Trial - Ross Harris #9

[tlcya]

Discuss the Trial proceedings and Testimony here

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/justin-ross-harris-trial-full-pool-jurors-last/WW9V1jjYuCeTB0Nt1C2QmO/

Trial will be live streamed by several outlets

http://www.wildabouttrial.com/trial_videos/justin-ross-harris-live-stream/

Websleuths Chat/Facebook Feed

Court Chatter
Monday-Friday - 8:30am (Stream 1)
Monday-Friday - 8:30am (Stream 2)
Monday-Friday - 8:30am (Stream 3)

Reporters and outlets that may provide live tweet trial updates
https://twitter.com/AJCBreakdown
https://twitter.com/courtchatter
https://twitter.com/VinniePolitan
https://twitter.com/11AliveNews
https://twitter.com/HarrisTrial
https://twitter.com/DuffieDixon
https://twitter.com/ajccourts
https://twitter.com/PhilHollowayEsq

BRUNSWICK — After the emotional testimony of Justin Ross Harris’ ex-wife, friends and family, his defense rested shortly before noon Friday on a soft note, following Harris’ decision not to take the stand in his own defense.

[...]

Court is scheduled to reconvene around 8:30 a.m. Monday at the Glynn County Courthouse, with two hours allowed to both sides for closing arguments. Following that, the attorneys will finish jury charge negotiations and Staley Clark will give that charge sometime Monday afternoon. If there is enough time left in the day, the case will then go to the jury for deliberations.

http://www.mdjonline.com/news/defen...cle_4b4a0e50-a2fe-11e6-a2c1-1b4307b3dd33.html

Trial Thread #1
Trial Thread #2
Trial Thread #3
Trial Thread #4
Trial Thread #5
Trail Thread #6
Trial Thread #7
Trial Thread #8

 

[tlcya]

Please continue here

 

[Jewels53]

Wow thread #9 these Trial threads move quick. I have spent most of my time just catching up. lol

 

[yupikgirl]

I agree on the car seat - we have a whole thread devoted to it. It's just frustrating to see the misinformation - nobody have ever said his head was 3 inches OVER the seat. He is 3 inches taller than the car seat manufacturer guidelines. He wasn't in a proper seat. I was able to see my children in their infant carriers when they didn't exceed the measurements. IMO he was visible long before he outgrew the seat.

But yea I agree and I'll try not to contribute to any more arguing over the seat LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JudyBolton]

I agree on the car seat - we have a whole thread devoted to it. It's just frustrating to see the misinformation - nobody have ever said his head was 3 inches OVER the seat. He is 3 inches taller than the car seat manufacturer guidelines. He wasn't in a proper seat. I was able to see my children in their infant carriers when they didn't exceed the measurements. IMO he was visible long before he outgrew the seat.

But yea I agree and I'll try not to contribute to any more arguing over the seat LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM - ok - what can we argue about next :happydance:

 

[Jewels53]

I was watching part of the Defense opening statements, and noticed at different time Ross would start to cry. He would start to cry when the focus was on him and and what had happened with Cooper. for example Kilgore played part of the police video when Ross was in the room by himself and he was acting strange ( or at least I thought he was).

Do any of the rest of you find it odd that Ross can turn the water works on and off quick when it suits him. imho

 

[JudyBolton]

This is the first trial I've followed since JA - and I'd forgotten how time-consuming it can become! I come home from work, listen to the testimony from that day - then find out how many pages behind I am on WS and try to catch up reading. Usually, it's almost 11 pm or midnight by then (oh and between this I have to feed my family - tried to convince them to live on sandwiches and pizza for a few weeks but failed) - I sleep a bit, then the next day, I get behind all over again.

I will have to take a vacation or retire before I get wrapped up in another one. This happened just walking distance from where I used to live, so I've had a personal interest in the outcome for a couple of years.

 

[katydid23]

BBM - ok - what can we argue about next :happydance:

We can argue about

---why Dr Diamond was a no show...

---whether the DT wanted Ross to testify or not...

---what was in those files that were sealed and that the State was trying to keep from the DT...

---why did Kilgore say ' on behalf off Ross we rest our case...' was Kilgore mad, tired or upset?...

 

[minor4th]

Hope -

I noticed Kilgore yesterday saying "For what it's worth, I do not object." I took it as him expressing his frustration.

