An innocent child with uninhibited affection,
each moment now crystallized,
each experience magnified by its brevity.
We still miss your radiance,
We miss you as the days burn into humid twilights,
and into the long, light evenings.
There will always be a space where you left,
and we summon your voice:
lilting, sweet, rhythmic.
We linger in the memories;
they are but silent shadows
of a forever summer etched in our hearts.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
CONVICTED: CAMERON BROWN FOUND GUILTY of First Degree Murder!
I'm shaking. Finally justice for Lauren! The third jury has convicted Cameron Brown of first degree murder. Brown faces LWOP and sentencing is June 19th.
ABC NEWS STORY UPDATE
Peace to Sarah, her family and friends, and all who followed this case since 2006. Congratulations to Craig Hum and his team, especially Detective Jeff Leslie. I hope our work was helpful.
Love to all,
Loretta and Pat
ABC NEWS STORY UPDATE
Peace to Sarah, her family and friends, and all who followed this case since 2006. Congratulations to Craig Hum and his team, especially Detective Jeff Leslie. I hope our work was helpful.
Love to all,
Loretta and Pat
Bless the beasts and the children,For in this world they have no voice,They have no choice.Bless the beasts and the children,For the world can never be,The world they see.
Monday, May 11, 2015
The Incredible Running Leap Theory Rises Again
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying,' she said. "One can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
To summarize the last few days of California v. Brown, the defense introduced witnesses that presented several theories regarding Lauren's fall and Brown's affect after the incident that could be viewed as "six impossible things before breakfast."
Gunter Siegmund appeared for the defense as an expert witness in the realm of biomechanics, presumably to offer a theory that would demonstrate Lauren could have accidentally fallen from the cliff. Siegmund agrees with Hayes's conclusions, but also suggests other scenarios that don't involve Brown assisting in the fall. Invariably, he trotted out "The Incredible Running Leap Theory." This theory was presented at the first trial by Mark Geragos, and it was summarily refuted by the fact that if Lauren had run off the cliff (or made a running start to throw a rock), she would have landed feet first instead of head first, therefore sustaining different injuries than what were shown in the autopsy.
Never mind the fact that Brown's story conflicts with the running leap theory, because not once did he state or even imply that Lauren was running while he was sitting "four feet away" pointing out landmarks. Would any sane parent allow a four-year-old child to run on a cliff area? Is the jury supposed to think that's reasonable? If Brown's lawyer Mr. Laub wants Brown to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter, why didn't they just plead him to that long, long ago? He'd have been out of jail and enjoying the rest of his life with the lovely Kaldis twins.
The second impossible thing before breakfast was presented in testimony by a psychologist, Kevin Booker, a "Trauma Specialist." Mr. Booker attempted to explain away Brown's inappropriate affect following his daughter's death as a form of psychological shock. We cynics would characterize it as following "The Narcissist's Playbook of Grief," which is when people with narcissistic personality disorder cannot fake emotions they do not possess. They may try to mimic grief, but they often do really bizarre things instead of showing normal reactions. And, yes, there are normal reactions.
Craig Hum is, naturally, skeptical of Booker's theory. Funniest line to date:
HUM: Dr. Booker, 'malingering?' You actually test for malingering?
BOOKER: Yes, I do.
Hum goes on ask about "depersonalization/derealization" where the victim shows detachment to the event, which may explain Brown's behavior. However, it is shown later that witnesses who spoke to Brown immediately following the incident didn't characterize Brown as demonstrating this state of mind, based on the definition from the DSM-V.
Previous testimony (from earlier trials) from Lynne Brown, Cam's mother, was read into the record. I think Lynne Brown's testimony offers the most reasonable doubt for Cam's motives; but, since she was not present, and the fact that she's his mother, it may not have the impact the defense needs.
The jury's visit to Inspiration Point and other sites relevant to the trial drew a little media attention. "Inside Edition" carried the story. Warning: that link will take you to a really annoying page. I add it only to show how ridiculous and banal our news media has become. This is why I don't blog anymore.
I expect closing arguments this week and possibly a verdict. Stay tuned.
UPDATE: The Daily Breeze covers the case.
UPDATE: The Daily Breeze covers the case.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Days 1 & 2 of the Defense Case in California v. Brown
There is regret, almost remorse,
For Time long past.
'Tis like a child's belovèd course
A father watches, till at last
Beauty is like remembrance, cast
From Time long past.
~Percy Bysshe Shelley
In the trial of California v. Brown, the defense has begun its case by calling witnesses that are friends of Cameron Brown from his college days and his job with American Airlines. The years have not been kind to these witnesses' memories. Craig Hum has had to remind them of their previous testimonies, letters of support they sent to Kaldis, and reports of their interviews with detectives.
Hum has essentially impeached these witnesses, because revisionist history is not fact. One witness, Jack Dietzler, recalled spending Christmas 1999 with Lauren, and possibly ten other times he saw her with her dad, and it turns out that Brown didn't have unsupervised visitation until February 2000. Of course, Lauren wasn't around for Christmas 2000. I think the event he recalls was a birthday party, because we've seen the pictures on Kaldis' website and there's a cake with candles. Hum gives Dietzler a pretty hard time about his inconsistencies, and his observation of Brown's relationship with his daughter. It seems Dietzler is exaggerating the number of times he spent with Lauren and Brown, and his pastel Disneyesque fantasy about how great a dad Brown was. The cross seemed pretty effective.
Another witness, Mark Thompson, testified that Brown (covering his tracks) told him that IP was a favorite hiking spot for Lauren and he. Brown also made up a story that conflicts with the facts, and the stories he told police, that Lauren was in a different spot, that he tried to pull her out of the water, that he ran into the road and flagged down a van to call 911. It was quite a tale. Even with support from previous testimony, Thompson has a difficult time remembering events or what he said.
Aaron Carter was a witness that saw Lauren "a few steps ahead" of her father on the road that day. This was not on the trail itself. She wasn't running, and it was on pavement. It's not much. Another witness, Terry Hope, saw Brown and Lauren on the trail up to IP, saw her throwing rocks, running around on a flat area (not at the top), and in front of Brown, walking. Later, he sees Lauren crawling on the steeper, narrower trail to the top of IP with Brown behind her. (Apparently, he's keeping up with her just fine.) His original observations (from 11 or 12 years ago?) indicated he thought that Brown and Lauren were not dressed for hiking and that Lauren looked like she was going to church. He noticed it was odd, and that Brown spoke to Lauren as though she were a dog, encouraging her to keep going...."Good girl!"
Ian Brown, the defendant's brother, could not attend trial because he's in Afghanistan, so they read his 2009 trial testimony in lieu of his appearance. He had lawyered up right away, and his mother was a wreck.
Time is on nobody's side in this trial.
Friday, April 24, 2015
"Cameronomics" - Child Support - Custody Issues in California v. Brown
On day 19 of the third trial of Cameron Brown, a couple of witnesses testified to the state of Brown's finances (which I merrily dub "Cameronomics") that indicated he was broke. Brown was never particularly good with money before or after the child support award was part of his financial obligations. I have a lot of experience with the way child support is calculated, and I appreciate how a father who has very little time with his child (by choice or court order) could resent having to pay almost half his net income to a woman he never married, nor likes very much.
The best solution is to obtain joint custody (or "shared parenting") where both parents share similar blocks of time with the child(ren) and they commute back and forth between houses. This would, of course, require the parents to have a mature relationship, live in the same school district (or within a manageable distance), and decide who pays health insurance, who gets the tax exemption, etc.
In the case of Brown and Key, the child support was calculated based on the usual factors: income of each parent, time spent with the child, and arrears when the child support award was finalized. Brown owed back child support, a percentage of which was added to his monthly payment. Brown's child support was a substantial amount, and I agree it was debilitating. But, we don't make the rules. It wasn't Sarah's decision, and it's not based on how much of that money is spent on the child.
