Trial - Ross Harris #9

[Hope4More]

My highly speculative theory on disappearance of Dr. Diamond

- I think the defense team did not provide Dr. Diamond detailed information relating to RH's June 18th activities (sexting, Whisper, needing an escape, Lightbulb trip) which are pertinent and salient information in forming his opinion. RH also probably didn't tell him about his sexting and other activities during the interview with Dr D.

- During preparation for his testimony Dr. D learned more about RH and his activities on June 18th. I think Dr. Diamond then informed the defense team that he cannot give favorable testimony or that he would not testify. Maybe around end of October? (see below for how Dr. Diamond typically works)

-The defense team hurriedly found Dr. Brewer as a replacement. Also didn't inform him all pertinent information. Dr. Brewer learned about sexting from Boring during cross from Boring. While crossing Dr. Brewer, Boring mentioned Dr. D in a manner that he seemed to know Dr. D won't be testifying. I heard it that way anyway.

-During lunch last Thursday, for whatever reason, Dr A pulled out abruptly upsetting Kilgore a great deal. Maybe Dr A just learned that Dr. D won't be testifying? Reluctant to do PTSD presentation if Dr. D won't back up FBS? IDK.


http://katv.com/news/local/expert-witness-family-of-naramore-testify-in-hot-car-death-trial

---------The defense touched on how Dr. Diamond worked and how he would be used in these types of cases. He is initially paid $5,000 to look into the case and investigate. Then, after he investigates, he is paid another $5,000. But Diamond said he will only testify in cases he determines to be accidents.------------------------------

Dr. Diamond knew of the lunchtime visit to car by June 30, 2014, because he included that fact in his op-ed, same with RH's vet video "research."

He also knew, along with the rest of the world, that RH had been indicted on charges relating to having sexual exchanges with minors. If he had any intention of steering clear of RH's case because RH wasn't a sympathetic enough case to get involved with, that's more than what he would have needed to know.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest the DT hasn't been thoroughly ethical, professional, and diligent every step of the way in this case (unlike LE and the State, sorry to say). There's no way they withheld information from Dr. Diamond he would have needed to know before putting his own reputation on the line, and there is no way he wouldn't have asked to be provided with every bit of info the DT could provide for context.

If you listen closely to Brewer's cross, what is made apparent is that the information the State kept implying was withheld from Brewer for nefarious reasons was nothing of the kind. Brewer hadn't been given the extractions of phone and computer records, and he said he couldn't testify as to what others had testified to during trial. That's it. He said he WAS aware of sexting, prostitutes, minors . Fact is, the DT didn't fail to tell him anything that was relevant to his testimony.

 

[RANCH]

I am sorry that I cannot figure out how to include your quoted text in my reply. There are two things that struck me regarding what you posted about Dr. Brewer. He said that there was nothing unique about Ross's situation. That is flat out not true. No other parent was sexting with minors on the day their child died. No other parent forgot in the same short time span as Ross did. And no other parent claimed it was his biggest fear!

That brings me to my next point. I am not sure if you watched Dr. Brewer's testimony, but he had an exchange with Chuck Boring about Ross's awareness of children dying in hot cars. Dr. Brewer stated that Ross was aware, like every other parent; he's seen the stories on the news. But he did not really know the risks. We know from the evidence that is not true. It was Ross's biggest fear. It was Leanna's biggest fear. They talked about it at home. Ross was aware of the Look Again campaign. He watched a video about the risks of leaving a pet in a hot car five days before Cooper's death. Ross wasn't simply aware of the the possibility of leaving a child in the car; he knew the risks and the consequences.

Your reply doesn't have the quote I used because I put it in quote brackets. It helps to keep things more tidy in my opinion.

I think that Brewer's testimony was accurate. I don't think that sexting is different than other distractions, the short amount of time is inconsequential to his theory and the biggest fear quote is overblown. JMO

 

[minor4th]

l

Except those recordings made him seem suspicious and bizarre...taking the stand could have changed that perception and he could have tried to connect to the jury.

I don't think those recordings make him seem suspicious or bizarre to most people who weren't already convinced he was guilty.

His behavior was exactly like every other parent who accidentally killed their child this way.

 

[gitana1]

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard this jury will use to decide this case. It's a somewhat confusing idea at times.



