UPDATE 4/16 1:15 PM edited for clarity, spelling, accuracy

Thursday, April 16, 2015
10:43 AM
I've been on the 9th floor hallway since about 10:20 AM. Judge Lomeli had a hearing in another case that has gone longer than expected. Lauren's family (Sarah Key-Marer and several friends), the prosecution team and defense attorney Aron Laub are all waiting in the hallway. Mr. Laub is at the other end of the hall, on a phone call.

This end of the hallway is filled with people from other cases and our jury. The bailiff recently came out and apologized to our jury for the delay.

10:49 AM
A moment later, the courtroom was opened. Judge Lomeli went on the record without the defendant present. He reviewed all of Deputy Falicon's testimony and ruled that his opinion was a lay person's opinion, not an expert. His opinion was based on his three dimensional observation at the scene, not photographs. Afterwards, Mr. Laub apologized to the court and to DDA Hum for his comments yesterday and those directed at Mr. Hum that became personal.

Now Judge Lomeli is off the bench DDA Hum said he needed just a few additional minutes to get ready.  The bailiff is removing extra chairs from the well that were needed for the previous hearing. Brown still has not been brought out. I think the deputy is getting him  now. Yes, he is.

The defense investigator is not here today. Brown is brought out. He leans in to speak to Laub. In the gallery with Sarah's friends, there is a member of the DA's office, a victim's advocate whom I've met before but unfortunately I can't remember her name.

The court reporter goes out to fetch the jury. The previous hearing was a sentencing and the victim impact statements went long.

10:57 AM
The jury files in behind me. One of the male jurors, I don't know which one states, "Damn, it's freezing in here."  It's true. You can never tell if a courtroom will be cold or hot. Judge Lomeli asks his jury, "Are you cold?" YES, the jury replies. 

LEIGH ANN ORMES
Knows Sarah Key-Marer. Met Sarah at church, about 19 years ago. In 1996. Met her when Sarah was pregnant.

When she first met Sarah, her son was Edward, nickname EJ. There was a single parents, small group that met once a week.  There were about 10 to 15 people in the group. They became friends, very close.

How frequently would you interact before she gave birth? Weekly. Her son was about 1 year old. Sarah had a babysitter she was having problems with. Sarah needed to find another babysitter. Offered to watch Lauren until she found someone else. Lauren was 5 months. She babysat Lauren until she went to preschool, at age two, two and a half.

Would often take Lauren places with her family on the weekends. After Lauren was enrolled in preschool, Ormes saw Lauren and Sarah two or three times a week.  She would socialize with Sarah and Greg as well.

They still got together for holidays, Christmas, New Years Eve, Birthdays, etc.

Tell us what Lauren was like. She was a lovely little girl. She was beautiful, very feminine, always wearing dresses. Her mother had her hair up, always really cute.

Tell us what kind of activities? She liked to play fairy princesses, tea party, barbies, things like that.  She interacted with EJ. EJ was an only child, he always wanted her around. They would play together. They played toys doesn't matter what kind of toys, she would always turn him to play house a lot. Lauren would say, "You're the daddy I'm the mommy."  Never saw Lauren engaged in risky activities.

DDA Hum asks Ormes about how Lauren was with heights. Didn't think she liked heights very much. She got stuck in the tunnel at McDonald's and she freaked out. She wouldn't move forward, wouldn't move back. Someone had to go up and retrieve her. The tunnel was about six seven feet off the ground.

How did Lauren feel about water? She didn't like it. There was a pool at her apt. building. They would go to the pool every day. Her son would try to coax Lauren to get in the pool. Lauren would sit around the pool and play dolls. She didn't like it. She usually screamed if Ormes brought her in the water.

Watched Lauren around cats. Ignored them, but if they came near her, she shied away. An incident involving a worm. Lauren and EJ were by a tree, it was a worm and she started screaming, "A snake! A snake!" Told her it was just a worm, and then Lauren responded, "Oh, okay."

There were a couple parks close to her house. One was 1/4 mile away, another 1/2 mile away. Would tell kids they are going to the park. They would get a block away, and Lauren wanted to be carried.  Once Lauren was in preschool, when she got to be three, three and a half. Lauren would still be the same. Didn't want to walk to the park.  Once got to park, EJ would run off. Lauren would want to stay near her and play with the hand held toys.

Would ever Lauren ever run off away from you? She was usually attached to my hip. Was she hard to control? I didn't have very many problems with Lauren. She was good.

Were there occasions when she took Lauren to the mall? Ormes would put Lauren in the stroller. Then they would get to the door, and Lauren would ask to be picked up, and carry her the whole time. This was at age three, three and a half.

Did Lauren ever around you, show interest in taking long walks or hikes? No.

Sounds like you were around Lauren a lot, until she passed away? Yes.

Would you have occasions to see Lauren when she was uncomfortable or nervous? She would hold her hands clasp them in front, like this, or put her hands in fists.

Shows a photo of Lauren, exhibit 101. It's the photo of Lauren standing at the playground that Brown took on the day she died. Was that one of the poses she would have if Lauren was upset or scared? (Yes.)

Talks about an event with visiting Santa on his lap, and Lauren had her fist clenching or pulling on her hands.  Another event, where Ormes husband was holding Lauren. He asked Lauren if she wanted to see the crocodile. She said sure. He leaned Lauren over a bit to look down at the crocodile. [She became very afraid. I believe the witness also stated Lauren made the hand holding or her hands into fists.]

After Lauren's death, Ormes went to the cliffs, after Lauren died. She went twice, once with a friend and another time with her husband. She went out onto IP with her friend the first time. She went all the way out to the end. They walked on the street side, passed the fenced in area, to the IP cliff, We walked down from the street, towards the end. There were like bushes, towards the end it just dropped off.

When you were out there, what were you thinking? I didn't that she would want to be there, just because of the animals (?) alone, and the water.

Knowing Lauren as well as you did, would Lauren have voluntarily gone out there? I don't believe so.

Did you have the opportunity to observe Lauren and Sarah? Yes. Frequently.

How did she act around her mother? Smiling and laughing and hugging and kissing on her mom. It was the exact same way for Sarah.  Lauren was the most important thing in Sarah's life.

Did you ever hear Sarah tell Lauren to act up on Lauren's visit with Brown? No.

Ormes is asked if she witnessed things Sarah would say to Lauren, before Lauren went on a visit with Brown. What I witnessed was, Sarah would say things to her like, "You're going to see Poppa Cameron tomorrow, you're going to  have so much fun." Sarah would try to make it seem like fun to Lauren, so Lauren would want to go. Ormes never heard Sarah say anything negative about Brown in front of Lauren.

Ormes would sometimes have conversations with Lauren. Lauren was very vocal. Was there anything that Lauren would not tell you about [after her visits with Brown]? She would normally just say, she had fun. She would not elaborate at all.

Was that unusual for her? Yes.

At the end of Lauren's life, did you know that she went on unsupervised visits with Brown? Yes.

Did you notice her behavior change [after that]? Yes. She started saying things that she had never said before. Like, "I have a new mommy. I have a new Daddy. Sarah doesn't love me any more. Greg is just my step dad and Josh is just my stepbrother. " Ormes states she had never heard her say anything like that before.

The church incident.
She ran up to me at church. Lauren put her hands to her face, and whispered to Ormes, "My Poppa Cammy's going to put my momma Sarah in jail."

Cross examination.

What you said about the photograph, when was the first time you saw that? I may have seen it in a previous proceeding.  And when is the first time you talked to the prosecutor about that? I believe it was in  a second interview, and I brought it up.

Testified in the second case? You (never?) testified about how Lauren would hold her hands. Yes, I have.

Laub goes to the first proceeding.

Confronts her on when she first said this about Lauren's hand holding, clutching, or hands in fists. Claims she did not say this in the first proceeding.

Now crossing her on the event at McDonald's and how old she was. She was about two. The witness states there were other experiences involving heights, where Lauren wouldn't go on slides, etc.

Laub asks about Lauren wanted to be held rather than walked. She thought that meant, that Lauren wanted to be close to her, that Lauren was more comfortable with that.

Have you ever seen any other child, that's three, three and a half, four years old, that needed to be carried everywhere? She wouldn't know, unless she asked other parents. She did not feel it was a negative thing for Lauren.

If you didn't do what she wanted, she would throw one heck of a tantrum? It depends on the situation. If I had put her on time out, she would throw a tantrum.

Lets, say, Lauren doesn't want to walk doesn't want the stroller, what would you do? Carry her.

She was strong willed wasn't she? Sometimes. She was strong willed but she could also be shy. Depends on the situation.

Isn't it true when she would have a tantrum, she would fall to the floor? I have seen that once.

You told us about how you knew Lauren very well and that was a few years, and how you described her, and would play with things with your son and she wanted to play house?  Did you also see any kind of changes in her interest? She progressed each year, hands on type toys. She just had her ways. She was just that way.

When you say she progressed, what did that mean? She would play with dolls or puzzles.

Did it concern you at all, Lauren appeared to be in your eyes, as she was growing, always interested in specific things, these roles, this little homemaker, dolls, etc. Did that concern you at all? No not at all.

Was it part of your sense of things a kid might need to develop a greater variety of [interests] in things? It was my job as her babysitter, was to ensure that she was taken care of and happy. I thought she was progressing.

This thing about water, she didn't want to be in it unless she was held? Yes.

The worm thing, happened when Lauren was two and a half, or three.

Did she ever play in grass? Where I lived, we didn't have a yard. There was a yard available to Lauren later [either at Lauren's own home, or at Ormes' home.]

The worm situation. Was this the first time she had ever seen a worm? [miss answer] From her shrieking at this 1-2 inch worm, from her experience, was that one of the things that you concluded that she didn't like animals?  One of the things.

Lauren didn't like animals? Witness had two cats. Afraid of the cats. Lauren didn't want to pet another church member's dog. Ormes tried to encourage her to pet the dog. Lauren stepped back from the witness [and the dog]. Afterwards, she just told Lauren it was okay, and comforted her.

She believes she testified about Lauren on Santa on his lap previously, at another proceeding. Laub doesn't believe she spoke about Lauren putting her hands in her fists.

If Mr. Brown hadn't been nice to Lauren, you're certain she would have thrown a tantrum? I said that.

You would ask Lauren if she had fun with her dad and she would say yes? Yes.

She also said that her dad Cameron loved her very much. [Yes?]

And that Patty loved her very much? [Yes?]

Cross ends Redirect.

She also told you that her Pappa Cameron was going to put her mom in jail? Yes.

Testified previously to Lauren and walking, and that Lauren didn't like to walk.

The temper tantrum. Saw her have a temper tantrum. Did you see her have a temper tantrum around her mother Sarah? I can't recall.

Did you ever see Lauren ever have a temper tantrum with anyone else other than you? No.

Did you know, personally, if Lauren had a close relationship with her father? I believed they were getting to know each other. Objection. [Sustained?]

Based on your knowledge of Lauren's relationship with Brown, what makes you think she would have a tantrum around him? It just makes me think that if something wasn't going right, she would want her mommy.

Recross.
Laub is flipping through his papers, and apologizes to the court. He's looking for something specific.

The court states he will excuse the witness unless he hears the question.  Laub asks for half a minute, I believe.

11:45 AM
No more questions. Witness is excused.

Call Dr. Carol Berkowitz.

CAROL BERKOWITZ
She is a pediatrician.  She is also a parent and a grandparent.

I do general pediatrics, and in pediatrics, and child abuse pediatrics.

The doctor is asked to give her CV.  Went to Columbia for her MD. Give her internship, residency, chief residency and Roosevelt Hospital in NY. Explains internship and residency.

She also does developmental assessments. These determine how well they do. Developmental milestones. With infants, when they started to sit up, crawl, etc. Similar for every year as a child progresses.

Gives more of her CV. She's a full professor at the Geffen School of UCLA Medical School. Most of her responsibility, down at Harbor.  Overseeing supervising students seeing patients.

Explains board certification and re certification.

There is a Society of Behavioral Pediatrics. She is a member. It encourages teaching, research and practice. Deals with school problems, mental retardation, the whole spectrum of child development and how it is evaluated. On different committees with pediatrics.

She's also lectured on pediatrics. Given several hundred lectures. She's also been published in Medical Journals.  Explains getting published and the peer review process. She's had between 45 & 50 [peer reviewed papers?] published.

Judge Lomeli calls for the noon break.

1:15 PM
I edited the above entry for spelling, clarity, accuracy.

1:37 PM
Inside Dept. 107. Dr. Berkowitz is back on the stand giving the rest of her CV and other articles she's authored.

Now testifying about the awards she's received.  And acts as a consultant for various agencies, working for the courts to determine if a child was injured, or abused. Criminal court and federal court, child pornography, US Postal Services. Also legal agencies. Also consulted for the FBI, the Navy and Homeland Security, and LA County coroner.

Children ages three to four years old, it's common for them to get bruises on their shins, on bony surfaces. It can happen from normal activity; you've got to bump into something.

Asked to assist in the investigation into the death of Lauren Key. She is not paid for her consultant work for the coroner's office. About eight cases some years, some years six. In preperation, in assisting in the investigation, was provided with information both physical and mental.

She was four years two months. She weighed 44 pounds. Her height (miss). She received the coroner's folder, by going to the coroner's office to view the file. There is an office there, for her to work the file.

She reviewed reports from law enforcement, there was an autopsy report, there were conversation reports with school teachers, Mr. Brown, all of that was a part of the coroner's folder. Also was a pink sheet on the front of the folder, pediatric consultation requested, and a specific question that she was asked.

It had to do with the likelyhood that Lauren, would have initiated this hike, and would she have been able to sustain and do the full hike on her own, based on her expectations on her age and developmental level. He development was normal for her age. Was age appropriate and reached her age milestones.

Also received information from the police reports from her personality, things that she would do before her death? Things that were included in the police report. In the report, was that Lauren has recently returned from overseas.

They were not looking for any particular conclusion? No.

Are there cases where you're asked to assist in a death, and you're unable to reach any type of conclusion? Usually can answer the question, and the coroner may choose on how to interpret her answer.  Some cases use unusual medical findings. My role, I'm not a pathologist, but more as a peditrician with clinical experience with children.

Did anyone pressure you to come to any type of conclusion? No.

In addition to reading reports, did you also engage in certain activities to help with your conclusion, March 26, 2001. She went to the parking lot at Abalone Cove. She drove by herself and parked and there were a nuber of people there when we first met. Detective Shannon, Detective Smith, and Detective Leslie, Dr. Chinwah and Dr. Lakshmana.  Chinwah performed the autopsy, and Lakshmana was the Chief medical examiner.

Did you and any of those people go on a hike from Abalone Cove out to IP.  Det. Smith and Shannon and she went on the hike. Was it your understanding the hike you went on was led by Lauren? Yes.

Back in 2000, could you tell us your particular condition? I was fit, I had run the LA marathon. She ran regularly, every morning about seven miles each day.

It was strenous hike. It was rugged terrain. There were areas where you were walking along a narrow path along a ledge, up and down. It was a hard hike. The LA marathon was easy.

Do you recall, Did you have any children with you at the time? No. How long did it take you? About fifty minutes. A little under an hour.

Would you describe this hike, for you, as pleasurable or enjoyable? It was a hard hike.

You were aware of the defendant's statements to the detectives at the time you took this hike? Obj. Vague.

Wwere you aware that the defendant told the detectives that Lauren had played at theplayground and then just took off hiking? I was.

And were you aware according to the reports, that the defendant said Lauren led the hike and she had so much energy, he could hardly keep up.

Based on all your training and experinece and going on the hike itself, how would you characterize that claim? I don't find it to be a credible claim.  Why not. It was a hard hike.

After 20 minutes on a playground, 4 year olds, would be a little tired. They have about a 20 minute attention span, although they might want to change the activity, maybe for a few minutes, the terrain was such that she would have been able to plug away. The path and the entire terrain was really rugged.

Were you basing, what you just told us, would that be your opinion with regard to a four year old in general, or specific to Lauren. What I've said so far would be pretty general to four year olds?

Now information about Lauren? There were two things that I was told about, one was that she had recently traveled, From England where there was a difference in time zones, jet lag, so body rhythm is off. That takes a while to readjust, and the records I had, that she had been crying in preschool for an hour and a half, and I think that would have affected her overall energy level.

My conclusion would have been that, first off, Lauren wouldn't have initiate this hike, [Would not have said, oh lets go on this hike] and that secondly, if she did hike for a short period of time, she would not have had on her own, the interest or the stamina, to complete the hike.

From the reports you had, that somehow Lauren ended up at the top of Inspiration Point, but she would not have the interst and stamina to complete the hike, so how could she have completed.

One was, she could have been carried as part of the hike, then if that didn't happen, she was coerced, I'm going to leave her here, that kept her going.

So this, fear or coersion, would that only be evidenced by threat of being left behind, or were there other possibilities? So would be left behind, or physically being hit, or come with me or I'm going to give you a smack, or I'm going to be really mad at you if you don't come. Parents can do and say things to have children dod things they want them to do.

Wouldn't she just throw a tantrum? Well they are person dependent. They are who you with, whether you just get quiet and comply. She could have thrown a tantrum doesn't mean she was agreeable to what was going on. What we say by tantrum, people mean different things. We don't know that she didn't thow a tantrum, it doesn't mean that would have been her owly way of expressing that she didn't want to go.

With regard to children, in 4 year olds, isn't there something called fear of abandonment. Yes. Not specific to four year olds.  What would that encompass? Well, being left behind.

Gives the example, of well you could just stay here with the racoons. That's really scary if you're a little kid.

Dr. Berkowitz, you prepared a report in this case? I did. did you in fact document your expert conclsion based on all your training and all your experience that you received.

My conclusion was that  I did not believe that the hike was initiated by lauren and that the completion of the hike would have only occured by assistance, fear or coersion.

79 page document People's 79. That is her most recent CV and list of qualifications, etc. It's pretty recent, but she's givein some lectures but otherwise, ti's up to date.

Direct ends and cross begins.

As a person who was a scientific thinker? Yes, I think so.

When it comes to reaching a conclusion, the quality of the concusion can also be affected by the information that it relies on? That's true.

One of the things that you were told by the detectives was that the hike you took, was the same hike that Lauren took, is that right? Yes.

Were you also told though, by thedetectives, on the day you were with them. thayt they actually did not know what path they had taken, but that they ended up at IP. That's correct.

Did the detectives talk wit you about different routes that you could take to IP? I don't know about different route, we went to one point and around. They're not different hiking pathis in that area.

I guess a combination, but we were on the dirt path and on the sides of us was brush, we stayed pretty much on the one path that was visible.

One of the things that they didn't tell you, was that Lauren and Brown were seen on Palos Verdes Drive? I don't remember that, the path was paralell, to the drive. We were never on the drive itself. So her route did not include PVD south.

She testified in court in 2009. Didn't you say that the detectives didn't tell you that they were seen on Palos Verdes Drive, so you didn't go that way.  Her understanding is that, LE didn't know that at the time.

Laub reads transcript from second trial, about Lauren and Brown were on a shorter, easier route.

A big part of the conclusion you reached was on the path you traversed. [Yes.]

Did your hike involve any stops at all? No. Did it involve seeking out the next segment of trail? No. My recolleciton is we went along the trail and followed it as best we could. There were some areas that were more overgrown. We didn't stop and look, we just kept going on.

So the path you went on, took someone in good shape, 50 minutes. Yes.

You also testified in 2006. One of the things that came up is, if you had been told that there were photgraphs of Lauren showing her to be happy that day? No.

There was a question would it matter if there were five to seven witnesses? Would it matter if there wre witnessies that at seen lauren that described her as not apparing to be sad? It would not change her opinion.

Obsevations, would it matter if she learned that Brown was ahead or behind? No. Would it matter if no one observed Lauren being carried? No.  A series of questions, if she had known would it change her assessment. If she was never observed crying? No. If she was happy and playful? No.

Since the time you wrote your report, have you been provided anything new? No.

Wasn't provided her school records, potentially have any relevance in her assessment? I don't think so.

Talked about the, how tired she would have been from England, a week early? I think I knew the time frame.

Jet lag for a four year old, would be a week? It would.

What about the drive to the beach? And about being observed by the person at the parking lot? I did hear that.

She could have slept in the ride to the parking lot? That is correct.

What you've done about Lauren as an individual, is what you've been told about her level of activity as a child? It's two fold. It's activity levels and duration four year olds and then taking into additonal account, her temerpemnt her risk taking behavior, and that she had also engaged in physical activity at the playground.

Had you sene in the school records a statement by her mother, that she was someone who was lively and entergetic? Question as a hypothetical, because facts have not been introduced. But hypothetically. Were you to be informed, the child's mother had stated in a school record that her daughter was highly intergetic, would you have found usefull? It wouldn't have changed things. Activity level speaks to a period of time. Some are bubliy and energetic, but it doesn't speak to stamina or endurance.

What your primarily concerned with in this child, is what you've been told about temperment. that applies to all of it and what I know about this individual child. (been told)

Developmental milestones with children. By the age of four, standard developmental milestones inclue a new interest in the world outside the home. Not sure a new interest, because some are into that outside of that. Four is also considered the age of anxiety, where they have fears of different things.

Those anzieties, are fears, because the child has been completely dependent, on the caretaking parent. At four, the very beginings of personalty of sepearting, from the other individual.

Berkowitz, states that's not it. It's getting out in the world and experiencing all the things that can happen. Experiencing lighting, being left in a museum when it's closing. It's what we expect in children at this age. It's what I counsel parents at this age. that is something that behaviorally and developmentally that happens.

Isn't it true, that it comes from conflicting needs? That sounds Freuidian. Laughter. It really doesn't follow through.

Isn't it true though, that it's experiencing that desire, to experience what is new? Itls very variable, in children experiencing, where children do things ore controlled and do things to measure their safety

Take swimming. Some won't even go in the ocean to do different things. That's not Freuidian. Soe children are afraid of dogs. There's human variability. soe based on passed experiences and some is the intrinisc wiring in various individuals.

What do you think about a four year old girl who didn't want to walk and be pushed in a stroller and wanted to be held. I think that would be concerning, and it [could be?] a very fearful and concerning child.

Children who mimic parents. One way with one parent and one way with another. It's possible.

If Lauren, understood that her father was an outdoors person, it's possible lauren would behavie different with him or lets say, her mother if her mother was not an outdoors person? Yes.

Were you ever told that Lauren said she loved Mr. Brown? I don't think I was told by one or the ohter.

Would herlove for her mother make any difference in your assessment? No. So it wouldn't make any difference in her love for her father?

Would think it would factor in their effort to please that parent. Laub continues with one parent doing an activity with a child that the other parent never observed or participated in.

But if Lauren had a father is an outdoors man who is very active, and Lauren wants to please him, that would be understandable in her desire to please her father? She would engage in that activity as long as she is capable.

Their desire to please doesn't determine the ability to do something.

Laub gives the example of pleasing the father, to go on the hike.

Berkowitz states the difference between the willingness and the ability to do the activity.

More questions about, we don't know the sequence.  DDA Hum objects. That they do know the sequence.  Laub argues, and the court states sidebar.

It'spossible here, that what we have Lauren, 20 minutes attention span at the playground and her father says, lets go on this hike. The whole question as to whether or not Lauren would have completed the hike without coerced in some manner, or not being carried.

The whole thing as to where the hike took place and [miss rest]. The actual hike is not a 50 minutes. The actual hike is 20 to 25 minutes long. That would fit into the attention span. That would fit to the physical, It doesn't fit to the stamina, in regards to the terrain.

It would help. And somebody's saying she took a totally different path, and it would be helpful to know that.

I'm not asking to say your conclusion based on what you were shown or told, is incorrect, I jsut want to be sure that it's as correct as the information you were provided.

Redirect.

The exact path, every step of the way to get from the playground to the end of IP, is that cirtical to you determination? It had to do with the terrain, thedegree  of eleation, Even getting up from the playground up to PVD south, is a steep incline.  And that area, of the drive, there are landsildes and there are irregluar terrain.

Even 22 minutes of walking in that area, would be challenging for an adult, and for a four year old.

The defendants lawyer took into account whether Lauren was on PVD South, at some point were you on the shoulder of PVD South on long side of it. We wernt on the paveent, but along the dirve.

So you wen't walking on the street, but you were walking along it. There wasn't a sidewalk, but it was bumpy.

My udnerstand of the only thing that would affect your opinion that if the hike was substantially shorter and substantially easier? correct.

Let me ask this question. Assuming that Lauren did not die on IP, was there something, ... we're only talking about half the hike, the car is back in Abalone cove?

My understanding is she would have to walk back to where the car was parked. So IP was the half way point, she would have returned to the car. Lauren would nt have willingly particpated in half the hike she was going on? that's correct.

Recross.

Is there any reason to think that, if lauren had succeeded making this hike half way and there was time to go back, the outdoosman wouldn't have said to her, Congratulations, good job? I think that's fair to say. A car took us back to where we had parked.

Did anyone tell you that, the quality of the childs personality had something to do with her assessment. That lauren had shown a lot of respect for authority figures? They all said, she was asked to do something, she would always do it? She ahs that as a recollection of that. She was compliant, obedient, good girl. And parents are authority figured? Yes, parents would be.

So, a child like lauren, is especially attentive to the request of authority figures, she would be attentive to the authority requests of her father? I would think that's true. And she would do it rather than a coersion. Could be, but there could be other reasons why a child would comply with that request.

We can't assign a specific reason in ths cse? I think you cannot assign one.

Redirect.

Your assessment that Laurne would not have intiate or willingly

Again, that hike was strenous for an adult and very difficult for a four year old who was not a risk taking child, who was more fearful of things. My assesssment was based on four year olds and augmented by what I knew specifically about lauren.

Recross.
Were you ever informed that the people who knew Lauren said she could be strong willed. I don't remember reading anything to that effect.

Lauren, to please her father the outdoorsman.... assuming that she reaches a point of getting tired on that hike, and if she shows an excetional strong willed, is that she would push herself father, to mimick the father.

I wouldn't use strong willed that way. I'm not sure how the term was used as it was applied to Lauren, so maybe you could clarified. Laub states he doesn't know.

So your, conclusion is as good as what you were told. [Yes.]

Witness is finished.

DDA Hum asks for an off the record conversation.

Taking a witness out of sequence, because of scheduling conflicts.

Officer Massey.

PHYLLIS MASSEY
Officer Massey. Retired. From what job? Retired from Airport police in 2007.  Had been an officer 33.5.  It's a city entity but separate from LAPD.

Worked there on January 19, 2001. Assigned to the desk. She was a desk officer.  It was at their head station. At 96 & Sepulveda, right in the Airport.

As she was working the desk, she was approached by a person who gave his name as Cameron Brown. He made a police report to her.

What did this person tell you. He wanted to make a report that his ex-girlfriend was staking him and made a statement that she said, "I'll kill you." Gave the name as Sarah Key-Marer.

What relationship? that the had a child together and they were no longer together. Told her they were previously boyfriend and girlfriend.

He told her that while in his custody, his daughter died. He claimed that he had been receiving phone calls every day all day since the child's death, from Sarah. He said he did not answer those phone calls.

What did he say happened. He said that she met him in the parking lot and was yelling and screaming to talk to him. what did he say he said to her. He siad he didn't say anything.
What did he tell you that she did?

She blocked him from geting off his motorcycle. She wouldn't let him leave.  She was yelling and screaming. Did he tell you he used any particlaar type of language. I believe she was cursing and screaming.

What specifically did Sarah say, as he was driving off on the motorcycle. "I'll kill you." were sepeciic words. He said he was making this report on the advice of his attorney and because of fear for his life.

When he made this reporit, you were at a police station, and he knew you were an officer. She completed an official report.  Were you made aware of any type of report or event at the airport? No She was not aware of anything about Mr. Brown or anything related to this event? No.

Cross.
When Mr. Brown recorded that he heard Sarah Mar, wasn't scream, it was yell? I'd have to look in the report. It was explicit as to what he said. Looks at report. The report states Yell.

Something else. She told you that, one of the reasons he was making the report was his attorney told him to do so, I got that. Maybe a little picky, the words were not afraid for his life but he was afraid she was going to harm him. Yes.

And his attorney told him not to talk on thephone. Yes.

He said he heard Sarah Marer tell him I'll kill you, and this was after he had put on his motorcycle helmet and was driving away? Yes.

Direct
Did he express any doubt to you that the words he heard, were, "I'll kill you?" No.

Cross
There was no reason to [ask him if he was sure] He just put his helmet on his head and drove off? [Yes.]

3:00 PM

Judge Lomeli calls for the afternoon break.

3:22 PM
People call their next witness.

LAURA ROBERTS
Do you know sarah Key Marer. Met her through a friend Janice, on a cruise that Sarah organized. It was definitely before 2000. Also know Sarah's husband Greg.

They went camping together through the same church. Also her husband and her did Sunday School for the children through fifth grade. Spent a lot of time with the kids, more than the adults.

Did you know Lauren Key? I knew her from being at church. I met her there. Also met her through a camping trip. Was an annual event through the church. Would happen every year. They would provide all the food. It was every summer.

It was tent camping. First weekend of August 2000, there was a camping event in Orange County. Describes were the event was. Her and her husband went and their three kids. Six and eight her sons. Saw Lauren and Greg at that event.

Activities that Lauren engaged in. I didn't see her engage in activities that she was organizing. She kept with her family. She organized a hike.

Was this 1.5 miles through cliffs and valleys? No, nothing like that. There was a group site, and there was a hill behind. Was it strenous? Not really.

About how many kids were there at the camping event? Fifteen, twenty possibly.

How did you ask the kids if they wanted to go? A group would walk around each families camp site and ask them if they wanted to go. I was very excited and you'll want to come with us. Was very encouranging to have them come with the group. Did all the 15 to 20 kids go? Not all of them, I know that Lauren did not want to go.

It stuck out in her mind that Lauren didn't want to go. Lauren was adamant. There were a big group of kids that wanted to go. Out of our group of friends, Lauren was the only one who didn't want to go.

Did you see Lauren engaging in any kind of physical, roudy rough behavior? No, not at all. It didnt seem like she was into that type of play. She was into play. She didn't look like the kind of girl that didn't want to get dirty, is how I would describe it.

Did you try to encourage, specifically here? I tend to be pushy, I kept trying to get her to go, and that I would help her and that she wouldn't be alone. But she still wouldn't go? That's right.

At some point, did you ehar that Lauren had died? yes I did. Did you hear the circumstances? Yes I did. Based on your experience of Lauren, .. objection? over rulled.

I was just very surprised that she had wanted to go on a hike and that she had fallen off a cliff, buecause she had seemed so shy and reserved, so I was just shocked.

Direct ends.

Cross examination.

The conclusion the prosecution was based on that one experience? No, it was on other times I had observed her also.

On that hiking trip, when you were trying to pursuade Lauren? I didn't ask the adults, because they typically didn't want to go.  Lauren was clinging to her mom? Well, she was real close to her mom. 

You testified in a proceeding in 2006, correct? Yes. Is it accurate to say, that you don't have any memory of seeing her away from her mother on that camping trip? Not that she remembers, no.

You don't have any memory of her away from her mother? No, because usually when we're together, all the families are together.

What you dod remember, is that she was clinging to her mother, correct? Yes.

When Lauren would stay in her family camp, she would hang out with her family, but she would specifically would stay with ehr mother in the camp? Yes.

And as far as Mr. Brown goes, I don'ot know if you've heard antying in 2006, yo udidn't know anything about whether Mr. Brown was an outdoorsman or not? No. And you don't know how Lauren was with her father? No.

People call Janice Roquet.

JANICE ROQUE
Knows Sarah Key-Marer. Knows her from church. Knows her husband Greg and son Josh. Knew Lauren. Met family through the church.

My husband Michael and Greg were in a small group together, so was introduced that way. They went on a cruise together and camped together. Took care of Lauren one night when Sarah and Greg went out to dinner. Knew Lauren a little over a year.

Lauren's personality. Was she advernterous was she cautious, Obedient, definat.  Kind, personable, outgoing, friendly. A girly girl. When she took care of her, she sat in my lap while I read her stories. She remembers her twirling around in the livingroom, saying, "watch me, watch me." I did not experience her being defiant in any way. She was respectful.

Did you observe her in any type of play activity. When we were camping, in the campground, she just hand her daughter JOR, just a few months old. Wanted to stay at the camp and hold her, and be in her stroller. She just wanted to be with JOR. Her daughter was about three months.

Do you ever during this camping trip, reember Lauren participating in any kind of hiking trip? No. Showing any interest in hiking at all? No.

Peoples 100, photo of Lauren with JOR in the stroller. That was the camping trip in August 2000.

No more questions.

Cross examination.

On that camping trip, you never saw Lauren's mother invite her to go out on a hike or any other physical activity? no. The same for Greg Marer as well? No.

You never saw them go out in any kind of nature activity? Not that I recall.

No more cross.

People call

CARI HEATHER DUNLOP

Do you know the end of counsel table? Identifies the defendant. I know him from the marina, in Port Royal Marina.

In 1997, did you have a boat there? Yes. The defendant lived there as well. They both lived on their boats. She knew a man named Jack Laisure, Scott Simonson and Troy Nichols.

We met we would go to t farmers market. And they would end up at the gate at theend of their dock together. We were acquaintences. We did not date.

She did go hiking with thedefendant, one time. It was in Palos Verdes. It was kinds rural. It was cliff, that had hiking trias, where you could go out and hike down to the beach. It was Inspiration Point.

When you went out to IP with the defendant. Do you remember where you went? Did you go to the point, out on the beach? To the best of your recollection. We hiked for a while, and went out to the beach. and then came back up and left.

Who drove there? Cameron did. We parked on the side of the road. Did the defendant say anything to you in regards to the cliff. He said he liked that place and that he liked it alot. There was something that he said about suicide, and it struck him as strange. It was something about suicide? Yes.

Did he tell you what he did for a living? He was a baggage handler for the airlines. At one time he was off duty, for an injury. He was surfing a lot during that time.

Did the defendant tell you any concerns about anything that he was getting compensation and that he was surfing? He asked if we had seen an insurance person there, looking for him.

And this was while he was receiving workman's comp insurance and surfing.

One time when she was just getting to know him, conversation about children. We were in his Volkswagen bus, and we were coming back to the marina. I asked him if he had children and he said no.  He laughed and said his ex-girlfriend, [was pregnant?] he had her deported. He laughed about it, like it was a joke or something.

Your relationship you were acquaintances, did you considered him a friend? No. After that last comment, I didn't want to have friends like that. It put me off.

Did you ever have an opportuniy to see the defendant display any emotion. He was angry with me, because someone gave her a boat part. She didn't really need it. Cameron found out that she had it, she didn't need it. It wasn't for his boat. He wanted her to give it to him. He got really angry.

She found out that there was someone else who needed this boat part.

Did you actually give the boat part to this other person rather than the defendant? Yes.

How could you tell he was angry? Well, he was yelling.

Direct ends. Cross begins.

Laub asks to approach.

3:54 PM
Sidebar is still on.

Going to release the jury. And the witness is excused. Jury is ordered back at 9:30 AM. They can come early, 9:15 AM and enjoy the doughnuts and bagels the judge will bring them.

And I believe we are in recess. Brought is brought back into custody.

When I get inside Dept. 107, counsel are discussing a letter that one of Hum's witnesses sent him over the weekend and was sent to Mr. Laub on Sunday. The letter contains new information.  They are discussing what the letter says and whether or not the witness can talk about what they said in the letter.

The court states the witness can opine as to Brown's personality as she experienced it.  Laub is asking for a hearing outside the presence of the jury before she gets up on the stand.  The court states that if she gets on the stand and says the reason she didn't come forward with this information before, is because she was afraid of retaliation, if/when he gets out. that's acceptable to explain her state of mind.

DDA Hum argues in gang cases, that's acceptable testimony all the time. Laub argues that this isn't a gang case, the case is 15 years old and it doesn't apply.

9:43 AM
Mr. Laub is still arguing that this is beyond the issues of probative value.

The court rules that it is not only applicable to gang situations. It's applicable to any witness, to their state of mind and why they did not state this information before.

The witness is brought in. She has an older woman with her.  The clerk calls for the jury, waiting in the hallway.

FREDA CLIFFORD
Sentenial, Colorado is where she lives. She's lived in CO since 1972.  She knows the defendant. Identifies him. We met after high school, in the early 1980's.

We had a mutual group of friends.

After you met the defendant, did you become boyfriend and girlfriend? Yes we did. We were boyfriend and girlfriend for almost a year. 1986.

Observed him around small children? Yes I did. Observed him when a child would do something cute or adorable? He would just say, "Later." She would laugh, and find it cute? Yes I did.

I'd like you describe for us, how the defendant treated you during this relationship? What was his behavior and how he acted toward you? He was very controlling. He didn't like when I did things without him.

What are you basing that on? Court.

We ended up living in a cabin up in the mountain.s Old mining cabin at 12,000 ft. There wa a time I wanted to go back to Denver, take a shower and see my friends. Told him I was going to go back down to Denver by myself. He didn't say anything but I could tell he wasn't happy because of his demeanor.

What happened when you got back? He had thrown all my stuff off the cliff

Because the cabin is, .... [miss the rest of the question]. First of all, he told me this one arm guy in Breckenridge, was mad we were living in the cabin and threw my stuff off the cliff.

Based on your conversation with your sister and her boyfriend, did you believe the defendants statement that this one arm guy did this? I believed it was a lie.

The defendants stuff was not thrown off the cliff. Only her things were thrown off the cliff.

In addition to the defendant being controlling and this example that you've given us, how else would he treat you during your relationship? She sounds emotional, I'm trying to um, can I just explain what the relationship was like?

We started dating and moving up to that cabin. That was one incident that happened. I ended up moving back to Denver and you can't live up there at 12,000 feet during the winter. He had an apartment in Denver also.

She had friends she would meet. He would call and tell her he saw her at a certain place. He would ask me if I was at a certain place because he said I saw your car there.

Had you been at those places? Yes.

When she was at that place, did you see the defendant? No.

This happened more than once.

During the relationship, would you describe him as selfish, or giving? I would characterize him as selfish, not giving. I believe that he was manipulative. I saw him be very manipulative with his mother. He was dependent on his mother financially. I saw him manipulate her to get money.

Was he a spur of the moment kind of guy or a planning [kind of guy]? He wasn't spur of the moment. He wouldn't do something unless it was something that he wanted to do.

Towards the end of the relationship, did he accuse you of doing certain things to him? He would accuse me of looking at him a certain way. And I would say, what way? It was very strange.

Were there times during the relationship that you could tell the defendant was angry? I remember one incident when I was at my parents house. There was a rec room downstairs and he came downstairs, and I could tell he was trying to hold back anger. I could see it in his eyes. It scared me. It's just that look when they're about to... It looked like holding back anger in his eyes and body language and it was frightening.

On more than one occasion? More than one occasion.

Did the defendant ever confront you directly with his anger? Never. I wouldn't even know that he was mad at me, prior to an incident. We would be talking on the phne of dong something. Then I came out and found my car smashed in, and he admitted to doing it. The police wanted me to press charges.

[Why didn't you press charges?] We had the same friends. I didn't want to be the person who got one of our friends in trouble.

Were there other incidences of situations, where rather than confronting you directly, he would go around your back and do something indirectly? Yes. Did you want another example?

Sure.

I came home one night, after being out with my friend, I got into my apt, and my sliding glass door is open.

Hum stops her from talking about this incident.

Were there any other incidents where you saw something that was physical evidence of the defendants anger? She saw a hole in the wall of the defendant's apartment and he admitted to punching the wall.

The incident about the car? Can't remember how much damage. But it was somewhere between 600 and 900. His mom wrote me a check.

She looks like, at times, she 's holding back tears. She's sniffling a bit.

Incident regards to the car, it was towards the end of the relationship?  Didn't continue the relationship much longer after that. 

Why did it end?  Because I was afraid of him.

In addition to the emotions you described for us, did you ever see the defendant exhibit other emotions? In the fall of 1986, did you learn that you were pregnant? Yes I did.

