Lauren Sarene Key, 4, died November 8, 2000.
Copyright© Sarah Key-Marer, all rights reserved.
UPDATE 4/30 6:30 PM: fully edited for spelling, readability, accuracy
Friday, April 24, 2015
9:15 AM
I'm on the fifth floor of the criminal court building, getting some green tea and charging up my phone. I'll be up in Dept. 107 momentarily.
Rocket Update
Mr. Sprocket and I are quite sad about Rocket. Although he still has quite a bit of spirit and spunk left, he is very wobbly on his feet and can't stand for very long. He will no longer eat wet food, or take a syringe of wet food. He becomes very panicked if we try to feed him, or give him his medication. He occasionally eats a few bites of dry food on his own. What he mostly wants is to lie on my chest, make biscuits with his paws and chew on my shirt.
9th Floor, Dept. 107
When I get inside Dept. 107, there is a hearing about a witness. There is a man on the stand.
DDA Hum is arguing about turning over evidence that wasn't relevant. I believe it's regarding Dr. Hayes. "It is irrelevant, it is 352 and there's no reason to bring this in to confuse the jury," DDA Hum argues. Mr. Laub argues that a judge stated prior testimony was ruled perjury.
DDA Hum states that the testimony that was struck was in pretrial, and not in front of a jury.
Judge Lomeli states that the former judge (not Judge Pastor), [I heard DDA Hum state a Federal Judge], did not rule that the witness had committed perjury.
Mr. Laub's investigator is at the defense table. The DDA's computer expert is trying to get Dr. Hayes computer to interface with the overhead projection screen.
Brown is wearing a pair of glasses today. He just slipped them off his face as he's talking with the private investigator.
9:44 AM
There are still trying to get the electronics of Dr. Hayes' presentation working. Oh. It looks like it's done. Brown was taken back into custody for a few moments but was just brought back out.
9:45 AM
The jury enters the courtroom from the jury room. They were enjoying their bagels and doughnuts the court brought for them.
Going to interrupt Detective Leslie's testimony and call Dr. Wilson Hayes.
Dr. WILSON CARLYLE HAYES
Do you also go by the name of Toby? I do.
I am an emeritus [professor?] of Health and Human Resources of Oregon State University. Hayes & Associates, a private company specializing in injury biomechanics.
Injury bio mechanics for purposes of this case, understanding how a fall, might produce injuries. Gives his CV. Took classes in understanding the human body with the sole purpose to combine with an engineering degree. Gives his training and post doctorate work. Taught in the medical school and in engineering. Retired from full time faculty appointments in 2007. Also had a professorship at Harvard in 1985. Also appointed an endowed chair at Harvard in 1987. Research appointments and research grants. At Stanford, had a crash facility there, crash dummies in cars. At the time, they were worried that shoulder belts would cause more injuries than they prevented, so did studies with cadavers and crash test dummies. There's much more CV that is presented.
Did studies on falling and osteoporosis, and why did grandma break her hip. It was not because she didn't take her medication or drink milk, it was because of the way she fell. If she fell on her hip, she broke it. If she fell another way, she didn't break her hip.
He's trained other Ph.D students. The current one is his 26th.
Started getting calls from all types of fall cases. Someone fell on water in a supermarket, there was water on the floor. Falls down stairs, or a worker on a construction site who fell from one floor to another. Then falls from a great height, sometimes involving cliffs. And to find out if this was an unintentional fall or an assisted fall. He's also worked on child abuse cases, about 30, in where a fall occurred and an injury was sustained.
Have you testified as an expert in criminal and civil? Yes. Testified overseas? Yes. Have never gone overseas to testify. Testified telephonicly or by video. They were mostly by child abuse cases.
Twenty-four page CV, market as People's 137. Dr. Hayes states his CV is current.
On August 7, 2002, were you contacted by a paralegal by Devon Smith? I was. Prior to that he was not contacted by anyone else. Eventually in contact with DDA Hum, who asked him to determine if the death of Lauren Key was accidental or assisted.
At no time, did the DA's office try to make the case one or the other? No, they did not.
They can't always make the determination if a fall is assisted or not.
Are you aware that in California, as a prosecutor, and you render any kind of information to me, whether it's beneficial to the prosecution or the defense, I'm required to turn it over? I am aware of that. ... He's aware of that because of previous cases in Washington in Oregon.
Did I give you volumes of material to review? Yes you did give me lots of material to review. ... I initially received police reports, photographs, autopsy report, various investigative reports. Those were the major kinds of materials, and some witness statements that were in the initial packet itself.
The photos were they from the ground and the air? They were.
He came to California and went to Inspiration Point. Evonne Smith, Detective Leslie, DDA Hum, Detective Smith were there. All went to Inspiration . That's the extent of who I remember.
