Lauren Sarene Key with one of her dolls,
playing house under the table.
Lauren plunged to her death off of Inspiration Point on 11/8/2000.
Copyright© Sarah Key-Marer, all rights reserved.
UPDATE 4/26 editing for spelling, clarity, accuracy. Finished edit 4:40 pm
Wednesday April 22, 2015
Before I stepped into Dept. 107, I stopped to chat with LA County Sheriff's Detective Mark Lillienfeld about the time I saw him testify in the first Phil Spector trial. It was why I am such a big fan of him. Detective Lillienfeld, each time I've seen him testify, he was a great witness.
It's my understanding that Detective Lillienfeld will retire in about a year. It will be LA County's loss.
The jury files in. Mr. Hum calls his next witness. Victor Rendon.
For whom do you work? American Airlines. Worked there 15 years. Current assignment, flight service manager. Entails watching the flight attendants during flight, and attendance, injury reports, administrative duties.
He was working there in 1999 and 2000.
He is familiar with the term loss time. Was in charge of keeping track of loss time. That's when an employee calls in sick, vacation, worker's compensation time.
[When they come back to work, sometimes they have] transitional duties. Employees are restricted, come to work to do light duty, cabin service, or making snack kits.
Is familiar with what's in an employee personnel file, called a "P" file. Explains what's in that, attendance records, performance issues, workman comp injuries.
Also familiar with the way time is kept, time keeping records, and how to read paycheck stubs, and those records.
He recognizes and identifies the defendant. Brown worked at American Airlines. Brown was on his shift, working. Actually know who he is? Yes.
Started working August 28, 1989 [Brown].
Are you familiar with the position that Brown was a fleet service clerk? Its an employee who loads and unloads cargo, delivering bags, and cabin service, cleaning the interior of the aircraft. Minimum lifting requirement for the job was 75 lbs in a confined area, unassisted.
Pushing lifting bags, putting on conveyer belts, things of that nature? Yes they did.
The defendant's days off in Oct & Nov of 2000, his days off were Tuesdays and Wednesdays. At that time, he was on regular duty.
What type of duty prior to his days off? I believe they were regular duty.
Familiar with procedures when an employee is injured on duty. What were they? They must report to a supervisor immediately. Supervisor decides if they go to see medical right away or take a report. They then are interviewed to determine how long they will be off, what type of disability they need, etc.
There are papers, forms that are discussed with the injury counselor, that include information on the pay policy? Yes they do.
Back in 2000, what was the pay policy in regards to workers injured on job.? They were given 80 [work] days of full paid leave, and 13 weeks transitional covered pay, to get back to work.
How many times a person can receive these 80 days of full pay on workman's comp? [I believe the witness states it's incident related, not related to a year.] Come back and claim another injury and get another 80 days off? Yes, that's possible.
Prior to Nov 18, 1989, how many times did the defendant claim he was injured? I believe I saw 9 claims. One was a re-injury. So eight claims.
Injury defendant claimed he received on Jan. 18, 1999, an information letter signed by defendant on Jan 19, 1999. Document marked at people's 43. Witness reviewed the document. Yes, it is.
The name of the person appears to be Cameron Brown? That is correct. Image of claim injury is put up on the screen.
The bottom portion of the page, highlighted, American Airlines pay policy is outlined.
American Airlines will continue to pay your full base salary up to 80 days if found disabled by the ? physician.
The defendant's signature on the second page is highlighted.
Also a similar letter on November 18, 1999. Alleged injury on same date and signed same date. Entered into evidence. Is that another letter contained in the defendant's P file, claimed to have occurred on 11/18/99? Yes, it is.
Brown looks up at the document on the screen, then appears to look at the witness. Brown looks up again at the screen where his signature is shown.
The pay policy with regard to injury on duty was the same on both of these letters? Yes.
With regard to this injury on Nov 18, 1999, did the defendant return to full duty on Feb 28, 2000? Yes he did.
Were there any other claimed injuries in 2000, after he reported on Feb 28, 2000? Not that I recall.
Did you also review pay stubs for the defendant for the year 2000? What was the pay period in the year 2000, how frequently were they paid? Every two weeks.
Did you specifically review a paycheck stub, for the def. that was dated Jan 21, 2000? Yes.
Do you recall what the gross amount was, for that period? I'd have to look at it.
Do you recall whether or not the defendant received his full salary during that period? I believe he did.
Did you review the pay periods for Jan & Feb? Yes I did. Did he receive full pay? Yes.
And this was while he was on workman's comp? Yes.
Direct ends and cross begins.
Mr. Laub starts off by asking for a sidebar.
In regard to the question of how much time an employee gets off when they report an injury, an employee is not required to take the full time [available to them]? Correct.
And you found that he did not take the maximum amount of time? That's correct.
And a few of those he went back the very next day? That's correct.
And other times, he was out a matter of weeks? He didn't take the full time.
Now, the pay stubs, you had a chance to review the case file in this case? Yes.
So you know that there's a gross a mount, and voluntary deductions, and specific required deductions by taxes? Correct.
And Mr. Brown had a number of voluntary deductions from American Airlines? I believe some were his TWU fees. What is that? His union dues.
And he had, non-SRA travel, or if someone that uses his buddy pass, deductions are taken out of his pay. And voluntary medical and voluntary retirement. And voluntary savings. Yes, Yes, Yes.
These voluntary deductions, when you take those and the tax deductions, the net pay amount that Mr. Brown receives in his check, then the child support is after those? Correct.
Talking about the duties that he had in 1999 and 2000, you said he was a fleet service clerk? Yes.
He was also at the time, what was called an expeditor? That's [when] a bag that has missed it's connection and he would reconnect it with the traveler. The expeditor would put it on the next flight.
And that job is a sit at a desk job? For the most part.
The witness is excused and the next witness is called.
DETECTIVE MARK LILLIENFELD
What's your occupation and assignment? LA County Sheriff's Detective, assigned to the Homicide Bureau. This is his 35th year. This is his 24th year as homicide.
He was asked in 2001, to assist them in the investigation in the death of Lauren Key? Yes.
There was a meeting arranged between the victim's mother and the defendant? Yes.
They advised you of the purpose of that meeting? Yes.
The defendant had filed a report, that Sarah had threatened to kill him? [Miss answer.]
What did they want him to do? They wanted me to act in an undercover activity capacity, to be an LAX investigator, to get a statement [from Brown] about that allegation, regarding the ex girlfriend and mother of the child.
Did you go and speak with the defendant? I did.
