Trial - Ross Harris #9

[NCTeacher]

Do you have any theories as to why Dr D didn't testify? Am I incorrect in thinking his testimony was crucial? Because maybe they didn't think the needed it? I am baffled, TBH.

The defense is not under pressure or time. Occam's Razor: is it probable or likely that the defense would want to dismiss ANY testimony that would hammer home the premise of their defense? To make their defense ROCK SOLID? NO. What I saw on Thursday and Friday is a deflated and defeated DT, anxious and stressed. What I saw was preparing for a key witness, and then the witness doesn't testify, inexplicably.

I think the theory that has been floating on here is the probable one. Expert wouldn't testify unless Ross testified. Defense tried without ceasing to get him to testify, maybe he agreed---but backed out of it. Expert wouldn't testify unless Ross did. Hence the deflation, defeat, and somewhat snarky commit "According to Ross, the defense rests" (or something to that effect).

The defense went out with a whimper.

 

[gitana1]

I don't think there's any way the State proved malice murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Their "motive" evidence made no sense and there was no evidence of Ross not wanting Cooper. There was nothing to be gained by Ross for killing Cooper.

I am confident the jury will acquit on malice murder, as there is simply no evidence to support it.

As for cruelty - the state has not yet made clear what they are alleging was the criminally negligent conduct that caused Cooper's death. Other than Stoddard who said that weeks of sexting and texting "led to Cooper's death." If that's the State's theory of criminal negligence, they have missed the mark entirely.

I get what you're saying. Of course the state doesn't have to prove motive, although we all know that's what the jury likes to see. The only thing that makes me think malice murder could still be on the table is the language of the code section:

16-5-1 Murder/Felony Murder | Georgia Law

---

(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.

(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. http://rolfjoneslaw.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=4
Emphasis by me.

Malice is implied where no considerable provocation appears. We have no provocation at all.
And, when all the circumstances of the case show a malignant and depraved heart. For that, previous posters have summed up what the jury may consider that points to a malignant and depraved heart. And from what many are saying, the defense did not do a good enough job of showing that those circumstances were innocent ones, based on a hapless, forgetful defendant who was simply distracted. I think they really needed Diamond to shore up how FBS works and whether it could apply in this case.
One of the biggest hangups to me is Ross' stated knowledge of FBS, hot car deaths and how to prevent them and his stated practice of looking back based on a recent hot car death, so that wouldn't happen to him. That, to me, makes FBS an impossibility in this case.

I agree that a finding of malice murder is unlikely though. But I don't know that it is totally off the table. I know what I believe but I;m on the fence about what the evidence showed, leaning toward not enough to overcome reasonable doubt as to malice murder. But the statements of some on here whose minds were changed from on the fence to guilty, are impressive. Of course the jury won't be made up of websleuthers and y'all know we tend to be a more suspicious and law and order type of crowd, and highly protective of children, in general!!

 

[LyndyLoo]

An interesting bit of trivia is that Dr Diamond locked his grandson, who died, inside his vehicle.

Thus, since that time, he has devoted himself to the FBS.

Comparitively, JRH wanted to become an advocate for SafeKids because he locked his son inside of his vehicle. I cannot buy into this FBS stuff. FBS is a convenient way for parents to relieve themselves from their own burden of fatal negligence.

The juvenile justice court judge who kept his son in a hot car while he worked at the courthouse until lunchtime had some hanky-panky going on, too. *advertiser censored*, for sure, easily comes to mind. And he killed his son on their 5th Wedding Anniversary. Dr Diamond testified in his trial that ended with an acquittal.

Didn't I read somewhere that in ALL but one case he got an acquittal? Ironically, the only one who got convicted was the one female charged. Maybe there's that judgemental biases attached to that verdict???? Females may be presumed to be more aware than males by some juries?? Any thoughts?

 

[minor4th]

Do you have any theories as to why Dr D didn't testify? Am I incorrect in thinking his testimony was crucial? Because maybe they didn't think the needed it? I am baffled, TBH.

I really have no idea, but I think Brewer was a substitute for Diamond.

I mean, it could be anything - stuff like this happens in the middle of trial and you have to be flexible enough to absorb it.

 

[minor4th]

An interesting bit of trivia is that Dr Diamond locked his grandson, who died, inside his vehicle.

Thus, since that time, he has devoted himself to the FBS.

