Cameron Brown Case Trial - An Inside Look

Fair and Impartial What?

2010-01-17T16:06:00.000-08:00

Cam Brown's second trial ended in a mistrial. When the jury returned from deliberations the jury foreman reported that the verdict was 6 votes for second-degree murder and 6 votes for manslaughter. Since 6 plus 6 equals 12, and only 12 jurors voted, even someone with only a second grade education can see that there were no votes for first-degree murder. However, the Judge neglected to inquire how the jury voted with regard to first-degree murder. As a result, the prosecution hopes to overcome Double Jeopardy and retry Cam on first-degree murder.

Double Jeopardy is defined as (from Britannica Concise Encyclopedia):

"In law, the prosecution of a person for an offense for which he or she already has been prosecuted. In U.S. law, double jeopardy is prohibited by the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states that no person shall 'be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.' The clause bars second prosecutions after acquittal or conviction and prohibits multiple convictions for the same offense. Thus a person cannot be guilty of both murder and manslaughter for the same homicide, nor can a person be retried for the same crime after the case has been resolved. A person can, however, be convicted of both murder and robbery if the murder arose from the robbery."

This issue is further illuminated in the following:

''The constitutional prohibition against 'double jeopardy' was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense . . . The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.'' [Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187 - 88 (1957). This passage is often approvingly quoted by the Court. E.g., Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978); United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 127 - 28 (1980).]

The above quote from Green v. United States describes exactly what is happening to Cam Brown. Prosecutor Craig Hum is using the State's formidable resources and power to zealously make attempt after attempt to wrongfully convict Cam of a crime that never occurred. By doing so he is subjecting Cam to the very sort of injury that the double jeopardy clause is intended to prevent.

Prosecutor Craig Hum's argument, responding to Cam's attorney's position that retrying Cam for first-degree murder is a violation of double jeopardy, is scheduled to be heard on January 28, 2010. Until then we don't know how he will respond. However, there has been talk that Craig Hum and Dectective Jeff Leslie contacted each and every juror, after the Judge released them, and as a result Hum is now claiming that the count reported by the jury foreman was incorrect, and there was a vote for first-degree murder. We will find out when Hum argues his case on January 28 if this is just talk, or not. Until then these are only rumors.

However, let's consider these rumors for a moment – as a hypothetical. If Hum were to proceed along this course he would be essentially asking for a new vote, after Leslie and he tampered with the jury. This notion may sound unthinkable. Yet there are instances within the Los Angeles court system that are equally unthinkable, nevertheless they are fact. One such instance is the case of Richard I. Fine.

Richard Fine was sentenced indefinitely, without bail, without a hearing date and without a release date by L.A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe, after Fine challenged Judge Yaffe. Fine argued that the Judge was required to recuse himself from presiding over a case in which LA County was a defendant since he had been receiving illegal payments from the County Board of Supervisors since 1988. In fact all LA Superior Court judges have been receiving these illegal payments from the County Supervisors.

Los Angeles County Supervisors have been paying LA Superior Court judges redundant benefits, called "local judicial benefits" since November 1988. These benefits are paid in addition to the judges' State compensation of about $179,000 a year in salary, plus about $30,000 a year in State paid benefits. The current amount of County paid benefits is about $57,000 a year (the judges are allowed to take all of the County paid benefits in cash). This makes the total LA judges receive in excess of $260,000 annually (giving them more than any other group of judges in America, including the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court). This "double dipping" by the LA judges costs LA County taxpayers an estimated $20 million per year. (And LA County is continually cash strapped. I wonder why.)

The judges are employees of the State, not the County. And payment by the County is prohibited by the California Constitution, thus making the County paid benefits illegal. Actually, there is currently some controversy as to weather these payments are still illegal. In 2006, Judicial Watch challenged the payments in a case called Sturgeon v. LA County. After the trial court upheld the payments, Judicial Watch appealed and in 2008, the California Court of Appeals ruled that LA County's payments to the LA Superior Court judges were unconstitutional under Article VI, Section 19, of the California Constitution. The California Supreme Court subsequently denied review of the appeals court decision (meaning it did not disagree with the appeals court and would not overturn it). As a result the appeals court decision became law. But instead of abiding by the law, lobbyists were hired who convinced the State Legislature to sneak through a midnight bill, literally, called SBX2-11, which made the payments legal, authorized them to continue, and gave everyone involved retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution. (So a state senate bill can now override the CA Constitution? When did they change that? I missed it.) An additional problem with Senate Bill SBX2-11 is that the CA Constitution prohibits ex post facto (after the fact) laws from being enacted (Article I, Section 9). This means that Senate Bill SBX2-11 is also unconstitutional. Nevertheless, proponents of the judge's County paid benefits claim that these payments are now legal.

Regardless of the current legal status of the payments, questions that arises is why would the County pay for benefits that they aren't obligated to pay, and why make payments that were blatantly illegal for at least some of the time the County made the payments? The Supervisors claim they pay the extra benefits to "attract and retain quality judge". This is a confounding explanation given that there are thousands of qualified attorneys who would happily fill judicial openings at the legal base pay rate; and "retaining" judges with money makes even less sense because judges are elected. Perhaps the answer lies in the judge's decision record: not one LA County case has been lost when it was decided by a judge who collects the additional County benefits – no not one.

An argument against allowing judges to decide cases concerning the County at the same time that they are receiving sizable payments from the County is that the judges who receive the payments may hesitate to rule against the County if they felt the County could cut the payments in retaliation. This very argument was made by the founders of our nation. On July 4, 1776 the Second Continental Congress approved a little document called the Declaration of Independence. Within it the founders enumerated a list of charges against King George III to show that he had violated the colonists’ rights and was therefore unfit to the their ruler. They wrote:

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world . . . He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

This is the very thing that Mr. Fine is fighting against. For his trouble he has been locked in solitary confinement since March 4, 2009, he is not allowed to post bail nor have any kind of hearing. Additionally, Judge Yaffe ordered that Mr. Fine can't have paper and pencil with which to petition a higher court, nor does he have access to a law library or any legal materials. In short, Mr. Fine has been ordered to remain in jail until he relents. Welcome to LA County.

So what does all this have to do with the Cam Brown case? For one thing it shows that when the County's interests are at stake, the rule of law is duplicitous at best, amounting to nothing more than lip service. With regard to Cam Brown's case, a compelling, though circumstantial, argument can be made that the prosecution of Cam Brown isn't really about Lauren's death, but about hidden County interests that Lauren's death threatens (more precisely, about hidden County interests that an accidental death would threaten). We are not going to go into those specifics here (this is not the appropriate place for that) but we will say that we are not talking about potential liability, insurance claims, umbrella policies, nor anything remotely connected to such matters.

It may be a difficult to accept the notion that the prosecution of Cam Brown is driven by hidden County interests. Yet, it explains the multiple incongruent aspects of the case that are otherwise perplexing. The sheer volume of this kind of thing is considerable. As a result it is beyond the scope of a single blog entry to explore.

If we were to examine the prosecution's case, in spite of that, we'd find these claims have merit. If we started our examination at the very beginning and looked at how a homicide investigation was first initiated, and then looked at the investigator's behavior once they arrived at the scene – if we considered only these first few hours after Lauren's death, we'd find a pattern is already emerging. The pattern would show that the investigators were manipulating circumstances and events to make Lauren's death appear like a case of murder. If we continued our examination we'd find that this pattern persisted to the interrogation of Cam that night, the investigator's actions in the days, weeks and months that followed, and throughout each phase of this case until we reach this day, with the issue of double jeopardy in question. In the process we'd find multiple "irregularities" with each aspect of the prosecution's case. Such "irregularities" would include but not limited to, the machinations the coroner's department went through to reach the final version of the autopsy report, nearly two years of expert-shopping until a biomechanical expert willing to say what the prosecution wanted to hear was found, the biomechanical expert's methods and practices, and his final product and conclusions, the forensic accountant's process (not to mention her testimony at the second trial, which is much more than "irregular" and completely jaw-dropping) and much, much more.

We would also find that the investigators pursued Cam with a near maniacal zeal. This zeal is now being mimicked by the prosecutor, who is willing to take on double jeopardy, as he maliciously makes attempt after attempt to convict Cam of a crime that never happened. Despite all this, however, the worst thing we would find is that Lauren's mother, Sarah Key-Marer is being used and manipulated by County agents to protect the County's interests. Yes, that right, the grief of a mother's loss is being exploited to make this case. But, alas, the overwhelming amount of this kind of material makes covering it here more than daunting.

Written by Case Insider's Assistant

P.S. Even though we are engrossed in our own misfortune impinged by injustice, we are not blind to other's catastrophes. With that we want to say that our hearts and prayers go out to the people of Haiti. In this most dark and dire time, we wish for you God's light, His strength and a conclusion wrought in His most profound blessing.

The Defense Present It's Case

2009-09-02T22:43:00.000-07:00

The first expert witness to appear on behalf of Cam Brown was Dr. Janice Ophoven from Minnesota. Dr. Ophoven also appeared during the first trial at which time her testimony was limited by Judge Mark Arnold. The autopsy was not considered a full document in that trial, several sections having been redacted. Judge Arnold limited the testimony accordingly.

I have linked the biography from one of Dr. Ophoven's websites here, and have reproduced a portion of it for your convenience as follows:

"Dr. Janice Ophoven is a pediatric forensic pathologist with more than 30 years of clinical, administrative and quality improvement experience. She is board certified in Pathology, Forensic Pathology, Quality Assurance and Utilization Review. Dr. Ophoven has focused her clinical practice on understanding child abuse and injury to children."

A review of Dr. Ophoven's history reveals that she was the only witness to appear on behalf of the defense in the Dierks shaken baby trial. Amy Dierks, a Sioux Falls daycare provider, was held to account for injuries sustained by baby Henry while under her care in November, 2007. Six-month old baby Henry had become lethargic and was in a coma-like state when his father took him from the day-care center on that bleak November day. Now two years old, baby Henry is blind and can barely crawl. His parents are still seeking answers about what happened that day. They believe Amy Dierks shook their son and banged his head, causing the injuries, but the jury took only four hours to agree with Dr. Ophoven's assessment that the child showed signs of something else happening days before he was under Dierks' care. The defense contended that a brain infection was the source of his injury.

Dr. Ophoven is involved in 50 to 75 cases internationally each year. She testifies for the prosecution and the defense, and most often regarding injuries or deaths involving children. Prior to becoming a forensic pathologist, Dr. Ophoven practiced as a Pediatrician. She is also an assistant medical examiner for St. Louis County, Minnesota.

The book The Death of Innocents, highlights Dr. Ophoven's role as a prosecution witness in the case of serial killer Waneta Hoyt, convicted for the murder of five of her infant children over a seven year period. Hoyt's sixth child, an adopted boy, grew up normally which added further support to Waneta's claims that the earlier deaths were caused by a genetic abnormality. Those deaths had been used as a scientific model to support SIDS research, but when this theory was challenged by additional information years later, Waneta admitted that she had killed each of her biological children because she couldn't tolerate hearing them cry. Oddly, the crying of her adopted son never bothered her in the same way.

Once a strong proponent of shaken baby syndrome, more recent research, information and anaysis has caused Dr. Ophoven to rethink previous beliefs. She has taken an opposing view in more recent cases and stands firmly in defense of those charged under the old theories. She is quite use to being called a defense-whore as a result of this, but is undeterred by her attackers. The number of previous cases which might now be reconsidered due to the studies and biomechanical research of her colleague, Dr. John Plunkett, is mind-boggling, but his work, work they had accomplished together, and the work of others has convinced Dr. Ophoven the phenomena of shaken baby syndrome is not conclusive and needs to be challenged on a case-by-case basis. An article which gives a more in-depth understanding of the work of Dr. Plunkett is found here. The debate will certainly bring about a flurry of review which could reach the proportions of that seen by the work of Barry Scheck and "The Innocence Project" due to dna. Unfortunately, once medical examiners have identified the three most common signs being used to identify the syndrome, other very important data which would support other explanations may have been overlooked and lost. Crime buffs might want to keep an eye on these developments because they are certain to raise much more conflict as future prosecutions are challenged by the scientific community.

The Cameron Brown trial is more straight forward, however. Were Lauren's injuries the result of a single high-velocity impact, or could they have been sustained in an accidental fall? Based on the autopsy report, (which miraculously contains all of the sections in this trial) what conclusions would Dr. Ophoven have reached regarding cause and manner of death?

Today's testimony took direct aim at the testimony of Dr. Wilson Hayes. Dr. Ophoven questioned the conclusions of Dr. Hayes based on the fact that he had no absolutes to work with and there were numerous variables that had not been taken into consideration in Dr. Hayes's model. She actually stated that she was embarrassed by Dr. Hayes's conclusions and could not reconcile the fact that he drew such a narrow conclusion based on the fact that there were so many other possibilities that were not given any consideration.

