Here 's where it gets sticky for Ross IMO. There was no testimony from the DT to suggest that Ross was saying those things to smooth things over with the police. The videos were not impeached so why would we just throw out Ross's words? What reason do we have to believe that Ross was not telling the truth? If we immediately dispense anything that makes Ross look guilty, of course, we are going to end up with a not guilty verdict.
There are multiple pieces of evidence that have been questioned in this case. When multiple witnesses report conflicting information, it's fair to cast that information aside. However, Ross's statements were not only made to Detective Stoddard but also to LH. In a sense, those statements were corroborated. On what basis should Ross's statements be ignored?