Mr. Laub's cross examination of the financial expert witnesses attempted to demonstrate that Sarah was getting too much money, that she couldn't have needed it, that she didn't account for what she spent on Lauren, and other accusations that she was immoral somehow in taking this money.
This is a completely irrelevant issue. Whether or not Sarah spent the child support she received from Brown exclusively on Lauren's needs (and demonstrated this with a spreadsheet every week) or on mink furs is moot. The function of child support is to provide the child with a lifestyle he/she would have enjoyed had the parents stayed together. Unless Brown could show that Lauren was neglected, malnourished, poorly dressed, or smelled like a meth lab, he had no choice but to pay what the court ordered. That's just the way it works. I'm not saying it's fair, but that's the law.
As a single mother who has received a wide range of child support (from Zero to $600/month, depending on the income or deadbeat level of the father), I can enumerate many issues that a non-custodial parent doesn't face. A non-custodial parent with no other children (or step-children) buys a lot of freedom with that child support. He/she generally has visitation for 4 to 10 days a month. That leaves over 20 days of freedom from the demands of full-time parenting. The non-custodial parent misses less work because of a sick child, avoids babysitting costs, medical issues, transportation to extracurricular activities, hosting the child's friends, grocery shopping, clothes shopping, nightmares at the shoe store, the list goes on and on.
Brown wanted more time with Lauren, yet he failed to present at any time (from all accounts) a shared parenting agreement where he spelled out how he was going to accommodate her lifestyle. It was unrealistic to keep Lauren 50% of the time from the distance he and Patty lived from Sarah. It was even less likely (testified to in the link above) that the court would grant the Browns full custody unless Sarah had "turned into a monster."
I presented that rationale to Ted Kaldis many years ago, and he insisted that I was wrong, because his brother-in-law and sister had more resources, hence would get custody. This recent testimony vindicates me (not that I needed it), and shows that Patty Brown was woefully ignorant about how custody matters were decided. Her lame (and utterly unoriginal) attempt to accuse Sarah of child abuse was only the first of many failures to create a case.
Yes, Brown wanted a reduction in child support. He tried to obtain this in many ways: working less, declaring less income, and asking for more custody, with little success. However, it was never shown that he wanted full custody. I believe that was Patty's idea, and I would not be surprised if she was drilling this fantasy into Brown's feeble mind for months. Maybe....just maybe....Brown killed two birds with one stone when he went to Inspiration Point that day: eliminate the child support obligation and his obsessed wife's warped notion that they take that child from her mother and raise her as their own.
It's an ugly thought, but I can't help entertaining it.
The best solution is to obtain joint custody (or "shared parenting") where both parents share similar blocks of time with the child(ren) and they commute back and forth between houses. This would, of course, require the parents to have a mature relationship, live in the same school district (or within a manageable distance), and decide who pays health insurance, who gets the tax exemption, etc.
In the case of Brown and Key, the child support was calculated based on the usual factors: income of each parent, time spent with the child, and arrears when the child support award was finalized. Brown owed back child support, a percentage of which was added to his monthly payment. Brown's child support was a substantial amount, and I agree it was debilitating. But, we don't make the rules. It wasn't Sarah's decision, and it's not based on how much of that money is spent on the child.
Mr. Laub's cross examination of the financial expert witnesses attempted to demonstrate that Sarah was getting too much money, that she couldn't have needed it, that she didn't account for what she spent on Lauren, and other accusations that she was immoral somehow in taking this money.
This is a completely irrelevant issue. Whether or not Sarah spent the child support she received from Brown exclusively on Lauren's needs (and demonstrated this with a spreadsheet every week) or on mink furs is moot. The function of child support is to provide the child with a lifestyle he/she would have enjoyed had the parents stayed together. Unless Brown could show that Lauren was neglected, malnourished, poorly dressed, or smelled like a meth lab, he had no choice but to pay what the court ordered. That's just the way it works. I'm not saying it's fair, but that's the law.
As a single mother who has received a wide range of child support (from Zero to $600/month, depending on the income or deadbeat level of the father), I can enumerate many issues that a non-custodial parent doesn't face. A non-custodial parent with no other children (or step-children) buys a lot of freedom with that child support. He/she generally has visitation for 4 to 10 days a month. That leaves over 20 days of freedom from the demands of full-time parenting. The non-custodial parent misses less work because of a sick child, avoids babysitting costs, medical issues, transportation to extracurricular activities, hosting the child's friends, grocery shopping, clothes shopping, nightmares at the shoe store, the list goes on and on.
Brown wanted more time with Lauren, yet he failed to present at any time (from all accounts) a shared parenting agreement where he spelled out how he was going to accommodate her lifestyle. It was unrealistic to keep Lauren 50% of the time from the distance he and Patty lived from Sarah. It was even less likely (testified to in the link above) that the court would grant the Browns full custody unless Sarah had "turned into a monster."
I presented that rationale to Ted Kaldis many years ago, and he insisted that I was wrong, because his brother-in-law and sister had more resources, hence would get custody. This recent testimony vindicates me (not that I needed it), and shows that Patty Brown was woefully ignorant about how custody matters were decided. Her lame (and utterly unoriginal) attempt to accuse Sarah of child abuse was only the first of many failures to create a case.
Yes, Brown wanted a reduction in child support. He tried to obtain this in many ways: working less, declaring less income, and asking for more custody, with little success. However, it was never shown that he wanted full custody. I believe that was Patty's idea, and I would not be surprised if she was drilling this fantasy into Brown's feeble mind for months. Maybe....just maybe....Brown killed two birds with one stone when he went to Inspiration Point that day: eliminate the child support obligation and his obsessed wife's warped notion that they take that child from her mother and raise her as their own.
It's an ugly thought, but I can't help entertaining it.
Jon Hans' Change of Heart
Jon Hans appeared as a witness for the prosecution (again) in the current trial of California v. Brown, and repeated the story that refreshed my memory about how we were inadvertently involved in this case through my former blog. For those of you too busy to cull the archives here, allow me to summarize what occurred.
CountryGirl obtained a copy of the Grand Jury transcript back in the early days of the case, and we made it available to anyone who wanted it. Jon Hans emailed me requesting a copy, as did dozens of others. Apparently, Hans was one of the people who wrote a support letter for Brown that was published on Ted Kaldis's "Free Cam Brown" website. After reading the transcript, researching the area of Inspiration Point, and exchanging emails with me (and perhaps other people), Hans had a change of heart regarding Brown's innocence. He requested on numerous occasions for Kaldis to remove his letter from the website.
Kaldis refused. He was such a nice guy. (/sarcasm) If Kaldis had removed the letter right away, perhaps that would have been enough for Hans. He may never have pursued a more damaging remedy.
When Hans described to me the story that Patty Brown was the instigator of the child abuse accusations and plans to obtain full custody of Lauren, while Cam Brown seemed indifferent to the idea, we encouraged him to contact Detective Leslie. Hans had other experiences with the defendant that seemed valuable to the case. Eventually, he was called as a witness in the second trial and has now appeared in the third.
In the second trial, then defense attorney Pat Harris made quite a big deal out of Hans using the internet (and my blog) to sway his opinion. Harris never actually mentioned me by name (thank goodness), but I know he and Geragos and their associates were no strangers to my work.
Hans was very close to Brown for many years, and it was difficult for him to accept that Brown was capable of murdering his child. From his testimony in the third trial, he seems even more adamant in his belief and probably did a lot of damage to Brown's case. We have Kaldis to thank.
CountryGirl obtained a copy of the Grand Jury transcript back in the early days of the case, and we made it available to anyone who wanted it. Jon Hans emailed me requesting a copy, as did dozens of others. Apparently, Hans was one of the people who wrote a support letter for Brown that was published on Ted Kaldis's "Free Cam Brown" website. After reading the transcript, researching the area of Inspiration Point, and exchanging emails with me (and perhaps other people), Hans had a change of heart regarding Brown's innocence. He requested on numerous occasions for Kaldis to remove his letter from the website.
