A view out towards Inspiration Point from the beginning
of the trail head on Palos Verdes Drive South.
Photo credit: Betsy A. Ross, all rights reserved.
UPDATE 4/3: Made a correction to cross examination testimony, and clarity, spelling edits.
UPDATE 3/31: This post has not yet been edited for clarity or spelling. Sprocket.
Monday March 30, 2015
It was fortuitous that court was dark this past Friday, since I woke up with a head cold. I've been battling all weekend to keep this from going into my lungs and having to stay home from court. I'm working with Dr. Peter D'Adamo's Health Protocols for my blood type to try to clear my sinuses and build up my immune system.
More exasperating, I fell off my front porch Sunday afternoon. I was trying to get my stretch-coiled water hose untangled to water the plants on the porch. I thought I was stepping down off the porch onto the step but I missed the step completely. Down I went. It wasn't a big fall, the porch is only about a foot off the ground. However, I scraped an elbow and bruised some muscles.
Twelve days ago, Mr. Sprocket slipped on the step just off the porch and went flying into a flower pot in the front yard. It was very early in the day and there was some condensation on the steps. He hit his head on the flower pot and wrenched his right shoulder. He ended up with a frightening looking hemotoma beside his right eye. For a few days, it looked like he got into a fight but it was really only a ceramic flower pot. With two accidents off the porch in less than two weeks, I told Mr. Sprocket we're not getting any younger. We need a hand rail around the front porch steps.
I catch the Red Line train into downtown Los Angeles. If the lobby isn't crowded, I should be on the 9th floor by 9:15 am. Jurors were ordered back on Monday at 10:00 am. I believe there is another pretrial hearing in Dept. 107, an arson case.
I'm inside Dept. 107. Two of Sarah's friends are already here. The arson hearing is over but I did get to say hello to DDA Sean Carney who is prosecuting the case. Sarah arrives a few moments later with her husband. She's wearing a black and white jacket, white blouse and a black skirt. Her husband is wearing a very faint pinstripe black suit.
Mr. Laub arrives with his investigator. The clerks tells Mr. Laub that Judge Lomeli would like to speak to him.
The bailiff speaks to Mr. Laub before he goes back into chambers.
One of the DA's victim advocates arrives and greets Sarah and her family.
DDA Hum and Detective Leslie stand in the well leaning against the jury box. I've seen many DDA's do this before court starts and between breaks.
The bailiff makes sure the family has lots of tissues with them before Sarah retakes the stand.
The jury is here. I guess we are starting at 9:30 am. Sarah retakes the stand. A sheriff goes to get the defendant. Mr. Laub comes out from the jail area, meeting with his client. Now there is an off the record sidebar at the bench.
The bailiff has the door to the custody area open. Brown comes out. He's wearing a light blue shirt tie and dark jacket.
The court orders the jury to be brought in. The judge explains the calendar and that court will be dark last week. On the record with People v. Brown.
Laub begins cross examination.
Ms. Marer, you filed a lawsuit i Brown in April 2001. That's correct.
Laub asks her to look through the complaint that she filed. That is the complaint. Defense exhibit A.
As part of the proceedings you were deposed, that was July 24, 2001? If that's what the date says yes.
A depositoin in a civil suit she went to a lawyers office. There was an attorney who was representing not Mr. Brown, but an Insurance Company? Sarah remembers Mr. Brown's attorney being there.
She was sworn in and testified.
When she received Brown's child support parents, she set that money aside in a separate bank account. At the time of Lauren death, there was money in that account.
Laub asks if there was $2500.00 in the acct. Sarah states, "If that's what I testified to, I don't remember." Laub gives notice to a transcript page and line number from that deposition.
Laub reads Sarah's prior testimony where she stated the amount was around $2500.00.
Laub is now asking about what Brown's child support payments and how much they were. Presents her with a quarterly statement from the County of Orange. The amount ($680.00) Defense B.
The total payments he made in October, $860.00? Laub shows her another document. Sarah agrees the document is from the county. Defense C.
At the time of Lauren's death, there was a payment in November for $516.00 is that correct? That's possible yes. Laub shows Sarah another document.
Sarah identifies the document as the same quarterly statement. Defense D.
At the time of Lauren's death, there was approximately 3.5 months of child support. Sarah agrees.
From the date of her death, to her deposition, you had used money from that account to purchase flowers to on her grave? Yes? Just trinkets and things to put on her grave.