Who was the father? Cam..

I became pregnant, I was very young, unemployed, in a relationship. We hadn't been dating that long, to know each other well. We both agreed to have an abortion.

What was his emotional reaction? He went with me to have the procedure. We went back to his apartment afterwards and laid on the couch and listened to music, and we both cried a little and cuddled. It was, very sad.

At any ointp during your entire relationship with the defendat, did he ever confront you? Only when he said I was looking at him strange. Never confronted her directly. It was always behind her back.

Direct ends and cross begins.

10:09 AM
Just to put this in perspective, this was the year of 1986? Correct. 

You were both in your early 20's? He was in his mid 20's. I was in my early 20's.

You were together for about a year? Almost. Explains a party, and that's when they started dating.

It sounds like for some period of time, he was a fun guy? He was fun.

And you must have thought that he was thoughtful? Thoughtful? I wouldn't call him thoughtful. I was in his life, but he was more self absorbed, selfish. I felt more like, my feelings were not as important as belonging to him. I was in a relationship with him I was to be a certain way and felt a bit manipulated.

And that was okay? I was young.  I was enamored with his image. He was this California guy, the idea of him.

Don't you think it was more than enamored?  Lived in that cabin 12,000 ft with no elec and runnign water? I loved the outdoors. I worked in my sisters store. It was fun.

It was fun to share the outdoors with Mr. Brown? Yeah. It was.

Among this group of friend, was there someone named Bill Urban (sp?)? W'ere friends to this day.

You talked about having some things that were thrown over this cliff where you were living? Yes.

A boomb box and some clothing? Yes.

At the time did Mr. Brown tell you that he also had some things that were thrown over? I don't recall that. Adn the man he accused was named George? Yes.

He told me that he went and told the police and they came up on horseback.

Do you know if George was arrested?  I was never certain that George was found or that the police ever came up on horseback.

As soon as Mr. Brown told you this George, was angry at the two of you living at the cabin, you immediately decided that Mr. brown was lying.

Living in Brekreidge at 12,000 feet. is sort of novel. You could sort of brag about it. I heard Cam multiple times, tell people I live in this cabin, there's this one arm man George. It's part of a novelty story.

I was upset aobut the incident. I went to my sisters store and told her and Bruce what happened. They said that he (George) had lost his house and they had not seen him up there and hadn't been around for years. (the one armed man).

Mr. Brown did go and get these things?  Not all of them. He brought up a few.

The hole in the wall you say you saw in Mr. Brown's apartment, you blew it off as just being guy stuff? Completely.

Witness wipes her nose with a tissue.

One last thing about the abortion. You said Mr. Brown said he felt to you that it was wrong? I believe that he told me it was wrong because he thought it would change our relationship.

Cross ends and Mr. Hum asks for a sidebar.

10:20 AM
The side bar continues.

Mr. Hum has no more questions for this witness. She is excused.

Joni Dodge

JONI DODGE
Back in June of 2000, occuspation. Senior social worker for Orange County Department of Chilren's Services.  Did you investigate alleged incidents of child abuse? Yes.

How long did you work for OC CS? (miss answer) Has a master's in social work. Before that, worked for the probation depart.

Worked in various departments before she became an investigator. Lists them.

Explains her training for her various assignments as an investigator.  She initially shadowed another investigator for a week or two.

She investigated a case initiated by a court employee, a "mandated reporter," JAN MEULER.

They are mandated to report, whether or not they believe it to be true. It can come from other sources, such as a school teacher would call in and say that the child reported that the mother hit the child.

Or a mediator meet with a parent, connected to family court. So maybe a parent reported to a mediator, about another parent regarding abuse or neglect.

This report that you received, was it a report to Ms. Mueler, that the father of Lauren Key and made a report of physical abuse of Lauren by her mother? Yes.

Did they claim the abuse happened? June 22, 2000 was the mediation meeting. She was assigned the case the same day. It ws probably within a couple days.

Emergency response has 30 days from initiation from the start to close the case.  The case was closed July 19, 2000.

Are there different categories of urgency that they, the cases they are assigned? IR. Immediate response. That would mean someone would have to be out there in two hours. NDR. Next day response. Gives example.

What's the losest level, would be no report at all. The next would be a 10 day response, which is what this was. Then must contact within 10 days of the report was made.  She got a copy of Ms. Mueler's report.

Screener alerts are notations basically to the investigating social workers. There may be some risk factors, violence in the home, or gang area. On this particular report it was custody dispute.

Why is it important for you to be aware of that, when going to invistagate allegations of child abuse? that would indicate the parents were not in agreement over custody of the child. Because of possibly the emotional issues with the child, or parent wanting more time with the child. Itls emotionally charged and we needed to be aware of that.

Did you conduct an investigation? Yes I did. Did you review the report from Ms. Meuler? Yes.

According to Ms. Muler's report, what did his father claim was the source of abuse? Um, the father said that the child said the mother kicked her. The child had bruises on her legs.

Were there other claims? The child told the father that the mother grabs her with her fingers on the side of the mouth, leaving marks. Lauren had nail marks on her ears. Also said both parents allege emotional abuse of each other. Back and forth, And the child is given informaiton, called bad mouthing, a child is given info about the other parent.

Was that also in Ms. Muelers report? Yes, That the parents were giving info about each other. Did the father claim that her mother diciplined her in a particular way? I don't think it was on the report, just thekicking and grabing. And something about throwing her on the floor, and I think that came later.

Lets talk about what you did to investigate these claims? Did you go to Lauren's home on June 20, 2000. What happened. No one was home. I left my card and left a message for the mother to call me.

SHe talked to the mother on the phone, as well as the step mother. Did have a phone number for Cameron Brown. He lived in Los Angeles County.

She did speak to him and talked to him on the phone. What did he tell you? Ther wer elittle scab on the corner of her mouth, whiech the child said it was from a boo boo. When asked if she was pinced she said no it was from a boo boo. The e father said that Lauren said the mother pushes her down in the kitchen.d child also told flathe that mother spanks her hadn and also that, mother grabs her on the face.  The father saw what looked like fingerprint marks.

Lauren refued to talks about this to the father. This is waht cameron brown told you, he had been told by Lauren.

Did you also go to Lauren's school Interviewed Lauren. There was a teacher present, Ms. Iniaot. She sat in on the interivew.

Did you make observations of Lauren? Yes. Why is that important? Well, a visual check of hte child appearance can indicate thelevel of care. Also cleanliness, ehalth facial expresion in terms of sadnes sor to see what thow the child repsonds to someone else, turning away, or crying. Or jsut to see if there were any obsevable marks on the child.

Tell us what were you observations of Lauren. She was veyr well dressed and cliean. her hari was very together. She looke like she was a wel cared for child.

Did you talk to Lauren about the claims that her father had made Yes.

What was Laurnes reaciont to the cliam. I used the word surprised in my report.
What did you asks her and what did she tell you? I asked if she hadn ever bene pinched on the face, her ears pulled, burises to her legs, anybody slpa or hit her hurt her or threw her to the goru.d

She said no to each question. Did youask Laurne what type of punishement she recieve dfor cidiple. What did she say? time out.

Did you specifically ask luren to theallegaitons did you ask her if anyone thrown her donw on the floor and her response was no. More specifics about the questions.

Lauren said no to all the questions.

Her reaction you described as surprised? Did that seem to be her reaction to all these questions. yes.

Did you ask her if her mother and step father had ever hurt her? Yes. What did she say? No.

Also spoke to a teacher, Msl Lena. Yes. Did the teacher also tell you factor into the valididty? Yes.

Often times what scholl perosnell have to say about a chidl is omportant because they see them on a daily basis.

What did mis Lena tell you. The child was happy, well cared for and behaived. There were no concerns about the mother and step father. They were always interested i how her day had gone so there were very attentive to her school and fucntion.

Did they school,  provide you with any information about Lauren when her father would come pick her up? That she would hide.  Her conclusion would be, that she didn't want to go, that she was hiding.

I did see that behavior as very unusual  (not very unusual?) because, Lauren didn't know her father for that long. She came into his life at 2.5 maybe? She'd lived with her mother all her life. She didn't have that familarity and contact. It's not that unusual. That didn't trigger any red flags for you? No.

Spoke with Sarah, Greg and Josh. Also made observations as to where Lauren lived? Yes. Explains why they do that. To ensure there are no potential dangers there. Want to establish that it was a safe environment, and that it had high standards. The s tandards of Lauren's home were very high. It was a neighborhood was very nice. The house was clean, there were toys, it was very orderly. She had no concerns.

Do recall that Lauren had her own room? I might have looked in, I don't recollect it, I did interview Josh in his own room, so I assumed Lauren had her own room.

Did your interview with the mother help you determine if the allegations were true or not? Yes.

How was Laurne diciplined? Time out. Three minutes. Four, four minutes. Also so if there wer safety issues, if child ran out of the house, she would maybe give the child a slap on the back bottom, clothed, and never hard enough to leave any injuries.

What did mis Key mar tell you as to her feelings as to physical dicipline? She was never physically diciplined as a child and she didn't believe in it.

Questioned Sarah Key-Marer about if she ever kicked, or grabbed, or threw Lauren on the ground? She said no.

In response to the allegations, Sarah took Lauren to a peditrician to determine if she was abused in any way. And also provided a letter from the doctor that said the child was not abused in any way.
Asked the same questions fo Greg Marer. And his responses were the same as Sarah's.

Interviewed Josh in his room. What did Josh tell you. He denied any abuse or neglect. He usually got a time out for punishment 5 to 15 minutes or sent to his room. He said Lauren had no physical dicipline. Maybe she would get a slap on the bottom. He said she "Cried over nothing." He denied any kind of abuse to himself or any kind of abuse to Lauren.

Did you specifically ask Josh, in regard to the allegations, whether he or laurne wer pusheed to the ground or kicked or pucched? Yes. What did he respond? No.

In your entire investigaiton, the observations you made, ... did all of those observations seem to you to be completely appropriate.  could you ask that again?

Everything you found out, from interviews, the home, her appearance, josh appearance, did all those observations, seem completely appropriate to a normal family? Yes.

Did you investigation cause you to be concerned for Lauren's safety? No. did you find any indication from the things that you discussed that there was any abuse of Lauren? No.

Did you find anything to support the claims by Cameron Brown at all? No.

The case was closed wit hthe finding, the dispostion would be either substantiated, unsubstantiated or inconclusive, unfounded.  What was your conclusion to the claims by Cameron Brown? Unfounded.

Did you expand on that in your report? It appears that Lauren's father made exaggerated or false accusations. There is no indication of abuse or neglect.

Direct ends and cross begins.

11:00 AM
Cameron Brown is not the father who called in Child Servies? That's true.

You called him and he didn't do anything to push the investigation? Yes. He never called you back, to push the investigation? That's correct.

Her report was initiated by the court reporter.

You learned that she did have scabs on her mouth and that was from her not washing her mouth correctly? yes. And you did learn that she did have bruises on her shins? Yes.

You questioned Lauren, to include Mr. Brown? Yes.

You talked with Lauren whether anyone had hurt her at all, and she told you no? Yes.

There was something that she said, she referred to her as Papa Cam. He would tease her and throw her in the water. She didn't consider that unusual. Certainly not something that would be considered any kind of abuse or neglect. I didn't investate that further, but she didn't like it.

She said no one makes me fearful? yes.

And she actually said that she wasn't afraid of anyone? Yes.

When you talked with Lauren's mother she was explaining to you what she felt was behind the allegations against her, Mr. Brown had made to Ms. Mueller, one of the things she said to her was that he wanted more time with her. Yes.

Redirect.
When you said that anyone had done anything to her, what was the context.

It was specifically in regards to the mother and step father, that the allegations were against her. I also asked her if anyone she was fearful of. I don't remember specifically asked her about her father.

In mediation, there is a phamplet that people get/ Yes. Presents the phamplet to her.

Under mediation, the document reads that it's a confidentail process, unless there are grounds of allegation of abuse.

Laub objects to the information on this document.

DDA Hum states this is offered to show that proper procedures were followed. It's also offered to show that when people enter mediation, they are given this document to show what mediation is.

Laub asks for a sidebar.

11:07 AM
In this pamphlet, it specifically reads that, judges and attorneys do not receive any information unless they are provided information from a parent. And that was the procedure followed by Ms. Mueler? Yes.

Have you found situations where, parents make allegations to mediators, to shiled them from calling child protective servies? Yes.

Recross.

About this phamplet. You don't know if Mr. Brown ever received this phamplet? I don't know that. You don't know if he ever read that?

It would be highly unlikey that he didn't get it, as part of mediation.

DDA Hum interjects. There is a bit of confusion as to what document they are talking about. Laub admits that he may be coufused.

There's nothing in her investigation file that she gave this specific document to the defendant.

No more redirect and the witness is excused. The court calls the morning recess at about 11:12 AM

Patty Brown comes into the courtroom, just as Brown is taken back into custody for the morning break.  Patty speaks to the bailiff about clothing she had brought into Brown that he never got.

11:22 AM
I hear Patty Brown speaking to the bailiff in the ante chamber about shirts for Brown.

11:27 AM
Brown was brought out a moment ago. DDA Hum brings in his next witness. She has a seat in the gallery.

11:30 AM
The jury files in. People call Ann Omare

ANNE O'MARA
Retired from social work. Medical social worker at Kaiser in 1996. Describes her duties. Worked to clinic patients. All age groups. Sometimes with childrens in abuse case. ADAD, learning problems, teenage pregnancy. Medical, financial problems.

Would you as part of your duties, discuss with patients, related medical issues going on with your lives. Would document interviews via notes? Yes.

Document conversations you had with Cameron Brown. Presents her with notations on a patient record that are hers.

Did you always go by the name Anne? I'm always called Sally by all my friends. There are signatures by S O'Mara, but that is also you.

Did I give you an entire medical file back in the past of Cameron Brown? yes.

Did you ahve any other contacts with the person named Cameron Brown? No.

These notes you made in these contacts, were they made near the time you had contact? Yes.

These notes would be in the medical files of Kaiser  Permamente? Yes.

When was the first contact you had with Cameron Brown? Jan 13, 1996.  Month and birth of person, September 1961. The meeting was to discuss the pregnancy of the girl that he had been dating.

How long had he been dating her? Two months.

Did you offer an aopointment with the two of them tgoghether in January 1996? Yes.
What was the substance of that contact? What was discussed? We discussed the pregnancy and how they were getting along, and, a paternaty testing.

Coughing juror #8. Apologies. It was the coffee.

SEcond contact on 1/9/96? It was only with Cameron Brown.
Information related to paternity testing, how they were getting along esentially the pregnancy and offered a return appointment with her?

Was there a return appt. on 1/16/96? Yes. visit document i nhis notes? yes. It was with Brown and Sarah Key. She was from England and just that she was pregnant.

What else occured during that visit? It's hard to remember, I believe I had th impression that she wanted to continue the pregnancy and no other option was of interest to her, and he wanted to end the pregnancy.

Did you discuss possible options for a pregnancy in situations such as that? Yes.

Was there anything discussed about how this pregnancy was affecting the relationship? It was putting a great deal of strain o nthe relationship.

Was there, another appointment arranged with the two of them. Yes. Another arrainged a bout a week and a hlaf time.  Was tha 1/25/96? yes.

did that appointment take place? There was a message that he had called, she wasn't able to keep the appointment. He never called back.

Cross examination.
It's been a long passage of time, it's difficult remembering what happened all that time ago. I think I have a vage recollection of that time, but I don't have a lot of detail.

When you answered the question about generally, you would discuss options, I'd like you to elaborate on that some more. If the conflicts have conflicts as a couple or whether they have a difference of opinion on the pregnancy.

She wanted to continue the pregnancy and he did not want her to.  Not continuing means, considering an abortion. Sometime's prospective mother doesn't know if she wantes to be a mother either, and considers adoption.

Would you start off by telling them that one of the options that there are women who continue the pregnancy ...

I don't think that I would start off that way. The couples themselves would have a lot to say and we'd go from there.

You wouldn't say to her that may be the way they handle it in England, but that's not the way we do things here? That doesn't sound like something [she would say].

You wouldn't push the idea of abortion on someone who indicated that wasn't their choice?

She states she may have considered

The fact that Mr. Brown was the person who set the thing in motion and he was interested in abortion as a choice, that wouldn't cause you, once the pregnant woman was in his office, to act as his advocate? No, that's not her role, to set one person against another. 

Redirect.

Would it be accurate to say you don't know what discussions happened between Brown and Ms. Key before they came to you? Correct.

Or after? That's right.

She assumed that, he wanted her to see a doctor and have her not be pregnant.

You had a role that you thought was yours to fulfill? Right. You didn't know what conversations they had or that Ms. Key had previously told Mr. Brown she was not open to abortion? No I was not aware of that. Objection sustained.  Well, you didn't know about [her position or that she had told Brown she didn't want to have an abortion?] No.

Recross?
Within the logic of that question. simillarily, you have no knowledge of anything going on with this couple other that what was going on with this couple? Other than what he told me, no.

Witness is excused.

Mr. Laub has concerns with a witness, Scott Simonson.

In the past, Scott Simonson testified about an incident involving someone named Troy, that Simonson wasn't directly involved in, involving Brown. Simonson ended up mediating.

The information came in previously with limiting instructions. My objection today is irrelevant. Going to object on relevance grounds. It's not relevant to bring in the substance of the dispute.

DDA Hum, Let me just advise the court what the statement is and what the discussion in the prior court was. He was informed by Troy Nichol, what the substance of the abuse was, and that thedefendant threatened to punch him.

The witness went to Brown asked Brown about it and the defendant agreeded to. Adopted admission. What happened at prior ... The relevance is whether the defendant shows emotion.

DDA Hum explains what happened in the prior trial, that Pastor said that it was admissible under 1221. It technically was only admitted for Mr. Simonson's state of mind.

Court rules on this issue. It is admissible as an adopted admission. Will be in recess until 12:30.

1:00 PM
During the lunch break, I had to go to CVS to get a phone cord. My phone's battery is low and I need to charge it off my laptop. I will try to do some editing later tonight.

1:30 PMThe next witness will be William Gnam.

Gnam sits in the gallery and observes Brown when he stands for the jury. Brown appears to avoid Gnam’s gaze.

Back on the record.

William Gnam

WILLIAM GNAM

Lives in San Diego, He is a chef. He grew up in Colorado.

Met Brown in high school. Knew mutual friend Frannie Allen. Allen and Brown dated.

[Was there anything unusual about their relationship?] Nothing unusual about relationship. It seemed pretty basic.  Cam pretended to be a bit jealous from time to time.

[How could you tell that?] By the way he acted around us and other friends. When camping, if she went off and did something with someone else. 

Other than jealous, any other words to describe [their relationship]? It didn’t seem like the best relationship.

He's asked if Brown and him were good friends. We were extremely good friends from [when I was] 15 until 1999, when I lost complete track of him. Cam was a few years older.

He's asked what year that was, when he was 15. 1980, 1979 possibly.

Until that time, [you lost track of him] considered the defendant pretty good friends? Yes.

[Asked what activities they did together.} Hiked, skiled, snowboarding, snow mobiles, camping sailing.  All activies were in California and or Colorado. We went surfing once. Cam showed him how to surf. Cam is an expert outdoors man.

Describe for us his attention towards safety in the outdoors? Could always tell if there was a danger, in any setting.

What about when the defendant was outdoors with other people? He would realize if someone would get in a danger situation. He would warn them.



At some point during your friendship did he leave Colorado? Yes. He left in 1989 or 90. He left a few years before I did. Even though Brown was in California, they still stayed in touch. They still stayed in touch, in person and on the phone.

Sometimes he went to visit Cam in California. Did one time. Cam picked him up in Santa Monica [Airort?] when he was working at a particular hotel there, or applying for a position there.

Also Brown went back to Colorado, when Gnam was still living there. [Brown went out to California a few years before Gnam did.]

Considered the defendant a close friend and thought he felt the same way about him? Yes.

He was working for Lowes Hotels in Denver. He then transferred to Lowes Coronado property. He had his option of another city, and he chose Coranado. He moved to that area. Once he transferred, he was living in Impereal Beach.

Would you visit with the defendant? Yes. Cam would ususally come visit me because the surfing was good at Impereal beach. He came down quite a few times. from 1993 to 1996. 

Once he moved to Imperial Beach, still considered to be a very good friend of the defendant? Yes. And he felt the same way about you? Yes.

Do you recall the last conversation you had with the defendnat? Yes I do. It was a phone call in the evening. He was very distraught. It was his ex girlfirend he was going to have her deported.  [Since the witness lived near the border], he hought the girlfriend was Mexican. That was his immediate thought.

Wow I didn’t know you were dating the mexican girl. He said he was going to have the bitch deported and he called INS. That was theend of the phone call.

He didn’t tell you why? No.

He specifically called her a bitch?

That was the gist of the conversation.

Describe for us the def. demeanor. He was very irritated with her. He was talking with me about it. I’d never met her. I didn’t know what’s going on. I still didn’t know she was British.

Was there also an incident in Co that stuck in your mind with the def and his parents. Yes there was.

He had already moved to colorado. He picked Cam up at the airport for a wedding. And his parents were in the car nest to us and he ducked down, and he didn’t want them to see him. Gnam thought that was very odd.

Now, did something happen in 1998 with regard to your relationship with the defendant.

He just dropped off the face of the planet. He moved to La Jolla, in 1997. He used to come down to La Jolla to surf a lot, once ever six weeks. He was good friends with my roommates at the time. He changed his phone number. I hadn’t heard from him at all.

Did you try to get in contact with the defendant. Yes, but his number was changed and I had no way to access the boat he was on.

Up until that time, did you consider yourself to be a good friend, Yes.

Did you think that he felt the same way about you? No, because I’d never heard from him.

Until he disappeared on you, did you think Brown still consider you a good friend? I think so.

Did the defendant ever tell you that he had a pregnant girlfriend or had a child? No.

When was the first time that you had become aware that he had a daughter? When he was arrested.

Do you think it was unusual that he had never told you that he had a child. Yes, it was very odd.

Mr. Gnam, did you ever see the defendant angry? Yeah.

How did he act? It depends on what he was angry about. He was condescending, just irritated I suppose.

Did you eve have the opportunity to see how the defendant responded to criticism. He wouldn’t like it very much.


No, Mr. Gnam, at some point did you become aware of this case on the Internet? Yes I did. Did you become aware of the defendant's claim as to what happened? 

Objection! Sidebar.

You became aware of what thedefendant claimed happened, and that the defendant claimed Lauren fell, and you became aware of where Lauren fell. Yes, yes, yes.

How did that claim strike you? It made no sense at all. He was an experienced outdoorsman, and was aware of the dangers.

He had seen him in other outdoor situations.

He had always been on top of safety in the outdoors.

Cross Examination.
Brown leaned in to speak to Laub for a moment.

You said that you grew up with mr. brown. Yes I did. I was about 15 when I met him.

Where did he grew. I believe he grew up in Huntington Beach.

And you said he was a few years older than you? You went to Cherry creek high. You’re right I don’t think he did.

You were excellent friends. Yes.

Had hou ever been over to his house. Yes I have.

His parents/ No. I’ve met his brothers, but didn’t kow them very well.

You talked about Mr. brown being an excellent outdoors man. Yes.

And was someone who was aware of safety issues? yes.

And there was a situation where you were in a sitaution and he had to advise you? No but there was someone else.

Yeah, I remember when we were camping in Breckenridge, and there was an avalanche zone, and Mr. Brown pointed out where he had been caught in an avalance, and he warned Jon Ranias, on his own snowmobile, to be careful in that area.

Did you consider Mr. brown to be a risk taker? Um, but more in a good way, more like an adreneline junkie.

He had learned and had gottne caught in that avalancche? Yes.

And he told others to be careful of that experience.

You’ve never seen Mr. Brown get physically violent with anyone have you. No.

You mentioned that, Mr. Brown came to pick you up at an airpoirt/ Yes. Was he thoughtful that way? Yes.

And he was not someone who you considered a penny pincher was he? No, I would say he was.

Do you remember talking with Det. Leslie on May 19, 2010 that was recorded? yes. Do you rmember being asked so he was cheap? He was not cheap, he paid for beer and supper. 

He was budget minded like most of the young guys, in late, early 20’s.  And you were asked, let me ask you thiis... because of the love of the great outdoors, where it would limit him. Being outdoors was Cams life and that’s all he wanted to do. Be out on a boat, on a chair lift, out in the outback. A lot of our friends felt that wa y about being outdoors and being active, and camping.

Let’s say that Mr. Brown, was something was cutting into his money at any given point, was that something that might have thrown him off, and made him different. Well, surfing doesn’t cost anything. If there's something decreasing his wealth, that he would need money for to do an outside activity. I could see that affecting him greatly.

Do you remember this exchange with Det. Leslie.

Crossing him on previous statements.

Sounds like when talking with Det. Leslie, the way you were describing Mr. Brown at that time, he’d have a level attitude. Well like it said, It depends on the activity. some like  skiing cost a lot of money. Some like surfing, don’t cost a lot of money.

Would you say that Mr. Brown when you knew him was happy guy. Yes.

When it was approp. to laugh he would laugh? yes.

Appeared ot be emotionally stable? yes.

Cross ends.

Redirect.

You testified that exectially your recollection in regards to money was budget minded like the rest of us. In the interview you said he was frugal, is that correct? Yes.

Nothing futher.

Laub 

One other point quesiton. I asked you about the being careful to help other people in other dangerus situations.

No that’s a ery specific one. When I was surfing with him, he was looing out for me. We were i nthe same area, b Inspiration point. I had a 14 foot surfboard in my arms, and I was worried. And he looked out for me. Very consious of the marina and the locals that lived there.
He talks about getting down to the terrain, and sacred cove. and how difficult that wasy.


Next witness.

Douglas Scott Simonson

Good afternoon. Do you kow the defendant seated? Yes I do.

We both had boats down in port royal marina in Redondo Beach. He was friend wit hthe defendant.

Would you feel you were one of his clsest freinds in the marinea?  Can’t think of anyone who hung out with him more than he did.

He was living on C dock. go sailing together, barbeque on weekends on the boards, barbque and drink beer.

Was there a mutual friend by the name of Troy. troy is now deceased.

If you know, what type of work that Troy did. He cleaned the bottom of boats.

Defendant worked at AA in the baggage dept.

Were there occasions when the def. was on disability? Well, we continued to go sailing together, and that he surfed.

Did he ever tell you about concerns that people were watching him? Yes he did.

He met Sarah just hteone time. I’m prett sure it was on C dock , in Port Royal.

Doesn’t rmember the year. Think it was in the 1990’s.

Do you notice an accent yes. Did you know where she was from? England.

Did thedefendat tell you antying in regards to Sarah? Did he tell you Sarah was pregnant? Yes.

What did the def tell you what Sarah and said and what was thedefendats response?

Sarah ahd contancted him and let him know. He said he couldn’t be the father, because he always used rotection. She said he had to be the one because she was the only one he had been with in a long time.

He said it wasn’t his and he wasa denying it. It was sometime later, I guess when she pursued it, it seemed like he was avoiding her.

When thedefendat told you that Sarah had told him that she was pregnant, did he say he called anyone. Yes, he said he was going to call INS on her and I believe he did, because her visa hand run out.

I told him to think about it, because he would deporting his own child. He said it couldn’t be his it wasn’t and he didn’t want to be responsible.

Did thedef. say he didn’t want to be respoonsible, even if it was his? Yes.

Around the time you met Sarah, was thedefendant also dating someone else? I think there was someone after. 

Did you know Jeane Barrett? Yes. She was a lifeguard? yes.

Did the defendt start at some point did you become aware that he and Sarah broke up? Yes.
Did the def. move his boat somewhre else. first moved boat to Marina Del rey. yes.
then came back to B dock.

Did you become aware theat thedefendant hand changed phone numbers. yes.
He had a cell phone al lthe time ,and he would call me with a new number. I recalled crossing out an old number in my phone book and must have done that a few times.

At work, he said don’t call there, he’s not answering and he’s told his coworkesrs that he’s not available.

Did he actually tell you, that he told people at work.

Do you recall specifcially what he said to calling at work.

Yes. he todl him that if people did call, they were to tell the caller that he wasn’t there.

At some point after that, did the defendant tell you that Sarah had tracked him down? Yes.

I guess he had to go take a blood test, to prove paternity. and it turned out that it was his.

At some point did he bring his daughter to the marina/ Yes.

Did he make any comments about child support. I bel his support was about 900 a month, he was told by court, that to reduce his child support payemtns he sould try to get some type of visitation.

Did he specficially tell you, that to reduce his support, he get some kind of visitation?

Judge steps off the bench.

Back on the bench.

Did he tell you he was told by someone, to reduce the amount, he should aske for visitation.
He didn’t like the amount he was going to have to pay. Did he look like he was upset? It was a lot of money back then, for what he made. 


Describe for us what Patty is like.

They came down to my boat on NY eve. And that was the first time I met her.
Wanted to go down to Hermosa Beach. she was wining. she complained about the dock moving and she was going to fall into the water.

Met several defendants girlfreinds. Yes. what was different.

Jean and the others the other were more atheleitc, outgoing outdoorsy type people.

He told us she was a city engineer for the city.

What did the defendant say to you about Patty’s financial situation.

that she made good moeny working for the city of Hermosa Beach. She lived in a condo. And she made good money.

After the defendant married patty, did you see him as much? No.

At some point after the def. married patty, did you learn that Lauren had died? yes.

Well my next door neighbor on the docks told me. And I believe it was the day after. And she mentioned that he was on the news. I’d seen the night beofre, on the news.

i didn’t put it to gether at the time.

My elizabeth told me the next day, and then I put it together that was what the news was about.

Did the def. call you and tell you that he had moved? yes.

he said he moved to Ventura county.

Did the defendant ever tell you that he was thinking of moving to Ventura? No.

He believes that Patty purchased the hosue (that the defendatn told him).

What else did the defendant say Patty had purchased for him? When he told me they moved to Ventura and he worked at LAX, and she also bought me a motorcycle, some tools for the garage and also a small sailboat.

Did the defendatn tel you aobut Patty. I asked about Patty and he said that she isn’t working right now.

going back to finding out to Lauren dying, once you saw that on the news, and put 2 and 2 together. what did you do. I called him up.

First of all who answered. Patty answered.

She said hi how are you.
She yello Cameron Scots on the phone. Did thedefget on the phone.

What’s the first thing he said to you? Hey dude, what’s up?

Did that stick in your midn. Yes it idi.

Why did that stick in your midn. Because his daughter just died. and it was, hey dude what’s up. It didn’t seem right to me.

What did you say. I jsut heard about your daughter and i”m so sorry and I jsut wanted to call.
Yes it was a terrible accident. I was there wit h her I turned around and the next thing I knew she had fallen off the cliff. But I can’t let it ruin my life. I have to move on.

Then he kind of wanted to know what I was doing after that.

I asked him, you know, I din’t know if that was the time that he told me he had an attorney,  he just din’t seem to be that concerned with it.

Testified previously correct? yes.

With regard to the specific wording, would it help if you looked at your prior testimony. Yes.

The next thing he asked was "What's going on."

This entire conversation, from the first words he spoke, to the end of it, did that strike you as odd? Yes. Why is that? The entireconversation after we'd spoke, and we hung up, actuall wnet out and told my neighbors. obj. sustained.

Did the def. behaviors seem soo odd that you did something. Went out and told his neighobors. Not offered for the truth of the matter.

What did you tell your neighbors. Told them what our conversation was, and I told them this didn't seem right, because it seemed he didn't even care at all. (miss rest of answer.

2:38 PM
Had yo uever see thedefendant exhiabit emotion? Not reall no. What about anger? Yes anger.

Do you recall specific instances whre you saw the defendant exhibit anger? yes. I did.

This was probalby early in 1992 1993 there, his girfirend cahty and him troy troys girlfrined mchelle were going to new years at the red oniion. Cathy and cameron got in an argument. He didn't want to be with ehr any ore He was calling her names. Waht did he call her. You fat ugly bitch. He would call her names like that, to get her tol leave.

She came back crhing. THen he came back and locked the boar us and told us that he didn't want to see her.

They all went to the red onion without her.

Tell us a bout def. and his father. We were ougn to a restaurant and meet his father there. We already ordered out food and ate, then his father walked in. Weh he walked in Cameron said you'r late and watned to leave. Came, I said he just walked in. His father apologized and said I had things to do. Brown siad, you're late don't do this agian.

I suggested that we sit and speak to him and we did.

Is there an icndient wher ethe defendant got upset with you, regarding your trimirane. He had sold and he bought a trimirane. Went down there to go on the boat with him. I made suggestions about what to do on the boart. paint this paint that.

He didn't like to be todl what to do. He said to me Dont't tell me waht to do.  I nthe back of the board where the batther dept is. I suggested that he strap the battery down. He said, dont' tell me what to do. It's a trimirane. It's not a sail boat.

Incident involving Brown and Troy Nichols. Did Troy Nichols tell you about the ocnfslit . yes.

Did you talk to thedefenant about what Troy told you? yes.

Did thedefenad deny what troy told you was true? No he didn't deny it.

What did Troy tell you.  When you liveo n the boatd you pay a little more fee than just a slip fees.

There were guys that were living on the boat and not paying the extra fees. Cam thought Troy should go tell on these people that they wern't paying their fair share. Troy felt it wasn't Cam's business or any of our business. Cam though that the witness should also go and tell the marina.

After that, ti got worse, Cameron was working on B dock and Cameron came down and threatened Troy and threatened to beat him up.

Troy went to the harbor patrol and filed a complaint against Brown, because he didn't want anything to happen to his business.

Objection. Move to strike as hearsay. Over ruled.
After troy told you this information, did you talk to the defendant about this situation?
I spoke to Cameorn, said that one I was upset because I was dragged into this fight between you two.

I said it's none of Troy's business, it's none of your business. It's up to the marina. You've been freinds for a long time. We should all try to get along.

Bronw called him up from jail. He had a land line. he would have messages that he missed.

He didn't put it together. Severla months to almost a year went by I answered and it was Brown, calling him from jail.

Did thedefendat ask you anythign in regards to any investigation. He asked me if anyone had spoken to me and I said no, {missrest of answer].

you also told us that, you were his closest friend at the marina. His brother asked you to write a letter of support for his brother in law web site? No I did not.

Cross examination.

Let's start with your meeting Laruen. yes.

Brown brought Lauren down to the marine Yes.
It wsn't that day that he wa talking about child suppoirt/ No.
He actually introduced he to you? Yes he did.

He siad in his words, it was pretty cook to have a daughter/ yes.
He displayed pride? Yes.
this actually, he brought her down there about three or four times. As I recall, yes.

And saw that you had a chance to say hello, and your impression was, they were a normal dad and daugher. that's correc.t
and she apepared happy. yes.
and he appeared happy. yes.

The thing about Patty making purchases for Mr. Brown. In al lthe time that you had known Mr. bronw, prior to moving to this house, you had never heard his say he wanted to live in a house. Not prior, no.

And you never heard that this was purchased for Mr. Brown. No. They were already married, and they had lived in Palos verdes. They said, they were tired of getting all these phone calls.

As far as the motorcycle goes, do you know if that was agift for him at Christmas? I don't know what time that was purchased, I jsut remember asking about Lax.

Laub asks if he knew these were tools purchased as a birthday gift? I don't know. I just remember it was the same conversation.

when you called him on the phone, he appeared very emotionless. yes. And the time you knew him, he was a guy who was not overtly emotiona. No, not that way. happy when surfing and sailing, seemed to enjoy life.

Am i correct that mr. Brown and the time yo unew him seemed like jsut a big kid? yes.

a guy who had a teenager in a grown ups body? yes.
He was happy most of the time? Most of the time.

this incident where on the boat with him, and you told him that the batter was not safe, this was a situation where, Mr. Brown , was it his boat? It was his, and he had a partner on it.

And you thought you found a dangerous situation on his boat. And you said he wouldn't listen because he didn't like cirticizm? Yes, which was typical.

Situation where he threatened to beat Troy up.  Didn't troy say, Hit him? Hit him, beat him up.

And wasn't that kind of laughable, because Troy was much bigger than Mr Brown? (miss answer, I think correct).

Miss next questions.

Luab looks over his notes.

You talked about you were asked a bout a situation where Mr. Brown showed up and Mr. Brown was late and Brown was upset about that. Brown didn't get physicall violent? Correct. And you ended up staying? Reluctantly yes.  Mr. Brown got there when you two had finished eating? (yes.)

As far as, you were asked by prosecutor, expamples of anger, 14 15 years, you guys were freinds, and so, the examples today of, same examples that had been now, are, coflict with dad at breakfast, being upset about being told battery wasn't tied down, the date he was upset with, and getting in an arguemt with Troy, threatening to hit Troy, and not doing it.

And these are your expressions of anger? There's more. Those are the ones that stand out, but those are the ones that I recall.

Laub, confronts that he testified i nthe last two proceedings and these are the only ones that have come up until today? Mr. Hum has asked you in previous proceedings.

You were asked in prior proceedings if htere wre any more and you said no, but now you have more? Well things come up and you remember them.

He was not invited to Cam's wedding.

His freinds took him to a strip club and the witness went along. As things progressed there, he acted in a way that was very prudish, because he didn't want to engage in lap dances. He was getting married, and this wasn't the way he wanted to celebrate getting married.

Cross ends.

The afternoon break is called. As the jury exits, Brown leans in and whispers to his attorney.

The court is off the bench. DDA Hum and Laub are speaking to the witness now. It sounds like he is documenting another event where Brown got angry.


3:08 PM
I apologize for my horrible typing today. The questions were coming fast and furious. During the lunch break, the court's free wifi connection went down, so I could not publish for some time, until the connection came back up.

Redirect.

You told us that thedefendant's relationship with his daughter appeared to be a normal relationship?

During their time on the dock, they seemed normal.

that did not take in consieration his reaction on the phone? (No.)

the def lawyer said that he didn't appear to be outwardly emotional. You did tell us the defendat apepared to be happy most of the time. Correct. You also had seen the defendant angry on several ocasions. And that would be based on his outward expression/appearance? correct.

Now details another event. About a guy had a motorcycle, who would chain motorcycle onto Brown's bike.

Did thedefendant treaten the gentlman at any point in time. He kept callig him names, He said, called him fat ass, come on out here.

Another incident on B dock. He thought some food, he thought chuck was throwing a tortia, that it had landed on his boat. Thought someone was throwing food at him. He was yelling across, and complaining about that. This was based on what Cameron told him.

 JEROME POINGSETT

Do you also go by the name of Tony. His middle name is Anthony. He's 63. He's retired. Sept. 21, 2011. Worked for American Airlines.
What did you do for AA? I did all the jobs.

At some point did you work with baggage? Point service clerk.

Do know the defendat at thend of the counsel table? yes I do.

How idd you know the defenat. We woerked inbound together. Explains.

He has a daughter shelly, she's in the back row. She's 28.

At some point did you pay child suport for Shelly? Yes I did.

At some oint when you worked with the defendant, did you discuss the fact that you paid child support for Shelly. We discussedi t. We all talk aobout that. Jury laughts.

Does that mean a number of men in inbound. We all had those issues.

was there something that Brown said, that stuck in their mind
Most men talk about killing the mother. Most don't talk about killing the kid.

There were a few time were they talke about killing the kids.

We would talk about, um, child suppoirt problems, stuff liek that, and so, that's how it got started.

Did the defendat talk to you about his relationship with his daughters mother. I talked aobut mine and he talked about his.

How did the defend say his reationshiow as with the childs mther. They were done. he didn't really have one.

Why don't you make some rarrangements with her like I did. He (didn't want to talk about it?0

Did he tell you aobut how much child support he paid? somewher around 1100.

did he tell you how he felt about it/ He said it was messing him up. It was uncomfortable.

that's child support. iIt messes us all up.

Let me ask you, did he ever sa anything about you about visitation. he said that asl ong I'm paying the money I might as well go get thekid.

hedidn't the kid din't want to go with him when he would go pic her up.

he didnt want the he wanted him and the mother to get along, He knew it bother it.

