Is there anyone that believes Ross is innocent?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think he should have been found not guilty of malice murder at least. I think there is a real double standard here in the way he was treated and the way other parents who also left their kid in a hot car have been treated. And I just don't think there was any decent evidence that he premeditated it.

I can see how the jury found him guilty though, because I only came to this conclusion after reading up on loads of cases of children forgotten in hot cars... I don't see RH's case as being different to them. Things that seemed to point to his guilt (eg driving around with he dead child before suddenly "noticing" them), other parents also did. Dr Diamond was unfortunately not called to explain that forgetting can happen in an instant and memory cues can fail to work. The grief expert was also not called.

I have just been following the Warriena Wright case In Australia. It reminded me of this one in that the alleged perp was a very unlikeable character, he said things that could be interpreted as pointing to premeditation, and he acted strangley and with a lack of remorse after WW fell from his balcony. However, the judge didn't allow evidence of previous bad character to be admitted, and he instructed the jury to disregard everything that the alleged perp did after the death (failing to call an ambulance or check on the deceased, calling his lawyer less than a minute after she fell from his balcony, fleeing his apartment and going to eat pizza). And he was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter. I feel that RH might have been found not guilty if evidence of his sexting had been severed, and if his actions after Cooper's death (the fake-looking anguish and the comments in the police interview) had been disregarded. In the WW case, the alleged perp did not speak to LE at all. He contacted his lawyer immediately. Whereas RH tried to talk his way out of trouble - bad, bad, bad idea on RH's part as it just made him look more guilty.

All just MOO. :moo:
 
Rayemonde said:
I think he should have been found not guilty of malice murder at least. I think there is a real double standard here in the way he was treated and the way other parents who also left their kid in a hot car have been treated. And I just don't think there was any decent evidence that he premeditated it.

I can see how the jury found him guilty though, because I only came to this conclusion after reading up on loads of cases of children forgotten in hot cars... I don't see RH's case as being different to them. Things that seemed to point to his guilt (eg driving around with he dead child before suddenly "noticing" them), other parents also did. Dr Diamond was unfortunately not called to explain that forgetting can happen in an instant and memory cues can fail to work. The grief expert was also not called.

I have just been following the Warriena Wright case In Australia. It reminded me of this one in that the alleged perp was a very unlikeable character, he said things that could be interpreted as pointing to premeditation, and he acted strangley and with a lack of remorse after WW fell from his balcony. However, the judge didn't allow evidence of previous bad character to be admitted, and he instructed the jury to disregard everything that the alleged perp did after the death (failing to call an ambulance or check on the deceased, calling his lawyer less than a minute after she fell from his balcony, fleeing his apartment and going to eat pizza). And he was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter. I feel that RH might have been found not guilty if evidence of his sexting had been severed, and if his actions after Cooper's death (the fake-looking anguish and the comments in the police interview) had been disregarded. In the WW case, the alleged perp did not speak to LE at all. He contacted his lawyer immediately. Whereas RH tried to talk his way out of trouble - bad, bad, bad idea on RH's part as it just made him look more guilty.

All just MOO. :moo:
Click to expand...

No one would be convicted if you throw out all the evidence...lol. Actions after the crime are circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. Guess what? Don't want your actions laid in front of a jury after your child dies? Don't fail to call an ambulance, go ahead and call your lawyer, and by all means go to eat pizza. GAWD.

RH chose all of his actions and those are allowed, in most cases, to be considered by a jury. I find it amusing that people who want those out here are delighted when they are in cases where they think the defendant is guilty (Arias).
 
Rayemonde said:
I think he should have been found not guilty of malice murder at least. I think there is a real double standard here in the way he was treated and the way other parents who also left their kid in a hot car have been treated. And I just don't think there was any decent evidence that he premeditated it.

I can see how the jury found him guilty though, because I only came to this conclusion after reading up on loads of cases of children forgotten in hot cars... I don't see RH's case as being different to them. Things that seemed to point to his guilt (eg driving around with he dead child before suddenly "noticing" them), other parents also did. Dr Diamond was unfortunately not called to explain that forgetting can happen in an instant and memory cues can fail to work. The grief expert was also not called.