You and your husband Greg, paid out for her funeral, from that account. I believe so. He took care of most of that, so I don't really remember.
Attention to the deposition. Laub reads from the deposition and Sarah agrees.
Laub asks her what money she received from the church. She doesn't remember the exact amount. The members of the church went around, and put up a collection. She also paid for the headstone out of this account.
Laub asks even after all that, there was still money left over? That's possible, yes.
During the month of 2001, there were still proceedings going on in family court. You were seeking to have Brown pay for some attorney fees, she filed a statement under penalty of perjury? Can I see the document you are referring to? Document presented. Yes.
In this declaration, you stated the child's funeral expenses were totally born by me and my husband? If that's what I testified to at the time, yes. Yes, that's what I wrote.
And this was under penalty of perjury? This was false that you paid for everything. So when you said the two of you, bore the funeral expenses, that was false.. I can't testify that's false. She stated her husband handled all the expenses, so she's not sure when the money came in from the church.
Laub presses her on the money in the account for Lauren, and if she thought that money was hers.
Laub asks her about a victim's program. It's a program that helps victims with the crime, and help deal with the whole process.
Isn't it correct that in December, the month following Lauren's death, you collected 1,032. in child support? It's possible. I don't remember. Shows her a document.
Actually in December, the current support was $1,032. and the arrears was $28.00. Sarah agrees.
So, when you received this money in December, after Lauren's death. did you notified the court that was taking the money out of Mr. Brown's pay, that he was paying to support a deceased child? I don't remember.
In January 2001, two months after Lauren's death, she again received money for child support. It's possible.
In my opinion, more testimony will come about why the child support payments continued after Lauren's death.
Laub continues with each month, presenting Sarah with a document for each month.
Judge asks Mr. Laub to show her all documents at once.
Laub asks that the entire time he did child support, he never missed a payment. That's correct?
Laub asks if she asked the court why she was receiving child support past the child's death. She doesn't remember.
More documents as defense exhibits.
Victim witness program, what is it? They provide victim's help, and money towards restitution.
Is it a program run by the state of California? I believe so.
It's a program that pays out money to victims of crime? The crime that happened to Lauren for Lauren. I wasn't calling it a crime. I don't the program's in and outs. They did apply.
Did you present paperwork? I don't remember, but it's possible.
On April 4, 2001, didn't you write an email to Det. Danny Smith, to follow up on that victim program? It's possible. Presents her with a copy of the email. Verifies she sent the email to Danny Smith. Defense exhibit J.
You then did receive... let me go back a minute. This is for payment or a victim of crime? It's a victim program. She doesn't remember the word crime.
The amount you got out of the program is approximately $5,000.00 Three thousand went to repay you and $2,000.00 went to the headstone? It's possible. I don't remember.
Laub then reads from the deposition where Sarah testified about the cost of the funeral and burial plot. Testimony she gave at the deposition. At the time, she didn't mention any donations from the church? Sarah doesn't remember.
Laub looks through his papers for something, then tells the court he will move on. Sarah does not review the document. Laub finally finds his document. Asks the witness to review it. There's no mention of the contributions of the church or the cemetery? Correct.
An email with Danny Smith, where she discussed medical information about Brown. Objection. Sustained.
What you were doing in writing the email, you were participating in the murder investigation in Cameron Brown? ... (Miss answer.) Laub asks if she had a previous conversation with Det. Smith to get these records. Laub asks her to review the contents of the email again. This email is in relation to the counseling appointment we had.
And what about that? It's notifying Det. Smith that I had called to find out the information regarding the counseling appointment. The hospital said she couldn't have the information without the consent of Brown. Laub states she was working for the murder investigation.
Laub accuses her of her trying to get information for the police in a murder investigation. Sarah states, if that was what he was asking me to do.
Laub wants to know what her relationship was like, with the detectives. Laub asks if she felt if she was manipulated by the detectives? They could see that I was having a really hard time with Laurens death. They were not intimidating. They helped me and I wanted to help them find out as much about what happened to Lauren that day.
You knew form November 11, yo uknew at least from that date, that Cameron Brown had made a statement to police. I believe so.
And you knew that he said this was an accident. I believe so.
And you knew, that they believed this case was a murder? I knew they were investigating.
You called Mr. Brown repeatedly, trying to get any information out of Mr. Brown. That's correct.
Detective Smith, didn't use you, by keeping you ignorant of this case? They told me what they had found at the crime scene. They were working on it. They were vague. The phone calls I made to Cameron were before the recorded phone calls.
