Trial - Ross Harris #9

MsMarple said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Hope4More said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ah, okay. So the defense turned over the reports to the state but the state didn't introduce them as evidence at trial? Couldn't the defense enter them as evidence themselves? Sorry - I feel really dense here.

MsMarple said:

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.

Click to expand...

Wish you had not deleted the other information written for your post for your thoughts are well-presented

I believe Kilgore when he informed the Judge that he met with Ross on Sunday afternoon to discuss his right to testify in his trial. Kilgore stated he had spent an accumulative amount of ten hours time on the subject with JRH since knowing JRH for the past 2yrs +. For those reasons, I feel the DT knew, for certain, no later than Sunday that JRH would not be taking the stand on his own behalf.

SideNote: currently lacking my sharpest mental acuity due 1) to caring for my father (84yo who has dementia and walked away from my home twice last month and 2) lack of sleep from this all-consuming trial.

That noted, it seems the DT suffered a set back at the end of last week that continued over into this week that then, culminated into what we saw happening Wed., Th., and, finally, on yesterday. When MK stated "for what it's worth", he conceded that the battle had been lost.

MK's last remarks to the jury may have been a bit more palatable if he included a greeting, such as, by saying, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, on behalf of Ross, we rest our case."

I'm focusing on the whole Dr. Diamond thing, but FWIW, the State's rebuttal witness made imo another (inferred) point that was just as meaningful as the doll's head measurements.

Leanna testified that Cooper had not undergone any signigicant growth spurt in the few months before he died, that his growth had always been steady, but gradual.


Cooper's daycare teachers testified otherwise, that Cooper very much HAD just gone through a major growth spurt, both physical and developmentally.

I gave that one to Leanna, because moms would know best. BUT. Detective S. read measurements directly from Cooper's medical records, taken on a routine visit to his pediatrician in March, 3 months before his death.

In March, Cooper was 31" tall. At the time of his death he was 33" tall. Perhaps the meaning of growth spurt can be considered subjective, but there is no way as a mom I would consider 2" growth in 3 months anything other than that.

DeDee said:

Wish you had not deleted the other information written for your post for your thoughts are well-presented

I believe Kilgore when he informed the Judge that he met with Ross on Sunday afternoon to discuss his right to testify in his trial. Kilgore stated he had spent an accumulative amount of ten hours time on the subject with JRH since knowing JRH for the past 2yrs +. For those reasons, I feel the DT knew, for certain, no later than Sunday that JRH would not be taking the stand on his own behalf.

SideNote: currently lacking my sharpest mental acuity due 1) to caring for my father (84yo who has dementia and walked away from my home twice last month and 2) lack of sleep from this all-consuming trial.

That noted, it seems the DT suffered a set back at the end of last week that continued over into this week that then, culminated into what we saw happening Wed., Th., and, finally, on yesterday. When MK stated "for what it's worth", he conceded that the battle had been lost.

MK's last remarks to the jury may have been a bit more palatable if he included a greeting, such as, by saying, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, on behalf of Ross, we rest our case."

Click to expand...

RBBM

Re the bold: That might explain why Dr. Brewer was called instead, as a last minute witness. It makes no sense that both he and Dr. Diamond would be needed, not to mention Dr. Agharkar too.

But then who was the witness with 50 slides who didn't testify? I would think pulling a witness within a period of an hour or so isn't typical in trials so we're kind of back to wondering if some unexpected legal issue came up. I give up - this is over my head.

katydid23 said:

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...

Click to expand...

I use that same recipe when I want to play catch up for this trial. I am now tired of eating the same thing 16 days in a row.

Jewels53 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

MsMarple said:

Ah, okay. So the defense turned over the reports to the state but the state didn't introduce them as evidence at trial? Couldn't the defense enter them as evidence themselves? Sorry - I feel really dense here.

Click to expand...

The State wouldn'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).

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.

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.

JudyBolton said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Hope4More said:

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).

Click to expand...

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:

Hope4More said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

blue22 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

blue22 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

katydid23 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Agree he might as well have said "BECAUSE of Ross the defense rests its case"...

katydid23 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

LibertyandJustice4 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.‎

JudyBolton said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?