Trial - Ross Harris #7

[katydid23]

That would be a reason for keeping more persuasive witnesses on the stand longer, not shuffling them along.

Speculation-wild rumor alert: I wonder if there's any possibility Dr. Diamond withdrew? Wilder yet-- He's on record as saying he will only testify in a case if he believes the hot car death was accidental. I'd think the DT gave him the straight goods on just how compromised RH is as a sympathetic defendant, but.... Or, (still wild-wild) maybe his appearing was contingent upon RH testifying?.....

I am wondering the same thing. I am not sure that Dr D is that excited about testifying on behalf of Ross.

In all of the previous cases I have seen, Dr Diamond spent a lot of time praising the parent--describing what an upstanding, caring person they are, describing what they did that day, etc etc.

I have had the nagging feeling that he might be afraid of tainting his testimony, in general, if he has to address some of Ross's baggage.

Also, in every other case, the defendant testified. And that is a key to the jury understanding 'how' it could have happened innocently.

I am thinking maybe tomorrows witness will be Dr A, the grief expert?

 

[Hope4More]

There was a lot of arguments in the Hearing Aug 19 on Dr Diamond testimony (I think that was the one)

I watched that hearing. The State's principal aim was to limit the scope of his testimony (and Dr. A's). But, they ultimately and generously conceded the DT has a right to call expert witnesses and to put on a defense.

The State's final (insulting) contention was that the DT might solicit from either or both docs their opinion on whether or not Cooper's death was accidental. Kilgore responded that the State's assertions were as misleading as they were false, Staley said, well then, ok, but you're restricted and I'll be watching closely.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Lots of time short days it seems in the Def case or it seems. I can not see Kilgore doing that on purpose. But it does mess up the train of thought and flow. Not sure if that is good or bad. But it would JMHO make taking notes important if needed in jury delib.

 

[blue22]

I am wondering the same thing. I am not sure that Dr D is that excited about testifying on behalf of Ross.

In all of the previous cases I have seen, Dr Diamond spent a lot of time praising the parent--describing what an upstanding, caring person they are, describing what they did that day, etc etc.

I have had the nagging feeling that he might be afraid of tainting his testimony, in general, if he has to address some of Ross's baggage.

Also, in every other case, the defendant testified. And that is a key to the jury understanding 'how' it could have happened innocently.

I am thinking maybe tomorrows witness will be Dr A, the grief expert?

Dr. Diamond's bread and butter is the general background and history of the parent's ability and behavior. Especially in the immediate time frame of the child's death. That's why I was surprised he agreed to this trial.

 

[arkansasmimi]

This morning prior to Jury being brought in, Kilgore said they were sitting up the visual aide for 1st witness. State didn't have any problem with "first witness but that the second witness had a power point and.." (then the sound went screwy on feed I was watching) so maybe there was another witness there but there was issues? Curious who the witness with power point presentation was/is?

 

[arkansasmimi]

Dr. Diamond's bread and butter is the general background and history of the parent's ability and behavior. Especially in the immediate time frame of the child's death. That's why I was surprised he agreed to this trial.

Dr Diamond met with RH.

 

[Hope4More]

I am wondering the same thing. I am not sure that Dr D is that excited about testifying on behalf of Ross.

In all of the previous cases I have seen, Dr Diamond spent a lot of time praising the parent--describing what an upstanding, caring person they are, describing what they did that day, etc etc.

I have had the nagging feeling that he might be afraid of tainting his testimony, in general, if he has to address some of Ross's baggage.

Also, in every other case, the defendant testified. And that is a key to the jury understanding 'how' it could have happened innocently.

I am thinking maybe tomorrows witness will be Dr A, the grief expert?

Continuing with wild speculation, but if Dr. D doesn't testify, imo Ross Harris doesn't stand much chance of dodging conviction on at least the 1st degree CC charge.

I believe it was an accident, personally, but still needed to hear from a persuasive expert how it was possible to forget in such a short time, and to not be triggered by the cues RH had in spades throughout the day.

Absent that testimony, as a juror, I could find doubt about malice murder, but I'm not sure how strongly I could defend reasonable doubt on any of the other charges.

 

[Hope4More]

Dr Diamond met with RH.

More than once? How recently?

 

[popsicle]

I am wondering the same thing. I am not sure that Dr D is that excited about testifying on behalf of Ross.

In all of the previous cases I have seen, Dr Diamond spent a lot of time praising the parent--describing what an upstanding, caring person they are, describing what they did that day, etc etc.

I have had the nagging feeling that he might be afraid of tainting his testimony, in general, if he has to address some of Ross's baggage.

Also, in every other case, the defendant testified. And that is a key to the jury understanding 'how' it could have happened innocently.

I am thinking maybe tomorrows witness will be Dr A, the grief expert?

Him backing out would explain why Ross looks like hell today.

 

[*JMO*]

Amen amen amen. It's beyond frustrating when people are treating JRH like he is a child that is incapable of taking care of his son. That contradicts what the defense showed us when they put numerous people on the stand that kept saying JRH was involved in Cooper's life and equally shared responsibility for his son. Obviously he is not a dingbat, nor he is too sleepy, too horny, too stupid, or too forgetful to remember his son. If JRH can remember how to speak Spanish by simply walking into a restaurant, he can darn sure remember his own child while texting about escaping his family responsibilities.