You called 2.5 days later? Yes.
You did this at the direction of the police? I did that anyway.
November 11, Det Smith and Det. Leslie, they came out to your house and asked if you wanted to put this recording device on your phone? I believe so yes.
And they said they wanted to get... She doesn't remember what they asked me. I just wanted to help.
Laub asks about statements in her April (7, 2001) email to Det. Smith, and her reply email in order to give Smith the address to the medical records information. She agrees that's what she wrote.
Now asking about another email to Det. Smith, where she had pleasant communication with Det. Smith and also providing him with more information for the investigation. She agrees she wrote the email.
You addressed this as "my friend." Objection! Judge Lomeli asks counsel to approach.
Patty Brown has not come to court for the morning session.
The sidebar continues. A minute later, over. Laub asks about the email, now defense exhibit L.
There were other emails sent by you, other communications you had with the investigating officers, providing information they needed for the investigation, is that correct? Yes.
When you made these phone calls on your tapped phone, you knew that Mr. Brown had already been interviewed by police? Yes.
And you knew, that he said, this was an accident? He didn't tell me that it was an accident?
And you knew the police had accused him during that interview, of murder? I don't remember.
Laub gets another transcript. Laub starts to read prior testimony. DDA Hum objects on relevancy. Sidebar. Sidebar over.
Were you told by the police they had interviewed Mr. Brown and in that interview they accused him of murder? It's possible, I don't remember.
You made frantic phone calls to Mr. Brown, even after a phone tap was placed on your phone? Yes. But you don't remember if the police told you that they accused Brown of murder? It's possible, I don't remember.
Well, when you were calling Mr. Brown, was it in your mind, that Mr. Brown might have murdered Lauren? It's possible.
Did you expect that if you got through to Mr. Brown, he would say that he murdered Lauren? I didn't think he would do that, but I wanted to what happened to Lauren. He was the only one there.
More questions, repeated. Court asks Laub to move on.
When she was calling Mr. Brown, she did not want to believe it was a murder. She wanted to hear from Mr. Brown.
Questions as to why she didn't ask for the recording device to be taken off of her phone.
The truth is, you were trying to assist the police in getting anything they could, against Mr. Brown? That's not entirely correct.
Laub accuses her that, since Brown had a lawyer, now that you were the only person who could get this information out of Mr. Brown. Sarah doesn't remember that happening.
Now Laub asks more questions about about the lawsuit. Claim that he negligently supervised Lauren causing her to fall to her death. There's nothing in here about the possibility that Brown threw Lauren off the cliff? That's because I wasn't aware at that time, what happened.
She went to Palos Verdes Counsel, to have guard rails put up, and also to have a plaque put up for Lauren? Yes. Asks her to verify the document she presented to Palso Verdes Counsel. Verifies the document.
In your presentation to the counsel, you told them that, Lauren had fallen to her death off Inspiration Point? Correct.
You told them they would see that (guard rails) would help in preventing this from happening again? Correct.
You went to try to get warnings and guard rails, but you were told that the people in their wealthy homes didn't want their view obstructed. Correct.
You wanted to have guard rails, so that children wouldn't fall? Technically correct. (another question I miss)
You had mentioned that there had been two other deaths off of Inspiration Point? Yes.
And you hoped these safety measures would prevent future deaths? Yes.
And moved them to take action so that families would be spared? I did.
At the time you appeared in front of this counsel, you were motivated in the hope that, this governmental body, would see the need for railings since Lauren had fallen? Yes.
You also had another motivation? I'm not sure. Your question's vague.
You made the presentation on Feb 20th (yr?). She was already represented by counsel. And she was interested in suing the community of Rancho Palos Verdes? It's possible, yes.
Shows her a document that she sent to her lawyer. Feb 4, (miss year?). Correct. You sent him a planned presentation? Yes, it's possible. You asked his approval to send the letter out? It appears os, yes.
Question about her motivation. My motivation was not financial gain, but to establish responsibility for Lauren's death.
In my grief and wanting something positive about what had happened, so in my eyes, I wanted to have ... establish responsibility.
I wanted answers as to why Inspiration Point didn't have railings like Portuguese Point, a perfectly safe area. I wanted to know why, Brown took Lauren to Inspiration Point.
She did not proceed with the lawsuit.
She did seek out other attorneys, before she found the right one? Object. Releavance 352. Sustained.
So the right one, was Mr. Wilton? I felt comfortable with Mr. Wilton. (spelling?)