Comparitively, JRH wanted to become an advocate for SafeKids because he locked his son inside of his vehicle. I cannot buy into this FBS stuff. FBS is a convenient way for parents to relieve themselves from their own burden of fatal negligence.

The juvenile justice court judge who kept his son in a hot car while he worked at the courthouse until lunchtime had some hanky-panky going on, too. *advertiser censored*, for sure, easily comes to mind. And he killed his son on their 5th Wedding Anniversary. Dr Diamond testified in his trial that ended with an acquittal.

I don't think that's true about him locking his grandson in the car and the grandson dying.

 

[gitana1]

Last night I posted about how I forgot my mastiff was in the yard while picking up my sons friend and he passed from the heat and devastated me- and my family. Sharing that was hard and I thought people may be mean to me or say nasty things but no one did...Thank you all for being kind about it. I miss him everyday and when he passed away I poured ice all over him and laid down with him trying to bring him back by talking to him...I paced...I told him I was so sorry and wake up so we can go to the vet....for 45 min before I realized ok he is really not coming back... Whoever said "yes but you remembered your newborn" did have a point...Now I am back to not being sure either way! ugh!

God bless you. I can imagine the pain you felt and still feel.

 

[Hope4More]

Katydid23 gave us this link: http://www.kidsandcars.org/files/2014/08/2014-06-30-hln-drdiamond-heat.pdf

Dr. Diamond wrote about Cooper's case back in 2014. Could this article have an impact? Seems like it shouldn't as Kilgore would have been aware of it. Mystery continues...

Thanks again for other interesting link. After reading it I'm wondering if the DT decided against having Diamond testify after watching Boring's cross of Brewer, particularly the part where he shredded Brewer on his assertion that RH's case was not unique, or even before that, for the same reason.

I think it would have been far more damaging to their case to have the State using an expert FBS witness conceding point by point what was different in RH's case than to not have an FBS expert testify. Brewer covered most of the FBS related components, without ever using that term.


Diamond’s Op-ed was written on June 30, 2014, before RH’s probable cause hearing.

In the Op-ed Diamond:

1. Compared RH’s case with his first HC death case, that of Lyn Balfour. The chief point of comparison he included was that she meant to take her son to daycare, but drove straight to work.

But… he also says he listened to her “panic-stricken call to 911.”

2. After explaining FBS, he wrote that RH’s “fits the FBS pattern” in that RH “was following a well-travelled route, which inconsistently included taking Cooper to daycare.”


3. He notes that RH returned to his car at lunchtime, in the context of : people ask, how could he not have noticed Cooper, or not have checked the car for Cooper?

He explains that it typical in FBS for the intention to be blocked instantly, and to be suppressed for an entire day.

He wrote that parents report they had pictures on desk, they talked to co-workers about their child, they even told coworkers they had to leave on time to pick up their child from daycare.

“It is likely that when Harris returned to car at midday there was no cue to indicate Cooper was still in the car.”


5. Diamond concluded his piece with this:

(Unique to this case….the internet search) “ on how long an animal can survive in a hot car, a day before he forgot his son in his car. Only Harris knows if the Internet search he conducted involved a conscious decision on his part to leave his son in a hot car, or was just a cruel coincidence.”

 

[minor4th]

An interesting bit of trivia is that Dr Diamond locked his grandson, who died, inside his vehicle.

Thus, since that time, he has devoted himself to the FBS.

Comparitively, JRH wanted to become an advocate for SafeKids because he locked his son inside of his vehicle. I cannot buy into this FBS stuff. FBS is a convenient way for parents to relieve themselves from their own burden of fatal negligence.

The juvenile justice court judge who kept his son in a hot car while he worked at the courthouse until lunchtime had some hanky-panky going on, too. *advertiser censored*, for sure, easily comes to mind. And he killed his son on their 5th Wedding Anniversary. Dr Diamond testified in his trial that ended with an acquittal.

So you agree that parents do forget their children in cars though? You don't believe that every hot car death is a case of intentional murder do you?

 

[katydid23]

An interesting bit of trivia is that Dr Diamond locked his grandson, who died, inside his vehicle.

Thus, since that time, he has devoted himself to the FBS.

Comparitively, JRH wanted to become an advocate for SafeKids because he locked his son inside of his vehicle. I cannot buy into this FBS stuff. FBS is a convenient way for parents to relieve themselves from their own burden of fatal negligence.