We parked and we went to Inspiration Point. As I recall, went first to the top of Inspiration Point, out towards edge of the southern edge of Inspiration Point. We also then walked down to closer to water level, in an attempt to go from the region that's the archery range and go out and look up at Inspiration Point. My recollection is the tide was in. He remembers that Detective Leslie got in the water and got wet. Waited until after lunch, and then went out to the promontories that contained the cove where Lauren was found and looked up at Inspiration Point.
I took a lot of photographs, I think I took some video of the scene, and I think we completed the site inspection at that point.
At first the tide was so high, we couldn't get out there? I think that's what I said.
Did the detectives ask what you thought? Yes. What did you tell them? I don't know. I told them there was one key piece of information that was necessary, for me to gain understanding of what happened. That key piece of information is the geometry, or topography of the top of the cliff. How steep it was, the shape of it. I needed to have that information. That until I had that information, I couldn't give an opinion.
After going out to the scene, did you receive reports and a detailed analysis of the point by a team called Psomas? The reports are the type that are commonly used by bio-mechanics experts.
The cliff at Inspiration Point, once you got the information from Psomas, etc., did you make a determine of the height of the cliff? It depends on where you're measuring from and where you're measuring to.
The distance from the departure to the water is 120 to 130 feet, depending on where you are measuring from. He prepared a report of his findings and conclusions.
14 Page document, marked as People's exhibit 61. Is that a copy of the initial report you prepared detailing you conclusions? Yes, it is.
Are a couple of portions of the report have they been deleted? It doesn't show on this copy that they've been deleted, but I understand that they have been deleted. Yes, there were some grammatical deletions. And some was your summary of the police reports? Yes, that was redacted.
Anything that was removed, the grammatical corrections and the summary, did that impact your conclusion substantively in any way? No. Not in any way.
Did you, after your analysis of all the material, and using your training and education and experience, did you make a determination if Lauren fell accidentally or assisted? I did. My conclusion was Lauren Key-Marer had to have been assisted from the top of Inspiration Point to have sustained the injuries that she did. That she could not have slipped off the cliff and sustained the injuries that she did [and ended up where she was found].
Now, Dr. Hayes, on July 20, 2004, did you testify in front of the grand jury? I did.
After you testified in front of the grand jury, did I ask you to go back to Inspiration Point to conduct some additional analysis at Inspiration Point? You did. Did you do that on Sept. 12, of 2005. I did. An assistant and I went back to Inspiration Point.
Anyone else? You were there, Detective Leslie, don't know if Detective Smith was there. There were safety personnel and a number of others.
Did you prepare an additional or supplemental report, based on going back to the scene? I did.
Four page report dated Dec 5, 2005, People's exhibit 62. for identification. Is that the supplemental report that you prepared based on Sept. 12, 2005? It is.
What was the basis of going back to IP? We had initially prepared some back yard experiments, as to how far and fast, or at what angle, could a fit man launch a forty pound weight. Based on the back yard experiments ... . And how does that apply, to Inspiration Point. ... ?
[Miss start of answer] and how it relates to values that we had learned earlier.
First of all, the backyard experiments. Who conducted the back yard experiments? Dr. Jeremy Bower, a former student of mine. How tall was Mr. Bower and what did he weigh and what did he do for a living. He was 5'7' weighed 160 lbs and was then and now an athlete. He was a graduate student at that point in time and now works in our firm.
What was the purpose and what was found? There was a single purpose of the back yard experiments, was how fast, can a person who is reasonably fit, launch a weight the amount of Lauren's weight. So Jeremy did it under hand, he did it with a push. We learned that a reasonably fit man could launch a weight at 15 ft per second, or ten miles an hour.
Showing a pushing motion from the chest, and then underhand from knee level, and a push, pushing straight forward.
Why was it important for you to know this information? Because we were about to conduct a set of analysis, fancy word, trajectory, which means the path of motion, to examine how that path of motion would relate to the geometry of the cliff. Do we start at five miles per hour do we start at 20 miles per hour. So we started at 15 ft. per second, as the initial path, or trajectory, as it relates to the cliff.
Who conducted the experiment at the top of Inspiration Point? I conducted the experiment, but the person who actually launched the weight was Jeremy Bower. There was no attempt in the back yard, to replicate Inspiration Point. At the top of Inspiration Point, we were looking for what could be done at that point. We used Jeremy because we knew of his capability.
We used two, 20 pound weights placed together. At Inspiration Point, we took a plastic bag, a rigid like suitcase, and filled it with 9 five pound weights. Lauren at the time weighed 44 lbs. It was a plastic box about two feet wide, a foot and a half tall, and 6-7 inch deep. It is called a pelican box.