He wanted kinda like jabbed her, to come and pick her up the mother.

He sai,d I might as well get her anyway.

do you recall specifically any ohter reason where thedefendat said he had visitation.

No  just remember him saying, I might as well go get her, as long as Im paying my money.

He went into (?) 3 or 4 times. thats a lot.

How many times did he say that, it was a jab at the mother. I recall him saying that once.

Just that, he would go  get her anyway. And we talked about so much. there was things like, well, what i reall rmember him me and him come with some scenari to get rid of the kids.
I would talke ot him aobut my duaghter and he waould talk about his.

I would look at him and, I like sincerely put in an effort. of So what could we do to get rid of the child.
Itls like Popl it would become blaknnk ther was nthing you could come up with
and I would look at hi like he was crazy.

did you ever agree with thedefendant to actually get rid of your kids? It was kind of like an agreem ent like, like it was like strange. It would be kind of get rid of the child support, to get rid of the kidn but really, like are you really saying that.
but he wouldn't look at me. He just wanted to hear me say [in agreement].

But I was like, nah.

Calling attention to page eight, might that refresh your recolleciton, as to why he said

Nobody talkes about etting rid of the kind after about the third time, I was like, oh wow.

Why don't you refresh your memory.

Read line 13 to 16.

What other reason did the def give for visitaiton. It was aout it , jsut to jab the mother, I might as well go pick her up since I gave  her money.

And did you say,ing, he wanted tortue the mother and the kid.
Do you remember saying that?
That's what I mean by saying jab. Jab the mother.

Because, he would, not talk about the mother. He didn't want to make arrangement fo them either.

Did you eve hear the defendat say anting good about his kid? No.
It was a terible mistake. He was sserious guy about. It was really, these wern't casual conversation. these were serious thought processes.

When he was talking to you. This was serious stuff. This was child support. This was a big inconvenience.

You said that on about three occasions, the defendat said, what if we got rid of the kids? Did he say anything/

We tried to come up with any scenairos. I couldn't come up with anything.

I was, like, You CANT come up with anything.

When you solve a chess problem. When you talk about getting rid of a kid, there ARE not scenarios.

At the time the three tiems the defendant talked to you about geting rid of the kids, did he sound to you as if he was serious about it?

 Yes. he was serious.

Direct ends.
Mr. Laub.

You spoke with robert Toyce a defense investigator on July 15 2014? correct? Dates I don't remeber but I do remembr talking to somebody.

This would be aproximately a year ago. Was it a year ago, I think it was shorter than that. Some private guy, some investigatro calle me.

He wanted to get togehte, because you were busy so you suggested to talk on the phone?  Not that i was busy, I'm retired. I said we could do it on the phone if you wanted to. Because I was constantly busy? Im in the music business. I'm cool.

Witness. The guy said, we could do it on thephone. it was his chilce.

He tried to get together wit houou in person. Yes.

And you talked about working for AA. yes. and the various assignemtns that you had, including the one here. Yes.
and that you actually worked with Mr. Brown for what you called two bids? Ia bid was actually ashit fo about three or four months? sometimes they were extended. They would extend the bid.

When you woerkediwth borwn ti was three to four moths here, three to four there? yeah.

and you two had discussed child support payments? I rmember we had discussed a third, and I was on my way back to the work area. He asked me to look at ap papebag. I opened the bag and there was apidgon i there. It wasn't funny. the were laughing. and it wasnt' funny to me.

ANd he said wasn't there another guy standing there. but he was the one who asked me to look in it.

That was because when you were talking to leaslie in 2010, you had told them that Brown had put the pidgeonin the bag. I assuemed he did because he asked me to look in it. There was another guy standing there. Brown was laughing and he was standing there? yes.

It wasn't funny. there's no assuming. It's not funny.

It wasn't funny to open the bag and you were surprised by the pidgeon? yeah.

who put the pidgeon in the bag, I don't remember, I do rmember tha pidgeon face. It was trembling.

Jury laughs.

When you talked with Mr. brown about child suppoort, and told mr royce about this. it would be better if the child and mother just went away. No, ti wasn't like that.

So you're saying tha'ts not the words you used? confusion by the witness.

I don't remember child and mother. Chidl and mother like that?
you were specifically aske,d if Brown had ever used the words murder, kill death, during the statement wthat he wished they would just go away.

I don't remember those words. I do remember he said just to get rid of the kid.

This pi we went on the hone that long.

Mr. Brown hand never refereed to any words or violence in talking about any words or violence.

The words that he used with me, he said, wouldn't it be nie, if we could get rid of the kids.

Now anythign he said after that, that's on hi.

I don't remeber him saying, Mr Brown would never used violecne I don't remb him getting in to that, what you're trying to prjoect right now, that he said to me.

It's a two page report.

Hum asks to appracoh.

The court asks the witness.

The witnes says,  bring that paper over. The jury laughs. (this was during sidebar).

Did Mr. Brown ever talk to you about having the mother deporteed to get rid of the child support payments. I don't rmember his talking aobut geting her deported, he talked habout her as less as possible.

He didn't talk about her very much. He didn't like her. Him going to negotiate, paying money, he refused my suggestion,s I did it two or three times. to him it was like, out of the question.

He was like an arrogant guy, yes.
 But it was more than that.

Most of the whtie gusy you were wrking with were arrogant, Im going to say, theres a white arranged that exits ont AA, where, they can get away with thigns and therees nothing that you can do about it.

When you spoke to Det. Leslie, and you talked a bout bronws arrogance, you did mention that most of the white boys out there wre arragaoonce? You can't say everybody, but there is an atomsphere of hate out there. I haved severl hanger nooses in my work area.

What I'm saying is, they can get away with more. They get away with more things theres cover up and therye a liack of humility.

Laub interrupts.

witness state,s It's your show.

I'm not doubting ther'es hatred out there and racism, the point im making is, in taking about Bronws arroagance, the way you boruglt it in to your discussin, you said like most of the white guys out there.

He has an arrogance like most of the white guys out there.

His arrogance, eh would complain about other people trying to get away with stuff. forinstance. the wintess breathe heavily.  One of the things that the people would do, would smoke on the job. And brown would complain about that. And that was arrogant and petty.

He was eccentric. overboard.

He was really on about.
He would go bananas on you.

and anoterh ting he would ge arraogant about, and he was crrying three or four bags and they were only carrying one or two.  He was pretty silly.

He would pick up more wieght than anyone else. He could be stupid aobut it.

Another thing he would do, there were specifif places where you should put that cart he would arrogantly say your not doing your job the eriht way.  He woul say, He'd work by himself.

I'd go back in and play chess. I said cool.

He din't want me working around him if he could get away with hit. HIs arroangce would take him that far.
he would. He's different.

So, ther were losts of eccentics?

The cout says, there were a lot of ecentrics, as long as theyre not the pilot. Jury laughs.

The court tells Mr. Laub, five mintues.
I think Mr. Laub is looking for a question. He's looking through is papers. Then the witness addresses Mr. Laub  The witness says, "You've got four minutes."

 The jury breaks up.

You never saw Mr brown get physicall voiont? If you get caught, you get fired.

The court asks, "You never witnessed mr brown get violent?? No.

Luab. says one more thing, and i'm really almost done.

Oh Mr. Brown did show you a picture of his daughter right? Yeah, because I asked him. And I remember seeing a picture. He said, No, it's mine. There was test, it's mine.

Yeah he did show me a picture. I don't remember. Yeah   did se a picture, I wanted to know. I wanted to see.

Asked you about Mr. Brown ... not having used any words of violence, and I think you agreed [he? didn't] use words of violence, he used this phrase of you two geting rid of child support?

The witness states, he said, "Wouldn't it be great if we could get rid of them" And witness asked [Brown], Me too? [Inferring, the witness would get rid of HIS child, too.]

In your position you talked about a lot of guys at work. You acted in some ways, as an adviser in some ways? Yesi I did; a lot of experts out there.

I believe Laub asks again if Brown was asking if they could get rid of child support. The witness interrupts Mr. Laub. He points at him. He's adamant that's not what Brown asked.

The witness is clear. he was talking about getting rid of the kids. NOT child support. The witness won't let Mr. Laub re characterize his words like that.

That's as far as this went? For you, it seemed like to you, about literally getting rid. of, but that's as far as this went?

Objection.

The court asks, "Neither of you could come up with anything?" No.

And that's it. 10:00 AM tomorrow for the jury. 

4:49 PM
I tried to edit some of my typing on the train. I will try to edit as soon as possible.

Tuesday April 21, 2015
9:59 AM

When I get inside Dept. 107 Mr. Laub called in sick today.

There will be no court today. The judge is just waiting to bring the jury in and inform them.

10:04 AM
I believe the court needs someone on the record, to represent Brown to delay the case today. I don't know that for a fact, but that's what I'm guessing.

The DA's office has to reschedule everyone. I may be wrong about needing an attorney to represent Brown's interest. They may not need that. We may be waiting on a juror.

10:07 AM
A juror comes in to nod to the bailiff that all 16 jurors are here.

Judge Lomeli comes out from the back chambers. He's in his robes.

11:08 AM
The jury files in and stands in the back row, behind us.

I'm afraid we didn't have time to contact you. We received this call too late. The defense attorney is sick this morning. He was on his way to court and he became sick. I'm sorry we didn't get this call sooner. The court states that we are still on course. The court apologizes to the jury. Tells them they are a great jury. One juror asks if this counts toward jury services.

The court tells Mr. Hum that Mr. Laub stated he will be here tomorrow, without a doubt.

The court is in recess until 9:30 AM tomorrow. And that's it for today. 

Best wishes that Mr. Laub is back in court tomorrow.

Wednesday April 22, 2015
9:33 AM
Before I stepped into Dept. 107, I stopped to chat with LA County Sheriff's Detective Mark Lillienfeld about the time I saw him testify in the first Phil Spector trial. It was why I am such a big fan of him. Detective Lillienfeld, each time I've seen hi testify, he was a great witness.

It's my understanding that Detective Lillienfeld will retire in about a year. It will be LA County's loss.

9:36 AM
The jury files in. Mr. Hum calls his next witness. Victor Rendon.

VICTOR RENDON
For whom do you work? American Airlines? Worked there 15 years.  Current assicgment, flight service manager. Entails watching the flight attendants during flight, and attendence, injury reports, administrative duties.

He was working there in 1999 and 2000.

He is familiar with the term loss time. Was in charge of keeping track of loss time. That's when an employee calls in sick, vacation, worker's compensation time.

Transitional duties. Employees are restricted, come to work to do light duty, cabin service, or making snack kits.

Is familiar with what's in an employee personnel file, called a "P" file. Explains what's in that, attendance records, performance issues, workman comp injuries.

Also familiar with the way time is kept, time keeping records, and how to read paycheck stubs, and those records.

He recognizes and identifies the defendant. Brown worked at AA. Brown was on his shift, working. Actually know who he is? Yes.

Started working August 28, 1989 [Brown].

Are you familiar with the position that Brown was a fleet service clerk. Its an employee who loads and unloads cargo, delivering bags, and cabin service, cleaning the interior of the aircraft. Minimum lifting requirement for the job was 75 lbs in a confined area, unassisted.

Pushing lifting bags, putting on convayer belts, things of that nature? Yes they did.

The defendant's days off in Oct & Nov of 2000, his days off were Tuesdays and Wednesdays. At that time, he was on regular duty.

What type of duty prior to his days off? I believe they were regular duty.

Familiar with procedures when an employee is injured on duty.  What were they? They must report to a supervisosr immediately. Supervior decieds if they go to see medical right away or take a report. They then are interviewed to determine how long they will be off, what type of disability they need, etc.

There are papers, forms that are discussed with the injury counselor, that include information on the pay policy? Yes they do.

Back in 2000, what was the pay policy in regards to workers injured on job.  They were given 80 days of full paid leave, and 13 weeks transitional covered pay, to get back to work.

How many times a person can receive these 80 days of full pay on workman's comp. Come back and claim another injury and get another 80 days off? Yes, that's possible.

Prior to Nov 18, 1989, how many times did the defendant claim he was injured? I believe I saw 9 claims. One was a reinjury. So eight claims.

Injury defendant claimed he received on Jan. 18, 1999, an information letter signed by defendant on Jan 19, 199. Document marked at people's 43. Witness reviewed the document. Yes, it is.

the name of the person appears to be Cameron Brown? That is correct. Image of claim injury is put up on the screen.

The bottom portion of the page, highlighted, AA pay policy is outlined.

AA will continue to pay your full base salary up to 80 days if found disabled by the ? physician.
Highlight's the defendant's signature on the second page.

Also a similar letter on November 18, 1999. Alleged injury on same date and signed same date. Entered into evidence.

Is that another letter contained in the defendant's P file, claimed to have occurred on 11/18/99? Yes, it is.

Brown looks up at the document on the screen, then appears to look at the witness.  Brown looks up on the screen where his signature is shown.

The pay policy with regard to injury on duty was the same on both of these letters? Yes.

With regard to this injury on Nov 18, 1999, did the defendant return to full duty on Feb 28, 2000? yes he did.

Were there any other claimed injury in 2000, after he reported on Feb 28, 2000? Not that I recall.

Did you also review pay stubs for the defendant for the year 2000? What was the payperiod in the year 2000, how frequently were they paid? Every two weeks.

Did you specifically review a paycheck stub, for the def. that was dated Jan 21, 2000? Yes.

Do you recall what the gross amount was, for that period? I'd have to look at it.

Do you recall whether or not the defendant received his full salary during that period? I believe he did.

Did you reveiw the pay periods for Jan & Feb? Yes I did. Did he receive full pay? Yes.

And this was while he was on workman's comp? Yes.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Mr. Laub asks for a sidebar.

IN regard to the question of how much time an employee gets off when they report an injury, an employee is not required to take the full time? Correct.

And you found that he did not take the maximum amount of time? That's correct.

And a few of those he went back the very next day? That's correct.

And other times, he was out a matter of weeks? He didn't take the full time.

Now, the paystubs, you had a chance to review the case file in this case? Yes.

So you know that there's a gross a mount, and voluntary deductions, and specific required deductions by taxes. Correct.

And Mr. Brown had a number of voluntary deductions from AA. I believe some were his TWU fees.

What is that? His union dues.

And he had, non-SRA travel, or if someone that uses his buddy pass, deductions are taken out of his pay. And voluntary medical and voluntary retirement. And voluntary savings. Yes, Yes, Yes.

These voluntary deductions, when take those and the tax deductions, the net pay amount that Mr. Brown recieves in his check, then the child support is after those? Correct.

Talking about the duties that he had in 1999 and 2000, you said he was a fleet service clerk? Yes.

He was also at the time, what was called an expeditor? That's a bag that has missed it's connection and he would reconnect it with the traveler. The expeditor would put it on the next flight. 

And that job is a sit at a desk job? For the most part.

DETECTIVE MARK LILLIENFELD

What's your occupation and assignment? LA County Sheriff's Detective, assigned to the Homicide Bureau. This is his 35th year. This is his 24th year as homicide.

He was asked in 2001, to assist them in the investigation in the death of Lauren Key. yes.

There was a meeting arranged between the victim's mother and the defendant? yes.

They advised you of the purpose of that meeting? Yes.

The defendant had filed a report, that sarah had threatened to kill him?

What did they want him to do? They wanted me to act in an undercover activity, to be an LAX investigatior, to get a statement to about that allegation, regarding the ex girlfriend and mother of the child.

Did you go and speak with the defendant? I did.

At the time, did you have the details of the investigation that Leslie and Smith had been conducting? I did not.

Did you know what witnesses had said? I did not.

Did you know what thedefendant had told Smith and Leslie? I did not.

He went to LA intl airport. Where specifically did you go? It was the personnel offices of AA.

Did you interview the defendant? Yes. Was it recorded? Yes it was. It was serotipus recorded? Yes it was.

What did he tell you? He was a baggage handler. Did you tell the defendant why you were there to speak to him. I told him I was a det. for LA Airport police and that I would be handling the complaint he had made regarding the threats that were made regarding the exgirlfriend, Sarah.

Did he tell you

He thought that she would never go away, that she would never leave him alone?

What did he claim happened in the parking lot. He claimed that when he was getting ready to leave She way yelling and screaming at him, on his bike, she intercepted him, and she prevented him from leaving. She was straddling the front tire, and prevented him from pulling away.

He had not seen the video, to this day.

He said, she was so close, I could smell her bad breath.

What did the defendant say, Sarah said to him. He said she was yelling at him, Cam, you have to talk to me, you can't not talk to me, maybe I'll kill you. I'll kill you. Those words.

Now, initially, what did the defendant say he did, after Sarah, Maybe Ill kill you, I'll kill you.

He said he tried to get the attention, by waving to otheris in the parking lot, it diverted Sarah's attention and he was able to pull away

At some time did you come back as to what the defendat say Sarah had said to him, for the second time he said that Sarah had threatened him with, I'll kill you, maybe I'll kill you.

Did the defendant tell you Sarah had threatened to kill him a third time. He did.

He said that she was going to threaten or strike him, or try to knock him down, He was straddling the motorcycle firmly, to try to keep from falling down.

Witness had never met Sarah.  Defendant told the detective that sarah was 5ft 10.

During this interview, did you ask the defendant questions regarding his relationship either previously or during the current time. I did.

Did the defendat talk to you as to whether or not Sarah ahd been pregnant in. He said they dated very briefly in 1995, for a couple of months. And at the time they broke up he didn't know that she was pregnant. Out of the blue, at work he was served with some legal papers, and that he owed child support.

He was not privy to any interviews that Sarah gave to other detectives.

The defendant told me that Sarah's then roommate told him that Sarah was trying to get pregnant on purpose, and that would improve her status to stay in the US. The defendant claimed this was the reason why he and Sarah broke up.

After the defendat claimed that he and Sarah had broken up, did he say that he stopped talking to her.

He said that he was married. His wife was an umemployed, civil engineer for the city of Hermosa Beach. He said at that time, he said that she was 48 at that time.

Did you in fact comment that he had married an older woman? I did.

Did you ask if his wife was a surfer? He said that she was not, but that her car had broken down at a surfing spot, and that he had assisted her.

Did he tell you that he had retained an attorney? He said that he had retained an attorney because Sheriff's detectives had searched his home and boat, and seized his computer.

At the time, were you aware of the actual time that the defendant got an attorney and when the search warrants were actually served? I was not.

Search warrants were served 2 months after they had obtained an attorney. He also told him that Patty had an attorney.

He said first, she was there. I asked him why his wife had an attorney. Because the sheriff's were going to speak to her also, and that she felt she needed an attorney also.

Did you specifically ask him if Patty was with him on the hike when lauren died? I did not ask that specifici question.

Tell us the substance of that conversation as to how ti came up and what he told you have Patty. His repsonse to that were, she was with me, so the cops wanted to talk to her. Or words very close to that.

Did you follow up on that? what did you say. I asked if her attorney was different? Yes, her attorney was a friend of his fathers. His attorney was a friend of Patty's attorney.

Did you ask the defendant, was she, with you guys when you were hiking? Did he respond, "She was with us, so she's getting a lawyer too."  Yes.

At the time the defendant told you that Patty was with him and Lauren at the time he was hiking, were you aware whether or not thedefendant had said that previously? I had not.

Was not aware of the details of Smith and Leslie's investigation.

Now, did you contact thedefenat again on April 3, 2001? I did.

Also contacted him in the personnel office. What was the purpose? Det. Smith and Leslie wanted me to obtain a written statement regarding the interaction with Sarah in the parking lot.

People's 46 for identification. Witness saw the defendant write the statemet.

My ame is Cameron Brown.

On jan 18, 2001 at 7 30 pm a forerm girfirend sarah hey cofronted me i na parking lot at LAX my place of work.

She threatened me and said "I'll kill you.

I want this case prosecuted.

Cameron Brown 4.3.2001

At this time, were you aware what had actually occurred in the parking lot? I was not.

On May 3, 2001, the defenant called him and told Det. that he had moved to Ventura County. Healso told you  that he had been served with a civil suit, because of the death of the child.

He wanted to know the status of the case where Sarah had made threats against him.

He provided you with his new address? Yes he did.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Respons to question you initiall started your testimony by saying, the reason you were interviewing Mr. Brown, this is the first, was just to get his statemetn regarding the incident in the parking lot. That's correct.

You were asked if you had details fo the murder investigation. Yes.

But you were told there was a murder investigation. yes.

What you were actually doing, was to get information relevant to that investigation? Among other things, yes sir.

One of the things that you were aksed ot do, is get as much information about the alleged homicied? Yes sir.

You were also aksed byt the detectives, to ask about that case, but to also get information about child support? In general.

And you did this in the case of that interview? Yes sir.

Mr. Brown told you that he was a baggage handler? One of the things he also told youwas that he was an expediter? yes sir.

this conversation by Sarah, he tried to get the attention of airport security? Yes. sir.

He was trying to get attention fo airpoirt security, ti was like a ploy to get her attention away from him? Yes sir.

He never said that it was a ploy, to try

He never said that.

I have to move to the back row to plug in my laptop. I miss some of the cross examination.

One of the things that you did, was try to get Mr. Brown to say something negative about Sarah? That's incorrect.

You did at one point, say to him, why would Sarah possibly think that you would want to murder your child, you said unless she was going to grow up just like her mother? That's accurate.

Another statement, that Lillienfeld said to Brown, and another statement he said to Brown. Lillienfeld answers to both, that's correct.

This thing that he believed he heard, ... Hum objects to characterization.

This statement that he was reporting about Sarah having said about I'll kill you, this is something that he said he heard, while he was driving away? That's correct.

You also asked him about his wife's birthday, and he couldn't remember it? Yes.

And you joked with him that now you're in trouble? That's correct

And he had the birthday of his daughter instantly without hesitation? Correct.

One of the conversations you had that she was continually calling him and trying to get him to talk? That's correct.

And he told you, I'd like to tell her what happened, and I can't my Lawyer told me [not to talk?} That's correct.

And the reason his lawyer told him not to talk, is that Sarah said, or that sarah could make up some kind of false admission? That's what he said, correct.

He also told you that at the sheriff's station, the way they perceived it, was that they didn't believe him right from the start? He said that, correct.

He said that in family court, he was pro per. Yes.  And he said that the family facilitator had helped him a lot? That's correct.

He also told you taht, that Lauren was someone who was a very curious child with him, and liked to throw rocks. He did say that.

He even said, liked to throw rocks over cliffs. That's correct.

He even said she was interested in tide pools. That's correct.

He even said she wasn't afraid? I asked him wasn't she afraid of heights.

More questions about what Brown said in the interview about Lauren.

Hum redirects.

Detective Lillenfeld, thedefendant told you a lot of things? Correct.

About his wife being on the hike, and getting an attorney because of the search warrants being servied? That's correct. And that Sarah had threatened to kill him?

Did you have any knowledge if the defendant was lying to you or teling the truth? I did not.

The defendat asked you, said that wanted to tell Sarah, but that she could make something up. Yes.

Did the defendant say exactly why Sarah had to speak to him to make something up? No.

More about that "not making any sense" and it didn't make sense to Brown either.

Questions now abou his claim about Sarah threatened to kill him, did he show any hesitation or mystery that he couldn't hear because he had a loud motorcycle?  There wasn't any hesitation. He was unequivical.

Did he indicate any doubt or uncertainty that was what he said? No.

RECROSS.

When Mr. Brown told you that he wanted to talk to Sarah and he siad that he could make something up, and you asked him if that made sense to you, he said no, and he followed it up with, that's what his lawyer said? Correct.

And you said, "That's as you were pulling away?" That's accurate.

The first two times about the statement Brown alleges Sarah said, Brown also said, "That was while I was pulling away" That's correct.

More questions about the phone calls, and the difficulties between them.

Even with the so called male to male comments inviting the response about how women are, with everything that happened, the only thing he was complaining about was that he had made this threat/ Correct.

Redirect.

The defendant told you on three separate occasions that he told you Sarah said to him, did the defendant state these words, "You need to talk to me, you can't live your life without talking to me.  Maybe I'll kill you. I'll kill you. Then I waived at the police, to try to get them to come over. Is that the secquence of what he said? Yes.

The second and third time, he said she said it when he was pulling away? Yes.

Witness is excused.

DETECTIVE JEFFREY LESLIE.

Arranged a surveillance meeting, between Sarah and Brown. An undercover operation was set up, where Brown parked his motorcycle.  It was video and audio recording. He was in the surveilence van with the video equipment, which was parked very very close to Brown's motorcycle.

Approximate distance? It was between 15 feet. I know we placed it that if anything occurred, we could be there quickly.

It was audio and video recorded.

Did Sarah Key-Marer, ever threaten, or say, I'll kill you? No. Maybe I'll kill you. No.

The audio and video is played for the jury.

Transcript of the recording can be found HERE.

Detective Leslie you also reviewed the transcript? Yes.

Is it accurate what was said out there that day?

Yes.

What was the last word that Sarah said? Cameron.

Direct ends and cross examination begins.

It's clear that you set this up the get Mr. Brown to talk? Answers to get what happened.

You were trying to get him to talk about that case? Answers. That would be talk.

You knew at this point, when the video was produced that Mr. Brown had an attorney. Mr. Brown never invoked to us, that he was not speaking without an attorney.  We got notice from his attorney, but he had never invoked to us.

You had a conversation with an attorney, which that attorney contacted you and said that he was shocked that you were pursuing trying to get Mr. Brown to talk,

Im going to object to that, whether or not the attorney was shocked. Object to shocked. Sustained.

You thought it was perfectly legal, [you wrote] for you to talk to the defendant, when he wasn't in custody? That's right. That's what we wrote.

Laub asks question about why he thought it was perfectly all right to approach Brown. I miss the question and Mr. Laub asks counsel to approach.

10:55 AM
Side bar continues. A man in the gallery, back row leaves.

On the day that you were using Ms. Marer trying to get him to talk, you had already knew that he said to her repeatedly, that he couldn't talk because he was represented.

No. I don't remember that off the top of my head. Unless you can show me something.

Leslie states that the defendant never invoked, personally to him.

So at the point at which this video is being made, you saw on the video, as Mr. Brown was riding off, and you saw Ms Marer Yell something? Cameron. Cameron.

That's what you heard? I heard it that night and I heard it on the audio portion of that recording.

Did you tell Ms. Marer, when she was out there, if he said to her anything about I can't talk to you, my lawyer said I can't talk to you, to tell her to keep going.

What did you say to her? Ask him if he'll talk.

Sarah was not given any specific instructions. She was not given specific questions to ask. She was asking me for answers to questions that I did not have. She was the only person who was allowed to ask him question.

She was told to ask whatever questions she wanted to ask. She knew she was being recorded. I don't know if she knew she was being video taped.

Laub states, Well she was working for you? Hum objects.

Well she was working for you at that point correct? How did you know where he parked his motorcycle? We surveilled. him.

After we know wher he parks, we'll use Ms. Marer to try to get him to talk? Part of that is correct.

You told her, we'll all be here? I told her that I would be nearby and that she would be safe. I assured her of that.

I hope I have that trust with all my victim's families, and I hope I have that trust with all my witnesses. I hope that my word would be good enough.


Court intervenes. Laub states that it's incredible. The court states well it may be incredible to you.

Court: The fact of the matter remains, you told her to ask the questions that she wanted to have answers, you told her that it would be memorialized in some way. So lets move on.


Laub asks if he wasn't concerned about Sarah's safety? Laub asks if he wasn't worried when she started yelling, if this hadn't gone too far? No.


Did you ever talk to the airport security people about this incident? I spoke to personnel to the airport police.

The security people he was waving to? No, I did not.

11:05 AM
The court calls for the morning break.  As the jury files out, Brown leans in to speak to Mr. Laub. Everyone in the well of the court stands for the jury as they file out.  Afterwards, Brown sits back down and speaks to Laub again.

11:19 AM
I believe we are getting close to the end of the prosecution's case. These are the witnesses I'm guessing that the people have left to testify:  The financial expert, the coroner who performed the autopsy, probably more Detective Leslie testimony and the people's trajectory expert.

11:24 AM
DDA Hum gets permission from the court to pick up the video transcripts from the jury box.

11:26 AM
Brown is brought out.  Moments later, the jury files in.  Then the bailiff calls out to a man with a badge on that says '45.'  SIR! You're in the wrong courtroom.

The court comments on this to the jury and there's a bit of laughter.

JANE NGO
What is your occupation. Supervior investigating officer for LA County DA's Office. She supervises three others and works on cases. Reviews criminal cases with financial elements.

She's a CPA. Also required 80 hours of reeducation every year. Training in auditing classes, tax classes. Has a bachelor of science degree. Has previously testified as an expert.

Provided her with records related to Cameron Brown and Patty Kadlis Brown.

Brown received bank records for 4 accounts.
Reviewed payroll records for Cameron Brown. Jan 2000 to May 2001.

Bank records May 2000, to June 2001.

Credit reports from both generated in May 2001.

Asked her to analyze information and provide findings.

Told us that some of the information related to four bank accounts in the name of Cameron Brown. Yes.

How many were open at the time of November 8, 2000? Three.

So one was opened after that time? yes.

Was there one a savings account from BofA? Yes.

Did you analyze the amount of money in there and the changes over hte month.

On May 1, 2000. How much money did he have in this BofA savings account? She asks to refer to her notes.  May 1 2000 to when? To May 31, 2001, How much money was in the account $6.00.

In May 31, 2001, there was $6.14. the 14 was interest earned.

In May 1, 2000 $244.

May 31, 2000, R304.87

On Nov 8, 2001, checking account had $86.14.

Were there any times where the account was overdrawn? Yes. How many times? 31.

Was there also in the name of Cameron Brown, a federal union credit account? Yes.

It was an automatic withdrawal from the paycheck, every two weeks fo $50.00 There was also money coming out.

Man 1, 2000. $51.91  June 2, 2001, how much money was in the account?   $74.10.

Nov 8, 2000. how much money was in this account? $4.00

Were there any instances, with regards to the AA federal credit union account, where ATM transactions were denied? yes. How many? 13.

Document is dated 11/8/2000. People's 73 for identification please.

Does that sumarize the money that was in the accounts in the name of Cameron Brown? yes.

What was the total in the accounts on November 8, 2000: $96.21.

Did you also specifically look at canceled checks for that account? Not specicifically, Yes. I analyzed it.

Did you see checks made to any kind of mortgage? No.

Payroll records. During the 17 month period for which you had payroll records.  What was the gross pay. For that period, there was one pay period that was missing.

64, 187.56.

That was gross, before any deductions? yes.

Was one deduction child support? Yes.
Excluding the deduction for child support for arrearages and the money going to a savings account,

What was the defendants net pay for that 17 mont period, $40,002.61.

That was the net pay for that 17 month period, not counting how much money was taken out for arrearages, and the 50.00 taken out to the savings account? Yes.

Did you calculate how much child support was taken out during that time period?

14,561.78.

Was there also arrearanges taken out?

758.33.

Total child support and arrearages 15,320.11

Out the defendants net pay, excluding child arrearages, out of 40,000.00

15 thousand was going to child support and arrearanges? Yes.

Was there any time when the child support was greater than the amount of pay the defendat got, after all the deductions? yes.

How many times was the child support greater than what the defendant got? Thirteen.

If the child support remained the same, how much would the defendant had paid, until the child was 18? $148,132.84.

Now also told us that you had credit reports on Cameron Brown and Patty Kaldis Brown on May 2001.

Were there any negative activities in the defendat's reports?

There was a bad debt. Bank of America, December Balance was 64.00

There were numerous collections. August 2000, Balance 148.00

Another agency under collection. $161.00

A collection CLWTH, July 1997, for $52.00

Metro aduist bururay March 1, 2000, Balance 1666.00

Arrow Financial service april 30, 2000 $561.00

Purchas paper LLC, entry date 1/1999. balance 1, 258.00

AFNIC 2/1999 for $53.00

Was there also a wage garnishment for collections? In any of the documents you reviewed? Yes.

What was that April 22, 1998? it was garnishment for 3,153.51 for state farm insurance.

Were there any tax liens? yes.

 july 1995 for 61.00
Aug 1998  miss
another for 52.00

With regard to the credit report for Patricia Kaldis Brown, were there any negative. Miss getting.

13,000.00 debt charge off.
past due for Alco finance. owed was 5,000 balance owed was $41.00

There was a countrywide loan,  miss amount.

Credit card debt. The debits are listed. I can't keep up in listing all the amounts.

Did you also review a documents from employment records of Patricia Kaldis? Yes.

What occured on Feb 22, 2000, according to the certified employment records? She was fired.

What employer? City of Hermosa Beach.

Laub objects to fired. The document says termination.  Reason being? I guess she was, performance evaluation issues.

What was her severance pay? She owed the city money,  $503.02. (from vacation).

Also reviewed W2 forms for 1999 and 2000. Yes, I looked at W2 information.

For 1999, what was the gross income? $37,600.
For 2000 $7,900.  Net for 2000? $6,000.
Also reviewed a W2 for Cameron Brown. 36,280.92. gross

In early June of 2006, did I provide you with additional documents for Patty Kaldis Brown? yes.
Also reviewed those documents?

Were there any joint accounts between Patty and Brown? no.
It included three properties that were sold.

Cameron Brown's name was not on any property deed? No.

Did that change the amount of money that was in the account of Cameron Brown in his bank accounts on November 8, 2000? No.

There were some records missing on Patty Kaldis Brown. In her accounts, approximately $63,000.00.   How much was in retirement? Approximately $48,500.00

Did any of those accounts have Cameron Brown's name on them? No.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Laub points to the time but the Judge states, we've lost some time yesterday.

Laub wants to first focus on Patricia Brown, property that had been owned and sold.

The first of the three properties, what year was that sold? The first property that

As I understand, there were two properties. The first one sold was back in December 1998. What was the profit for the seller. $69,929.79. And that money went to Patricia? Yes.

The next property, when was that sold? April 11, 2001? And how much was the profit? $73,206.74.

the money of the first property, you understand enough about real estate transactions, to understand that was equity, as the house was valued? yes.

Since that house was equity at the house of the sale, that prior to the sale, that could form an equity line of credit? Yes.

And that would be the same, for the house that sold in 2001? Yes.

At that time, there would be more or less, 73,000.00 of equity in that home? I'm not a real estate expert. Assume that she would have equity in that home. And that would form the basis of an equity line of credit? Yes.

Could you go through Ms. Brown's credit cards, and how much money did she actually have available in credit? But how much more, were those lenders willing to lend on those cards?

City bank platnum $6500.00 balance was 25. 63
ATT 8.000.  balance 6.68

12 NOON
Going to take lunch break.

Mr. Laub gets his files ready for cross of this witness.  He's pulling several thick files out of the two boxes he brought with him.

1:34 PM
The jury is called in.

Cross of JANE NGO.
Laub goes back to outline the amount of credit available to Patty Brown in November 2000.

She reads off several cards, the balances and the available credit.

There were a few where it did not show on the credit report if there was a credit line.

You talked about a number of different bank accounts, how many of these all told that had Mr. Brown's name, and Patricia Kaldis, Brown, only one was opened after they got married.

These accounts were all opened when the individuals were not yet married.

She reviewed tax returns for 2000 and 2001. Both returns were provided to me as joint returns.

When a couple is married, they could either file, married separate or file joint. On a joint return, they show income and expenses and are totaled towards joint tax liability? Yes.

At that point where they are joining, comingling their taxes and expenses. Not necessarily. Just because you file joint tax returns, that isn't necessarily comingling.  That doesn't necessarily mean they are comingling assets.

So that's an unknown? She doesn't know. Can only look at what was provided to her.

Has her look at two retirement accounts.  Patricia had six different retirement accounts. Those were funds that she had access to? Yes.

You mentioned that there were tax leins, had to do with Mr. Brown? Yes. One was in the amt. of $61.00 and another in the amount of [?].  It doesn't identify what type of tax lein it was.

Laub asks if it was an underpayment of taxes? Basically it was a lein filed against him for tax owed, but doesn't know what it was exactly for. These were occurred before child support and before marriage? Yes. Yes.

Also talked about, there were some credit dings on Mr. Brown's credit? Credit dings?

A negative credit entry for Mr. Brown? Yes.

How far back di dthat date? It varries. The oldest would be, July 1995. And the latest, April 2001.

How many credit problems, were before the beginning of child support payments in 1999? My records show the child support started in May, 1999. I've got four.

Before? Oh you wanted prior? I'm sorry. [I got after.]

Eight.

Do you have any knowledge at all from the work you've done, what Mr. Brown's life was like financially, before 1995? No.

From the years 1995 to 1999, from your experience as a financial professional, does Mr. Brown's financial record show financial maturity? I didn't look at that. I looked at [?].

Laub states that looking at what you did see, in your experience was that the financial record of someone handling their financial [records?] maturely? Not necessarily.

Nothing futher.

Redirect.

Also on the credit report the defendant had a repossession. Yes. From Nissan motors.

When the defendat asked about credit cards and equity in the accounts, it sounds like Patty Brown had sufficient financial resources? Yes.

The defendant's name wasn't on any of those accounts.

The one account opened after they were married, that was with American Airlines? [Yes.] That was only in the name of the defendant.

Nothing further for this witness.  The people call STACY PHILLIPS

I remember this witness from the second trial.

STACY PHILLIPS
What's your occupation. She's a family law attorney. Gives her background and CV.

She has her own family law practice. Eight attorneys now. Seven-eight. Lots of secretaries and paralegals. Gives the name of the firm.

Specialized certified specialist in family law. She thinks since, 2001. Must take an exam, that's not very easy. And have the requisite number of trials, etc. That would involve information regarding custody, visitation. She also lectures on family law, mediation, cohabitation. What she does for a living. Belongs to a lot of professional organizations.   Mentions she's received several recognition and awards.  Lists a number of recognition's she's received for top lawyer, etc.

Is there a publication called best lawyers in America? I've been in best lawyers in America since 1991. You must be nominated. She's nominated people.

The court's phone goes off. It buzzes.

She's written a few books and many, many articles on family law.

How about any appearances as commentator? Yes. Many, many TV stations around the world. Talking head on her field of family law.

People introduce her CV, people's 132.

Questions about custody and support, and how family law works on a relatively understandable level. Explains that family law is covered by the family code, the code of civil procedure.

How it relates

Child support is a formula. It's laid out in the code. There is one particular company that was successful in setting up a program. You plug in all the information and you get out your answer.

Variables being the time share, income of each party, mortgage interest or property, union dues, chartiable congribution, how many children, filed as a joint return, or as a single person. It all gets bunched together and a number comes out.

Visitation. Instead of calling it custody and visitation it's now called time share between the parents.

What is meant by joint physical custody. Where the children sleep. Joint doesn't necessrily mean 50 50. It means some sharing. Different court orders define it somewhat differently. But it means where the child sleeps.

Legal custody deals with teh parents all make for their children where tehy go to school. when they have surgery, when they get theri dirver's licens. All the difficult decisions we make for our childrne.

Joint vs sole.  Joint means the parents have to agree on the decisions. Sole means one parent gets to make those decisions by themself. Schools, extra cirrcular activities, whether a parent gets to move wit hthe child out of state.

What factors determine the issues of custody? What's the overriding prhincipal supposed to be? the best interest of the chilfen. Adn if the parents cant decied, that's why we have judges.

What factors determine time share? The relationship with the child and parent, school. safety, a whole variety of issues, do you want you child sleepign there, or someplace else. Hopefully the parents can figure that out for themselves.

Is there a normal time share? Normal may be something different to you. Normal can be something the parents can agree.

As part of your preperation for testifying in court, did you review the case of County of Orange vs. Cameron Brown. I've reveiwed everythign given to me.

What is a graduated plan, step up plan. It's a plan that was set out, by the court after the hearing. It's an increase in time, for the non custodial parents. And as long as everything goes well as long as the time share is agreed to.

In some situations, the parents can agree on any type of plan, such as a step up plan, correct.

Most judges actually look at them and read them.

Explains the details of how these come about.