The juvenile justice court judge who kept his son in a hot car while he worked at the courthouse until lunchtime had some hanky-panky going on, too. *advertiser censored*, for sure, easily comes to mind. And he killed his son on their 5th Wedding Anniversary. Dr Diamond testified in his trial that ended with an acquittal.

Are you sure that Dr Diamonds grandson died? I thought he had accidentally forgot him, BRIEFLY, but it scared him so much that he began researching it. I didn't ever see that he actually died. But you might be right. ....?....

 

[minor4th]

Didn't I read somewhere that in ALL but one case he got an acquittal? Ironically, the only one who got convicted was the one female charged. Maybe there's that judgemental biases attached to that verdict???? Females may be presumed to be more aware than males by some juries?? Any thoughts?

I read some statistics that mothers are usually treated more harshly in these cases than fathers.

I think it's that society unconsciously expects more from mothers than fathers.

In that one conviction - she was convicted of the lesser misdemeanor charge, so his testimony was probably helpful in that case as well.

 

[gitana1]

any of the legal people here comment on the jury instructions? I listened to some of afternoon when they were working on them...my lay opinion is jury is going to have trouble with these and I expect questions....really confusing. I hate instructions...these are lay people and when they are so complex sometimes I think it really favors the defendant. I hope that is not the case here.

Does anyone have a link to the instructions? I would love to see those.

An interesting bit of trivia is that Dr Diamond locked his grandson, who died, inside his vehicle.

Thus, since that time, he has devoted himself to the FBS.

Comparitively, JRH wanted to become an advocate for SafeKids because he locked his son inside of his vehicle. I cannot buy into this FBS stuff. FBS is a convenient way for parents to relieve themselves from their own burden of fatal negligence.

The juvenile justice court judge who kept his son in a hot car while he worked at the courthouse until lunchtime had some hanky-panky going on, too. *advertiser censored*, for sure, easily comes to mind. And he killed his son on their 5th Wedding Anniversary. Dr Diamond testified in his trial that ended with an acquittal.

What? Do you have a link for that, that Dr. Diamond forgot his own grandson who died? That would instantly discredit him as an expert witness.

The defense is not under pressure or time. Occam's Razor: is it probable or likely that the defense would want to dismiss ANY testimony that would hammer home the premise of their defense? To make their defense ROCK SOLID? NO. What I saw on Thursday and Friday is a deflated and defeated DT, anxious and stressed. What I saw was preparing for a key witness, and then the witness doesn't testify, inexplicably.

I think the theory that has been floating on here is the probable one. Expert wouldn't testify unless Ross testified. Defense tried without ceasing to get him to testify, maybe he agreed---but backed out of it. Expert wouldn't testify unless Ross did. Hence the deflation, defeat, and somewhat snarky commit "According to Ross, the defense rests" (or something to that effect).

The defense went out with a whimper.

I don't think there is any way possible that the defense team tried to persuade Ross to testify. Having a defendant testify is very, very dangerous. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2WiAbn9_RIY2d1EMsP6b2Q&bvm=bv.137904068,d.cGw

 

[Lily63]

The defense is not under pressure or time. Occam's Razor: is it probable or likely that the defense would want to dismiss ANY testimony that would hammer home the premise of their defense? To make their defense ROCK SOLID? NO. What I saw on Thursday and Friday is a deflated and defeated DT, anxious and stressed. What I saw was preparing for a key witness, and then the witness doesn't testify, inexplicably.

I think the theory that has been floating on here is the probable one. Expert wouldn't testify unless Ross testified. Defense tried without ceasing to get him to testify, maybe he agreed---but backed out of it. Expert wouldn't testify unless Ross did. Hence the deflation, defeat, and somewhat snarky commit "According to Ross, the defense rests" (or something to that effect).

The defense went out with a whimper.

This makes sense to me but I'm curious about what our WS lawyer friends have to say.

The lawyers I have seen on TV talking about this case have pretty consistently said they would not want RH to testify. I think lawyers in murder cases pretty much always prefer that their clients do not testify. Am I right about that?

Do the lawyers among us think it's possible that the DT wanted Harris to testify?

 

[minor4th]

Just tossing around possibilities here:

Defense might have decided to call Brewer instead of Diamond as a strategic option. The State has believed Diamond was going to testify for months or longer. They got a whole file from the FBI, presumably with material that could be used to impeach Diamond or try to smear him. The materials could have even included transcripts from Diamond's testimony in other trials. And maybe there was something in there that would have been detrimental to Ross' defense.