I don't see clear and convincing evidence let alone beyond a reasonable doubt that RH intentionally left Cooper in the car to die. JMO.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt

I don;t know. I think some people believe beyond a reasonable doubt means zero doubt. Here's an interesting quote about why the rule was put into place: "Jurors believed that wrongly condemning an innocent person was a mortal sin. If, after hearing a trial, they felt any uncertainty whatsoever about the defendant's guilt or innocence, they tended not to convict in fear of eternal repercussions. According to Whitman, the standard Christian law held that "in every case of doubt, where one's salvation is in peril, one must always take the safer way. . . . A judge who is in doubt must refuse to judge." The reasonable doubt doctrine was thus introduced to urge jurors to be more willing to convict; it says, effectively, "you may have a tiny bit of doubt, but come, let's be reasonable here: the defendant is guilty." http://www.livescience.com/33381-reasonable-doubt.html

 

[RitzBitz]

This has been bothering me. I know people react differently and some become stoic or even giddy when they are in emotional pain. But , if it had been me I think my first thoughts would be "my poor baby - he was suffering so badly - probably calling for me and I wasn't there". It would haunt me to realize how much he suffered, such a brutal death for a small little guy. And yes, take me to my baby, I want to see him, hold him, kiss him. I need to see if it's really true and I would want to lay down with him in my arms and never get up. Until the men in white coasts made me.. My original thoughts were that Ross went to work since he was running late and only planned to go in for a few minutes. But work or more likely play got in the way and it was hours before he thought about it again. So he did a test run and could tell cooper wasn't doing well so he walked away. . As awful as this crime happens I don't feel he truly forgot.

 

[minor4th]

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard this jury will use to decide this case. It's a somewhat confusing idea at times.



I don't see clear and convincing evidence let alone beyond a reasonable doubt that RH intentionally left Cooper in the car to die. JMO.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/beyond+a+reasonable+doubt

It is one possibility, among many, if that.

 

[Hope4More]

So curious. The FBI sometimes does criminal investigative analyses of cases. I don;t know under what circumstances. Is it possible they did one here?



I found one where the mother intentionally left her kids in the car to freeze to death. (They survived). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...LpqDq4AQJrPeCU0vCXW51A&bvm=bv.137904068,d.cGc

And several where the kids were left in a freezing car either by negligence or child endangerment:

http://www.kiro7.com/news/milton-father-charged-leaving-baby-freezing-car-ov/39997405

http://time.com/4166719/couple-arrested-kids-cold-car/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-inside-freezing-car-watch-football-game.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...ght-freezing-car-dad-arrest-article-1.2105576

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-mother-leaves-baby-in-freezing-car-at-massachusetts-outlets/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...4TxXe_jLF3-txrjnA&sig2=DmYeJvTnc3xEFPraHry0WA




See I don't equate "possibility" with reasonable doubt. Many things are "possible". Most things are possible. But is the possibility great enough that it is reasonable to doubt guilt? That's the key for me. Just because something is possible doesn't mean all doubt is reasonably removed.



You make some good points. He did know about Ross coming back to the car during lunch though. he talked about that in his article. I;m not sure he knew that Ross stated he was totally aware of FBS and how to "look back" nor that he watched a video by a vet of what a dog goes through, just days before his son died. However, he did mention that Ross may have looked up how ling it takes a kid to die in a hot car and seemed to entertain the notion that that could have been a horrible "coincidence". As we know, Ross did not look that up but it surprises me that Dr. Diamond would entertain the possibility that he could do that and still accidentally forget his son. I don;t think anyone could believe that coincidence. Maybe he though twice about the circumstances of the case. Maybe he could not testify to what the defense wanted.

Hello. I absolutely DO believe it was a coincidence, and Dr. Diamond knew on June 30 the video wasn't about children, it was about pets (way before most anyone knew the difference) , and IMO one of the DT's best supported points was that Ross the researcher clicked on anything and everything that popped up on his screen, as the trending 2 million views vet video did.

 

[GA_Peach]

I don't think those recordings make him seem suspicious or bizarre to most people who weren't already convinced he was guilty.

His behavior was exactly like every other parent who accidentally killed their child this way.

I actually do think that the videos make him look suspicious and bizarre. I saw Ross get truly emotional when Leanna was in the interrogation room with him. That behavior was not like the other behavior we saw him displaying IMO. Interestingly enough, the only times that I have seen Ross get emotional during this entire ordeal is when people talk about what this means for Ross. When he was talking about the future of his job, he got upset. When witnesses described Ross doing things that he can longer do now that he is in jail, Ross got upset. When Ross thought about using a metal toilet and sleeping on a uncomfortable bed, he got upset. When Ross realized that he is no longer free to do what he wants, he becomes upset. Those emotions look raw unlike the rest of the video footage that I have seen.

Having said that, I also thought Leanna looked suspicious in the video with Ross. However, after seeing and listening to Leanna on the stand, my opinion changed. It put Leanna and her actions into context. I don't think that Leanna's reaction was necessarily normal, but after hearing from her, I don't think that it was suspicious either.

 

[RANCH]

See I don't equate "possibility" with reasonable doubt. Many things are "possible". Most things are possible. But is the possibility great enough that it is reasonable to doubt guilt? That's the key for me. Just because something is possible doesn't mean all doubt is reasonably removed.