Kaldis refused. He was such a nice guy. (/sarcasm) If Kaldis had removed the letter right away, perhaps that would have been enough for Hans. He may never have pursued a more damaging remedy.
When Hans described to me the story that Patty Brown was the instigator of the child abuse accusations and plans to obtain full custody of Lauren, while Cam Brown seemed indifferent to the idea, we encouraged him to contact Detective Leslie. Hans had other experiences with the defendant that seemed valuable to the case. Eventually, he was called as a witness in the second trial and has now appeared in the third.
In the second trial, then defense attorney Pat Harris made quite a big deal out of Hans using the internet (and my blog) to sway his opinion. Harris never actually mentioned me by name (thank goodness), but I know he and Geragos and their associates were no strangers to my work.
Hans was very close to Brown for many years, and it was difficult for him to accept that Brown was capable of murdering his child. From his testimony in the third trial, he seems even more adamant in his belief and probably did a lot of damage to Brown's case. We have Kaldis to thank.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Observations of Third Trial - Days 1-8 Prosecution Case
I've spent quite a bit of time catching up with the third trial details of California v. Brown. Many, many thanks to "Sprocket" (Betsy Ross), who is chronicling the trial on her blog. She's doing a great job, and we're lucky to have her.
After reading up to day 8 of the prosecution's case against Brown, so far a familiar lineup of witnesses is appearing in this trial, but we now get to read their actual testimonies instead of summaries or news reports. It's at once fascinating, poignant and heartbreaking.
We learn nothing new about the defendant's behavior, reluctance to be a father, spiteful actions and drama between him and Sarah Key, but we do get some new details from Sarah's former roommates and friends, and it's not particularly flattering. In the past, some of our community suggested Brown had a type of autism. I think he just has a very low IQ and poor coping skills.
Brown's acrimonious relationship with his mother was once again introduced as testimony through Sarah and others. It occurred to me that Craig Hum is planting the idea that Brown killed Lauren to spite his mother as well. It wouldn't be much of a stretch; Brown's relationship with his mother is a deep factor. I wonder if the suggestion is too subtle for the jury.
We also learn that Brown gave Lauren some creepy, faceless Amish dolls from his grandmother's collection, with which Lauren didn't play and, according to Sarah, rejected. Sarah eventually threw them away, much to Brown's dismay. He was extremely petty about the monetary value of things, but we already knew that. We were reminded that he constantly accused Sarah of wanting him for his "money" and he begrudged her a quarter she took from his car. Anyone who is that concerned he's being "taken" is a guy who is on the take, himself. This paranoia is almost always projection. Yeah, Brown must have been a lot of fun to date. (/sarcasm)
Probably the most difficult and disturbing testimony to read has come from the teachers and friends of Lauren from the Montessori school she attended. They describe Lauren's bizarre behavior on the days leading up to, and the day of her death. Lauren appeared to have a premonition of something terrible about to happen. She kept asking to go home, to see her mother, to not attend school, and was alarmingly averse to leaving with her dad that day. It's devastating, and I do not exaggerate at all when I say that.
Mr. Laub, Brown's attorney, is cross-examining the witnesses and tends to meander with his points. I think his strategy is to demonstrate that Ms. Key had financial motives for her actions (getting pregnant, obtaining child support, subsequent lawsuits, raising money). I love it when men accuse the mothers of their children of getting pregnant and collecting child support as a kind of "racket" or scheme. It's hilarious. They really have no clue.
Laub tried to show Sarah as using the pregnancy to stay in the USA and to extort financial support from Brown. It's a tough sell, and even if it were true, it has no bearing on what Brown is accused of doing. Are we supposed to sympathize with Brown if we think he was trapped into fatherhood or financial responsibility? Sure, you poor guy. I don't blame ya! Throw that kid off a cliff.
Laub tries to portray Sarah Key as immoral for using child support funds for Lauren's burial. According to Ms. Key, she saved much of the child support in a separate account (which is more than I ever did - heck I used to to feed and clothe my child), and when Lauren died, she failed to report the death to the county and continued to receive child support for a couple more months.
I know a little about child support and emancipation issues, and last I checked, Mr. Brown could have reported the child's death to the county and they would have stopped taking the money. That he did not (and it is one form you fill out) and Sarah failed to do it does not make her a thief. It's a very weak point. I think the defense will be hard pressed to show Key as a money-grubbing, promiscuous opportunist. It's tricky territory for the defense to try and impeach a very sympathetic mother of a dead child. This strategy could backfire.
Meanwhile, much of the cross seems aimed at petty inconsistencies among the witnesses who have testified in the now THREE trials over this case. The witnesses have to refresh their memories of their first or second appearances, and in some cases, their grand jury testimony. It's a lot to ask. Sarah kept a diary, which was a very smart thing to do, but her friends and the other witnesses have to rely on transcripts. It's difficult for any of us to tell the same story twice without some small changes.This does not make us liars, merely human.
Several witnesses who were hiking on the same trail that day observed that Brown was always walking way ahead of Lauren from 5 to 20 feet, which contradicts his story that she was skipping ahead of him and he couldn't keep up. I recall there may still be a witness for the defense that saw Lauren ahead of Brown and he may appear later. It's also weak tea, and I doubt any juror will believe Brown's ludicrous story.
A great deal of cross has been focused on attempting to show Lauren as adventurous, active, athletic, or at least willing to be these things with her father, when she was a little lazy, shy, reticent and prissy with everyone else in her life. Laub is saying, "Could she not be this way with her father, to impress him or please him?" The psychologist seemed dubious. As the mother of 3 once 4-year old daughters who had visitation with their father, I do accept that they enjoyed activities with him that were very different from those at home, and they ate things with him they would not eat at home. However, this case involves a long, difficult hike up steep and rocky terrain, after an exhausting morning of crying and half an hour on a playground. It's just not credible that Lauren made that trek willingly.
Frankly, I think Laub is a very weak attorney and Craig Hum is pretty much having him for lunch. Stay tuned.
After reading up to day 8 of the prosecution's case against Brown, so far a familiar lineup of witnesses is appearing in this trial, but we now get to read their actual testimonies instead of summaries or news reports. It's at once fascinating, poignant and heartbreaking.
We learn nothing new about the defendant's behavior, reluctance to be a father, spiteful actions and drama between him and Sarah Key, but we do get some new details from Sarah's former roommates and friends, and it's not particularly flattering. In the past, some of our community suggested Brown had a type of autism. I think he just has a very low IQ and poor coping skills.
Brown's acrimonious relationship with his mother was once again introduced as testimony through Sarah and others. It occurred to me that Craig Hum is planting the idea that Brown killed Lauren to spite his mother as well. It wouldn't be much of a stretch; Brown's relationship with his mother is a deep factor. I wonder if the suggestion is too subtle for the jury.
We also learn that Brown gave Lauren some creepy, faceless Amish dolls from his grandmother's collection, with which Lauren didn't play and, according to Sarah, rejected. Sarah eventually threw them away, much to Brown's dismay. He was extremely petty about the monetary value of things, but we already knew that. We were reminded that he constantly accused Sarah of wanting him for his "money" and he begrudged her a quarter she took from his car. Anyone who is that concerned he's being "taken" is a guy who is on the take, himself. This paranoia is almost always projection. Yeah, Brown must have been a lot of fun to date. (/sarcasm)
Probably the most difficult and disturbing testimony to read has come from the teachers and friends of Lauren from the Montessori school she attended. They describe Lauren's bizarre behavior on the days leading up to, and the day of her death. Lauren appeared to have a premonition of something terrible about to happen. She kept asking to go home, to see her mother, to not attend school, and was alarmingly averse to leaving with her dad that day. It's devastating, and I do not exaggerate at all when I say that.