Brewer, on the other hand, is a relative newcomer and the State would have had little or no info on him to impeach. Although not as polished as Diamond, he delivered essentially the same information. And the State was not able to impeach him with his prior statements. They might have been trying to do that, however, by asking him if he got all his info from Diamond.

I mean ...its possible.

I do not think a nationally recognized expert would have pulled out at the last minute. That would have made him less valuable as an expert witness in future cases.

I think that whatever happened was something the defense had at least anticipated because they did have a backup expert to fill in. Maybe they just had to make the final decision at the last moment when they got the FBI file.

Do we know for sure the defense got to look at the FBI file? I thought Staley ruled it did not have to be turned over to the defense.

 

[minor4th]

I doubt there was ever a solid plan for Ross to testify - especially since the State entered into evidence all of Ross' statements and interviews. That was huge gift to the defense.

 

[GA_Peach]

Random thought - it could have been Ross who was going to testify and the 50 slides could have been for him. You know, like photos or ss' of loving texts to use during a narrative. Then, after his testimony the experts would come in. That order would make more sense - defendant testifies then experts who are now free to discuss what Ross said during interviews. Maybe we/I have been making it too complicated.

If Ross was going to testify and then backed out, that would explain a lot. Unfortunately it's all pure speculation. I don't think that we are ever going to get an answer as to what happened.

At the end of the states cause I believed it to be criminal negligence, but now I'm fully in the malice murder camp. The defense's own case helped sway me.

I am in the exact same boat. At the end of the State's case, I did not see anything that supported malice murder. Dr. Brewer's testimony put me in the malice murder camp though. After listening to him, I no longer found it within the realm of reason that Cooper was forgotten.

The State's case was all over the board, and it seemed to me that it was just a series of data points. The DT's presentation allowed me to focus, and after Dr. Brewer's testimony, I finally had one, coherent series of events for the first time.

 

[GA_Peach]

Does anyone have a link to the instructions? I would love to see those.



What? Do you have a link for that, that Dr. Diamond forgot his own grandson who died? That would instantly discredit him as an expert witness.



I don't think there is any way possible that the defense team tried to persuade Ross to testify. Having a defendant testify is very, very dangerous. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...2WiAbn9_RIY2d1EMsP6b2Q&bvm=bv.137904068,d.cGw

I don't believe that the jury instructions are completely finalized. Judge Staley still had research to do about one of the (possibly to be included) lesser charges.

 

[katydid23]

Didn't I read somewhere that in ALL but one case he got an acquittal? Ironically, the only one who got convicted was the one female charged. Maybe there's that judgemental biases attached to that verdict???? Females may be presumed to be more aware than males by some juries?? Any thoughts?

He testified in 3 female defendants cases that i know of. And 2 of them were acquitted. The woman who was found guilty, Wakesha Ives, received a suspended sentence, no jail time.

 

[Hope4More]

I’ve resolved the Dr. Diamond question, for myself anyway.

When trial began, Dr. Diamond was still on the table to be called. By October 20. When Kilgore indicated to Staley his case would last just 5-6 days, Kilgore was uncertain if he would call Diamond, but probably had already lined up Brewer as a replacement if he chose not to call Diamond.

That Kilgore, after trial began, doesn’t seem to have pursued the issue of having Dr. Diamond testify as to RH’s statements without RH testifying himself suggests to me that Kilgore was already leaning towards not calling Diamond.

I don’t believe that Kilgore would have advised RH to testify for any reason, even if it was the case RH had to testify to bring in Diamond, and that the DT thought Diamond essential.

IMO Kilgore concluded sometime between the State resting and after Brewer’s testimony that Diamond’s testimony could harm RH more than it could assist, because the State could and would use Diamond, “THE expert” on FBS, to point how inconsistent the facts of RH’s case were to other FBS cases.

Mystery solved, at least for me. At least until proven otherwise.

 

[GA_Peach]

I doubt there was ever a solid plan for Ross to testify - especially since the State entered into evidence all of Ross' statements and interviews. That was huge gift to the defense.

The DT repeatedly stated throughout the pretrial hearings that it was unlikely that Ross would testify.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Why did Leanna move in with some guy/new boyfriend so soon?

Does she need a man that much after going through all of this?

Wouldn't she want to take it slow and not fully commit to living with some guy while she is supposedly suppose to be getting justice for her baby?

Was this guy courting her before the Ross situation took place?