 

[katydid23]

This is the first trial I've followed since JA - and I'd forgotten how time-consuming it can become! I come home from work, listen to the testimony from that day - then find out how many pages behind I am on WS and try to catch up reading. Usually, it's almost 11 pm or midnight by then (oh and between this I have to feed my family - tried to convince them to live on sandwiches and pizza for a few weeks but failed) - I sleep a bit, then the next day, I get behind all over again.

I will have to take a vacation or retire before I get wrapped up in another one. This happened just walking distance from where I used to live, so I've had a personal interest in the outcome for a couple of years.

LOL...sounds familiar. I am in California so if I want to hear the morning testimony, I have to wake up around 5:30 am... Many times my hubby wakes up at 7 to get ready for work, and sees me sitting with my headphones on the couch, huddled over the laptop. He thinks I am :nuts: I told him about this case, and all he can say about me watching it is ' Isn't that unpleasant?' Why do you want to spend time on such an unpleasant experience? :blush:

During trials I have to bring out the crockpot. Works great as a nice way to make a 'home cooked' meal with no muss or fuss. Best one is the chicken breast, white potatoes, carrots, green beans, marinara sauce, parmesan cheese, 8 hours low setting----everyone is happy at dinner time...

 

[katydid23]

Hope -

I noticed Kilgore yesterday saying "For what it's worth, I do not object." I took it as him expressing his frustration.

What was your take on him saying ' On behalf of Ross, we rest our case.' I have never heard it worded that way before.

I may be imagining it, but it almost sounded like he was blaming him for the early closing of their case?

 

[katydid23]

It is an interesting jury. I think there might be a lot of division. I hope it is not a hung jury in the end. There are equal number of men to women, which might be an interesting dynamic. But also 5 people with no children.

I think this woman will be the key, perhaps:


6. Married to a retired longshoreman, a registrar at a local high school. Two older sons and six grandchildren. She served on juries before, and was foreperson before. Not big on social media, her father killed in the line of duty as a police officer when she was 12. She says if she is on the jury she’ll make sure fellow jurors follow the law.




It is possible that she will end up as the foreperson. She sounds like a very organized individual, being a registrar. So she can deal with paperwork and reading the fine print and the details very well. And she mentions following the letter of the law. So she will be a stickler for the wording of each line on the jury instructions.

The key will be which 'side' does she lean towards? I think she might be able to sway people to her position if she feels they are uncertain...?

 

[MsMarple]

So... back to Dr. Diamond. I still have no idea why he was cut from testimony at the last minute. On April 9 the State filed several motions regarding both Dr. Diamond's and Dr. Agharkar's testimonies. They are linked on the Court Chatter site:

http://www.courtchatter.com/justin-ross-harris-trial-archive

I had a long post but deleted it since I'm not an attorney and decided it was best discussed by our two goto attorneys on the thread and/or members who have a clearer understanding than I do. In the following motion section 2 discusses hearsay and to my layperson's understanding seems to indicate that Ross needed to testify in order for Dr. Diamond and Dr. Agharkar to discuss what Ross told them during interviews:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_a39c7b104520489780a4f2ddf4e6a29e.pdf

If that's the case then it may be that Ross backed out of testifying at the 11th hour (or would that be the 9th hour? ) and therefore made it impossible for either expert to fully testify about their opinions. And if that's correct then the experts may have bailed or maybe the defense dismissed them since what they had planned to say would have been compromised.

 

[Hope4More]

Hope -

I noticed Kilgore yesterday saying "For what it's worth, I do not object." I took it as him expressing his frustration.

I agree.

Context:

Yesterday’s testimony, State’s rebuttal, on the accuracy of the doll’s head measurements.

State: So my question was, did you have an opportunity to compare the measurement of the doll’s head to the measurements that were in the medical records, as well as to the measurements that were in the ME’s report.

Detective: Yes I did.
(Introduces photos)

State: are these photos of you taking the measurements of the doll’s head?


Detective: Yes.

Kilgore: For what it’s worth, I do not object.

State: the jury has already heard from (M.E.) Frist and (ME investigator Jackson about measurements taken…

Kilgore: " I’m going to object to that. Judge, the State has continually objected to our introducing any evidence relating to the testimony of prior witnesses, so I’m going to object to their now wanting to do it."

State: I’ll rephrase. Were you able to compare the measurements you took of the doll’s head with those in the medical examiner’s report.

Detective: Yes, I was.

Kilgore: " I’m going to object to that. I don’t believe the medical examiner’s report is in evidence (….) so I’m going to object to the form of the question."

