Is there anyone that believes Ross is innocent?

[LinasK]

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).

You can't blame the Defense not calling him on either the prosecution, nor the judge ruling. Methinks they decided he would harm their case because perhaps he changed his mind after talking to Ross that it really wasn't an accident and his testimony would have damaged their case. Just like Nurmi not calling Matt M or Patty to help Jodi Arias because their credibility was shot.

 

[Hope4More]

You can't blame the Defense not calling him on either the prosecution, nor the judge ruling. Methinks they decided he would harm their case because perhaps he changed his mind after talking to Ross that it really wasn't an accident and his testimony would have damaged their case. Just like Nurmi not calling Matt M or Patty to help Jodi Arias because their credibility was shot.

The article Raymonde just posted quotes Diamond post verdict, still believing Cooper's death was accidental.

We're not going to know why the DT chose not to call Diamond, I'm afraid, so are left with just guesses.

(Including this guess :. that the State succeeded in limiting his testimony enough that the DT concluded the potential benefit of Diamond's testimony was outweighed by the risk of an effective cross undermining Brewer's work towards reasonable doubt).

 

[LinasK]

The article Raymonde just posted quotes Diamond post verdict, still believing Cooper's death was accidental.

We're not going to know why the DT chose not to call Diamond I'm afraid, so are left with just guesses.

(Including this guess :. that the State succeeded in limiting his testimony enough that the DT concluded the potential benefit of Diamond's testimony was outweighed by the risk of an effective cross undermining Brewer's work towards reasonable doubt).

It's not clear when Diamond said that, because his other article claims he said those things in August.

 

[katydid23]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...ood business for him to mix the two together.

 

[katydid23]

The article Raymonde just posted quotes Diamond post verdict, still believing Cooper's death was accidental.

We're not going to know why the DT chose not to call Diamond, I'm afraid, so are left with just guesses.

(Including this guess :. that the State succeeded in limiting his testimony enough that the DT concluded the potential benefit of Diamond's testimony was outweighed by the risk of an effective cross undermining Brewer's work towards reasonable doubt).

In all of the other cases in which Diamond testified, his other past clients came to the trials to support the grieving defendants. I wonder why none of them came to Ross;s trial? They were all 'no shows'---just like Dr Diamond . Makes me wonder...:thinking:

 

[MrX]

I'm not sure it would have mattered, as the one juror that I have seen quoted indicated that they didn't believe someone could forget a child during a half mile drive. It would also seem to indicate none of the sexting or demeanor evidence held much sway - if the jury (based on their own experience, regardless of what experts say) was predisposed to think it impossible to forget a child, the entire could have been wrapped up (from open to verdict) in a few days.

I probably would have hung the jury, depending on my understanding of how Georgia Law treats and defines an "accident." Mr. Boring seemed to argue that there is no such thing as an "accident" when someone is charged with murder, whereas Mr Kilgore argued that the state had to prove that it wasn't an accident. If Kilgore's interpretation of the law is correct, I couldn't convict. (I know Mr Boring said 'motive' is only an issue on TV shows, but I would have needed to see something along those lines.)

 

[LyndyLoo]

I'm not sure it would have mattered, as the one juror that I have seen quoted indicated that they didn't believe someone could forget a child during a half mile drive. It would also seem to indicate none of the sexting or demeanor evidence held much sway - if the jury (based on their own experience, regardless of what experts say) was predisposed to think it impossible to forget a child, the entire could have been wrapped up (from open to verdict) in a few days.

I probably would have hung the jury, depending on my understanding of how Georgia Law treats and defines an "accident." Mr. Boring seemed to argue that there is no such thing as an "accident" when someone is charged with murder, whereas Mr Kilgore argued that the state had to prove that it wasn't an accident. If Kilgore's interpretation of the law is correct, I couldn't convict. (I know Mr Boring said 'motive' is only an issue on TV shows, but I would have needed to see something along those lines.)

I also think the juror's couldn't accept forgetting within half mile drive was solidified once they saw the confines of the actual vehicle..It became obvious that Cooper's location was within inches of Ross when sitting in driver's seat..just reaching for something..would cause him to touch that carseat..never mind smelling Cooper after 7 hours of baking post leaving work!!

The defence knew immediately after jury viewing that vehicle..THEY even called it a disaster..calling for mistrial! How could it be a mistrial for the triers of fact to view the "Death Scene"???

I would not expect appellate Courts to overturn this verdict ever IMO!!

