Trial - Ross Harris #9

MsMarple said:

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!

Click to expand...

Hope4More said:

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?

Click to expand...

Paige SC said:

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.‎

Click to expand...

Paige SC said:

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.‎

Click to expand...

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...

Hope4More said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...

Hope4More said:

I agree.

Context:

Yesterday’s testimony, State’s rebuttal, on the accuracy of the doll’s head measurements.

State: So my question was, did you have an opportunity to compare the measurement of the doll’s head to the measurements that were in the medical records, as well as to the measurements that were in the ME’s report.

Detective: Yes I did.
(Introduces photos)

State: are these photos of you taking the measurements of the doll’s head?


Detective: Yes.

Kilgore: For what it’s worth, I do not object.

State: the jury has already heard from (M.E.) Frist and (ME investigator Jackson about measurements taken…

Kilgore: " I’m going to object to that. Judge, the State has continually objected to our introducing any evidence relating to the testimony of prior witnesses, so I’m going to object to their now wanting to do it."

State: I’ll rephrase. Were you able to compare the measurements you took of the doll’s head with those in the medical examiner’s report.

Detective: Yes, I was.

Kilgore: " I’m going to object to that. I don’t believe the medical examiner’s report is in evidence (….) so I’m going to object to the form of the question."

State: I don’t think there is anything improper about the question, given they’ve already heard from the medical examiner and Jackson confirming the accuracy of the measurements…

Kilgore: I’m going to object to that, the “accuracy” of those measurements.

Staley: " I’m going to allow it, over objection. Jury, disregard the colloquy between counsel. Colloquy means what they say to each other."

Click to expand...

Rayemonde said:

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.

Click to expand...

gitana1 said:

Its probably not the case with criminal law but what I've noticed with family law and the civil cases I did in the past is that judges tend to be liberal in their rulings in favor of one side when that side has a weaker case, in their perception. Sort of like, "Look, I gave you every advantage in this case so you can't scream prejudice when you lose." That wouldn't apply to the state in a criminal case because they don't appeal due to double jeopardy, but I wonder if the judge in this case feels the state has a weak case in some aspects.

Click to expand...

Paige SC said:

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.‎

Click to expand...

gitana1 said:

Interesting. How did the court rule? Here in CA an expert may testify as to otherwise non-admissible evidence like hearsay if that is what is typically considered by similar experts in their analysis. I just had a horrible case where the father was trying to preclude the child custody evaluator from considering any evidence that pre-dated a prior, out of state judgment, on the basis of collateral estoppel (res judicata). I won, thank God.The creep physically abused his two month old baby but was never prosecuted because they stated they didn't have enough evidence. CPS took the child away from him though. He went to prison for other crimes, got out and was seeking to reintegrate into the child's life.

Click to expand...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...