Dr. Ophoven reviewed the autopsy report from Dr. Chinwah and was asked to compare her findings of injuries with those of Dr. Chinwah. Large pictures were used for her to demonstrate to the jury what conclusions she reached and why. She identified substantially more injuries which pointed to multiple impacts, particularly a large area of contusion to the right side of Lauren's back which Dr. Chinwah didn't bother with at all in the first trial and Hayes brushed off as lividity in this trial. This bruising, by the way, is on the same side as the injury to Lauren's wrist (the right side). There was also 250cc of blood in her right chest cavity, contusions to her liver which is on the right side of her body, contusions on the right side of her diaphram, and a tear where the pancreas is attached (which is also on the right side of her body). The head and upper chest injury which Hayes and Chinwah claim is the result of the only impact Lauren suffered, is on the left side of her head and upper chest.

Lividity is one of the changes which occur after death. It takes a number of hours to become "fixed". When the heart stops pumping, blood will begin to settle in those areas which are lowest, but not in the areas which are in direct contact with a hard surface. This is because the vessels become constricted in those areas. The only reason lividity would show up on one side is if the body was lying on that side, in which case it would run along the entire length of the body. The fact that the area of concern in the pictures was exclusively on one side of Lauren's body while she was positioned on her back, and did not run the entire length was the first clue that the discoloration was not lividity.

Dr. Ophoven also noted many bruises and contusions to Lauren's limbs that had not been noted in the autopsy report. In fact, Dr. Chinwah had stated (as had Craig Hum) that Lauren's limbs did not show injuries. Dr. Ophoven concluded from all of the injuries that Lauren had sustained, that she had suffered "numerous and many" impacts, although she was unable to say how many.

Craig Hum tried to discredit Dr. Ophoven during the cross examination. He did not attack her on the basis of her testimony about the injuries, but rather about her personally. For instance, Dr. Ophoven is considered to be a pioneer in the area of pediatric forensics. She was considered an expert in the area many years before it was recognized and offered as a board certified specialty. Although she has been clearly looked up to in the field for many years, he attacked her on the basis that she did not bother to test for the pediatric certification which she had actually pioneered. He then went over the qualifications of Wilson Hayes, including the fact that he held a prestigious position at Harvard. In re-direct by Pat Harris, Dr. Ophoven reluctantly stated that Dr. Hayes had in fact lost his position at Harvard because of academic fraud.

Dr. Bruce Beckwith is due to testify tomorrow, and it is also expected that Detective Leslie will retake the witness stand because he traveled to Montana to consult with Dr. Beckwith.

When Law Enforcement becomes the Criminal

2008-08-11T06:31:00.001-07:00

Recent readings of the cases discussed at The Innocence Project website , and others, has enhanced our curiosity with respect to seeing the violators pay for their deliberate efforts to deny fairness and civil rights to defendants who are being wrongly convicted of crimes. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld should be repeatedly applauded for their work in getting the innocent out of jail, but who is taking this bull by the horns to see that those who violated law along the way are being held accountable?

WE NEED YOUR HELP!

Please visit sites that are concerned about protecting the civil rights of those being wrongfully prosecuted and convicted and remember that as long as we turn a blind eye toward justice we are opening the potential that the next person prosecuted wrongly for a felony could be YOU! As proven by Cam Brown, all it takes is a very unfortunate accident and investigators willing to lie and cover up exculpatory evidence in order to make someone pay.

Investigators, under the cover of a badge, have been given the right to lie in order to encourage statements from witnesses. There is nothing wrong (according to law) with the investigators saying that they have undeniable PROOF that someone committed a heinous crime and they desperately need the help of others in order to present it to the court. The question that should be asked is, "If your proof is so good, why are you bothering me? I've got no evidence!"

Suddenly the scream of a seagull (which has been heard often and repeatedly) becomes the scream of a child. Suddenly a child bending over to pick up rocks becomes a child crawling along on all fours! Suddenly the statements of a defendant are forgotten and replaced by "I believe..." this or that may have happened... in an effort to create an illusion rather than facts. Suddenly expert testimony that holes in the ground can NOT be footprints are ignored in favor of statements that someone thought they "looked" like they could be footprints. Suddenly the truth of the matter no longer matters as prosecutors cleverly conspire with others to create an illusion and pass it off as facts.

Our current laws which allow law enforcement to lie to witnesses and the courts and then be protected by immunity lay the foundation for corruption in our system. All you need to do is go to the Innocence Project, Truth in Justice or any of the other sites around the internet to see how justice has been manipulated in order to find innocent people guilty of crimes they did not commit. Our justice system is supposed to prevent that from happening, but under the current methods it encourages it.

While none of us wants to see a guilty person walk away from their crimes, all of us have a responsibility to make sure justice is administered fairly, swiftly and accurately. A sobering reminder from the Innocence Project:

Innocence Project Case Profiles

There have been 218 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.

The common themes that run through these cases — from global problems like poverty and racial issues to criminal justice issues like eyewitness misidentification, corrupt scientists, overzealous police and prosecutors and inept defense counsel — cannot be ignored and continue to plague our criminal justice system.

* Sixteen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.
* The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 12 years.
* About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.
* In over 35 percent of the cases profiled here, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.
* Exonerations have been won in 32 states and Washington, D.C.

Please visit their site and take an interest in protecting the integrity of our criminal justice system. Please help in any way you can to make sure no other person is held to pay for a crime they didn't commit.

Accuracy in Media and those Stubborn little things called FACTS!

2008-06-20T10:43:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Men's Central Jail has a library? Wow! Who knew?

It's interesting that a very recent article in The Daily Breeze, written by Denise Nix, would lead us to believe there is a library there. And that information is according to none other than Deputy District Attorney Dennis Lockfield. Quoting a portion of the article as it appeared in the Daily Breeze on June 18, 2008:

Cameron Brown shank case dismissed

By Denise Nix on June 18, 2008 3:12 PM

Prosecutors dropped a weapon posession [sic] charge today for a man jailed while waiting trial in connection to his 4-year-old daughter's Rancho Palos Verdes cliff death.

Cameron Brown, 46, was charged with one felony count of custodial posession [sic] of a weapon after a jailer found a razor blade in a book Brown borrowed from the jail library, according to Deputy District Attorney Dennis Lockfield.

Lockfield said the case was dismissed because he did not believe it could be proved that Brown knew about the razor.

First of all, I believe there are rules with regard to a prosecutor providing false or misleading information to the media, and nothing can be more false or more misleading than the statement Ms. Nix claims Lockfield made. Mr. Brown did NOT borrow a book from the library. Furthermore, the Men's Central Jail, according to Deputy Nawotny who testified during the Preliminary Hearing, has NO library!

The Daily Breeze is a well-known and relied upon source of news in the beach communities surrounding the Palos Verdes Peninsula. As such, it would seem they have a responsibility to make sure their customers are provided with unbiased reporting. I don't know what ever happened to "fact checking", but it seems to have taken a back seat to sensationalism. At the very least Ms. Nix might have been wise to add the caveat, "the unconfirmed statement of DDA Lockfield". Or, perhaps, Ms. Nix might have checked with the defense team to see if they have anything else to add to these developments.

Well, I guess we aren't always lucky enough to get what we pay for, but we will do our very best to take up the slack and correct the mistakes.

Weapons Charge Against Cameron Brown Dismissed!

2008-06-18T22:51:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, June 18, 2008, the weapons charge that had been filed against Cameron Brown was dismissed. This case was filed after a razor blade was found in the spine of a book that was ostensibly discovered in Cameron's cell. The book was a hard-covered book, which inmates are not permitted to possess in the jail. On January 6, 2008, after Cameron was brought back from a shower, he immediately noticed a hard-cover book in his cell which had not been there when he had been taken to the shower. He asked a deputy to remove it since it was not his book. As soon as the deputy took the book from Cameron, he looked for and found a razor blade in the spine of the book.

At the Preliminary Hearing on April 30, the deputy who had found the blade testified that the book had been destroyed because it was considered to be contraband. The destruction of this main piece of evidence was, of course, a major point of concern to the defense. For one thing, all books belonging to inmates are stamped on the inside cover indicating how they were received into the jail and to whom they were being sent.

Since inmates are not permitted to possess hard-cover books, such a book would have to have been brought in by a prison employee, or else by someone with access (such as for example the chaplain). Cameron's cell was searched regularly and the book had not been in his cell at the time that he left for the shower. It is completely incomprehensible to suppose that the book had been in his possession. Nevertheless, since it was found in his cell, he was charged with possession of a weapon. It is shocking to learn that the book, which was an important piece of evidence, was destroyed!

It was also revealed that the razor blade which was in evidence had not been checked for fingerprints. Why not? Fingerprints found on the book or on the razor blade would seem to be a primary piece of evidence. There is no logical reason why they would not have been checked for fingerprints prior to bringing the case forward. But they were not.

The defense also immediately subpoenaed a video tape that would have shown all the activity in Cameron's cell. Because of previous problems and complaints that Cameron had filed, he was placed on a special tier in the jail where all activity was videotaped. The defense immediately subpoenaed the videotapes, and also made an offer to send someone from their office to the jail to retrieve the data at their own expense. But they were assured that this would not be necessary. However, at the next hearing they were told that the tapes were not available since they had already been recycled and taped over. They were told that the deputies did not know how to save the data on the tapes! Now, really! Are we supposed to believe that?

At each subsequent hearing there was a new prosecutor appearing for the State. At the hearing prior to the dismissal there was also an attorney representing the Sheriff's Department present. He tried to advance the idea that the book wasn't destroyed and had only been misplaced. He tried to say that they would find it somehow -- somewhere -- at sometime. This was odd since the Deputy who found the shank was very clear about what had happened to the book, and why. The testimony from the prior hearing was referred to on the record to establish the point.

We believe that the weapon was planted in Cam's cell deliberately as a means of pressuring him into making a deal, and also to have a charge of potential violence on his record. Prosecutor Hum has been trying to find whatever he can to show that Cameron is ostensibly a "bad guy" with a violent temper. After nearly 8 years, he is certainly frustrated by the reality that Cameron has never been a violent person.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent! Justice blowin' in the wind

2008-05-20T05:21:00.001-07:00

The following article and information comes from Justice On Trial and can be found http://www.justiceontrial.org/articles/csi_effect.htm

Excerpts from the article:
-----------------------------------------------

THE CSI EFFECT
THE CSI EFFECT: A relatively new problem with justice in America has recently merged. Most of what the public knows about the legal system comes from media reporting and the pseudo-documentaries that purport to depict law enforcement realistically. Known collectively as the “CSI Effect,” the phenomenon affects not only trials but also the public’s perception of what happens in criminal investigations. Simply put, “It just ain’t so.” The altruism we see in Cold Case Files; the intense investigation we see on CSI, SVU; the reluctance of prosecutors and judges to pervert the legal system we see in “Law and Order” is “creative license” taken by teleplay writers and it is what should happen, but rarely does.
Legal professionals are concerned at the heavy influence of these semi-fictional dramatic presentations on the outcome of trials where “CSI expert” juries base their verdicts on their own “forensic evaluations” of the evidence. In effect, jurors who rely on the “expertise” acquired by viewing TV-crime programs are overruling the expert forensic witnesses. Courts, though they should, rarely instruct juries to disregard their “TV crime busting experience” when reaching a verdict.

Below are highlights of some of other, much more serious, flaws in the system that Justice On Trial, using contributions and grants, hopes to offer suggestions, and lobby for legislation, to improve.
1. THE IRRELEVANCE OF INNOCENCE: The “presumption of guilt,” not innocence,tracks defendants throughout the system. Imagine law enforcement arresting those they “presumed innocent.” In virtually all arrests, law enforcement makes a “prophecy of guilt,” early on, then ‘develops” appropriate evidence to prosecute and convict. (See the 2002 feature film, with Al Pacino, Hillary Swank, Robin Williams, “Insomnia” for a realistic depiction of this law enforcement mindset with truly disastrous results. Also read Pulitzer Prize winner Edward Humes’ “Mean Justice” to see how rampant, and dangerous, this can be in a community where it is nurtured, unchecked.)..................
2. ARREST WITHOUT EVIDENCE: Officials can and do arrest on no, or flawed, even fabricated, evidence. Affidavits are sworn, under penalty of perjury, so judges, relying upon the honesty of law enforcement and prosecutors, approve such documents without corroboration. Judges are unable to verify evidence in a “sworn officer’s” affidavit. There are evidentiary requirements for arrest, search and seizure and preliminary hearings. However, they are based upon the premise that officers of the law and courts will rise to these standards of law, voluntarily, accurately and truthfully. Some do not.
Frequently, in cases where there is little or no evidence, the “instincts and experience” of law enforcement point them to a suspect early in the investigation. To validate these de facto “declarations of guilt,” officers and/or prosecutors “fudge” evidence to arrest and prosecute so conviction becomes, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy of guilt. Officials “amplify” weak evidence; falsify forensics that would be difficult for the defense to verify; manipulate witness testimony; avoid investigation of other suspects, and withhold exculpatory evidence to strengthen the case and validate that prophecy of guilt....................................