Mr. Laub, Brown's attorney, is cross-examining the witnesses and tends to meander with his points. I think his strategy is to demonstrate that Ms. Key had financial motives for her actions (getting pregnant, obtaining child support, subsequent lawsuits, raising money). I love it when men accuse the mothers of their children of getting pregnant and collecting child support as a kind of "racket" or scheme. It's hilarious. They really have no clue.
Laub tried to show Sarah as using the pregnancy to stay in the USA and to extort financial support from Brown. It's a tough sell, and even if it were true, it has no bearing on what Brown is accused of doing. Are we supposed to sympathize with Brown if we think he was trapped into fatherhood or financial responsibility? Sure, you poor guy. I don't blame ya! Throw that kid off a cliff.
Laub tries to portray Sarah Key as immoral for using child support funds for Lauren's burial. According to Ms. Key, she saved much of the child support in a separate account (which is more than I ever did - heck I used to to feed and clothe my child), and when Lauren died, she failed to report the death to the county and continued to receive child support for a couple more months.
I know a little about child support and emancipation issues, and last I checked, Mr. Brown could have reported the child's death to the county and they would have stopped taking the money. That he did not (and it is one form you fill out) and Sarah failed to do it does not make her a thief. It's a very weak point. I think the defense will be hard pressed to show Key as a money-grubbing, promiscuous opportunist. It's tricky territory for the defense to try and impeach a very sympathetic mother of a dead child. This strategy could backfire.
Meanwhile, much of the cross seems aimed at petty inconsistencies among the witnesses who have testified in the now THREE trials over this case. The witnesses have to refresh their memories of their first or second appearances, and in some cases, their grand jury testimony. It's a lot to ask. Sarah kept a diary, which was a very smart thing to do, but her friends and the other witnesses have to rely on transcripts. It's difficult for any of us to tell the same story twice without some small changes.This does not make us liars, merely human.
Several witnesses who were hiking on the same trail that day observed that Brown was always walking way ahead of Lauren from 5 to 20 feet, which contradicts his story that she was skipping ahead of him and he couldn't keep up. I recall there may still be a witness for the defense that saw Lauren ahead of Brown and he may appear later. It's also weak tea, and I doubt any juror will believe Brown's ludicrous story.
A great deal of cross has been focused on attempting to show Lauren as adventurous, active, athletic, or at least willing to be these things with her father, when she was a little lazy, shy, reticent and prissy with everyone else in her life. Laub is saying, "Could she not be this way with her father, to impress him or please him?" The psychologist seemed dubious. As the mother of 3 once 4-year old daughters who had visitation with their father, I do accept that they enjoyed activities with him that were very different from those at home, and they ate things with him they would not eat at home. However, this case involves a long, difficult hike up steep and rocky terrain, after an exhausting morning of crying and half an hour on a playground. It's just not credible that Lauren made that trek willingly.
Frankly, I think Laub is a very weak attorney and Craig Hum is pretty much having him for lunch. Stay tuned.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Third Trial for Cameron Brown
After six years of inactivity, former ski bum, surfer and baggage handler Cameron Brown is standing trial for the third time for the alleged intentional murder of his then four-year-old daughter, Lauren Key by throwing her off a cliff in Rancho Palos Verdes back in November 2000; what seems like a hundred years ago.
If you are just discovering this site from a search engine like Google, please look at the archives. We have documented this case from the beginning, and none of the facts have changed.
If Crag Hum can't convince a jury this time, Brown will (finally) walk. But not without having served significantly more time than he would have if he had plead to involuntary manslaughter. Whoever advised him to take this case to trial (Mark Geragos? Ted Kaldis? Beuhler?) should perhaps open a restaurant or write a screenplay.
I will follow the trial with CountryGirl and post my observations, for whoever is interested.
TRIALS & TRIBULATIONS BLOG
LA TIMES
An article from November 2014 I found on HuffPost, clearly instigated by Patty and Ted Kaldis (who obviously supplied the photos), was a sympathetic and fair chronology of the trial. However, it still smacks of the narcissistic paranoia prevalent in this case, as it implies that a Superior Court Judge and an entire justice system would conspire to keep Cam Brown in jail. It's just absurd. Brown's legal representation has done him a disservice (at best). It should have plead him out long ago.
Stay tuned.
HuffPost Article
If you are just discovering this site from a search engine like Google, please look at the archives. We have documented this case from the beginning, and none of the facts have changed.
If Crag Hum can't convince a jury this time, Brown will (finally) walk. But not without having served significantly more time than he would have if he had plead to involuntary manslaughter. Whoever advised him to take this case to trial (Mark Geragos? Ted Kaldis? Beuhler?) should perhaps open a restaurant or write a screenplay.
I will follow the trial with CountryGirl and post my observations, for whoever is interested.
TRIALS & TRIBULATIONS BLOG
LA TIMES
An article from November 2014 I found on HuffPost, clearly instigated by Patty and Ted Kaldis (who obviously supplied the photos), was a sympathetic and fair chronology of the trial. However, it still smacks of the narcissistic paranoia prevalent in this case, as it implies that a Superior Court Judge and an entire justice system would conspire to keep Cam Brown in jail. It's just absurd. Brown's legal representation has done him a disservice (at best). It should have plead him out long ago.
Stay tuned.
HuffPost Article
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Monday, August 29, 2011
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Second Trial: Hung Jury #2
The second trial of The People of California v. Cameron John Brown ended with another hung jury that reportedly voted 6-6 for second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. It remains to be seen whether Craig Hum will try the case a third (and final) time or if the People will offer Brown a plea - a common action taken at this stage. If Brown refuses to plead to involuntary manslaughter (a felony where his six years in L.A. County jail would be considered time served), he will likely be released on bail and retried for the higher of the two charges.
See HERE for last Daily Breeze report.
Details from the jury deliberations and notes from the courtroom are yet to be posted at Denise Nix's blog or elsewhere. It would be interesting if someone got an interview with the jury foreman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PARENTS ON TRIAL ~ Editorial
Much of the discussion surrounding the Brown case had to do with Brown's intent - did he plan or hope for Lauren to fall off the cliff or was he simply reckless? Was it really Brown's parenting skills on trial? Would any of us survive the merciless scrutiny under which Brown's fathering was measured? Perhaps not, but while no parent is perfect, Brown showed a pattern of disregard for Lauren's safety throughout their short time together and both he and his wife acted with spite and cruelty toward Lauren's mother without considering the effect of that behavior on a small child.
Yet, being a spiteful non-custodial father or a jealous new wife isn't a crime; otherwise, our jails would not be full of small-time drug dealers, but middle-class working parents that swear at each other in court, threatent violence, file false abuse charges against their exes, publish blogs and "tweets" and Facebook entries defaming their children's mother (or father), and behave in the most incivilized and harmful manner.
Clearly, domestic issues bring out the very worst in some otherwise good people. If nothing else positive comes of this case, maybe it can bring attention to the damage that can be done to children by this kind of behavior. A beautiful little girl died as a direct result of the adversarial relationship between her biological parents. Some of us believe it was murder, some are convinced it was a "terrible accident"; either way, she is gone because of choices that were made outside her control, because people she depended on to guard her safety (in this case, her father), failed to protect her, and in his willing disregard for her and her mother, caused this tragedy.
We have yet to hear any remorse expressed by Brown or his supporters for their responsibility.
See HERE for last Daily Breeze report.
Details from the jury deliberations and notes from the courtroom are yet to be posted at Denise Nix's blog or elsewhere. It would be interesting if someone got an interview with the jury foreman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PARENTS ON TRIAL ~ Editorial
Much of the discussion surrounding the Brown case had to do with Brown's intent - did he plan or hope for Lauren to fall off the cliff or was he simply reckless? Was it really Brown's parenting skills on trial? Would any of us survive the merciless scrutiny under which Brown's fathering was measured? Perhaps not, but while no parent is perfect, Brown showed a pattern of disregard for Lauren's safety throughout their short time together and both he and his wife acted with spite and cruelty toward Lauren's mother without considering the effect of that behavior on a small child.