At the time, did you have the details of the investigation that Detectives Leslie and Smith had been conducting? I did not.
Did you know what witnesses had said? I did not.
Did you know what the defendant had told Smith and Leslie? I did not.
He went to LA International Airport. Where specifically did you go? It was in the personnel offices of AA. Did you interview the defendant? Yes. Was it recorded? Yes, it was. It was serotipus recorded? Yes it was.,
What did he tell you? He was a baggage handler. Did you tell the defendant why you were there to speak to him. I told him I was a detective for the LA Airport police and that I would be handling the complaint he had made regarding the threats that were made regarding the ex-girlfriend, Sarah.
Did he tell you [miss rest of question].
He thought that she would never go away, that she would never leave him alone? [I believe the answer is yes.]
What did he claim happened in the parking lot? He claimed that when he was getting ready to leave She way yelling and screaming at him, on his bike, she intercepted him, and she prevented him from leaving. She was straddling the front tire, and prevented him from pulling away.
Detective Lillienfeld is asked if he's seen the video of the event. He had not seen the video, to this day.
[Another question about what Brown said.] He said, "She was so close, I could smell her bad breath."
What did the defendant say, Sarah said to him? He said she was yelling at him, Cam, you have to talk to me, you can't not talk to me, maybe I'll kill you. I'll kill you. Those words.
Now, initially, what did the defendant say he did, after Sarah [supposedly said], Maybe Ill kill you, I'll kill you? He said he tried to get the attention [of Airport Security], by waving to otheris in the parking lot, it diverted Sarah's attention and he was able to pull away.
At some time did you come back as to what the defendant said, Sarah had said to him? For the second time he said that Sarah had threatened him with, I'll kill you, maybe I'll kill you.
Did the defendant tell you Sarah had threatened to kill him a third time? He did.
He said that she was going to threaten or strike him, or try to knock him down, He was straddling the motorcycle firmly, to try to keep from falling down.
Witness testifies he had never met Sarah. Defendant told the detective that Sarah was 5ft 10.
During this interview, did you ask the defendant questions regarding his relationship either previously or during the current time? I did.
Did the defendant talk to you as to whether or not Sarah had been pregnant in [miss rest of question]? He said they dated very briefly in 1995, for a couple of months. And at the time they broke up he didn't know that she was pregnant. Out of the blue, at work he was served with some legal papers, and that he owed child support.
The witness testifies he was not privy to any interviews that Sarah gave to other detectives.
The defendant told me that Sarah's then roommate told him that Sarah was trying to get pregnant on purpose, and that would improve her status to stay in the US. The defendant claimed this was the reason why he and Sarah broke up.
After the defendant claimed that he and Sarah had broken up, did he say that he stopped talking to her? He said that he was married. His wife was an umemployed, civil engineer for the city of Hermosa Beach. He said at that time, he said that she was 48 at that time.
Did you in fact comment that he had married an older woman? I did.
Did you ask if his wife was a surfer? He said that she was not, but that her car had broken down at a surfing spot, and that he had assisted her.
Did he tell you that he had retained an attorney? He said that he had retained an attorney because Sheriff's detectives had searched his home and boat, and seized his computer.
At the time, were you aware of the actual time that the defendant got an attorney and when the search warrants were actually served? I was not.
Search warrants were served two months after they had obtained an attorney. He also told him that Patty had an attorney.
[What did he tell you about Patty and the event of Lauren's death.] He said first, she was there. I asked him why his wife had an attorney. Because the sheriff's were going to speak to her also, and that she felt she needed an attorney also.
Did you specifically ask him if Patty was with him on the hike when Lauren died? I did not ask that specific question.
Tell us the substance of that conversation as to how it came up and what he told you [about/] Patty. His response to that were, she was with me, so the cops wanted to talk to her. Or words very close to that.
Did you follow up on that? What did you say? I asked if her attorney was different? Yes, her attorney was a friend of his fathers. His attorney was a friend of Patty's attorney.
Did you ask the defendant, was she, with you guys when you were hiking? Did he respond, "She was with us, so she's getting a lawyer too." Yes.
At the time the defendant told you that Patty was with him and Lauren at the time he was hiking, were you aware whether or not the defendant had said that previously? I had not.
The witness testifies he was not aware of the details of Smith and Leslie's investigation.
Now, did you contact the defendant again on April 3, 2001? I did.
Also contacted him in the personnel office. What was the purpose? Detectives Smith and Leslie wanted me to obtain a written statement regarding the interaction with Sarah in the parking lot.
People's 46 for identification. Witness saw the defendant write the statement.
I write down the text up on the overhead screen, that's on the document that Brown signed.
My name is Cameron Brown.At this time, were you aware what had actually occurred in the parking lot? I was not.
On Jan 18, 2001 at 7;30 pm a former girlfriend Sarah Key confronted me in a parking lot at LAX my place of work.
She threatened me and said "I'll kill you."
I want this case prosecuted.
Cameron Brown 4/3/2001
On May 3, 2001, the defendant called him and told Detective Lillienfeld that he had moved to Ventura County. He also told you that he had been served with a civil suit, because of the death of the child.
He wanted to know the status of the case where Sarah had made threats against him.
He provided you with his new address? Yes he did.
Direct ends and cross begins.
Response to [the DA's] question you initially started your testimony by saying, the reason you were interviewing Mr. Brown, this is the first, was just to get his statement regarding the incident in the parking lot? That's correct.
You were asked if you had details of the murder investigation? Yes.
But you were told there was a murder investigation? Yes.
What you were actually doing, was to get information relevant to that investigation? Among other things, yes sir.
One of the things that you were asksed to do, is get as much information about the alleged homicide? Yes sir.
You were also asked by the detectives, to ask about that case, but to also get information about child support? In general.
And you did this in the case of that interview? Yes sir.
Mr. Brown told you that he was a baggage handler? One of the things he also told that he was an expediter? Yes sir.
[In] this conversation by Sarah, he tried to get the attention of airport security? Yes. sir.
He was trying to get attention of airport security, ti was like a ploy to get her attention away from him? Yes sir.
He never said that it was a ploy, to try ... ? He never said that.
I have to move to the back row to plug in my laptop. I miss some of the cross examination.
One of the things that you did, was try to get Mr. Brown to say something negative about Sarah? That's incorrect.
You did at one point, say to him, why would Sarah possibly think that you would want to murder your child, you said unless she was going to grow up just like her mother? That's accurate.