3. YEARS OF INCARCERATION WITH NO TRIAL: Routinely, defendants, many who present no danger or the very remote possibility of flight, are held without bail or unaffordable bail, for years. “Speedy trial” is another fallacy of the American Judicial system. The more serious the crime alleged, the longer it will take the defense to prepare for trial.........................................

4. MYTH OF INCREASED CONVICTION/DECREASED CRIME RATE: Statistics, like holograms, look a little different from every angle. About 85% of “convictions” in the U.S. are not really convictions at all. Ostensibly, to save the courts’ time and money, in collaboration with law enforcement, prosecutors “over-charge” defendants. That is, in the majority of criminal cases, the defendant is charged with more serious crimes than there is evidence to support. Law enforcement then persuades the defendant:
A. That sufficient evidence does exist, when most often it does not; that he will be charged and almost certainly convicted with a long sentence.

B. If he goes to trial it could take years (it will) and, should he lose and appeal, he could spend many years in jail (he would) and still be sentenced at the highest end of the sentencing standard, without “time served” being counted because he was uncooperative by not accepting the plea bargain.....................
5. ESTIMATES OF INNOCENTS IN JAIL RUN TO 200,000 OR MORE: If that were true, what an outrage! But, it is. You may have heard that Barry Scheck, nationally known trial attorney, has headed up a similar non-profit organization, Innocence Project for several years. This group has been responsible for 158 cases overturned, some from death row, primarily based on DNA evidence. (Read “Actual Innocence” by Barry Scheck, for more information and some astonishing statistics on numbers of innocent inmates in U.S. jails). The U.S. has the largest inmate population of any country in the world, over 2 million.

I found the above article as I was researching to write a similar piece regarding Cam Brown. I simply could not find the words to state it better. Justiceontrial.org is an excellent site and is currently working on a television series by the same name. All of us who previously had strong confidence in our justice system before Cam's case, will be anxiously looking forward to that program. We are committed to the principle of being innocent until proven guilty and understand that we can not have a sound justice system in America unless we do everything in our power to preserve truth, honesty and integrity in justice. But lets apply the conclusions of the article to Cam's case:

1. The Relevance of Innocence: There is no question that Cam's case was approached with the assumption of his guilt being the primary motivation and catalyst. As the prosecutor said in an interview, he simply felt certain Cam was guilty. As the investigators said, it was because of their experience that they were able to ferret out statements Cam had made that caused them to conclude early on that he was a guilty man. From there it was a matter of finding what they needed to prove it. They spend the next couple of years trying to "make" their case, but found nothing to substantiate their suspicions. They then enlisted the assistance of DDA Craig Hum who began to creatively weave together the "facts" in a way that would demonstrate guilt to a grand jury and secure an indictment. In the process, facts were manipulated in order to fit, and other facts were created out of thin air. When it didn't hold up in the trial court, prosecutor Hum merely shifted gears and began to argue an alternative theory, and in case the jury didn't buy either, he threw in an admonition to the jury that they "MUST" find Cam Brown guilty, it's the law! Presumption of innocence is, in reality, a farce. It's what we strive for but can not obtain as long as those whom we trust to serve our best interests work from a presumption of guilt, and have all of the resources they need to create the appearance of guilt.

2. Arrest without Evidence: The prosecution twisted the facts to make it appear there was probable cause to arrest Cam Brown. One of the things they used were so-called footprints. The truth about those so-called footprints is that their own crime analyst testified in trial for the defense that they were not footprints. Then, when it was time to give the molds of supposed footprints to the defense for testing and review, they were lost. From those supposed footprints they hired an expert who was willing to support their conclusion that Cam Brown threw his daughter over a cliff. They had other experts who said it was impossible to reach that conclusion, but that did not deter them and those experts were not hired. They then fudged the "evidence" enough to not only secure an arrest and indictment, but to ensure Cam would not be let out on bail. This tactic is often used to prevent an accused the ability to aid in his own defense, but more importantly to put pressure on them to make a deal or to confess to a crime.

3. Years of Incarceration with no trial: This tactic was also utilized in Cam's case. The longer he is incarcerated, the more likely it is that he will fall prey and admit to something or strike a deal. Incarcerated for nearly five years, when all else failed, pressure was put on Cam by bringing charges against him for possession of a weapon. $50,000 bail was placed on him for that charge, even though there is no evidence against him. But let me explain what he was accused of.

Cam was taken for a shower. When he returned he noticed a hard-covered book in his cell. Hard-covered books are not allowed in the jail. If they are discovered in the mail they are returned to sender and are never forwarded to an inmate. All other books are stamped to show when they were received and where they are going. Also, the cells are checked regularly for contraband, and Cam's cell was checked on a daily basis. The book was not in his cell when he was taken out for his shower, but it suddenly appeared when he returned. He immediately saw it and asked the deputy to take it away. It was not his. The deputy took the book and right away discovered there was a razor blade in the spine of the book. As a consequence, Cam was charged with having a weapon.

Because of complaints Cam had previously made regarding abuse in jail, he was on a tier which video-taped everything. The video tape was subpoenaed by the defense and would show how the book got into Cam's cell, but when the defense failed to receive the tape and brought it to the attention of the judge, it was revealed that the tape had been destroyed. The book was also intentionally destroyed. While it is said that the razor blade is being held in evidence, no finger prints were ever taken from it prior to charging Cam or prior to bringing the case to trial. This case is certainly being brought as a means of intimidation. The fact that it is costing Cam additional money to defend is another bonus for the prosecution, as well as the fact it can be used by the media to make Cam look bad. Tactics. It's all about gaining the advantage and putting pressure on the accused.

I realize that there are some who believe it was as simple as invoking Cam's right to a speedy trial, but in reality it's never that simple. This is especially true when funds are limited and negotiations are on going to provide the defendant with expert witnesses. Certainly you can invoke speedy trial rights, but then there is no assurance that you will be able to support your defense with the necessary experts. Believe me, it's not as easy as some would like you to believe unless you are independently wealthy. This is the reason why the percentage of those who give up and take a deal is so high - somewhere in the neighborhood of 80%. Cam has been fighting for the opportunity to prove his innocence.

4. Myth of Increased Conviction/Decreased Crime Rate: Of course this myth serves a dual purpose. It helps the District Attorney and the Sheriff in their re-election campaigns, and it also helps the Deputy District Attorney in his quest for recognition. But there is another reason to overcharge people such as Cam. It's because being locked up often puts the accused in a position of being falsely testified against by jail house snitches, but also because of the pressure to confess -- even if those kind of confessions are known to be due to pressure and not because they are true. Even though it is likely that some of these people will actually be acquitted in trial, many of them have no resources to fight the system and depend on the already over-stressed Public Defender's Office. They know that they are at a grave disadvantage and might as well bend to the pressure and just admit to something in a plea deal. The plea goes down on the charts as a conviction -- another supposed bad guy off the streets. It's a cruel and nasty game, but it has proven to be a very effective one until people like Barry Scheck came along and began getting enough evidence to effect the release of some of the falsely convicted, but also began to gather enough data to show how innocent men were convinced to give false confessions. The data also showed patterns of tactics used to ensure the conviction of innocent men and women. We began to have enough data to take the complaints of abuse and lies very seriously.

Even a defense attorney will look to deal out a case. Fighting it costs far more money than most people have, and public assistance is rarely enough to even begin to cover the cost of a good defense. In Cam's case, experts for the defense were severely limited in what they would be paid (those experts paid by the public funds), and after the trial the judge further cut their payment back to ensure (we believe) that they would never come back for a second trial. It's all about games. It's all about strategy. It works far too often.

Further along in the above article it says, "Those believing that their innocence will lead to acquittal are naive and find, too late, of the irrelevance of innocence in today's American system of justice."

Cam believed, after Lauren's accident, that the ambitious investigators would investigate and find out they were wrong and eventually leave him alone. He was not afraid of the investigation because he knew he had done nothing wrong. He naively had confidence in the system to protect him.

You know, you often see people who immediately call for an attorney when it seems suspicion is befalling them. You also see that when someone does that it is used against them by the investigators. Why would anyone call for an attorney if they are, indeed, innocent? In reality it's like anything else that will happen to you if the long arm of the law decides you are guilty of something; you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you cry, you are intentionally over-reacting to hide your guilt, therefore providing probable cause. If you don't cry, you are not reacting in the way you should be reacting and therefore you are providing probable cause. The police know very well that there is no set way to respond to a terrible and tragic event, yet they will use your response (regardless of what it was) to provide foundation of your suspected guilt.

The next time you hear of someone protesting their innocence -- even on their way into a gas chamber -- don't assume they are guilty just because they made it that far into the system. Chances are just as likely that they never committed the crime they were accused, tried and convicted of. Chances are real good.

For Lauren

2008-04-24T12:14:00.000-07:00

May God bless little Lauren
We think of her each day
She watches over all of us
As we go on our way

Her smile is in each rainbow
Her warmth in each sunray
Her tears fall with each raindrop
Memories help us through each day

Let her memory fill empty hearts
Let her love guide what we say
Let us see things through those little eyes
And do right by her each day

As her little hands reach out to us
We know she leads the way
May God bless our little Lauren
Let her truth be known, we pray

------------------------

May the truth and nothing but the truth prevail. Cam Brown is due to be retried for Lauren's death soon. He did not cause her death. He did not kill the daughter he loved. Lauren and Cam loved each other and enjoyed the time they spent together. This deserves to be known and Lauren should not be held in our memories as the little girl who was thrown off a cliff by a hateful father if that is not what happened. Lauren should not be remembered as the little girl whose father thought so little of her that he intentionally put her at risk if, indeed, that never happened. Lauren deserves better than that. For all those who have the ability to see through her little eyes, please tell the truth. For those who knew her innocence and her little heart, please speak the truth, not from a place of our own selfishness, but from an untainted honesty.

Give us all the strength to go through this one more time so that the whole truth and nothing but the truth can be heard. Justice is only found in the truth.

I say this as though I really believe solely in the goodness of God to bring about justice and truth. Well, I don't. We have to put our faith and confidence in the goodness of our fellow man to do the right thing and that has proven to be a little harder.

A New Judge, A New Day for Fairness and Due Process

2008-04-11T09:58:00.000-07:00

During preparation for the first trial of Cam Brown, Mark Geragos made a motion which, if granted, would allow him to go to the Prosecutor's office to get exact copies of the files regarding Cameron Brown’s case. Prosecutor Craig Hum vehemently objected by stating that everything he had was in the files held by the Sheriff's Investigator Jeff Leslie. He objected to his files being reviewed because the defense could get the same thing from the Sheriff's Department. Judge Arnold sided with Hum and the defense motion was denied. This decision is inconceivable for the following reasons:

When any evidence favorable to the accused is suppressed, the defendant’s right to due process is violated. The right to due process ensures a defendant's right to legal fairness. This right is set forth in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of our Constitution, which prohibits government from taking a person's "life, liberty or property without due process of law." Our United States Courts have interpreted these Amendments as putting limitations on the ability of legislatures to pass laws which would unfairly infringe on a fundamental liberty.

In Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court found that withholding evidence violates a defendant's right to due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." In Brady v. Maryland, the Court found that the evidence in question would not have been exculpatory during the trial, but it would have a material effect on the level of punishment, and hence the defendant's case was remanded for retrial on the question of punishment. Material evidence is anything that has a bearing on guilt, innocence or sentencing. If there is a chance that the result of a trial would be different if the jurors knew the information being held, that information MUST be disclosed by the prosecutor.

The Brady Rule requires that information that can be used to impeach a witness must be disclosed. When there is information known to affect the reliability or credibility of a witness, that information must be disclosed to the defense because it weighs on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The information must be disclosed because it could have a material effect on the decision of the Court or jury. While it is the obligation of the prosecutor to release such information, it is up to the defense to present it to the jury. Understandably any rulings by the Court which would suppress the information so that the jury is not allowed to hear it would be a violation of due process.

This is directly relevant in the trial of Cam Brown because the prosecutor brought two witnesses before the Court who had been offered deals for their testimony. The defense rightfully wanted that fact brought forth to the jurors. The Prosecutor objected and the Judge sustained his objection. This is significant because the witnesses were two of three who stated that Lauren walked behind Cam on their way to Inspiration Point. The erroneous impression was given that Lauren did not want to go to the Point and Cam was dragging her along in spite of her fears.