Yet, being a spiteful non-custodial father or a jealous new wife isn't a crime; otherwise, our jails would not be full of small-time drug dealers, but middle-class working parents that swear at each other in court, threatent violence, file false abuse charges against their exes, publish blogs and "tweets" and Facebook entries defaming their children's mother (or father), and behave in the most incivilized and harmful manner.
Clearly, domestic issues bring out the very worst in some otherwise good people. If nothing else positive comes of this case, maybe it can bring attention to the damage that can be done to children by this kind of behavior. A beautiful little girl died as a direct result of the adversarial relationship between her biological parents. Some of us believe it was murder, some are convinced it was a "terrible accident"; either way, she is gone because of choices that were made outside her control, because people she depended on to guard her safety (in this case, her father), failed to protect her, and in his willing disregard for her and her mother, caused this tragedy.
We have yet to hear any remorse expressed by Brown or his supporters for their responsibility.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Highlights and Analysis of Defense Closing Arguments in People v. Brown
From online accounts published about Pat Harris’s closing arguments in People v. Brown, ostensibly a summary of the case that Cameron Brown did not, nay, could not have intentionally caused the death of his then four-year old daughter Lauren Key, various important points, contradictory points and ridiculous points emerged.
Harris argues that Brown could not have done what the prosecution accuses him of doing because it failed to prove a motive. In reality (versus the imaginary world in which the defense and its apologists appear to reside), the prosecution does not have to demonstrate motive. Sure, we like to understand motive as people; we seek closure and explanations for things that defy our inherent values, but it’s an unnecessary element in proving guilt in a court of law. Besides, there were easily assumed motives in this case which were simple enough: spite, envy, financial freedom: the oldest motives in the book.
One of the more common defenses of people who have no previous history of violence is that they are not the kind of people who would do something like throw a child off a cliff (or poison a husband, or strangle a wife, or drown her children, etc.). Reams of spousal and filial murder cases belie this myth. Just because someone has not demonstrated violent tendencies before does not preclude a planned act of murder. See also: The People of California v. Scott Lee Peterson. Geragos and Harris used this same argument to refute that boy scout Peterson was capable of murdering his wife; they paraded a “This is Your Life” crew of Peterson’s friends, teachers and family members to testify to what a wonderful brother/son/uncle/golfer he was. Peterson didn’t have so much as a parking ticket to his name.
This doesn’t proves Brown murdered his child, but it certainly doesn’t prove he didn’t. I’m sure most of us could find five people in our past to condemn us as well as praise us. It’s irrelevant to demonstrating proof of guilt.
That Hum referred to Brown as “the defendant” is also irrelevant; in most of the murder trials I’ve witnessed or read, the prosecutors almost always refer to the defendant as “the defendant” and not by name. In the first trial, Mark Geragos rarely mentions the victim by name. Did that not dehumanize Lauren as well? Don’t be a hypocrite!
Harris claims that because Brown made a two-hour commute to see his daughter, he was a devoted father. If he was really a devoted father, he’d have moved closer to Lauren and worked on gaining additional visitation with her where she could maintain her daily routine with the least disruption. Instead, Brown played the martyr. He probably commuted farther when pursuing his dating career! It could be argued that Brown asked for more time with Lauren to lower his child support award, not because he was interested in actually spending more time with her. If he was committed to becoming a good father, why not take childrearing classes? Why not spend time with other parents and other children to learn more about what makes a 4-yr old girl tick? Why continue to show ignorance of what children are all about, what is safe and unsafe for them, what makes them comfortable? Why impose your own hobbies and sports onto a little girl who is not athletic or adventurous? He treated her as nothing more than an extension of self, a mirror for him, rather than as an individual. When she didn’t reflect him, he lost interest in her. She became a burden.
Harris claims that Patty Brown had no relationship with Lauren, she hardly even met her, thus could not be pressing for custody. This startling revelation contradicts Patty’s entire modus operandi and all the vehement, inchoate logorrhea spewed over at the Kaldis blog. That may explain why Patty was never called as a witness to defend her husband. She, as was the case with regard to custody, child support and visitation issues, had no standing.
The defense fails to refute the evidence in this case: it never explains why Brown took Lauren to Inspiration Point, why he took the long route down the hill to the beach to call 911, why he failed to inform Sarah about the “accident”, why he lied about the altercation with Sarah at work (that was recorded), why he tried to have her deported, why he refused to allow the adoption after allegedly agreeing to it at first, why he didn’t remove the child from impending danger once he got to the summit of the hike, why he refused to talk to Sarah in the months and years following the tragedy, why he seemed so upbeat and carefree after his child’s death, among a dozen other questions the defense avoids addressing. We can only assume that Harris didn’t put either Cam or Patty on the stand because he knew they had no good explanations for their behavior that would exonerate them.
Brown's fate is now in the hands of the jury. We expect a verdict on Tuesday or Wednesday. Let justice delayed be served once and for all.
Harris argues that Brown could not have done what the prosecution accuses him of doing because it failed to prove a motive. In reality (versus the imaginary world in which the defense and its apologists appear to reside), the prosecution does not have to demonstrate motive. Sure, we like to understand motive as people; we seek closure and explanations for things that defy our inherent values, but it’s an unnecessary element in proving guilt in a court of law. Besides, there were easily assumed motives in this case which were simple enough: spite, envy, financial freedom: the oldest motives in the book.
One of the more common defenses of people who have no previous history of violence is that they are not the kind of people who would do something like throw a child off a cliff (or poison a husband, or strangle a wife, or drown her children, etc.). Reams of spousal and filial murder cases belie this myth. Just because someone has not demonstrated violent tendencies before does not preclude a planned act of murder. See also: The People of California v. Scott Lee Peterson. Geragos and Harris used this same argument to refute that boy scout Peterson was capable of murdering his wife; they paraded a “This is Your Life” crew of Peterson’s friends, teachers and family members to testify to what a wonderful brother/son/uncle/golfer he was. Peterson didn’t have so much as a parking ticket to his name.
This doesn’t proves Brown murdered his child, but it certainly doesn’t prove he didn’t. I’m sure most of us could find five people in our past to condemn us as well as praise us. It’s irrelevant to demonstrating proof of guilt.
That Hum referred to Brown as “the defendant” is also irrelevant; in most of the murder trials I’ve witnessed or read, the prosecutors almost always refer to the defendant as “the defendant” and not by name. In the first trial, Mark Geragos rarely mentions the victim by name. Did that not dehumanize Lauren as well? Don’t be a hypocrite!
Harris claims that because Brown made a two-hour commute to see his daughter, he was a devoted father. If he was really a devoted father, he’d have moved closer to Lauren and worked on gaining additional visitation with her where she could maintain her daily routine with the least disruption. Instead, Brown played the martyr. He probably commuted farther when pursuing his dating career! It could be argued that Brown asked for more time with Lauren to lower his child support award, not because he was interested in actually spending more time with her. If he was committed to becoming a good father, why not take childrearing classes? Why not spend time with other parents and other children to learn more about what makes a 4-yr old girl tick? Why continue to show ignorance of what children are all about, what is safe and unsafe for them, what makes them comfortable? Why impose your own hobbies and sports onto a little girl who is not athletic or adventurous? He treated her as nothing more than an extension of self, a mirror for him, rather than as an individual. When she didn’t reflect him, he lost interest in her. She became a burden.
Harris claims that Patty Brown had no relationship with Lauren, she hardly even met her, thus could not be pressing for custody. This startling revelation contradicts Patty’s entire modus operandi and all the vehement, inchoate logorrhea spewed over at the Kaldis blog. That may explain why Patty was never called as a witness to defend her husband. She, as was the case with regard to custody, child support and visitation issues, had no standing.