At that point, you felt that Mr. Brown had not properly supervised Mr. Brown, because there was a homeowner's police that she could sue and go after that policy? I was in an emotional state, and I was reaching for anything, that would take some responsibility.
You and Mr. Wilton were thinking of suing Mr. Brown for the murder? I don't think that's correct. I'm not sure.
Now asking her questions about working with her attorney to suing through, suing the insurance company? Money wasn't a motivation but verifies that's correct. States that her attorney advised her it wasn't the city's fault and that it was more reasonable to sue Brown directly.
Now asking her about a letter she received from her attorney, Mr. Wilton. Laub reads from the letter. There's a timing issue, and that it should be resolved before the criminal action? Yes.
So you and your attorney went after the money? It was for the best way to get accountability. Objection against this line of question.
You were discussing with your attorney, how to discuss the pleading. It was before there was a filing.
Judge asks her if her intent was to manipulate? Manipulate, no, not manipulate.
Laub asks again if her intent was the best way to get the money. Sarah insists her intent was not to get money but to establish liability.
She did get $300,000.00 from the insurance policy? That's correct.
The court calls the morning break.
During the break, Laub's investigator flips through papers at the clerks desk. Mr. Laub works at the defense table, flipping through pages. After making a phone call, the investigator joins Mr. Laub at the defense table. DDA Hum and Leslie pace a bit in the well by the jury box, then DDA Hum leaves the courtroom. Now the investigator goes to get coffee.
Sarah and her friends reenter the courtroom. Judge Lomeli comes out from the back room area. Sarah retakes the stand. The deputy brings Brown out from the holding area.
The jury enters. Back on the record.
You testified on direct, that you visited with Cameron's mother, and this was a visit, to mother or grandmothers house? It was at his grandmother's house. The doll collection was extensive, not expensive.
The document she's presented with is a list of the gifts that were given to Lauren. She's not sure when or why she was asked to prepare it. Sarah created it, yes. Defense P.
The first item on the list is Nov 21 1999, Mr. Brown brought Lauren a small Victorian stroller with a porcelain doll inside? Yes. And he said it was taken from his grandmother's doll collection? yes. And you said that he had a special relationship with his grandmother? Yes. And he was the one who took care of her? I believe so.
So that must have made you think that he was giving her something valuable? You mean, sentimental value, yes. What is the is alternative way of looking at it? Just buying something in the store and just handing it to her? At the time I'm not too sure I even thought about it, but now thinking about it now, yes.
What was Lauren's response to this gift? I don't remember. If I didn't write something, I don't remember. There's nothing about Lauren's response to the gift? Correct.
Next, he bought her a small doll, that you had seen at Von's.
The Judge interrupts. "We're going to go through each item counsel?" Approach. Sidebar.
It sounds like there are exasperated voices over at sidebar.
In this list, you discuss seven different occasions where Mr. Brown gave gifts to Lauren? Yes. With the exception of one, there's nothing on this list that describes Lauren's reaction to the gift. Yes. What you do describe on this list is where gifts were purchased and their monetary values. Yes.
Early in 2000, he brought two scary looking Amish dolls that he brought from his mother's collection. Lauren and I didn't like the look of them, they were not appealing to the eye, so I threw them away. Amish dolls, with no faces. Did you know the significance? She did not know the significance.
You had a good relationship with his mother? Yes. Did you call his mother and ask? No. Lauren didn't like them so we threw them away. Did you ask to find out why the grandmother had these dolls in the collection? No.
Laub insists the dolls had a religious significance. The people object. The judge agrees and tells Laub we are not getting into the significance of these dolls and speculation.
Laub asks, what made you think you could throw these dolls away? They were for Lauren, she didn't like them. She thought they were scary. She didn't play with them. I guess I could have returned them. That would have been the correct thing to do.
Now questions her about the walk along the beach, and when Brown talked about two children falling from a cliff, in Redondo Beach. Now you're saying today is that you've learned since that time that there are no cliffs near Redondo Beach. Confronting her on her prior testimony in the prior trials.
Now asking her if she's making this up about Redondo Beach, is that Brown never said anything, that she made it up.
Testified in that first meeting of Mr. Brown, and that he said he was an airline pilot, and sometime later, you learned that he was a baggage handler? Isn't it true that you found out that he was a baggage handler the same day? My memory is, that it wasn't until the second meeting, when they were actually dating, that she found out. Laub goes to the transcript.