That's how I see the States case. It's possible that RH's sexting caused him to intentionally kill Cooper. At the same time I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that really happened.

I do think that it's reasonable for RH to have had FBS. Dr Bewer helped me to understand that. JMO.

 

[minor4th]

I don;t know. I think some people believe beyond a reasonable doubt means zero doubt. Here's an interesting quote about why the rule was put into place: "Jurors believed that wrongly condemning an innocent person was a mortal sin. If, after hearing a trial, they felt any uncertainty whatsoever about the defendant's guilt or innocence, they tended not to convict in fear of eternal repercussions. According to Whitman, the standard Christian law held that "in every case of doubt, where one's salvation is in peril, one must always take the safer way. . . . A judge who is in doubt must refuse to judge." The reasonable doubt doctrine was thus introduced to urge jurors to be more willing to convict; it says, effectively, "you may have a tiny bit of doubt, but come, let's be reasonable here: the defendant is guilty." http://www.livescience.com/33381-reasonable-doubt.html

Come in, gitana - you really think the state has established so firmly and convincingly that Ross planned and carried out Cooper's murder? To the exclusion of every other reasonable interpretation of the evidence?

No way. The State's evidence barely even raises the possibility it was a deliberate murder.

 

[Hope4More]

Your reply doesn't have the quote I used because I put it in quote brackets. It helps to keep things more tidy in my opinion.

I think that Brewer's testimony was accurate. I don't think that sexting is different than other distractions, the short amount of time is inconsequential to his theory and the biggest fear quote is overblown. JMO

So admirably succinct.

I couldn't agree more about the "greatest fear " thing being overblown. IMO it's way more likely it was a genuine fear of Leanna's, but not especially a fear of Ross's, and that when he said this to LE he was trying to explain every way he knew how that he would never have done this to Cooper, and plucked out of memory the fears Leanna had expressed to him.

 

[pocketaccent]

Dr. Diamond knew of the lunchtime visit to car by June 30, 2014, because he included that fact in his op-ed, same with RH's vet video "research."

He also knew, along with the rest of the world, that RH had been indicted on charges relating to having sexual exchanges with minors. If he had any intention of steering clear of RH's case because RH wasn't a sympathetic enough case to get involved with, that's more than what he would have needed to know.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest the DT hasn't been thoroughly ethical, professional, and diligent every step of the way in this case (unlike LE and the State, sorry to say). There's no way they withheld information from Dr. Diamond he would have needed to know before putting his own reputation on the line, and there is no way he wouldn't have asked to be provided with every bit of info the DT could provide for context.

If you listen closely to Brewer's cross, what is made apparent is that the information the State kept implying was withheld from Brewer for nefarious reasons was nothing of the kind. Brewer hadn't been given the extractions of phone and computer records, and he said he couldn't testify as to what others had testified to during trial. That's it. He said he WAS aware of sexting, prostitutes, minors . Fact is, the DT didn't fail to tell him anything that was relevant to his testimony.

BBM,
Yes Dr. D knew about the sexting w/minor charges.
But maybe not about what RH was doing on June 18, 2014.

eg, sexting while Cooper was dying.

 

[minor4th]

I actually do think that the videos make him look suspicious and bizarre. I saw Ross get truly emotional when Leanna was in the interrogation room with him. That behavior was not like the other behavior we saw him displaying IMO. Interestingly enough, the only times that I have seen Ross get emotional during this entire ordeal is when people talk about what this means for Ross. When he was talking about the future of his job, he got upset. When witnesses described Ross doing things that he can longer do now that he is in jail, Ross got upset. When Ross thought about using a metal toilet and sleeping on a uncomfortable bed, he got upset. When Ross realized that he is no longer free to do what he wants, he becomes upset. Those emotions look raw unlike the rest of the video footage that I have seen.

Having said that, I also thought Leanna looked suspicious in the video with Ross. However, after seeing and listening to Leanna on the stand, my opinion changed. It put Leanna and her actions into context. I don't think that Leanna's reaction was necessarily normal, but after hearing from her, I don't think that it was suspicious either.

Ross' reaction at the scene, the things he said, the wailing and screaming were identical to other parents who just discovered they killed their baby. Listen to some of the 911 tapes that are out there. They're exactly the same.

He is completely overcome with emotion in the interview room and it's just silly to believe he is so grief stricken over a jail cell rather than the enormous guilt and sadness of killing his son.

 

[Hope4More]

I actually do think that the videos make him look suspicious and bizarre. I saw Ross get truly emotional when Leanna was in the interrogation room with him. That behavior was not like the other behavior we saw him displaying IMO. Interestingly enough, the only times that I have seen Ross get emotional during this entire ordeal is when people talk about what this means for Ross. When he was talking about the future of his job, he got upset. When witnesses described Ross doing things that he can longer do now that he is in jail, Ross got upset. When Ross thought about using a metal toilet and sleeping on a uncomfortable bed, he got upset. When Ross realized that he is no longer free to do what he wants, he becomes upset. Those emotions look raw unlike the rest of the video footage that I have seen.