 

[GA_Peach]

FBS and false memories don't apply when a parent intentionally leaves a child in the car to die. The jury determined and convicted Ross of purposely leaving Cooper in the car. Based on the evidence, I think that the jury got it right.

 

[Hope4More]

The above bolded does not sound like he was very certain this was purely accidental:
Diamond said the evidence suggests Harris may have just suffered a lapse in memory.


Not very convincing. I think that Diamon d wanted to keep a distance between Ross Harris and Diamond's stable of upstanding victims of FBS. It would not be good business for him to mix the two together.

Dr. Diamond clearly doesn't share your view of what he believes. Not sure how he could have stated it any more clearly--and it was indeed after the verdict - that he believes it was an accident, and that the jury may have held RH "more culpable" than other hot car death parents (for the wrong reason) because of his sexual activities.


In addition to every other indication Dr. Diamond was willing to testify on RH's behalf, the very fact Dr. Diamond was willing to be interviewed by CNN about RH and to give those opinions makes it plain he doesn't feel any need to keep his distance from RH's case.

 

[TexMex]

"May have" is hardly a clear, ringing endorsement of innocence!

He was using his CNN interview to promote legislation:

Both Diamond and Fennell are urging Congress to pass the Hot Cars Act of 2016, a bill that would require automakers to add a system alerting drivers if a child is left in the back seat.

He also stated:

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

 

[Noname12345]

Dr. Diamond clearly doesn't share your view of what he believes. Not sure how he could have stated it any more clearly--and it was indeed after the verdict - that he believes it was an accident, and that the jury may have held RH "more culpable" than other hot car death parents (for the wrong reason) because of his sexual activities.In addition to every other indication Dr. Diamond was willing to testify on RH's behalf, the very fact Dr. Diamond was willing to be interviewed by CNN about RH and to give those opinions makes it plain he doesn't feel any need to keep his distance from RH's case.

Of course he's going to come out in public and show his "support". Doesn't matter if RH's case fits the criteria for his FBS or not, he had enough common sense to realize that if he openly alienates RH, his pseudoscience will lose whatever credibility it has on the slightest hint that FBS was selectively applied according to client character and not based on actual proven science. It doesn't really matter what he says in public, the fact that he didn't actually testify indicates more strongly that he was not willing to do so. Actual action always speaks louder than words. Unless the insinuation is that the prosecution team or the judge did something shady to prevent him from testifying, and in that case, tin-foil hat away to your heart's content.

It baffles me that there are still people willing to believe RH was wrongfully convicted because of his sexual activities after seeing how small the car especially when taken RH's size into account. He and Cooper were basically and literally sitting right next to each other in a very small and confined space. He must have brushed against the seat with every movement he makes in that car and he's expecting any non-biased person to believe he "forgot" Cooper in a couple minutes. I'm sorry, but he really isn't some special snowflake that deserves to have anyone suspend common sense or judgement to believe he's innocent.

It's even more disturbing when some have openly shown hostility towards LE for doing their job in seeking out justice for Cooper. Suggesting that LE had an ax to grind with RH because he was rude to a couple officers? <modsnip>

 

[Bently]

"May have" is hardly a clear, ringing endorsement of innocence!

He was using his CNN interview to promote legislation:

Both Diamond and Fennell are urging Congress to pass the Hot Cars Act of 2016, a bill that would require automakers to add a system alerting drivers if a child is left in the back seat.

He also stated:

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

I'm trying to think of an analogous legislation which transfers the liability to the automobile manufacturer for a negligent person?

I can't think of one.

 

[katydid23]

Dr. Diamond clearly doesn't share your view of what he believes. Not sure how he could have stated it any more clearly--and it was indeed after the verdict - that he believes it was an accident, and that the jury may have held RH "more culpable" than other hot car death parents (for the wrong reason) because of his sexual activities.


In addition to every other indication Dr. Diamond was willing to testify on RH's behalf, the very fact Dr. Diamond was willing to be interviewed by CNN about RH and to give those opinions makes it plain he doesn't feel any need to keep his distance from RH's case.

Here is what the Doctor said:

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


That^^^ does not sound very convincing. He is not being a very powerful advocate by saying Ross 'MAY HAVE' just forgotten the baby. He does not sound very convinced himself, imo. '

He says 'the evidence suggests'....not the evidence PROVES, but it 'suggests....' Again, not a very powerful advocate for this client.

 

[Hope4More]

Here is what the Doctor said:

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


That^^^ does not sound very convincing. He is not being a very powerful advocate by saying Ross 'MAY HAVE' just forgotten the baby. He does not sound very convinced himself, imo. '

He says 'the evidence suggests'....not the evidence PROVES, but it 'suggests....' Again, not a very powerful advocate for this client.