Witnesses with contrary reports were not called to the stand by the Prosecutor. Of the three who were, two had personal reasons to testify to the facts the prosecutor wanted to portray as truth. The third, a passerby, testified under direct examination by the prosecutor that Lauren was walking behind Cam. During cross examination his statement was challenged by the defense because it was in direct conflict with his original statement at the time of the accident in which he stated that Lauren was AHEAD of Cam. When reminded of that record, the witness suddenly remembered that the defense was correct and his direct testimony was NOT accurate. Lauren was indeed ahead of Cam. This conflict in testimony is the reason why defendants are protected by due process and allowed to examine ALL evidence and reports held by the prosecutor. Without the original reports, the prosecutor’s deception would not have been known.

The prosecutor must disclose all information that he is aware of that would be exculpating or beneficial to the defense, whether this information is held by him or the police/investigators. For this reason, the prosecutor is obligated to review all files held by the investigators and disclose anything within those files which is beneficial to the defense. Ignorance is not an excuse. There is no distance between the prosecutor and the all evidence generated and held by the police. The prosecutor is ultimately responsible for releasing all of it to the defense.

In short, IT IS THE PROSECUTOR’S DUTY to gather and turn over ALL files which maintain information relative to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. That duty is not negated by passing it along to another agency for any reason. It is not the obligation of the defense to gather or find the relevant information. The Court can not absolve the prosecutor of his duty to perform under Brady.

With regard to Cameron Brown’s case, the prosecution advanced the idea that Cam Brown lied when he said he talked to his wife from a telephone at the park. There was a telephone very near where Cam parked his car. The grand jurors who indicted Cam, and the jurors in his first trial, were both told that Cam lied about that phone call. The prosecution presented evidence to those jurors that no completed phone call had been placed to Cam’s wife from that telephone.

The problem is that Cam never told the detectives that he reached his wife from the first telephone. He told them that he reached her from the telephone located in the lower parking lot by the playground area. During the trial the prosecutor claimed ignorance with regard to the second phone and stated that the records of that telephone had never been checked! Because we know that the detectives and the prosecutor, by their own admissions, examined the entire area very thoroughly, there is no reason to believe they were not aware of the telephone which stands in the open next to the play yard. Even if only the detectives knew about that telephone, the prosecutor is ultimately responsible for anything that would materially affect the guilt of Cam Brown. Because Cam Brown’s supposed lie about the telephone call was a main thesis of the prosecution, deliberately ignoring it’s existence is a violation of Cam’s right to due process.

The “open-file” policies with regard to discovery is critical to ensure that all information of an exculpatory nature is disclosed. In Cam’s case, critical evidence was lost (the molds taken of depressions in the ground at Inspiration Point) while held in evidence. In spite of the fact these molds were lost, they were still referenced by the prosecutor and wrongly, according to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department expert, referred to as molds of Cam’s footprints! Because things were lost or ignored in this case, Cam’s right to due process has been violated. The only way to be sure that all information critical to the case has been released under the Brady rule is for all such information to be held in a single database controlled by the prosecution.

Judge Arnold’s decision to prevent the defense’s review of those files held by the prosecutor is a violation of his obligation to oversee the proper administration of justice for Cameron Brown. The refusal of the prosecutor to allow his files to be open to review and the attempt to thwart his obligation by passing it along to the Sheriff’s Department (which, by the way, is under no similar obligation) does not meet the requirements of state and federal law.

It is indisputable that experts, i.e. Professor Hayes, were interviewed and hired by the Prosecutor, Craig Hum. Any notes reflecting discussion between the expert and the prosecutor, along with any correspondence between potential experts or Professor Hayes, would be in the files of the prosecutor. Likewise, any findings of the Investigators employed by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, would be held in the files of the prosecutor. All of these files are potential breeding grounds for deceit and should be open to review in their entirety.

Detective Danny Smith had retired by the time the defense asked to review the files. His records were said to have been turned over to Detective Jeff Leslie. There is no assurance that everything discoverable from Danny Smith’s files were in deed in the files of Jeff Leslie. There is no assurance that the records held by Jeff Leslie were exactly those records held by the prosecutor, Craig Hum. We do not know what verbal information was given to the prosecutor by Danny Smith or anyone else, or what notes might have been added to the files held by the prosecutor with regard to discussions of the evidence. The purpose of Brady is to protect the defendant’s right to review ALL information influencing his guilt or innocence, and it is the Judge’s duty to ensure that his right is protected.

Because of violations under the Brady Rule and after the reversal of 100’s of cases due to failure to comply with the rules, oversight has been established in the state of California, particularly Los Angeles County. The California Commission of the Fair Administration of Justice and the Rampart Task Force made recommendations that are meant to enforce compliance under Brady.

Second Trial Moving Ahead

2008-04-03T08:12:00.000-07:00

The second trial of Cameron Brown has been moved to the Downtown Courthouse and will be heard by Judge Michael E. Pastor. It is scheduled to begin in June, 2008. This change is due to Judge Arnold's caseload and the fact that Cam has declined to waive his right to a speedy trial any further.

The Plot Thickens ...

2007-04-28T06:56:00.001-07:00

In the weeks after Lauren’s accident, Detectives Danny Smith & Jeff Leslie enlisted Lauren’s mother Sarah to try to lure Cameron Brown into a conversation with her, in the hope that he might say something that they could turn and use against him. Cam refused to play that game, so they wired Sarah up and sent her to confront him at the airport where he worked. Cam told Sarah that he couldn’t talk to her, got on his motorcycle, and drove away. Having once again failed in getting Cam to incriminate himself, they then enlisted Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Detective Mark Lillienfeld to help.

Cam was advised by his lawyer to file a police report about the encounter with Sarah in the airport parking lot. When he did so, Detective Lillienfeld appeared posing as an Airport Police Officer who would take Cam’s information. Lillienfeld testified at the trial that Cam had signed a statement containing false allegations against Sarah about what had happened in the parking lot. In cross examination, Attorney Mark Geragos pointed out that the handwriting on the statement did not belong to Cam. Geragos suggested that Lillienfeld had written the statement. Lillienfeld neither admitted nor denied that he had written the statement which he alleged had been written by Cameron Brown.

It is interesting to note that Danny Smith once again teamed up with Mark Lillienfeld in order to provide the probable cause affidavits in the Phil Spector case. But Mark Lillienfeld is hardly without swarming controversy in numerous other cases. One such controversy can be found at Justice On Trial:

PRIMARY EXAMPLE OF WHY THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM IS FAILING
A VIRTUOSO OF FALSE EVIDENCE, orchestrated by Los Angeles Homicide Detective, Mark Lillienfeld

This highly respected L.A. homicide detective, a veteran of over 20 years and more than 100 cases, has falsified, fabricated and tampered with evidence and witnesses with such aplomb and to such an extraordinary extent in the Thompson murder case that he could have only drawn upon past experience to accomplish what Goodwin's defense attorney, in Orange County, filed with Lillienfeld's superiors and L.A. Internal Affairs.

Jeffrey Benice, Goodwin's defense attorney in the Orange County case against Goodwin, now dismissed, filed this letter and report with L.A. Internal Affairs. This report covers only a small percentage of the documented incidences of misconduct by Detective Mark Lillienfeld.

Click HERE for a list of over 50 false statements by Detective Mark Lillienfeld in the Goodwin case alone that were either given as sworn testimony or else contained in sworn affidavits. As such, these should represent perjury, but as far as we can tell Lillienfeld has not been reprimanded for these violations. You may also click HERE to obtain a Microsoft Word document file of this list. (Right-click on the link, and choose “Save Target As...” from the menu that pops up if you want to save it.)

Judge Mark Arnold did not allow Mark Geragos to bring up Lillienfeld’s background. But a quick Google search will bring up issues that are sure to raise more than just a few eyebrows. The judge in Orange County threw the case against Goodwin out. But Goodwin was then rearrested and charged this time in Los Angeles County.

Now, I do not pretend to know whether the defendants in any of these other cases were or were not guilty. They might very well have been. But the problem I have here is that members of the Los Angeles justice system—people who are supposed to be servants of the public—seem to have a habit of “making” their case by hook or by crook—using alchemy, or magic, or whatever else is available to them.

In the case of Cameron John Brown, we have a long list of grievances regarding the abuse of authority. The trial has uncovered not just one, not just a couple, but many instances where officers of the law wove the fabric of their case from maybe just a little bit of fact and usually a whole lot of fancy.

Is there a path leading from the parking lot at Abalone Cove to the driveway down to the playground? According to Jeff Leslie, there isn’t. But somehow I was able to find it without any difficulty. Can you go along the beach front from the playground to Portuguese Point without obstruction? According to Jeff Leslie you can’t. But somehow I was able to do so, and meeting several other hikers going the other way. Again, without any difficulty at all.

Did Cam Brown take Lauren on some convoluted dirt path with difficult inclines and declines, climbing under fences along the way? According to Jeff Leslie he did. But according to testimony of witnesses who saw him walking, and who walked with him, he did not. Did Lauren play happily on the playground enjoying the day with her father? According to Jeff Leslie, she was nervous and uncomfortable. But according to the witness who (with her three children) walked with them to the playground and watched as the children played for 20 minutes or more, YES! Lauren was quite happy!

And let me add that this witness made a statement to the investigators immediately after the incident. But she sat in the hallway, waiting to testify on behalf of Cam Brown, for three days while prosecutor Craig Hum delayed and delayed—until finally she gave up.

And she wasn’t the only one. There was a witness who had been on the scene, who was ready to testify that he had heard Cam cry “please don’t die.” But this witness was also in like manner delayed and ultimately prevented from testifying. Hum had the statements of both these witnesses, and he knew that they were ready to testify. And he knew exactly what they were going to say. But after precluding their testimony through such trickery—with the apparent (though perhaps oblivious) acquiescence of the Judge—Hum had the gall to tell the court that Mark Geragos had lied about their existence!

Did Cam Brown insensitively carry Lauren over his shoulder like a sack of potatoes? According to Jessica Brothers and Jeff Leslie he did. Oops. Sorry—not quite. Jeff Leslie’s notes show otherwise and he was forced to admit in trial under cross-examination that it didn’t really happen that way at all!

Did Cam Brown delay getting to Lauren by walking slowly back up to Palos Verdes Drive South and then over to the road leading down to the archery range? According to Brothers and Leslie he did. But the facts belie their testimony—because Cam went fast enough to retrieve Lauren well before emergency services were even able to respond. He was traveling at a very fast pace, and was able to get to Lauren and bring her to the picnic table at the archery range in the 3 minutes between when the 911 call ended and emergency services arrived on the scene!

Is there reason to believe that the fastest way to reach Lauren was down the beaten path to the west side of the point and then across the front? According to Leslie, there wasn’t. But the fact is that there is no path going down on the east side. When Cam realized that he was not able to go across the west inlet at the front of Inspiration Point to get to Lauren, he had to run back to the top and somehow jump down the cliffside on the east side to get to her. There was simply no other way to go.

Was it unusual for Cam to remove his clothing before jumping into the turbulent and rocky waters of the inlet to retrieve Lauren? According to Leslie it was. But according to the training that Cam had recieved in lifesaving procedures it was completely appropriate and reasonable. Cam Brown’s daughter was in the water and he employed every bit of energy and knowledge he had in his effort to save her.

Was it wrong to call for emergency services first? According to Leslie it was. But according to emergency services themselves, it’s the right and proper thing to do. Remain calm. Call for help. Answer all of their questions and give as much information as you can to help them locate you. Cam needed help and Cam called for it.

Was it odd that Cam knew where the archery range was located? According to Jeff Leslie it was. But after a walkthrough of the area, it’s plain to see that it’s right out in the open—and it is the first thing you see as you approach Inspiration Point on the pathway used by Cam and Lauren. You simply can’t miss it!

Was it wrong to be on the east side of Inspiration Point instead of the west? According to Jeff Leslie it was. But the west side faces into the glaring sunlight of the afternoon as you look out toward the ocean. You can easily see a person standing on the end of Inspiration Point at the east side (exactly where Cam and Lauren stood) from Portuguese Point, and from Palos Verdes Drive South both on the east and the west side of Inspiration Point. A person is fully visible. But can you see someone standing on the top of Inspiration Point on the west side from the nude beach, as Jeff Leslie asserted that you could? No, you cannot. You also can’t see anyone standing on the west side from the archery range—but you can see someone standing on the east side of the top of Inspiration Point from there—contrary to the testimony of Jeff Leslie.

Was it odd that Cam Brown seemed distant or quiet or any of the other things described by Jessica Brothers and Jeff Leslie? No. According to all of the literature available on trauma, shock and grief, there is no right way to behave in such a crisis, because our natural inclination is to go into a protective mode. We tend to absorb what has happened slowly and sometimes we can’t respond to the actual events. Our memory is affected. Our responses are affected. Our ability to communicate is affected. Shutting down is not unusual at all.

