621 users online (78 members and 543 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 70 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1047
  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by JudyBolton View Post
    Yes, and in fact, at one point I wondered if he might have a slight touch of Aspergers (very slight) due to his weird reactions, lack of reactions, and (at times) almost inappropriate talking (ie: chatting with officer in patrol car, chatting with other guy in holding room, overexplaining, etc.) Don't believe that is the case or the DT would surely have used that to explain some of his bazaar traits to the jury.
    I think it's more of a narcissism/sociopath thing myself: Trying to come up with the emotions that are expected, but that feel off to people who actually experience them because they aren't genuine. MOO.

  2. #32
    JudyBolton's Avatar
    JudyBolton is offline In memory: My dear friend Martha Mickel, kidnapped & murdered by Curtis Tyner.
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Near Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    903
    Maybe soon one or two of our attorney members will weigh in on pulling an expert witness at the 11th hour. He is from S. Fla. so I'm sure they had paid his plane fare, hotel, and hourly expenses. Probably there is a built-in provision that he gets paid all or most of the fee whether he takes the stand or not.

    Is this being discussed by any of the media covering the trial? I follow a couple on twitter but so far, they haven't mentioned Dr. Diamond's lack of testimony.
    Judy ( posting only my opinion)

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    5,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    The State couldn't have introduced a defense expert witness 's report in any circumstance. The defense could have introduced the reports themselves, but only by putting the experts who produced them on the stand.

    Either DR. could have testified to everything they wrote in their reports OTHER than what RH told them about what happened on June 18 (assuming that Staley had ruled in the State's favor that those statements were hearsay unless RH testified himself, or that the DT anticipated such a ruling).
    That's what I said but I apologize for not being clearer. I should have included the option to testify without reference to Ross' statements. But that's why this comment confused me:

    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    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.
    Anyway, at this point only Dr. Brewer's testimony is meaningful - I'm just nosy and want to know what happened. Carry on!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    7,308
    Quote Originally Posted by blue22 View Post
    I give up. If I keep thinking about Dr. Diamond, I'm going to drive myself completely bonkers.

    On to the closing arguments, it should be good. Out of curiosity, is anyone still on the fence for the murder and neglect charges? I assume conviction on the sexting charges is inevitable.
    Imo. The jury instructions will probably confuse some jurors.

    Especially since the Cruelty charge is only relevant if it was done due to malice or criminal negligence.

    But a jury may say guilty on the Cruelty charge because he was doing adultery texting at the time.

    But if he was engaged in a 9/11 text exchange; Then the jury would probably just think accident which would throw the Cruelty charges out.

    So. The murder case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Which means the Cruelty charges only chance of surviving is due to his salacious texting while forgetting Cooper.

    Jmo for now.

    Btw. A smaller carseat is not child Cruelty imo.

    Because police will only give you a fix it ticket or something. Jmo
    You can fool some of the people some of the time; But guess what? The Bus Stops Here (Life No Parole/ Don't Pass Go: Don't Collect Your $200)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    7,480
    Quote Originally Posted by blue22 View Post
    I give up. If I keep thinking about Dr. Diamond, I'm going to drive myself completely bonkers.

    On to the closing arguments, it should be good. Out of curiosity, is anyone still on the fence for the murder and neglect charges? I assume conviction on the sexting charges is inevitable.
    Any doubt I had about neglect disappeared when we heard LH say "We discussed it often". RH was most certainly aware of the risks of FBS but he did nothing to prevent it. I'm still not convinced of malice murder, but I'm find him guilty of everything else if I were a juror.

    If the information about the life insurance policies, and RH telling LH how to claim them soon after Cooper's death, had been allowed as evidence I think that would have made me a lot more likely to find him guilty of malice murder. Without that, I don't see a motive. I don't think the motive the state implied was convincing, but money is always a powerful motive.

    I still think it's perfect possible that RH genuinely forgot about Cooper and failed to notice he was in the car.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4,185
    IMO, I think he's absolutely guilty of neglect and felony murder. I see a neglect conviction, but I don't think it will be easy for a jury to agree on felony murder.

    I personally **think** Ross probably did this on purpose. However, I don't feel the state proved it. I would be pretty shocked to hear a guilty on malice murder. If I were on the jury I wouldn't find him guilty, even though I think he probably did it. Too much doubt presented.