What are monitiored verses unmonitored. Means one or both of the parents watching and making sure the visitation goes without problems. One way is you go to a facility to visit your child. Another option, is having a professional monitor. That costs money. THe other type of monitor is having a family member or friend, or the custodial parent. They are there to oversee the visitation, and that the visitation is stopped, if they see a problem.

The mother acted as a monitor for the first few visits? Correct.

This child support, is it calculated the same now as in 2000? Basically the same, except for some times, the tax rate changes.

There are various factors as to who pays child support and what. The computer program gives the number, correct?

One of the very significant factors is time share? yes. And income.

If you're talking about in court, ti's based on evidence. each party is supposed to file and income and expense statement. Provide last three pay stubs. filed under penalty of perjury. And you file your tax returns.

Can be bank records, accounts can testify. It will ultimately determined by the court as to what goes into the program. Garbage in garbage out. It will affect what goes into the program.

What is basic child support. What is spit out of the computer what you put in. It's a presumptive amount. This is what it should be unless the court finds otherwise.

What are childcare expenses. Child care, nanny. It's generally split in half. It's not part of basic child support.  You're entitled to get part of your child care expenses, if you work, unlesso ne of the parents is mega wealthy.

Based on the formula, in the DISSOMASTER, which is based on family law California, if someone wanted to reduce their child support amount, what is the best way to do that?

they could show that the other parent is making more money. They could show a reduction in their own income. Say ou may not be earning your 5,000 a month, for the purposes of our calculation and you're going to pay child support ... you could change the time share amount, or decrease the other parents time. The ultimate is, give your child up for adoption, which means that former parent has no rights or resposibilities.

If you wanted ot reduce the amount I'm paying. YOu could prove the other parent is making more money, report that you are making less money, or get more time share.

Income and expense statements are considered stale after three months.

In this particular case, did I ask you to calculate child support amounts based on various documents, and order to show cause with time share declarations.

She obtained the DISSOMASTER programs from 1999 and 2000. Yes. I did.

From the court file she reviewed, in 1999, based on zero custody for the father, there was a child support order $982.00 included child share and child care.

Aware that the defendant filed a 32% request for child share and a reduction in child support? yes.  What would the father's child support payment, if he was granted this 32% child share request.

People's 44. Is that the printout that shows the amount that would be paid in child support and child care, based on income and expense filed, with the defendants request for 32%. Yes, including on how each parent filed. Dad was filing as a single parent and mother filed as joint. She can't read the document on the screen.

Can you tell us the signifiance of the highlighted portions, beginning on the upper left. What does that represent? The 5% of time I input. That's what dad was [requesting]. The other documents the prior 12 months wages and salaries.

Total? Does that include the child care as well as expenses. So rather thant 1032.00 per month, what would be the amount he would be paying.

That included 50.00 in arrears.  This number $536.00, is 1/2 of 260.00 and child support of 406.00 So rather than 982, if father had 32% visitation, he would be paying $536.00 Yes, if the amounts put into the program were correct.

Did you calculate what would be the child support and child care expenses, if the defendant had 50% time share, based on the declaration the defendant filed.

The next one I did for 50% allocation that Dad said he had, including all the other reporting of the income and expense the defendant. She put in all the information provided on the income and expense declaration for each party.

Another DISSMASTER printout, People's 45. Put the time share as 49%, at that time the computer wouldn't let you put in 50%. Now it does.

Explains all the other information that was on the form, and the filing differences, and that dad was paying for health insurance for Lauren, the union dues and the mortgage.

What would the tiem share be for the father? Also noted that the child care had gone up from 260 to 400. Showing that.

The two highlighted numbers next were wages and salaries. Correct.

If the father had 49% visitation, or time share rather than zero, instead of paying 932? how much would he pay.  You're mixing apples and oranges, because there are different input factors.

The more time he has, the less child support he pays.

The parternity also shows the court accepted the father's explanation on the income, and then found another [thing?] and then adjusted the income.


Since I don't have the income and expense information in front of me, imputing this information of total child care and child support. It would have been $425 a month? Yes.



How do the child support change as the child gets order? There's nothing built in that as the child gets older they pay more. It's more about concentrating on the time share.

Explains how things could change in child support payments. Explains the different variables that could go into it.

What is the effectr of the marriage of either the custodial or non custodial parent? The child support is not supposed to be affected by the other parents income. However, if there is a change in your tax bracket, that puts into the computer. We call it remade income.

If someone, custodial or noncusdotial, marries, is the new spouse liable for child support payments? No.

The husband the husband of the mom and the wife of the dad are not responsible.

What's an exparty order. It's an emergency order based on an emergency hearing. It's when someone needs to go to court for extengent circumstances.

In order to have an exparty order to stop visitation, what would occur? The court would have to find, or have pretty significant evidence.

Community property. Can you jsut expain to us the basics of community property. Anything that you've earned or received, that was not from gifts or inheritance.

If you get married, does that automatically become 1/2 of the other spouses.

If you have a house, that was worth 1 million and you owned it outright, and you and I get married, under community property laws, is that 100% yours and doesn't belong to me? Even if I put you on title, I'm not giving you 1/2 the house. You are only getting part of the appreciation.

What about if we filed a joint tax return would that make 1/2 the house mine? No. Would that make the 500,000 in your account 1/2 mine? no.

Based on your experience in family law, what would have to happen, to take custody from the mother, who had sole custody all the childs life, and give it to the father at 3 or 4 years of age? That monther the court would have to find that the mother had turned into a monster.

Can they increase their time with the child, without reducing the child support they pay. Absolutely. Gives a detailed explanation.

Direct ends and cross begins.

I've you know youv'e got an incredible resume, I'm sure you've represented both fathers and mothers? Absolutely.

Are there fathers who truly love their children, and still ask you to get reduction in child support? Absolutely.

Hypothetically, and a father came to you and showed you check stubs, where the child support payment was greater than the net income that the father was taking home. And I don't think this is fair. Can you help me with this? Objection irrelecant.

I would want to do my own homework and figure out, why that was the case. Was money being pulled out for savings or, a variety of factors, maybe the income has changed, maybe not, maybe the time share has changed, maybe not. I don't take it as face value. I want to see evidence. I kick tires. I wan't to see what's what, if the facts are as represented to me.

So the factors you would be looing at, you would be wondering why the child was taking out so little. Whell, I would want to knwo a bunch of things and put it into my computer, and check the order and see what is changed.

For example. I'd ask what is your income now. What is your income now? How much time are you spending which your children now? Again, I want to see the order. I'd ask a lot of questions. I'd check to see if there was an increase in health insurance, and to see why that result, happened.

If the paying parent agreed ot a higher amount of hcild support, and then says, wants to go back to court to reduce it.

She went through what was given to you. She was given the whole file by the prosecution. When you went through the family court file, did you find where there were incidents where Brown's final pay was less than the child support payments? I didn't see that.

In how DISSOMASTER comes to it's number.  You're making an assumption.

You could be a non custodial parent and pay child support, and be a non-custodial parent and be the recipent of child support. It's based on the DISSOMASTER and the income and expense statements.

It's based on the quality of the information put into the program? Yes. That's why court's also takes evidence.  To her, documentary evidence fro mthird parties are better. A calendar, as to who takes a child to school. If you have two honest people, things are easier, but even with honest people, you have two different views of the facts.

Supposition, that someone has a reduction in income to 50%. No. You have to show a whole period of time. The income and expense says you have to look at the prior 12 months. One pay stub, doesn't cut it.

If it's well known certain industy is having a heard time and there for everyone paystub is their time is left, than a one off from one person. If you're asking me what I would feel cofortale going to court with, unless I could show something dramatic had happened, like being fired or a change in policy, at least six months, maybe longer.

Ther were pay stubs from both parties, but not for every income and expense declaration. Things got continued and then the parties worked something out.

The amount they agreed to, was an amount that was ... can you rephrase your question.

Thing I want to ask about, is reduction in hours. If hypothetically, a mother who has married, agrees with her employer to reduce her hours to 50% and brings in an statement to 50% is there anything that gets done to verify whether it was voluntary entered into, or is this something that is involuntary.

It depends on the strength of the legal acument of each side.

Let's assume that the father doesn't have legal acumen to represent himself. Thejudge could as questions, and if no one asked questions, then it's face value.

What do you mean when you say it costs money to go to court? Do you mean attorneys?

People have to take days off work. Eitehr they take a vacation day, and lose ability to go on vacation. or they lose a day of work. And that costs moeny. You have ot pay a filing fee.

What was the filing fee? Can I finish my answer? 

You can spend your whole day there, and still not be heard. It's not a great experience for a litigant to spend their time in court.

Once child support has been awarded to one of the parents, is there anythign that's done to determine how time goes on, that money is spent soley on the child?

There's no county or state person who makes that determineation on their own. If one parent theings the other is using the support appropriately. When we're talking about child support, we're not just talking about buying a pair of sneakers.  We're talking  about a home and providing food, etc.

There are things that are pretty expensive. There's lettle league, music lessons. field trips. Buying those balet slippers. Some courts will portion that in some way, as part of the child support package. Raising children is expensive, especially in Southern California.

It sounds like, unless you have a person who's paying the child support, unless they have an agresisve about the legal system, there's nothing set up to see that child support is acutally goes to the child?

Objection. Sustained.


Laub goes on about a question about whether the amount of child support is used soley for the child.

DDA Hum objects and the court calls for the afternoon break.


The court asks, that what is gotten every month, and it has to be exhausted every month or they person is overpaying?


DDA Hum. number of problems with that argument. So what if what the amount paid, was more than what was spent each month on the child. So what.


How can you argue that just because money is separated out, is put into an account, that same amount of money is going to a child expenses. It may very well be the amount that was in an account, was separated out and put aside for Lauren later in her life.

DDA Hum states the argument is irrelevant.


Laub. Wants the jury to believe that his character is so horrible he wanted to murder his child. And they want the mother to be entirely sympathetic and believeable. They brings in all this information about finances, then I don't understand how it becomes irrelevant, that wha'ts happening is, that themother is receiving is, that the court beielves is going into the daily needs of hte child. It doesn't matteri f the parents says. The court doesn't provide a college fund.

If the witness asks, that's all very legitimate. No, the parent isn't supposed to accumulate excess,... Laub states that, to have that much money accumulated..


Ms. Key-Marer, how much money do you needs from the defenant and she said $982.00 and she put it all in an account. But it wasn't that. The amount is mandated by law, and what she uses it for, is irrelevant,


Based on all that, the court is not allowing you to get into that area. The court states the amount is based on a machine, that is unbiased.

Judge asks DDA Hum, and this is money that was ultimately used for burial? Yes it was. Then the court rules that he's not going to let him get into that line of questioning. It's too speculative.


3:20 PM
Break over. Continuing with cross of

STACY PHILLIPS
This is a case where both of the parents were complaining that the other were alienating the other? No.

There's nothing in there that each was complaining that the other was talking negatively about the other? I don't recall that at all.

Did you get the complete file? It's my memory.

When she got the court documents. It looked pretty complete to me.

Where you don't see where each parent was talking negatively about the other? I read all of it but I don't recall that at all.

You talked about the high cost of raising a child, and they are going to get 50%, the family court is thinking that each child is shouldering 50% of the costs of raising the child.

I can't tell if you're talking about before or after the cost of child support.

You said there's an assumption that, if the parents have equal time , that' theyre going to have equal expensies. They're going to pay that expenses equally.

Apparently, one parent has more money.

The court doesn't check afterwards. As a mom, I'd spend more money on clothese than the dad. The assumption is, of you have more time, you have more expensies. Going out to dinner, or cooking at home.  But to say that each parent would spend the same amount on tennis shoes and the same time, I don't agree with that argument on each level.

Let's say, 50% time share, it doesn't necessarily mean the money will be reduced in what you spend on the child. It isn't necessarily one thing or the other, it doesn't mean you're going to spend less money out, because you're getting 50% time share. 

I don't believe I understand your question. Objection vague. Sustained.

Assuming Mr. Brown got the 50% that you saw on that document. Assuming the family court. ... I think that he said that he had [50%] rather than what he was requesting.

Wasn't there a page on the court filing, something that said, I was requesting. You'e talking about the applicaiton page,

What I remember though, that the words that he used, on the other part of the form he said he had 50%. That wasn't accurate.

What I read of the Mom, in her response, she hadn't agreed to 50%.

ACtually there's one more thing. Among the ways that a parent can reduce child support is adoption. And in your look through the family court file, there had been discussion of adoption? Correct.

And what you also saw, while the father was persistently filing after filing, seeking more time with the child, he also adamantly denied that he wanted the child to get adopted? what I saw were repeated requests to reduce support.  He could request more time, and show a reduction of income. That's what he proffered before the court each time. There was one time, where he said he was not pursuing adoption. I can't tell you he was adamant.

You didn't see a very angry statement in the court file? Objection as to a statement being angry.

Didn't you see a statement where he said that was completely untrue, that it was a lie that something concocted by the mother. I recall a statement, that wasn't as dramatic as what you're saying. I don't remember the word lie. If it's there, show me. But that document would speak for it'self and who someone else would interpret it. It wasn't my job.

Is it possible to show what was given to you? You would have to ask the DA and the court.

The court asks, do you have a copy of the file counsel? The witness and DDA Hum both answer. The witness and the jury laugh.

DDA Hum states that a complete copy of the file was given to Mr. Laub.  Mr. Laub goes through his files, looking for his copy of the file.

The document is in evidence, (DDA Hum). The document is going to be in evidence. DDA Hum states that the document of which he speaks, Laub is like he doesn't even remember that the document was entered into evidence.

Laub then states that he has no more questions for the witness. 

The next witness is Dr. Chinwah.

I believe Mr. Laub asks for a sidebar, off the record.

DR. OGBONNA CHINWAH
Can you tell us your occupation and assignment? He's a Deputy Medical Examiner. He's been that for 23 years. He's a medical doctor. Gives his CV. He went to medical school at Loma Linda, University. Details his residency at USC from '69 to '73, and when he got board certified in Pathology.

Pathology is essentially the study of disease. Forensic Pathology. Study of diseases related to medical legal issues.

Explains the standards for certification in various specialties.  Explains the testing for his Boards, and what that entails. He did a residency in Forensic Pathology at the coroner's office. It's a sub-specialty of Pathology.

Forensic is that segment of Pathology that deals mainly with death issues that have medical legal implications.  The training at USC was in Pathology. At the coroner's, specifically in Forensic Pathology. He also teaches, residents that come through the department. He's also an assistant clinical professor at USC.

Approximately performed about 8,000 autopsies. Has testified in criminal, civil, federal, and foreign courts. Always in the manner and cause of death of human beings? Yes.

Do you have continuing training throughout your career, even to this day? Yes.

When a case comes to the coroner's office is it assigned unique case number? Assigend to one person and no other? Yes. That number is on all documents? Yes.

Did you perform an autopsy on a four year old?  Case Number 2000-7890? Yes. Did you afterwards determine the manner and cause of death of Lauren? Yes I did.

Are there certain categories of death? Yes. Natural death, accidental death, suicide, homicide and undetermined. Could you please explain each one.

A natural death is a death from natural disease process. Accidental death would be death by accident? Yes. And we know what suicide is? Yes. What is homicide? Homicide by our definition is death by the hands of someone else. And undetermined, is you just don't know? Yes.

Have you performed autopies where there was natural, accidental, homicide? Yes, yes, yes. [I believe he is also asked if he did autopsies where the manner of death is undetermined.]

What was the manner of death of Lauren? Homicide. Which you describe as death at the hands of another? Yes.

Do you prepare an autopsy report? Yes. I do.

Can you tell us how an autopsy report is prepared? It contains all the information that is discovered at the time of autopsy. The body is examined from head to toe. In some studies, there are some examination prepared before the autopsy. 

During the actual performing of the autopsy, notoations are made from the observation, starting from teh externail observation, to the internal. As we go along, after the autopsy, the informaiton that has been written down at the time of autopsy, what you've seen externally and internally, weigh the organs and collect fluids, after that, you go and dictate your report and then it's typed and run back to you and then you review it. The final report you sign and becomes record.

You take notes as you're taking the autopsy? And once it's official you sign it.  Is it prepared at the time of the autopsy? Yes. And did you prepare an autospy report in this case? Yes.

Presents the autopsy report, People's 33 for identificaiton.

Dr. Chinwah, please look at people's 33, is that the report your prepared? Yes it is.

In some cases, photos are take prior to autopsy. Were photos taken before? Yes. Were photos taken dring the autopsy? Yes. Did you take specemins taken for later review? Yes.

What was the cause of death? Mulitple injuries, due to blunt force trauma. Can you please describe for us the injuries you found on Lauren's body?

There are abrasions and contusions on the head and face. There were also abrasions on the chest and abdomen and extremedites. There was massive, extensive skull fracture. There was dislocation in the neck and there was also hemmorage in the brian. There was also fracture of the right wrist. There was blood inside the chest cavity. There was contusion of the lungs and liver. There was lacerations of the spleen.

Those were externally the findings.

What are abrasions? It's is a scrape of the skin. If I skinned my elbow? Yes.

A contusion is more like a bruise. An impact on the body. The tissues under the skin, the blood gets into the skin and the skin goes a purple color.

A laceration is a break in the skin due to blunt force trauma. Is it the same as a cut? A cut is different than a laceration. A cut like a knife we call that a knife or cut. If you fall and hit a surface and the surface of those cuts are rough, we call that a laceration.

Dr. Chinwah, [there were] injuries to various internal organs. Tell us how there would be injuroes? An impact that would be strong enough to hit the body, and in just that area of impact.

What specific internal organs were injured in Lauren's case? There was contusion in the lungs and liver. In other words, the impact affected the lung and there was some bruise on the lungs and liver. And the spleen tore? It's from trauma. The capsule tears.

Were there any fractures of the bones on Lauren's face. Yes.

Dr. with regard to you ultimate finding, of the manner and cause of death, and the conclsion at the autopsy reoort.? What was your opinion as to the manner of death of Lauren? Yes. Tell us what that is?

My opinon, is based on taking everything we [got? know?] on the case, [is taken] in consideration. The multiple inuries I descirbed here, and the circumstance surrounding the injuries, was such, that they were not accidental they were not suicide. They were caused by someone else.

Were those injuries consistent with slipping and sliding, or what were they consistent with?

They were consistent with [being thrown?] from a far height and [impacting with something below]? [Yes.]

[Was it the result of a slip and tumble down the cliff? No.]

4:00 PM
The court calls the end of the court day. The jury is to return at 9:30 AM tomorrow.

UPDATE 4/24: I've had very little time to edit this entry for spelling and accuracy due to being with Rocket until 1 AM last night. I'm still working on editing 4/20, Monday's last witness. When that is finished, I'll start editing 4/22, Wednesday.

Thursday, April 23, 2015
8:18 AM
I'm on the Red Line train already. For a change, Mr. Sprocket and I were able to get out of the house earlier than usual. Our hearts have been with Rocket, who has been steadily declining over the last two weeks. I'm afraid we will be saying goodbye to this sweet addition to our lives, a lot sooner than we had hoped.

The Trial: What's Left
The prosecution is expected to rest their case before or by the end of the week. The defense will present witnesses and then I believe, the prosecution will put on a rebuttal case.  Next week is a short week. Court is dark next Wednesday afternoon, as well as all day Thursday and Friday. The jury site visit is locked in for Thursday, May 7. It's my understanding there will be no court on that date. Counsel will still need to agree on jury instructions. Then closing arguments, jury instructions are read then the jury gets the case.

Entry Editing
I still have editing to do on Monday and Wednesday's entries from this week.

9:01 AM
I'm on the fifth floor of the criminal court building. The family that runs the 5th floor snack room has the best price on green tea. It's a small thing, but it adds up.  The fifth floor is a very busy floor. There is a jury waiting rooms is on this floor. (There's a second jury waiting room on the 11th floor.) Directly opposite the snack bar is Dept. 30, also known as arraignment court. That's a very busy department and what drives the comings and goings of so many attorneys, officers and the general public.

9:29 AM
Inside Dept. 107, DDA Hum and Detective Leslie are already set up. There is a computer technical expert in the well, going over something with DDa Hum. One of Sarah's close girlfriends is already here. She gives me a smile.

Within a minute or two, Aron Laub arrives with his rolling cart of files. I note that after Mr. Laub took off his jacket, I see that he wears a pair of suspenders, similar to what Mr. Sprocket wears on his work pants. A few moments later, Sarah and her husband Greg arrive with a friend, a man Ive seen come to court before.

The bailiff comes in and informs the court that the jury is all here, and that they said something about doughnuts.  Dr. Chinwah is here and he's told to take the stand after Brown is brought out.

Judge Lomeli is on the bench and tells his court clerk to call for the jury.

DR. CHINWAH
At the end of the day, the manner of death was not accidental, but at the hands of another.  Did you elaborate that in your report? Yes I did.

Death was due to multiple traumatic injuries, with massive skull fracture, which was consistent with a drop from a height. I did say that, that finding from autopsy, is not consistent with an accidental fall. It is more consistent with an assisted fall. This was supported by a site visit by myself and the chief medical examiner, and our consultant peditrician, and law enforcement officers.

That site was an extremely rugged site. Thought that the child could not get to the height without assistance, or being coerced. The findings that we see from the autopsy, and putting this all together, this was a child endangerment. The death was not due to an accident, it was due to some form of assisted form. So child endangerment so classified by homicide.

The nature of Lauren's injuries, this was a homicide.

We were discussing the left side of Lauren's body and the left cheek area. There was abraision and contusion over the left face of the body, from the forehead down to the chin.

The left cheek, was that fractured? Yes.

Contusions of the lung liver and spleen, caused by a large force or blow? Yes. Was that an external blow or internal? It's external.

All of these injuries that you observed of Lauren's face and chest area, the broken wrist, are these consistent with a single impact? Yes.

Did you also describe a fracture of Lauren's wrist? yes i did.  Please describe that. It was on the left. It was a displaced fracture. Is it when the palm is pushed back? yes, it is consistent with that.

During your autopsy also examined Lauren's lungs? Yes I did. Was there any water in Lauren's lungs? No, I did not. Assuming her body was in the water, what does it tell us that there was no water in her lungs. It means she didn't asperate water. She didn't breath any water in? No.

Did you observe any lividity in Lauren's body? Can I refer to my records? Please.  No I did not make any comment regarding that. With rigor, I did mention that it had presumably been altered. I made a comment about that.

By the time the body is examined by the coroner, it's been moved so many ways, the assessment may have been compromised by the lividity of the body.

Asks the doctor to explain rigor, and how it occurs after death and how it goes away.

Lividity is the pooling of blood by gravity. The blood flows downwards due to gravity and that can cause discoloration in the body. If someone lying on the back when they die, the blood pools in the back.

Because the heart stops beating, blood is no longer flowing through the body? correct. So the body pools in the body? Correct.

As part your conducting the autopsy, you used diagrams to make notes of what you observed, That's correct. From those notes and diagrams that's what you dictate your autopsy report.

People's 53, Coroner from 20.  A big blow up of one of the coroner's forms. He placed markings on that diagram at a prior proceeding. Explains that the markings denote the abrasions and contusions.

In your actual diagram in your autopsy report, there's more information. That's correct.

Additional coroner's diagram, People's 54. Drawings of different views of a head.

The red markings on that were placed on a prior proceeding. We can see from looking at, we can see what they depict, but tell us? Those are the areas of injury on the face and forhead as they begin. The areas of contusion and laceration.

People's 55, another diagram from his autopsy report.  This is a skull. Please explain to us, in the three diagrams, and explain the markings on the diagram that you placed in a prior proceeding.

We are looking at the skull. The lower diagram is the bottom of the skull. The left upper diagram is the top of the skull. The right diagram, we are looking at the inner part.

The markings on the left upper diagram, is the front part of the head. So this is the forehead part area and this is the fracture here. And it continues down, all the way here. The diagram on the right, shows where it continues over.  Underneath here, we call this the ? plate. So this is what we have an extensive fracture, all the way to the back of the skull, all the way to over here. This is massive skull fracture, and consistent with a drop from a height.


Upper right is the inside of the skull, if you removed the top and looking inside.

The black circle at the bottom of the right diagram, is what. The spinal cord comes through here, this hole.

Enlargement of coroner's diagram 34, People's identification 56.

Brown looks at the diagrams. Brown sits up in his seat a bit, to see better, and then he sits back in his chair.

The left upper diagram, shows the front of the skull. And on the front of the diagram, is this front upper fracture. the lower right diagram is showing the left side of the skull, and these show the fractures that extend this way.

Sarah and her husband leave the courtroom.


People's 57, photographs a-d.



Photo a of Lauren on the autopsy table.  The entire left side of her face is blood red. Ther eare abrasions on her chest. The abrasions on her face cover her nose and her mouth.

It show her lying on the table of the autopsy room. Adn this is the abrasions and contusions o nte forehead down to the face, and also down to the chest.

Photo B I
 notice there apepars to be a circle in the chest area, a marking, is that on the phot or on Lauren's body? This a circle placed there by the investigator when the liver temperature is taken. The thermometer is put through there. This is not an injury.

Photo C. This are the injuries on the face and the chest area. Photo C. There are some abrasions cut on her abdomen, left him and her hand.

Photo D Abrasions on the knees and lower legs.

Based on her injuries alone, not knowing anything else about the aspects, he could not make a determination as to manner of death.

Are there occasions where you need information other than from just the autopsy, to make a determination as to manner of death? Yes.

In your investigation, On March 26, 2001, you went to Inspiration Point? That's correct.

He went with Dr. Lakshmana, Dr. Berkowitz. They both went to the top of IP and out towards the edge of IP closest to the ocean. Yes.

Did you take the actual hike? No. The hike was too much for me. But she was more athletic. They went to the actual itenerary that was supposedly taken by this child. He went the easy way.

He and Dr. Lakshmana parked on the side of the road and then walked directly out onto IP.  They looked at the contours of the cliff, went there for observation and we looked at everything.

Can you tell us why it was important for you in making your determination in lauren's death. The whole situation needed to be taken into consideration. It was quite an eye opener. It was quite revealing.

Why was the actural contours of the location, why was that significant to you in making a determination of Lauren's death. It was significant, to get something that is consistent with findings.

Are you talking about the autopsy findings themselves? Correct.

What did the location ahve to do with findings

If someone were to fall from the edge that we saw, that individual would have a lot of injry on the body itself, before it would get down. You would make some type of attempt to grab on the vegetation.  There were very little injry on other parts of her body. It was like she just landed, without anything inbetween.  It was a clear drop, and not rolled down the side.

Based on the location, based on what you saw out there, what would you expect ot find on Lauren's body if she had accidentally fallen? I would expect to find a lot of abrasions, and lacerations on the extremities, the hands the arms the legs. And the clothing, I would expect to see some tears in the clothing. If there's vegetation that was there, she had some very thin clothing on. Those clothing were clean.

Did you see any injuries to lauren's body that were consistent with not sliding off in a fall? I would expect to see abrasions, scratches all over the arms and legs, and even lacerations, tears, on the skin. Like those ones that impacted on the forehead there. I would have expected to see those.

And is that based on the contours of the cliff and the materials? The vegetation that was there, and the, yes.

Did she have her clothing on at that time? When she was brought in, yes.

Dr. Chinwah asks to look at his report. At the same time, Judge Lomeli tells counsel that he has to take a call. He comes back a moment later. Back on the record in this matter.

Judge Lomeli has the same issue that we are having with Rocket. He has a pet that is having to be put down.

Dr. Chinwah inspected Lauren's clothing. Did you find the tears on the clothing that you would expect to see if this was an accident? No I did not.

Would those abrasions that you did find, be cnosistent with an accidental fall. The abrasions that he saw were minor superficial abrasions.

Would you have expected to see more, and more extensive if this was an accidental fall. yes.

At any point, did anyone presure you to make this a homicide rather than anything else? No.

Did anyone tell you what your decision should be? No.

In addition to going to the location, did you have a radiologist, examine some xrays.?Yes.

I request a consultation from a radiologist and got a report from him. Did you consider that in your manner of death? yes. And also consulted with a nuropathologist? yes. I did. Did you also consider that report when making your determination? Yes I did.

The chief medical examiner was also present at IP. Yes. He discussed his findings with Dr. Lakshmana. Yesk I did. Was there anythign that the radiologist, the neuropathologist, or the head coroner, that caused you to doubt or change your conclusion that the manner of death was homicide? No.

You were aware that Dr. Berkowitz prepared a report? Yes she did. And that was the result of him asking for the consult? yes. And did her report factor in to his report? Yes. Even if he didn't have her report, his conclusion would still be the same.

Have you conducted autopsies on victims that have fallen from great height? Yes I have.  Have examined both types accident and assisted drop victims.

How many have you conducted of drops from heights, assisted or accident? I would say between 100 and 200.

You told us that if Lauren had acidentally fallen, you would have expected to see much mroe significat lacerations and abrasion on her extremities and body? That's correct.

On some of those idnividuals who have fallen from great height, have you seen those injuries that were absent from Lauren? Yes.

Would you describe the injuries on Lauren as discrete? The injuries on the head and face were discrete. Because they were in that discrete area. By discrete, I mean they are limited to a specific area.

Would these injuries in this discrete area, be consisten with a single impact? Yes. Did you see evidence of multiple impact? I did not see injuries that are consistent with multiple impacts.

Have you done autopsies on bodies that had multiple impacts? Yes. Were the injuries on those bodies different than lauren's? Yes.

Based on all the informaiton you had, based on your findings, bases on your visit to the location, the consultant reports with the radiologist and the neuropathologist, the consult with Dr. Lakshmana, and based on all your training and experience, is the death consistent with an assisted death [rather than an accident]? Yes.

The court takes a two minute break. The jury is asked to step into the jury room.

My bailiff tells me, when he talked to the jurors, one of the jurors had hard copies, that Judge Lomeli handled. He didn't recalled seeing this case. My inclination is to call him out here, and to see if he googled his case.

Record should be clear, that this court did not handle any of the prior proceedings.

The court asks to call a juror out into the courtroom.

Dr. Chinwah steps down from the witness box and sits in the gallery.

Alternate #4.
Reason I'm bringing you out here, that you showed him some photographs of some proceedings I've handled in the past.

You didn't google this case? No. I googled you.

I wanted to see your background, and how long you were on the bench for, and what you're is being paid

what you do and what you get paid, I've led a sheltered life.

I wondered if I'd voted for you, because you' weren't on the ballot.

Just a reminder sir, and you know, stay off hte google or media related ot this case. You represent to us that you did not google this case.

DDA Hum, asks that the document be entered as a court document.  The court asks if he wants a copy of the document back. The juror states, "I'm already in trouble."

The court asks, did the juror search include the background of any attorney. No, I was interested in you and what you make.  Okay sir. You're not in trouble.

One of the jurors is not feeling well, #12.

Please make sure as I advised you earlier, stay away from news articles, or anything about this case.

Cross examination.
As part of your educaiton or experience as a coroner, another thing part of the area os study is forensic pathology. Is that correct? That's correct.

In the course of your study or practice, have you read any work by Warner Spitz? Yes. He's considered to be a renounded forensic pathologist? Yes. His book, is like the bible of pathology? That's one of them.

I just want to talk about the lividity issue for a moment. You had a coroner's investigator who actually went to the scene, where Lauren was, at the time she was first recovered fro mthe water? That's correct.

The investigator gave you a report that described some things he saw. He took some photographs and all of that you reviewed as part of your autopsy report? That's correct.

The on scene investigaors notes are always part of the autopsy report? That's correct.

The lividy that he saw, showed on the left side of the back? I don't know. Can I look?  Sure.

While the doctor looks, Judge Lomeli asks DDA Hum if they are still on track to end case by Friday? "We are your honor."

Dr. Chinwah reads from the investigators report, that lividity was consistent with the supine position.

So there was waht you descirbed as lividty on the back? Yes. it was consistent with her lying on the picnic table, where she was lying.

Would you agree that it's difficult to determine livity and ante antemortem bruises? Sometimes.

Would you also agree that there are times when the differentiation as such of the liver area from true brusies can be difficult or impossible visually? There are some occasions that would happen.

When trying to be sure, a liver is compared ot a briuse, the only way to do that, is to actually make a cut that goes beneath the skin, in order to determine the blood that is there, is blood that is of bruising or the blood of lividity? Yes.

Is it true, that ... Laub reads from Spitz's book.

If death occurs before the bluish purple discoloration has time to develop, only incision will disclose the injury? That's correct.

Was any incision made in Lauren's back, to determine if any inury occured, at the time of this fall, a bruise didn't have time to develop where an incision could be made? You have to have a reason for that.

So at the time of the autopsy, you were not being asked to make a determination of whether this was a single impact or multiple impacts, is that right? No one asked you to focus on that, am I correct? No one asked me to, but my training, I looked for that.

At the time you did hte physical autopsy, you did not coclude that, two words used interchangably, one is cause of death, and this case cause of death is blunt force trauma? COrrect. And manner of death, is how the blunt force trauma is caused?

How is not the manner of death.

Explanation of manner as relation to cause of death.

Manner of death. There are four, ... five classifications.

At the time that you actually did the physical autopsy, you established, through your medical knowledge, the cause, blunt force trauma, but not manner of death. That's correct.

Becaue at the time, the injuries on the body did not tell you manner of death. That's correct.

When you make a dertimation of cause of death. When you do manner of death, you get all the circumstances together.

Someone walking across the street, get hit by the car, you have multiple traumatic injury, if don't do anything else, accident.

But, if you [wait] get the story, then you get manner of death. 

Yes, my examination is it's a single impact.

Laub asks a long drawn out question about he came about his conclusions.

At the time he did the autopsy, he didn't have hte information he later got, to focus on, whether or not, there were brusies that fell from the cliff, multiple impacts, how the body had fallen... I'm not being critical. You did an autopsy based on the information you had then? yes.

You conldn't make your determination, until you made your observations at the scene? Yes. So then you put them together to make your conclusion. but then it was also too late, to make an incision on Lauren's back to see if there were underlying bruises.

By this it was unnecessary. Because yo umake an incidiosn, whe you have doubt. You examine the body you see the thing, it's quite obvious, If your'e going to make an incision on every autopsy to see if it's a bruise or not a bruises.  There was absolutely no reason to make any cut there.

Laub, states that it was too late, to go back and recut into Lauren's body to see if a bruise exists underneath after he got the additional information.

All of these later things, where Lauren fell, he didn't have that information at the autopsy.

You conclusion is, that Lauren's injuries were caused by hitting rocks, down at the bottom? yes.


If her body hit any part of the cliff, is not significant. The body went from that height, down to where it landed, with virtually nothing stopping the descent from that height.

So the injuries you observed with the impact at the very bottom, wit hte rocks in the water alone? That caused the massive, traumatic injury.


If Lauren did hit the cliff, going down, that was insignificant to her cause of death.

You were told that if Lauren fell, there would have to be scratches and bruises by the vegetation up there. That's correct.

You did go to the top some other way, you were on the top of IP? Yes. You did not go all the way to the edge where she departed from the cliff? I went to the site.

Wasn't that a slippery slope, where she fell that she was taken to? yes.

Wern't the people that you were with, wern't those people concerned about getting to close, so that you would be safe? Yes.

And at the part where, that slope, reaches the edge, there isnt much vegetation, what you're looking at is rock at the end? I don't really know what exact site you are referring to.

The place that you were told where Lauren had gone over ... let me ask you to describe to us, what the place of departure was, what you were shown, what did that look like to you?

We were on the top of the point there, and they were all over the place including [over the side] I'm not sure exactly what you want me to describe?

Was there a difference i nthe amount of vegetation. ... well first off there was a slope? A slope to where?

When you were approaching the place of Lauren's departure, did you first walk along a flat space? yes. When you were heading towards the place of departure, did IP stop being level, or was it just level and there was the drop?  Well, the, it wasn't flat like a table, but the top was not that flat. There was an area where there was a slope.

Well the slope area, how would you describe the slope is it? In terms of degree?

I meant, for instance, it's just sloped a little or a steep slope, how would you describe it from your perspective? You're on top of your moutian, there' a slope to get o ntop of the mountain.

So, am I correct in understanding about a slope, that IP came to an edge, and after that, there's a slope as if it was a mountain slope, as if it just drops? Is that what you mean by the edge?

the IP and ther are slopes on both sies an down in the front there.

So, IP is the top? That's correct.

It's not flat like a table, it's uneven? yes, it's uneven. And when you get to theedge, it becomes the same uneven, you get to the slope which is a drop? Yes.

11:00 AM
Judge Lomeli calls for the morning break.

One of the jurors is not feeling well, and she tells the court that the rest of the jurors are trying to tell her to be sicker so they can all go home. A bit of laughter.  The juror states that because of that, she's sticking it out, and staying.

Cross continued.

DR CHINWAH
You've done x number of sutopies, how many involved falls from cliffs? I can't recall for sure, maybe about 10.

Falls from cliffs, how many involved falls from this height, similar to this case? They're all about the same height?

And how many involved children around the age of 4? I can't recall.

When you did the autopsy, one of the things you noted, although there was a severe impact to Lauren, her chest bones didn't break.  That's correct. One of the reasons is that child's bones haven't developed to the point of where they would break. That's correct.

An accidental fall. Have you only considered the possibility that she slipped? Slipping is one way. What else do you mean when you say it's not an accident? An accident is an accident that happens unknowingly.

One of the things you talked about, is that you would expect to see ... did I misunderstand? Coming to the conclusion, all the circumstance surrounding this thing is taken into consideration. To isolate one thing from the other, is not doing service to [?].

Am I right that the circumstnaces that you were informed of, in reaching to your conclusions, is the child was in a school and the father was going to take her, and she cried for a long long time? That's part of what you considered? That's part of the circumstance.

But the father had the right to take her, and he took her to this picnic/play area, and that's part of it? That's part of it. And they stayed there for about, oh 20 minutes.  Yes.

I believe that Mr. Laub is reading his prior testimony. Dr. Chinwah, agrees, with all his prior testimony statements.

And this information, this additonal information was provided by whom? I got information from Law enforcement, and personal site view of the place.

The little, idea of there being a child on top of Inspiration Point, do you believe that a child would voluntarily be on a place like that? Do you believe that a four year old child could voluntarily be on top of IP? If a bunch of kids were taken up there, and had been on vacation. They could voluntarily get there.

Fall children falling from high cliffs is a rare occurrence? Objection. While I agree with that, it's irrelevant. Sustained.

In reaching your conclusion, do you as part of your work, keep track of what happens in other cases, where small children fall from cliffs in California? Objection. Irrelevant. Sustained.

Laub asks if he is aware of other falls of children? Judge asks, how is that relevant?

Because, respectfully, part of his conclusion is what would be expected from this child. Objection. Argument. sustained.

Laub wants to have all of Dr. Chinwah testimony in regards to after the autopsy.  The court intervenes and wants to know how it's relevant.  Laub argues that it is relevant. The court tells him to move on.

What were the possible stores that you considered [When you were told that Lauren had fallen from the cliff area]?  What do you mean by stories.

Did you have any information about what possibly Mr. Brown had said had happened? No.

Dr. Chinwah states, part of the report was narrated as to what happened. Dr. Chinwah asks Laub, well, who brought the child up out of the water?

Laub asks another question, and the Dr. asks the court to look at his report.  Dr. Chinwah reads from his report.

Laub asks if he was told that Lauren was throwing rocks. Doesn't recall that.

So one of the things that you didn't consider, is that Lauren was throwing rocks, and could have taken a few running steps and fallen over the side?  It was considered and the conclusion, is that is inconsistent, with her accidentally, either by throwing rocks or running or whatever, [her injuries] are not consistent with an accident.

Laub gives an example, if you have a four year old, who takes a running start, and throws a rock...

DDA Hum states, I'm going to object at this part in time. It's irrelevant and it's gone too far.

Judge Lomeli asks the coroner the basis of his conclusions. Judge Lomeli tells counsel to move on.  Laub asks for a sidebar.