Another statement, that Lillienfeld said to Brown, and another statement he said to Brown. Lillienfeld answers to both, that's correct.
This thing that he believed he heard, ... Hum objects to characterization.
This statement that he was reporting about Sarah having said about I'll kill you, this is something that he said he heard, while he was driving away? That's correct.
You also asked him about his wife's birthday, and he couldn't remember it? Yes.
And you joked with him that now you're in trouble? That's correct
And he had the birthday of his daughter instantly without hesitation? Correct.
One of the conversations you had that [Mr. Brown said] she was continually calling him and trying to get him to talk? That's correct.
And he told you, I'd like to tell her what happened, and I can't my lawyer told me [not to talk?} That's correct.
And the reason his lawyer told him not to talk, is that Sarah said, or that Sarah could make up some kind of false admission? That's what he said, correct.
He also told you that at the sheriff's station, the way they perceived it, was that they didn't believe him right from the start? He said that, correct.
He said that in family court, he was pro per? Yes. And he said that the family facilitator had helped him a lot? That's correct.
He also told you that, that Lauren was someone who was a very curious child with him, and liked to throw rocks? He did say that.
He even said, liked to throw rocks over cliffs? That's correct.
He even said she was interested in tide pools? That's correct.
He even said she wasn't afraid? I asked him wasn't she afraid of heights.
More questions about what Brown said in the interview about Lauren.
Cross ends and DDA Hum redirects.
Detective Lillenfeld, the defendant told you a lot of things? Correct.
About his wife being on the hike, and getting an attorney because of the search warrants being served? That's correct. And that Sarah had threatened to kill him?
Did you have any knowledge if the defendant was lying to you or telling the truth? I did not.
The defendant asked you, said that he wanted to tell Sarah, but that she could make something up? Yes.
Did the defendant say exactly why Sarah had to speak to him to make something up? No.
More about that [thought process] "not making any sense" and it didn't make sense to Brown either.
Questions now about his claim about Sarah threatened to kill him. Did he show any hesitation or mystery that he couldn't hear because he had a loud motorcycle? There wasn't any hesitation. He was unequivocal.
Did he indicate any doubt or uncertainty that was what he said? No.
Redirect ends and recross begins.
When Mr. Brown told you that he wanted to talk to Sarah and he said that she could make something up, and you asked him if that made sense to you, he said no, and he followed it up with, that's what his lawyer said? Correct.
And you said, "That's as you were pulling away?" That's accurate.
The first two times about the statement Brown alleges Sarah said, Brown also said, "That was while I was pulling away" That's correct.
More questions about the phone calls, and the difficulties between them [Brown and Sarah].
Even with the so called male to male comments inviting the response about how women are, with everything that happened, the only thing he was complaining about was that she had made this threat? Correct.
Recross ends and redirect begins.
The defendant told you on three separate occasions that he told you Sarah said to him, did the defendant state these words, "You need to talk to me, you can't live your life without talking to me. Maybe I'll kill you. I'll kill you. Then I waived at the police, to try to get them to come over." Is that the sequence of what he said? Yes.
The second and third time, he said she said it when he was pulling away? Yes.
Witness is excused.
DETECTIVE JEFFREY LESLIE.
Arranged a surveillance meeting, between Sarah and Brown. An undercover operation was set up, where Brown parked his motorcycle. It was video and audio recording. He was in the surveillance van with the video equipment, which was parked very very close to Brown's motorcycle.
Approximate distance? It was between [?] and 15 feet. I know we placed it that if anything occurred, we could be there quickly. It was audio and video recorded.
Did Sarah Key-Marer, ever threaten, or say, I'll kill you? No. Maybe I'll kill you? No.
The audio and video is played for the jury.
Transcript of the recording can be found HERE.
After the video is played, there is more questioning.
Detective Leslie you also reviewed the transcript? Yes.
Is it accurate what was said out there that day? Yes.
What was the last word that Sarah said? Cameron.
Direct ends and cross examination begins.
It's clear that you set this up the get Mr. Brown to talk? To was to get answers; to get what happened.
You were trying to get him to talk about that case? Answers. That would be to talk.
You knew at this point, when the video was produced that Mr. Brown had an attorney? Mr. Brown never invoked to us, that he was not speaking without an attorney. We got notice from his attorney, but he had never invoked to us.
You had a conversation with an attorney, which that attorney contacted you and said that he was shocked that you were pursuing trying to get Mr. Brown to talk,
Im going to object to that, whether or not the attorney was shocked. Object to shocked. Sustained.
You thought it was perfectly legal, [you wrote] for you to talk to the defendant, when he wasn't in custody? That's right. That's what we wrote.
Laub asks question about why he thought it was perfectly all right to approach Brown. I miss the question and Mr. Laub asks counsel to approach.
Side bar continues. A man in the gallery, back row leaves.
On the day that you were using Ms. Marer trying to get him to talk, you had already knew that he said to her repeatedly, that he couldn't talk because he was represented.
No. I don't remember that off the top of my head. Unless you can show me something.
Leslie states that the defendant never invoked, personally to him.
So at the point at which this video is being made, you saw on the video, as Mr. Brown was riding off, and you saw Ms Marer Yell something? Cameron. Cameron.
That's what you heard? I heard it that night and I heard it on the audio portion of that recording.
Did you tell Ms. Marer, when she was out there, if he said to her anything about I can't talk to you, my lawyer said I can't talk to you, to tell her to keep going.
What did you say to her? Ask him if he'll talk.
Sarah was not given any specific instructions. She was not given specific questions to ask. She was asking me for answers to questions that I did not have. She was the only person who was allowed to ask him question.
She was told to ask whatever questions she wanted to ask. She knew she was being recorded. I don't know if she knew she was being video taped.
Laub states, Well she was working for you? Hum objects.
Well she was working for you at that point correct? How did you know where he parked his motorcycle? We surveilled. him.
After we know wher he parks, we'll use Ms. Marer to try to get him to talk? Part of that is correct.
You told her, we'll all be here? I told her that I would be nearby and that she would be safe. I assured her of that.
I hope I have that trust with all my victim's families, and I hope I have that trust with all my witnesses. I hope that my word would be good enough.
Court intervenes. Laub states that it's incredible. The court states well it may be incredible to you.
Court: The fact of the matter remains, you told her to ask the questions that she wanted to have answers, you told her that it would be memorialized in some way. So lets move on.
Laub asks if he wasn't concerned about Sarah's safety? Laub asks if he wasn't worried when she started yelling, if this hadn't gone too far? No.