    The wild card of the whole trial was the surprisingly weak defense. They didn't really give the jury anything on their turn, IMO. That could be a factor.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    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?
    Agree he might as well have said "BECAUSE of Ross the defense rests its case"...

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    BINGO. That might have been it right there. Maybe they planned to put Ross on the stand to allow the other experts to testify. I have never seen Dr Diamond testify as an expert without the defendants also taking the stand.

    But if it is true that Ross told his family to stay away from the court, then he is very ashamed and humiliated, imo. So maybe he just cannot bring himself to take the stand.
    Ashamed...humiliated...well he sure looks pretty calm and having some fun with his attorneys when the jury is not there...not so sure what is going on with no family...are they not even going to come for the verdict?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyandJustice4 View Post
    I think it's more of a narcissism/sociopath thing myself: Trying to come up with the emotions that are expected, but that feel off to people who actually experience them because they aren't genuine. MOO.

    RH is just fundamentally repulsive. There's no way to make him a likable or sympathetic character. His behavior from start to finish lacked authenticity, sincerity & normality. Yeah sure, no two people react the exact same way to tragedy but most people react similarly. Btw, when observing behavioral responses to loss, and in this case LT's demeanor, consideration IS given to shock (which is also considered normal.) Shock shouldn't be used as a catch-all to explain away atypical behavior. Abnormal reactions (RH & LT) typically don't happen simultaneously in a vacuum, they're usually an indicator of something abnormal. LT & RH weren't normal. Their relationship was built on a foundation of all things unhealthy, deceptive, denial, co dependent & narcissistic. CH never had a chance.‎

    If RH is found not guilty it will be on some useless factor like whether the top of CH's head was visible from the rear facing car seat, or perhaps a lack of agreement on his exact height & weight. The totality of all things considered is what implicates RH, not any one specific thing. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence, as is the absence of evidence.‎

    If reasonable doubt is the benchmark applied & followed, he will be found guilty. The problem is; what used to be considered universally 'reasonable' has since been replaced by 'any and all doubt' in the propagated falsehood that there aren't any true behavioral norms. We are lead to believe that abnormal reactions and pathological behaviors displayed in the average member of society are little more than a myth used to unfairly prosecute those who are simply different from the rest.‎

    In other words, just because most people wouldn't forget their child after a 40 second car ride, or that most babies don't fall asleep that quickly, or that most people discussing their worst fear take steps to prevent it, or that most people would immediately detect the smell of death in a boiling hot car, or that most things wouldn't happen to a person all in the same day (if ever,) MOST doesn't encompass ALL. Therefore, he could possibly be innocent even if MOST would reasonably conclude otherwise. Just because something is technically possible DOES NOT make it reasonable or probable.

    In the end, there are times when the guilty walk free. As tragic and unfair as it is, I have come to appreciate and believe that it's better a guilty man walk free than an innocent man loose his freedom.‎
    The exception proves the rule -

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by JudyBolton View Post
    Maybe soon one or two of our attorney members will weigh in on pulling an expert witness at the 11th hour. He is from S. Fla. so I'm sure they had paid his plane fare, hotel, and hourly expenses. Probably there is a built-in provision that he gets paid all or most of the fee whether he takes the stand or not.

    Is this being discussed by any of the media covering the trial? I follow a couple on twitter but so far, they haven't mentioned Dr. Diamond's lack of testimony.
    I am staying tuned here for the Dr. Diamond mystery as something has to come out on it at least after the case is over. Kilgore made it really clear this is "Ross' only opportunity to take the stand"...so does that mean he is ruling out an appeal (not likely to be retried) or mistrial?


  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by MsMarple View Post
    That's what I said but I apologize for not being clearer. I should have included the option to testify without reference to Ross' statements. But that's why this comment confused me:



    Anyway, at this point only Dr. Brewer's testimony is meaningful - I'm just nosy and want to know what happened. Carry on!
    I'm just as nosy, or nosier, even, because it's just this kind of thing that brings out the sleuther in me. .

    I'm going to keep trying to figure out why Dr. Diamond didn't testify, whether it not it's even possible to ever know

    Before I go diving way down in that rabbit hole, a guess that takes into account that the DT had finally just been given the FBI materials.
    -----------

    I think that a key part of Diamond's testimony would have been what Brewer tried to get in but couldn't support: that this case was similar to other cases in which parents had in fact accidentally left their child in a hot car.