The defense fails to refute the evidence in this case: it never explains why Brown took Lauren to Inspiration Point, why he took the long route down the hill to the beach to call 911, why he failed to inform Sarah about the “accident”, why he lied about the altercation with Sarah at work (that was recorded), why he tried to have her deported, why he refused to allow the adoption after allegedly agreeing to it at first, why he didn’t remove the child from impending danger once he got to the summit of the hike, why he refused to talk to Sarah in the months and years following the tragedy, why he seemed so upbeat and carefree after his child’s death, among a dozen other questions the defense avoids addressing. We can only assume that Harris didn’t put either Cam or Patty on the stand because he knew they had no good explanations for their behavior that would exonerate them.
Brown's fate is now in the hands of the jury. We expect a verdict on Tuesday or Wednesday. Let justice delayed be served once and for all.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Jury visits Inspiration Point
Inspiration Point"Today, jurors in the Cameron Brown murder re-trial visited five spots along the Rancho Palos Verdes cliff that figured prominently in the case. Basically, as they did during Brown's first trial three years ago, they retraced the purported path Brown and his daughter, Lauren Sarene Key, took before her fatal plunge on Nov. 8, 2000.
"They went to the Abalone Cove parking lot, the nursery school on the beach, up to Portugese Point, to Inspiration Point and ended at the archery range where Brown said he laid little Lauren's body after he fished her out of the surf.
"Brown, wearing jeans, a blue button-down shirt and handcuffs hidden by a sweater, accompanied the jury to the first three locations, but not the last two. I don't know why."
She plans to attend tomorrow's closing arguments.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Lauren's Birthday
Lauren would have turned 13 years old today. Our thoughts are with Sarah and her family and friends.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Newton's Law & The Baggage Handler
I don't claim to be an expert in Physics; in fact, I dropped out of 12th grade Honors Physics because it required hours of homework that entailed too much Math, which interfered with my after-school job. Years later, I would have a career that required my learning a great deal about mechanical principles, machines, motion control, torque and horsepower. Thus, I understand a little bit about motion and how forces must act for motion to occur, about vectors and acceleration and the relationship between action and reaction. Incidentally, my experience with Physics is much greater than Ted Kaldis's, although he feels no shame in presuming he knows more about Physics than anyone, lay or expert. To me, the case that Brown threw the object is simply common sense.
Nevertheless, I will defer to a real expert. I suffer no illusions that "expert witnesses" are not paid well to say whatever their client needs them to say, but unlike psychology or economics, Physics is a pretty damn exact science. Rarely, if ever, do objects defy the laws of Physics.
In his original report, submitted back during the Grand Jury days, Hayes wrote this:
Basically, Hayes believes (and this trial is his third appearance) that Lauren could not have slipped and fallen and rolled without suffering certain types of injuries. The defense witness of the first trial (not sure who Harris has this time) said that the side of the hill was composed of soft, dry grass and not rocks. I don't know how convincing he was, but apparently not very - since none of the jurors voted to acquit.
Denise Nix reports in The Breeze:
At the last trial, Hayes showed a PowerPoint presentation including huge autopsy pictures, close ups of Lauren's injuries in her face, wrist, and chest. These pictures, combined with the upcoming field trip to Inspiration Point, are likely the most damaging evidence and will haunt the jurors for years.
Hayes probably showed the same topographical maps and land surveys and once again described that fundamental Physics will demonstrate how this object moved in space, what type of trajectory it had to have in order to land a certain way inflicting certain injuries. If the object had slipped and skidded down, it would have moved at a rate of 4.6ft/second. If thrown, the object falls at 15ft./second. It's very convincing, and it's hard to refute the laws of Physics.
The same team that brought us "The Incredible Running Leap Theory" is trying to claim that Brown would have fallen along with the child if he threw a 43-pound weight off the end of the cliff. A fit, athletic man who literally threw 43-pound objects hundreds of times daily for a living at the time, lacked the balance and skill to heft a 43-pound child 12 feet or so into the air over an edge? Really?
Sure, Hayes was paid, he was good, he has a good reputation. He's no different than any number of paid experts that testify at trials every day. That the Kaldis Twins want to impeach him is perfectly normal. However, unless the defense can better demonstrate how an object can move down a cliffside and has the video to prove it, they will be hard-pressed to outshine Hayes.
Nevertheless, I will defer to a real expert. I suffer no illusions that "expert witnesses" are not paid well to say whatever their client needs them to say, but unlike psychology or economics, Physics is a pretty damn exact science. Rarely, if ever, do objects defy the laws of Physics.
In his original report, submitted back during the Grand Jury days, Hayes wrote this:
From a careful review of the autopsy report and post-mortem photographs, we determined that Lauren’s massive, traumatic injuries were consistent with a single, high velocity impact to the cliff face. Her injuries could not be explained from her sliding and tumbling down the cliff face or with multiple impacts to the cliff face before landing in the water of the inlet. ...
Basically, Hayes believes (and this trial is his third appearance) that Lauren could not have slipped and fallen and rolled without suffering certain types of injuries. The defense witness of the first trial (not sure who Harris has this time) said that the side of the hill was composed of soft, dry grass and not rocks. I don't know how convincing he was, but apparently not very - since none of the jurors voted to acquit.
Denise Nix reports in The Breeze:
Hayes and an associate also conducted trajectory experiments to see how fast a reasonably healthy adult man could throw objects in the 40- to 45-pound range, like Lauren.
Based on Lauren's injuries, the path the weights took over the cliff and the topography of the rock face, Hayes concluded that she was launched head first, hit her face and upper body on an outcropping before bouncing into the ocean 120 feet or so below.
At the last trial, Hayes showed a PowerPoint presentation including huge autopsy pictures, close ups of Lauren's injuries in her face, wrist, and chest. These pictures, combined with the upcoming field trip to Inspiration Point, are likely the most damaging evidence and will haunt the jurors for years.
Hayes probably showed the same topographical maps and land surveys and once again described that fundamental Physics will demonstrate how this object moved in space, what type of trajectory it had to have in order to land a certain way inflicting certain injuries. If the object had slipped and skidded down, it would have moved at a rate of 4.6ft/second. If thrown, the object falls at 15ft./second. It's very convincing, and it's hard to refute the laws of Physics.
The same team that brought us "The Incredible Running Leap Theory" is trying to claim that Brown would have fallen along with the child if he threw a 43-pound weight off the end of the cliff. A fit, athletic man who literally threw 43-pound objects hundreds of times daily for a living at the time, lacked the balance and skill to heft a 43-pound child 12 feet or so into the air over an edge? Really?
Sure, Hayes was paid, he was good, he has a good reputation. He's no different than any number of paid experts that testify at trials every day. That the Kaldis Twins want to impeach him is perfectly normal. However, unless the defense can better demonstrate how an object can move down a cliffside and has the video to prove it, they will be hard-pressed to outshine Hayes.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Lifetime Movie Idea - Toad's Screenplay Outline
LIFETIME MOVIE - Working Title, "Death of Innocence By Envy"
Frumpy, barren, homely, middle-aged first generation American-Greek woman (with equally unattractive fraternal twin) living in Southern California meets and falls in love with an unlikely suitor – an All-American, blonde, freckled, muscular, surfer, outdoorsy mountain boy from Colorado ten years her junior.
To everyone’s shock, Surfer Dude proposes! Greek Frump and Surfer Dude jet off to Hawaii for romantic honeymoon and upon returning, Greek Frump discovers Surfer Dude has a child from a former lover. Greek Frump has mixed emotions about the child: jealousy, covetousness, fear, and when she meets Former Lover Babe, feels even more insecure. Former Lover Babe is a beauty: slim, fit, well bred, with a lovely English accent and refined features.