I have just been following the Warriena Wright case In Australia. It reminded me of this one in that the alleged perp was a very unlikeable character, he said things that could be interpreted as pointing to premeditation, and he acted strangley and with a lack of remorse after WW fell from his balcony. However, the judge didn't allow evidence of previous bad character to be admitted, and he instructed the jury to disregard everything that the alleged perp did after the death (failing to call an ambulance or check on the deceased, calling his lawyer less than a minute after she fell from his balcony, fleeing his apartment and going to eat pizza). And he was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter. I feel that RH might have been found not guilty if evidence of his sexting had been severed, and if his actions after Cooper's death (the fake-looking anguish and the comments in the police interview) had been disregarded. In the WW case, the alleged perp did not speak to LE at all. He contacted his lawyer immediately. Whereas RH tried to talk his way out of trouble - bad, bad, bad idea on RH's part as it just made him look more guilty.

All just MOO. :moo:
Click to expand...


Yep. It was a really bad mistake by RH not to invoke. He'd even posted on Reddit advising others that LE begins collecting evidence from the very git go, and to assume LE is doing just that.

I'm guessing what you meant wasn't that the his statements to LE should have been excluded as evidence, but that the jury assigned too much significance to his protestations he was a mindful dad that AM and that he knew to fear hot car deaths?

I agree with you that the minors charges tainted the jury. Couldn't help but do that, which is why the State insisted they not be severed.
 
IfIMay said:
No one would be convicted if you throw out all the evidence...lol..
Click to expand...

Yeah, guilty-looking behaviour after a crime shouldn't be *all* the evidence, though. Or even a large part of it. It's too prejudicial... Just look at how many people still think that Cooper's mother was somehow in on his murder, just because she acted strangely after he died (talking about having more kids, not asking to see the body, not crying, not buying a headstone etc). Strange behaviour after a death is definitely cause for LE to suspect you and look for more evidence, but in itself it's not strong evidence of guilt. But it's extremely prejudicial against the suspect. MOO.

RH chose all of his actions and those are allowed, in most cases, to be considered by a jury. I find it amusing that people who want those out here are delighted when they are in cases where they think the defendant is guilty (Arias).
Click to expand...

In the Arias case, of course, there was a lot more evidence than just her strange behaviour and lack of grief after Travis' death. There were photos showing she was there, a photo of her dragging the body, a hair and DNA putting her at the scene, witnesses who said the saw her leave the house, the stolen gun, the rental car, and of course her own eventual confession before the trial (although she still claimed it was self-defence), etc etc. You could have thrown out the evidence of her strange behaviour (headstands in the police station, unbelievable stories about ninjas etc) and lack of genuine grief after Travis' murder and still found her guilty.

The RH case is a difficult one because he's not denying he was there and that he admits that he caused Cooper's death, it's just that he says it was unintentional. It's very difficult to prove what was going on inside someone's mind and what their intention at the time was, and I don't think the prosecution did prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Rayemonde said:
Yeah, guilty-looking behaviour after a crime shouldn't be *all* the evidence, though. Or even a large part of it. It's too prejudicial... Just look at how many people still think that Cooper's mother was somehow in on his murder, just because she acted strangely after he died (talking about having more kids, not asking to see the body, not crying, not buying a headstone etc). Strange behaviour after a death is definitely cause for LE to suspect you and look for more evidence, but in itself it's not strong evidence of guilt. But it's extremely prejudicial against the suspect. MOO.



In the Arias case, of course, there was a lot more evidence than just her strange behaviour and lack of grief after Travis' death. There were photos showing she was there, a photo of her dragging the body, a hair and DNA putting her at the scene, witnesses who said the saw her leave the house, the stolen gun, the rental car, and of course her own eventual confession before the trial (although she still claimed it was self-defence), etc etc. You could have thrown out the evidence of her strange behaviour (headstands in the police station, unbelievable stories about ninjas etc) and lack of genuine grief after Travis' murder and still found her guilty.

The RH case is a difficult one because he's not denying he was there and that he admits that he caused Cooper's death, it's just that he says it was unintentional. It's very difficult to prove what was going on inside someone's mind and what their intention at the time was, and I don't think the prosecution did prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
BBM. That's the very reason I believe Ross chose this method to kill his son, because it is so difficult to prove. It's murder made to look like an accident, and it would have also gotten him the life-insurance if it was ruled as an accident, and it was a very passive way of killing- no hands on.
 
Sorry Lin, will have to disagree. Ross is not, in my opinion, particularly attuned to peripheral activities. He seems more into himself. I believe this was an accidental death. One of negligence no doubt, but not intentional. He lives for the moment; not a lot of planning, more adolescent dreaming. I respect the jury's decision. Again, offered as my opinion.
 