11:40 AM
Let me try to rephrase my question. If Lauren had been, had taken a, just few running steps to the edge and thrown a rock, and gone over the side of the edge, would you expect, would you have expected to see the abrasions and contusions you would see, from slipping through vegetation?

If she threw a rock and went the way you described, the type of injuries I would expect to see in her, I did not see. I would exect to see extensive abraision and laceration on her body, especially the extremities mostly, and other parts of the body, extensive.

What is it you believed would have caused those injuries? The surface, as she would have gone down the side of the cliff.

You say the surface, that she would have come in contact of the cliff, the perpendicular side of the cliff? Object to the word perpendicular. Sustained.

Chinwah agrees there is an edge.

And that edge... ? There's a slope.

And this slope you're talking about, is this then the part you're talking about...? Yes, there's a slope.

And this is the part, moving to the edge? And the person is lauren, and I'm refering now to the ege, the slope from the top and the edge where the cliff beings. 

Objeciton. that's not what he said.

Judge asks Laub to start again. Laub states he will come back to it.

Did the written report that you do, you try to make that complete as a record? That's correct.  That's so someone later, can review it and understand what you saw.  That's correct.

In your written report, you describe more in abrasions, that you'd drawn on the diagram, the diagram of Lauren's body? Is that correct? That's right.

In your written report, that on the face and the cheek, there were lacerations you describe them as multiple irregular? Can you describe that. It means that the edges were not smooth. They were irregular.

And you go onto say that some were oriented diagonally. Did you mean that lacerations were running in differnet directions/ Yes.

And you also talked about there being abrasions on the upper chest? Yes. Going over to the upper shoulder area? Yes.

Is there any significance to an abraision being horizontal verses being diagonal? The significant is the impact... that surface, has some irregularity in it.

So, you're assuming that the surface that struck Lauren's chest had an irregularity that would cause lacerations runnig though her chest.

I'm geting overwhelmed by the description of the injuries.

Dr. Chinwah explains that the rocks in the ocean are jagged, irregular.

Another question about the abrasions, on the lower chest has the horizontal abrasions? Yes. And that was 3/4 inch by one inch? Yes.

What I mean by horizontal, is that it went across the chest. It went from left to right.

And then down on the abodome, you saw tow abrasions and one of them was vertical on the left abdomen and that one was two inches. That's correct.

Laub now asks about lacerations.

Is it not possible for those abrasions to have come at different times when the body was moving at different positions? Well if you're referring to, abrasions in the abdomen, that's a little small line. It's just a minor thing the one in the abdoment. It's justo n the surface of the skin.

11:55 AM
Dr. Chinwah states that these injuries that Mr. Laub is asking about, are very minor. These are minutia. Insignificant to the overall cause of death.

Why is it not possible that this vertical abrasion, wasn't caused by the body in a different position in the fall being caused by brush sticking out of the cliff? Why isn't that possible.

This linear abrasion was not caused by any rock.

Dr. Chinwah tries to explain, that this one singular line, would not have occurred by a slip down the cliff. There would have been multiple scrapes and injuries.  Dr. Chinwah describes this line, as a single line from a pin.

DDA Hum states that based on what has happened in cross, he can no longer guarantee that he will finish on time.

The court asks Mr. Laub how much longer

Laub wants to prevent the prosecution from asking about the books that were found in the Brown's residence on witchcraft. The court wants to know how that is relevant.

Back at 1:30 PM.

1:20 PM
This morning, around the same time that Judge Lomeli was telling counsel and the jury about a family dog that was being put down and he couldn't be there with his wife, Mr. Sprocket had emailed me that he scheduled the same type of appointment for Rocket, Saturday morning.

The last several hours of court and lunch, it's been difficult to maintain my composure. We will try to spend as much quality time as we can with him, until then.

1:31 PM
Back inside Dept. 107. The bailiff asks if the court wants the defendant out. Sure, Judge Lomeli replies.

I understand the people has served an SDT, and they have not received any documents in question. DDA Hum states it's South Bay Trauma. There have been no documents. Regarding Molly Taylor.

I have no idea what this is about.

There will be a stipulation later. There will also be testimony that will be read into the record from a prior proceeding.

Judge Lomeli said he's a little paranoid that people are trying to find out his salary. It seems to me like he's joking.

As the jury enters, the bailiff tells a young gentleman in the courtroom that if he's from UCLA, he has to leave.  The young man beside me says, "USC." The judge says, "Welcome, with open arms."  Judge Lomeli's alma mater is USC.

Cross continues of Dr. Chinwah.

Brown watches Laub.

You noted in your autopsy the left was fractured? Which wrist. I said left but I want to be correct. Yes. Which wrist was that?  I put down in the summary I put right, but I want to make sure I was correct.  It was the right.

The majority of the injuries were on the left? Correct. And the right wrist was fractured? Correct.

Is there a reason why the right wrist injury couldn't have occured through a flayling of the wrist against the cliff face? I don't know.

You also said in order to reach your conclusion about manner of death, it was necessary to know where the point of departure was? That's not correct. I was not there. How could I say it was necessary for me to know?

In our analysis of the manner of death, would it matter whether the point of departure was point A or 20 feet away from point A? I don't know.

Would it matter to know the point of impact? No.

Redirect.

The def. atty referred to a part of the investigatove report, the coroner's summary, would like it marked as 33 A.

That investigator is from the coroner's department who is sent to the scene of the death. Taht's correct. And that's different from the Sheriff's Dept. That's correct.

And he's sent a few hours, thatwas Mr. Moses, was sent within a few hours of the incident? He goes out to the scene as it's held as opposed to days later? Oh yes.

Generally speaking, it's preferable that nobody move the body until they photograph the scene and take the liver temperature. There would also be preliminary information as to the scene? Correct.

Dr. chinwah, just having knowledge of the injuries Lauren she received, the absence of injury which you also determined and the location itself, Inspiration Point, Just having those three pieces of information, that Lauren's injuries are were inconsistent with a fall?

Although all that other information supported his conclusion, but it wasn't necessary. It added weight to his conclusion.  And also, I just want to make sure that I'm clear, the injuries to Lauren's face and chest area, are all of those injuries consistent with a high velocity impact? Yes.

RECROSS examination.
At the time you did the autopsy, you couldn't determine manner of death because you needed more information? I wouldn't use the word couldn't.  At autopsy all you had was the medical information of the body? Yes.

At the time I examined the body, I needed more information.

You told about a number of sources of information you received, that you put together to come to your determination that this was a homicide.  Correct.

I'm understanding from the redirect question, that the only information that you actually needed to reach your conclusion, was the original autopsy, and what you saw personally saw when you were up at Inspiration Point, am I correct? Yes.

And you say that takes into account that you did not need, to know the actual point of departure, or the actual point of impact below, am I right? Yes.

The witness is excused. People call Robert Olsen.

ROBERT OLSON

He is a land surveyer. He works for a firm Psomas. He's currently a vice president out of the Los Angeles Office. I'm graduate, BS in engineering with emphasis in land surveying.

Photogrametry, the art and science of making accurate measurements from photographs.

What types of surveying and for what purpose? We support the land developers, public agencies, roadways, ... prepare base maps of exisiting conditions so engineers can propose their designs.

Explains an aerial survey. Another way of providing topigraphical data. It's much more feasable for larger properties that are feasible. They indicate the topography of the land. It's to show the elevation of the ground.

Were you in charge of to produce a topographical map of IP.  The department of public works contacted him.

Aerial topigraphic mapping is just another mapping technique that relies on overlapping photographs, that identifies all the features, buildings, curves. It's free stepfold process, the aerial plane will fly over the site, capture the photographs, and that will be processed to a TIT file that will be imported into a program.

There's also the field component. They need to coordinate the items that appear in the photograph.  They will put white crosses, control points, They will field survey and establish the white crosses and then photograph the area and the white crosses.

How many white crosses were established? Four. They were generally in the flatter areas of IP. due to the small bases we also were able to thn take our surveying instruments and take in rock outcroppings in the ocean below.

It's apoint and shoot, bounce off and record that location.

They take the GPS locations of those four points, to locate those points in a coordinate world. More technical data as to how he works to make the topographical map.

A total station, is that when you have someone holding a rod with a flag and someone else looks through a [scope] of some sort?
A total station records the vertical horizontal and sloped distances to a rod that's being held.

More explanation as to how the actual process is done.

They are specialized planes with specialized camera equipment. They are very expensive cameras with 6" focal length. They produce a large photograph. To get the 3 D effect, the photos have to have a relationship to each other.

A second flight had to be done, because of the steepness of the cliff? Yes, a second filght was done because the first did not get all the info they needed.

A stereo plotter operator, the joining images, they use special glasses, to be able to visualize the three D effect.  More explanation that I cannot follow.

The model they create is a three dimensional model. The model is in the computer.

Now have a digital terrain model, now what do you do with that? That's from which the contours are created.

Then this model can be used by other people, and photographs can be draped over this model.

14 page report, People's 92.

Bottom paragraph on page 5, the methodology [that Dr. Hayes used] for producing the model he used.

This methodolgy for creating a topographical map of the cliff face? Is it new, is it tested can you tell us a little bit about that.  It's been around for quite a while. I believe the first concept, was when they started flying balloons above the civil war. So it's been around for quite a while.

It's the basis for improvement of land, gas line projects, freeway.  Anywhere where someone wants to develop ground, they must know what's going on [under ground?]?

The closer the lines are the steeper things are? Yes.

The mapping standards that have been around. For 1" = 20ft. horizontial and fixed and fine point, if fefinalble, compare that and they have to be within 8 inches of each other. That's horizontal.

For vertical, 90% of elevations they must been in line with one half contraannable.

Explains the process for determining errors in maps. This is the first time where testimony is really almost completely misunderstandable to me.

Cross examination.
Your model, is based upon photos that were taken in a fly over? That's correct.

Is it one flyover or more? It would have been two passes, then we needed more. I think three flight lines were involved.

What was the first data captured? I don't recall.

Do you have your report? I don't.

Your model that you made, does not tell us what it looked like on November 8, 2000? that's correct.

And the flyovers that you did, I believe were, one to two years later? I think it was Jan of 2003.
One of the things that didn't figure into the model, was possible errosion along the point, from 11/8/200 and your date? That's correct.

And the two flyovers that were initially done on different dates, so it had to be of a hybrid of what you saw on different dates? I wouldn't call it a hybrid. ... The first flight did two flightlines that cross each other.

One of the flights was too far inland, so that was the reason we had to refly over the area.

Questions about the camera being advanced and the plane traveling at 150 miles an hour.

You talked about, compensating for the yaw and pitch of the plane.  As the plane is taking photographs, they are not perfectly level, so there's always going to be pitch and yaw, exposing pitch and yaw in the photography.

Explains Yaw and Pitch.  Left or right is Yaw, Forward or back is Pitch.

Laub asks about compensating. How is it you know what to need to do to compensate?

Complicated answer. I feel like I'm going to fall asleep.

Cartesian coordinate systems, three axises. I'll have to look that up.

Laub asks if he really didn't get contacted by the DA's office. The witness states that as far as he knows he was contacted by the LA Dept. of Public Works.

Laub states that the witness knew that it was for the DA's office on? Insists that he was aware that this work was for the DA's office.

This was the first time that you did survey's involving cliffs? No, we've done survey's involving cliffs before.  Now crossing him on prior testimony.

Is it correct that you had never done one of these models for the purpose of use in a fall trajectory computer simulation? That is correct.

Cross ends. Redirect.

Does it matter to you if was for a fall trajectory or developmental purposes? No.

Mr. Laub asked whether it reflected the same as the face was on November 8, 2000. That takes into account there were relevant changes to IP. Correct. You don't know if there was

Lena Patel will Bethe Anderesen. (I don't think I have that right.)

Leena S. Patel was called on behalf of  the people.

Back in Nov 2000, were you working? Yes. I was.

Where were you working? christian montesory school? It was in Newport Beach.

About how long did you work? 4.5 years total. She was an elementary teacher there.

Did you know Lauren Key? Yes, I did.

People's 1, for identificaiton, That was Lauren.

I knew Lauren from interacting with her on the playground and from pick ups and drop offs. She often filled in for preschool teachers.

Then, Lauren would be in the class.  She met Lauren's mother, Sarah.

She got to know Lauren's mother. We had something in common. Sarah was from England, and so was I.

Sarah would ask about lauren and how she was doing, whenever Sarah would pick Lauren up.

Did you ever observe her roughhousing or playing rough at all? No she was a very calm girl. She mostly played by herself.

Was she careful and cautious child? How would you describer her? Careful and cautious.

She was a happy girl. She always smiling.

Would you observer her interact with other teachers? How did she get along?
She got along with me ver well. She was attached to me.  I would say she was a very jolly girl. She was very happy.

She would be present when Sarah would come pick her up. She was very happy to see her and say come on Mom, let's go home.

Identifies the defendant. Describe Lauren's reaction when the defendant would come pick her up.

She would wrap herself around me or hide herself under the table?

When she was picked up by her biological father, sometimes she would cry. The defendant would not ask about Lauren. She would never want to go with him she wouldn't stop crying.

from the playground of the school, could you see the parking lot at the school?

She would start hiding behind teachers.

When the defendant would come to pick her up, Lauren would cling onto you.

Did the defendant ever raise his voice to Lauren when she was clinging to you? yes. He would say, come on, lets go, in a loud voice.

On several ocasions, he would grab her by the had or arm, he would say let's go, or he would just pick her up. It was more forceful.

Was it a loud or angry tone or how? A loud voice.

did you ever do anything to try to make the pick up to go more smoothly. Yes. I asked him if he could bring a toy or something that she liked to make it go more easy.  He said that I wasn't the mother, and shouldn't tell him what to do.

She was present when Lauren was interviewed by the social worker. She never had any worries that Lauren was being abused.

Cross examination.

Did you ever tell Detective Leslie or Smith, about this supposed pulling at her arm and wisking her away?  I wasn't asked that before.

Before you never told them, about that. And today you told us today, that she would hold onto people's legs? Yes.

And there were occasions where Mr. Brown would pick her up and she was fine? Yes.

More cross that I can't keep up. Lauren was never in her class.

She was a quiet girl. She would not describe her as highly energetic. Jolly, yes.

Did you know that her mother described her as energetic.

She made a report about Brown pulling on Lauren's arm.  And she also told the mother about these incidents.

She told her about these incidents at the time they happened.

You saw Mr. Brown with her as they would leave? Correct. But you never saw them after? No. Never saw how she was with Mr. Brown? No.

Saw how he came to pick her up on a motorcycle? Yes. Wouldn't let him take her on the motorcycle because he didn't have a helmet.

Redirect.

After you were interviewed by detectives, did you have more time to think about the interactions of the defendant and Lauren. yes.  Did I ask you specifically questions about the defendant and Lauren? Yes. At that time, did you tell us about the defendant grabbing Lauren and carrying her out? yes.

Also told them about the motorcycle incident. He got mad and angry with me. He said it was okay. I refused to let him take her on the motorbike.  How did you know he was angry? He was raising his voice at me.

RECROSS.
Questions about the interview with Hum and Leslie. Is it your testimony when he originally interviwed you that he never asked you any quesiton like that. You stated that she would cry and grab legs? Yes. She wrote a report to the school.

To you knowledge, you didn't see any report? Yes, one was mailed to me in 2006. Not the school report, but the police report of her interview was mailed to her.

And that's it for this reading of testimony.

People recall Detective Leslie.

DETECTIVE JEFFREY LESLIE

Before this, there is a stipulation.  Two page stipulation marked at 133.

On Jan 22, 2001, Thomas fortier was assigned to the task force, and was an expert in computers. He extracted information on the hard drive. Thomas Fortier pulled up the Internet history and the dates and times of those visits.

He examined two hard drives, seized from the home of Patty and Cameron Brown.

Detective Fortier printed out the complete history of computer activity, and the Internet activity on November 8, 9, 10.

The Internet history, and the print out history, is not altered in any way. Also found a resume of Patty Brown.

The internet connection to the internet, used a dial up connection, meaning that calls coming in could not be completed.

So stipulated.

JEFFREY LESLIE

Questions about the actual location at IP and the surrounding area.

Is it accurate to say, there is some change in the elevation in the tide at IP? Depending on the time of day.  Went out to Ip with a photographer, at the level of water as it was on November 8, 2000. Yes.

Laub want to know the tiem of day.

Five photos, People's 127.

Photo A. A cell phone with a clock on it. Then four photos showing the level of the tide. Were those photos taken, to duplicate the tide around 3 pm in the afternoon on November ? 2000.

Cliff photos, People's 126, for identificaiton, photos A-E.
A in thexhibit at the top is an aerial photograph. PP and IP and sacred cove inbwtween.

Photo B is IP agai aerial photo looking north. Also shows the inlet below with the rock outcroppings.

Photo C aerial photo showing the face of IP and shows the trail that takes you to the right or west side of UP. Shows the U shaped seciton.

Photo D is taken from the east side of IP, and you're looking west.
Photo E is of IP, taken from the rock outcroppings from the inlet below and looking up.

You mentioned a U shaped area.
Which side of that U shape area?

Is that a straght drop down? that portion of the cliff is sloped, and at some point you will come to an edge. There's a type of knuckle that protrudes out. It's not a sheer drop.

Interview of the defendant and demeanor at the location. When iterviewed him in Nov 9, 2000. Did the defendat ever say that Lauren ever slept or napped in the car.

Did Debora jenkins who took the money in the car, did she say that she ever saw Lauren napping in the car.  Ms. Jenkins stated that because Lauren was so still, she wondered if she had been asleeop.

Now, there was one other time, that you had observed the defendant's demeanor.  Laub asks to approach. Sidebar.

The court takes the afternoon break at 2:56 PM.

2:56 PM
I lose my internet connection.

Mr. Hum, would propose that we ask about this one other situation, would... On the record, outside the presence of the jury, the court and counsel argue over what Detective Leslie can testify to about a father’s reaction in another case, when that father DID kill the child.

Mr. Laub objects because the other case being referred to, happened after this case.

The court asks Detective Leslie a question.

Det. Leslie: I’ve never seen anything anything like the reaction that night. [Regarding Brown’s reaction, behavior to Lauren’s death.] Prior to that, not I have not. Since then, the similarities, to a case were the father DID kill the child, yes, were striking.

The court rules that it can come in via 352.  And Judge Lomeli is off the bench.

3:20 PM
The jury files in. 

Back on the record.

Det. Leslie, you told us that you had seen someone exhibit the same demeaonr on one prior occasion as to the defenant on November 8 & 9.

On that occasion, was that where you would have expected to have seen some emotional display. Yes.

You condicted additional significant investigation. Yes. Also interviewed other witnesses. Interviewed close to a hundred individuals at this point.

At any time during the investigaiton from the time you called out to the scene, until today's date, were you pressured by anyone to make lauren's death a homicide? I was not pressured by anyone?

were you ever pressured by your partner to make Lauren's death a homicide? no

Were you ever pressured by Sarah Key Marer to make this death a homicide, rather than an accident? No.

Did you know or ever had contact with the defendant prior to your investigaiton? No.

Did you have any ill will toward the defenant? No.

Were you sympathetic to Sarah KeyMarer? Yes.

Did you think that it would make Ms. Key-Marer, if you found Laurne's death a homicide? I would think that it would be easier to find out that it was an accident.

Did you ever suggest to any of those witnesses, what may have happened? No.

Did you ever suggest to anyone to say a particular thing or to suggest they say something. No.

Interviewed Sarah Key-Marer many times. Yes. Never suggested to her what to say.

She contacted him and asked him about the investigation? Constantly. There were no specifics that she got. In the initital stages, we told her we were still working on it.

It was obvious that it seemed to be the case as we learned certain things, for experts to people at school to whomever we spoke to, we were going to ask her clarification questions.  I didn't want her answers swayed by what we knew. I wanted to keep the investigation pristine.

did you ever tell Ms. Key-Marer, what was your opinion as to what had occurred? No I did not.

Did you ever tell Ms. Key-Marer, what other witnesses had said? No.

Did you ever ask her to provide other information or documents? Yes. Did you ever tell her why to get that information? No.

First spoke to her on Nov 9, 2000, at about 8pm at night. It was a hotel room in Long Beach.


Describe where she was, how she appeared and what was her demeanor.

She was in bed. She was pale, she was sunken and hollow. It seemed like she had been crying all day. She held her stomach the entire time she spoke to us. At times it appeared she was oging to be physically ill. Very emotional, very someewhat dazed, in trying to remember specific facts to us.

Despite her obvious distress, did you think it was impoirtant to get information sooner rather than later? Yes.

Did you ask her numerous quesitons about her relationship with the defendant, what her daughre liked to do, etc. yes.

Did she tell you during that interview, that the defendant agreed to have Lauren adopted? Yes.

Did she tell you anything?   She said that Mr. Brown had agreed to have her husband adopt Lauren.

Did she tell you anything that the defendant said to her? "I'm going to get you."

Did she say anything to you, in that Lauren would participate in a 1.5 mile hike? She said that was ridiculous.

Did you describe to her the terrain where the hike took place? No, I did not.

Did you take notes, every single time you had conversations with Ms. Key-Marer? No, I did not.

There was some questioning of Ms. Key-Marer salutastion she used? Do you recall that questioning? I do.

When she was speaking to you, describe to us her demeanor. Inquisitive, very serious, seemed as if she had a list of questions she had pondered and go through the list on the telephone or in person. What about this, what about this. It was very matter of fact.

Were there times she would call you and she would be very emotional? yes.

Do you recall one time in particular? It was the very first christmas eve, after Nov. 8, 2000. It was in the evening i spet an hour an hour and a half with her on the phone.

She was hysterical at times, and at times she would go back to the quesitons.

She had paged me, as I recall. We didn't have cell phones back then. I received a page from her.

At that time, did you privide her with any investigation information at that tiem? Just that we were still working on it.

Were there days that she would call and ask questions/ She would call on November 8, Lauren's birhtday, Easter, Christmas, the majority of the holidays, or as we approached the holidays.

Some of these she would call, ...

Did you pick up a copy of the 911 tape. Yes. At the tiem you picked up a copy was it a casette tape. It was a cassette tape.

Was the same 911 call we heard, the same call on that cassette tape you picked that up? He believes he picked it up on Nov. 10 from the command call center.

Talks about going to Inspiration Point on Nov. 10th. In addition to that, did you and some others in law enforcement, try to replicate the hike in the parking lot from abalone cove, to IP. Was that hike video tape. We'll watch that tomorrow.

On Nov 10 in 2000, were you aware of where the defendant and Lauren started the hike, yes. were you aware of where it ended? Yes.

Were you aware of where various witnesses had seen the defendant and Luarne on that hike. On that date, we wre not aware.

Later you spoke to various witnesses that saw them on the hik.e Base on those various witnesses along the hike, have you been able to establish a route that was taken to abalone cove? Yes.

Are there two spots on this hike, where there is more than one way to go, and you don't know which one that is? Two. yes.

Are any of the routs shorter than any other, Not by any significance, no.

What would be the difference bwtween them, Yards, maybe.

In terms of difficulty, taking into account these two areas, is there any change in the degree of difficulty? I would say no. They're all pretty similar in the terms of difficulty goes. There is one route that you can take in the beginning of IP that is shorter, but it's more dangerous.

Detective Leslie explains one of the sections, where the route could be different.

The differences in these routes are explained and the difficulty with each one.

Now on the NE portion of Portuguese Point and the different routes that one can go. Describes the three different route that could have been taken from the last point that Sam Omar saw them until James Witherow saw the defendant and Lauren on Palos Verdes Drive South.

What you just told us on these options. Have you taken the route from Abalone cove to IP more than once? Can you tell us about how many times you've done that? 20 or 30 maybe more. When was the last time you've done that. April 6 or 8 of this year. Just a couple weeks.

Did you take that hike at an adult brisk pace? yes without stopping.  Did you take that hike at each of the places that witnesses said they saw them.  It was 36 minutes and change. Just under 27 minutes.

What was the distance. It was 1.26 miles.

On November 11, did you place a recording device on Sarah Key-Marer's phone.

As I had recall, that Sarah had received a call from Mr. Brown's father, giving condolences from the family. As I said, I very much wanted to talk to the defendant again.

We figured if she did get the communication that she wanted, why not get the conversations and record them.

You've heard the CD where Ms. Key-Marer actually called and spoke to the defendant.

On another occasion you went to thedefendant's residence, and attempted to speak to the defendant.Yes

Was that was the time that Ms. Brown gave you business cards of attorneys? Yes. Were there personal numbers on those cards? Yes.

The home where the Brown's lived, was a condominimum complex. There was a botanical garden near by.

When you had contact with the defendant's wife, people's 102, Is that the way she appeared? Is that the way she looked? Tha'ts the way she looked. Yes, but I believe she had on a pink top.

The court ends the court day at 3:51 PM.

The jurors file out.

The court asks counsel to look at the jury instructions. "We still have some time," the court indicates.

And that's it for today.

Complete Cameron Brown Case Coverage.



UPDATE 5/8 11 AM final edit for spelling, readability and accuracy.
UPDATE 5/7 8 AM More editing of Dr. Siegmond's testimony.
UPDATE 7:00 PM I have edited part way through Dr. Siegmond's cross examination for spelling, readability and accuracy.
UPDATE 4:20 PM I will try to edit this entry tonight and over the coming week.
Monday, May 4, 2015
9:05 AM
When I get inside Dept. 107, DDA Hum and Aron Laub are arguing whether or not the defense expert can present the dummy drop videos.

It's complicated. I can into this in the middle of these arguments. DDA Hum is arguing that these videos have nothing to do with travel through space, but impacts with the cliff.

Mr. Laub is arguing that the dummy shows the movement through space after the impact.

The court: It seems like your witness is trying to get this in through the back door, how Lauren's body would have reacted once it left the cliff, impacted with the cliff and after. The court has already ruled on that. There's a real problem with the video.


DDA Hum states that the simulations by Dr. Hayes do show how a human body would react with the cliff.

The court rules that these dummies have never been offered to replicate a human body.

Mr. Laub states that they will eliminate the human body video. We will present the golf ball throw videos.  He explains that there will be another another slide inserted that doesn't mention the dummy drop video.

The court asks Laub to go talk to Mr. Siegmund.

DDA Hum brings up the issue that the defense wants to read into the record Lynn Brown's testimony. The court asks who this is. DDA Hum states it's the defendant's mother. DDA Hum states he understands why they want it read into the record; there are health issues. He doesn't have a problem with that. He does have an issue with some of the testimony that he is objecting to. Mr. Laub states that he [knows?] the objections and will be submitting a redacted testimony to DDA Hum.

The court informs counsel if you need me to intervene, let me know. Judge Lomeli leaves the bench.

There is a young woman sitting in the row in front of me. Once Judge Lomeli leaves the bench, the defense investigator comes over to speak to her.

9:22 AM
Sarah and a friend arrive.  DDA Hum comes over to speak to Sarah to warn her about upcoming slides in the defense witness' presentation.

I forgot to mention that the court asked the defense if they expected to rest tomorrow. Mr. Laub states that they will rest tomorrow.  DDA Hum confirmed he will be putting on a rebuttal case.

9:29 AM
DDA Hum is helping the defense work out the logistics of getting the defense expert's presentation to work with the ELMO projection.

9:34 AM
We wait. Dr. Siegmund is working on getting his PowerPoint presentation to display on the overhead screen. Brown was just brought out.

9:38 AM
Jury enters. Judge Lomeli states "Jury walking" and Brown gets up from his seat, buttons his jacket and turns towards the jury.

GUNTER SIEGMUND
Please tell the jury what it is that you do? I am a mechanical engineer with a PHD in bio mechanics. He analyzes how injuries are caused in various incidents.  He gives his CV, his professional training, etc. His company is Mea Forensics Engineers & Scientists.  His work is hands on work, verses the academic who does the study of [this work].

He's testifying in regards to the death of Lauren Key. He was provided with a number of photographs, autopsy reports, reports from the police, Dr. Hayes's reports and things of that nature. And provided testimony of Dr. Hayes. Reports, did that include the work that he had done in this case? It described the work that he had done.

He produced a PowerPoint presentation to take us through the significant factors in this case? Yes. He also relies on Dr. Hayes' PowerPoint; a number of those slides.  He also did experiments with children throwing golf balls, to determine the speed/movement of children. Yes.

DDA Hum asks that Mr. Laub occasionally ask a question, verses a narration.

First slide is the same slide that Dr. Hayes was shown.  In the course of my PowerPoint, I'm going to be addressing the same question, and showing why I disagree with Dr. Hayes.

This slide shows, autopsy reports.

This slide as it stands, is Dr. Hayes slide. Will you explain why this is important? Dr. Hayes summarized Lauren's injuries, and there are some injuries that are missing. There are injuries on the back shoulder and injuries on the abdomen that don't show up on this slide. They are on Dr. Chinwah's autopsy.  He puts up a slide of the autopsy drawing from Dr. Hayes' presentation, the front and back sketch of a child's body and the major injuries.

Now showing autopsy photos. The left side of Lauren's body. They are photos of very small injuries on the left side of her body. The black arrows are Dr. Siegmund's.

[My observation: These do not appear to be massive injuries, like on the face and upper body. They are small bruises and cuts.]

There was another autopsy photo of Lauren's body showing an injury of her right shoulder.

Another slide of Dr. Hayes: The Scene Survey: Cliff Profiles. Going over this slide and his interpretation of this slide.

It's difficult to describe this testimony without the attached slides.

Now a photo of the cliff face, looking straight on and then a blow up of the photo on the left.

Regarding the previous slide. They dropped a rope and shows the cliff face is under cut. And taking that back to the previous side drawing, Dr. Hayes' side drawing of one of the pie slices shows this part of the cliff going out, when his dropped line weight shows that the cliff face is undercut.

[So, the interpretation is, Dr. Hayes drawing outline, of this pie slice of the cliff, at some point, is wrong.]

Now stating that he doesn't know if the rest of the graph is correct, but the bottom portion of Dr. Hayes' side graph, in the vicinity of where the dropped line is incorrect.

Now showing another slide of Dr. Hayes: Fall Biomechanics: Results.

Showing the cross section of the pie/line slices B, C, D, E & F.  These are all sections that end up in the inlet of the water.

A juror yawns. Another juror tries to keep his head up.

These represent fall trajectories. They represent the path as [the body? Lauren? would?] free fall. States that these lines don't all use the same point of departure. They would be beside each other. They also change in space.

Explains what Dr. Hayes chose as a point of departure.  Also explains that each black line on the latest slide, shows different cliff profiles, because there are different profiles at each pie/line slice point.

All of these slides show the bottom of the cliff face extending out, so they are incorrect.

The comparison is what Dr. Hayes is presenting is slip/fall [slip/trip] verses thrown/push.  The green line shows the slip/trip.

Explains that some of the lines show that they penetrate the cliff and that wouldn't happen.

States that there's something missing as far as another arc because nothing could penetrate the cliff. It would follow a new parabolic arc.

If you fell onto the ground and slipped onto the ground, and enough friction and insufficient distance then you would go over the cliff. There are multiple variables as to whether you would go over the cliff if you tripped and these graphs do not show that.

His understanding of what the graphs are showing, is that they don't properly represent what would happen.

If we consider all the departure points, there would be many, many graphs and not just [these?]. [Yes.]

Now more testimony as to what the yellow lines mean.

I think the import thing that this slide depicts, is it's only five slices, a single departure point per slice. There are many, many other possibilities that have not been analyzed.

What is a spread sheet? It's a software program that allows you to put numbers or equations in a cell that relate to other cells, that generate numbers based on equations.  That's what engineers use it for.

Did Dr. Hayes create a spreadsheet showing the formulas or mathematics that led to these lines? Yes. These lines are generated from a graph. the spreadsheet contains the full equation. They show spots in time.  These are created from a spreadsheet, that Dr. Hayes created.

They do not represent everything on the spreadsheet.  Now showing an image of the spreadsheet that Dr. Hayes created.  It's many boxes with numbers in them. And the various computations on the spreadsheet that were not represented on the previous pie slice graphs.

The trip/run [scenarios] are generated in the spreadsheet program but not plotted on the graph [images that were shown to the jury].

What he did was plotted the trip/run on Dr. Hayes' graph, to show where it doesn't fall. He plotted the trip/run on Dr. Hayes previous graphs in blue and overlayed them on Dr. Hayes' graph.

They fall similar to the yellow lines in some of the graph images.

More explanation of the interaction of the yellow and blue lines that I don't understand.

Dr. Siegmund states that his overlay blue lines show, that they would end up in the same end point on the cliff place that Dr. Hayes says she could only have happened if she was thrown.

If we go back to the other graphs that Dr. Hayes showed us here, you're saying that ...[?]? No these are ones that I've redone.

You're saying that the point of departure in these, the yellow lines, is different than the yellow lines in the site experiment? Yes. These start at the same departure line, but [?] lines are above other lines.

If you look at this line, it no longer intersects the cliff face here, because now the yellow, red and blue line have moved back and now are behind. I understand why Dr. Hayes did this, he was attempting to match the point of departure that his associate used, to launch the pelican box.

In Dr. Hayes' experiment, he threw the pelican box, it hit the cliff face and bounced into the water.

In this bottom portion of this line, the blue line, that seems to be going inside the cliff, that portion is an analogy, you would take a point of impact, that blue line and shelf, you would end up with a new parabolic arc? Yes. The pelican box would bounce off the cliff and start a new line into the water.

What I then did was, in Dr. Hayes' hand written notes, there was a graph that was essentially the same as this graph, as that it shows the same cliff profile, the slip trip and throw, you can see these together lines, going back from that original departure point. But on the graph that was in his notes, there is an additional scenario that was in his sheet, a run scenario. The run scenario.

Because the colored lines are difficult to see, I created a colored version of this so we could better see what this would look like. Here is the green and yellow line, from Dr. Hayes' graph. The two lines I want to draw your attention to are the blue line that intersects the shelf here, and a different color blue that starts here at Lauren's center of mass height, that falls along a different trajectory, but arrives on the cliff point but ends at the same point as the pelican box.

This shows that there is another possible explanation [for the results of?] the pelican box throw, that does not involve a throw.

Did you do any of your own work? Yes. The run profile that Dr. Hayes uses, is at the speed of 11.3 feet per second, which is the run of a child of 4 years old. It would be a run on a level surface. We are on a slope surface that is 20 degrees down hill. A child might be able to run, but a 4 year old could reach a run speed of this.

What did you try to do, to approximate the speed using a run slope? I had two twin girls who were a bout Lauren's size, where they threw golf balls down a 20 degree slope. What a child of Lauren's size, would do, approaching a throw.

We had them stand there take a throw. Take a step and throw. Take a few steps and take a throw, and Take several steps and stop at a stick on the ground and take a throw.  The stick represents the edge of the cliff? It represents a point where, beyond the cliff you would slip and fall. It didn't [represent the edge] but as far as you should go.

Keeping in mind that on this slope, there was no cliff there. There was no consequence.  Did anyone give them directions? Yes. My partner was there instructing them to throw golf balls as [far? fast?] as they can.

What I was trying to understand was, how did the girls behave when they were throwing. Did they overstep when throwing. I was trying to find an explanation for Lauren's unintentional fall. One of the possibilities.

Going to see a film of this? Yes.

At times there is a voice that is telling them to run faster? Yes. We were trying to determine possibilities. It was to evaluate the range of possibilities that the girls would undertake in this case with encouragement. Lauren on the cliff may have been encouraged to see where her rocks would have landed.

DDA Hum. Objection! That's complete speculation. Sustained Stricken.

So when the voice is giving direction, that voice is not meant to represent something that happened? Correct. The purpose was to encourage the girls to throw as hard as they can to simulate possibilities.

The video of the girls throwing is played now.

Its a grassy slope. I remember this video from the second trial.

The first throws are simply standing throws. The female adult was the girls mother.

Stops the video to show the "stick" line. It's in line with a level that was held up by the camera bag.

On the video, the man in the video is encouraging the girls to throw real hard.

10:44 AM
I glance over at Sarah as the video plays. I wonder what she is thinking.

To me, from the photos I've seen, the surface of this hill doesn't look anything like the surface of the "horseshoe" area that detectives and law enforcement believe Lauren plunged from. It's more uniform. In the video, to me, there appears to be more grass.

10:52 AM
The video is still playing.  More examples of the girls throwing. The "stick" is now removed, and the girls are told to run as hard as they can and throw as hard as they can.

Dr. Siegmund explains that there is another one where she stumbles as she throws.

10:58 AM
Judge Lomeli calls the morning break.
As the last jurors exit, Brown leans over and with his right hand cupping over his mouth, whispers into the left ear of the private investigator.

11:13 AM
On the breaks, DDA Hum and Detective Leslie often quickly down an energy or power bar.

11:14 AM
The investigator comes over to look at something in the corner of the bailiffs box/desk area. They have a conversation.

11:17 AM 
Brown is brought out.
Off the record, the court and Mr. Laub talk about how much more direct Mr. Laub has.

11;18 AM
The clerk calls for the jurors into the courtroom.

Judge Lomeli tells the jury that this past weekend, it was his bailiffs birthday. The jury yells out to the bailiff, "Happy Birthday!"

After watching the experiment with the girls, what did you get out of that? First to see if the girls stumbled and over stepped. And second what was their speed. He could use that speed in a projectile motion calculation.  How did you measure the speed? The same way that Dr. Hayes did the pelican box.

What speed did you discover the girls were moving? Objection.

What speed did you find the girls were moving at in the instances they were over stepping? There's one where she takes multiple steps over that. 8.2 or 8.9 or an average of 8.55 feet per second.

That's not the same time that Dr. Hayes was using in his trip/run data? Dr. Hayes used 11.3 per second. And that was the running speed of a child on level ground. We used a lower speed of one of the girls after she threw, on the sloped ground. She was not ina full run.

11.3 is the average speed of a child running. [I'm not positive if the per second run speed that Dr. Hayes used was 11.3 or 11.13. I'll have to verify that tomorrow. 5/7 Update: It's 11.3 I'm correcting notes to reflect 11.3 Sprocket.]

After establishing your own speed, for overstepping, what did you do? He used Dr. Hayes' graph and input his own speed overlayed what he got with that over the graphs of Dr. Hayes.

Input 8.55 feet per second over what Dr. Hayes had input of 11.3 feet per second. In these graphs now the blue line falls just to the left of the yellow lines. Now instead of starting below the yellow line and crossing it, it stays just inside the yellow line for the fall trajectory.

Looking at the five boxes up here, is there an example of, where the overstepping with a run of 8.55 ft per second, resulted with an impact with the shelf? In C and D .... they impact with the shelf just a little above where Dr. Hayes says she struck without impacting the upper portion of the cliff.

I miss seeing a young man come in and sitting in the gallery while I was typing.

The data that you found on the spread sheet, included the run/trip math, that was needed to generate you later used as your first blue line? Yes. All the data and graphs I presented were generated, up until this one, the calculations were already in Dr. Hayes' spread sheet.

The only think that I had done, was enter 8.55 feet per second. Otherwise, what I've shown you is from Dr. Hayes' analysis and spread sheet.  He's reviewed Dr. Hayes testimony? Yes I have.

Is there any place in his testimony, where it described the blue trip/run fall? There was no place in his testimony that referenced the run/trip/fall.

He said a slip/trip and run discounted as an explanation [that it].  You found, when run his calculations, did produce a single impact with the cliff shelf.

Now, Dr. Hayes first opinion and conclusion slide. He had six slides with conclusions.

Now will present what he agrees with and what he disagrees with.

Yes. That's his first three conclusions. These are Dr. Hayes second three conclusions.

[I type what I see up on the screen and add in any additional testimony from Dr. Siegmund.]

Now Siegmund has further slides to help explain this.

[I've bolded Dr. Hayes' opinion to separate it from Dr. Siegmund's. Sprocket]

Dr. Hayes First Opinion
Lauren died form a single high speed impact to the cliff face.

Partially agree. Lauren died form a high-speed impact to the cliff face.

But she could have interacted more than once with the cliff Multiple other abrasions on her body prior face or upper chest contact would be masked by a later high speed impact.