All this is true. But if it is true for RH, it is also true for the many other parents that have also forgotten their children in the car. Until I read the personal stories, painfully written by these parents on the public safety awareness website KidsandCars.org, I did not grasp how it could be an accident.

The several stories are not written by people that are uncaring or unaware or abusive parents. It is hard to imagine but they do not sound any different than the rest of us. Some even wrote that they had purposefully read awareness articles about kids in cars and never thought this could happen to them until it did.

It just seems to me that some of the disbelief that this could only happen if it was a deliberate act is unfair to this one parent when other parents have committed the same tragic incident and were not prosecuted. Perhaps if their lifestyles had been examined closer it would have been discovered that some of them were committing adultery, had a *advertiser censored* habit, or other issues in their life too. There jusr seems to be no objectivity where RH is concerned because of his double life and despicable character.

 

[blue22]

Dr Diamond met with RH.

But I'm still surprised he agreed. I'm sure the defense was transparent about the activity of Ross that day. Ross is a very unusual defendant for Dr. Diamond. His activity is very different from any case he's been involved in. There is always the possibility that testifying for such an unlikable defendant can hurt your future credibility. I'm just surprised he took it with the character issues surrounding Ross. JMO.

 

[catpatrol]

Dr. Diamond's bread and butter is the general background and history of the parent's ability and behavior. Especially in the immediate time frame of the child's death. That's why I was surprised he agreed to this trial.

I thought most of the testimony about RH being a scum bag was already out in the media/wasn't really a surprise. Surely the Dr knew all the charges against RH, including the minors?

 

[Rayemonde]

All this is true. But if it is true for RH, it is also true for the many other parents that have also forgotten their children in the car. Until I read the personal stories, painfully written by these parents on the public safety awareness website KidsandCars.org, I did not grasp how it could be an accident.

The several stories are not written by people that are uncaring or unaware or abusive parents. It is hard to imagine but they do not sound any different than the rest of us. Some even wrote that they had purposefully read awareness articles about kids in cars and never thought this could happen to them until it did.

It just seems to me that some of the disbelief that this could only happen if it was a deliberate act is unfair to this one parent when other parents have committed the same tragic incident and were not prosecuted. Perhaps if their lifestyles had been examined closer it would have been discovered that some of them were committing adultery, had a *advertiser censored* habit, or other issues in their life too. There jusr seems to be no objectivity where RH is concerned because of his double life and despicable character.

Exactly.

 

[arkansasmimi]

ok, went back and listened to what State was speaking about this morning.
Whomever the 2nd witness was/is, initally had made a power point presentation with 22 slides and some he had objections to. Then about 11 pm last night he received a new revised with "50 someodd" slides. He has had time to review and has some objections on some and will need to go over that with the court after the 1st witness testimony is over

[video=youtube;NkamUj5jnuk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkamUj5jnuk&list=PLoW1SIeAWaWa1BHJdr_EpBGK-U_weQTFd&index=3[/video]

 

[Hope4More]

Defendant has the right to not get on the stand in any criminal case. Judge will tell them they can not hold that against the defendant.

Doesn't mean they won't, though. I actually agree with Tex on this one (is that 1 out of 759,Tex? ) . It's one thing for the defendant in a clear cut murder trial to not take the stand. I think most jurors have watched enough Law and Orders or whatever to get there are good reasons for defendants to pass on the opportunity.

This is different. Ross says it was accidental, that he loved Cooper, that he'd never hurt him. The DT has said LE jumped the gun and got it all wrong . Who better to straighten the whole mess out than RH himself?

I can definitely, absolutely, imagine more than a few jurors seeing things just like that.

 

[GA_Peach]

CB's cross this morning highlighted the problems associated with Cooper's death being the result of a "memory failure."

Speculative - If Dr. Diamond doesn't testify on Ross's behalf, this could be disastrous for the defense.

 

[Hope4More]

Him backing out would explain why Ross looks like hell today.

I really wasn't trying to start a wild rumor. But.....

 

[JerseyGirl]

But I'm still surprised he agreed. I'm sure the defense was transparent about the activity of Ross that day. Ross is a very unusual defendant for Dr. Diamond. His activity is very different from any case he's been involved in. There is always the possibility that testifying for such an unlikable defendant can hurt your future credibility. I'm just surprised he took it with the character issues surrounding Ross. JMO.

Maybe Diamond found that the evidence the defense presented and his interview with Ross way back when is far different than what has come out during trial.

 

[katydid23]

I thought most of the testimony about RH being a scum bag was already out in the media/wasn't really a surprise. Surely the Dr knew all the charges against RH, including the minors?

Agreeing to meet with the defendant is not the same as agreeing to testify in his defense. Maybe he wanted to interview him personally to decide if he suffered from FBS that day.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Doesn't mean they won't, though. I actually agree with Tex on this one (is that 1 out of 759,Tex? ) . It's one thing for the defendant in a clear cut murder trial to not take the stand. I think most jurors have watched enough Law and Orders or whatever to get there are good reasons for defendants to pass on the opportunity.

This is different. Ross says it was accidental, that he loved Cooper, that he'd never hurt him. The DT has said LE jumped the gun and got it all wrong . Who better to straighten the whole mess out than RH himself?

I can definitely, absolutely, imagine more than a few jurors seeing things just like that.

Oh I was only saying that he didn't have to and jury would be told cant hold against him.

I wondering if the Def feels they have created enough reasonable doubt on the murder charges and that they know they sexting are most assuredly going to be a conviction?