You testified in a prior proceeding in 2009 is that correct? yes I did.
Laub reads the testimony, going back to Nov 4, 1999, when she first met Mr. Brown.
Laub confronts her on the discrepancy in her memory.
At this point in time, is your memory less clear, than when you testified in 2009. Yes, over time there are things that are a little rusty, but there are things that I do remember? Today, I do believe he told me on a second date.
Laub gives her an instance that they picked each other up and that at first he told her that he was an airline pilot, and then later he tells you he's a baggage handler and you laugh about it. He was funny? I don't remember it that way.
Laub questions Sarah on what it was about Brown that was attractive? Laub asks about him being an outdoors person, and other questions about Brown and what drew her to him.
Sarah states it would not have mattered if he was an airline pilot or a baggage handler. What bothered her is that it was misleading.
Laub switches to the email that she sent herself on May 5, 2000? Which one specifically? The one where you make a note about your court appearances specifically? She states she didn't review this. She identifies it as an email she sent to herself on May 5, 2000. Defense Q.
In this email, what you've done, you've made notes for yourself about different court appearances. It appears so, yes. And have a note here, went to mediation and he got angry about that she had put in the papers about the adoption and he was angry, and just like his mom.
Now crossing her on her testimony on the stand, verses what she had written in this email. On the March 9th, court hearing, he said, what goes around comes around, but he didn't say, I'm going to get you? I do remember, that after the detective's interviewed me, that it did happen. I didn't make it up. Just because I didn't write it down, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Agrees that she didn't write it down.
Wrote down that Brown said she was full of anger, what goes around comes around, never to speak to him again. Agrees with that.
Trips with Brown she was able to fly for free because of his employment with AA? It cost her $35.00, she paid that.
You also testified that during your meetings, you used dutch treat? You each paid for yourselves? Pretty much, yes. Talked about a time where you tried to talk about baby names and he walked off, and that was difficult for you because you didn't have any cash. I may not have hand any cash that day? If you were both paying for your way, why didn't you have any cash.
She states she wasn't expecting to get a taxi, because she was with him. Laub asks her about a credit card. She didn't have one.
You testified that you didn't notify Mr. Brown about Lauren's birth because you were afraid about being deported? Yes, that's part of the reason. I was a young mother and very busy and enthralled in being a new mother.
Now questions about when she went to the DA's office, to sue for child support. She agrees that she consulted with some friends. Laub asks when she met Greg. It was in the early part of that year, Jan Feb 1997.
Laub states, that Greg said that he was paying child support, and he suggested to sue.
When did you and Greg start discussing marriage? We dated for about six months before we got married.
Greg was worried that he would end up supporting another child? It was Brown's right to support Lauren.
More questions about filing the child support. You told this jury that Lauren was a pretty outgoing child? Outspoken yes, and she liked the outdoors.
And that she was somewhere between a barbie doll girl and a tomboy? That would be right. She did like to be with you a lot at home? She liked to be at home, and do thinks around the house.
Now referring to the grand jury testimony.
Now Laub reads her grand jury testimony that she previously stated Lauren liked to do things around the house. Confronting her with the discrepancies in her grand jury testimony where she stated Lauren didn't like to go outside.
Questions about raising her as a 1950's female that was brought up on direct.
Laub states this is a good time to take a break, and the court states, no. Laub takes a bit of time to get his papers for the next question, so the court goes ahead and takes the break.
I will correct this entry for spelling and clarity errors this evening when I get home.
Now asking her about question about the grand jury and that there was no defense attorney there.
Court asks Mr. Laub how much longer does he have. (About another hour?) And we are in recess.
Back inside Dept. 107. Counsel and defense set up their files. There are three interns in the gallery for the DA's office. Patty Brown has not come to court for the afternoon session.
Brown is brought out. Sarah retakes the stand.
Laub tells the court that Brown saw the doctor this morning. The court tells Brown that court is dark tomorrow, "...so that will help you out."
Brown stands each time the jury enters, but Laub does not stand for the jury. Sometimes, Mr. Laub is standing for the jury but his back is to the jury.
Back on the record.
Going back over the email she sent to herself and the notes she wrote to herself about the court appearances. The March 3rd court appearance was much shorter than what you wrote about? I don't remember.
While you're describing this 3/3 court appearance, and Mr Brown learning of the court pleading that you ahd filed, mentioning the adoption, there's nothing here about him saying "I'm going to get you." It's not documented, correct.
