Trial - Ross Harris #9

[katydid23]

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 agree with the above bolded portion----95% of the time, that is.

In every trial that Dr Diamond testified as an FBS expert, the defendants testified. And that seemed to be a big part of his 'presentation.' His testimony is based upon the scenario that each of these parents were great, caring protective nurturing people. And for reasons beyond their control, they were vulnerable to this horrible memory syndrome. And it could happen to any one. Cue the grieving parent who comes to the stand to describe their horrible tragic day.

Without that component, the testimony is much less effective, imo. The entire theory of FBS is based upon the notion that it is an innocent well meaning parent that this tragedy happens to. SO WHY WOULDNT THE DEFENDANT TESTIFY IF THAT WAS THE CASE?

 

[LyndyLoo]

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.

Ohh Thanx katy ..I stand corrected then.:blushing: There must have something within that trial then to tip the scale.. It also could be that trial's jurisdiction and whatever the social norms were there in the guilty verdict ( of less charge).:thinking:

 

[minor4th]

I agree with the above bolded portion----95% of the time, that is.

In every trial that Dr Diamond testified as an FBS expert, the defendants testified. And that seemed to be a big part of his 'presentation.' His testimony is based upon the scenario that each of these parents were great, caring protective nurturing people. And for reasons beyond their control, they were vulnerable to this horrible memory syndrome. And it could happen to any one. Cue the grieving parent who comes to the stand to describe their horrible tragic day.

Without that component, the testimony is much less effective, imo. The entire theory of FBS is based upon the notion that it is an innocent well meaning parent that this tragedy happens to. SO WHY WOULDNT THE DEFENDANT TESTIFY IF THAT WAS THE CASE?

Well there could be many reasons. But in this case, there were several interviews and recordings of Ross right after the event and for the next several hours. Because of those recordings, we/the jury/experts, etc. know what his state of mind was and what his account was. This was unique to this case because in the other cases, the defendants were not arrested and interrogated right away.

Honestly, there would be no reason at all for Ross to have to testify and explain what happened because it's already known.

Do you recall how enthusiastic Kilgore was when the state sought to introduce those recordings? That clenched it that Ross would not testify. I doubt very seriously Diamond's testimony hinged on Ross testifying.

 

[Paige SC]

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?

She was probably advised that having a pretend BF would make her bogus divorce more credible in the courtroom. Takes away the ability of the state to question the validity of her 'moving on with her life,' as well limits their ability to expose her as someone who would say almost anything to help her only true love and father of her dead son avoid accountability.

 

[popsicle]

So, what is the explanation for the defense having 2 half days with no witnesses for the jury? That day that Ross looked like hell and Kilgore was totally not himself and has seemed to given up ever since then? What has caused all of that?

 

[popsicle]

She was probably advised that having a pretend BF would make her bogus divorce more credible in the courtroom. Takes away the ability of the state to question the validity of her 'moving on with her life,' as well limits their ability to expose her as someone who would say almost anything to help her only true love and father of her dead son avoid accountability.

Would he put on his FB that he is in a relationship with her though?

 

[DexterMorgan]

Would he put on his FB that he is in a relationship with her though?

I guess he knew he had a easy one that wouldn't leave him if he ever cheated?

I guess he is financially stable enough for the support she requires?

Idk.

Win win for both maybe.

 

[DeDee]

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?

So you agree that parents do forget their children in cars though?

Yes, in certain circumstances. I just don't believe that parents forget to drop their children off at day care centers and leave them in a hot car all day.

You don't believe that every hot car death is a case of intentional murder do you?

No. Every hot car death may not be an intentional murder.

Any adult who places an infant or child into their vehicle remembers the child is in the vehicle....until that child is "forgotten" later. For example: Can people really walk into a coworkers home to have sex and a nap while forgetting they left the child behind in their car outside to die? No. They knew they were leaving the child encapsulated in the car.

Manslaughter, an unintentional killing, or negligent homicide, is the least charge a defendant should face in a hot car death.

 

[DeDee]

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. ....?....

:crazy: Considering my age and current thought processes, I could have juxtaposed the wording of the article. I am a speed reader who tends to read in phrases. Thus, it's quite possible that I could have skewed the reading material. If so, you could be correct in that the child did not die but he was left behind inside a vehicle by Dr Diamond.

 

[JudyBolton]

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.

Yes, but that implies a longer term, more strategic decision. It was a last minute (as in during lunch break) decision as far as we can tell. They were talking about a witness with 50 slides and then - poof - nothing burger.

 

[Zoobiegirl]

I have to say that prior to the trial I thought criminal neglect, but not malice; after the defense I'm in the malice camp too as other have said. This has to be unpleasant for the defense team.

Question: does anyone think the state will go after LeAnna now? Prior to the trial I had wondered if this was a dry run to decide if they thought they could get a conviction on her. But really, now that we've heard all this about Ross (glory holes, seriously? googled it, regretted that.:sick:hdear::gasp:do not do this! :lookingitup where was I? oh now that we've gotten to know Ross I don't think there is the wealth of obvious guilt that would convict her. Even if some of her reactions were bizarre. You can always look at it like "well, she spent how long with him? no wonder!"

 

[gitana1]

I agree with the above bolded portion----95% of the time, that is.