Dr. Siegmund explains that the other injuries could be explained by a child who fell prior to then tumbling off the end of the cliff face and striking the shelf further down the cliff face. 

It's impossible to say that she didn't stumble at the top and then the later impact obliterate those injuries.

Lauren had multiple other abrasions on her body, that can be explained by prior cliff action.

In particular Lauren had a facial and chest injury but she also had these shoulder injuries. Those abrasion likely occurred at a different time than the face and chest. could have occurred at cliff interaction at the top, a stumble, and where the impact speeds would be much less. It also could have occurred later on, when Lauren was in the water.

I could not tell where those injuries came from, but I do not think they came at the same time as the chest.

Not saying definitely that's true. It is a possibility. The discussion you just gave us about the multiple other abrasions, your conclusion are another possibility? Yes.

Dr. Hayes Second Opinion.
It's inconsistent with a slip/trip and fall.

I disagree.
Hayes trip run scenario could generate only one impact.
Overstepping a rock throw could generate only one impact.
Closer departure points could generate only one impact.
There are multiple scenarios involving a slip or trip that could have generated only one impact.

Based on the child experiments, overstepping after throwing a rock, could also explain the second impact on the cliff shelf. It's another scenario where a slip or trip or stumble could explain Lauren's impact with the shelf.

I've discussed already that the changing the departure point will change the trajectory.

More explanations.

Disagree a slip/trip and fall scenario are inconsistent. I believe they are consistent. They are one possible explanation.

Dr Hayes' Third Opinion.
Lauren injuries are consistent with being launched at between 10 and 15 feet per sec from point of departure.

Agree. This is one scenario consistent with Lauren's injuries.

But... other scenarios are also consistent with her injuries. Slip, trip, slide, overstepping after throwing a rock...

Other departure points.

The material at the top of Inspiration Point is loose and could cause a slip trip.

You've been to the top of Inspiration Point? Yes.

Dr. Hayes Fourth Opinion.
The fall trajectory that would produce she had an impact is well within the physical capabilities of an adult male.

Agree. [I miss getting the text of the rest of his answer on the screen.]

Dr. Hayes Fifth Opinion.
Slip/Trip scenario would not cause Lauren to fall. Launch scenario would produce all known facts of the case.

Disagree.
Hayes trip/run scenario would produce all known facts of the case.
Over stepping scenario would produce all known facts.
Other departure points would produce all known facts.
Minor contacts at the cliff top from a stumble would produce ... [miss rest of answer on screen.]

Dr. Hayes Sixth Opinion.
Lauren sustained her fatal injury [injuries] by being launched fofceully from the point of departure, impacting the cliff face once, and then landing in the water of the inlet.

I disagree. Throwing Lauren is one possibility consistent with the physical evidence of this case.
The physical evidence does not rule out other possibilities consistent with Lauren's fatal fall.

My conclusions.

Lauren's head injury indicates she struck a hard surface during her fall.
Lauren leg torso and should abrasions are consistent with one or more interactions with the cliff edge and or cliff face.

Possible explanations for Laurens fall include.

-pushed or thrown
-trip or stumble near cliff edge
-sliding on lose soil slope
-overstepping after throwing a rock

These are all possible explanations for Lauren's fatal flaw.

There is no physical evidence to suggest one explanation is more likely than the other.

I cannot discern based on the physical evidence whether she was thrown or fell. There's no physical evidence that proves Lauren was pushed or thrown from the cliff top.

Based on the physical evidence, science and bio-mechanics, [?] cannot be used to conclude whether Lauren's fall was accidental or intentional.

Is this something based on your training and years of experience? Yes. In order to conclude that something happened, we need to exclude all other potential possibilities.

Proving something happened, is proving everything else didn't happen. There are possibilities that we cannot prove.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Dr. Siegmund I have a couple of questions starting off.

You're not telling us that Lauren accidentally fell off? No.

Your not saying that Lauren death is an accident? No.

You're not telling us that Lauren was not thrown from a cliff? No.

You're not telling us that Lauren's injuries are inconsistent with being thrown from a cliff? No.

Dr. Hayes Opinion  #2.
I notice that where you say you disagree, you have four different scenarios.

I don't see in any of these, that ... I don't see where you say that Dr. Hayes could generate one impact?
They don't say that they would generate Lauren's injuries.

If Lauren left running with a leap off the cliff she would impact feet first? She would have to leave the cliff, with no forward rotation.

The defendant's lawyer asked you, if you read Dr. Hayes' testimony? Yes.

[You testified under direct there's no place where Dr. Hayes referenced a [run/ slip-fall as a single impact?]. What I would ask you to do, is look at Dr. Hayes' testimony. Look at the highlighted testimony there. page 5760 line 12.

In fact, in Dr. Hayes testimony he does discuss Lauren running off the cliff as fast as she could? Yes.

[Dr. Hayes testified that] she would land farther, hitting her back and hitting her feet. So on that basis, he ruled that out.

Mr. Laub argues that this is improper impeachment. Judge Lomeli shakes his head.

Laub argues with the court.

Your testimony was that Dr. Hayes said that a run could not produce this simple impact?

Laub very forcefully, or passionately argues his point. He argues that wasn't his witness' testimony.  DDA Hum just as forcefully states it is exactly.

Laub argues with the court again. The court states this is proper cross examination. [The court tells Mr. Laub that he will have the opportunity to redirect.]

The just ... [your?] testimony was the trip run test in that he had in his run sheet, was not on the graphs, and that he did testify that a run could not have.... [miss rest].

DDA Hum: Dr. Hayes did not say that a slip/fall/run would not produce a single impact, what he did say is that they would not produce Lauren's injuries.

I believe Dr. Siegmund did agree with that.

11:58 AM 
The noon break is called.  The court addresses counsel.

Let me say that these speaking objections. The court is not going to tolerate that. It's heated. The court is not going to tolerate that.

But this witness is being asked, Isn't that correct.

It's proper cross examination at this point. You're going to have to bring it down a notch, because it's too heated. The court informs Mr. Laub, like he did in front of the jury, that he would have the opportunity to redirect.

Laub argues with the court as to whether this is proper cross examination. Asking if his witness can ask to explain.

We are now on break. The young man [that I didn't notice come in] sat with the pretty woman in the gallery and they both spoke to the defense investigator.

12:01 PM
Everyone packs up for the noon break.

1:32 PM
Back inside Dept. 107. Brown has not been brought out yet. Judge Lomeli takes the bench.

1:34 PM
Jury enters.

Dr. Siegmund, did you talk with the defendant's lawyer over the lunch hour? Just briefly.  Did you discuss your testimony? No.

The court reporter is now reading the prior testimony that he was asked on direct.

Although using this calculations, the graph did [I can't keep up with the reading that DDA Hum is going over. There is read back by the court reporter.]

DDA Hum has made his point.

Do you agree with me that Dr. Hayes did not say, that running would not produce a single impact? What Dr. Hayes said was that it would not produce the injuries that Lauren sustained. [Yes.]

Dr. Siegmund's CV, is that in fact, your CV? Entered into evidence. Witness agrees that his CV is current as of December 2014.

The name of his firm, MEA, and there are about 60 employees. Their firm is located in Vancouver. They have offices in Los Angeles, Toronto and San Francisco.

Various areas that his firm covers and that they are all divisions of MEA forensics. It also has a marketing department. The marketing department helps to generate work.

They sponsor events, charity events, hockey, to help generate contacts in business? That's correct.

One of the things that you do, is you go and conduct analysis and testify as necessary? Yes. And other people do other things. And he gets paid for his testimony, Yes. You don't testify for free, correct? [Correct.]

Approximately how much to you anticipate making for your work in this case? The prior work in this case was I think, $36,000.00 but we weren't paid that much. And this portion of the case we were allowed to charge $14,400.00 plus travel.

So 50,000.00 without the travel? Except, I don't think we were paid the entire 36,000.00 I think we were paid about $25.000.00 ... US Dollars.

When did you get your Bachelor of Science degree? In 1986. Bachelor of Applied Science.

Is that when you also started with MEA Forensics? Shortly there after. Graduated in May and started in August.

At some point, you went back to school to get your Phd? Yes. Got that in 2001.

Then went back to MEA Forensics that same year? Yes.

He was an adjunct professor. DDA Hum asks if he teaches as an adjunct professor. Some do, I do not. I do not run a course of my own. He steps in for other teachers.

[Question about if he's ever taught a class.] He's never done that. He doesn't have time for that. He consults.

You co-supervise graduate students? Yes.

How many? Currently I have about 4.

[What is the total you've supervised?] He's supervised, it's not many. 10 or 8.

He's never been a salaried professor at a university. Never had appointments at hospitals.

Have you ever taught classes at any hospitals? No.

Now you have that medical training correct? I have taken classes with medical and dental students and those classes are offered by the faculty of medicine. How many? I think it was two or three.

It was part of his Ph.D. program.

Gross anatomy, which is a dissection course, where we dissect cadavers. The second is neuro-anatomy. It's the same thing except focused on the brain. The third was muscle biophysics, how muscles are studied.

How many cadavers did you dissect during your course in gross anatomy? Students are assigned a single cadaver, but exams are on all 50 in the room.

Dr. Siegmund expands. I would have spent time on all 50. The following year, I was asked to help as a TA [teaching assistant] the gross anatomy lab, but I wasn't able to keep that and do all my work as well. I ultimately declined.  How long was that? Eight months.

Dr. Siegmund worked as a TA less than a month.

Have you ever done any autopsies? No.

Not a medical doctor? No.

Not a forensic pathologist? Correct.

You talked a little bit about the materials you reviewed for this case, other than Dr. Hayes testimony, Have you reviewed any additional material, from the time you testified previously until the time you testified in this case? The only additional material recall reviewing was my prior testimony.

He testified in 2009 correct? Yes.

So you had reviewed [an] amount of material prior in 2009, and that was Dr. Hayes testimony in 2009, and subsequent testimony from Dr. Hayes in this trial.

Did you review the testimony of Dr. Chinwah who conducted the autopsy? No.

Are you aware that Dr. Chinwah had performed over 8,000 autopsies? No.

Are you aware that of those autopsies Dr. Chinwah testified somewhere between 100 to 200 those autopsies involved falls from heights? I recall a number like that.

You remember that from me questioning you previously? Correct.

Dr. Siegumnd, would it be accurate to say, your firm's focus is in traffic collisions and slip and fall from a standing height? Yes. And more recently football injuries.... concussion injuries.

[The witness is asked if that's soccer or American football]. American football.

The cases on which you have done work, would those be primarily civil or criminal cases? Many more civil than criminal. How many criminal [cases] have you testified in the US? Believe this may be the only criminal case in the US that he's testified to.

Now, you do have a in your CV a number of peer review publications? Yes. How many of those involve falls from great heights? None.

Research actives in your CV, how many of those involve falls from great height? None. Investigated falls from standing heights.

You've written a book correct? Yes. And additional chapters in other books? Yes.

Did the book involve falls? No. And [I] wrote three or four book chapters. Do any of those involve falls? No.

He's not testified in cases that involve falls from cliffs. They were step stools or ladders. Of approximately 3,500 cases he's handled, this is the highest fall. The fall equations are the same ones we use for bicycle impact.

The physics are the same, the physics don't change? Generally not.

When we're talking about fall, we're talking about a movement from one point to a lower point. [Yes.]

Dr. Siegmund, you were first contacted about this case in 2004? I have April 5th, 2004.

In 2004, did you actually go to Inspiration Point? Or did you just review materials? I went to Inspiration Point and [?].

Did you take photos back in 2004? Yes.

The photo you had in your PowerPoint, you remember when that photo was taken? Yes. I need to look in my computer. Jan 28, 2009.

So when you were testifying that the topographic map, doesn't comport with the photograph, the photograph was taken in 2009, that was your photograph? [Yes.]

Asks about Dr. Hayes' photos and topographic map and when it was done.

The witness did not use a PowerPoint presentation when he testified in 2009.

When did you prepare this PowerPoint that you used today? Last weekend.

So, eight or nine days ago? Yes the first slide may have been prepared on Wednesday, It wasn't all prepared until Sunday night.

You were first contacted in 2004 but the PowerPoint wasn't put together until two weeks ago? [Yes?]

And you gave the PowerPoint to the defendant's lawyer a week ago Sunday? Yes. Sunday night.

Are you aware that reports and materials that are generated by experts are supposed to be presented to the other side 30 days before trial to the other side? No.

Did the defendant's attorney tell you that? No.

When you provided the PowerPoint to the defendants lawyer on Sunday, did you discuss the PowerPoint with the defendant's lawyer? Yes.

Was that the first time you talked to the defendant's lawyer? Sunday.

Was the defense investigator Mr. Ross, was he there was well? Yes.

Did you suggest to the defendants lawyer any areas of inquiry that he might want to ask of you? [Miss answer]

Did you go over questions he might want to ask you? Informally yes, not formally, no.

Did you discuss any, [in?] any way, with the defendant's lawyer, questions that he might want to ask you? I showed him the presentation, and that would naturally suggest questions, yes.

Did you discuss any questions with regard to that PowerPoint, other than what are we looking at? I imagine, yes.

Now you also reviewed a report generated by Dr. Hayes? Yes. There was also a supplemental report as well? Yes.

Showing the reports to Dr. Siegmund. People's 92.

Primary report by Dr. Hayes. Yes he reviewed this.

And this report details Dr. Hayes qualifications, what he reviewed, what he did, calculations he made, findings and conclusions? [Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.]

And also reviewed Dr. Chinwah's autopsy report? Yes.
What he did and what he found? His observations, yes.

The injuries that he found significant? Yes.
Also reviewed the photos taken at the autopsy correct? Yes.
And also reviewed the diagrams? Yes.

In addition to Dr. Hayes report and the supplemental report which you said you also reviewed, correct? Yes.

And also reviewed supplemental material that was provided by Dr. Hayes that was not in the report, which is where you got the figures and the black and white diagram? Yes.

So all that was provided to you from Dr. Hayes? Yes. And it's your understanding that was generated by Dr. Hayes? Either Dr. Hayes or one of his associates.

Did you prepare a report similar to the report by Dr. Hayes, detailing your qualifications, what you did, your findings and conclusions? No.

Now, obviously you had the opportunity to review Dr. Hayes report? Yes.

And you would correct me if I' wrong, you would presume, that if you gave me a report, I would give that to Dr. Hayes and have him review it? [Yes.]

And had you been asked by the defense to prepare a report, you would have done that? Yes.

So we can conclude that you were not asked by the defense to prepare a report? Yes.

Now Dr. Siegmund. I think, one of the things you testified about this morning, Lauren could have suffered multiple impacts with the cliff, and one impact could have been masked by a second impact? Yes. You might be able to drop an apple and it gets a bruise, and if you drop it again, you might not be able to tell, it could land on the same spot.

In reviewing Dr. Hayes testimony, Dr. Hayes reviewed at least the same amount of material that you did. I believe so.

So Dr. Hayes may have looked at more? Yes.

I recall on that one of your slides, you [criticized? used one of?] Dr. Hayes slides of Dr. Hayes of the autopsy injuries and that you added some of your own? [Yes.]

You know that Dr. Hayes did not include the injuries that he when he testified, that he did not consider significant.

Did you know about testimony where a witness testified that he saw Lauren crawling on her hands and knees on a rocky trail? Wasn't aware of that.

Are you aware of Dr. Chinwah has seen injuries that involve falls from a great height that involve slipping and sliding. No, I didn't read Dr. Chinwah's testimony.

Well, from any source. Did the defense attorney tell you that Dr. Chinwah is familiar with injuries from great heights of slipping and falling? No.

Would you agree, that Dr. Chinwah, having performed this number of autopsies, ... [?] ?

I don't know what Dr. Chinwah has observed or the nature of the injuries whether they were inconsequential, I don't think that I can answer.

Are you saying you have the same familiarity as Dr. Chinwah does with falls from great heights? No.

Are you aware that Dr. Chinwah testified, that he would have seen more numerous scrapes and lacerations if she had slipped and fallen from a great height? No, not that specifically.

You know that Dr. Hayes testified, that he would have expected to have seen greater injuries specifically abrasions and lacerations.  I thought that was confined to his slip/trip on one of the maps.

Were you aware that Dr. Chinwah had discussed his conclusions about [this case]? I only know that from the question you asked me last time.

Anothe question about what Dr. Chinwah said. He testified that if Lauren had actually fallen, he would have expected more lacerations and abrasions, and if Dr. Chinwah had discussed those conclusions and with Dr. Lakshmana, and if Dr. Hayes, said that if Lauren had fallen from a great height, he would expect to see more lacerations and abrasions on Lauren's body, would that change your opinion? No.

Question as to if he knew that Dr. Chinwah had inspected Laurens clothing [missanswer]

Question as it if he inspected Lauren's clothing. [No.]

Are you aware that Dr. Chinwah testified that Lauren, under his opinion, that Lauren died from an asissted drop, and... [?]?

He read that, from the prior statement in the autopsy report that that was limited to the major injuries.

So Dr. Chinwah said, basically what Dr. Hayes said? Yes.

Now you testified that in order to draw a conclusion with regard to what happened, you would have to eliminate all other possibilities? Yes.

That Dr. Hayes in his slide, used limited points of departure? Yes.

And Dr. Hayes states in his testimony that he analyzed an area 8 ft by 12 ft? Yes.

And that Dr. Hayes stated that it's not necessary to analyze every point within that 8 ft by 12 ft area to draw a conclusion? Yes, but I don't necessarily agree with that.

Well lets talk about that. DDA Hum asks about a throw from 8 feet from the edge and Lauren missed the cliff and went directly into the water, and if you would then also have to test from 4 feet from the edge.

In fact that is what is mean by testing limits of boundaries? For example I give you a tennis ball from the back wall, I wouldn't need to have you stand from where I'm standing to see if you could hit the back wall? Well, that only takes into account ....

Now another question about throwing a bowling ball against the back wall.

So we do not need to analyze every point within this 8 foot area? That's correct. but if the scope within an engineering analysis, .... [miss rest of answer]

Would you say, there is a limited area, where someone could leave Inspiration Point and there is a limited area where they could end up in the inlet to the east? Yes.

Brown leans in to speak to his investigator. They have a conversation.

You did talk about Dr. Hayes of grasp of projectile motion. And about the black lines that you don't go inside the cliff. Didn't Dr. Hayes only testify that the lines only represented what would happen when Lauren first interacted with the cliff and everything else wasn't representative as to what would happen? [Yes.]

Has Dr. Siegmund read prior of Dr. Hayes testimony.

And he never said that her body would go into the cliff. [Yes.] And he's not suggesting that he was trying to tell us that he would be saying that she would be inside the cliff were you? I was not.

You did talk about the fact that in the materials that Dr. Hayes provided you indirectly, there was a scenario that if Lauren was running at 11.3 ft per second she would have a single impact with the cliff? Yes.

Did the defendant ever anyone that Lauren was running as fast as she could, and ran right off the cliff? No, I think he looked away.

No where in any of the reports, is there anywhere, that Lauren was running as fast as she could off the cliff? Not that I'm aware.

And, there's just one other area I want to talk about with you, and that's this video of the girls throwing golf balls.

In [your testimony, you testified that, you had two girls that were approximately Lauren's height and weight. They were Riley and Hunter? Correct. Both were a little taller and one a little lighter and one a little heavier. And they were 6 years old.

Lauren was 4 years, 2 months and 10 days. You put your [someone from your] department put a stick on the slope, correct? Yes. And the girls were instructed not to go past the stick? Correct.

The consequences of going past the stick, is not that they fell 120 feet to their death? Correct.

So the consequences for Lauren would have been significantly greater? Correct.

Out of the 44 trials, they went past the stick area, twice? Right.

And at one point, your partner had taken the stick away? Yes. We had removed the boundary.

Is your testimony, is that a four year old would not know what the edge of a cliff was like? I would not know [what a four year old would/wouldn't know?].

The stick that was there, there was one situation where someone went past the stick? [Miss answer.] One where they went past when they were told not to go past? Yes.

In addition to that, we could hear your partner encouraging them to take a big run and throw, go really fast up to the twig. Run really fast. Stop really close to the twig. We could hear that from the video? Yes. all of those were possibilities.

There were 26 times, where your partner encouraged [the girls] to run faster, get closer to the twig, take bigger steps? I didn't count them, but I think they did them for most of the trials where they were not standing still.

Do you have nay information that when Lauren was on the top of the cliff, [Lauren took a] big run and big throw? I don't have any information.

[Another question as to whether or not Brown said that to Lauren.] No I don't have any information that anyone said that to Lauren.

There's nothing that Lauren was encouraged to run as fast as she could and throw as far as she could? Not that he knows of.

Nothing further.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

The prosecution asked you a number of questions and number of points about Dr. Hayes and whether or not Dr. Yayes had [testified?] to Lauren running. Do you recall this portion of cross? Yes.

And the prosecution has placed this in the context of Lauren running full spedd off the cliff. [Do you] recall that? Yes.

When you looked at Dr. Hayes spread sheet, was there a label that Dr. Hayes had applied, that said running full speed off the cliff? No. ... The one area we focused on, was something labeled, run/trip or trip/run.

The question, you were cross examined on, your testimony had denied that Dr. Hayes, the question was asked on direct was regarding trip run? We were discussing that part of the analysis, yes.

So when you responded with the answer that the prosecutor sought from the record, and you said the run, without including the word, trip, were you referring to something different than the question that was? The question I was asked us as if the question I was posed, a trip ... a trip would catch the feet.

The witness gets confused on which question he was just asked about by Mr. Laub.

In repsonse to your question I had in mind we were dealing with the trip run scenario. So there's no significance that in your use of the word run, rather than the word trip, that you were actually speaking of something to running... Object to question. Leading.

I was referring to the trip/run, and if I just said run I apologize.

You were also cross examined whether the wording used by Dr. Hayes and his research, a single impact vs producing injuries? You recall? Yes.

Is it correct from you review of all the materials in this case including Dr. Hayes work, that when Dr. Hayes is referring to a single impact, he's referring to the injuries int he autopsy report? Yes.

You were also asked a number of questions of how much of an academic you really are? Do you recall this question? Yes.

As you sit here testifying for the jury, are you saying you are someone who is a nationally recognized academic? No. Is it what your are of [experience? experts?] ...? Objection. Leading.

If your expertise is not academia, what is it? My area is applying the knowledge in real world application.

Now questions regarding medicine, over how many years he has worked as a conslutant? 29. And 3500 consultations? Cases.

Was part of your task was to learn about injuries and how they relate to biomechaincies. Certainly since 2001, My focus was what causes inures. I'm not a medical doctor as to how to treat injuries.

[You] had to study a wide variety of injuries and a wide variety of causes ?Yes. Yes.

And this case for you, outside your experience? Skull fractures, neck injuries, not to belittle but are the bread and butter [of his business/practice] ... what kind of force, that could cause these injuries.

Questions about work before, falling from a great height. Yes. The bio mechanics, is it necessary to have experience of reviewing great falls .... [in order to determine?] ... ? The great height simply changes the impact speed, with the cliff face, or in this case, the shelf. ...Mostly what I've studied have been lower impact. The speed of this case is what we more see in auto accident impacts. The principals are fundamentally the same. The exposure is greater than the falls that we've seen but not out of the range of car crashes.

A standing height fall can cause a skull fracture. The additional height we see here considerably causes a skull fracture.... but not ... [miss rest of answer].

Laub asks questions about [how] the bio-mechanics doesn't change and what you have to do is plug in a formula? Objection. Leading.

[I believe a rephrased question.] The witness states the physics are the same. As you get into higher and higher speeds, the equation breaks down because you have to get into air resistance. But as you get into that you can [work out?] the air resistance into mass.

Now questions about how he was asked about Dr. Chinwah's report. Asks him to look at the end of Dr. Chinwah's report. One of the things you also reviewed was his statement.

DDA Hum objects on hearsay grounds. Sidebar.

The jury relaxes and stretches and chats among each other during the sidebar.

Judge asks the jury if they are hot. The jury says yes.

Mr. Laub is back to questioning.

2:55 PM
You were further questioned again under cross about the issue of 11.3 ft per second that appeared in Dr. Hayes' spread sheet? Do you recall? Yes.

This was presented to you as running straight off the cliff? Yes.

Was that tied in that spread sheet to, running straight ahead off the cliff? Objection this has been asked and answered.

The 11.3 feet was tied to the trip/run.

Is there any evidence that you are aware of that Lauren understood that what would happen if Lauren went past a certain point? There is no evidence.

You were also cross examined ...  I should also clarify that last point.... but I don't thin he finishes this.

Questions on cross about partner encouraged the girls ran faster and throw harder.

What was the point? The point was to explore possibilities. These are things of Lauren's height and weight would do. The girls were encouraged to throw.

I'm going to object this is speculation. As to this is what someone what Lauren would do. [I believe this objection is sustained.]

Was the point of what you were doing, to try to show what in fact Lauren did, or was it to show there are possibilities that were reasonable as to what happened? It was the latter. I was exploring reasonable possibilities.

Redirect ends and recross begins

Is is your testimony Dr. Siegmond that is the reason ... possible that at the top of Inspiration Point, that the defendant was saying to Lauren, run as fast as you can run as close as you can to the edge, is that a reasonable possibility to you?

Its' possible. I'm not a judge of what's reasonable.

To you that's a reasonable possibility? I don't know what was said betwen Mr. Brown.
I know...

I believe there are more questions about what's reasonable for Lauren at the top of the cliff.

The utterance, but the reasonable possibilities, was the [speed?] of getting close to the edge.

It wasn't trying to replicate what Mr. Brown might have been saying? Objection leading.

Judge, I think he's testified to that.

Judge asks the witness, what was the point of your partner, in asking all those statements of the girls?

What were the possibilities, what would children would do, [what might happen] if they were to throw a rock.

Recross is finished and the witness is excused.

2:58 PM
Judge Lomeli calls the afternoon break.

3:22 PM
Jury files in.

Call the next witness.

JAN MUELLER

What was your occupation 1999 to 2000. I was a court mediator for Orange county Superior Court. I helped parents with custody issues come to some kind of agreement.  She has a masters in psychology. At the time, [to qualify for this work] she had to have five years past graduate experience. Also required to have continuing education.

When did you start working for the court? August 1990.   Family court? Yes. About how many? Currently done about 10,000 meditations.

She is employed by the court.

Met Mr. Brown? Yes. Met the mother, Sarah Key-Marer? Yes.

First mediation January 3, 2000. Before that, did you look and see that they had met another court mediator? Yes. Once before.

When you meet with parents, do you have an initial explanation about the mediation process? Yes. I tell them that the process is confidential. I don't tell the what should happen. That I don't tell the court what happens, except if there is a safety issue, regarding the parents.

And when you met Mr. Brown and Ms. Marer, did you explain this to them? Yes.

On January 2000, did you try to help these two parents about visitation? They reached a temporary agreement. That was to hold for how long? If made into a court order it can be held for so long, they were to see me in February.

In Feb did they also reach an agreement? They reached a temporary agreement. Did that include overnights with her father? Yes it did.

Did the parents at some point, the parents express that their relationship had [broken down]?

June 2000, learned Mr. Brown believed that the mother was physically abusive to Lauren and they weren't communicating well. Mr. Brown would sometimes not speak with Ms Marer and the relationship had deteriorated.

Other than that, she had telephone contact with both parents separately.  That's when she spoke with the parents.

She had an note from Sarah and she believe she spoke to her.

In these phone calls, would they complain about the other? Mr. Brown was making allegations Sarah was physically abusive to Sarah, and each of them talking negatively about them and to other relatives.

So Mr. Brown thought Sarah was talking negatively about him and Sarah thought he was talking negatively about her? That's correct.

So at the June 22nd meeting, realizing that you had tow parents that were not working well together, what did you decide to do? I met wit them individually to start with and just to find out what was going on.

Did you decide that it would be good to have a 730 evaluation? After the June 22 meeting? Yes.

Explains the 730 evaluation. A psychologist interviews the child, interviews the child with both parents, sees the parents separately, they do psychological testing, and the result is sent to both parties and the court.

The goal is to have recommendations made for custody and visitation.

Are you what is called a mandated reporter? Yes.

I am required by law, to make a child abuse report, if there are allegations of abuse.  A 730 evaluation, is that something that is mandatory or is that something that is discretionary to you? I don't understand your question.

Is a 730 evaluation different or part of the mandatory reporter. [That is not a part of being a mandatory reporter.]

Did you make any kind of report in this case? Yes, I made a report to social services. I did do a consultation with social services to see if it was a report that they wanted to make.

Did Mr. Brown ask you to make this report? Not that I recall.

One of the things that Mr. Brown had photos of bruises on Lauren's legs? Yes that's one of the things. she never saw the photos but that was one of the things that she was made aware of.

I don't know if I talked about forming a relationship, one of the things that...

I had some concerns that he was not very understanding about child development issues.  The child was young, so it was environmentally developmental for the child to be uncomfortable being away from the mother. He didn't understand why she didn't just want to be with him.

Did he ever say or do anything that indicated he didn't want to be with Lauren? No.

Did he want more visitation with Lauren? Objection. Foundation.

He wanted more visitation? Yes.

What is it that he expressed that he stated he wanted? That he wanted to have more additional time.

In your evaluation of his demeanor, did he appear to have strong interest in developing an interest in Lauren? Objection. Sustained.

Did he talk with you about Lauren? Yes.

Did Mr. Brown in his words, your perspective, did he show a strong interest in developing  an interest in Lauren? He appeared to be interested, yes.

Did you have any concerns about him visiting Lauren? No.

In regards to Mr. Brown's expectations of Lauren, the lack of awareness of Lauren's developmental stage and her relationship with her mother, when you talked with Mr. Brown about this, did he make any improvement? Yes. I think he did.

Asks about a note from Lauren's mother. [The] note said, that she wanted to reschedule the next mediation immediately, because Cameron was getting aggressive, if she didn't have Lauren adopted in 30 days, or that it was going to get ugly.  Did Mr. Brown say anything to you, that he wanted to have Lauren adopted? No.

Did Mr. Brown ever say it was financial burden? We didn't discuss finances.

Did he express Love for Lauren? Define Love. Mr. Laub moves on.

He was calm to angry. Would he have at times a muted affect? Sometimes.

[Another question about Brown's demeanor in mediation.] I expect people to be very emotional in mediation so I would say no.

Did he ever say he desired to have full custody of Lauren? Yes.

At some point, you were interviewed by Detective Leslie? Yes.

Did you tell Detective Leslie, that Brown wanted to form a relationship with Lauren? Yes.

And you told him that Mr. Brown's interest was growing stronger the longer he spent with Lauren? I don't recall that.

Did you say that Mr. Browns emotional ... okay I'll move on.

Did you tell Detective Leslie, you felt that Mr. Brown loved Lauren? I don't recall that.

Regarding difficulties you'd seen with Mr. Brown in your office, that he had problems compartmentalizing his relationships? What did you mean by that? He would put his relationships in separate areas and put that by the side. So when he would get angry he would just close off.

Did you tell Detective Leslie, that he was black and white in his thinking? Yes.

And that he had frustration issues? Yes, I did.

A juror's phone goes off.

Luab looks through his notes.

Direct ends and cross begins.

A few questions, you actually met with the defendant and Sarah on two occasions. and the third [meeting] separately? Correct.

In reviewing the file, there was a mediation prior to you on Jan 3 there was one before that? Yes.

That was on Oct 2 1999? Yes. And there was one prior to that where the defendant didn't actually show up? Yes. The date she doesn't remember.

There was a mediation scheduled on September 14, 1999, where Sarah showed up and waited 15 minutes and the defendant didn't show up? That's correct.

Back at that time, there's an orientation that they go through, with someone else, that would last about 15 minutes and they would get a pamphlet at that same time. 

DDA Hum goes over the pamphlet, and that it states that allegations of child abuse are reported to the court.

If you can mediate an agreement between the parties, then that actual agreement becomes a court order? Yes.

On Jan 3rd, they agreed to a graduated visitation schedule, and that was stamped as a court order? I don't know if they went to court [for that] but I assume they did.

Next saw [them both] on February 29, 2000.  Which transitioned from supervised to unsupervised visits? Yes.

Sarah thought the relationship was improving but the defendant thought it was staying the same? Correct.

There were phone calls prior to the June 22 meeting.

In June, Sarah, ... at that 22nd meeting, it was the same time that Brown made the allegation of child abuse.

At that meeting she learned that Brown was refusing to speak to Sarah, and she suggested that [the parents] use a notepad that Lauren could take back and forth.

Did Sarah indicate to you, that Lauren was saying things about distancing herself from Greg and Josh.? Yes. And that Lauren was saying things that Sarah was a bad mom? Yes.

[About Brown's allegations of Sarah abusing Lauren] He didn't just say that Brown was concerned about bruises on her legs, but that the defendant also said that Sarah had kicked her? Yes. And that Sarah had also grabbed Laurens face? Yes.

Did you believe those allegations Ms. Mueller? No I did not.

Did you tell Sarah that the defendant made those allegations? Yes. Did you, when the defendant make these allegations [did you tell the defendant] that there might be alternate explanations but he refused to believe that? I don't recall that.

Did you tell the detectives that you made suggestions to the defendant that there might be other explanations for the bruises? I don't recall that? Well if you did, would it be true? Yes.

She recommended the 730 report, because she had concerns about the defendant's psychological [?] emotional make up/stability.

She's not really there to diagnose, she's there to help work out a visitation plan.

She never saw Brown with Lauren together.

You were worried about his emotional stability? You knew he had issues with his mother? He didn't talk about it.

More questions about Brown and that he didn't want the child to spend time with his mother.

Noticed this anger and frustration when he talked about his mother? She doesn't recall. So DDA Hum will present her with her previous testimony.

DDA Hum goes over her prior testimony. Did the defendant in fact tell you he had issues with his mother? He said that he didn't want Lauren to see his mother.  Did he in fact say that she was a bad person? Yes.

Did the defendant tell you that his mother was an evil person? I believe so.  Do you remember giving those answers? I believe so.

From the mediation, because part of what you were trying to do was arrange a schedule, you knew how much time the defendant was spending with Lauren? Yes.

And that the defendant had filed a claim of 50% visitation? Yes. And the defendant never came close to 50% visitation? No he did not have 50% visitation.

You told the detectives to look at the court file? .... The court file was public record, but I don't recall telling them that.  I said they could go look at it.

I'm not there to diagnose. I had concerns about the stability and the behavior that I saw.

Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers?

Reads prior testimony.

Did you have concerns about psychological issues on part of the defendant ? Yes.

You had concerns about emotional issues on the part of the defendant? Yes.

And prior, you testified about... I miss this DDA Hum is reading too fast.

Going to recess.

4:01 PM
The court releases the jury. The witness will be back tomorrow to finish her testimony.
 

UPDATE 5.8 2:20 PM final edit for spelling, readability and accuracy.
UPDATE 5/6 6:15 AMedited some of Dr. Booker's testimony for spelling, readability, accuracy.
UPDATE 12:45 PMedited some of Lynn Brown's testimony for spelling, readability, accuracy.
Tuesday May 5, 2015
Schedule
After several stops, I finally get a seat on the train so I can type.

Today will be a short by at least an hour. The Superior Court has requested that the building be completely empty by 3:00 PM because of the street closures celebrations that are scheduled in downtown for Cinco de Mayo.

Trial Notes
I do not have yesterday’s entry fully edited. I will try to work on this entry during lunch.

Today, we will finish with Jan Mueller. I do not know the rest of the defense witnesses, However, I believe we will have the prior testimony of Brown’s mother read into the record. I will do my best but this type of testimony is difficult to keep up with, since there are no pauses or hesitations in questions and answers, like what you get in a live witness.


9:22 AM
When I get inside the courtroom, DDA Hum and Mr. Laub and the court are arguing about what parts of Lynn Brown's prior testimony can be admitted into this trial. The court is deciding on the objections.

9:24 AM
Sarah and her friend arrive.

DDA Hum also states there is proposed testimony of the defense investigator. Mr. Laub states that he is going to rest today. The court asks if his investigator is going to testify on the entirety of his report. Mr. Laub states that he is. 

9:29 AM
Judge Lomeli leaves the bench.

9:36 AM
The witness Jan Mueller takes the stand but we are waiting for one juror.  Judge Lomeli comments that they've never been late before.

While they are waiting, DDA Hum suggests that he and Mr. Laub go over the defense investigator's testimony. This is not the current investigator, but one that was on the case in 2009-2010.

Mr. Laub is to call Mr. Royce to testify when he interviewed Mr. Poingsett, he never reported what Brown said to his superiors and he wasn't contacted by police. DDA Hum gives the explanations that Poingsett gave to police why he didn't initially come forward. He heard Brown was arrested and that he wasn't getting out. [He felt they didn't need his testimony.] When investigators came to speak to him, he also feared for his life. [I'm not sure I have that correct.] DDA Hum states that he did testify under cross that he never used the words murder, kill [etc.,  more words].  The court reporter will verify that. If that's the case, then I believe Mr. Laub agrees he does not need to call this witness.

9:47 AM
Jury files in.

Judge asks the jurors who it was that was late. There is a pleasant conversation as to who it was.

JAN MUELLER
One page letter failure to appear to be marked People's 143. Defendant did not show up for scheduled mediation on September 14, 1999.

Question about her question she wanted to ask DDA Hum from yesterday.

Cross ends and redirect examination begins.

When you were testifying yesterday, you had concerns about Mr. Brown's emotional stability, was that something that came from your observations in the meetings? Yes, it was.

Was that based on Mr. Brown's allegations of child abuse of the mother that you didn't believe? No, I had concerns before that.

Did it have to do with frustration? Frustration and anger.

And you felt his frustration and anger.... ? It's not unusual for parties to be very emotional, but I would say that he was more distrustful and angry than usual. It seemed like he was mistrustful of the process. ... But I still had some concerns about those issues. [Brown was better in the second session.]

There were some issues that had come up about wanting to take Lauren on his boat, and why that wasn't a good idea for a 3 year old and not having a life jacket, and some issues like that.

Since, I've sent you your testimony from 2006 and a report with Detective Leslie. Did you review? Yes I did.

Whether you had felt Mr. Brown from your observations from him, where he had actually loved Lauren Yes. Reading the prior testimony, ...  Laub asks the question again. Objection. Sustained.

Laub now asks a more detailed question. Objection. Sustained.

Is it part of your job to determine that [there is love between a parent and child?] I don't believe so.

Did Mr. Brown expressed himself passionately about spending time with Lauren. I know that word has been used before, but not how I would [identify].

Did he express that he wanted to spend more time with Lauren? Yes.

Did he, in his face and demeanor, when he said he wanted to spend more time with Lauren, how would you characterize it? That he wanted to spend more time with Lauren.

Another question about how Brown appeared [regarding seeing Lauren]. He seemed engaged. He seemed excited.

Another question about the finances. We don't discuss finances in mediation.

No redirect but Mr. Laub has another question.

Laub corrects that she isn't a psychologist.

The witness is excused.

Dr. Booker is the next defense witness.

KEVIN BOOKER
Tall black man, a trauma specialist. Gives his training as a trauma specialist in brain behavior.

Currently owns a practice in the South Bay area. Worked for the past ten years in evaluation PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] in veterans. Is asked to describe what PTSD is. Psychiatric conditions a person experiencing a life threatening event. Also experienced in assesses malingering.  Malingering is, a phenomenon when individuals intentionally seek to feign or misrepresent themselves in relation to clinical data.  He is an expert on the court's panel.

At the VA medical center. Member of the medical staff in psychiatry. I am part of the professional standards board, reviewing members of the clinical staff, more CV.

Doctorate in applied adults clinical psychology in brain behavior relationships. Has post doctorate training, in adult trauma related behavior. Construct of brain behavior relationships on how the brain functions.

More of his CV, he teaches at Irvine. Has several peer review publications. Multiple conference presentations.

In this case, I contacted you and asked you to review materials? Yes that is correct.

I reviewed a 911 audio recording, a written transcript for Nov 8, 2000. Reviewed a LA County incident report dated 11/8/2000. Also reviewed two LA county sheriff's supplemental reports dated 11/8/2000.