Did you ever talk to the airport security people about this incident? I spoke to personnel to the airport police.
The security people he was waving to? No, I did not.
The court calls for the morning break. As the jury files out, Brown leans in to speak to Mr. Laub. Everyone in the well of the court stands for the jury as they file out. Afterwards, Brown sits back down and speaks to Laub again.
I believe we are getting close to the end of the prosecution's case. These are the witnesses I'm guessing that the people have left to testify: The financial expert, the coroner who performed the autopsy, probably more Detective Leslie testimony and the people's trajectory expert.
DDA Hum gets permission from the court to pick up the video transcripts from the jury box.
Brown is brought out. Moments later, the jury files in. There is a man who entered with our jury that doesn't belong. Then the bailiff calls out to a man with a badge on that says '45.' SIR! You're in the wrong courtroom. The court comments on this to the jury and there's a bit of laughter.
What is your occupation? Supervisor Investigating Officer for LA County DA's Office. She supervises three others and works on cases. Reviews criminal cases with financial elements.
She's a CPA. Also required 80 hours of reeducation every year. Training in auditing classes, tax classes. Has a bachelor of science degree. Has previously testified as an expert.
DDA Hum asks if he provided her with records related to Cameron Brown and Patty Kadlis Brown.
Regarding Brown, she received bank records for 4 accounts. She reviewed payroll records for Cameron Brown from Jan 2000 to May 2001. Reviewed bank records May 2000, to June 2001. Credit reports from both [Brown and Patty] generated in May 2001.
Asked her to analyze information and provide findings.
You told us that some of the information related to four bank accounts in the name of Cameron Brown? Yes. How many were open at the time of November 8, 2000? Three. So one was opened after that time? Yes. Was there one a savings account from BofA? Yes.
Did you analyze the amount of money in there and the changes over the month? [Miss answer.]
On May 1, 2000, how much money did he have in this BofA savings account? She asks to refer to her notes. May 1 2000 to when? To May 31, 2001, How much money was in the account? $6.00.
In May 31, 2001, there was $6.14. The 14 was interest earned.
Another account: On May 1, 2000, $244. [I don't have this figure correctly. Sprocket.]
May 31, 2000, $304.87
DDA Hum now asks how much was in these accounts on November 8, 2000. On Nov 8, 2001, checking account had $86.14.
Were there any times where the account was overdrawn? Yes. How many times? 31.
Was there also in the name of Cameron Brown, a federal union credit account? Yes.
It was an automatic withdrawal from the paycheck, every two weeks for $50.00. There was also money coming out.
May 1, 2000, there was $51.91. June 2, 2001, how much money was in the account? $74.10.
Nov 8, 2000. How much money was in this account? $4.00
Were there any instances, with regards to the American Airlines federal credit union account, where ATM transactions were denied? Yes. How many? Thirteen.
Document is dated 11/8/2000. People's 73 for identification please.
Does that summarize the money that was in the accounts in the name of Cameron Brown? Yes.
What was the total in the accounts [in Brown's name] on November 8, 2000: $96.21.
Did you also specifically look at canceled checks for that account? Not specifically, Yes. I analyzed it [the account].
Did you see checks made to any kind of mortgage? No.
Payroll records. During the 17 month period for which you had payroll records, what was the gross pay? For that period, there was one pay period that was missing.
Gross total earnings: $64, 187.56.
That was gross, before any deductions? Yes.
Was one deduction child support? Yes.
Excluding the deduction for child support for arrearages and the money going to a savings account, what was the defendants net pay for that 17 month period, $40,002.61.
That was the net pay for that 17 month period, not counting how much money was taken out for arrearages, and the 50.00 taken out to the savings account? Yes.
Did you calculate how much child support was taken out during that time period?
Was there also arrearanges taken out? $758.33.
Total child support and arrearages? $15,320.11
Out the defendants net pay, excluding child arrearages, out of $40,000.00, 15 thousand was going to child support and arrearanges? Yes.
Was there any time when the child support was greater than the amount of pay the defendant got, after all the deductions? Yes.
How many times was the child support greater than what the defendant got? Thirteen.
If the child support remained the same, how much would the defendant had paid, until the child was 18? $148,132.84.
Now also told us that you had credit reports on Cameron Brown and Patty Kaldis Brown on May 2001. Were there any negative activities in the defendant's reports?
There was a bad debt. Bank of America, December Balance was 64.00. There were numerous collections. August 2000, Balance 148.00. Another agency under collection. $161.00. A collection CLWTH, July 1997, for $52.00. Metro adjustment bureau, March 1, 2000, Balance $1,666.00. Arrow Financial service, April 30, 2000 $561.00. Purchase paper LLC, entry date 1/1999; balance R1, 258.00. AFNIC 2/1999 for $53.00.
Was there also a wage garnishment for collections? In any of the documents you reviewed? Yes.
What was that, April 22, 1998? It was garnishment for $3,153.51 for state farm insurance.
Were there any tax liens? Yes. July 1995 for 61.00. Aug 1998 [miss answer]. Another for 52.00.
With regard to the credit report for Patricia Kaldis Brown, were there any negative [reporting?]? [Miss answer.] $13,000.00 debt charge off. Past due for Alco finance. Owed was 5,000; balance owed was $41.00. There was a countrywide loan, miss amount.
Credit card debt. The debits are listed. [I can't keep up in listing all the amounts. Sprocket.]
Did you also review a documents from employment records of Patricia Kaldis? Yes.
What occurred on Feb 22, 2000, according to the certified employment records? She was fired. What employer? City of Hermosa Beach.
Laub objects to fired. The document says termination. Reason being? I guess she was, performance evaluation issues.
What was her severance pay? She owed the city money, $503.02 [from vacation].
Also reviewed W2 forms for 1999 and 2000? Yes, I looked at W2 information. For 1999, what was [Patty's] the gross income? $37,600. For 2000? $7,900. Net for 2000? $6,000. [These last two amounts, I don't have exact. I rounded them. Sprocket.]
Also reviewed a W2 for Cameron Brown? 36,280.92. Gross income.
In early June of 2006, did I provide you with additional documents for Patty Kaldis Brown? Yes.
Also reviewed those documents?
Were there any joint accounts between Patty and Brown? No.
[There is a question about what the documents revealed.] It included three properties that were [bought or?] sold.
Cameron Brown's name was not on any property deed? No.
Did that change the amount of money that was in the account of Cameron Brown in his bank accounts on November 8, 2000? No.