Jamais said:
Sorry Lin, will have to disagree. Ross is not, in my opinion, particularly attuned to peripheral activities. He seems more into himself. I believe this was an accidental death. One of negligence no doubt, but not intentional. He lives for the moment; not a lot of planning, more adolescent dreaming. I respect the jury's decision. Again, offered as my opinion.
Click to expand...
Being "into himself" is why I believe he killed his kid. Selfish narcissist parent in the same vein as Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony, Susan Smith, Darlie Routier...
 
Rayemonde said:
I think he should have been found not guilty of malice murder at least. I think there is a real double standard here in the way he was treated and the way other parents who also left their kid in a hot car have been treated. And I just don't think there was any decent evidence that he premeditated it.

I can see how the jury found him guilty though, because I only came to this conclusion after reading up on loads of cases of children forgotten in hot cars... I don't see RH's case as being different to them. Things that seemed to point to his guilt (eg driving around with he dead child before suddenly "noticing" them), other parents also did. Dr Diamond was unfortunately not called to explain that forgetting can happen in an instant and memory cues can fail to work. The grief expert was also not called.

I have just been following the Warriena Wright case In Australia. It reminded me of this one in that the alleged perp was a very unlikeable character, he said things that could be interpreted as pointing to premeditation, and he acted strangley and with a lack of remorse after WW fell from his balcony. However, the judge didn't allow evidence of previous bad character to be admitted, and he instructed the jury to disregard everything that the alleged perp did after the death (failing to call an ambulance or check on the deceased, calling his lawyer less than a minute after she fell from his balcony, fleeing his apartment and going to eat pizza). And he was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter. I feel that RH might have been found not guilty if evidence of his sexting had been severed, and if his actions after Cooper's death (the fake-looking anguish and the comments in the police interview) had been disregarded. In the WW case, the alleged perp did not speak to LE at all. He contacted his lawyer immediately. Whereas RH tried to talk his way out of trouble - bad, bad, bad idea on RH's part as it just made him look more guilty.

All just MOO. :moo:
Click to expand...

Dr.Diamond could not be called because Ross's actions do not mesh with Diamond's theories on how a parent can forget their child in such a situation. His work is easy to find online and the prosecution would have sunk the defense using Diamond's own words in about five seconds.

In an academic piece Diamond wrote he gave a benign example of what can happen when the basal ganglia dominates the HC-PFC. That example was forgetting to go to the grocery store on the way home from work. Ross's ability to remember the light bulbs and notify people of his movie plans suggests he wasn't the victim of his basal ganglia that day. Or in other words it was a day full of unique happenings and the only thing Ross "forgot" was his son.

The other situation where Diamond believes a child can be forgotten is when there is a sudden extremely stressful event or crisis which wasn't the case on the day Cooper died.

In the Naramore case where Diamond did testify the situation did meet Diamond's criteria as the morning routine was altered with the father's stress being an additional factor.

I'd also like to add that based on Diamond's own words all signs point to Diamond believing Ross is guilty. He isn't the sort of expert who will willingly allow a guilty person to use his work and reputation to escape justice. Diamond is only interested in helping people he believes are innocent. During the Naramore trial he explained that in order for him to look into a case he gets $5,000 up front to investigate.Once he investigates he then gets another $5,000 and if he thinks it was an accident he will testify. Given his success helping the Naramore defense team it is safe to say Diamond declined to testify as opposed to the defense not choosing to call him.
 
leelee114 said:
Dr.Diamond could not be called because Ross's actions do not mesh with Diamond's theories on how a parent can forget their child in such a situation. His work is easy to find online and the prosecution would have sunk the defense using Diamond's own words in about five seconds.

In an academic piece Diamond wrote he gave a benign example of what can happen when the basal ganglia dominates the HC-PFC. That example was forgetting to go to the grocery store on the way home from work. Ross's ability to remember the light bulbs and notify people of his movie plans suggests he wasn't the victim of his basal ganglia that day. Or in other words it was a day full of unique happenings and the only thing Ross "forgot" was his son.

The other situation where Diamond believes a child can be forgotten is when there is a sudden extremely stressful event or crisis which wasn't the case on the day Cooper died.

In the Naramore case where Diamond did testify the situation did meet Diamond's criteria as the morning routine was altered with the father's stress being an additional factor.

I'd also like to add that based on Diamond's own words all signs point to Diamond believing Ross is guilty. He isn't the sort of expert who will willingly allow a guilty person to use his work and reputation to escape justice. Diamond is only interested in helping people he believes are innocent. During the Naramore trial he explained that in order for him to look into a case he gets $5,000 up front to investigate.Once he investigates he then gets another $5,000 and if he thinks it was an accident he will testify. Given his success helping the Naramore defense team it is safe to say Diamond declined to testify as opposed to the defense not choosing to call him.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, we don't know why Dr. Diamond didn't testify, or whose decision it was that he didn't.