What you say in this note, you wrote there'ssomething about not caring about Lauren? I think I said he wasn't interested in her day to day living, who her friends were, church...
Laub presents her note she wrote about the 3/3 court hearing. Sarah reads the document she prepared and she states she's not too sure what she's referring to when she wrote this.
Now about the note for 3/9, in the court hearing she didn't memoralize the specific comment. The judge intervenes.
You don't know if she was a more adventerous little girl than what she was with you? She doesn't believe
Why did you sent a swimsuit with her when she went on visits? Just in case they went to the pool?
Brown brought Lauren to his mother's house on many of his visits? That's true, yes.
Questions about Brown's comments about his mother and the relationship with his mother.
He was actually living with his mother at some point. Sarah believes he was living with her, at the grandmother's house.
During the period of late 1999, while you were making sure Mr. Brown's visits were limited, you actually had more time for Lauren with Brown's mother? That's incorrect.
You do know that she wen with Mr. Brown, that she went in water. I didn't know that.
You testified at second proceeding in 2009. Question during November and December in 1999, Lynn brown, his mother, to spend more time with Mrs. Brown than Cameron Brown. Laub states her testimony, We only visited Lynn Brown, a handful of times.
Laub now asks about the court visitation schedule and how she thought that time was more than should be allowed? Age appropiate for Lauren.
Instead of giving Mr. Brown as much visitation as the court proposed, Mr. Brown agreed to your plan? Correct.
At that point, he was being cooperative with you? Correct.
He was put in the position of paying more child support, for less visitation? He would bepaying the same amount of child support, but s a slower reunification plan for a three year old.
You actually met Mr. Brown in November of 1995? Yes.
In the family court, you wrote a declaration that you met him in August of 1995. Minor matter, did you say that because you might though it put you in a bad light in family court? No, at the time she thought it was that time, but then found a photograph taken on the date she met him and she turned that over to the DA.
Now asking about problems with Brown, where she had her roommate write a declaration, that you met Mr. Brown in August 1995.
These declarations were all written when you were going through the child support proceedings? Yes.
Any explanation as to why the date was so off? I honestly don't.
When you came to the US, did you intend to stay to the US? When I initially came, no.
In your deposition you said you came here to make a life. Is that true? I don't remember.
Reads from the deposition.
So when you came to the US, and came here, you were pursuing a life here. This wasn't an overstay from a simple visit? I didn't have any plans or how to stay. I was very young.
Why did you say that? Like I said, I just came her open ended. I didn't have specific plans. You know that's not answering my question. Objection. Sustained. The words you said then, are not the same that you said under oath at the time of your deposition? I'm not sure.
Mr. Brown in the entire time that you were communicating, never said anything to you about not having anything to do with Lauren, correct? Other than your cliam that he was willing to have her adopted? I don't think I,I don't think there is any statement he made, or threat.
You testified that Mr. Brown threatened you with deportation, you heard from someone else that he tried to get your fired from your job, but while you were still pregnant, you invited him to a company party? Yes I did.
What company? Travel Max. He came? He did.
So, did he do anything, abuse to you at the party? No he did not?
Did he act out in any way at this party? No.
Before one of the court appearances, in the family court, you filed expense declaration in which your hours had been cut in half, do you recall this? Laub shows her the paper It appears from full time to half time. She signed on Sept. 1? Yes.
This declaration was prepared shortly in advance of child support by Mr. Brown? Its' possible, I don't remember. The court would then determine the child support that Mr. Brown would pay? Yes.
Questions about her employer, and who it was, as that was her brother-in-law. She explained that she was payed by tempest travel, and Innovative travel is the company she worked for.
Innovative was owned by your husband's brother? For some reason the hours went from full time to part time.
What is General Relief Fund? It's companies that help people. It was her husband who was receiving general relief.
In 7/6/2000 you filed an expense and declaration you had 100% of the physical responsibility of Lauren. Is that correct? I'd have to see the document. Laub finds the document and shows it to her.
Can you identify this page as part of the income and expense declaration of 2000, approximate percentage that each person had the children. Yes, because I had legal custody, 100%.
Legal custody was something that was throughout the proceedings. And throughout the court proceedings it was about how much she had with you and how much time she had with Brown.
At the time, she was thinking that meant physical custody.
Laub confronts her, that at that time, Brown had overnight visits? That's correct.
Trip she took to England. Lauren was over the courtry for two weeks? I think it was around three weeks.