In sending you these materials, I posed to you, if you saw anything in Mr. Brown that is consistent with trauma or shock.  Did you come to an opinion. Yes. My opinion is, after having reviewed those materials, the behavior exhibited by Mr. Brown is consistent with behavior we recognize as shock, secondary to trauma.

What did you see in Mr. Brown's actions that was consistent with shock related to trauma? There is not traumatic one on one relation. With respect to what I reviewed, specifically, the behavior htat Mr. Brown exhibited, with example asking about the results of the election, would be comparable  to post traumatic shock.

Mr. Brown's affect, and lack of apparent emotions, would that be considered [?]? Yes. the absence of any overt emotion or behavior, that would be consistent with psychological shock. Without any overt emotion.

Miss next question.

Those two poles, overt hysteria, and or they may exhibit no emotion? They may have a complete flat affect. Appear emotionless. Seem as if they were in a daze, so yes.  Would the reporting of what happened in the trauma, would the reporting of what happened in the trauma, what happened to Lauren, variations would that be consistent with shock?

I mean the details of content. yes. We recognize that one of the key components of shock is that they have a very difficult time remembering details. Amnesia.

When you say amnesia, it sounds as if someone has a total blank. How about a person who is given the report, is giving [the details] again, the details vary. Is that consistent or inconsistent. That is consistent with shock following trauma.

What can happen is that details of the traumatic even in how they are encoded in the brain, they are in bits and pieces, so they don't have a full picture, immediately, those memories become more integrated [verses?] disintegrated.

So what may appear to be bizarre behavior ... Mr. Brown took off some of his clothes when he dived in to remove Lauren from the water, ...[Mr. Laub details the 'learned on Baywatch  explanation], is the expression of strange thoughts and thinking along these lines,  .... consistent?

I would characterize it as uncharacteristic behavior [and] is consistent with someone who is experiencing psychological shock. some people are detached between what's happening and reality.  They may behave in unconventional ways so to say.

Did you listen to the 911? That's correct.

And listen to the tone and ways that Mr. Brown expressed himself? Yes.

And he was telling people at the nude beach to put their clothes on and his manner of speaking, ...?

It would be consistent with a person in shock. There's something that we call an inappropriate affect. It's how someone appears emotionally or physically. There's no one to one correlation, but it is consistent with someone that has experienced psychological shock.

And [you] read statements of officers at the scene had been with Mr. Brown and spoke with Mr. Brown? That is correct.

After looking through everything, is there anything that stood out for you, as being inconsistent with a person who is in shock. No there is nothing, that reflects malingering.

Am I correct in understanding that [it] flagged for you the concern that Mr. Brown may have been facing shock? Yes. That is correct.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Dr. Booker, malingering, you actually test for malingering? Yes I do.

There are tests that are set up, you can test for it? That's correct, yes.

So it's not reading a couple police reports, you actually test? That's correct.

In this case, you read reports? That's correct.

On Nov 8, 2000, you were no where near Inspiration Point? That's correct.

And you were not present during the interview of November 9, 2000? I was not.

What your basing your testimony on, are a few written reports of reported observations of officers as well as the 911 call? That's correct.

You didn't read any of the transcripts of the testimony in this case? No I did not.

When were you first contacted? Oh maybe a month ago.

And when did you receive the material that you reviewed? Shortly there after.

You read some supplemental reports dated 11/8/2000, or they related to events that occurred on 11/8/2000? They related to events on that date.

You mentioned, something called, [depersonalization] /derealization? That's correct.

Obviously [you are] as a physiologist? Yes.

[I believe Dr. Booker is asked to explain the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist.]

Psychologist's are trained at doctoral level in appraising human behavior without prescription privledges and not in a school of medicine.

Psychiatrist is a medical doctor? That's correct.

He is familiar with the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual].

There was revision called the DSM-5? Yes.

In the DSM-5, there actually a mental disorder called, depersonalization/derealization? Yes. That's one of the new classifications.  They extracted them from acute stress.

They made them one because it was two before? We could go with that.

[DDA Hum asks him to be exact.] They were a larger construct of acute stress. Now they can be stand alone conditions.

And there is criteria for diagnosing depersonalization/ derealization disorder? Yes.

Was the behavior reported in the police report, enough to diagnose depersonalization/derealization diagnosis? I would say no.

You [are] on the Superior Court's Board? [I'm not sure if I have this question correct. DDA Hum may be referencing the approved list of professional experts on the Superior Court.] Yes, on the panel.

How many times have you testified for traumatic shock? Five times.

Testified in court five times, Traumatic stress disorder.

That's different from traumatic shock? Yes.

First time testifying on traumatic shock? That's not correct.

The disorder of traumatic stress disorder is a disorder. ... Traumatic ... PTSD is a disorder. ... Shock really is, a syndrome that is in reference [to that disorder?].

You're not testify that these symptoms in these police reports, is significant to diagnose someone with PTSD? I'm not making that diagnosis, correct.

And the five times that you testified in Superior Court, how many times has that been for the defense? Every time it's been for the defense.

There are a number of, behaviors that could be consistent with someone who is suffering from derealization/ depersonalization, in addition to the ones reported in the police report? Yes.

[DDA Hum appears to read from a list of symptoms. I don't get them all.]

Dizzy, light headed, being an observer, feeling that head is wrapped in cotton, or that legs and arms are longer or shorter, feeling like living in a movie? Feeling ... [miss reading]?  That's correct.

That there is distortion of perception of time, distortion of distance and size and shape of objects? Correct.

Isn't it also true that according to the DSM-5 criteria depersonalization/ derealization is very rare in someone older? Yes. That's part of the new definition.

You would agree, that not everyone who experiences a traumatic event is in shock? That is correct.

You did however, state that, certainly someone who is acting hysterically, that someone is someone who is experiencing shock? That's correct.

Essentially, it would appear, anyone no matter how they appear, could be experiencing shock? That's correct.

[Miss question.] I would say that its specific and predicated on the behavior they are experiencing.

Specifically, High emotion or no emotion.

Now,  it would seem obvious, is behavior of traumatic shock or depersonalization does not cause someone to commit a crime? I would say yes, that is correct.

And, someone who exhibits, symptoms of depersonalization or derealization or PTSD, that is not evidence of any emotional attachment to a victim of a traumatic shock? Ask question again.

That would not be necessarily evidence of attachment, to the victim of an event? That is correct.

DDA Hum gives an example of a bomb going off [and people being upset and not knowing the people injured].

Behavior of someone who exhibits behavior or little emotion, is not necessarily experiencing depersonalization/ derealization, they could just not care? That's correct.

Someone experiences a traumatic event, could experience the same thing? Yes, that's true.

And someone who causes a traumatic event could also be the cause of that event? That is correct.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

Dr. Booker. Why don't we talk about the DSM-5.

That edition replaced the DSM-4? It replaced the DSM-4TR.

And one of the things that came out on cross examination, that what had been a larger diagnosis for acute stress, has now been broken down into independent depersonalization/ derealization order, is that correct?  With this caveat. It's not been the exclusion of PTSD. What's happened is, depersonalization and derealization, according to some research groups, deserved greater attention as stand alone disorders.

Within the psychatiatric community there's been criticism for creating what is now a greater multitude of greater disorders, because it plays into the pharmaceutical and medical industries, that now address these [scandalus? issues?].  In some respects I would say that's true.

He did no see or diagnose Mr. Brown? No.

Would it make any sense to diagnose the person he was 15 years ago? No that wouldn't make any sense.

Not making a diagnosis [of Mr. Brown] 15 years ago? No I am not.

Now when asked about the prosecution about disorders, ... [?] ?

It would be an impossibility at this time to diagnose Brown? I agree.

DDA Hum asks that questions not be leading. Laub agrees.

Because coming in at this time, does that limit your professional opinion. Yes it does.  And listening to audio tapes, ti doesn't make it able to make a diagnosis.

I'm rendering a clinical opinion, that behavior at one point in time is consistent with construct of traumatic stress.

The things you observed by others and the things you heard on the tape, exhibit symptoms of a way person could react in a state of shock? The things I heard and reviewed in this case, suggest to me, those things are consistent with the people that we experience post traumatic shock.

Prosecutors have contacted him but he has not been asked to testify. If asked, would you have? Yes.

The witness is excused.

DONALD DeARMAN

The bailiff give a few jurors new notebooks.

Do you know Mr. Brown? Yes.

When did you meet him? Approximately.  Been about 10 12 years ago at the farmer's market in Redondo Beach. ... We do a farm up in Fresno. Still do that.

Met him at the farmer's market? Yes.

Tell us a bit about your interactions with Mr. Brown at the farmer's market? I was wearing a motorcycle t-shirt. He's aked me if I rode dirt bikes. We would talk about riding and things like that.

Had you ever ridden professionally? Yes. Won awards? Yes.

They became friends. and rode 2 times together. Went to gorman and trail riding. Took him to the motocross park and we went riding together.

He mentioned to me that he was going to get custody of his daughter from a previous relationship. When he talked to you about it [did he seem ... ?] ?. He seemed fine. He seemed like a pretty happy go lucky guy.

Do you remember a phone call from Mr. Brown around Halloween 200)? I can't say that I do.

Did you in Halloween of 2000 .... [?]? He asked if he could bring his daughter to Halloween. I think my son was 3 at the time, almost 4.

Before he asked you, did you talk to him about ?? I think so, yeah.

Did he acutally come over and join you? He did. Did he bring his daugher Lauren? He did.

Was anyone else with him? No I don't think so.

[How did it happen?] Met up at his brother Randy's house. Was a big group of kids.

How was Lauren? She was a cute little girl dressed up as a princess. She seemed like she was having fun.

How long were they out trick or treating? They were all pretty young. I don't thing it was more than an hour.

[Did you walk or drive?] We all walked together.

[When was the next time you saw him?] I saw him about a week after that. At the farmers market at the pier. ... He looked, he didn't look happy. His eyes were kind or red, his eyes were kind of shaken up.

Did he ask you if you had seen the story about a child falling off the cliff. I didn't He said that his daughter Lauren had fallen off a cliff. he took her up there and he was broken up.

Did he have tears in his eyes? Yes.

Did he appear to be in shock? Yes. Objection. Stricken.

Direct ends and cross begins.

You said that Lauren appeared to be having fun? Yeah.

Walking around with a bunch of kids and getting free candy? Yes, Cam had her on his shoulders for a time.

Did it seem unusual to you that a little four year old girl would enjoy that, going around and getting candy? [Miss answer.]

So a bunch of kids, about 20 or so on Halloween of 2000? Yes.

Did you and the defendant socialize other than that? He came over to my house once before and  I helped him move into a new place, he was getting a new apartment at the time.

Testified in 2009, under oath? Yes.

Reading prior testimony./ questions.

Now would you say that you were friend with the defendant? [Your answer.] We were acquaintences.

You spent time on Halloween? Yes.

And you went dirt bike riding? Yes.

And did you socialize with the defendant beyond meeting at the farmers market, going dirt bike riding a few times, talked on the phone but that's about it? Yes.

 First time contacted about this case was also back in 2009? Correct.

So about nine years after your encounter with the defendant at the farmer's market, was the first time [you were] contacted about this case? Correct.

And would it be accurate to say, when you spoke to the defense investigator, you stated that the defendant was crying and physically upset? Yes. So he was displaying emotion in public? Yes.

He didn't tell you that it was just his daughter just died.  It was Lauren and they think I did it? Isn't that what he said? I believe so, yes.

Do you remember, what day of the week this was? It had to be Thursday, because it was Redondo Beach.

So you take produce from the farm and sell it? Correct. Brother in law owns the farm in Fresno.

When you first met the defendant, you thought it was 10 12 years ago? It had to have been about a year or two before this incident occurred? Yes.

So went dirt bike riding twice and met Lauren once? Yes.

No further questions.

Mr. Laub needs. to coordinate the transcript corrections for his witness.

Will need the to take a break.

10:48 AM
The court calls for the morning break, and they will be back at 11 AM. It's

Mrs. Laub who will be reading testimony into the record again.

The power/energy bars come out again for DDA Hum and Detective Leslie.

11:09 AM
Back on the record.
Person on the stand who read testimony to you previously. The testimony Ms. Garrett will read the testimony of

LYNNE BROWN

What is your relationship with Cameron Brown? Cameron is my son.

You have 4 boys? Yes. Cameron was second in line? Yes.

The witness is asked if her mother and father are still alive. Mother and father not alive.

Your mother owned a house on The Strand in Redondo Beach? Yes.

The witness is asked when her mother died. She died in 2004 or 2003; I can't remember. She lived there for seven years [On The Strand.]

The witness and her husband were living in Idaho. She got a call from her sister that her mother had Alzheimer's. She came to live with her mother and take care of her. [I believe her husband followed a year later.]

Mother lived on The Strand? Yes. It's a wide strip of cement that goes along the beach. ... It was beachfront property.

Were there times when Cameron Brown would come and stay with you? He lived there [with her mother, Brown's grandmother.] He would help her, [the grandmother].

What would he do? Everything.  [Mentions many home improvement tasks like putting on new shingles, etc.] She wore diapers. He would hold her up while I would change her. He would do the grocery shopping. ... He lived with her on and off, helped her after her mother's husband died. ...[He would] Protect her.... Driver her places in that big truck.

Now questions about the family growing up and the activities they participated in.

Family participated in a lot of outdoor activities when they [the four boys] were growing up. They all continued and still do it [outdoors activities] to this day.

Did you meet a young girl named Lauren Key? I did.

[How did that come about?] Her mother called me and asked me if I knew she had a granddaughter. I didn't. I was thrilled and we set up a time to meet.

[Question about meeting Lauren and Sarah.] Yes we met her. My sister lived in Huntington Beach, and she put on a big [Christmas?] party event. [I got ] to meet [Sarah, Greg,] Lauren and Josh. Cameron was asked to stay away by Sarah.

Met Lauren for about a year. Lauren came down, sometimes every weekend. Sometimes every other weekend. Sometimes the witness drove down to Lauren's house.

When we first met, Sarah and I spent time together. Sometimes Sarah would leave and go visit a friend in the Valley. And I got to visit with Lauren by myself. [The witness enjoyed that.]

So sometimes she would leave Lauren and you would have Lauren to yourself? Yes.

Was Cameroon living there at some of the times during these visits? Yes.

He was told he had to leave the house when Lauren came? Yes.

Would you describe her as a docile sit on the floor type of girl? Just the opposite. ... She was very active. She would run down to the beach to the water. She would climb up on the table and go around the pole like a Maypole. [I was scared.] I would have to catch her. She would jump [off the table?]. She was a busy girl. And she also had quiet times where I would read to her.

Witness is s asked about one time where Lauren wasn't careful. She had come running up from the beach. because she had seen her friend Shannon. And I was [shouting? yelling?] at her not to cross the bike path. [Lauren kept running toward her friend, crossing the bike path.] And she barely missed getting run over by a bike.

The witness is asked about what type of activities she would do with Lauren.

We would walk on the beach, on The Strand.

Did she like the beach? She did. We spent a lot of time on the beach when the weather was nice. She had toys things [the witness bought for her] that you fill with wet sand and make imprints in the sand. She would dig. We would walk and search for seashells. [There's more.]

Would you also go down by the piers? I wouldn't take her to the Manhattan beach pier, it was too far for me. But I would take her to an old pier.  Would she walk long distances with you? Yes. [I believe the witness is asked if Lauren would walk a mile, mile and a half distances with her, and the witness said yes, and that Lauren didn't have a problem with that.]

I believe the witness is asked if Lauren needed to be carried.

The only time she would want to be carried is if she didn't have her shoes and the sand was too hot.

There were times that your son would pick her up in Orange County? Yes.

Now questions about where people lived at the time, and who lived where. Where Sarah lived, where her sister lived, where Brown lived.

He [Brown] lived in your house? That's right.

You knew Sarah lived in Huntington Beach? Yes.

And you knew he was going down to pick up Lauren? That's right.

He would bring Lauren there? Yes.

Did you ever get a phone call from Sarah, saying that Cam did not bring Lauren back? No.

So questions about the travel and where Cam stayed and if Sarah ever stayed with her.

So when he would bring Lauren to the house, she would observe Cam with Lauren.

They were very affectionate. He was shy at first.

Did he seem to take pride in being a father? Yes. Did he seem to be enjoying it? Yes.
Would he talk to you about Lauren? He was very proud of her.

Did something happen before her death? He was concerned that she was being abused. He would bring me photos of bruises.

There were no [other] children, nephews or nieces in their family? Brown seemed to be trying to learn to be a father.

I remember one time, walking on a boat dock to see an old boat [that a friend of Brown's had]. And Lauren was running and Cam told her to stop but she wouldn't.

Did it appear to you that Cam was making efforts to see Lauren? Yes.

Did a rift occur between you and your son Cameron? A small one. Not a big one.

Did you argue with Cam during this time period? Yes.

When you would argue would he be visibly upset? Yes.

In this time period, were you getting to see Lauren on a frequent basis, and Cam only saw her on his court ordered visits? Yes.

And when you saw her Cam couldn't be there ? Yes.

Did you in actuality, make an effort to see Lauren because she was her granddaughter because Cam couldn't see her because of the court order? Yes.

Was this the basis of the argument that you and Cam got into? Yes.

Questions about Cam growing up.

He was the most sensitive of the children I think. He would bring me rocks and stones and [always] sending birthday cards when he got older. He always remembered birthdays and Christmas.

After he became a man and moved away, did you maintain a strong bond with Cameron? Yes.

Brothers and other sons, [she] had strong bonds with them. And Brown had strong bonds with his father and brothers.

More questions about the rift they had.

Did you ever tell Sarah, during that time that she couldn't speak ill of Cam, in front of Lauren? Yes. Did you tell her to stop it? Yes. Did she? She did.

She went through the same thing with Cam.

[The witness was asked if she spoke to them both together about this.] They weren't together, but I spoke to them separately and they stopped it.

Did Detective Leslie come to your home at some point? He did.

What did he ask you he could do? He said that he thought that Cam was not guilty, and I think he said that he could help him. I don't remember much. I ended up crying. I remember Ian coming to my rescue.

Another question about what Detective Leslie said.

Now a question about whether Sarah came to her home after Lauren died.

Sarah came to her house. She had been away and when she arrived, Sarah was waiting at her house.  She asked me if Cam had done it. I said no, He's devastated. I gave her a hug and walked in the house.

Now there are occasions, that Lauren was picked up by Brown at Lauren's home and at her school, where Lauren would throw a fit and not want to go [with him].

Was there the same thing that happened with Lauren when Sarah came to pick up Lauren? Yes, I remember one time where we were trying to get Lauren in the car and she was arching her back and didn't want to go.

Now there are many questions about Brown and money.

Cam was the least of her sons, to ask for money.

The doll collection. Her mother had collected these dolls, and they were part of the family. Did Cam at some point and ask you for something? He asked if he could give one of the dolls to Lauren. It took him a week to decide, because he wanted to pick out the best. Did those dolls have great sentimental value for your family? They did.

Mr. Laub and DDA Hum whisper off the record.

Mr. Laub tells the court:  We need a moment to set up and exhibit that's already been seen before.

[It's very difficult to get all the testimony. I missed quite a bit.]

A video of Lauren, walking around on roller skates in a garage is shown.

I'll ask you to identify pieces of video. Does that appear to be Lauren to you?

[What we are seeing are the video clips of Lauren that was played during Sarah's testimony.]

Is that Lauren on inline skates? On inline skates.

Does that appear to be Lauren playing in the sand and the dirt? That's Lauren.

Is that Lauren playing on Monkey bars at the park? Yes.

Does that appear to be Lauren attempting to skateboard? Yes.

Brown looks up at the video as Lauren scoots along the sidewalk, sitting on the skateboard.

Does that again appear to be Lauren playing at the park? [Yes.]

Does that appear to be Lauren with the tire? Yes.

Brown still watches the video.

Does that appear to be Lauren playing in the water? Yes.

That is Lauren walking through the mud and water near the park? Yes, it looked like her.

Is that Lauren playing atop those large pipes? Yes.

Does that appear to be Lauren at the beach? Yes.

Does that appear to be Lauren walking in the ocaean? Yes.

[Something about the skateboard. But I'm not sure]

Direct is finished cross begins.

The video continues to play to the end.

Judge Lomeli asks that the video be stopped.

Direct ends and cross examination begins.

Those video clips that we saw of Lauren did you take those No.

Did your son take those? No.

IS this the first time you've seen them? Yes.

In any of those videos, did you see Lauren hiking? No.

She was present in the courtroom during the first proceeding and at [part of] the second proceeding?

Actually shortly after Detective, Leslie came into your house, you asked him to leave. because you wanted him to speak to your son's lawyer? Ian asked him to leave, because I was getting upset.

Do you remember your son Ian, asking Detective Leslie to go through your son's lawyer? Yes.

Do you remember me asking you at the prior proceeding, at the prior proceeding you said why would  I need a laywer? I never did. ... I think it was Ian who said, that we wanted our lawyer there, to get theim out of the house.

So just to get Detective Leslie to get out of the house? That is the way I feel.

Are there other instances where you had to help your son out? No.

There are questions about the former girlfriend, and her testimony about Mrs. Brown paying for the damage to her car.

Testifies, that if Ms. Allen testified about you paying her $600.00 that would be a lie? Yes.

Have you been talking to your son's wife about the testimony in these proceedings? Only about that.

More questions about her conversations with Patty about the trial.

Cannot remember him [Brown] ever asking to borrow money. He always worked and made his own money and bought his own toys and bought the clunky cars.

So are you telling us now, that your son never asked to borrow money? I don't remember. Maybe for a senior ring in high school.

More questions about Cameron and if he ever asked if he borrow money. She can't remember if Cameron ever did.

Now questions about buying cars for the other sons. You said that you had bought cars for your other sons. Yes. And the defense attorney asking if Cameron ever asked you to buy a car. And if he did, you certainly would have bought him a car? We had an extra car that we gave to him. He didn't ask for it and we didn't buy it for him.

The witness insists. We didn't buy it for him, and he never ask him for it.

Brown watches the witness read his mother's prior testimony.

Questions about if her other son Ian, testified at a prior proceeding about Cameron being given a car.

Have you been to visit your son in jail? Yes. When we lived here, we went on a regular basis. Now that we live in Missouri, it was hard to get there.

She is asked how many times she visited her son. About 10 times because I was taking care of my mother. My husband went more than I did.

Do you remember when you son married Patty? Yes. They were married in Hawaii, so we couldn't go there.  Doesn't remember when [the date] Brown and Patty got married.

[This testimony was orginally taken over two days. This is the second day.]

Doesn't remember if it was her son or Patty who called you and told her about Jane Doe? It might have been Cameron telling me about the Jane testimony.

In any way over the phone or by letter, how many times does she talks to Patty? She doesn't remember. Naybe 10 times, and by email much more.  And significantly more than 10 emails back and forth?

In the past two months? We've had 10 phone calls.

You've been in Missouri? Yes.
And you know the trials been going on, correct? Yes.

And you've been interested int the proceeding, and this numerous emails, the defendants wife hasn't told you what's been going on in court? No. We usually talk about Cam and how badly he's doing.

We just don't talk about the trail. Patty and I, talk about Cam.

So it's your testimony today, that it was your son who told you about Jane Doe? Yes.

But you told us yesterday that it was your daughter in law? I thought it might have been [but it was Cam.]

Is it your testimony that your son called you up and told you things that he had done? Things that he's done in the past.

Questions, about Jane, and the witness states she never knew her.

Questions about when she lived in Colorado, and when her son lived with her there, when he moved out, etc. Cameron went away to college for a couple of years.

At that point in time, it is your testimony that you had a good relationship with your son? Yes.

And you would discuss what was going on in his life? No.

So it's your testimony, he never told you about a girlfriend that he had at the time?

Insists that she didn't know "Jane" and explains that her son Ian had known a Jane who had a crush on him. [She thinks that's who this Jane was.]

Questions about the photos of Lauren that her son showed her. Didn't you tell your son that bruises on children is common? [miss answer]

Questions about if she knew that her son told her about what he said to a court mandated reporter.

Now more questions about the bruises, and if she had spoken to her son's lawyer previously about the bruises and who brought up the issue.

At this proceeding you volunteered information that you weren't asked about? Yes.

11:59 AM
The court orders the noon break. After the jury leaves, the court asks Mr. Laub if he has any more witnesses. He does not. The defense will rest.

After the defense rests, the prosecution will call Detective Leslie as a rebuttal witness.

1:26 PM
Back inside Dept. 107. Sarah is by herself. Her friend must have left.

Mr. Laub, DDA Hum and Detective Leslie are having a friendly conversation in the well. They appear to be going over testimony.

Brown has not been brought out yet.

1:32 PM
DDA Hum, Detective Leslie, the bailiff and the court reporter joke about the names of colors and the word "Taupe" and what color that is.  The court reporter is wearing a pretty fuchsia colored sweater.

1:33 PM
Brown is brought out. The clerk calls in the hallway for the jurors.

1:34 PM
The jury gets settled.
We are back on the record in the matter of people verses Cameron Brown. People you may continue.

Continuing with cross examination.

Have you spoken with your son's lawyer in the past month? I haven't. My husband has.

Within a week of the prior proceeding you spoke with your son's lawyer? I don't remember.

Isn't it true that within a few days, of the proceeding, you spoke to your son's lawyer's? I don't remember that either.

Isn't it true that you sent your son's lawyers an email about Lauren prior to the previous proceedings? I guess I did. [ The document is shown to the witness.]

That's right.

Do you remember testifying prior that two days prior and three days prior to testifying in the previous proceeding, you spoke to your son's lawyer before testifying? Yes. It said I spoke to them in the hall.

More cross examination as to what she remembers she did, speaking with her son's lawyers going over her testimony.

We went over what happened what happened prior to Lauren going up in the hills.

[Brown] ived in her mother's house on the Strand. Moved in there in 1999.

Over what period of time, did your son live there? I can't remember. He would live there and then live on his boat, then sell the boat.

[You? Brown?] lived there until 2004? I think it was longer than that.

Beginning in 1999, your son Cameron started living there? I think he was living on a boat, then he sold it and came down and helped with my mother.

When? I'd say about 1999. And lived there until he married Patty.

Is it then your testimony that he bought another sail boat and lived on that boat? No he had bought another sail boat but it wasn't liveable.

Testimony about other parents.

Was there some type of a camera at your mother's house on the strand? Oh there was a surf company that set that camera up. And that was in El Portal? That's correct.

Met Lauren through Sarah? That's right. You met Lauren through Sarah, not your son? Correct.

But he didn't introduce you to your granddaughter, Sarah did? [Yes.]

You first met Lauren at a Christmas party at your sisters house in Huntington Beach? Yes.

Isn't it true that the first time you met Lauren, it was at your mother's house and it was Sarah who brought her? No.

So it's your testimony that there was a Christmas Party, and your husband came and your family came but Sarah said Brown couldn't come. Yes.

Questions about what type of party it was. It was a Christmas Party to met Lauren.

It's your testimony that Sarah would say derogatory things about your son the defendant? Yes.

So is it your testimony that the first time you met Lauren that Sarah would say derogatory things to you, about your son, [at this Christmas Party]? No, it was at my mother's house.

DDA Hum reads her prior testimony from 2006, where she said that the first three or four visits, Sarah would say negative things about the defendant.  But also states, that the first time she met Sarah was at the Christmas Party.

Isn't it true that she would bring Lauren by once a month to visit? No.

Is it your testimony that Sarah made Brown leave when she would bring Lauren by? Yes.

More cross on her testimony as to how often Sarah brought Lauren to her house at the beach and how often he brought Lauren to her home after he got married.

Were there times where he would bring Lauren to you while he went out and surfed? Yes.

Were there times when he would bring Lauren to your house and he would go to sleep? No.

Is it your testimony now that your sister brought Lauren to visit? [?]

Now your testimony is that your son would bring his daughter to the beach and he would watch her? Well we would both watch her. And when he was surfing? She would watch Lauren.

Now cross on when Brown asked to bring Lauren before she died and she told him not to bring her.

Claims that the reason she said not to bring Lauren was because she didn't want Lauren to see her great grandmother was having an episode.

More about what she said about in the email to Brown's attorney, that Brown couldn't come to her mother's house because of her bad knees?

Now prior testified that Brown loved Lauren.

Now asking if she knew that Brown tried to have Sarah have an abortion.

Asking if she knew the defendant tried to have her [Sarah] deported.

If she was aware that when her son would try to pick up Lauren she would try to hide?

More questions about whether she knew what other people observed of Brown's behavior or statement.

Now questions about if she was aware of things that Brown had said about her.

If she was aware [about how Brown didn't want her to see Lauren, that he called her a bad mother, that he said she was an evil woman, that he signed a court order saying his family had disowned him.]  No answers, to all those questions.

If your son had done those things, would it still be your testimony that you had a good relationship with your son? I don't think he did those things.

That's not what I asked you.  I would think we would have a bad relationship.

Cross ends and redirect begins.
About writing in the email that you feel some responsibility for Lauren's death. I do.

Because Cam called and asked if he could bring Lauren over, and you said no? That's right.

You're aware are you not, that the prosecution has accused him of per-planning, taking her to Inspiration Point to kill her? The day that he was supposedly per-planning to take her to that cliff, he called you? He did.

She sat in the gallery during all the last prior proceeding, and heard all the testimony about what Lauren said, etc.

She was not present when these events occurred, but she was at the prior proceeding where these events were testified to.

I can't keep up. The testimony is coming too fast for me.

In a prior proceeding, did you ever see any document, or evidence, that Cameron ever yelled at Lauren? No.

More questions about if she and the attorney spoke in the halls. What did I tell you? Just speak from the heart and be honest.

Now questions about what the defense attorney and she talked about in those conversations.

Now questions as to whether the attorney spoke to her husband and not her, about when they talked about this proceeding [2009].

She had health issues in 2009. Have I ever called you to talk to you about these proceedings? No.

Did I call and talk to your husband? Yes.

Now questions about living with Brown in Colorado and this woman Jane. Her son is not the type that would open up and talk about things. Didn't know all the names of his girlfriends. Did he ever bring this Jane to the house? No, never.

Now questions about the bruises on the legs.

Did anyone ever tell you what to say in your testimony? No.

Were you aware that Cameron only had one hour a day initially? One hour a week initially? No.
Were you aware initially, that he had to have Sarah present initially? No.
Were you aware that he originally only saw Lauren in Orange county? No.

Initially, Sarah would bring Lauren to your home, because Cam wasn't allowed to?

And the first time you got to meet Lauren, was this Christmas party? Yes. And your husband was there? No he wasn't there.  [Oh, it was your Aunt.]

It was because her sister lived near Sarah, and her sister offered to have a little dinner to meet Lauren and her family.

Would your sister occasionally go by and pick up Lauren and bring her to your house? Yes.
Were those the days that Cameron had visitation? No.

I think these were days where Sarah had something to do, and my sister brought her.
And were there days where Sarah would also come with your sister too? Yes.

You testified that Lauren was quite active? Yes.

More questions about Lauren's level of activity and if [she? Cameron?] needed help looking after Lauren.

Do you remember a phone conversation with Sarah, after Lauren's death where she asked you about Cameron? No. I remember another one.

The defense has rested.

The prosecution has a rebuttal witness, Detective Leslie. There is a sidebar.

Judge tells them they are going to stop at 2:45 today.

People recall Detective Leslie

DETECTIVE JEFFREY LESLIE

Detective Leslie is asked a few questions about defense witnesses that he interviewed.

Do you remember Aron Carter .. was he contacted the day after Lauren's death? No it was a week later.

First checkpoint on 11/15? Correct.

Second checkpoint was on 11/22? Yes.

Now you heard testimony about a web site being run by the defendant's brother in law? Yes.

That's the defendant's wife's, twin brother, ... [and the website is] called Free Cam Brown? Yes.

Now, you also heard testimony from Ian Brown and Lynne Brown? That's correct.

DDA Hum and Laub confer off the record.

Is that Lynne Brown, the defendant's mother? Photo [of her from, I think a driver's license]. Yes.

That's how she looked when you tried to interview her? Yes.

On Feb 6, 2004, did you go to the residence of the mother in an attempt to speak with her?

Yes.

Phillip Martinez was his partner. Not involved in investigation.

Where was Detective Smith? Thinks he had either been a training officer or was retired.

What was the purpose of going? In order to speak to Mrs. Brown.

When we got to the residence, the defendant's brother came to the door. I introduced myself and he said he would get her. We had brief small talk. We discussed his T shirt, and his military. I was questioning the 87 airborne [from his shirt].

You heard Ian Brown's read in testimony, [where he] described the encounter and heard Lynne Brown's [read in] testimony? Yes.

How did it happen? I had a brief conversation about Ian's millitary service.

Mrs. Brown entered the room and I told her I wanted to ask a few questions about her granddaughter and son, and Mrs. Brown actually said that she didn't want to speak without an attorney present.

Did she start crying at some point? No.

Did you or your partner ever say anything where you thought the defendant was innocent? No.
Did you or your partner ever say anything where you wanted to clear him or get the defendant out of jail? No.

Did you ask her any questions at all? No there were no questions made of Lynne Brown.

Were you asked to leave? No. Once we knew they wouldn't talk to us, we left.

Did speak to Defendant's attorney? Yes. Did you arrange a meeting to speak with Lynne Brown? He [the attorney] felt that it was a good idea, however, the interview was never arranged and never came to fruition.

Interviewed Terry Hope. Did you speak to Terry Hope? Yes.

Is that how Mr. Hope appeared when you interviewed him? [photo of Terry Hope, from I believe, a driver's license.] Yes.

We you the person or someone else who interviewed him a week later? No.

It was someone else? I only spoke to Mr. Hope on the trail out at Inspiration Point.

Only spoke to Mr. Hope on the trail? Yes.

Describes where he spoke to Terry Hope.

Describe for us how you encountered Mr. Hope.

We had arrived, I believe in preparation for the second checkpoint. I was on top, looking down toward Sacred Cove. I saw some movement in the bushes, when he saw Mr. Hope, there was a naked guy in the bushes.

Mr. Laub asks to approach.  The court asks, "What? About the naked guy?"

The jury chuckles over the judge's question.

Sidebar with the judge.

Detective Leslie, after you encountered Mr. Hope at the bush, did you have a discussion with Mr Hope? Yes.

Did you go to that location specifically to speak to him? No.

Did you specifically discuss with Mr. Hope, the incident with Lauren's death? Yes.

Did he tell you he had been in that area on Nov. 8th? Yes, he said he swam in that area regularly. He was a member of the polar club and that's why he was there.

Did Mr. Hope ever tell you, that Lauren was happy or smiling? No.
That Lauren was 10 or 15 feet in front of the man she was with? No.

When was the only time that Mr. Hope described to you the distance between Lauren and the defendant? It was after they had passed Mr. Hope on the trail. It forks one way towards Inspiration Point and another toward [?]. [That] was when Mr. Hope stated the defendant was three feet behind Lauren and was encouraging, pushing with his hands, making contact with her back and pushing her up towards Inspiration Point.

Did he physically demonstrate that motion to you? He did while we were on the trail.

Where did he say the defendant was guiding Lauren? It was on the fork, just past the trees where he was changing.

Did Mr. Hope say that the defendant was guiding Lauren on the trail up to Inspiration Point? Yes.

What, any words that the defendant were saying to Lauren? "This way honey, this way, good girl."

He said it was very impersonal, as if you would speak to a dog.

At that time, there was no railing on that section of the trail to Inspiration Point  at all.

Also read that Mr. Hope stated that the grass in that area was somewhat slippery? I do recall hearing that.

Was there slippery grass on the edge of the cliff in 2000? Not on the edge of the cliff.

Was there slipper grass on Inspiration Point? Back near the bottleneck. It was November and starting to die, but it was back on the flat portion.

Did Mr. Hope ever indicate he had been out on Inspiration Point? No.

Did you ever refer to the defendant as a scumbag or a rotten scumbag? No.

Did your partner join you on the interview with Mr. Hope? I believe at the end of the conversation.

Did Mr Hope ever indicate to you, he had trouble seeing the clothing because his eyes were sweating or his eyes couldn't focus? No.

Did you interview Mark Thompson on March 5, 2009? Yes.

Was that in Hawaii? Yes.

[Who was with you?] Detective Sargent Kevin Lloyd was with him. Detective Lloyd was not involved in the investigation, just his partner at the time.

Did Mr. Thompson tell you that information came from the defendant himself? Objection. Vague.

The court asks, "What information?" All the information.

He repeatedly told Detective Leslie all the information came from the defendant himself. He told us he was relaying the information to the best of his recollection that he heard from Mr. Brown.

Did Mr. Thompson indicate to you the defendant had told him that Patty was well off? Yes.

Did Mr. Thompson tell you that the defendant and told him, how Laruen died? Yes.

Did Mr. Thompson say this happened at work, in person, and before anything happened on the news? Yes.

Did Mr. Thompson ever indicate to you, that the defendant looked forward to doing things with their daughter's together? No.

Mr. Thompson said that Mr. Brown and Lauren we hiking in the Palisades area, which was close to where Mr. Brown lived. It was an area where they often [hiked?]. He [Brown to witness] spoke of Inspiration Point as being their favorite place.

Did Mr. Thompson say he know where Inspiration Point was? I believe he did.

What did Mr. Thompson tell you the defendant told him face to face? He said there was an area on the trail that was steep and close to the rocks or cliff, the defendant would normally help Lauren [up] as it was steep. He would help hold her up. He indicated that he was told by Mr. Brown, [that] when he turned around when he tried to reach for Lauren, he said that a foot was mile and things were set in motion and she fell. He said he was kind of dazed and out of it and walked to the road where he saw a woman in a minivan, who he said was the person who called 911.

Did the defendant tell Mr. Thompson this was a tight section on the hike and he was reaching to help Lauren when she fell? Yes.

Did Mr. Thompson ever indicate that the defendant ever told him that she was on the top of Inspiration Point and she was running around throwing rocks and fell? [No.]

More questions about facts about if Mr. Thompson ever said that Brown talked about calling 911, [traveling down] to the nude beach, or taking his clothes off before going in to get Lauren? Mr. Thompson did not.

Did Mr. Thompson ever tell you about Mr. Brown saying Sarah could run him over or hunt him down? He did tell me that, yes.

Interview with Mr. Dietzler.

Yes I did interview him at his residence. His partner was with him, Detective Danny Smith.

Prior to going to interview Mr. Dietler, were you aware that they were friends? We knew that they werr co-owners of a boat and they were friends.

2:40 PM
Did it appear to you as the interview progressed that Mr. Brown and Mr. Deitlser were close? Yes.

Did you or your partner ever tell this person that appeared to be a close friend that you were going to railroad the defendant? No Or that you were going to put him away or convict him of killing his daughter? No.

Questions about whether he or his partner were "going rogue."

Did Mr. Deitzler ever ask you to read his resume? No he did not.

In any case, do you ever tell them your personal feelings about a defendant? No I do not.

Why? Well, several reasons. it doesn't do any good, and it could sway their opinion. It's not professional and it's immaterial what I think about anyone in any case.

Did you prepare a report of his interview with Mr. Deitzler? Yes. You didn't just make it up? No.

Did you put in that report what was good or what was bad about the defendant? Yes.

Did you just read Mr. Deitzler's letter and put that into your report? There was no website at that time he wrote the report.

When did Mr. Deitzler say he met Lauren? Christmas 1999 and one prior time at the grandmothers.

He believe's he [Dietzler?] said that the defendant brought her to his house.

Did he tell you how he found out that Lauren was dead? During a phone conversation with Mr. Brown.

[Question about that conversation.] Mr. Deitzler said he had spoken in the phone with Mr. Brown talking about the boat and other topics and Mr. Dietzler thought he [Brown] was acting weird. Then the defendant asked Mr. Deitzler if he had heard about what happened.

Did Mr. Deitzler tell you that the child support payments were a hit on his salary? Yes he did.