Did Cam Brown give conflicting details of the moment he realized Lauren had fallen from the Point? No. He has always been completely consistent. The fact that he tried to recall and the details were cloudy is not unusual at all. It’s to be expected, according to all literature available on the subject.

Did Cameron Brown rush home and destroy his clothing to prevent the investigators from accessing it? No. He offered his clothing to the investigators. Jeff Leslie said under oath that a search warrant was prepared and served within days of Lauren’s death. The truth is, the search warrant was not obtained until late December, and was not served until January.

And the fact remains that the Sheriff’s Department lost the molds they cavalierly called “footprints.” The fact is that the expert from their own crime lab testified for the defense that in his professional opinion, these depressions in the ground were definitely not footprints.

Did Cam Brown try to convince Sarah Key to abort the baby, and did he leave her because she refused? No. According to testimony, Cam asked her to get a paternity test (as he had reason to question whether the baby was indeed his). But Sarah ultimately refused. And Cam therefore came to doubt that he was the father of the child that she said she carried.

As soon as the court ordered paternity testing (after Sarah had filed for child support against Cameron) and it was determined that he was indeed the father, Cam attempted to see Lauren. Again, Sarah refused to allow him to see Lauren, and thus left him no alternative than to seek legal assistance.

Did Cameron Brown want Sarah’s husband, Greg Marer, to adopt Lauren, so as to relieve him of the child support obligations? No. There is absolutely no evidence in support of Sarah’s claim. Cam was actively pursuing visitation rights and custody as the law permits regarding his daughter. He was not pursuing the alternative of allowing Greg Marer to adopt Lauren. Sarah claims he was trying to pursue both options at the same time, but there is no real credible evidence that this is true.

Was Cam Brown in devastating financial circumstances because of the child support awarded to Sarah? No. There is no indication that this is true according to testimony in the trial. The prosecution used a financial expert who had not been given the complete details of Cameron’s financial status, and she tried to paint a bleak picture when in fact Cameron was living quite comfortably despite having to pay child support.

Did Cam Brown take Lauren to a remote playground to harm her? No. He took Lauren to the very same playground where his mother had taken him when he was a child. Cameron took Lauren to a playground where many parents from the area take their 3 to 5 year old children.

The real story of Cameron Brown and his relationship with his daughter is one that is entirely different from the web of woven fiction that the prosecutor and the investigators have put forth. And is this unusual for Los Angeles? Unfortunately not. It seems to happen with disturbing regularity—and the local media seem all too willing to play right along.

Our Hearts Go Out to Virginia Tech

2007-04-17T11:46:00.000-07:00

We want to express our most sincere condolences to all who have suffered as a result of the senseless shootings at Virginia Tech. The pain and confusion cast upon the students, faculty, community and family members is incomprehensible.

When something of this magnitude thrusts it's ugly head toward anyone in our nation, we all feel the impact. We pray for the victims, their families, the community and the nation. God be with you in these days of deep sorrow, and may you find peace, comfort and understanding.

Danger Not Withstanding.....

2007-03-30T13:31:00.000-07:00

The California coastline has long been the source of interest to geology students and nature lovers alike. The same can be said about the Oregon coast, Washington coast, East coast, etc. We temper our curiousity with a healthy dose of respect, but we are nonetheless curious.

A search through the internet uncovers the many stories of hikers who have made what most of us might think are the unimaginable treks through nature in search of something most of us can't understand. There are tons of articles about bringing babies in backpacks, how much you can expect your children of various ages to carry, and how far you can expect them to walk. There are discussion about safety issues, most of which are borne out of experiences of other hikers who took the initiative before you. I even came across one story about an avid hiker whose very young son suddenly ran after a lizard and came very close to plunging over the edge of a cliff. Had his daughter not reached out and stopped the fall, a tragic accident would have occurred.

We find the various vantage points from which we see things from a different perspective, and we go on classroom outings (such as the one at the right) in order to appreciate the land we live on.

We are protected from some of the dangers that might be encountered, but for the most part we are left alone to come and go without incident.

Accidents are not intentional. They happen. In spite of all our best efforts, we sometimes discover that the choices we make did not turn out to be the best ones. The family who went out on a hike and had just paid to follow the nature path in Utah, surely didn't mean for the little three year old girl who was with them to fall off a cliff, but she did. And her rescuer lost his life trying to save her.

The parents who took their kids to Yellowstone National Park to explore the area surely didn't expect a walk along the boardwalk to lead to a trip that threw their son into the caustic, hot pond.

Surely we warn our children about the dangers we perceive. While I might take Billy out to walk across the rope bridge that crosses the gorge over the Grand Canyon, his brother would be the first to stick his head and body through the ropes! And Billy is the youngest one, it just so happens he is intuitively cautious and minds. His brother is quite the opposite!

In spite of our best efforts to do the right things and moderate our activities according to the circumstances, accidents happen. When we think we have it all under control and turn away for just a moment, accidents happen. I can only pray that all of us are spared from the great suffering very bad accidents have brought to the lives of others.

Distortion, Manipulation and Just Another Lie!

2007-03-21T13:53:00.000-07:00

Once again I am putting aside Part II of The Path to Lauren to concentrate on the dishonest testimony promoted by the Prosecutor. I will post from the Grand Jury testimony (July 19, 2004) which was very similar, in this instance, to what Leslie said during the trial.

Discussion turned to a description of the various paths available to take when traveling between the Parking Lot at Abalone Cove and Inspiration Point. There is also a brief discussion about the Pre-School on the Beach of Abalone Cove.

Page 143

1 Q(Hum) NOW, THIS BEACH AND SCHOOL AREA, WHAT TYPE

2 OF SCHOOL AREA IS THAT?

3 A(Leslie) IT'S A PRIVATE PRESCHOOL THAT HAS A SMALL

4 PLAYGROUND AREA. IT IS SITUATED DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH,

5 MAYBE 30 YARDS, 40 YARDS FROM THE OCEAN AND BEACHFRONT.

In fact, Portuguese Bend Nursery School was opened in 1953 by the matriarch of Portuguese Bend, Mrs. Vanderlip. She opened the school because she had small children and she invited the children of the area to participate. In 1975 Los Angeles County purchased the property and the beach was leased to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The Nursery School serviced the children of Palos Verdes, Torrance and San Pedro. It is a parent-involved coop for children ages 3 through 5. The fence around the playground is about 3 feet high and has at least two unlocked gates which were both open when I visited. Children walk from the roadway to the school with their parents, or car pooling is used as a means of limited car traffic on the small access road. Visitors to the Nursery School park in the upper parking lot and access the beach using the same path used by Cam and Lauren.

Cameron Brown had been taken to the school's playground as a child. The setting is very unique and the children enjoy whale watching, dolphins and exploring through the acres upon acres of tidepools right outside the playground. Cam never forgot his experience there as a child, and he thought Lauren would enjoy it as well. The Nursery School and playground is not privately owned, but is in fact publicly owned land without restricted access. The following pictures are of the school and the beach. You can see the lifeguard stand right behind the playground which warns about nude bathing.

It is important to realize, because it is not evident in the following pictures, that the playground and preschool area is NOT on the same level as the beach below. There is a stairway to the beach with about 6 steps down. There is a seawall which protects the playground from the raising tides. I will show pictures of this later.

6 Q (Hum) IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY TO ACCESS THIS

7 PRESCHOOL AREA OTHER THAN GOING DOWN THIS TRAIL THAT YOU

8 DESCRIBED FROM THE ABALONE COVE PARKING LOT?

9 A (Leslie) THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL WAY TO ACCESS THE

10 PRESCHOOL. IT'S A WINDY, PAVED ROAD THAT KIND OF CURVES

11 AROUND FROM PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH DOWN TOWARDS THE

12 BEACH. HOWEVER, IT'S LOCKED IF THE SCHOOL IS NOT OPEN OR

13 DURING NORMAL SCHOOL HOURS.

14 Q (Hum) AND CAN YOU ACCESS THIS WINDY --

15 THIS PAVED ROAD THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED FOR

16 US, CAN YOU ACCESS THAT FROM THE PARKING LOT AT ABALONE

17 COVE?

18 A (Leslie) NO, YOU CANNOT.

19 Q (Hum) YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME OFF OF PALOS VERDES

20 DRIVE SOUTH TO GET ONTO THE ACTUAL ROAD THAT GOES DOWN

21 THERE?

22 A (Leslie) THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

NO IT IS NOT! Let me show you as I myself walked that very road the first time I went to Abalone Cove. I did so because it was high tide on my visit and I could not walk along the beach. So let's do a little reality check here by way of pictures. Hum could have easily used pictures, but I notice he used only a map.

On my first visit to Abalone Cove I had not bothered to check the tide level and encountered tides beating against the seawall. I explored the various ways that I might be able to cross over to Portuguese Point (attempting to cross at point "B"), but realized that Altamira Canyon is far too steep and wild to cross. I then walked up the road from the playground and instead of going all the way to Palos Verdes Drive South I went along the road marked "A" on the picture. This road took me to the bluff area where the parking lot is located. It is completely unhampered and very easy to travel. If Leslie claims no such road exists, he is mistaken. Point "C" on the photograph is the path you walk down from the parking lot to the playground. I might also add that while there is a gate across the road from Palos Verdes Drive South to the playground, it is easily stepped over or under by a hiker. It is only closed to driving traffic which is it's purpose...to eliminate the number of cars going into the school each day. If a child needs to be picked up from the school, the teachers take the child to the gate to meet their parent.

On my second visit to Abalone Cove I wasn’t sure I would be able to make the entire hike because I was not going to go through Altamira Canyon. According to Leslie’s testimony which follows, you can’t go along the beach so I wasn’t expecting to be able to.

27 Q (Hum) AND THEN IF YOU WERE TO LEAVE THIS BEACH

28 AND PARKING LOT -- I'M SORRY, THIS BEACH AND PLAYGROUND

Page 144

1 AREA AND TRAVEL AWAY FROM THE ABALONE COVE PARKING LOT,

2 HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT? WHAT WOULD WE RUN INTO? WHAT

3 WOULD WE FIND?

4 A (Leslie) LEAVING THE PRESCHOOL AREA?

5 Q (Hum) YES.

6 A (Leslie) ONCE YOU LEAVE THE PRESCHOOL AREA, YOU WALK

7 A SHORT PERIOD ALONG THE BEACH. IT'S KIND OF A DEEP,

8 SANDY BEACH; AND THERE'S -- IT'S NOT REAL WIDE. THERE IS

9 A HILL ON ONE SIDE AND THEN THE OCEAN ON THE OTHER. IT

10 IS KIND OF JUST A SHORT BEACH WALK WITHIN THAT AREA.

11 Q (Hum) AND THEN IF WE CONTINUED AWAY FROM THE

12 PARKING LOT, WHAT WOULD WE ENCOUNTER?

13 A (Leslie) THERE'S TRAILS THAT THEN BEGIN TO STEM OFF

14 FROM THAT SHORT AREA OF THE BEACH WHERE YOU WOULD WALK,

15 AND THEY AGAIN GO UP SOME INCLINES, ACTUALLY SOME VERY

16 STEEP INCLINES, AND WIND UP AND AROUND THROUGH THE HILLS

17 WHICH SIT ABOVE THE OCEAN AND WOULD TAKE YOU IN A

18 WESTERLY DIRECTION.

19 Q (Hum) SO THE ONLY WAY, BASICALLY, TO GET OUT FROM

20 THE BEACH, YOU HAVE TO GO UP; IS THAT CORRECT?

21 A (Leslie) THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

22 Q (Hum) YOU CAN'T JUST KEEP WALKING ALONG THE

23 BEACH?

24 A (Leslie) NO.

No, Mr. Leslie? Three years and many trips to that beach and you say, “No?” I guess we need a few pictures to enlighten us as it is clear we can’t depend on the investigator's version of events.

I walked down to the beach using the cement stairway. People I encountered along the way didn’t want their pictures taken so I have blacked them out. I chose to walk along the rocks most of the way, but the option to walk in the sand is readily available. As the tide washes in you could get wet in some areas, depending on the water’s level at the time. The walk was easy, and the worst I encountered was two dead herons.

So how exactly do we know the level of the tide during that day when Cam and Lauren walked along the beach at approximately 2pm (1400hrs)?