There were some records missing on Patty Kaldis Brown. In her accounts, approximately $63,000.00. How much was in retirement? Approximately $48,500.00
Did any of those accounts have Cameron Brown's name on them? No.
Direct ends and cross begins.
Laub points to the time [I believe it's like five or ten minutes to noon] but the Judge states, we've lost some time yesterday.
Laub wants to first focus on Patricia Brown, and her property that had been owned and sold.
The first of the three properties, what year was that sold? The first property that ... [miss rest of answer].
As I understand, there were two properties. The first one sold was back in December 1998. What was the profit for the seller? $69,929.79. And that money went to Patricia? Yes.
The next property, when was that sold? April 11, 2001? And how much was the profit? $73,206.74.
The money of the first property, you understand enough about real estate transactions, to understand that was equity, as the house was valued? Yes.
Since that house was equity at the house of the sale, that prior to the sale, that could form an equity line of credit? Yes.
And that would be the same, for the house that sold in 2001? Yes.
At that time, there would be more or less, $73,000.00 of equity in that home? I'm not a real estate expert. Assume that she would have equity in that home. And that would form the basis of an equity line of credit? Yes.
Could you go through Ms. Brown's credit cards, and how much money did she actually have available in credit? But how much more, were those lenders willing to lend on those cards?
Citibank platinum $6500.00 balance was $25.63.
ATT $8.000. balance $6.68.
Going to take lunch break.
The lunch break is over and I'm back inside the courtroom.
Mr. Laub gets his files ready for cross of this witness. He's pulling several thick files out of the two boxes he brought with him.
The jury is called in.
Cross of JANE NGO.
Laub goes back to outline the amount of credit available to Patty Brown in November 2000.
She reads off several cards, the balances and the available credit.
There were a few where it did not show on the credit report if there was a credit line.
You talked about a number of different bank accounts, how many of these all told that had Mr. Brown's name, and Patricia Kaldis, Brown? Only one was opened after they got married.
These accounts were all opened when the individuals were not yet married.
She reviewed tax returns for 2000 and 2001. Both returns were provided to me as joint returns.
When a couple is married, they could either file, married separate or file joint. On a joint return, they show income and expenses and are totaled towards joint tax liability? Yes.
At that point where they are joining, commingling their taxes and expenses? Not necessarily. Just because you file joint tax returns, that isn't necessarily commingling. That doesn't necessarily mean they are commingling assets.
So that's an unknown? She doesn't know. Can only look at what was provided to her.
Has her look at two retirement accounts. Patricia had six different retirement accounts. Those were funds that she had access to? Yes.
You mentioned that there were tax liens, had to do with Mr. Brown? Yes. One was in the amount of $61.00 and another in the amount of [?]. It doesn't identify what type of tax lien it was.
Laub asks if it was an underpayment of taxes? Basically it was a lien filed against him for tax owed, but doesn't know what it was exactly for. These were occurred before child support and before marriage? Yes. Yes.
Also talked about, there were some credit dings on Mr. Brown's credit? Credit dings?
A negative credit entry for Mr. Brown? Yes.
How far back did that date? It varies. The oldest would be, July 1995. And the latest? April 2001.
How many credit problems, were before the beginning of child support payments in 1999? My records show the child support started in May, 1999. I've got four.
Before? Oh you wanted prior? I'm sorry. [I got after.]
Do you have any knowledge at all from the work you've done, what Mr. Brown's life was like financially, before 1995? No.
From the years 1995 to 1999, from your experience as a financial professional, does Mr. Brown's financial record show financial maturity? I didn't look at that. I looked at [?].
Laub states that looking at what you did see, in your experience was that the financial record of someone handling their financial [records?] maturely? Not necessarily.
Cross ends and redirect begins.
Also on the credit reort was a repossession? Yes. From Nissan motors.
When the defendant's attorney asked about credit cards and equity in the accounts, it sounds like Patty Brown had sufficient financial resources? Yes.
The defendant's name wasn't on any of those accounts.
The one account opened after they were married, that was with American Airlines? [Yes.] That was only in the name of the defendant.
Nothing further for this witness.
The people call Stacy Phillips. I remember this witness from the second trial.
What's your occupation? She's a family law attorney. Gives her background and CV.
She has her own family law practice. Eight attorneys now. Seven-eight attorneys. Lots of secretaries and paralegals. Gives the name of the firm.
Specialized, certified specialist in family law. She thinks since, 2001. Must take an exam, that's not very easy. And have the requisite number of trials, etc. That would involve information regarding custody, visitation. She also lectures on family law, mediation, cohabitation. It's what she does for a living. Belongs to a lot of professional organizations. Mentions she's received several recognition and awards. Lists a number of recognition's she's received for being named a top lawyer, by several publications, etc.
Is there a publication called Best Lawyers in America? I've been in Best Lawyers in America since 1991. You must be nominated. She's nominated people. T
he court's phone goes off. It buzzes.
She's written a few books and many, many articles on family law.
How about any appearances as commentator? Yes. Many, many TV stations around the world. Talking head on her field of family law.
People introduce her CV, people's 132.
Questions about custody and support, and how family law works on a relatively understandable level. Explains that family law is covered by the family code, the code of civil procedure.
How it relates to this case and child support.
Child support is a formula. It's laid out in the code. There is one particular company that was successful in setting up a program. You plug in all the information and you get out your answer.
Variables being the time share, income of each party, mortgage interest or property, union dues, charitable contributions, how many children, filed as a joint return, or as a single person. It all gets bunched together and a number comes out.
Visitation. Instead of calling it custody and visitation it's now called "time share" between the parents.
What is meant by joint physical custody? Where the children sleep. Joint doesn't necessarily mean 50 50. It means some sharing. Different court orders define it somewhat differently. But it means where the child sleeps.
Legal custody deals with the decisions parents all make for their children where they go to school, when they have surgery, when they get their dirver's license. All the difficult decisions we make for our children.
Joint vs sole custody. Joint means the parents have to agree on the decisions. Sole means one parent gets to make those decisions by themselves. Schools, extra curricular activities, whether a parent gets to move with the child out of state.
What factors determine the issues of custody? What's the overriding principal supposed to be? The best interest of the children. And if the parents can't decide? That's why we have judges.
What factors determine time share? The relationship with the child and parent, school, safety, a whole variety of issues; do you want you child sleeping there, or someplace else. Hopefully the parents can figure that out for themselves.
Is there a normal time share? Normal may be something different to you. Normal can be something the parents can agree.