Dr. Diamond agreed to interview RH knowing about how short the forgetting timeframe was, and knowing that Ross had broken the law by sexting with minors, assuredly making RH the most repellant man he'd ever been called upon to defend.

From pre-trial hearings, opening statements, and the fact the DT handed over Dr. Diamond's notes on the first day of trial, it very much appears the DT originally planned on calling Diamond.

It would have been more damaging to Diamond's credibility as an expert witness to have him commit to testify, only to back out at the last minute. And, the only relevant "new" knowledge Diamond could have had after trial began was Leanna's testimony on the stand; he would have known the basic facts of RH case for many months, yet apparently was willing to testify when trial began.

A better guess (since that's all that is possible to do) about what Dr. Diamond believes is that Diamond thinks Cooper's death was an accident.

(And BTW, Diamond believes sleep deprivation [check] and stress [check, and, Diamond doesn't in fact say the stress has to be sudden] can cause FBS, when a change in routine is factored in as well).
 
leelee114 said:
Dr.Diamond could not be called because Ross's actions do not mesh with Diamond's theories on how a parent can forget their child in such a situation. His work is easy to find online and the prosecution would have sunk the defense using Diamond's own words in about five seconds.

In an academic piece Diamond wrote he gave a benign example of what can happen when the basal ganglia dominates the HC-PFC. That example was forgetting to go to the grocery store on the way home from work. Ross's ability to remember the light bulbs and notify people of his movie plans suggests he wasn't the victim of his basal ganglia that day. Or in other words it was a day full of unique happenings and the only thing Ross "forgot" was his son.

The other situation where Diamond believes a child can be forgotten is when there is a sudden extremely stressful event or crisis which wasn't the case on the day Cooper died.

In the Naramore case where Diamond did testify the situation did meet Diamond's criteria as the morning routine was altered with the father's stress being an additional factor.

I'd also like to add that based on Diamond's own words all signs point to Diamond believing Ross is guilty. He isn't the sort of expert who will willingly allow a guilty person to use his work and reputation to escape justice. Diamond is only interested in helping people he believes are innocent. During the Naramore trial he explained that in order for him to look into a case he gets $5,000 up front to investigate.Once he investigates he then gets another $5,000 and if he thinks it was an accident he will testify. Given his success helping the Naramore defense team it is safe to say Diamond declined to testify as opposed to the defense not choosing to call him.
Click to expand...

Yep. After meeting with Ross the leading expert on FBS was never called to testify for him.
 
Hope4More said:
With all due respect, we don't know why Dr. Diamond didn't testify, or whose decision it was that he didn't.

Dr. Diamond agreed to interview RH knowing about how short the forgetting timeframe was, and knowing that Ross had broken the law by sexting with minors, assuredly making RH the most repellant man he'd ever been called upon to defend.

From pre-trial hearings, opening statements, and the fact the DT handed over Dr. Diamond's notes on the first day of trial, it very much appears the DT originally planned on calling Diamond.

It would have been more damaging to Diamond's credibility as an expert witness to have him commit to testify, only to back out at the last minute. And, the only relevant "new" knowledge Diamond could have had after trial began was Leanna's testimony on the stand; he would have known the basic facts of RH case for many months, yet apparently was willing to testify when trial began.

A better guess (since that's all that is possible to do) about what Dr. Diamond believes is that Diamond thinks Cooper's death was an accident.

(And BTW, Diamond believes sleep deprivation [check] and stress [check, and, Diamond doesn't in fact say the stress has to be sudden] can cause FBS, when a change in routine is factored in as well).
Click to expand...

BBM. Better to back out and save your reputation than experts whose credibility have been shot on the stand- one notable example in Scott Peterson's trial- the guy who said you could tell when Lacy ovulated based on a baby-shower??? Another was a guy who was convicted in the Long Beach CA area of strangling a woman he had dated. The expert was supposed to be his alibi- that he was sailing at night at the time of her murder, only the expert gave the wind conditions for Baja, CA- not Long Beach!!!
Or... good old Alice LaViolette the DV supposed expert in Jodi Arias's trial who believed Snow White- a fictional character- was abused and clearly showed her bias.
 