Long Beach, Terminal Island, CA Long Beach, Terminal Island, CA: Data Inventory

Station ID: 9410680 Page Help

Historic Tide Data
Historic Tide Data
Station Date Time Pred 6
DCP#: 1
Units: Feet
Data%: MLLW Local 100.00
Maximum:
Minimum:
------- -------- ----- -------
9410680 20001108 00:00 0.68
9410680 20001108 01:00 0.76
9410680 20001108 02:00 1.36
9410680 20001108 03:00 2.34
9410680 20001108 04:00 3.49
9410680 20001108 05:00 4.52
9410680 20001108 06:00 5.19
9410680 20001108 07:00 5.33
9410680 20001108 08:00 4.93
9410680 20001108 09:00 4.07
9410680 20001108 10:00 2.99
9410680 20001108 11:00 1.94
9410680 20001108 12:00 1.18
9410680 20001108 13:00 0.89
9410680 20001108 14:00 1.14
9410680 20001108 15:00 1.82
9410680 20001108 16:00 2.76
9410680 20001108 17:00 3.69
9410680 20001108 18:00 4.36
9410680 20001108 19:00 4.58
9410680 20001108 20:00 4.29
9410680 20001108 21:00 3.56
9410680 20001108 22:00 2.58
9410680 20001108 23:00 1.60

My picture was taken on February 12, 2007 at 1530 hours. The tide data at that time is found in the following data:

Long Beach, Terminal Island, CA Long Beach, Terminal Island, CA: Data Inventory

Station ID: 9410680 Page Help

Historic Tide Data
Historic Tide Data
Station Date Time Pred 6
DCP#: 1
Units: Feet
Data%: MLLW Local 100.00
Maximum:
Minimum:
------- -------- ----- -------
9410680 20070212 00:00 3.47
9410680 20070212 01:00 3.83
9410680 20070212 02:00 4.26
9410680 20070212 03:00 4.65
9410680 20070212 04:00 4.91
9410680 20070212 05:00 4.93
9410680 20070212 06:00 4.65
9410680 20070212 07:00 4.06
9410680 20070212 08:00 3.23
9410680 20070212 09:00 2.26
9410680 20070212 10:00 1.32
9410680 20070212 11:00 0.56
9410680 20070212 12:00 0.12
9410680 20070212 13:00 0.05
9410680 20070212 14:00 0.34
9410680 20070212 15:00 0.92
9410680 20070212 16:00 1.63
9410680 20070212 17:00 2.33
9410680 20070212 18:00 2.87
9410680 20070212 19:00 3.20
9410680 20070212 20:00 3.28
9410680 20070212 21:00 3.20
9410680 20070212 22:00 3.04
9410680 20070212 23:00 2.96

Further, we have the Grand Jury testimony of Sergeant Erickson who monitored the call and went to the scene when the emergency was broadcast as follows:

Page 78

1 Q (Hum) AND WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HAD HAPPENED?

2 A (Erickson) WELL, THIS ALL TOOK PLACE DURING A WALK

3 ALONG THE BEACH, BECAUSE I HAD SEVERAL CONCERNS. IT WAS

4 GETTING LATE IN THE DAY, AND I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE TIDE

5 COMING IN AND POSSIBLY WASHING AWAY ANY EVIDENCE, SO WE

6 PROCEEDED TO WALK ALONG THE BEACH AREA WHILE HE EXPLAINED

7 TO ME WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND WHAT HE HAD DONE.

And Leslie’s Grand Jury testimony (pg 18) about the tide:

17 Q (Hum) NOW, DURING HIGH TIDE DOES THE WATER

18 ACTUALLY COME UP ONTO THOSE ROCKS AND COVER THOSE ROCKS?

19 A (Leslie) A PORTION OF THEM, YES.

20 Q (Hum) YOU TRIED TO -- HAVE YOU TRIED TO GET OUT

21 TO THE ROCKS DURING HIGH TIDE?

22 A (Leslie) YES, I HAVE.

23 Q (Hum) AND YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT AND YOU GOT AWFUL

24 WET?

25 A (Leslie) THAT'S CORRECT.

The following photos were taken on December 21, 2005 at 1:20 to 2:30pm.

This picture is taken from the upper bluff above Abalone Cove during a high tide condition. It is actually on the path going down to the playground.

This is a picture taken at point "B" of the above satellite view. It shows Altamira Canyon. At this point I declined going down the steep side of Altamira Canyon. There was no clear pathway to follow and no reason to believe this was a reasonable option when considering ways to get to the other side. I opted to go up the road from the playground instead, and found no way to cross.

This picture was taken on the roadway going away from the playground and shows the terrain.

This picture also shows the terrain between the parking lot and Portuguese Point.

Signs

2007-03-17T14:56:00.000-07:00

The view from the Playground

I have delayed Part II of The Path to Lauren because more information is being obtained that may add further insight.

This group of signs is located on the upper bluff of Abalone Cove prior to descending on the path to the Nursery School. I do not know when any of these signs were installed, but I do know that because of Sarah's efforts some new signs were put in the area to warn people of the dangerous conditions due to unstable ground that isn't obvious.

The following signs are located just before the Playground.

This is a picture of the Lifeguard station outside of the Playground and adjacent to the parking lot.

This sign is located on Portuguese Point as you look out toward Inspiration Point. This is very near the area from which Detectives Leslie and Smith went under the fence (with Dr. Berkowitz) and followed a remote path not traveled by Cam. Dr. Chinowah from the Medical Examiner's office told the Grand Jury that he also went on this walk, but it was later discovered to be untrue.

This sign is off Palos Verdes Drive South on the path that leads to Sacreds Cove and Inspiration Point.

This sign is located in the same general area as above.

This sign is on the open gate on the second path that leads from PV South to Inspiration Point. Unfortunately I did not think of taking a picture of the entire sign, but I think you can read it if you click on the photo to enlarge it. I believe it says, "WARNING. Beyond this point are unstable cliffs and steep drop offs not recommended for children. Proceed at your own risk." I suspect this sign was added because of Sarah's efforts. It is only on this gate. I saw no other signs about children on the other path going to Inspiration Point nor elsewhere. This leads to the one area where I felt very nervous, right above the Archery Range. No other signs exist at the entrance to Inspiration Point. I go into this more in Part II because the short path right beyond this gate made me very nervous. It is entirely avoided by taking the first path instead, which is the path Cam and Lauren went on. I should also note that the jury was taken through this gate and not on the first path which Cam and Lauren had been on.

This sign is located further up PV South on the driveway entrance to the Archery Range.

These are the only signs I saw.

IMPORTANT NOTE: There is further discussion about these signs in the comments which identifies what was done as a result of Sarah's efforts. Signs warning of constant land movement and the one on the gate along with limited fencing were added. Letters discussing these efforts are linked in comments.

The Path to Lauren, Part I

2007-03-10T10:09:00.000-08:00

An important issue to the prosecution's case is establishing what paths were followed that day. The path the prosecution claims Lauren and Cam took from the playground to Inspiration Point was instrumental to classifying the death a "homicide." Additionally, the prosecution has made an issue of the path Cam took to get to Lauren after she fell. Craig Hum has stated that "he went somewhere else first." Mr. Hum has thus implied that Cam took a convoluted route to purposely add precious minutes to the time it took to get to Lauren. Has the prosecution established the true paths which were traversed that day? Or are these more misrepresentations by the prosecution?

After spending numerous hours reviewing aerial pictures of the area, I finally realized that the only way for me to really understand what happened on the day Lauren died was to take a trip to the site and do more than look at it from the distance. I had to go to the area and walk the paths, examine the terrain and put myself into the pictures I had been looking at.

I was surprised by how deceiving the aerial photographs are. What looked flat was in fact not flat at all. What looked like easily traveled paths turned out to be paths cut by surface drainage, ambitious hikers or mountain bikers - such as the three impressive bikers who demonstrated their abilities on one such path on the day of my visit. My assumptions about what happened that day were thrown out the window as I walked from the parking lot to Inspiration Point.

The following pictures consist of overhead shots that are marked with coordinating numbers where each subsequent photo was taken. Clicking on the overhead should make it larger so that you can see the numbers more clearly.

I walked along the beach from the playground to the point where surfers were gathered beneath Portuguese Point. From there I followed the road which led up to the point. Along the way I encountered dirt paths cut from one point in the road to another ... steep paths that required far more effort to climb then the road. I also saw other dirt paths which avoided the road altogether ... quite strenuous paths with many sharp inclines and descents (as the prosecution's pediatric consultant had described).

These are the paths that the prosecutor wants us to believe Lauren and Cam followed. He spent a lot of time during the trial demonstrating the difficulty factor of those paths, a point I will readily concede, although I did walk a couple of the paths ... just because. Mr. Hum presented the area as though the road or other such options did not exist, as if the only option Lauren and Cam had available to them was the difficult dirt paths. But with an easy road right there, it's ridiculous to think that they would not have utilized it. (The witnesses who testified they saw Lauren and Cam walking that day all said they saw them on the road.) But even though the witnesses saw Lauren and Cam on the road, Mr. Hum still labored on about the difficult paths!

During the trial, a pediatric consultant testified that she was taken along the entire path the investigators told her Cam and Lauren had traveled. She talked about the difficulty she had as she walked along the steep dirt paths that cut across the area from the parking lot to Inspiration Point. She was not taken on the readily available roadway. She testified that Lauren could not have traveled that path without being exhausted, and this is the opinion that caused the medical examiner to change his conclusion to homicide. Contradictory testimony which brought out the fact that Lauren and Cam walked along the road was minimized by the prosecutor and he continued to drum on the idea that Lauren was taken on the steep, difficult paths which I passed by as I followed the road.

As I walked along I was reminded of the many, many instances during my own life and childhood when I had been on similar treks through nature. I was stunned by the wild beauty and peaceful settings. I talked to several people along the way as we crossed paths and chose the same vantage points to look out upon the scenery. None of the trip was either difficult or what I had imagined. I had thought the path would lead me down the east side of Portuguese Point along the beaten path I saw in the aerial pictures, but in reality it was impassable.

You leave Portuguese Point along a continuation of the same road I had come up from the beach. It is a road that cars drive on, hardly anything which I would consider to be dangerous or difficult. I recalled a discussion I had previously had with someone from the area who laughed when I said I thought there was a path going from PP to IP because I saw it on the aerial. He drew a picture of where I would really go. He turned out to be right. And as I later found out during the trial, it is also the same way Lauren and Cam had gone that day. The road goes from the beach to the big road. From there you are above both points. Not at all what I had expected.

Once back on the main road, there is another path to follow. There is a guard rail and large pipes between hikers and the main road. (The pipes are above ground because this area is so unstable and moves so much, the pipes can not be located underground.)

I walked along the road for a relatively short distance before coming to another path which led me to Inspiration Point. I followed this immediate path to the point. There is not a great distance between the road and the point, and soon I found myself at the crossroad where the choice was made to go to the point, or follow a very steep-looking path down to the beach.

I later learned that if I had continued along the main road I would have come to another path, the one the jurors were led down, which takes you from the road down to the point. A portion of the second path is close to the sloped edge, making it scarier then the first path. A witness places Lauren and Cam on the first path. Yet the jurors were taken on the second, more dangerous and scarier looking path.

I continued on the path to the point. Today there is a fence constructed of wood pillars with what appears to be 2-inch pipe between the pillars. You can see that there is continued erosion in the area, as some is fairly fresh. The path is on a slight incline, and it is easily traversed. Because of recent erosion, at one point the path is close to the sloped edge. I marveled that the dirt bikers zip through this area with ease. (There are several places the paths are closer to the edge today than they were in November 2000. This is demonstrated by pictures taken the investigators days after Lauren's fall.)

I looked down on the archery range below before following the path to the point. I looked for a path going down to the archery range and found none. Instead, I saw that it was a steep drop off on the entire east side of IP. I began to wonder where on earth Cam had gone to find a way to the archery range. I saw no way at that point.

Shenanigans with the Autopsy Report

2006-09-01T13:59:00.000-07:00

The original autopsy report consisted of 32 pages. The original 32 page document was initially entered into evidence. At the end of the trial, just before the evidence went to the jury portions of the autopsy report were redacted by the request of the prosecutor. The document that finally went to the jury was reduced to 12 pages.

In addition, there were pictures taken during the course of the autopsy, which were not included in the original autopsy report. What were the pictures of? Lauren’s body showing scrapes and scratches along the length of her body and on her extremities. The prosecution’s case has hinged on the lack of scratches and scrapes on Lauren’s body. Yet, pictures of these very wounds were omitted from the autopsy report making this a most unscrupulous omission! The prosecution has said that Lauren’s fall could not have been an accident because if she had fallen accidentally she would have had more injuries in the form of scrapes and scratches on her body and extremities. However, autopsy photographs showing precisely the injuries the prosecution claims are missing ARE ACTUALLY BEING WITHHELD FROM EVIDENCE.