As part of your preparation for testifying in court, did you review the case of County of Orange vs. Cameron Brown? I've reviewed everything given to me.
What is a graduated plan, step up plan? It's a plan that was set out, by the court after the hearing. It's an increase in time, for the non-custodial parents. And as long as everything goes well as long as the time share is agreed to.
In some situations, the parents can agree on any type of plan, such as a step up plan? Correct. Most judges actually look at them and read them. Explains the details of how these come about.
What are monitored verses unmonitored visits? Means one or both of the parents watching and making sure the visitation goes without problems. One way is you go to a facility to visit your child. Another option, is having a professional monitor. That costs money. The other type of monitor is having a family member or friend, or the custodial parent. They are there to oversee the visitation, and that the visitation is stopped, if they see a problem.
The mother acted as a monitor for the first few visits? Correct.
This child support, is it calculated the same now as in 2000? Basically the same, except for some times, the tax rate changes.
There are various factors as to who pays child support and what. The computer program gives the number, correct?
One of the very significant factors is time share? Yes. And income.
If you're talking about in court, it's based on evidence. Each party is supposed to file and income and expense statement. Provide last three pay stubs, filed under penalty of perjury. And you file your tax returns. [It can] an be bank records, accountants can testify. It will ultimately determined by the court as to what goes into the program. Garbage in garbage out. It will affect what goes into the program.
What is basic child support? What is spit out of the computer what you put in. It's a presumptive amount. This is what it should be unless the court finds otherwise.
What are childcare expenses? Child care, nanny. It's generally split in half. It's not part of basic child support. You're entitled to get part of your child care expenses, if you work, unless one of the parents is mega wealthy.
Based on the formula, in the DISSOMASTER program, which is based on family law California, if someone wanted to reduce their child support amount, what is the best way to do that?
They could show that the other parent is making more money. They could show a reduction in their own income. Say you may not be earning your 5,000 a month, for the purposes of our calculation and you're going to pay child support ... you could change the time share amount, or decrease the other parents time. The ultimate is, give your child up for adoption, which means that former parent has no rights or responsibilities.
What if you wanted to reduce the amount I'm paying? You could prove the other parent is making more money, report that you are making less money, or get more time share.
Income and expense statements are considered stale after three months.
In this particular case, did I ask you to calculate child support amounts based on various documents, and order to show cause with time share declarations.
Did you obtain the DISSOMASTER programs from 1999 and 2000? Yes. I did.
From the court file she reviewed, in 1999, based on zero custody for the father, there was a child support order of $982.00 included child share and child care.
Aware that the defendant filed a 32% request for child share and a reduction in child support? Yes. What would the father's child support payment, if he was granted this 32% child share request?
People's 44. Is that the printout that shows the amount that would be paid in child support and child care, based on income and expense filed, with the defendants request for 32%? Yes, including on how each parent filed. Dad was filing as a single parent and mother filed as joint. She can't read the document on the screen.
Can you tell us the significance of the highlighted portions, beginning on the upper left? What does that represent? The 32% of time I input. That's what dad was [requesting]. The other documents the prior 12 months wages and salaries.
Total? Does that include the child care as well as expenses? So rather than $1,032.00 per month, what would be the amount he would be paying? That included 50.00 in arrears. This number $536.00, is 1/2 of 260.00 and child support of $406.00 So rather than $982.00, if father had 32% visitation, he would be paying $536.00 Yes, if the amounts put into the program were correct.
Did you calculate what would be the child support and child care expenses, if the defendant had 50% time share, based on the declaration the defendant filed? The next one I did for 50% allocation that Dad said he had, including all the other reporting of the income and expense the defendant. She put in all the information provided on the income and expense declaration for each party.
Another DISSMASTER printout, People's 45. Put the time share as 49%, at that time the computer wouldn't let you put in 50%. Now it does.
Explains all the other information that was on the form, and the filing differences, and that dad was paying for health insurance for Lauren, the union dues and the mortgage.
What would the time share be for the father? Also noted that the child care had gone up from $260 to $400. Showing that.
The two highlighted numbers next were wages and salaries? Correct.
If the father had 49% visitation, or time share rather than zero, instead of paying $932.00, how much would he pay? You're mixing apples and oranges, because there are different input factors.
The more time he has, the less child support he pays.
The [?] also shows the court accepted the father's explanation on the income, and then found another [thing?] and then adjusted the income.
Since I don't have the income and expense information in front of me, imputing this information of total child care and child support.
It would have been $425 a month? Yes.
How does the child support change as the child gets order? There's nothing built in that as the child gets older they pay more. It's more about concentrating on the time share.
Explains how things could change in child support payments. Explains the different variables that could go into it.
What is the effect of the marriage of either the custodial or non custodial parent? The child support is not supposed to be affected by the other parents income. However, if there is a change in your tax bracket, that is put into the computer. We call it remade income.
If someone, custodial or non-cusdotial, marries, is the new spouse liable for child support payments? No. The husband, the husband of the mom and the wife of the dad are not responsible.
What's an ex-parte order? It's an emergency order based on an emergency hearing. It's when someone needs to go to court for exigent circumstances.
In order to have an ex-parte order to stop visitation, what would occur? The court would have to find, or have pretty significant evidence.
Community property. Can you just explain to us the basics of community property? Anything that you've earned or received, that was not from gifts or inheritance.
If you get married, does that automatically become 1/2 of the other spouses. [No.]
If you have a house, that was worth 1 million and you owned it outright, and you and I get married, under community property laws, is that 100% yours and doesn't belong to me? Even if I put you on title, I'm not giving you 1/2 the house. You are only getting part of the appreciation.
What about if we filed a joint tax return would that make 1/2 the house mine? No. Would that make the $500,000 in your account 1/2 mine? No.
Based on your experience in family law, what would have to happen, to take custody from the mother, who had sole custody all the child's life, and give it to the father at 3 or 4 years of age? That mother, the court would have to find that the mother had turned into a monster.
Can they increase their time with the child, without reducing the child support they pay? Absolutely. Gives a detailed explanation.
Direct ends and cross begins.
I know you've got an incredible resume, I'm sure you've represented both fathers and mothers? Absolutely.
Are there fathers who truly love their children, and still ask you to get reduction in child support? Absolutely.
Hypothetically, and a father came to you and showed you check stubs, where the child support payment was greater than the net income that the father was taking home. And I don't think this is fair. Can you help me with this? Objection irrelevant.
