Ross' entire day that would have served as an effective, direct memory cue because Ross believed he had taken Cooper to day care. He didn't know he forgot! So all the indirect cues like pictures on his desk, email from day care, talking about Cooper ...those are all things that are there whether or not he took Cooper to day care, so they are not going to alert him that he forgot. There were no direct cues to signal that something wasn't right - like the day care calling and asking why Cooper wasn't there, or seeing or hearing Cooper at lunch time when he opened the door.

I don't think they have been very convincing about his supposed 'false memory.' I do not remember hearing any testimony from Ross than he had a clear and convincing 'memory' of dropping off the baby that day. In the previous cases I read bout, the defendants testified about intricate specific details that they remembered---like greeting the teacher, signing into the parent log, etc.

All I remember of Ross's claim is one quick moment in the interview video, where he tells LH that he 'thought he dropped her off.' I think it is going to take more than that to convince the jury.

Also, in a couple of the FBS cases, parents did suddenly remember, after seeing memory cues. In the baby Ray Ray case, a fatherr was at work and his wife came to meet him for lunch. They were driving to the restaurant and she began talking about their child, and their day care teacher----the father suddenly became distressed and screamed for her to drive quickly back to the office--and he called his boss and begged him to run to the man's car. He had suddenly remembered that he had not dropped her off.

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/for...nts-nightmare-hot-car-death/story?id=40431117

Amidst the couple's conversation, Reeves pulled into a restaurant parking lot. She said she had noticed how quiet her husband became when they began talking about their daughter.

"I didn't even get the car turned off and he said, 'Just go back to the office. Please go back to the office immediately.'" Reeves recalled. "I thought he had forgotten something and I said, 'OK, whatever.' I turned the car around got to the red light and he said, 'Run the light.'"

"I asked him, 'What's going on?' and then he told me: 'I can't remember dropping Ray Ray at day care this morning.'"

 

[katydid23]

BBM. If you ascribe to this theory, then you cannot then attach to the idea that any of his texting was done in a permanent sense. Nor could you buy that the red-haired girl with apparent emotional issues (name escapes me atm) was motive for wanting to be child free. He was obviously willing to say anything to get laid. His conversation tailored to each new candidate. That is one of the problems in this case. There has been no solid evidence that he was looking for a drastic change. He already was sexting, having sex on the side, plus appearing to live a "normal" life, which was also important to him. I don't see compelling evidence that proves he wanted to rock his world to this extreme.

One thing that stands out to me, about him 'expecting' a drastic change, is that he appeared to be doing nothing to protect his well paying, steady job.

My husband has a very similar job---salary position, flexible hours, working on teams on group projects, etc ... One thing I know from experience is that an employee in this kind of situation has to respond to any criticism made by their team leaders about unfinished work, or ducking out of progress meetings. My husband likes to work from home a lot and he gets a lot of work done here where he can concentrate. But he had a new supervisor one year that unlike his previous boss, frowned upon that and implied he was not doing as much as the others in his group.

Did he respond to the supervisor by coming in late, leaving for lunch and ducking out early? No, because if he had then he would have not been given a new contract. Instead, he began going in earlier than usual, and being more vocal in the team meetings. He was still doing the same amount of work as always, because ehe never was slacking off. But he realized that this new guy needed to see his face more. DH did not want to lose his job as he was supporting this family.

So it makes me very suspicious of Ross, that he sends a midnight email telling his boss that he failed to complete his project---and then goes out for a late breakfast with Cooper, makes movie plans, leaves early etc. IF he had wanted to keep that job, he would not have done any of those things. He would haver gone in early, reached out for some help in completing his unfinished work, stayed in for lunch to get some of it done. I think he knew the writing was on the wall that day.

And when he was told he was the new team leader on the next project, I think he knew he was on the way out. As my husband said, when I asked about that----if you are doing well on the job, and they ask you to be the team leader on next project, that is GREAT. IF you have not been doing well, and they ask you to be team leader, not so great. That is how they get the official written record of how you are doing on the job. Everything the team leader does or doesn't do, is written down, documented, and all that.


PS-- I KNOW people say that he went in later because his early am meeting was postponed. But in this kind of group work project situation, that does not matter, Ross was expected to do a certain specific task, and he had just admitted he failed. So he should have been seen at work, sitting and trying to figure it out---and asking for help if need be. It would have been the perfect time to do so since the meeting was postponed. jmo

 

[Hope4More]

I'm glad that Websleuths allows all opinions in these case's and not just the majority. I've been with the majority on some cases here and in the minority on others. It is much easier to post with the majority than with the minority.

I call them how I see them is all I can say. JMO

And glad you do. Meh the majority anywhere about anything if it doesn't reflect your own considered opinion, and less respect still if expressing a differing opinion is a cause for consternation and bad will.

 

[minor4th]

But, Katie, the defense does not have to convince the jury - they merely have to raise the doubt.

Yes, Ross said he thought he took Cooper to day care. "I swore I did." That fits the overall pattern of parents who mistakenly believe their kids are safely at day care, whether they have a specific memory of it or not.

 

[gitana1]

I FOR REAL FORGOT!!!

This weekend we grabbed an extra hour of sleep as we “fell back” into Standard Time and longer nights.