State: I don’t think there is anything improper about the question, given they’ve already heard from the medical examiner and Jackson confirming the accuracy of the measurements…

Kilgore: I’m going to object to that, the “accuracy” of those measurements.

Staley: " I’m going to allow it, over objection. Jury, disregard the colloquy between counsel. Colloquy means what they say to each other."

 

[jewels13]

So I've been on the fence for a while. I think what seals the deal for me on malice murder is the nonchalant way Ross was in the holding cell in jail. I would be Ftfo if I was in jail, but even more so if I was there accused of killing my baby. Also, if my child had just died I wouldn't even know other people were in that room. I'd be a mess of emotion. The way he was slung back in the seat and seemed relaxed enough to make small talk makes me think he felt he was just waiting for release and had no thought they would jail him. Poor Cooper. May he Rest In Peace.

 

[Hope4More]

What was your take on him saying ' On behalf of Ross, we rest our case.' I have never heard it worded that way before.

I may be imagining it, but it almost sounded like he was blaming him for the early closing of their case?

I heard it as Kilgore communicating nearly the opposite sentiment. That he said “ROSS” to make a statement he was defending a person he believed innocent of the charges, rather than “Mr. Harris,” a generic, which could communicate his defense of Ross Harris meant nothing more to him than just doing his job.


ETA. I'll be the first to admit, though, that i do overthink things. Occasionally.

 

[minor4th]

What was your take on him saying ' On behalf of Ross, we rest our case.' I have never heard it worded that way before.

I may be imagining it, but it almost sounded like he was blaming him for the early closing of their case?

The only thing unusual about that to me is his using Ross' first name, but the lawyers and witnesses have all done this with each other throughout the case - so probably no big deal.

 

[Hope4More]

So... back to Dr. Diamond. I still have no idea why he was cut from testimony at the last minute. On April 9 the State filed several motions regarding both Dr. Diamond's and Dr. Agharkar's testimonies. They are linked on the Court Chatter site:

http://www.courtchatter.com/justin-ross-harris-trial-archive

I had a long post but deleted it since I'm not an attorney and decided it was best discussed by our two goto attorneys on the thread and/or members who have a clearer understanding than I do. In the following motion section 2 discusses hearsay and to my layperson's understanding seems to indicate that Ross needed to testify in order for Dr. Diamond and Dr. Agharkar to discuss what Ross told them during interviews:

http://media.wix.com/ugd/943520_a39c7b104520489780a4f2ddf4e6a29e.pdf

If that's the case then it may be that Ross backed out of testifying at the 11th hour (or would that be the 9th hour? ) and therefore made it impossible for either expert to fully testify about their opinions. And if that's correct then the experts may have bailed or maybe the defense dismissed them since what they had planned to say would have been compromised.

Really useful information, thank you so much for the links!!

The State's argument was that neither Dr. D or Dr. A could testify about what Ross told them in their interviews with them unless the State introduced reports by the docs (they did not) or if Ross Harris testified (I think even FiRST, before the experts, but will reread), because otherwise RH's statements would be impermissable hearsay.

So, neither expert could refer to those statements made by Ross, but they could still testify, theoretically, without referring to the statements.

IMO, it's doubtful the DT wanted RH to take the stand...(still thinking about that one, though). More difficult to believe they made their ability to put Diamond on the stand contingent upon Ross testifying.

Thinking about connection between FBI report and all this?

 

[MsMarple]

REALLY useful information, thank you so much for the links!!

The State's argument was that neither Dr. D or Dr. A could testify about what Ross told them in their interviews with them unless the State introduced reports by the docs (they did not) or if Ross Harris testified (I think even FiRST, before the experts, but will reread).

Did you mean "unless the defense introduced reports by the docs (they did not)?" Did the judge ever rule on any of the motions? I don't recall hearing any outcomes.

So if the defense did not turn over the reports perhaps they intended to put Ross on the stand and when he bailed the dominoes fell and the experts were cut.

 

[Hope4More]

Did you mean "unless the defense introduced reports by the docs (they did not)?" Did the judge ever rule on any of the motions? I don't recall hearing any outcomes.

So if the defense did not turn over the reports perhaps they intended to put Ross on the stand and when he bailed the dominoes fell and the experts were cut.

No, I meant the State. If the State had introduced the reports, the State would have opened the door to the defense referring to what was in the reports, without it being considered hearsay.