I would want to do my own homework and figure out, why that was the case. Was money being pulled out for savings or, a variety of factors, maybe the income has changed, maybe not, maybe the time share has changed, maybe not. I don't take it as face value. I want to see evidence. I kick tires. I want to see what's what, if the facts are as represented to me.
So the factors you would be looking at, you would be wondering why the child was taking out so little. Well, I would want to know a bunch of things and put it into my computer, and check the order and see what is changed.
For example. I'd ask what is your income now. What is your income now? How much time are you spending which your children now? Again, I want to see the order. I'd ask a lot of questions. I'd check to see if there was an increase in health insurance, and to see why that result, happened.
If the paying parent agreed to a higher amount of child support, and then says, wants to go back to court to reduce it.
She went through what was given to you. She was given the whole file by the prosecution. When you went through the family court file, did you find where there were incidents where Brown's final pay was less than the child support payments? I didn't see that.
There is a question about how DISSOMASTER comes to it's number? You're making an assumption.
You could be a non-custodial parent and pay child support, and be a non-custodial parent and be the recipient of child support. It's based on the DISSOMASTER and the income and expense statements.
It's based on the quality of the information put into the program? Yes. That's why court's also takes evidence. To her, documentary evidence from third parties are better. A calendar, as to who takes a child to school. If you have two honest people, things are easier, but even with honest people, you have two different views of the facts.
Supposition, that someone has a reduction in income to 50%. No. You have to show a whole period of time. The income and expense says you have to look at the prior 12 months. One pay stub, doesn't cut it.
If it's well known certain industry is having a heard time and there for everyone, the pay stub is their time is left, than a one off from one person. If you're asking me what I would feel comfortable going to court with, unless I could show something dramatic had happened, like being fired or a change in policy, at least six months, maybe longer.
There were pay stubs from both parties, but not for every income and expense declaration. Things got continued and then the parties worked something out.
The amount they agreed to, was an amount that was .... ? Can you rephrase your question.
Thing I want to ask about, is reduction in hours. If hypothetically, a mother who has married, agrees with her employer to reduce her hours to 50% and brings in an statement to 50% is there anything that gets done to verify whether it was voluntary entered into, or is this something that is involuntary?
It depends on the strength of the legal document[s] of each side.
Let's assume that the father doesn't have legal acumen to represent himself. The judge could ask questions, and if no one asked questions, then it's face value.
What do you mean when you say it costs money to go to court? Do you mean attorneys?
People have to take days off work. Either they take a vacation day, and lose ability to go on vacation, or they lose a day of work. And that costs money. You have to pay a filing fee.
What was the filing fee? Can I finish my answer? You can spend your whole day there, and still not be heard. It's not a great experience for a litigant to spend their time in court.
Once child support has been awarded to one of the parents, is there anything that's done to determine how time goes on, that money is spent solely on the child?
There's no county or state person who makes that determination on their own. If one parent thinks the other is using the support appropriately. When we're talking about child support, we're not just talking about buying a pair of sneakers. We're talking about a home and providing food, etc.
There are things that are pretty expensive. There's little league, music lessons, field trips. Buying those ballet slippers. Some courts will portion that in some way, as part of the child support package. Raising children is expensive, especially in Southern California.
It sounds like, unless you have a person who's paying the child support, unless they have an aggressive about the legal system, there's nothing set up to see that child support is actutally going to the child?
Laub goes on about a question about whether the amount of child support is used solely for the child. DDA Hum objects and the court calls for the afternoon break.
While the jury is in the hallway, DDA Hum, the court and Mr. Laub argue about whether or not Mr. Laub can go into a particular area of questioning.
The court asks the witness, that what is gotten every month, and it has to be exhausted every month or they person is overpaying?
DDA Hum: There are a number of problems with that argument. So what if what the amount paid, was more than what was spent each month on the child. So what.
How can you argue that just because money is separated out, is put into an account, that same amount of money is going to a child expenses. It may very well be the amount that was in an account, was separated out and put aside for Lauren later in her life.
DDA Hum states the argument is irrelevant.
Mr. Laub: Wants the jury to believe that his character is so horrible he wanted to murder his child. And they want the mother to be entirely sympathetic and believable. They bring in all this information about finances, then I don't understand how it becomes irrelevant, that what's happening is, that the mother is receiving is, that the court believes is going into the daily needs of the child. It doesn't matter if the parents says. The court doesn't provide a college fund.
If the witness asks, that's all very legitimate. No, the parent isn't supposed to accumulate excess,... Laub states that, to have that much money accumulated..
I believe it's DDA Hum who argues a scenario: Ms. Key-Marer [was asked], how much money do you need from the defendant and she said $982.00 and she put it all in an account. But it wasn't that. The amount is mandated by law, and what she uses it for, is irrelevant.
Based on all that, the court is not allowing you to get into that area. The court states the amount is based on a machine, that is unbiased.
Judge asks DDA Hum, and this is money that was ultimately used for burial? Yes it was. Then the court rules that he's not going to let him get into that line of questioning. It's too speculative.
Break over. Continuing with cross of?
This is a case where both of the parents were complaining that the other were alienating the other? No.
There's nothing in there that each was complaining that the other was talking negatively about the other? I don't recall that at all.
Did you get the complete file? It's my memory.
When she got the court documents [were they complete?]? It looked pretty complete to me.
Where you don't see where each parent was talking negatively about the other? I read all of it but I don't recall that at all.
You talked about the high cost of raising a child, and they are going to get 50%, the family court is thinking that each child is shouldering 50% of the costs of raising the child? I can't tell if you're talking about before or after the cost of child support.
You said there's an assumption that, if the parents have equal time , that' they're going to have equal expenses. They're going to pay that expenses equally? Apparently, one parent has more money.
The court doesn't check afterwards. As a mom, I'd spend more money on clothes than the dad. The assumption is, if you have more time, you have more expenses. Going out to dinner, or cooking at home. But to say that each parent would spend the same amount on tennis shoes and the same time, I don't agree with that argument on each level.
Let's say, 50% time share, it doesn't necessarily mean the money will be reduced in what you spend on the child. It isn't necessarily one thing or the other, it doesn't mean you're going to spend less money out, because you're getting 50% time share.
I don't believe I understand your question. Objection vague. Sustained.
Assuming Mr. Brown got the 50% that you saw on that document. Assuming the family court. ... I think that he said that he had [50%] rather than what he was requesting.
Wasn't there a page on the court filing, something that said, I was requesting? [Answer:] You're talking about the application page? What I remember though, that the words that he used, on the other part of the form he said he had 50%. That wasn't accurate.