Did you got to the court to reschedule the visits for Brown? I'm not sure if I went to Jan Mueler or not. What you did is you wrote him a letter and said this is the way it is? Yes, I did.
Laub reads the letter in court, that Lauren would be in England and that she would miss the two visits with Brown. That's the way you chose to handle it when you went to England. Yes.
At some point, this was all about the money? It was never about themoney
You got child support? Yes.
You even filed a lawsuit? Yes.
You put on the declaration that the church donated money.
So wasn't this all about the money, It was never about themoney.
Why did you file the lawsuit?
Im nygrief, and in my pain, I wanted to make something, somebody accountable for her death. There was no criminal investigation taking place. I had no answers. The only way I could get without guarantee, was to file a wrongful death suit. I was non judgemental it was either or. But I needed to have some accountability.
At the time you filed this lawsuit, that your lawyer filed htis lawsuit, did you know where theinvestigation was? They told me very limited things.
She asked but they didn't tell her anything. They didn't tell me why,
The court ordered the defendant to pay child support. And that was a wage garnishment taken directly out of hisc chekc. The moeny was taken directly otu of his check ,right? yes.
Arrearages. That was money between the time that Lauren was born, and the time he started paying. So, esentially, back child support? Correct.
Lauren was living with you, correct. You paind for expenses, dental school, food. Yes. Was it you understanding that it was to provide you with assistance in all this?
When Lauren died, was it your first thought that the defendant can stop paying childsupport? Was that the first thing foremost in your mind? No it was not.
About presentation Palos Verdes Counsel, did you know what information the detectives any information that detectives had uncovered about Laurnes death? No.
Did they tell you waht they discovered? What they told me was very limited.
When you presented your to city, did you know if it was an accident or a murder? No I did not?
The fall from the cliff that Brown talked about seeing two children, those were actually suicides? Yes. You testified to that prior, correct? yes.
Laub asked you what was in your declaration, and that you had met the defendant earlier than what you had actually met him. Explains how she found out the date. She came across a photo, with a date on it. She brought it to the DA's office immeidately. Were you trying to hid that information? No.
The def. lawyer asked yo uif the defendant, was your understanding of the defendant's relationship with his mother was high and low. Presents document to witness.
Declarationship signed by the defendant, does that describe the relationship with his relatives. It says that his relatives had "disowned him." "Yes."
In the declaration you filed you responded to that. What was that in response to? His family values.
The defendant's lawyer asked you about Linda Peterson. Yes. Did you introduce her to the defendant? Yes. After she said she was threatened to be deported, she and Linda drove to where the defendant lived and left a note on his car, please don't deport me.
She's seen the amount of material related to her in prior proceedings, Hum stacks up six binder files. Have you memorized all the information in these documents? As best I can.
Def attorney states there's nothing in your notes about "I'll get you for this." Does that mean, they're not in your notes, does that mean it doesn't happen? No. In fact, the lawyer talked about emails you sent to yourself. Another email she sent to herself, in June 2000.
This email sent June 23, 2000. In that email it state, the defenat said to you' I'll get you for this."Yes.
that was in June of 2000. That was before Lauren died. You told the detectives about this. In the grand jury you testified he said at the first trial. at thesecond trial.
So this isn't the first time you said this. Correct. In fact, it was in your email before Lauren ever died? Correct.
You said that Lauren liked to be outdoors. Yes. Did that mean she likes to be out in the wilderness hiking on a trial? It meant playing on the lawn.
You testified in the defendant's original court filed (request for joint custody) before he had ever met lauren he was asking for joint legal custody? Yes. What is your understanding of that? Whomever was awareded would determine where she went to school, what religion she practiced, her medical decisions, whether or not she could leave the country, that sort of thing.
At the time he filed this, he opposed it. Yes. And was that because he had never even met her yet? Yes.
The def. lawyer, on Thursday morning, he asked you, something about your notes indicate dether was no problems until your declaration filed the adoption. Did you review your notes? Laub objects. Misstates the evidence? Judge well, we won't know that without a read back. Judge instructs to ask his question and what Laub states his question was.
When the def lawyer made his statement, whatever it was, at the time you did review your notes. But we never came back on Thursday and we didn't come back on Friday. After reviewing your notes, was the lawyers statement, correct? No.
In fact, you documented problems in your notes, beginning with the second visit? Yes.
(What did those notes say?) Primarily the relationship with his mother. Also that he would say detrimental remarks in front of Lauren about his mother. It would be that she was a bad person and couldn't be believed. I'd have to tell him, not to bring this on Lauren, it was not appropriate, but it just kept increasing. And this was in your notes correct? Yes.