"Prosecutors in the case said that Harris wanted to kill his child and use the hot car as a weapon," said neuroscientist David Diamond, a professor of psychology at the University of South Florida who has spent 12 years studying fatal memory errors and forgotten children and has testified as an expert in criminal and civil trials.

"I do accept the possibility that any parent might want to harm a child. That's why they had to investigate the case."
...


Most parents in hot-car deaths were doing routine errands the day their child died, said Diamond, the psychology professor. But Harris' illicit behavior with other women led authorities -- and maybe jurors -- to view him as more culpable, he said.

"In this case the 'double life' aspect was used by the prosecution to arouse suspicion as to his motives for leaving his child in the car," Diamond said...


Diamond said the evidence suggests Harris may have just suffered a lapse in memory.

"People want to categorize leaving a child in a car as different from all the other memory failures, but I say that is incorrect, " Diamond added. "There's a cruel twist to this, in my view. When a parent loses awareness, the brain creates a false memory... parents universally report when they exit the car they 100% believe their child is where it belongs, at home or daycare."...

My point of view is it's not a matter of irresponsible parents, it's a matter of having flawed memory systems," Diamond said.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...mpact/index.html?client=ms-android-sonymobile
 
August 2016:

memory expert David Diamond has interviewed Harris and believes he did not intentionally leave Cooper in the SUV. Diamond, who will be called as a defense witness at trial, has coined the term “Forgotten Baby Syndrome.”

Even though Diamond believes Harris did not intentionally leave Cooper in his car, he will not be able to give that opinion to the jury. Staley Clark ruled that such testimony is not allowed.
Click to expand...


http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local/judge-allows-jurors-to-see-harris-suv-in-hot-car-d/nsJWY/
 
The prosecution were trying to exclude Dr Diamond and the other defence expert from testifying earlier in the year. Is it possible that the judge decided at the last minute to do just that? Or would we have heard about it if that had happened?
 
Rayemonde said:
The prosecution were trying to exclude Dr Diamond and the other defence expert from testifying earlier in the year. Is it possible that the judge decided at the last minute to do just that? Or would we have heard about it if that had happened?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we would have heard about it. There were no sealed evidentiary hearings during this trial that I'm aware of.

Dr. Diamond thinks it was an accident. He was prepared to testify for the defense. The DT was at least considering having him testify when trial began, having fought to get his testimony in, and having turned over his notes to the State on the first day of trial.


Dr. Diamond didn't back out. The DT decided not to call him for whatever reason, perhaps including preserving one issue or another for appeals.

(The State tried to greatly limit both his and Dr. A's testimony pretrial. The core of what they tried to restrict Diamond from testifying to, directly or by inference, was his opinion that Cooper's death was accidental).
 
I just looked up the other expert who was due to testify but didn't. Dr. Bhushan Agharkar. In other cases, he has diagnosed the accused with mental illness or brain damage to explain their actions. I wonder what he concluded about RH - I know people earlier on the threads were speculating RH might have Asperger's Syndrome, or Attention Deficit Disorder, or mental problems from testosterone use, or simply Sex Addiction. I'd be really interested to know what the doctor thought.
 
Rayemonde said:
I just looked up the other expert who was due to testify but didn't. Dr. Bhushan Agharkar. In other cases, he has diagnosed the accused with mental illness or brain damage to explain their actions. I wonder what he concluded about RH - I know people earlier on the threads were speculating RH might have Asperger's Syndrome, or Attention Deficit Disorder, or mental problems from testosterone use, or simply Sex Addiction. I'd be really interested to know what the doctor thought.
Click to expand...


My guess is that Dr. A was the witness with 50 slides the DT decided at the last minute not to call. The sense I had from pre-trial hearings was that the DT intended Dr. A's testimony to reinforce Dr. D's testimony about RH's state of mind.

More guessing, but I think the DT believed Dr. Brewer's testimony sufficed to raise reasonable doubt about the possibility of forgetting (I think Brewer accomplished that), and perhaps thought stand alone testimony by Dr. A might alienate the jury if they interpreted Dr. A's testimony as an insulting Twinkie defense of some sort- like, the sexting made him forget.....

(And, btw, I'm completely unsurprised the State in the state of Georgia feels emboldened by RH's conviction and hopes to put other parents responsible for hot car deaths away for murder, intent or no, accidental or not. Thankfully, I see no indication anything I've read that other states are willing to follow suit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 57 more.
Total: 2,993 (members: 58, guests: 2,935)

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
2,935
Total visitors
2,993
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,083
Messages
18,151,605
Members
231,641
Latest member
HelloKitty1298
Back
Top