This is terribly self-centered of me, but I just got home from work and I need to pick up a herd of kids from soccer soon and put food into them, so please, forgive me. I haven't seen any trial coverage for today, and I haven't read any of your comments or analysis today, either. I promise I will, though.
This little item is making me slightly obsessed, however, and I need to comment before I read back through whatever transpired today in the courtroom.
My obsession is the text saying, "When are you going to pick up my buddy?" or something similar. I've mentioned it before, but I'd never have an exchange like that with my husband. "Don't forget to pick up my buddy," or "Say hi to my buddy," maybe. I kind of don't give a rip exactly when my husband is picking my kids up, provided he doesn't forget to pick them up and we don't pay the late pick up fee. He knows I know when to pick them up, and I am more likely to remind him when he needs to pick them up. I understand that this division of responsibility is not necessarily the same in all marriages. However, Ross was going to a movie, so when his wife picks Cooper up is of no consequence to him at all. This text makes me think that he NEEDS to know when she'll be there so that he'll time his departure/the discovery accordingly. It fits well with him needing to leave extra early for the movie (they already have the tickets, and he has mentioned that he'll be late, if I recall correctly... so why is he leaving so early?) and with his obsession with speaking with the daycare before she gets there. He doesn't seem to want to talk to her on her phone- he wants a 3rd party to deliver the news. It also fits with the theory that he aborted a lunchtime discovery because his friends did not linger long enough or that, maybe, he parked where he hoped a stranger might make the discovery during the work day or why he pulls into a busy parking lot- he wants to distance himself or insert other people into the uncovering of the incident. Or, he completely forgot his child in the car, and these are just things that happened that day coincidentally. I understand that this is wholly conjecture.
To be fair, the defense has done well so far (particularly the opening statement) and I think I could still be persuaded that he is innocent. That said, I still can't find good reason for him to pose this question and it seems purposeful to me. I'm not a big texter, though, and every communication with my husband during my work day is about serious family schedule issues or "We're out of toilet paper!" kind of dilemmas we need to solve urgently, in spite of being very busy at work. Ross seems to have a far more casual relationship with the content on his devices and the frequency of his texts.
Thanks for indulging my need to blurt before catching up! Feel free to tell me I've gone off the deep end. That is what happens when I'm deprived of legit trial coverage for the day.