In every trial that Dr Diamond testified as an FBS expert, the defendants testified. And that seemed to be a big part of his 'presentation.' His testimony is based upon the scenario that each of these parents were great, caring protective nurturing people. And for reasons beyond their control, they were vulnerable to this horrible memory syndrome. And it could happen to any one. Cue the grieving parent who comes to the stand to describe their horrible tragic day.

Without that component, the testimony is much less effective, imo. The entire theory of FBS is based upon the notion that it is an innocent well meaning parent that this tragedy happens to. SO WHY WOULDNT THE DEFENDANT TESTIFY IF THAT WAS THE CASE?

Well, to be fair, even if he was totally innocent, has enough stuff to make him look bad - the sexting, cheating, laziness- that he would make a very poor witness for himself.

 

[LibertyandJustice4]

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 have a psychology degree and I have a really hard time wrapping my brain around FBS. I've heard better theories on why we forget objects or forget what we go into the kitchen for, and a baby is so different. I can see it happening for a moment or two or when it's another caregiver other than the primary caregiver(s), but the false memory and forgetting all day long? I have a really hard time with that. Especially because it seems to happen primarily in the summer and not the winter. I've never heard of a baby dying from hypothermia because someone forgot it in the car. How many parents have gone outside in October when the weather is nice and realized they left their child in the car all day? I know we probably wouldn't hear about those cases, but it does seem odd that it's not a thing at all. And the vast majority of stressed out parents who don't forget their kids just make it such a statistical rarity that I am skeptical. I've read the articles and it may be true, but it does seem like a theory without much evidence to back it up.

 

[Paige SC]

Here are links to two cases involving child murder charges in GA. The first is a link to a foster mom charged with beating a child to death. The jury was hung despite overwhelming physical evidence. What's noteworthy is one jurors account of how he changed his opinion after struggling with the 'No one SAW-her-do-it-which-means-reasonable-doubt' mentality, but it didn't alter the deadlock. Good news is she's being retried. ‎

The second was a grandmother charged in the death of her grandson after being left unattended in a bathtub. She was found not guilty of murder but received a lesser charge of second degree cruelty to a child. The verbiage relating to charges is in simple layman's terms & applies to the RH trail. Some here might find it helpful.


‎http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2016/mar/12/ringgold-foster-mom-going-back-court-murder-c/354882/

http://wsmv.membercenter.worldnow.com/story/30821653/why-murray-county-grandmother-is-charged-with-second-degree-murder
‎

 

[Paige SC]

Would he put on his FB that he is in a relationship with her though?

Sure. Either he believes it to be true or he's in on the deal to make it appear legit.

 

[DeDee]

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.

gitana, no, I do not. The information re: Dr Diamond and his grandson had to be embedded in a news article related to one of the hot car deaths where Dr Diamond testified because I never researched his qualifications, nor googled his name, but only read about the cases where he testified. My best guess would be an article on little Thomas Naramore's hot car death since that was the last case I read about. Someone else posted they thought Dr Diamond's grandson was forgotten but did not die.

 

[MsMarple]

:crazy: Considering my age and current thought processes, I could have juxtaposed the wording of the article. I am a speed reader who tends to read in phrases. Thus, it's quite possible that I could have skewed the reading material. If so, you could be correct in that the child did not die but he was left behind inside a vehicle by Dr Diamond.

Hi DeDee! I don't have the link handy but you might be confusing an interview Diamond did where he used himself as an example of FBS. IIRC, he said he had his granddaughter in the car in her car seat and managed to forget she was there until his wife mentioned her name, at which point he remembered she was in the back.

ETA: I found one link ( I know there are more as he's used the example before):

Diamond recently forgot, while driving to a mall, that his infant granddaughter was asleep in the back of his car. He remembered, he said, only because his wife mentioned the baby. So he understands what could have happened had he been alone with the child. Almost worse, he understands exactly why.

http://theweek.com/articles/507198/last-word-forgotten-baby-syndrome

 

[Hope4More]

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.

On Oct 20, the State told the Court it would give the FBI notebook to the DT. This came after Kilgore argued Brady violation, the State said it wasn't obligated to turn over material it used to prepare for witness testimony, and Staley agreed with the State, shrugged, and told Kilgore the LE witness the State needed the FBI materials to prep would be testifying on Thursday, which gave Kilgore plenty of time to catch up.

The State did not turn over the material on the date indicated. Kilgore brought that fact up, essentially as a polite question - you said you would and didn't, may I inquire as to when you might do so? Evans replied with a - oh my, I've been so busy, I honestly just forgot. I'll get that to you tomorrow, 2 days, tops. Staley chimed in - next time work it out yourselves, don't bring it up to me.

 

[minor4th]

Yes, but that implies a longer term, more strategic decision. It was a last minute (as in during lunch break) decision as far as we can tell. They were talking about a witness with 50 slides and then - poof - nothing burger.

But didn't the timing coincide with the delivery of the FBI file?

 

[LibertyandJustice4]

Sure. Either he believes it to be true or he's in on the deal to make it appear legit.

Not aimed at you, Paige SC, just jumping off your post, but someone who is co-dependent will continue to be co-dependent. I can see a new relationship. A new relationship that's healthy? Doubtful. Imo.