DDA Hum is going to set up a short audio for the jury.
Back in session. Finally , thedefendat's lawyer asked you some questions about Det. Leslie put a recording device on your phone, saying you were trying to get thedefendant to say something incriminating. She made quite a few early on. DDA Hum wants to present four of those calls to the jury. Transcripts are given to the jury.
These are after Lauren died.
Plays the tape. I believe I remember this from the second trial.
We can hear Patty's voice on the answering machine. Hi Patty and Cameron, this is Sarah, I just wanted to talk to you about what happen, I beg you to please call back. You know my number. It's very hard for me and I just really need to talk to you. Any time. Anytime today. Goodbye.
The answering machine tape, Patty's voice. Sarah's voice. She's sobbing. Please call me. Please let me talk to you. I just want to hear somethhing about what happened. I can barely understand her. Please call me. You can hear the pai nin her voice. It makes me start to cry. She begs him to please pick up the phone.
The answering machine again. "Cameron, you have to call me back. I want to know what happened. The least you can do is call me back."
The answering machine again. Sarah sobbing. "Just tell me why. Just tell me why." The tape ends.
Ms, Key-Marer, that was you correct? Yes.
These calls were made after detectives and Smith and Leslie came to your home and wanted to record these calls. We heard these were emotional calls. Did you call detectives what happened?
Of course I asked them. They would just tell me they were investigating. They said they would tell me they would let me know, when they knew it.
Laub asks if she was emotional and breaking up at that time questioning the detectives asking them if he killed her? (I may have.)
These are very emotion calls, where you are upset seeking information since you have none. Did you pursure this type of questioning with detectives this intensely? I'm sure I did.
They asked you to find out from Mr. Brown? I wanted to find out from Mr. Brown myself.
Question about speaking to Patty, after Lauren died. That Patty told her Brown had an attorney. I don't rmember. It's possible.
So you're making these phone calls, and in your mind you knew that Mr. Brown had counsel. Objection. Sustained.
The detectives came out to your house, because they knew they couldn't go to Mr. Brown.
I didn't care about being recorded. I would be making those because I wanted to know for myself.
Judge clarifies, that whatever the police told you was irrelevant, she wanted to make those calls herself? Yes.
The falls off of Inspiration Point, the prior falls off of Inspiration Point, were suicides.Objection, sustained.
You didn't tell the city counsel the two people you were referring to, were suicides? I don't remember.
In that presentation they were not referred to as suicides? Whether the deaths were suicides or not, I would still make the petition to the counsel.
You said and Ms. Peterson had placed a note on Mr. Brown's car. There's no evidence that Mr. Brown actually saw the note? I just placed the note.
Question about the visits, and that they "went okay." Laub still confronts her that all the visits went okay, until she made her declaration to the family court about the adoption.
Asks if she reviewed her journal or testimony with prosecutor. Some, yes.
Laub confronts her about her memory.
In general, the first few visits, were okay. After that, there were minor things and I didn't like the way he spoke about his mother, and then things deteriorated between us.
No more cross. No more direct.
Judge asks to see counsel at side bar.
Sarah sits back in the gallery beside her husband puts his arm around her. He rubs her back and shoulder for comfort.
Court ends for the day. Jury is ordered back at 9:30 am on Wednesday. Reminds the jury that court is dark on Tuesday.
I will have edit corrections later tonight.
Jury files out.
DDA Requests that Ms. Key-Marer remain in the courtroom. The defense tried to have Ms. Key-Marer removed in first and second trial and now third. DDA Hum continues with his argument. There's no reason why she should be excluded for two and a half days, on the event that we may recall her for some issue.
Laub. The DA will now present witnesses on factual issues on Lauren, who were there at the school, the mediator at family court, There's going to be family from Mr. Brown, friends of Mr. Brown. Because she's had interaction with these witnesses on various times.
Laub, it's his first time through, and she may be needed to impeach witnesses.
DDA Hum, there are transcripts from two prior trials ...
If they are the same witnesses that are going to be called, then the risk is lessened. If she's ever called back to the stand, you could argue to the jury that she could have modified her testimony.
Laub, on our witness list, there are two lay witnesses, that did not testify in the past. If there's any pst interaction.
Sarah gets to remain in the courtroom. However, if there was some interaction with two defense witnesses, then this issue may be revisited and/or she could be asked to step out of the courtroom when they testify.