Trial - Ross Harris #9

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.

MsMarple said:

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...

Click to expand...

Not about the trial per se, but I agree very strongly with this statement from Dr. Diamond's article linked above:

Regardless of the outcome of the Atlanta case, there is no doubt that combat between brain memory systems inhealthy, loving parents has resulted in heat-related deaths of children. The technology is available at a nominal cost: It istime for Congress to mandate sensors in car seats before more children die because they are forgotten in hot cars




My husband and I have always driven 'classic' cars but we recently decided to join the 21st century and bought a new car.

The difference between our old cars and the new one is like night and day. The Windows are automatic, you can't just crank them down by hand. It locks with a key control.

These modern cars can become death traps in an instant and it's high time warning sensors are made standard equipment.

The defense expert witness on fbs would had to have answered the states questions in regards to if Ross ongoing adultery texts were sufficient reasons to forget his child?

And that's when the expert witness would have to throw Ross under the bus.

Especially since Ross stayed up sexting and not working and deliberately went in late to avoid the morning work meeting of why his easy assignments still were not done. Jmo

DID THE DT CUT SHORT IT’S CASE, AND IF SO, BY HOW MUCH?


On October 21 ( Thursday), Day 10.

After Staley received a note from the jury about Thanksgiving time off, she asked counsel for an estimate of time until the jury received the case.

Boring said: 3-4 weeks.

Kilgore said: I don’t think it will be anything less than 15 court days after today. (which would have been November 10).

Asked by Staley for a maximum, he said—as long as 24, but that his best estimate was 3 more weeks, the lower end of Boring’s estimate.

Kilgore stated that his time estimate was based on an assumption that the State would rest it’s case the following Friday, October 28. (It did).

Kilgore told Staley that the defense case would last 5-6 days, the unknown variable being the length of the State’s cross of each witness.

He also told Staley that he would have to wait until the end of the State’s case to decide which witnesses to call—that he might call “a few more than we’ve indicated, or a few less. “


October 28, Friday. Day 16. The State rests, on schedule with what Kilgore predicted.

1st day of defense case, in the afternoon. Real estate agent and Detective Murphy testified. Staley greatly restricted Murphy’s testimony, which Kilgore likely had anticipated taking much more time.

(Staley’s ruled Kilgore could not question Murphy about the search warrants). Court adjourned early.

If October 28 counts as one of Kilgore’s estimated 5 or 6 days, the DT case would have ended November 4 (5 days) or November 7 (6 days).

The defense rested on November 4.
-------------------------------------

October 30, Sunday. DT talks with Ross about his testifying.

October 31, Monday. Day 18. Leanna testifies. State begins cross.

November 1. Day 18. Tuesday. State completes cross, defense redirect of Leanna. Eight other witnesses testify, friends, family and coworkers.

November 2. Day 19. More “character” witnesses for lack of a betterm term. State hands over FBI materials. Court ended early, no available witnesses.

November 3, Day 20. Brewer. Court ends early again. At end of court day, it was anticipated the DT would call one more witness before resting, and that State had one rebuttal witness to present before resting and being ready to move on to closing arguments.

November 4. The defense rests, does not call that last witness.

minor4th said:

The only thing unusual about that to me is his using Ross' first name, but the lawyers and witnesses have all done this with each other throughout the case - so probably no big deal.

Click to expand...

I agree. It seemed very in step with the way the trial has been handled in general. As a Georgia resident it struck me as laid back southern and didn't have an issue with it at all.

CapitalBat said:

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.

Click to expand...

You literally expressed my thoughts, thank you.
It is true that the prosecution has the burden of proof but it's also the burden of the defense to have a plausible defense. The average person is going to have a hard time buying into a theory that a healthy man (no signs of dementia) would forget his baby in mere seconds. The defense failed to sell this, I am no longer on the fence.

minor4th said:

They wouldn't have needed to rely on Ross' statements to them. There is enough information in the record, including Ross' interviews. Plus, they could still testify about whatever info Ross gave them simply for the purpose of explaining what they relied on in forming opinions. Not hearsay.

It was something else.

Click to expand...

"They" being Dr.'s D and A?