[Did] Mr. Deitzler say that the defendant [and his?] mother had a falling out over painting the mothers house? Yes.

More questions about Mr. Deitzler and what he said in the interview.

Mr. Dietzler said that he had talked to the defendant's wife on [miss the day.]

Court is ending for today at 2:45 pm. Detective Leslie's testimony is not finished yet.

The jury files out.  Sarah got up quickly and left right before the jury left.

That's it for today.

The court then goes back on the record about Brown's right to not testify.

You've exercising your constitutional rights not to testify in this matter? Brown answers, "Yes your honor."

Your doing so [solely] and  freely? "Yes your honor."

And that's it.

I believe court continues tomorrow at 9:30 AM

UPDATED 5/8 4:00 PMedited for spelling, readability, accuracy.
Wednesday May 6, 2015
9:24 AM
I'm inside Dept. 107. Dr. Hayes is here.  Counsel are getting set up in the well. For a few minutes, there was a camera here from Inside Edition but they left. I don't know what that was about.

Counsel are now talking about how short a day the testimony will be this morning.

9:29 AM
Sarah and her friend arrive.

I believe Dr. Hayes will interrupt Detective Leslie's testimony.

9:33 AM
Jury walking.

No. It's Detective Leslie back on the stand.

DETECTIVE JEFFRERY LESLIE

ON Nov 30, 2000 Did you interview Jan Mueller? Yes.

Did Ms. Mueller tell you why she explained to Sarah about the abuse allegations that the defendant made? Objection Sustained.

Did Ms. Muller tell you the defendant had told her, that he felt his mother was an evil person? Yes.

Did Ms. Muller tell you, she had seen the defendant get angry and frustrated when he spoke of his mother? Yes, she did.

Did she encourage you to read the court file where the defendant said he had 50% custody? Yes.

Did you see Mrs. Brown, [Patty] in the courtroom a couple of weeks ago? Yes, I did.

I want to ask about your contact with the defendant at the archery range and during the interview on Nov 9, 2000.

First of all, with regard to the interview on 11/9, did you ask the defendant if he was receiving any treatment for psychological conditions? I don't think that came up at all.

Did the defendant ever say to you, or did you ever observe in the defendant at the archery ranage or in the interview, any of the following symptoms or behaviors:

That the defendant displayed or mentioned reduced awareness of surroundings? No

Did the defendant ever say, Where am I? No.

Did the defendant ever ask, What's under the sheet?" No.

Did the defendant appear to be very aware of his surroundings? He did.

He had mentioned the surfboard[s?] on his car not wanting to be stolen. He had mentioned about where the car was parked. Mentioned concerned about the news media. He mentioned about the boots being wet. He mentioned he knew where he was in regards to going back to the station.

Did the defendant ever display or tell to you that he felt:
Dizzy No.
lightheaded? [No.]
Like an outside observer?
[As if he was] floating in the air looking down?
His body legs or arms distorted or that his head was wrapped in cotton... ?

[There are more, but I miss them all.]

That he felt like he was living in a movie?

I believe the witness answers 'no' to all these questions.

Judge interrupts and asks to approach.

Did the defendant state to you or [did you] observe the defendant appear to have, that his surroundings looked distorted, artificial or heightened awareness or surroundings? No.

Distortions of distance or time or the size or shape of objects? No.

[You] spoke with Lt. Erickson, Deputy Brothers, [Firefighter] Curcio, did any of them tell you, that the defendant had complained of any of these symptoms or that they had obvserved any of these symptoms in the defendant? No.

Direct ends and cross begins.

You were just asked a series of questions about symptoms of a disorder that you have supposed to have listened to, when Dr. Booker testified. Yes. I listened.

Then you know that the symptoms were in the DSM-5 manual? I don't know what a DSM-5.

I wasn't real clear on what Dr. Booker's opinion was, to be honest.

You were asked about your talk with Ms. Mueller. Is it correct that she told you, Mr. Brown had a legitimate interest with Lauren? Yes.

And that it seemed to grow as he spent more time with Lauren? Yes.

And she also told you that it wasn't her impression that Mr. Brown's interest was financial? Obj. Sustained.

Laub wants to have a photo marked. Defense BB.  Goes beyond the scope.

This photograph is, one on the left, back of the defendant's legs. It's a close up of his calves and boots.

That [photo] was taken in the early morning hours of Lomita Station. When had his interview with him? Yes.

Showing the jury on the screen. Photo shows some red marks on the back of Brown's legs.

You've been working on this case now, 15 years? Well, it will be 15 in September.

You've worked consistently with Mr. Hum, in preparing this case? At times.

Traveled out of state to interview witnesses? Yes.

Went to Inspiration Point? Yes.

About how many times? I have no idea.

And also prepared written report of your personal activities? Correct.

Also prepared six volumes of notes? Myslef, I'm on my sixth notebook.

Now about the various witnesses that were recorded? Yes. That's the one you flew to Hawaii. [Yes.]

None of the other witnesses were recorded? That's hard to remember. I think Ms. Muller was. I'm not sure.

Brown's interview was not recorded.

The only thing that this jury has to rely on is the witness testimony and yours? [Miss answer.]

When you talked with Mr. Hope, he was someone who was not a friend of Mr. Brown? That's correct.

And you know he said he didn't know Mr. Brown. That's correct.

As far as you know, he had no motive to help Mr. Brown? I would assume that to be correct.

And the previous proceeding and this proceeding and was at Inspiration Point, and no motive to help?  His testimony was read in as a defense witness. I have no idea ...

You worked hand and hand with Mr. Hum ... you testified in the grand jury, and prior proceedings and testified in this case? Correct.

DDA Hum, [the people] will stipulate.

Now where did you write that Mr. Hope was naked? No. That is correct.

And the very first time, that you saw a bush wiggling, and low and behold, you found this witness, Objection.  Counsel, don't editorialize.

Now [this is] the first time, this witness was naked in a [wiggling] bush comes out in this proceeding. First of all, the bush was not wiggling. I heard rustling.

Mr. Laub accuses Detective Leslie of bringing this up for the first time.

I testified that when I spoke to Mr. Hope he was naked and getting dressed.  I was asked for the first time, I was asked why I referred to him as the naked guy.

Detective Leslie explains that when he found Mr. Hope he was naked and getting dressed,

Cross ends direct begins.

Defense BB the back of defendant's legs.  You checked the back of his legs, did you see any source of any injury of the defendant's legs?

It's intended to depict what it is. There's blood soakage on the socks. There's diluted blood or blood transfer, on the inside portion of the left ankle.  He was not bleeding.

Did you also see blood on the back of the defendant's shirt? Judge states we've heard this before.

When you were first asked why you referred to [Mr. Hope] as the naked guy?  Yesterday.

[He said he was a member of the] Polar Bear club and that's why he did that.

Redirect ends and recross begins.

Photo. First detective, the things that you're claiming were blood from Lauren, none of that was checked for blood type was it? Our lab would not do analysis on blood from a known donor.  In order for our lab to DNA test, I didn't ask about DNA. I asked about blood typing. ABO?  We don't do blood typing.

DDA Hum objects. The court asks the jury to go into the jury room please.

The court addresses Mr. Laub. What is your problem this morning? You've been rude to the court. What was that about? ... Don't cut me off. I don't know what this is about this morning. What I take issue with is your tactic this morning. Tone it down.

The court doesn't understand why Mr. Laub is going over the naked issue and blowing it up.

Laub argues that the prosecution is only doing this because they've had two hung trials and they are further trying to discredit the witness.

The court tells him to save that for argument.

There is a way to cross examine, it's your tonality is what I have an issue with.

Laub continued to defend his point in front of the jury.

DDA Hum: I want it to make one statement. Once again, he has called me a liar. Because he doesn't believe the testimony from Detective Leslie that this was the first time I made the inquiry from Detective Leslie.

DDA Hum, as an officer of the court, I am not lying when I say that this was the first time that I inquired about why Detective Leslie called him the naked guy.

The judge tells counsel to tone it down before we bring the jury out.

The jury comes back out.

Back on the record.

When we broke a moment ago I was asking if you had anything done to type the blood that we see in this photograph. Is the fact, doctor's put on charts either A, B, O. Again, no it does not. Our lab does not do the typing that you are referring to. All we do is is DNA.

What you're telling us is that request for DNA analysis wasn't done, because you had concluded anything that you saw came from Lauren? There was no DNA analysis in this case.

Mr. Laub asks if a particular streak is a blood droplet? That is a blood droplet. There is blood on the socks.

So what we're looking at is not an abrasion? That is not an abrasion.

How did that blood get there? When he brought Lauren up from the beach and carried her over his shoulder.

Laub asks Detective Leslie why there isn't blood on the upper parts of his legs? [Miss answer.]

You testified Mr. Brown said that he ran, though what he said was some brush? And you didn't find what you thought you would find scratches and abrasions?

He said he was running as fast as he could across that terrain. For running as fast as you could, across that terrain, I would expect to see abrasions, cuts, even lacerations from the terrain.

I'm saying that I was in that interview. I did not see any injuries on Mr. Brown.

Cross ends and the witness is excused.

People recall Dr. Wilson Hayes.

DR. WILSON HAYES

A few questions, some follow up.

President and CEO of Hayes & Associates?  Yes.

Have you been a consultant and an academic in your career at the same time? Yes.

Explains in detail.

He's been involved in falls from cliffs? How many? I believe about six.

Falls from great height? Somewhere around 20. Construction height falls or falls off of tall buildings.

Have you observed injures that resulted from these great heights? I have.

Have you analyzed injures in falls from great height? I have in much the same way that I have here.

Is it your testimony that there is no possible way that Lauren Key could have fallen from a great height, from a biomechanical or physical [standpoint?]. If we can, or could disregard the injuries and just go on the shape of the cliff and the physics biomechanics. she could have fallen from the cliff, yes.

Could, ... if you now take into consideration the injuries that Lauren sustained and the physics could she have accidentally fallen and sustained these injuries? That is to understand the question.

If you take into account all three sets of factors, biomechanics, the topography of cliff and the injuries sustained, no, she could not have fallen accidentally from Inspiration Point.

Object [to?] replay of testimony.

Is it your testimony,  if you were to disregard Lauren's injuries, that Luaren could not have sustained a single impact from the cliff... [miss rest]? That was not my testimony. She could have sustained a single impact [with a ?] ..... however, you must include the injuries.

In your testimony, does the terminology single impact with the cliff, and Lauren's injuries mean the same thing? No.

A single impact with the cliff, could be a trip at the top of Inspiration Point and never going over. That could be a single impact. I could image a single impact where she just hits the cliff with her feet. Hypothetically. That's very different than her injuries. So no, I don't see those [as being] one and the same at all.

Was it your testimony, Lauren's injures could only have been caused by a single impact with the cliff face? That doesn't encompass my testimony. It was my testimony she had one single impact with the cliff.

The added information that was crucual, she had to do so head down, face inward in way that esentially broke her neck. So it's much more than that.

Dr.. Hayes, I emailed t you a copy of the PowerPoint that Dr. Sigmund used? Yes.

Was there one slide that had your slide documenting your injuries and other information added? [Yes.]

Were you trying to hide injuries when you prepare that slide? Not in any way shape or form.

I testified that there were other minor scrapes and abrasions that could have happened from other sources. The walk there, or the rocks. ... I was calling attention to the massive impact on the cliff, and what we would expect with interacting, hitting the rocks at the top.

You're also aware that Dr. Siegmund testified about some calculations about 11.3 ft per second.and running. ... Where did the number 11.3 feet per second came from? A book. Pedestrial Reconstruciton. And it gives walking and runniNG speeds for various ages. TherE were data there for five year old children and the running data for a five year old femal child running at top speed, was 11.3 per second. That's where that came from. ... There was no data for four year olds. 

And the data for 6 year olds was 12.3 feet per second? Correct.

Were you trying to hide that information from anyone? No. That was information was produced prior to the 2006 proceeding in a spreadsheet and hand form, when we were considereing the issue of running. No I was not trying to hide that information.

Also aware in Dr. Siegmund's presentation that he had a couple of slides depicting the 11.3 ft per second on the graph.

People's 144 for identification.

Showing his original slide. on the side view lines of the cliff.

This slide was in Dr Siegmund's presentation. IT was taken from my presentation and included in Dr. Siegmund's presentation.

Doesn't it appear that slides were superimposed over your slide? Yes. Here is my original slide format.

You know we talked about the cliff geometry. We talked about the launch at 15 ft per second 10 ft per second.

The blue line was Dr. Siegmund's and superimposed over our slide.

Is the next slide an illustration of that. It was superimposed.

Is there a reason why you did not include the 11.3 per second that you presented in your PowerPoint?
That was most fundamentally, the running off the cliff, because issues of credibility generally, it also violated the fundamental laws of physics.

Because we knew that could not in fact happen.

The first slide speaks to the point that a four year old child,  starting to run from a standing start, with a four foot distance between where she and her father were located, four feet from the edge of the cliff. would have to run off the cliff. Second, a four year old chidl, can't get close to up to speed in four feet.  Work had been done to show, [that even experienced sprinters, need a certain amount of distance to get up to speed, and that distance is 4? ft.].

Dr. Hayes explains his new slide. The Y axis is the vertical axis. Distance traveled on the horizontal axis. And these blue lines are trained female runners who have trained as sprinters. What the blue line shows, even trained sprinters with the benefit of starting blocks can only get up to three feet per second in a distance of four feet.

She starts behind her father, you have to believe she can get up to 11.3 feet per second.  It takes trained sprinters to get up to ....

Lauren, we don't know how she could get up [to that speed?]? Let's assume she could get up as a trained sprinter, she could only get up to about 4 feet. ... It would still take her 16 feet to get up to 11.3 ft per second.

Were there other reasons why you didn't include that in your PowerPoint presentation?

Dr. Hayes gives a Running Scenario

No one would run straight off a cliff.
Had Laruen manage to reach 11.3 feet per second and run of the cliff, she would have hit the shelf feet first.

I type the exhibit first then Dr. Hayes' words.
Had Lauren manged to reach 11.3 feet and run, then trip at the edge of the cliff, the trip would have initiated a forward fall. Based on the conservation of momentum and the 1.8 second it would have taken Lauren to reach the shelf, she would have completed on complete flip in the air followed by an additional rotation of 249 degrees. Such rotation would result in an impact on the back of her head and would not produce the injuries she received.

She's now running fast and trips, and now what happens is, she rotates, far more quickly and rotates. She would rotate almost another full revolution she would hit the back of her head and sustain a different set of injuries.

Considering all three sets of factors, it also rules out running and tripping for the same three sets of reasons.

Is that why you didn't include it in your presentation? Yes, it is.

Direct ends and cross examination begins.

Going back to your first slide. Testified as your slide with [...]? Dr. Siegmund superimposed data on my slide. He added an anotation. Kept the logo. Added a blue line.

And you're aware that his testimony, his very thing? I haven't read his testimony, so I can't say that's true.

So looking at that graph, look at the green line. In your slip/trip calculations Lauren doesn't even go off the cliff. Sometimes she does and others she doesn't.

It's a bit of a confusing question for a couple of reasons.

In any of these frames that we're looking at, does Lauren fall off the cliff?

We don't know. because this doesn't show beyond the first interaction.  It show that we know what doesn't occur. That's why we did the other analysis. Because if she would slide. ... There were some where she would't.

Are we seeing anywhere where she would go over? Like I said before we're seeing [only] the first impact with the cliff.

More questions that I can't keep up with. The testimony is too fast and the answers are complex.

What your telling us is that green line, and that data represent and example of something, that could not, produce the actual injuries that Lauren sustained. I don't know how to answer that, because it would not.

We have to be careful with that. She couldn't have solely sustained, ...

More questions about his graphs and what they show, don't show.

Now questions about four year olds, five year olds where he got the 11.3 ft per second and that there is no data on how long/far it takes for the children to reach that speed.  Back then, they were only measuring how fast these age ranges could go.

Laub continues to cross Dr. Hayes on his exhibits and his spread sheet.

Isn't what you did by adding the green line and not the blue line is choosing for the jury what they could see? No. The blue line violates the law of physics. The green line does not. Two completely different sets of data.

You saw that Dr. Sig produced a lower speed? No, I didn't see that.

So you have nothing to say that Dr. Siegmunt showed a running speed of 8.55 would show a fall off the cliff that would produce those injuries?

Mr. Brown testfied that he was seated ... in interviews he was seated four feet from the cliff. He also said that his daughter was at his side or just behind him.

Did you find anything in the interviews that was not credible? If there's a question about credibility what's stated in interviews, then we turn to the laws of physics.

The one fact that you take fro Mr. Brown's interview, the fact that he allegedly said, that it's four feet, and used that with, took that one fact, and based everything on that? What if he was 12 feet away?  So she was running, she would need 16 feet.

Dr. Hayes goes into a lengthy explanation about the physics, the rotation, and all the other testimony.

Are you asking if he disregards what Deputy Falicon observed, would he have a different conclusion?  The court intervenes. Laub steps away from that.

Mr. Laub and Dr. Hayes continue to go back and forth.

So if Mr. Brown said 12 feet would that affect your conclusion? You'll remember that I testified that it was a range of space, a 12ft by 8 ft space. We tested a range of [points within that space].

We can move him back another six feet we can move him to the side another few feet and these analyses apply.

Laub continues with what if she is running at 8.5 feet per second and what if she does throw a rock?

If she's traveling at 8.55 ft per second and she trips she's going to hit the top of the cliff.

Laub asks again about the 13.3 ftt per second and the rotation. Dr. Hayes states that if you trip you go forward you can actually calculate the speed. Dr. Hayes explains what a trip means. The trip foot stops and the rest of the body continues to go forward.

Laub goes on about Dr. Hayes not working with a slower speed of 8.55 ft per second.

Laub accuses Dr. Hayes of talking off the top of his head.

Mr. Laub continues with the fact that Siegmund went through and presented those calculations. Dr. Hayes insists that he didn't go through and show the rotation. That Dr. Siegmund didn't work back from the injuries.

Sidebar request by judge.

No further questions.

The court tells the jury that both sides have rested.

The court now addresses the jury about the site visit. My bailiff will give you a menu. Don't get excited, it's just a Subway menu. Please fill that out. Put your juror number and seat number.

The court then reads the jury an instruction. The fact that physical restraints may be placed on the defendant [at the jury site visit] should not be considered by you that he is more likely to be guilty or not guilty. Disregard this matter entirely.  Jurors are not to converse amongst themselves in any manner connected with this trial.  Please do not make comments at all. Please do not wander off. Stay with the group.

Tomorrow at 9:00 AM, Monday at 8:30 AM.  The jury asks about Friday. There is no court on Friday.

The bailiff hands them a menu when they pass behind me.

The staff and counsel are asked to fill out a paper also.

Going to take a break then come back and discuss the site visit, and jury instructions.

The jury has left. 

11:08 AM
On the record about the viewing.
We are set to have the site viewing tomorrow. Caravans of buses, SUV's and so forth take off about 9:30 AM be on site between 10:30 and 10:45 am.

I believe it's DDA Hum who explains to the court on the record what will happen and what the jury, court and counsel will see.

1. First site. At the parking lot to trail head. Which is about 100 yards walk across flat land. Abalone Cove parking lot. Once we leave there, the jury the rest of of us are transported to the bottom of the road to the preschool.

2. Site 2 preschool. Only takes longer because Jury goes back to the vehicles the defendant is taken to the spot in advance.  The time will be less than five minutes.

3. Site 3 top of Portuguese Point. Vans can be driven out to Portuguese Point. West side to the East side of Portuguese Point.

Mr. Laub asks to approach. Off the record.

 After three, we went and back to the parking lot to eat lunch.

4. Site 4 Inspiration Point. Then take the cars on the road to the point where the trail off to Inspiration Point connects with the road.

Jurors will be taken onto the point.

5. Site 5 archery range. [SUV's will drive down to the archery range.]

On both prior occasions, maybe two or three of the photo boards were taken to the location, at the top of the trail head and at the top of Portuguese Point and halfway out to Inspiration Point, just to orient the jurors to the areas in the photographs.

DDA Hum continues. This is a photograph directed to the east, to the top of Inspiration Point, to the parking lot. Things of that nature. But certainly no argument.

[Defense] Counsel will have that same luxury, you may want to reference to the jury. [Have exhibits to orient their witnesses testimony.]

DDA Hum: Last time, the judicial officer gave a synopsis as to what happened on site [that became part of the court record.]

DDA Hum, the only other thing that happened last time, Detective Leslie, has purchased a digital tape reorder, and if comments were recorded and put on a CD and they become part of the court record.

DDA Hum, I have no problem, if the CD's of that recording are prepared, I will be happy to give Mr. Laub a copy of that as well.

Do you have any objections to jury instructions? Only that some have been updated since the last proceeding. There are some where there is additional language that was not in the prior.

Other than adding, identifying the four individuals whose testimony was read into the record,

Mr. Laub do you?

I'm sure you're familiar with the defnes that 250.1 where it talks about the preponderance of the evidene, and that it's too confusing as to different standards of proof.

DDA Hum, that's a standard objection the defnse make.

Laub, 8.31 instruction. The second paragraph of number 3, I recognize it as a standard instruction but none the less, it's not necessary to prove intent. Judge disagrees. Instruction stands.

DDA Hum it's a standard instruction and discusses the intent requirement, and that malice doesn't require an intent to kill. 

Laub continues on this instruction and what his interpretation of malice and implied malice.

2.50 Evidence of Frieda Clifford.

He objected to the testimony. Just, I don't believe that evidence should be produced it doesn't fit within 1101b and also objecting to the instruction regarding that.

Court has already ruled on this issue prior to trial. Mr. Laub is just making a complete record.

2.50.1 Preponderance of the evidence.
2.50.2 Preponderance of the evidence.

Court has previously ruled on these. Mr. Laub is just making a complete record.

Now trying to get copies of the previous CALJIC books to compare the previous language to the new language, of the instructions that DDA Hum previously identified as having different language.

DDA Hum is just stating that he is pointing out the language is different. He's not necessarily objecting to the new language.

11:30 AM
The first one expands on the admonition to reading Blogs/Facebook, social media, etc.

Instruction 1.05 Jurors use of notes.
DDA Hum states this change was minor.

2.71 references statements of out of court statements by the defendant.

Judge Lomeli is inclined to leave the instruction as it is.

2.80 Expert testimony. Added second paragraph.

8.71 "If any of you" to "If any juror"  The only difference is... [that?]. The court feels they read the same. Laub reads the old instruction that "you" is the jury as a whole. New instruction reads the jury as an individual. Court will be giving the new instruction.

Now instruction 8.74 The new instruction has an added paragraph. The court agrees with that instruction. Laub doesn't object to the statement of the law, but think it should [be modified?].
Court is not going to step into that and going to keep the instruction as the same.

8.80.1  Hum doesn't know what the difference is. There may not be a change in the portions. The use notes do not tell us, oh yes it does. Some require an intent to kill and some do not.

17.5.2 Electronic media. Separation admonition. Just adds electronic media to the instruction itself.
Laub, I just saw, the last page of the disposition table, there's a note from Judge Pastor, apparently at the prior trial, these weren't given.

In spring 2012, it references electronic media. 

DDA Hum: No.
DDA Hum. These were given, but they were modified from the CALJIC. These were handwritten notes from Judge Pastor.

DDA Hum has noted his objections to his defense exhibits. I can tell the court what they are.

Objection are to Exhibit A - E - M - O - W - SS.

Addition to that, he was going to alter a series where this... [miss the rest of DDA Hum's statement].

Modification to V with the writing on V is taken out as long as there is a deletion of the language.

The clerk will assist in removing this language from the exhibit.

They will resume at 1:30 PM with exhibits.  Brown will waive his appearance for the afternoon.

A reporter from Inside Edition is going to go on the jury site visit. She is getting information from the court on the logistics as to where the jury will be able to go and film. The judge made it clear that the jury will not be able to be filmed.

11:54 AM 
Judge Lomeli leaves the bench.

DDA Hum and Mr. Laub go over exhibits together off the record.

There are just a few exhibits to go over at 1:30 PM. I've decided not to stay.

So, Monday morning  at 8:30 AM for this case.

12:27 PM
I'm on the train home.  Since there will be media at the site visit, there may be video on the news Thursday night or later. I recommend checking Inside Edition's schedule.

A few readers have asked if I will be attending the jury site visit tomorrow. I've decided against attending. Mr. Sprocket and I did an extensive visit to the area in September 2009. We did not take the exact hike that Brown and Lauren took. However, I took several videos and lots of photographs. You can find the links to the videos on the Cameron Brown Quick Links Page.

Tomorrow, there is a hearing in Dept. 108 in the Michael Gargiulo case. I will be attending that hearing.

Here is a poem that a friend of Lauren's wrote about her. I was not given the author's name, just that it was written for Lauren.

Poem:

There's a fairy in my garden,
That will not go away,
Her name is Little Lauren
and that's how she'll always stay.

I will be answering questions on the Brown case over the next few days, as well as trying to get the edits finished on the three days of testimony this week. Post your question in the comments. I will copy and paste your question in this post, and answer the question in the post.

QUESTIONS
BusyWife asked:

I was confused about the testimony about the naked witness and its relevance. Specifically what the drama in the courtroom was about yesterday. Maybe I missed a crucial post? Thanks for enlightening and thanks for your diligent reporting.

 Answer:
It's my understanding from what I heard yesterday, that when asked about defense witness Terry Hope, for the first time in three trials, Detective Leslie testified that when he came upon Mr. Hope in the bushes, he was naked. Mr. Laub, appeared to get upset about this and aggressively crossed the detective on this point.

In argument outside the presence of the jury, Mr. Laub argued to the court that the only reason the prosecution? detective? did this, was to somehow, dirty up the witness to the jury. That's my understanding.  The detective testified that Mr. Hum, for the first time ever, asked him why he always referred to Mr. Hope as, the naked guy.

If I recall correctly, the court stated they didn't understand why Mr. Laub was making such a big issue out of this, since there's been quite a bit of testimony that there was a nude beach.

DDA Hum stated on the record, that as an officer of the court, that yesterday was the first time that he asked Detective Leslie about why he referred to the witness as the naked guy.

There was more explanation from either Detective Leslie or DDA Hum, I can't remember, that Mr. Hope stated that he was a member of The Polar Bears Club, and that [he and or the club] often went swimming in chilly weather/ cold water temperatures.

bella asked:

 It appears Cameron Brown is a sociopath. Has this ever been brought up in any of the trials?

Answer:
Let's think about that for a moment. How would a psychological diagnosis of Brown be obtained and introduced at trial .... by the prosecution? How could you get Brown to agree to be examined by a psychologist or psychiatrist so that a personality disorder could be determined?

Do you see the problem?

The prosecution has presented evidence that they believe shows Brown did not care about his daughter [Prosecution witness #32 Scott Simonson], and that Brown thought about getting rid of his daughter [Prosecution witness #33 Jerome Poingsett].

The defense has presented several witnesses that testified Brown loved his daughter and was interested in more time to form a relationship with her. [Defense witnesses #1 John Dietzler; #2 Joseph Creenan; #3 Mark Thompson; #9 Jan Mueller; #11 Lynne Brown].

BusyWife asked:

Is it true that Cameron Brown was offered a plea to involuntary manslaughter prior to the first trial? I recently read that in a news archive... I'm sure that would have been less time than he has spent in jail at this point. If it's true, I wonder who told him to go to trial? Geragos? Speaking of, do we know why he changed defense attorneys with each trial?

Answer:
I do not know if that is true, that Brown was offered a plea to involuntary prior to the first trial. I would need a news source that states where this information originated. Personally, I don't think that's likely; however, I have no inside information to support that.

A change in attorneys, I would assume, occurred because of finances. It is my understanding, that Brown's family paid for his defense in the first trial. I believe they hired and paid for Mark Geragos. For the second trial, I believe Pat Harris was still part of Geragos' firm at the time and familiar with the case, but it's possible that the family paid for the defense or Pat Harris was appointed by the court. Pat Harris is on the court's roster of independent attorney's to appoint, just like Mr. Laub.

For the third trial, Aron Laub was court appointed. Pat Harris may not have been available for the retrial, or there could be other reasons. I did not cover the pretrial hearings for several years, so I don't know how/why for all the decisions regarding appointment of defense counsel.

UPDATE 5/12 12:45 PMspelling of Ms. Mokayef's first name
UPDATE 5/9 10:30 AM clarity, accuracy.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
8:23 AM 
I'm on the 9th floor. Defense investigator Chris Nicely is here. He's wearing a deep green corduroy jacket that looks nice on him.  I'm trying to charge my phone from my laptop since it's almost dead and I forgot to bring a wall wart for my phone.  Earlier, while I was walking to the courthouse from the train station, a voice to my left said hello. It was DDA Garrett Dameron, co-prosecutor on the Gargiulo case.

Cameron Brown Case
When I arrived, there were already a few jurors from Dept. 107 sitting on the bench at the very end of the hallway. They are waiting for the show to get on the road in the jury site visit.

A few moments ago, Judge Lomeli comes out of Dept. 107 and unlocks the front door. He's wearing jeans and a dark brown leather jacket. He's casual, but sharp. He says hello to the jurors who are sitting on the end bench.

DDA Hum arrives with Detective Leslie on the 9th floor. They go directly into Dept. 107. DDA Hum is wearing a suit and Detective Leslie is more casual. We exchange quick waves as they pass.

8:45 AM
The 9th Floor Hallway
Detective Mark Lillienfeld arrives on the 9th floor. He doesn't see me. He's intently engaged with his cell phone.

Defense attorney Charles Lindner arrives with his son, Abe, who is also his paralegal. If I remember correctly, Abe is in law school. Lindner makes a comment that I infer is directed at me but I totally miss his meaning. I have to tell him that I'm sorry I didn't understand. I believe Mr. Lindner then clarifies "James Boswell." I apologize that I'm not the learned scholar he is. I did not get his reference. Lindner explains that Boswell was a famous biographer of a contemporary. I reply that I'm not any of those things.

8:49 AM
Department 108
I step inside Dept. 108. It's already quite busy with several counsel in the well and as well as counsel in the gallery and general public in the gallery.

There are notebooks on the seats in the jury box so that tells me that Judge Ohta is in trial. As I sit and wait for a bit, it's clear that Judge Ohta has at least one other, possibly two pretrial hearings this morning besides Gargiulo's hearing.  Several of the gentlemen in the well I've seen before in the hallway or in other pretrial hearings.  It's quite busy. Counsel are coming and going from the well and the gallery.

As I wait, defense attorney Mark Werksman arrives and whispers to two gentlemen sitting in the gallery. They step outside to chat. Werksman recently went into partnership with former DDA Alan Jackson. Back in 2011 I covered the James Fayed Trial. Mr. Werksman was Fayed's attorney that represented him during the guilt phase. I have to say that Mr. Werksman was very kind and friendly to me when I covered that trial.

There are two bailiffs in Judge Ohta's court today. I don't recognize either one, and I'm not sure which one is Dept. 108's bailiff, but it may be the shorter bailiff with the black hair. In addition, there is a new court reporter with blond hair.

Jane Robison, with the DA's office is in the gallery as well.

A defendant is brought out. He will be making a plea agreement. It appears to be a mortgage fraud case with multiple defendants. This defendant is charged with 26 counts. The defendant will take a plea today but there is a request to the court to hold off sentencing until December 10. From what I think I'm hearing, the prosecution and defense need to work out a restitution amount, possibly a 1 million restitution settlement.

Two women arrive, one with a young child, possibly two or three years old. They all sit in the front row.

Judge Ohta is looking over the specific counts, and where the defendant will admit to the allegations on each one. From what I'm hearing, it appears the court wants to be sure that, where the defendant will plead to a specific charge over $500,000.00, that charge is in fact, over that amount. Judge Ohta goes over the plea agreement and makes notes on his copy.

DDA Daniel Akemon,  and DDA Garrett Dameron arrive. They step outside with Detective Lillienfeld to chat privately.

Judge Ohta calls the current case and the defendant is brought out. The case is a multi-defendant case. Several defendants have already negotiated plea deals. The plea agreement for this defendant is signed April 15th, 2015. The 26 counts are read.

There is a special agent [FBI?] from the [federal? state?] government who is at the prosecution table today.

1 count, conspiracy to commit grand theft.
1 count conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud.
5 counts grand theft.
16 counts [proctoring?] or offering false instruments.
2 counts influencing testimony.
1 count perjury.

There are also three special allegations, and the defendant will be required to admit to those, too.

Allegation to take property worth over 1.3 million.
White collar criminal enhancements ... [where?] two or more felonies are related.
No probation allegation.

The defendant is being offered six years in state prison. Victim restitution has not yet been determined.

Judge Ohta then addresses the defendant on his rights that he is giving up and if he understands everything about the plea agreement.

JO: You will be on the hook for paying restitution. Do you understand that?
Def: Yes.
JO: Do you wish to go through with this?
Def: Yes.

There are three other defendants that will remain as trial defendants.

JO: [The] maximum sentence is 24 years, 3 months [if the defendant was sentenced to the full amount he could receive]. Do you understand the potential sentence?
Def: I do.

Judge Ohta tells the defendant that before he can accept his plea he must ask him a series of questions. Judge Ohta asks the defendant about each and every right he has, and if he gives up that right. Judge Ohta also explains what he might be facing if he violates parole.

The counts are read and the defendant pleads guilty to all the counts.

Afterwards, the defense attorney asks the court a question. "The defendant's wife asks if the court will permit her to give her husband a hug."  Judge Ohta replies, "I understand, but I won't permit that."

Next up are two separate cases of defendant's not filing tax returns.

These next two defendants are Mr. Werksman's clients. The first defendant, his charges were reduced to a single charge and I believe, reduced to a misdemeanor.

10:14 AM
I stepped back outside into the hallway. DDA Dameron, DDA Akemon Detective Lillienfeld and Mr. Lindner are having a discussion. When I step outside, DDA Dameron asks me if they are still going. I tell him they are. When I approached DDA Dameron, Mr. Lindner makes it clear to me that they are having a private conversation and he doesn't want me to overhear anything. I walk down towards the center of the hall to give them plenty of privacy.

After a few minutes of stretching my legs, I head back into Dept. 108. I'm right behind Mr. Lindner in his wheelchair, helped by his son Abe, but there are a group of attorneys in the ante-chamber having a discussion, so it was a bit cramped. I wait for Mr. Lindner to get through the second set of doors, first. I take a seat in the back row in one of the red padded chairs against the back wall.

Mr. Lindner is to my left, chatting with a man who is seated in the last bench row of the gallery. When he backs up his wheelchair, I don't think he realizes that he's about to bump into me. I gently put my hand on Lindner's left shoulder and say, "Mr. Lindner, I don't think you know, but I'm behind you."

Mr. Werksman is now before the court with his other client. The second defendant, I don't believe was as lucky as the first. He was charged with a felony and I think that felony stands. All while these hearings were going on, there were counsel coming and going at the clerks desk, and people coming and going from the gallery.

I hear Judge Ohta say "Gargiulo." Mr. Lindner is in now the well and having a chat with the court off the record. Judge Ohta references the female DDA a woman, that was on the two cases where the defendant's didn't file taxes. I hear Judge Ohta tell counsel in the well, but I think he's addressing Mr. Lindner:

"[I] Went to elementary school with Ms. Michita [sp?]. Her brother was a friend of mine." I believe the court also adds that the woman DDA has a photo of him together with her brother. Then Mr. Lindner gives the court a story from his own life experience.

10:28 AM
The Gargiulo case will be next. We wait for Gargiulo to be brought out. There is a bit of shuffling of counsel in the well.

While this is going, Judge Ohta I believe addresses a comment to DDA Akemon. The court states, "Lots of shake up at the top of your food chain." I'm not certain, but I think DDA Akemon may have given a quick response, like, yes. DDA Akemon and DDA Garrett moved away from the conversation and did not engage Judge Ohta in the topic. I think Mr. Lindner misses the reference and Judge Ohta says something to the effect, "You don't know about the lawsuit?"   Lindner then catches up and realizes they are talking about the lawsuit that DDA Beth Silverman and DDA Tannaz Mokayef filed recently.

Before counsel go on the record, I hear a date of June 12 being tossed around. I'm relieved. I was crossing my fingers that nothing would be scheduled on June 11, because that's the date set for oral arguments for Stephanie Lazarus' criminal appeal for her March 2012 conviction on first degree murder in the death of Sherri Rae Rasmusssen.

While counsel and the court wait for Gargiulo, Judge Ohta brings up sports to chat about. Judge Ohta asks counsel who they think is going to win, the Clippers or Golden State. 

The attorneys for the case in trial have also arrived and are trying to find spots in the well for their files and carts.

Judge Ohta tells counsel that he thought Kentucky would win the whole thing but Kentucky lost. There's more sports chatter. One of the bailiffs gets in on the conversation.

At some point before Gargiulo is brought out, Judge Ohta informs his court reporter that the next case is a death penalty case.

10:35 AM
Gargiulo is brought out. He looks much the same as the last time I saw him. He's in the orange jumpsuit. He's completely bald and clean shaven. He's carrying a folder with some papers inside.

Gargiulo sits at the very end. There are extra seats at the table for the case in trial. Lindner is several seats away from Gargiulo. His paralegal, Abe, is to Lindner's right and closer to Gargiulo. They both lean over as best they can to speak to him.

Judge Ohta goes on the record. He asks counsel to state their appearances.

Today, on behalf of Gargiulo, Mr. Lindner filed a 995 motion to dismiss. Judge Ohta states it's a 131 page document. Counsel recommends a come back date of June 12 for the prosecution to file their response motion to the defense 995 motion.

The defendant just told [counsel?] he would like to make a Marsden motion this morning. Judge Ohta informs Gargiulo that he is currently in trial. He does not have time to do the motion today. Judge Ohta also indicates that the defendant has a general time waiver, so there is no need at this point, to set calendar.

June 12 is set for return for further pretrial. Counsel, the court and Gargiulo set a date to come back for the Marsden hearing.  I miss who offers the dates of the 13th or 14th of next week.  Both sides don't have a preference. Both dates are good for each side. I believe the court selects the 13th because it's soonest.

DDA Akemon wants to get on the record that the people have turned over to the defense, page numbers 29,104 to 29,458, pages of discovery.  The court comments that it's several "War and Peace" novels.  Lindner puts on the record that he's served the people and [I believe] the sheriff's with a copy of his 995 motion.

Gargiulo then speaks up and wants to address the court. He wants to put a stop to the 995 motion filed by his attorney, Lindner.

The court addresses Gargiulo. "Your attorney filed a 995 motion today. ... He's your attorney ... He has the right. ... If the Marsden hearing is successful, then it won't apply, because he filed it and not you."

Gargiulo tells the court that Lindner has filed this motion without him knowing what's in it. He tells the court this will send him to death.

Lindner then addresses the court. He [and his staff?] have attempted to see his client several times. The sheriff's have told them the last three times they've tried, that Gargiulo was not at the jail, that he was out of the facility to County General for medical treatment. I believe Lindner then tells the court that when they've tried to see him, they have gone to the jail at the correct time of day. "We don't know what he's being treated for." Lindner can't get the medical information released to them because of HIPA laws. Lindner wants to go on the record that the last three times they've tried to visit his client, they were told he's at County General for medical.

After Judge Ohta goes off the record, the prosecution team, Detective Lillienfeld and Lindner chat in the well.

And that's it. I head back to the train station and on my way home.

This coming June 8, Gargiulo will have been in Los Angeles County Sheriff's custody for seven years. It's my understanding that Cameron Brown has been the longest in custody defendant in the county jail (11 years, 5.5 months) and Gargiulo, I believe, has been in custody the second longest.

Gargiulo did have a different counsel when he was initially charged with attempted murder. I believe that attorney was hired by Gargiulo's family, but I'm not certain about that. It's my understanding that once the additional 187 felony murder counts were added, Lindner was assigned as counsel of record by the court. It's incredibly expensive to hire your own defense attorney when you are facing the death penalty. I'm sure there are cases, but I can't think of anyone who has done that.