Daylight Saving Time ended at 2 a.m. Sunday, Nov. 6, which means you should have turned your old-school clocks back before you went to bed Saturday night, Nov. 5.

Ha ha!!

 

[SuperTmo]

Ross stated he actually DID do something to prevent it from happening, after watching what appeared to be a news report about the look back campaign. He actually talked about FBS and the man whose son died who became an advocate, and that he began looking again in response to that recent news report. But suddenly he just forgot to be concerned? or use the technique?
Worse

I hope the jurors caught this. How ironic...the time he forgets to double check the backseat for the baby, he also forgot to drop Cooper off at daycare. What are the odds. I just can't figure out how to explain away all of these coincidences.

Either he intentionally left Cooper or the universe took a colossal dump on RH that day.

 

[gitana1]

Sorry, I'm still not seeing how any or all of these "coincidences" or "abnormalities" that people keep pointing to in any way add up to murder.

Can someone of the belief that the State has proven premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt please lay out the case for me? Tell me which pieces of evidence paint that picture so clearly that you think it is "unreasonable" to conclude that Ross forgot Cooper that day.

TIA.

Because I think or some of us they rule out forgetting. As a whole.

 

[Hope4More]

Translation: "So, FUNNY THING. And it's almost like super ironic and stuff but not really. I heard on the news about a child who died in a car, which really flipped me out because the child's dad was SO my doppelganger! And like, I thought what a bummer that would be if it happened to my kid because it's my worst fear. Very worst! But the dad became this super hero advocate so that's pretty cool. Then see, then I watched a video from a vet who was talking about the dangers of leaving pets in a car. For real, I had no idea how quickly temps rise in vehicles. NONE! I mean it's sorta common sense but in the abstract, not really? So the video was really informative and helpful and I again thought how horrible it would be if that happened to my son because I know I'd never leave my DOG in there. HELLO?! Because like I told you it's my worst fear. Oh, yeah, did I mention I used to work in law enforcement? Not to name drop or anything but I am. Anyway they had a dog die of this very thing. Which reminds me, I can't believe I just baked my kid to death in a car!! He was crispy, like crunchy crispy! mean, WOW. Unbelievable, huh? I'm getting hungry, can one of the detectives bring me a sammich?"‎

Speaking of a dead child like this is nauseating, no matter what view one has on his father's guilt.

 

[Paige SC]

Speaking of a dead child like this is nauseating, no matter what view one has on his father's guilt.

Sorry, but that's EXACTLY how I interpret his demeanor and his hollow emotional state. It's how I believe he viewed his dead child, especially after checking on his 'progress' at lunch.

 

[GA_Peach]

I hope the jurors caught this. How ironic...the time he forgets to double check the backseat for the baby, he also forgot to drop Cooper off at daycare. What are the odds. I just can't figure out how to explain away all of these coincidences.

Either he intentionally left Cooper or the universe took a colossal dump on RH that day.

BBM

It's also the same day that Ross forgot taking Cooper to breakfast right after he did it.

I have sat down a couple times to clearly outline all of the evidence against Ross, and each time I am overwhelmed by everything. There are so many moving parts and coincidences.

However it is extremely creepy that all of this simultaneous "forgetting" happens against the backdrop of this being Ross's biggest fear. Ross watched a video about dogs suffering in hot cars five days before Cooper's death, and for an inexplicable reason Ross says he would hate for Cooper to die like that. Five days later it comes to fruition, but not before Ross commiserates with a woman who needs a break from her role as wife and mother. That conversation occured at the same moment that Ross should have been turning to take Cooper to LAA. Lifetime could not make this up.

 

[gitana1]

But, Katie, the defense does not have to convince the jury - they merely have to raise the doubt.

Yes, Ross said he thought he took Cooper to day care. "I swore I did." That fits the overall pattern of parents who mistakenly believe their kids are safely at day care, whether they have a specific memory of it or not.

I think in this case the defense does actually have to convince many people. Because many people don't believe it is possible to forget your kid in the car like that at all. Unless you're either being totally neglectful due to drugs, alcohol, not caring/putting your needs over your kid's, or intended to do it. That's why arrests and charges are par for the course in these cases- society doesn't comprehend the possibility of FBS.

And that's where Dr. Diamond and his educating us comes in. Why are people taking for granted the fact that few of us believed FBS was at all possible until we began to read of the cases Dr. Diamond explains? I believe that almost all of us started from the position of incredulity and anger when we heard about such cases UNTIL we started reading articles featuring Dr. Diamond's research.

So, for many out there, it takes convincing that FBS is even a thing at all. Which is why experts are needed in these cases, on behalf of the defense. It kind of like when the world was immediately appalled and mostly felt casey anthony probably murdered her kid due to her behavior afterward. It took a grief expert to testify to give a plausible excuse for the jury for her behavior in partying, etc., in order to convince the jury, I think.

No. This is not a case of the state having to prove he didn't kill Cooper on purpose. It's a case, IMO, of proving that there is an alternate explanation that, in the absence of drugs, alcohol or other obvious neglect, rules out murder. And I'm not saying that's how it is supposed to be per the laws of the state. I just think that's the actual reality.