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:. Agree to disagree.

 

[Rayemonde]

It wasn't just Dr Diamond who failed to testify, the psychiatrist who had interviewed RH did too. The two expert witnesses who had talked to RH were both pulled at the last minute. I really doubt that they both just suddenly decided that RH was guilty after all and decided not to testify at the last minute.

 

[Nutmeg_916]

Yes. Stepping back and looking at evidence, this is something that happens even to otherwise good parents.

I believe he was put under arrest and found guilty because he was a man and the police who arrested him didn't understand that this is a thing that happens. It was compounded by his bad behavior regarding his texts and extramarital affairs. He's a weirdo. But he didn't plan this and was convicted because of his weird personality.

So he looked at the child free sub Reddit. So have I. It wasn't on his list of subscribed feeds. I've looked at a lot of weird stuff online. I've said my kids are driving me crazy and I need a break. I don't know a parent that hasn't felt or said those things. It does not mean I would hurt them.

its a tragedy all around.

 

[Rayemonde]

In all of the other cases in which Diamond testified, his other past clients came to the trials to support the grieving defendants. I wonder why none of them came to Ross;s trial? They were all 'no shows'---just like Dr Diamond . Makes me wonder...:thinking:

Isn't it obvious? They don't want to support someone who sexts minors. JMO.

 

[Hope4More]

Isn't it obvious? They don't want to support someone who sexts minors. JMO.

Pretty much. Which makes Dr. Diamond's willingness to help with RH's defense all the more remarkable.

This case aside, I wish best of luck to the advocates, including Dr. Diamond, who are pushing for car manufacturer legislation to prevent hot car deaths. How much better it would be to prevent these senseless, terrible deaths than to write new laws to more harshly punish parents after the fact.

 

[Harry Seaward]

How could it be a mistrial for the triers of fact to view the "Death Scene"???

The crux of this case is a.) what a 6'3" Harris could see while sitting in the drivers seat facing forward and turning to the right to grab his brief case; and b.) what a 6'3" Harris could see at 1pm on June 18 in the Treehouse parking lot as he walked up to the closed driver's door. Jurors of various heights milling around at leisure with an open and closed driver's door are not going to come close to replicating the "death scene" using a shady, roped off corner of a courthouse parking lot at 9am on Oct 28.

To my knowledge, the prosecution didn't try to get the jurors to the Treehouse parking lot, nor to the 'discovery' scene. Or the drive from the Chick-Fil-A to the Treehouse, for that matter. Notwithstanding the dispute over how long that drive took, they claimed it was impossible to forget in the length of time it took to get from Chick-Fil-A to the left turn to Little Apron. So let's have a field trip to prove it.

I'm not convinced Ross is innocent, but what's the motive? Boring made a big deal about not having to prove motive. If we have a defendant saying he was never there and didn't shoot anyone, yet we have finger prints and a ballistics match, sure I don't need a motive. If the defendant admits to killing someone but says it was an accident, someone has to explain why it wasn't an accident, which includes a reason the defendant wanted the victim dead. If we subtract the salacious components of this case, all you're left with is a dad that adored his son by all accounts and is now accused of killing him. Not one witness ever indicated Cooper was a drag on what Ross wanted to do. Including the mother of the dead boy.

Here's another thing I stumbled across that may or may not mean anything, depending on how much weight you want to place on people's actions. Take a listen to part 5 of Oct 31 testimony and start around minute 47. right at minute 48, prosecutor starts to refer to Cooper's death as an "accident" and then catches himself. So is Boring himself not even convinced of Ross' guilt?

 

[katydid23]

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.

Personally, I think there should be legislation holding parents/caregivers responsible, accidental or not. There is no more excuses because now we all know the severity of the problem. It is no longer a surprise that people can forget their baby inside a hot car. There is no excuse for not taking any of the very simple, inexpensive precautions available. You can get a 'car seat to driver' mirror to clip above the visor or rear view mirror, for about 20 bucks. Impossible to forget your baby if you see the baby's face every time you looked in the rear view mirror.

If your child falls into the pool, we do not allow the parents to say 'oops, I forgot .' We legislated that the responsibility was the pool owners to have locked gates and/or covered pools and there would be charges brought if precautions not followed.

I think we should do the same thing here. No more excuses allowed. If you do not use an alarm system, or a mirror, or a method of putting your purse in the back seat, then it is your own fault and you cannot say 'oops. I forgot.' jmo