    What we know: we know Diamond interviewed RH. We know RH told Diamond his account of what happened on June 18. We know the DT wanted to be able to have Diamond testify about what Ross told him without Ross having to take the stand. We know that the State wanted Staley to rule that Diamond could not. We know that the State did not receive Diamond's notes until trial began, and that the DT did not receive the FBI materials until Tuesday (correct day?).

    We know that the FBI materials are in some way related to Dr. Diamond, and are likely articles/reports that he has written. We know that as late as Wednesday it was anticipated that both Thursday and Friday would be full trial days, but neither were. We know that Kilgore spoke to RH on Sunday about whether or not he'd testify. We know that Kilgore had no reason to believe Staley would rule in the DT's favor that RH's statements could be introduced unless RH took the stand.

    We know Diamond could have testified about anything other than what Ross told him, but that he wasn't put on the stand. We're pretty sure the DT thought Diamond's testimony would be at least very important, if not crucial. We know that the State would have been limited in cross to what Kilgore had elicited in direct.

    Why not have Diamond testify more generally on the subject of FBS , at least? Especially given the centrality of the issue of whether or not it was possible for RH to forget?

    Perhaps what the defense learned after reading through the FBI materials it received on Tuesday was that Diamond had written something in an article or a report that directly countered any testimony he might give that RH's emotions, or actions, or lack of being cued, etc. were typical in hot car cases?
    Last edited by Hope4More; 11-05-2016 at 05:22 PM.
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Somewhere Out There
    Posts
    2,595
    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.
    "Words can break someone into a million pieces, but they can also put them back together. I hope you use yours for good, because the only words you'll regret more than the ones left unsaid are the ones you use to intentionally hurt someone."

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    I'm just as nosy, or nosier, even, because it's just this kind of thing that brings out the sleuther in me. .

    I'm going to keep trying to figure out why Dr. Diamond didn't testify, whether it not it's even possible to ever know

    Before I go diving way down in that rabbit hole, a guess that takes into account that the DT had finally just been given the FBI materials.
    -----------

    I think that a key part of Diamond's testimony would have been what Brewer tried to get in but couldn't support: that this case was similar to other cases in which parents had in fact accidentally left their child in a hot car.

    What we know: we know Diamond interviewed RH. We know RH told Diamond his account of what happened on June 18. We know the DT wanted to be able to have Diamond testify about what Ross told him without Ross having to take the stand. We know that the State wanted Staley to rule that Diamond could not. We know that the State did not receive Diamond's notes until trial began, and that the DT did not receive the FBI materials until Tuesday (correct day?).

    We know that the FBI materials are in some way related to Dr. Diamond, and are likely articles that he has written. We know that as late as Wednesday it was anticipated that both Thursday and Friday would be full trial days, but neither were. We know that Kilgore spoke to RH on Sunday about whether or not he'd testify. We know that Kilgore had no reason to believe Staley would rule in the DT's favor that RH's statements could be introduced unless RH took the stand.

    We know Diamond could have testified about anything other than what Ross told him, but that he wasn't put on the stand. We're pretty sure the DT thought Diamond's testimony would be at least very important, if not crucial. We know that the State would have been limited in cross to what Kilgore had elicited in direct.

    Why not have Diamond testify more generally on the subject of FBS , at least? Especially given the centrality of the issue of whether or not it was possible for RH to forget?

    Perhaps what the defense learned after reading through the FBI materials it received on Tuesday was that Diamond had written something in an article or a report that directly countered any testimony he might give about RH's emotions, or actions, or lack of being cued, etc. were typical in hot car cases?
    It must have been major...I was interested to hear what he had to say...I am probably more like one of the jurors as many here seem to have researched Dr. Diamond and his theories and experience etc...I was looking for an experienced credible (Brewer for me was just too inexperienced and prepared) to give me some sold reasons (ie reasonable doubt) in general how this tsuff happens...I think it could have swayed some jurors and obviously so did the dt until the "event" that changed everything.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Paige SC View Post
    The totality of all things considered is what implicates RH, not any one specific thing. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence, as is the absence of evidence.‎