Having said that, I also thought Leanna looked suspicious in the video with Ross. However, after seeing and listening to Leanna on the stand, my opinion changed. It put Leanna and her actions into context. I don't think that Leanna's reaction was necessarily normal, but after hearing from her, I don't think that it was suspicious either.

I saw a man in that video sobbing his heart out, his whole body shaking, as he spoke about COOPER.

 

[GA_Peach]

Come in, gitana - you really think the state has established so firmly and convincingly that Ross planned and carried out Cooper's murder? To the exclusion of every other reasonable interpretation of the evidence?

No way. The State's evidence barely even raises the possibility it was a deliberate murder.

I think that what the State has proven is that it is not reasonable, even in the slightest bit, that Ross forgot Cooper. If Cooper was not forgotten, he was left intentionally. This was done with "an abandoned and malignant heart."

§ 16-5-1 Malice Murder

[FONT=&amp](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.[/FONT]

 

[GA_Peach]

Ross' reaction at the scene, the things he said, the wailing and screaming were identical to other parents who just discovered they killed their baby. Listen to some of the 911 tapes that are out there. They're exactly the same.

He is completely overcome with emotion in the interview room and it's just silly to believe he is so grief stricken over a jail cell rather than the enormous guilt and sadness of killing his son.

I saw a man in that video sobbing his heart out, his whole body shaking, as he spoke about COOPER.

That is why there are 12 jurors and not one. The jury will get to decide what Ross's mannerisms mean, if anything. We watched the same video and came away with two very different conclusions. I believe that the jury will engage in these exact same discussions.

 

[Hope4More]

BBM,
Yes Dr. D knew about the sexting w/minor charges.
But maybe not about what RH was doing on June 18, 2014.

eg, sexting while Cooper was dying.

In terms of the core charges and whether or not RH forgot Cooper because of FBS, what RH did as Cooper was dying in the car is IRRELEVANT, except as a way of inflaming first the public's and now the jury's view of RH.

And yes, Diamond would have known, because that info was made public early on, and was explicitly laid out in his indictment and in a string of court docs about severing the minor charges.

 

[minor4th]

I think that what the State has proven is that it is not reasonable, even in the slightest bit, that Ross forgot Cooper. If Cooper was not forgotten, he was left intentionally. This was done with "an abandoned and malignant heart."

§ 16-5-1 Malice Murder

[FONT=&amp](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.[/FONT]

I disagree.

In no way has the State proven that Ross did not forget Cooper, like all of the hundreds of parents before him.

Having difficulty understanding how a parent can forget a child does not equate to proof of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

You guys are shifting the entire burden on the defense to DISPROVE intentional murder. That is not how it works.

 

[RANCH]

I don;t know. I think some people believe beyond a reasonable doubt means zero doubt. Here's an interesting quote about why the rule was put into place: "Jurors believed that wrongly condemning an innocent person was a mortal sin. If, after hearing a trial, they felt any uncertainty whatsoever about the defendant's guilt or innocence, they tended not to convict in fear of eternal repercussions. According to Whitman, the standard Christian law held that "in every case of doubt, where one's salvation is in peril, one must always take the safer way. . . . A judge who is in doubt must refuse to judge." The reasonable doubt doctrine was thus introduced to urge jurors to be more willing to convict; it says, effectively, "you may have a tiny bit of doubt, but come, let's be reasonable here: the defendant is guilty." http://www.livescience.com/33381-reasonable-doubt.html

I don't let things like "mortal sins" define reasonable doubt for me. LOL

To me reasonable doubt has to be based on more than feelings. It has to be based on either the lack of evidence by the State or evidence provided by the defense that effectively counters the States evidence. JMO

 

[GA_Peach]

I disagree.

In no way has the State proven that Ross did not forget Cooper, like all of the hundreds of parents before him.

Having difficulty understanding how a parent can forget a child does not equate to proof of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

You guys are shifting the entire burden on the defense to DISPROVE intentional murder. That is not how it works.

Ross left Cooper in the car. That has been stipulated. Ross either did it because he 1) forgot or 2) with malice. If he didn't forget him, the only option left is #2. The totality of the evidence points to what an infinitesimally small possibility it was that Ross "forgot." I don't think concluding that Ross "forgot" is anywhere near reasonable. Possible? Sure, if Ross is the most unlucky person to ever walk the earth. Reasonable? Absolutely not.

The burden has not been shifted to the defense. The State entered evidence to prove that Cooper was not forgotten.

ETA - Here's a post where I explain my reasoning based on the evidence presented during trial.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?320799-Trial-Ross-Harris-9&p=12915203#post12915203