Surfer Dude protests that he hates Former Lover Babe and wishes he could have deported her when he had the chance, but Greek Frump is still uneasy and feels threatened by Former Lover Babe and the existence of Love Child. Greek Frump won’t let Surfer Dude out of her sight and insists on being present whenever Surfer Dude picks up Love Child for visitation, even though she has to miss work or change her plans or revolve her schedule around these visits. She is obsessed with fear that Surfer Dude still lusts after Former Lover Babe or may roam while taking the child on activities without here. She knows the little girl is a babe magnet and can’t risk leaving them alone.
Surfer Dude complains that he never wanted the child and that he resents having to pay almost a thousand a month in support. Greek Frump plots to take Love Child from Former Lover Babe by undermining the mommy, brainwashing the Love Child, and watching for injuries on the child during visits in order to report abuse to the authorities to build a case for Former Lover Babe’s unfitness. Greek Frump also talks Surfer Dude into filing for full custody even though he has little chance of success.
Greek Frump is barren and can never have a child, and is convinced that if she could take this child and raise her as her own, she would not only solve the financial problems of her adored husband and earn his love and gratitude forever, but punish Former Lover Babe for having the audacity to be more beautiful, more desirable, more popular, more pure, more fun, more admired and for having that child with her husband thus interconnecting their lives forever!
To hedge her bet, Greek Frump studies witchcraft and voodoo and assembles the paraphernalia for casting spells on someone to whom you wish harm or bad luck. Shortly after Greek Frump casts her spells, Surfer Dude picks up Love Child without Greek Frump present and instead of bringing her to Greek Frump’s home, as is customary, he takes Love Child on a hike to the top of a 120-foot cliff overlooking the ocean where the child falls to her death below. Surfer Dude calls Greek Frump with the bad news, insisting it was a terrible accident and Greek Frump pledges her undying support.
Surfer Dude goes on trial for murder, twice, and Greek Frump and her ugly twin go broke. At the second trial, Surfer Dude is convicted, Greek Frump shrieks after the verdict and her ugly twin has to help her walk out of the courtroom and away to face the rest of her lonely, desperate existence without Surfer Dude and without Love Child.
THE END
Frumpy, barren, homely, middle-aged first generation American-Greek woman (with equally unattractive fraternal twin) living in Southern California meets and falls in love with an unlikely suitor – an All-American, blonde, freckled, muscular, surfer, outdoorsy mountain boy from Colorado ten years her junior.
To everyone’s shock, Surfer Dude proposes! Greek Frump and Surfer Dude jet off to Hawaii for romantic honeymoon and upon returning, Greek Frump discovers Surfer Dude has a child from a former lover. Greek Frump has mixed emotions about the child: jealousy, covetousness, fear, and when she meets Former Lover Babe, feels even more insecure. Former Lover Babe is a beauty: slim, fit, well bred, with a lovely English accent and refined features.
Surfer Dude protests that he hates Former Lover Babe and wishes he could have deported her when he had the chance, but Greek Frump is still uneasy and feels threatened by Former Lover Babe and the existence of Love Child. Greek Frump won’t let Surfer Dude out of her sight and insists on being present whenever Surfer Dude picks up Love Child for visitation, even though she has to miss work or change her plans or revolve her schedule around these visits. She is obsessed with fear that Surfer Dude still lusts after Former Lover Babe or may roam while taking the child on activities without here. She knows the little girl is a babe magnet and can’t risk leaving them alone.
Surfer Dude complains that he never wanted the child and that he resents having to pay almost a thousand a month in support. Greek Frump plots to take Love Child from Former Lover Babe by undermining the mommy, brainwashing the Love Child, and watching for injuries on the child during visits in order to report abuse to the authorities to build a case for Former Lover Babe’s unfitness. Greek Frump also talks Surfer Dude into filing for full custody even though he has little chance of success.
Greek Frump is barren and can never have a child, and is convinced that if she could take this child and raise her as her own, she would not only solve the financial problems of her adored husband and earn his love and gratitude forever, but punish Former Lover Babe for having the audacity to be more beautiful, more desirable, more popular, more pure, more fun, more admired and for having that child with her husband thus interconnecting their lives forever!
To hedge her bet, Greek Frump studies witchcraft and voodoo and assembles the paraphernalia for casting spells on someone to whom you wish harm or bad luck. Shortly after Greek Frump casts her spells, Surfer Dude picks up Love Child without Greek Frump present and instead of bringing her to Greek Frump’s home, as is customary, he takes Love Child on a hike to the top of a 120-foot cliff overlooking the ocean where the child falls to her death below. Surfer Dude calls Greek Frump with the bad news, insisting it was a terrible accident and Greek Frump pledges her undying support.
Surfer Dude goes on trial for murder, twice, and Greek Frump and her ugly twin go broke. At the second trial, Surfer Dude is convicted, Greek Frump shrieks after the verdict and her ugly twin has to help her walk out of the courtroom and away to face the rest of her lonely, desperate existence without Surfer Dude and without Love Child.
THE END
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Backstory on Jon Hans
Based on the rough transcript posted by "Sprocket" of testimony in the Brown retrial, a new witness that did not appear in the first trial was introduced, an old friend of Brown's, Jon Hans. I'm still not clear of the real probative value of using Hans in this trial, especially when the cross-examination opened a can of worms regarding the case information available on the internet. For whatever reason, Hum chose not to go down that path, although it could have been pretty damaging to Patty Brown.
Allow me to present the backstory on Jon Hans.
Back in the summer of 2006, before the first trial began, Country Girl and I had been following some of the conversation about the case on Usenet that was taking place between Ted Kaldis and members of various newsgroups, as I chronicled in this blog in a series entitled "Once Upon A Newsgroup". At the time, I was writing about the case on another blog, the same blog on which I documented the Peterson case back in 2002-2004. Country Girl had obtained the transcripts of the Grand Jury that I noted on my site were available to anyone who was interested in reading them. Needless to say, I received dozens of requests for this transcript and I don't recall turning down any requests. This was a public document, but we did not post the transcript anywhere on the Internet, and I don't think anyone else posted anything but excerpts.
Jon Hans was one of the many people who requested a copy of the Grand Jury transcript. He also informed me via email that he was one of the people who wrote a letter of support for Cam Brown and it was published on Ted Kaldis's site "Free Cam Brown". (www.freecambrown.org)
Hans and I exchanged emails regarding Ted's refusal to remove his support letter from the Free Cam Brown site, and he asked me about some things he was reading online. I responded with answers to his questions and he described some things he felt about his history with Cam that he now has testified to at the new trial.
According to Hans, after reading the Grand Jury transcript and contemplating some of the conversations he had with the defendant over the years, he had a change of heart and decided that Brown could be guilty of murder. The fact that this case was discussed for several years online, in newsgroups and on several blogs, was common knowledge. That the defense would expect, after 8 years now, that nobody would discuss this case online or have any opinions about it is ridiculous. However, this case didn't draw anywhere near the attention that the Peterson case drew, and it's very likely that most of the potential jury pool had never heard of Brown or this case and could be objective. It's not as if Hans was a potential juror.
I suppose Hum brought Hans on to show that even a very close friend, someone who originally supported Brown unconditionally, could change his mind about Brown's potential guilt after reading a PUBLIC DOCUMENT (the Grand Jury transcript) that we had no part in creating. I seriously doubt I or anyone here had any influence on Hans's opinion about Brown. Yes, I have written disparaging things about the defendant and that is my humble opinion, nothing more. I expect people to draw their own conclusions about this case based on the evidence presented and common sense.
What I find more interesting about Hans's testimony is his impression of Patty Brown. Hans believes that Patty was the instigator of this tragedy and that if Brown had never met and married Patty, that Lauren would be alive today.
