Discussion in 'Cooper Harris' started by Jewels53, Mar 26, 2019.
"Are you saying all of the parents who lose a child that way lie to the police about their activities"?
I'm assuming, from your comment, that you have access to all the police reports from every hot car death. Please share so we can determine who's lying and who's not. Thanks!
Apparently you have all the details of all the police reports, since you know that Ross Harris was the only parent who was cheating on his spouse and that was the "only difference".
The jury had enough details to convict him.
You are doing a disservice to grieving parents by associating them with Ross Harris, who did lie to the police about key details. IMO
Ross Harris case featured in documentary ahead of motion for new trial
Until now, Evelyn and Reggie Harris, of Tuscaloosa, have remained quiet about the case, which will return to the spotlight on Dec. 14. Superior Court Judge Mary Staley Clark has scheduled a three-day hearing on a motion for a new trial.
"Ross Harris was the only parent who was cheating on his spouse."
I commend you, Daisy. You're the first and only one who has admitted that Ross Harris was convicted on emotion, and not the rule of law. My work here is done.
Snipped by me
Only you claim that, not me.
I think he was rightfully convicted - I believe the jury got it right
Ross Harris wasn’t convicted because he was cheating on his spouse.
He was convicted because his child was in the way of his cheating on/plans to be rid of his spouse.
And he murdered his own child in order to live a “child free life”.
And chose one of the most horrific, least “humane” methods in which to end Cooper’s little life.
That baby clawed at his own face as he freaking COOKED TO DEATH.
Ross saw his dead baby as he tossed his lightbulbs into that hot box. He probably smelled the soiled diaper and decomp, too, in that heat.
RH is a horror of a human being.
Well, there’s that.
Justin Ross Harris: Hearing for new new trial after father leaves tot boy to die in hot car to begin Monday
He was convicted because he killed his child.
Five years later, Cobb hot car death saga still haunts
University of South Florida neuroscientist David Diamond, a nationally recognized expert on memory, recently authored a study showing that accidentally leaving a child in a car can result from a type of memory failure.
Under certain circumstances, a driver can completely forget the child is there, Diamond concluded. Experts say an overwhelming number of these cases are unintentional, and Diamond argues that criminal prosecutions in such situations are unjust.
Viewpoint - Medicine, Science and the Law - 2019
When a child dies of heatstroke after a parent or caretaker unknowingly leaves the child in a car: How does it happen and is it a crime?
David M Diamond
It is commonly reported that in the course of a drive, a parent or caretaker loses awareness of the presence of a child in the back seat of the car. Upon arriving at the destination, the driver exits the car and unknowingly leaves the child in the car. This incomprehensible lapse of memory exposes forgotten children to hazards, including death from heatstroke. More than 400 children in the past 20 years have suffered from heatstroke after being unknowingly forgotten in cars. How can loving and attentive parents, with no evidence of substance abuse or an organic brain disorder, have a catastrophic lapse of memory that places a child’s welfare in jeopardy?
This article addresses this question at multiple levels of analysis. First, it is concluded that the loss of awareness of a child in a car is a failure of a type of memory referred to as prospective memory (PM), that is, failure to remember to execute a plan in the future. Second, factors that increase the likelihood that PM will fail are identified. Third, research on the neurobiology of PM and PM-related memory failures are reviewed, including a discussion of how competition between brain structures contributes to a failure of PM. Finally, the issue of whether a failure of PM that results in harm to a child qualifies as a criminal offence is discussed. Overall, this neuropsychological perspective on how catastrophic memory errors occur should be of value to the scientific community, the public and law-enforcement agencies.
Types of memory: Focus on retrospective and prospective memory
PM is the second general category of memory. PM is an extension of RM in that it involves the use of stored information to plan and then execute an action which will take place in the future.13–15 Successful performance of PM requires multiple cognitive operations, including: forming, organising and initiating the plan; retaining the memory of the intention over a delay period; performing the intention at the right time; and then remembering that the intended action took place.
PM errors have also been committed when pilots have failed to remember to interrupt their ongoing cockpit activity to begin their descent,27 causing them to overshoot the airport destination. Far worse than missing the airport, serious incidents and even catastrophic outcomes with a loss of lives have been caused by attention and memory errors by air-traffic controllers,27 airline mechanics and pilots.14 A surprising and potentially hazardous form of PM failure is the well-documented finding that security guards, police officers and detectives have left their loaded guns in public bathrooms.28 To understand how this can happen, I conducted an interview with a Tampa detective that left his gun in a bathroom at a movie theatre.29 He disclosed to me that just as he had completed his use of the toilet, he was distracted by his son calling to him to hurry because the movie was about to begin. At the moment in which his attention was diverted to his son, he lost awareness of his gun, which was directly in front of him on the toilet-roll dispenser; he then exited the bathroom, leaving his weapon behind. A child later picked up the gun and delivered it to his parent, averting a potential catastrophe had the child fired the gun. This example of a potentially catastrophic PM failure illustrates how rapidly, in a matter of seconds, a person’s awareness of an intention can be lost in response to a distracting stimulus. The most frequently reported occurrence of a catastrophic PM failure is the primary topic of this viewpoint. Just as a detective can forget his weapon in a public bathroom and a pilot can forget to set the wing flaps properly prior to take-off, a parent or caretaker can forget a child in a car, which puts the child at risk of harm from heatstroke.
Does it happen? Absolutely. In fact, I believe it's happened several times without criminal intent just in the last year, and parents were not charged. Did it happen in this case? Absolutely not.
I was not really impressed with this expert. He interviewed Ross twice, did not take notes either time. He had a list on his computer, and made notes during the interview but failed to mention in his notes whether they were direct quotes from Ross or his interpretation of what Ross said. Ross knew what he was doing that day, and he is where he needs to be.
To state the obvious, the hearing was solely about whether or not RH is legally entitled to receive a new trial.
Having thought from the time of his original trial that the "sex" charges relating to a minor should have been severed, I believe RH was definitely prejudiced, didn't receive a fair trial, and deserves a new trial.
Have to say the hearings scratched a deep itch from the trial, one that many of us following at the time wondered about and debated for a long while: why didn't Diamond testify?
Diamond was a crucial witness. His testimony was promised in opening statements. Dr. Brewer's testimony was clearly intended primarily to provide an objective foundation for Diamond's singular expert testimony. I well remember that Diamond's puzzling non-appearance on the stand (though we knew he was in the building) left huge holes in RH's defense.
Who knows whether or not his testimony would have broken through to/persuaded the jury. For that matter, who knows whether what Kilgore argued at the hearing about why he felt he couldn't put Diamond on was 100% the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I'm guessing that judge isn't going to be sympathetic to Kilgore's argument that he couldn't put Diamond on because he (Kilgore) had been forced to turn over D's notes during discovery, that they weren't protected as work product.
Not impressed by this "expert". He doesn't even honestly care about Ross Harris's actual case. He just wants to put his theories out there for "possible" reasons for hot car deaths. He doesn't actually care about Ross's case. He doesn't care what Ross said.