    If reasonable doubt is the benchmark applied & followed, he will be found guilty. The problem is; what used to be considered universally 'reasonable' has since been replaced by 'any and all doubt' in the propagated falsehood that there aren't any true behavioral norms. We are lead to believe that abnormal reactions and pathological behaviors displayed in the average member of society are little more than a myth used to unfairly prosecute those who are simply different from the rest.‎

    In the end, there are times when the guilty walk free. As tragic and unfair as it is, I have come to appreciate and believe that it's better a guilty man walk free than an innocent man loose his freedom.‎
    This is my first post and I snipped your comment (I apologize if I shouldn't have) because I agree with everything you wrote, but especially the above.

    I was on the fence all the way through this trial, despite my husband's opinion, but I can't get to "reasonable doubt." That car seat was too close, that car was too small, the time between literally holding Cooper and then turning the wrong way was too short, Cooper was too awake, the conversations about leaving babies in cars is too frequent and coincidental, Ross' trip to his car at lunch was too convenient(ly a missed opportunity), and lots more, and when I put it all together I just don't have reasonable doubt. I have to stretch to understand and excuse the totality of the evidence, and even then it doesn't sit comfortably.

    I would not be surprised if the jury doesn't unanimously agree with me, but I do expect they'll have some spirited debate behind closed doors.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Boca Baton, FL
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Paige SC View Post
    RH is just fundamentally repulsive. There's no way to make him a likable or sympathetic character. His behavior from start to finish lacked authenticity, sincerity & normality. Yeah sure, no two people react the exact same way to tragedy but most people react similarly. Btw, when observing behavioral responses to loss, and in this case LT's demeanor, consideration IS given to shock (which is also considered normal.) Shock shouldn't be used as a catch-all to explain away atypical behavior. Abnormal reactions (RH & LT) typically don't happen simultaneously in a vacuum, they're usually an indicator of something abnormal. LT & RH weren't normal. Their relationship was built on a foundation of all things unhealthy, deceptive, denial, co dependent & narcissistic. CH never had a chance.‎

    If RH is found not guilty it will be on some useless factor like whether the top of CH's head was visible from the rear facing car seat, or perhaps a lack of agreement on his exact height & weight. The totality of all things considered is what implicates RH, not any one specific thing. Circumstantial evidence IS evidence, as is the absence of evidence.‎

    If reasonable doubt is the benchmark applied & followed, he will be found guilty. The problem is; what used to be considered universally 'reasonable' has since been replaced by 'any and all doubt' in the propagated falsehood that there aren't any true behavioral norms. We are lead to believe that abnormal reactions and pathological behaviors displayed in the average member of society are little more than a myth used to unfairly prosecute those who are simply different from the rest.‎

    In other words, just because most people wouldn't forget their child after a 40 second car ride, or that most babies don't fall asleep that quickly, or that most people discussing their worst fear take steps to prevent it, or that most people would immediately detect the smell of death in a boiling hot car, or that most things wouldn't happen to a person all in the same day (if ever,) MOST doesn't encompass ALL. Therefore, he could possibly be innocent even if MOST would reasonably conclude otherwise. Just because something is technically possible DOES NOT make it reasonable or probable.

    In the end, there are times when the guilty walk free. As tragic and unfair as it is, I have come to appreciate and believe that it's better a guilty man walk free than an innocent man loose his freedom.‎
    This exactly. I couldn't have written it better myself!
    "He who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it.
    ~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca

    My confession... I


Page 3 of 70 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Trial - Ross Harris #6
    By tlcya in forum Cooper Harris
    Replies: 1027
    Last Post: 11-01-2016, 08:21 PM
  2. Trial - Ross Harris #5
    By tlcya in forum Cooper Harris
    Replies: 1094
    Last Post: 10-31-2016, 11:11 AM
  3. Trial - Ross Harris #3
    By tlcya in forum Cooper Harris
    Replies: 1260
    Last Post: 10-25-2016, 08:42 PM
  4. Trial - Ross Harris #2
    By tlcya in forum Cooper Harris
    Replies: 1728
    Last Post: 10-22-2016, 11:43 AM
  5. TRIAL - Ross Harris #1
    By tlcya in forum Cooper Harris
    Replies: 1242
    Last Post: 10-17-2016, 10:44 PM