Hans reiterated a conversation he had with Patty and Cam where she claimed that the couple were going to gain full custody of Lauren because of alleged abuse Lauren suffered at the hands of Sarah. This was, of course, complete nonsense, and I have written extensively about how impossible this scenario was in the real world. In brief, there was no way the court would remove a child at the tender age of four from her custodial parent and turn her over to her biological father and his new wife over specious allegations (later disproved) of abuse. It was also unrealistic for Cam and Patty to seek even joint custody at this stage, considering the relatively short time Cam had spent with Lauren, and the fact that they'd have to move closer to Sarah to ensure that Lauren's transition would be as seamless as possible. Hans also mentions that the couple were planning to move to Utah, a fact that also belies the "full custody" plans. There is no way a court would let Cam move Lauren out of state.
Perhaps Hans read that opinion at Usenet or on my blog or in this blog, but this was information readily available with a simple Google search. It's not as if we were publishing state secrets, folks.
Once again, Pat Harris demonstrates his wildly incoherent cross-examination techniques as he attempts to impeach anyone who changes his or her mind, anyone who forgets what they wrote or said 8 years ago (and if I hadn't saved the documents and emails from then, I'd be hard pressed to remember much of what happened!), and anyone who might have been influenced by what they read on the Internet. If Harris wants to go down that road, he should bear in mind that his client's wife and brother-in-law have been waging a campaign online to defame Hum, Leslie, virtually everyone involved in the prosecution of Brown, and of course - me.
Caveat Surfer: I warn Harris and the Brown supporters - if you live by the Google, you die by the Google, and I should know!
Allow me to present the backstory on Jon Hans.
Back in the summer of 2006, before the first trial began, Country Girl and I had been following some of the conversation about the case on Usenet that was taking place between Ted Kaldis and members of various newsgroups, as I chronicled in this blog in a series entitled "Once Upon A Newsgroup". At the time, I was writing about the case on another blog, the same blog on which I documented the Peterson case back in 2002-2004. Country Girl had obtained the transcripts of the Grand Jury that I noted on my site were available to anyone who was interested in reading them. Needless to say, I received dozens of requests for this transcript and I don't recall turning down any requests. This was a public document, but we did not post the transcript anywhere on the Internet, and I don't think anyone else posted anything but excerpts.
Jon Hans was one of the many people who requested a copy of the Grand Jury transcript. He also informed me via email that he was one of the people who wrote a letter of support for Cam Brown and it was published on Ted Kaldis's site "Free Cam Brown". (www.freecambrown.org)
Hans and I exchanged emails regarding Ted's refusal to remove his support letter from the Free Cam Brown site, and he asked me about some things he was reading online. I responded with answers to his questions and he described some things he felt about his history with Cam that he now has testified to at the new trial.
According to Hans, after reading the Grand Jury transcript and contemplating some of the conversations he had with the defendant over the years, he had a change of heart and decided that Brown could be guilty of murder. The fact that this case was discussed for several years online, in newsgroups and on several blogs, was common knowledge. That the defense would expect, after 8 years now, that nobody would discuss this case online or have any opinions about it is ridiculous. However, this case didn't draw anywhere near the attention that the Peterson case drew, and it's very likely that most of the potential jury pool had never heard of Brown or this case and could be objective. It's not as if Hans was a potential juror.
I suppose Hum brought Hans on to show that even a very close friend, someone who originally supported Brown unconditionally, could change his mind about Brown's potential guilt after reading a PUBLIC DOCUMENT (the Grand Jury transcript) that we had no part in creating. I seriously doubt I or anyone here had any influence on Hans's opinion about Brown. Yes, I have written disparaging things about the defendant and that is my humble opinion, nothing more. I expect people to draw their own conclusions about this case based on the evidence presented and common sense.
What I find more interesting about Hans's testimony is his impression of Patty Brown. Hans believes that Patty was the instigator of this tragedy and that if Brown had never met and married Patty, that Lauren would be alive today.
Hans reiterated a conversation he had with Patty and Cam where she claimed that the couple were going to gain full custody of Lauren because of alleged abuse Lauren suffered at the hands of Sarah. This was, of course, complete nonsense, and I have written extensively about how impossible this scenario was in the real world. In brief, there was no way the court would remove a child at the tender age of four from her custodial parent and turn her over to her biological father and his new wife over specious allegations (later disproved) of abuse. It was also unrealistic for Cam and Patty to seek even joint custody at this stage, considering the relatively short time Cam had spent with Lauren, and the fact that they'd have to move closer to Sarah to ensure that Lauren's transition would be as seamless as possible. Hans also mentions that the couple were planning to move to Utah, a fact that also belies the "full custody" plans. There is no way a court would let Cam move Lauren out of state.
Perhaps Hans read that opinion at Usenet or on my blog or in this blog, but this was information readily available with a simple Google search. It's not as if we were publishing state secrets, folks.
Once again, Pat Harris demonstrates his wildly incoherent cross-examination techniques as he attempts to impeach anyone who changes his or her mind, anyone who forgets what they wrote or said 8 years ago (and if I hadn't saved the documents and emails from then, I'd be hard pressed to remember much of what happened!), and anyone who might have been influenced by what they read on the Internet. If Harris wants to go down that road, he should bear in mind that his client's wife and brother-in-law have been waging a campaign online to defame Hum, Leslie, virtually everyone involved in the prosecution of Brown, and of course - me.
Caveat Surfer: I warn Harris and the Brown supporters - if you live by the Google, you die by the Google, and I should know!
Monday, August 03, 2009
Summary Analysis of First Week - Retrial
Based on first-hand reports from blogs and news stories covering the Brown retrial so far, the first week included opening statements by The People and the defense and testimony from Lauren's mother, Sarah Key-Marer.
Denise Nix reports:
LINK: Daily Breeze Update
Some new information that wasn't revealed in the first trial emerged during direct and cross-examination. For example, Patty Brown, Lauren's step-mother, occasionally picked her up for visition (even though she had no legal standing to do so) and at one time held out her arms to the child and said, "Come to Mommy." Lauren reportedly responded to this by cringing. Another interesting anecdote revealed that Brown told Key-Marer that he and his new wife were moving "up north" and were going to start their own family. How that was to occur with a woman well beyond childbearing age was never explained.
In cross, the defense attempted to show Key-Marer was dishonest in filling out various legal forms including her tax returns, child-support calculation documents, and the journal in which she documented the visitation. As in the first trial, the defense brought up the insurance settlement Key-Marer accepted when she believed that Lauren's death was an accident. I'm not sure how the jury will react to the defense's attempt to impeach the victim's mother, but it appears to be the usual defense strategy: discredit as many witnesses as possible and portray Brown as a loving, caring father. We'll see how well this works when it comes to defending Brown's decision to take Lauren up to the top of Inspiration Point.
Denise Nix reports:
Through a series of anecdotes, Sarah Key-Marer, 40, told a new jury of 10 men and two women her version of events - beginning with meeting Brown at a bar in the fall of 1995.
Between meeting Brown and losing her daughter, Key-Marer described how an otherwise fun and normal dating relationship deteriorated after she accidentally became pregnant and Brown seemed to want nothing to do with the baby.
LINK: Daily Breeze Update
Some new information that wasn't revealed in the first trial emerged during direct and cross-examination. For example, Patty Brown, Lauren's step-mother, occasionally picked her up for visition (even though she had no legal standing to do so) and at one time held out her arms to the child and said, "Come to Mommy." Lauren reportedly responded to this by cringing. Another interesting anecdote revealed that Brown told Key-Marer that he and his new wife were moving "up north" and were going to start their own family. How that was to occur with a woman well beyond childbearing age was never explained.
In cross, the defense attempted to show Key-Marer was dishonest in filling out various legal forms including her tax returns, child-support calculation documents, and the journal in which she documented the visitation. As in the first trial, the defense brought up the insurance settlement Key-Marer accepted when she believed that Lauren's death was an accident. I'm not sure how the jury will react to the defense's attempt to impeach the victim's mother, but it appears to be the usual defense strategy: discredit as many witnesses as possible and portray Brown as a loving, caring father. We'll see how well this works when it comes to defending Brown's decision to take Lauren up to the top of Inspiration Point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)