Putting aside any and all questions about Dr D not testifying....the State did argue, repeatedly, that those specific statements by RH to experts D and A were hearsay unless RH testified. I don't think Staley made a ruling on this pretrial, possibly because the State had not yet turned over Diamond's notes. (?)

Angelonline said:

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.

Click to expand...

I was just sitting at the Starbucks, and had a video of the trial on my screen. A lady sitting next to me saw it, and said ' Are you following that trial?' LOL

My poor husband----she and I talked non stop about the case for 45 minutes.

She said EXACTLY what you just said. At the end of the State's case she was voting Not Guilty on Malice, Probably Guilty on Criminal Neglect.

As the Defense rested, she realized she was now leaning towards GUILTY on Malice, and certain on Neglect. And that is not good news for the defense. :no:

katydid23 said:

I was just sitting at the Starbucks, and had a video of the trial on my screen. A lady sitting next to me saw it, and said ' Are you following that trial?' LOL

My poor husband----she and I talked non stop about the case for 45 minutes.

She said EXACTLY what you just said. At the end of the State's case she was voting Not Guilty on Malice, Probably Guilty on Criminal Neglect.

As the Defense rested, she realized she was now leaning towards GUILTY on Malice, and certain on Neglect. And that is not good news for the defense. :no:

Click to expand...

as I understand the counts if convicted of 3 he can still get life...so I am good with 1 , 2 or 3 but think there will be at least one not going with 1 and 2. in a case like this a compromise verdict will be way better than a mistrial.

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!

katydid23 said:

I was just sitting at the Starbucks, and had a video of the trial on my screen. A lady sitting next to me saw it, and said ' Are you following that trial?' LOL

My poor husband----she and I talked non stop about the case for 45 minutes.

She said EXACTLY what you just said. At the end of the State's case she was voting Not Guilty on Malice, Probably Guilty on Criminal Neglect.

As the Defense rested, she realized she was now leaning towards GUILTY on Malice, and certain on Neglect. And that is not good news for the defense. :no:

Click to expand...

Did you tell her about Websleuths?

minor4th said:

They wouldn't have needed to rely on Ross' statements to them. There is enough information in the record, including Ross' interviews. Plus, they could still testify about whatever info Ross gave them simply for the purpose of explaining what they relied on in forming opinions. Not hearsay.

It was something else.

Click to expand...

Hmm. That's true.

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.

KAE said:

Did you tell her about Websleuths?

Click to expand...

Of course. lol She has already read here as a guest but she is a part of a Facebook group that she visits regularly. She may join here she said. :coffee:

Hope4More said:

DID THE DT CUT SHORT IT’S CASE, AND IF SO, BY HOW MUCH?

Click to expand...

(snipped) I would say at least by one important if not the most important witness - the renowned expert on this type of child death. We know they said they had 50 slides and that would most certainly be him plus we have the somewhat changed demeanor of the DT.

Put me in the nosey column, too!

minor4th said:

They wouldn't have needed to rely on Ross' statements to them. There is enough information in the record, including Ross' interviews. Plus, they could still testify about whatever info Ross gave them simply for the purpose of explaining what they relied on in forming opinions. Not hearsay.

It was something else.

Click to expand...

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.

Ross seems to have wanted to get fired.


But he never told these ladies that he may give up on his income soon.

I guess he knew that wouldn't fly with some of them that were looking for side financial help from him.

But he sure did moan and groan about wife and child.

katydid23 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Because I think they realized that the state would have shown that Ross selfish texting wouldn't fit with the theory of why some parents can accidentally forget their babies. Idk

turaj said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

JudyBolton said:

(snipped) I would say at least by one important if not the most important witness - the renowned expert on this type of child death. We know they said they had 50 slides and that would most certainly be him plus we have the somewhat changed demeanor of the DT.

Put me in the nosey column, too!

Click to expand...

Me too. The Nosey Club is evident here.

I just know that this is a very good Defense Team. And one of the main goals of the defense is to put on a solid presentation that creates momentum and ends with a powerful witness, who can put an exclamation point on their overall case. And this did not happen here. It sputtered at the end and was disjointed and kind of weak, imo. jmo