I believe the police have overstated the evidence in this case, for example saying Harris searched for “hot car death” when that wasn’t the case.
Kilgore also said that there was no evidence that Ross was searching on the internet for things like how long does it take for a child to die a hot car. Kilgore contends that police lied in their sworn statements when they accused Harris of these questionable searches.
That makes me suspect they don’t have anything solid. And it’s a strange and implausible way to murder your son, plus by all accounts he loved his son dearly.
I watched opening statements, and found the defense case to be convincing provided the evidence supports what was said, the State’s case unconvincing ( see discussion here ).
One thing to take into account is that these days some people will view a vast amount of material online on a huge number of topics over a long period of time. To be frank I think that if you did a similar analysis on any number of people’s devices, you would come up with a few “suspicious” things relating to almost any accusation. Unless the prosecution can show not only that various random topics (such as “child free”, a hot car info video) were accessed over a long period of time, but there was some pattern of planning, or incriminating things Harris actually said (typed, rather than reading ), there is no probative value.
It’s cherry picking evidence at it’s finest, and a new development over the last few years as disk storage capacity has increased massively. I think it should be ruled as irrelevant and inadmissible.
Still a long way to go in the trial, my opinion could change, but I am unconvinced so far by the State’s case, and there is at least reasonable doubt so far.