The way these were brought into evidence is of particular interest as well. The medical examiner was brought in to testify on a day he wasn’t scheduled to do so. The prosecutor requested that he be allowed to testify that day and the judge agreed. He said it was the only day he had available. Mark Geragos was not prepared for the ME that day. He called his office and asked to have a courier deliver those pictures to the courthouse immediately. At nearly the end of the day, with only minutes left before the court day ended the courier arrived. Mark Geragos showed the pictures to the medical examiner and asked him to tell the court what the marks in question were. The medical examiner conceded they were scrapes and scratches found on Lauren’s body. He admitted they were along the entire length of her body and on her extremities. However, he insisted they were insignificant. Insignificant? How can any of her wounds be insignificant in explaining what happened to her that day? Where did those scrapes and scratches come from, the thin air? Every single wound which supports Cam's account that Lauren had fallen accidentally should have been allowed into evidence.

An autopsy consists of pictures and an examination. The prosecution should not be allowed to cherry pick through that record and choose only those portions that support the story they are trying to weave! Scrapes and scratches to Lauren's extremities are exactly what the prosecution contends were lacking. Yeah, they were lacking all right! They were left out of the autopsy report!

Shortly after the defense expert, forensic pathologist Dr. Janice Ophoven, MD began her testimony the prosecutor called for a lengthy sided bar. After a delay which lasted considerably more than an hour the judge and attorneys came out from the back. Did testimony resume? No! Prosecutor Craig Hum, Detective Jeff Leslie and Dr. Ophoven had a powwow at the end of the hall. The prosecutor and Dr. Ophoven sat down on a bench while detective, Jeff Leslie stood over them. Detective Leslie postured above Dr. Ophoven in an intimidating manner, as if he were interrogating a criminal. Why would the detective treat Dr. Ophoven in such a manner? Defense attorneys were not present. Dr Ophoven leafed through her notes and documents while discussing them with the prosecutor. As they did this, Dr. Ophoven removed a number of documents and placed them in the back of her folder. Judging from the gestures of the two parties, it appeared that Dr. Ophoven removed those items at the prosecutors prodding. When testimony finally resumed Dr. Ophoven did not mention the pictures which had been omitted from the autopsy report; those pictures which depict the very injuries which the prosecution claims are missing, the missing injuries which the prosecution has built their case around.

If those pictures were withheld from evidence, what else is being withheld that could defend or even exonerate Cameron Brown? And, why would Judge Mark Arnold (presumably) side with the prosecution and allow important evidence such as these pictures to be omitted from the testimony?!

This Is What Disturbs Me About This Case (Part II)

2006-08-30T16:54:00.000-07:00

Even Sarah's own hand-written notes said that the visits were going along smoothly at the time. It was brought out in court that all of Sarah's written accounts were not contemporaneous to the events. Sarah had been asked by the investigators to rewrite her contemporaneous notes and expound upon them at a later date, after Lauren died. So rather than reflect what she actually thought at the time, her notes were rewritten in a manner that reflected anything that might somehow support a murder. They were, in other words, hindsight revisions based on a new view being pieced together by the detectives.

Days into the investigation the detectives, according to witness testimony, referred to Cameron Brown in derogatory terms when speaking with witnesses. The investigators obtained a search warrant that was acted upon TWO MONTHS after the event. But during the GJ testimony it was reported that it was days later. During this search they confiscated Cameron's telephone book and made a list of his friend's telephone numbers. At the top of that list, Danny Smith, the lead investigator (who did not testify at any time under oath) headed it "telephone assholes"! Assholes? And there was no preconceived notion here? Friends of Cam later reported that they were hounded by the investigators; and they were told things about Cameron that they found difficult to believe so that they might begin to doubt Cam and turn on him. There was no search for the truth here. The detectives were trying to create their own version of the truth.

Experts were asked to support the theory of the detectives. An email was produced during testimony in which Detective Smith said, "We believe it was a homicide, not an accident as he reports. I guess what we are wondering or hoping is that you would be able to determine, by tests, or calculations or magic or whatever if the child was propelled or projected." So detective Danny Smith directed the expert to use whatever science or "magic" or whatever he could to help them prove that Lauren was thrown from the cliff. That particular expert declined stating that you can not prove what happened with certainty.

The Crime Lab Investigator would not support the idea that the impressions taken from the scene were footprints. He testified for the defense that there were specific characteristics missing in the photographs of the indentations which would be present if the indentation had been made by shoes. Cameron had offered the detectives his shirt and shoes. He cooperated to help exonerate himself. The detectives declined to accept the articles even though Cam told them he was going to throw them away when he got home. They then complained when they went back two months later and the shoes Cam had been wearing had been discarded.

The accident occurred around 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Cameron Brown was not brought into the interrogation room until midnight. Yet the detectives want us to believe that none of his interrogation was taped because they were not equipped to do so? They had state of the art equipment yet failed to pull it together in 9 hours? The detective's excuse was once he discovered the equipment was not working in the interrogation room, he did not have time to go out to his car to retrieve an alternative recording device. We are talking about what they believed to be a murder investigation, and he didn't have time to go get a recording device? What's wrong with this picture? This isn't some podunk little town. These are seasoned Los Angeles investigators, supposedly. Even the medical examiner taped his findings.

Among the people the investigators had interviewed was a man who ran to the top of Inspiration Point and heard Cameron yelling from below in agony. A woman reported that she actually spoke with Lauren while she played on the playground. She reported Lauren seemed happy to be with her father. Another witness spoke of seeing Cameron and Lauren immediately before they went to the end of Inspiration Point. He stated that Lauren was happily running ahead of Cam throwing rocks; and that Lauren had run off the path and over near the edge, but when Cam called to her and motioned her back to the path she did as Cam told her to do. Yet, the detectives worked to contrive another set of events that had Lauren dragging behind him exhausted from the ordeal and afraid of her father. One witness stated he had seen Lauren behind Cam on direct testimony. During cross examination he was reminded that his initial statement to detectives was that Lauren was ahead of Cam. Reminded of that, he agreed that Lauren had indeed been ahead of Cam.

There were two other witnesses who said Cam was ahead of Lauren. They did so after they made a deal with the prosecutors to testify in exchange for special consideration in dealing with their own arrests on other unrelated charges. The jury did not hear about that. The judge viewed it as irrelevant. Witnesses who supported Cam's version of events were not pursued by the detectives for testimony during trial. The detectives were only interested in witnesses who were willing to recall events in the way the detectives wanted them to. A perfect example is the witness who at first told the investigators that Lauren ran ahead of Cam; but 5 years after the fact he initially agreed with the prosecutor that Lauren was behind Cam, only to concede that Lauren was ahead of Cam after he was reminded of his initial statements to the investigators.

By the end of November 2000 the investigators had interviewed all the witnesses. They did not have enough to get an arrest warrant. Then in January of 2001 they searched the Brown residence with search warrant. They still did not have enough to get an arrest warrant. Then in May 2001 they convinced the medical examiner to label the manner of death as homicide. They still did not have enough to get an arrest warrant. It wasn't until three years later in the fall of 2003 when the prosecutor hired Wilson Hayes to write his very questionable expert's report that they finally succeeded in getting an arrest warrant. The prosecutor hired Hayes. The investigators were unable to put this case together so the prosecutor stepped in and made it happen.

This Is What Disturbs Me About This Case (Part I)

2006-08-30T03:07:00.000-07:00

According to testimony, the detectives had a preconceived notion about this case. They were determined to find a motive and proof that Cameron Brown had thrown his daughter off the cliff at Inspiration Point. As their investigation proceeded they ignored all exonerating evidence as it surfaced.

The coroner was not prepared to call this a homicide in the beginning. With good reason, since there was no independent knowledge of such. Sarah was angry over the loss of her child, and rightfully so. But why was she confronted with was a homicide bag as she was told of Lauren's death? I believe this was done to immediately implant an idea that Cameron had intentionally killed their daughter. Before Cam had been questioned, before the facts had been investigated, before the investigators had been to the actual scene on Inspiration Point, they had already concluded that this was a homicide. Abusing a grieving mother in such a way is one of the most despicable acts committed in this case (and there are many).

Although Sarah said that Cam had not called her, he had attempted to call her at least twice before he was advised to no longer do so. Smartly so, since the detectives had already set up traps and bugs on Sarah's phone....a trap that caught Sarah's call to Cam telling him to not dare show up at Lauren's funeral. Yet the prosecution deliberately stressed during the trial that Cameron's failure to attend Lauren's funeral was because of his callous disregard for her death. In fact, Sarah admonished him strongly NOT to come and Cam acquiesced to her demands because he did not want to cause her any further discomfort.

The Coroner finally, after 5 months, concluded that Lauren was murdered because a pediatric specialist was called in by the investigators to sway his opinion. This expert stated in testimony that Lauren would have never walked all that way, even though the detectives had witness statements to the contrary. She said the path was strenuous and physically challenging, with sharp inclines and declines. She said they followed a dirt path the whole way. She said the investigators told her they knew for certain that this was the same path Lauren and Cam took that day. But Detective Leslie testified that they did not know the exact path they took. They only knew that witnesses saw Lauren and Cam at certain points along the way. A number of witnesses testified that they saw them on the paved road. The paved road is considerably less strenuous than many of the dirt paths. During the proceedings the point was made that the pediatric consultant was taken on a DIFFERENT path, a longer and more strenuous path than the path taken by Lauren and Cam that day.

The pediatric specialist was TOLD that Lauren was afraid of her father. She testified that she put a lot of importance on that in making her decision. She felt Lauren's fear of her father had a coercive effect on Lauren. She felt a child Lauren's age would not have taken that path if the child had not been coerced. Fear filled the requirement for coercion. Without fear, the consultant's theory does not hold up. Yet, later that same day there was testimony that Lauren said Cam loved her very much and she had no fear of Cam.

This consultant's report is pivotal because the coroner based his opinion on her opinion and Hayes based his on the coroner. Yet the pediatric specialist based her opinion on a faulty premise which the police knowingly and purposely gave her. This was done with total disregard for witnesses who saw Cam and Lauren that day and said that she appeared happy as she ran along the trail and threw rocks.

The coroner's last sentence in his conclusion asserts, "Further given the circumstances, child endangerment is a consideration therefore, the manner of death is classified as homicide." Mark Geragos pointed out that this is a matter of law not pathology. When do medical examiners make decisions on the manner of death based on elements of the law? The coroner was outside his area of expertise, and therefore got it wrong. Mr. Geragos pointed out that child endangerment speaks to negligence not homicide. He pointed out that the cops put the words in the coroner's mouth. The coroner sank deeper and deeper into his seat as Mr. Geragos questioned him on these matters.

The coroner's conclusion states that his opinion is the fall was an assisted fall. He said he is making that opinion because it "is supported by the site visit with our pediatric consultant, Coroner's investigator, law enforcement officers and Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner, wherein it was observed that the terrain is rugged and it is not likely that a 4-year old female would voluntarily hike there without experiencing fatigue. Further given the circumstances, child endangerment is a consideration therefore, the manner of death is classified as homicide." What the coroner essentially said here is he deferred to the pediatric specialist and the cops in making his determination for how to classify the manner of death.

The Distortions of a Silver-Tongued Svengali

2006-08-22T15:06:00.000-07:00

Cam Brown is being prosecuted by Deputy DA Craig Hum for allegedly "murdering" his daughter, Lauren Key, when she accidentally fell to her death on November 8, 2000. Lauren fell from Inspiration Point, a sea cliff located in Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, a municipal park belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. (Abalone Cove Shoreline Park has recently been incorporated into the new Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve.)

Cam Brown was arrested on November 16, 2003 and has been in prison without bail for nearly three years. He was indicted on July, 19, 2004 (after 8 months of incarceration) and his case went to trial on May 30, 2006. The trial ended in a mistrial and Cam continues to be incarcerated without bail. His imprisonment has functioned as a means to reduce his opportunity and ability to defend himself.

Prosecutor Hum portrayed Cam as a "nasty, vindictive and spiteful" man. However, those who personally know Cam maintain that he is a kind and gentle man with a generous spirit. They describe him as someone who is always thinking about other people's needs. If he has a conversation with a neighbor and the neighbor tells him about a problem, Cam will go out of his way to look for a solution to the neighbor's problem. If a neighbor tells him of a need, Cam will pick up what the neighbor needs and surprise him with it. Cam is always thinking of other people.

Those who know Cam say he puts other people first. He goes out of his way to help others, without thinking of himself or asking for anything in return. He will not, for instance, drive past someone whose car is broken down. It doesn't matter if he has just worked a double shift and is tired, or if he is on his way to an event he enjoys. If someone is broken down Cam will stop and help them. And, he will not leave until they are taken care of. He’s been known to tow people himself. He has sat with the distressed motorist waiting for a friend or family member to show up. He has put his own car at risk when pushing a stranger's broken down car out of traffic. At times like this Cam doesn't think about his own safety. If it's late at night he doesn't think the distressed people may be dangerous. He stops and helps them. We’re told he met his wife when her car was broken down and he stopped to help her.