What I read of the Mom, in her response, she hadn't agreed to 50%.
Actually there's one more thing. Among the ways that a parent can reduce child support is adoption. And in your look through the family court file, there had been discussion of adoption? Correct.
And what you also saw, while the father was persistently filing after filing, seeking more time with the child, he also adamantly denied that he wanted the child to get adopted? What I saw were repeated requests to reduce support. He could request more time, and show a reduction of income. That's what he proffered before the court each time. There was one time, where he said he was not pursuing adoption. I can't tell you he was adamant.
You didn't see a very angry statement in the court file? Objection as to a statement being angry.
Didn't you see a statement where he said that was completely untrue, that it was a lie that something concocted by the mother? I recall a statement, that wasn't as dramatic as what you're saying. I don't remember the word lie. If it's there, show me. But that document would speak for itself and who someone else would interpret it. It wasn't my job.
Is it possible to show what was given to you? You would have to ask the DA and the court.
The court asks, do you have a copy of the file counsel? The witness and DDA Hum both answer. The witness and the jury laugh.
DDA Hum states that a complete copy of the file was given to Mr. Laub. Mr. Laub goes through his files, looking for his copy of the file.
DDA Hum tells the court that the document is in evidence. The document is going to be in evidence. DDA Hum states that the document of which Mr. Laub speaks is in evidence. Mr. Laube appears to not remember that the document was entered into evidence.
Laub then states that he has no more questions for the witness.
The next witness is Dr. Chinwah.
I believe Mr. Laub asks for a sidebar, off the record.
DR. OGBONNA CHINWAH
Can you tell us your occupation and assignment? He's a Deputy Medical Examiner. He's been that for 23 years. He's a medical doctor. Gives his CV. He went to medical school at Loma Linda University. Details his residency at USC from '69 to '73, and when he got board certified in Pathology.
Pathology is essentially the study of disease. Forensic Pathology. Study of diseases related to medical legal issues.
Explains the standards for certification in various specialties. Explains the testing for his Boards, and what that entails. He did a residency in Forensic Pathology at the coroner's office. It's a sub-specialty of Pathology.
Forensic is that segment of Pathology that deals mainly with death issues that have medical legal implications. The training at USC was in Pathology. At the coroner's, specifically in Forensic Pathology. He also teaches, residents that come through the department. He's also an assistant clinical professor at USC.
Approximately performed about 8,000 autopsies. Has testified in criminal, civil, federal, and foreign courts. Always in the manner and cause of death of human beings? Yes.
Do you have continuing training throughout your career, even to this day? Yes.
When a case comes to the coroner's office is it assigned unique case number? Assigned to one person and no other? Yes. That number is on all documents? Yes.
Did you perform an autopsy on a four year old? Case Number 2000-7890? Yes. Did you afterwards determine the manner and cause of death of Lauren? Yes I did.
Are there certain categories of death? Yes. Natural death, accidental death, suicide, homicide and undetermined. Could you please explain each one.
A natural death is a death from natural disease process. Accidental death would be death by accident? Yes. And we know what suicide is? Yes. What is homicide? Homicide by our definition is death by the hands of someone else. And undetermined, is you just don't know? Yes.
Have you performed autopsies where there was natural, accidental, and homicide? Yes, yes, yes. [I believe he is also asked if he did autopsies where the manner of death is undetermined.]
What was the manner of death of Lauren? Homicide. Which you describe as death at the hands of another? Yes.
Do you prepare an autopsy report? Yes. I do.
Can you tell us how an autopsy report is prepared? It contains all the information that is discovered at the time of autopsy. The body is examined from head to toe. In some studies, there are some examination prepared before the autopsy.
During the actual performing of the autopsy, notations are made from the observation, starting from the external observation, to the internal. As we go along, after the autopsy, the information that has been written down at the time of autopsy, what you've seen externally and internally, weigh the organs and collect fluids, after that, you go and dictate your report and then it's typed up and run back to you and then you review it. The final report you sign and becomes record.
You take notes as you're taking the autopsy? And once it's official you sign it. Is it prepared at the time of the autopsy? Yes. And did you prepare an autopsy report in this case? Yes.
Presents the autopsy report, People's 33 for identification.
Dr. Chinwah, please look at people's 33, is that the report your prepared? Yes it is.
In some cases, photos are take prior to autopsy. Were photos taken before? Yes. Were photos taken during the autopsy? Yes. Did you take specimens taken for later review? Yes.
What was the cause of death? Multiple injuries, due to blunt force trauma. Can you please describe for us the injuries you found on Lauren's body?
There are abrasions and contusions on the head and face. There were also abrasions on the chest and abdomen and extremities. There was massive, extensive skull fracture. There was dislocation in the neck and there was also hemorrhage in the brain. There was also fracture of the right wrist. There was blood inside the chest cavity. There was contusion of the lungs and liver. There was lacerations of the spleen.
Those were externally the findings.
What are abrasions? It's is a scrape of the skin. If I skinned my elbow? Yes.
A contusion is more like a bruise. An impact on the body. The tissues under the skin, the blood gets into the skin and the skin goes a purple color.
A laceration is a break in the skin due to blunt force trauma. Is it the same as a cut? A cut is different than a laceration. A cut like a knife we call that a knife or cut. If you fall and hit a surface and the surface of those cuts are rough, we call that a laceration.
Dr. Chinwah, [there were] injuries to various internal organs. Tell us how there would be injuries? An impact that would be strong enough to hit the body, and in just that area of impact.
What specific internal organs were injured in Lauren's case? There was contusion in the lungs and liver. In other words, the impact affected the lungs and there was some bruise on the lungs and liver. And the spleen tore? It's from trauma. The capsule tears.
Were there any fractures of the bones on Lauren's face. Yes.
Dr. with regard to you ultimate finding, of the manner and cause of death, and the conclusion at the autopsy repor, what was your opinion as to the manner of death of Lauren? Yes. Tell us what that is?
My opinion, is based on taking everything we [got? know?] on the case, [is taken] in consideration. The multiple injuries I described here, and the circumstance surrounding the injuries, was such, that they were not accidental they were not suicide. They were caused by someone else.
Were those injuries consistent with slipping and sliding, or what were they consistent with?
They were consistent with [being thrown?] from a far height and [impacting with something below]? [Yes.]
[Was it the result of a slip and tumble down the cliff? No.]
The court calls the end of the court day. The jury is to return at 9:30 AM tomorrow.