They talk of instances where Cam has been witnessed risking his own life to help a stranger in trouble without giving any thought his own safety. One example of such action is the following. While Cam was driving on PCH, he saw a stranger who was caught in a rip tide. Cam pulled his car off the road, ran down to the beach, jumped into the ocean and pulled the stranger out of the rip tide. He didn't give any thought to his own safety. He saw someone in trouble and sprang into action. This is who Cam is and what he does.

Mr. Hum contends Cam killed Lauren to avoid paying $1,000 a month in child support. However, the people who know him say Cam doesn't care about money. They describe him as a very loving and giving man who puts people above money. His parents say when he was young he never asked for money as his three brothers did. They say their three other sons each asked for and received a car. Cam is the only one of their sons who never asked them for a car. Even while in jail Cam tries to be helpful to those around him, to the degree that he is allowed. Cam had collected a small library to share with the other inmates. When a new inmate came in Cam always made sure he had a couple of books to enjoy. But when the deputies caught wind of that they took his books away from him.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos said that the prosecution's case was based on "character assassination," emotion and misrepresentation rather than evidence. The theme of the prosecution's case was "slam Cam," Mr. Geragos said. He said Mr. Hum attempted to "dehumanize" and "demonize" Cam Brown. This was all part of the prosecution's strategy to convince the jury to hate Cam so it would be easy for them to do what the prosecution wanted them to do.

It does appear the prosecution's case was designed to elicit emotion. And it seems the prosecutor went out of his way to seat a jury whose heart strings he could pull. At the start of jury selection prosecutor Craig Hum announced that he was bringing in the famed jury consultant, Howard Varinsky to help with jury selection. (See: Howard Varinsky ). He asked Judge Arnold to issue a court order requiring that no one reveal the prosecution had hired Mr. Varinsky for Cam Brown's trial. Judge Arnold did not so order, but he did admonish the attorneys not to tell jury members of Mr. Varinsky’s involvement.

Mr. Hum's performance in the Cam Brown case proved him to be a master of misleading statements. Throughout the entire trial Mr. Hum demonstrated how to present facts in a misleading manner. In the August 5, 2006 edition of the LA Times he is quoted saying, "Brown had only 14 visits with her" (Lauren). That contention has been repeatedly attributed to Mr. Hum in the coverage of this case. It was questioned online. "I learned that the record shows that Cameron obtained 'weekly visitation' in Sept or Oct of 1999. He missed all of two visits (one to get married in Hawaii and one for a doctor’s visit). He saw his child once a week for a little over a year. That is more than 14 visits! Why did Hum say that it was only 14," a poster questioned. A defender of Mr. Hum quickly sprung up and responded, "Hum never said [Cam Brown] only had 14 visits with Lauren. His visits were a total of 14 days of her 4 years. That was adding up all the hours and overnight visits he had with her." "Very interesting how facts can be presented in a misleading way," a third voice chimed in.

This is indicative of the pervasive way the "facts" for this case were generated and handled. Let's critically examine examples (a few of the plethora) of Mr. Hum's "facts" and what testimony at trial revealed. The instances we have chosen to explore are Mr. Hum’s cliff-top "shoe prints" and Mr. Hum's assertion that Cam tried to persuade Sarah Key-Marer, Lauren's mother, to have an abortion. (Note: We have chosen these two examples because they were already examined at trial. This method can be applied to a great many of Mr. Hum's "facts" and the same results will occur. For instance, Mr. Hum's contention that Cam only saw his child to reduce his child support payments can be debunked in this way.)

Throughout the prosecution's case Mr. Hum referred to "cliff-top shoe prints." He based that assertion on the opinion of Deputy Falicon. Deputy Falicon testified that he had been assigned to go to the top of Inspiration Point on Nov 10, 2000. He was to document any type of shoe prints or other marks found near the edge of the cliff by photography and plaster casts and to bring them back to the laboratory for analysis. He testified that his job was to document the scene. The job to determine what the marks and impressions were belonged to others who had the expertise to make those determinations. He further testified that he found impressions in the ground which in his opinion, he thought were adult shoe prints.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos objected because the official crime lab analysis had determined the impressions were NOT shoe prints. Mr. Hum ignored the results of the crime lab analysis and deferred to the opinion of the scene photographer. It was not the job of the scene photographer to determine if these were shoe prints. Mr. Hum never called the officer whose job it was to analyze the photographs and plaster casts and determine if they were in fact shoe prints. Judge Arnold agreed with Mr. Hum and throughout the prosecution’s case the impressions were permitted to be referred to as shoe prints.

Mr. Geragos called officer Schliebe - the officer from the crime lab - the one who had the expertise to determine if the impression were shoe prints - to testify. He testified that he had analyzed the photographs and had determined (for very specific technical reasons) that the impressions were NOT shoe prints. He testified that he did not analyze the plaster cast because he had not been asked to analyze them. He told the court that the plaster casts had been lost while being held in evidence. Mr. Geragos asked him if he had been available to testify during the prosecution’s case. He said he had, but Mr. Hum had not called him to testify. "Maybe they forgot," Mr. Geragos mused.

However, what is especially indicative of Mr. Hum's propensity to mislead whoever he is speaking to is this: even after officer Schliebe testified that he had determined that the impressions were NOT shoe prints MR. HUM CONTINUED TO REFER TO THE IMPRESSIONS AS SHOE PRINTS WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE JURY!

A myth has been generated by the prosecution that "Cam tried to persuade Sarah to have an abortion." This falsehood has been borne out of the following. In January 1996 Cam went to see a counselor for guidance regarding Sarah's pregnancy. (Before we go any further, we want to say this. We understand that Sarah has suffered a horrific tragedy, one that no parent should have to endure. We feel for Sarah and do not wish to say anything that will add to her suffering. We apologize for revealing any personal details and would prefer to avoid it. However we need to tell the whole story.) Cam sought the guidance of a counselor, in part because he had legitimate reason to believe the child was not his.

Sarah testified that when she first told Cam about her pregnancy he was a little shocked but he seemed okay with it. However, shortly thereafter his attitude changed. The official court record states the following:

Within weeks of learning Key was pregnant, however, Brown drove over to Key's apartment and parked his car. As he approached the apartment building, he saw a man and woman kissing passionately in a car outside the apartment building. Brown looked into the car and saw Key was the woman. Brown left without incident.

Perhaps Cam's attitude towards Sarah's pregnancy changed. But what everybody is neglecting to say is there were reasons for the change. After seeing his girlfriend in the passionate embrace of another man, Cam doubted that he was the father of Sarah's child.

This was the situation that Cam found himself in when he sought the guidance of a counselor. Mr. Hum called the counselor as a prosecution witness. She testified that she did indeed meet with Cam and Sarah, and the topic of abortion was discussed. Under cross-examination we learned the following. Cam first went to see the counselor by himself. They discussed life paths and commitments. It was decided that Cam would return with his girlfriend. Cam and Sarah subsequently met with the counselor together. They discussed life paths, commitments, options -- including abortion, and paternity testing. It was concluded that they would make a follow-up appointment, and continue working with the counselor, but that never happened.

Abortion was one of the options discussed at the counseling session but it was certainly not the only issue discussed. Yet from this Mr. Hum created the falsehood that Cam tried to force Sarah to have an abortion. And from that he created an entire mythology about Cam, alleging Cam never wanted Lauren. During the two-month trial, Mr. Hum strove to paint Cam as a coldhearted man who never wanted a child. "From the very beginning, ladies and gentleman, the defendant didn't want Lauren and he tried to do whatever he could to get rid of her," Hum told the jury. Those who know Cam personally know that is absolutely false.

The reality is Cam loved his daughter very much. From the first moment he met her he was a changed man. The first time Cam met Lauren he was on cloud 9 afterwards. The second time he met Lauren, Sarah gave him pictures of her. That evening Cam spread them on the table and stared at them all goo-goo eyed for over an hour. He talked about his weekly visit with her all week long. He talked about what activities they would do during the following week's visit. His visits with Lauren were the highlight of his week.

Cam worked very hard to spend as much time with Lauren as he was permitted. He loved spending time with her. It didn't matter what they did, so long as they were together. Her favorite game was playing "tea." Cam bought her a tea set and would sit with her on a child size table and play "tea" with her regularly. They would walk to De Portola Park where Lauren loved to play on the monkey bars and swings. They would color together. They played "hide and go seek." Cam would pretend like he couldn't find her. They played tag. Lauren out of the blue would often tap Cam and proclaim "you're it." He would scoop her up and tickle her and she would laugh and giggle. He would carry her on his shoulders.

He was very proud of Lauren and very proud to be her father. He loved taking her to meet his friends. It was as if he was showing her off. He talked about how smart she was, and how when she was old enough he would teach her different things. He was teaching her to swim and talked about when he could teach her to surf. He showered her with gifts and enjoyed her company. His mother testified at trial, "He wanted to see her all the time just like I did. When they were together they were very affectionate. He hugged her a lot and held her hand…They were just good buddies."

This is who Cam Brown was in relationship to his daughter. Who is Craig Hum in relationship to the youth that cross his path? Below is a story from the April 26, 2000 edition of the LA Weekly News about another Craig Hum case. The story describes how Craig Hum locked up a 14-year old boy for 8 months for a crime the boy did not commit; a crime for which the boy had a solid alibi -- and Craig Hum knew it. So why did Craig Hum lock up the boy? Because he could? He got some perverse jollies out of the act? Only Craig Hum knows. But what this article appears to be telling us is Craig Hum has no compunction locking up an innocent 14-year old boy. This is who it appears Craig Hum is in the matter of our youth.

LA Weekly News
Wednesday, April 26, 2000

HOMIES UNIDOS TRIUMPH

Jose Rodriguez almost missed his court date Wednesday morning, April 19, but it probably wouldn’t have mattered. His case was closed before he got there.
Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum told a Superior Court judge that the prosecution was “unable to proceed” with murder charges against Rodriguez, who spent eight months in juvenile hall as a suspect.

Rodriguez attorney Jorge Gonzalez said his client, a lanky and taciturn 15-year-old, arrived late because he resented having to come at all. He’d protested his innocence from the beginning, Gonzalez said, and had an ironclad alibi to boot.
Rodriguez, then 14, was arrested by LAPD Rampart CRASH last August 12 and charged with a gang-related homicide. He was released from custody last month after the survivor of the double shooting failed to identify him in a live lineup.
Rodriguez and his attorney contend that the arrest was actually a frame-up, part of an escalating campaign by Rampart officers against Homies Unidos, a gang-peace project operated out of a Wilshire Boulevard church. In fact, Rodriguez told police investigators the night he was arrested that he’d been inside a Homies theater workshop when the shooting took place.

Deputy D.A. Hum said Wednesday that it was the testimony of the people at that meeting — particularly the statements of Thom Vernon and Rana Haugen, instructors at the Homies workshop — that persuaded him to drop the case against Rodriguez. “With these alibi witnesses there’s no real room for error. Either he didn’t do it or they’re lying, and they [Vernon and Haugen] don’t have a real strong motive for lying.”

It seems like a reasonable conclusion — one that the cops might have reached last August, when Vernon, four days after Rodriguez’s arrest, told the investigating officers that he could vouch for the 15-year-old. Four days after that, by sheer coincidence, Vernon encountered the investigating officer on the case at a party and repeated that Rodriguez was at the Homies workshop when the shooting took place. Both Vernon and Haugen, along with a third witness, Kim Gee, also submitted sworn declarations to that effect to attorney Gonzalez, who submitted them to the District Attorney’s Office.

Prosecutor Hum said last week that the charges were not dropped at that time because detectives were unable to get Vernon and Haugen to agree to an interview. “We’d been trying to get in touch for several months, but they were advised not to cooperate,” Hum said.

Attorney Gonzalez said that account, like the charges against Rodriguez, is bunk. “The entire gist of the case, from the moment I got it, was to try to get them to look at this as a case where the guy was innocent.”

—Charles Rappleye

Found at: LA Weekly

Welcome to the Official Cameron Brown Trial Blog

2006-08-21T01:43:00.000-07:00

Cameron Brown and his Beloved Daughter Lauren

Again, welcome to the Official Cameron Brown Trial Blog. Our aim is to generate a thoughtful conversation about Cameron Brown, Lauren Serene Key and take a personal inside look at this case.

This is an insult free zone. This means that no one can be called names or slammed. Facts, opinions, thoughts, comments, and suggestions from both sides are welcome. This is about uncovering the truth of what we strongly believe is an innocent man who has been wrongly accused.

We are bringing this to a public forum in large part because we believe every person, when accused of a crime, is entitled to due process and a fair trial. The truth needs to prevail in a situation like this because, if allowed to persist, this sort of thing will eventually impact the freedoms of all Americans. As Justice Brandeis said, "The best disinfectant is sunshine."

Please read and consider what we have to share. There is such an incredible amount of material that it was very difficult to choose where to begin. We'll start by presenting some information about who Cameron Brown is and we will take a look at weaknesses and inaccuracies in the prosecutions case.