Safety equipment.
It was agreed by all concerned, he [Jeremy] needed to have fall protection, so that he was tethered, harnessed two ropes, one to a bush back on the point and the other was staked deeply in the ground, so that he couldn't fall off the cliff. And then we had him launch this pelican box, with all his might, off of Inspiration Point. We took video of the side of him. We took video from down below from the launching site. We also took photographs to document.
In reviewing what you saw at the scene and saw yourself, did the rope or tether provide any? During the launching of the pelican box, Jeremy did not reach the end of the rope. He was not at his maximum point, on the rope. So your answer is no, it did not provide support. Psychological support, yes.
Why did you use a pelican box instead a manikin or dummy? We were interested in what is called the trajectory of the center of gravity. There is a place in your body, between your belly button and spine, where you can consider all your body weight to be concentrated. So if I'm falling through the air, that no matter what you do with your arms or legs, that point in your body, the center of gravity, follows a very predictable and center of motion. It's called a parabola.
Explains professional divers, and if you photograph them in slow motion, that if you follow that point in the body, you get a perfect arc. The physics is exquisitely well known. We know what happens to the center of gravity. The arms and limbs we cannot. It doesn't matter what the arms, legs and head does, the center of the body will still follow that parabola.
What is the meaning of the term, point of departure as you used it in your analysis of this case? In the time period after Lauren's death, the defendant Mr. Brown, described what had happened to several parties. And they involved questions that related to where, according to him, Lauren had slipped or tripped or fallen from. It's where Lauren fell from, according to Mr. Brown, or where she fell from, according to physics, we call the point of departure.
The information he provided to people, Deputy Brothers, the only thing you can see from the archery range looking at at Inspiration Point, you can't see the top of Inspiration Point, but there is a large bush. So he called it the large bush that could be seen from there. So he alluded to that large bush as to where it happened.
Mr. Brown [also] went out to an eastern promontory with Sargent Erickson. At first they were too close to the cliff, so my recollection is they moved back, and they've pointed to a what I've referred to as a kind of knob, which was at the eastern point. Subsequently Mr. Brown also described to the detectives, a "U" shape region, that I knew from aerial photographs, that connect the large bush and to a smaller bush.
At some point he said he was seated. He said that she was seated, at other times he said she was playing. Mr. Brown also said that the region that they were [on] was sloped. So that region had to be sloped. And Mr. Brown also said that he was four feet back from the edge. I've taken that to mean the clear edge from that slope. That turns out to be 20 degrees downward. Between the two bushes, so I took the point of departure, the word suggests that there was a single point. It would be better to use a region of departure, that fits with the [description given by Brown from the] archery range, [also the description given] below, looking up with Mr. Erickson, and the point/region chosen [fit all the descriptions that Brown gave].
The witness also had a report from deputy Falicon. And that also played into his determination as to the point of departure.
Dr. Hayes, all of these descriptors of the area that you told us about, did you consider all of those, when considering this region and area of the cliff? Yes, and no. I considered all those areas where all these conditions could be met. And that required that there be some flexibility, where the launch or trip point could be.
I considered all the possible rays that emitted from the region. So yes, I considered a series of these possibilities, but in some, it also had to result in her going into the inlet. If certain paths would result on her falling directly onto the rocks, those could be ruled out, based on her injuries. Those could be confidently ruled out.
It would meet all the information obtained from above, but would also end Lauren up in the water.
The entire point, there is a region which I call the knob, and then there is a path that goes from the U shaped area, and goes to another side that leads to the west. That some call, goes to what leads to the nude beach or Portuguese Point.
Can you give us, just an approximation of the range of area that you would consider the range of departure? If we were to take a yardstick up there, so we would have a rough square, it's probably 12 by 12 feet, maybe a bit more narrow than that, maybe 8x8 feet, where all of these [conditions] could be met.
I did not consider, all the infinite possibilities that could happen in that [square?] We have what is the upper bounds of limitations.
We looked at the margins of this, rectangle if you will, of points of departure. One well back, and because of the definition of the cliffs, and the cuts we had in the cliffs.
Are there various definition besides what you call the point of departure, that you use to analyze the fall? Are there other points or aspects of the [human] body that you consider could be significant?
Dr. Hayes answers: We have learned over the years in studying the mechanics of falls, all kinds of falls. That there are four phases to the fall. First is initiation. Do you slip, are you launched? The second is the decent phase of the fall. If in a supermarket and you go down to the ground. The third phase is the impact phase of a fall. Where do you hit. Sometimes a couple of places. Where is the impact. And the fourth is where is the position of rest. We are a little like tennis balls, in like we bounce. If you slip in a supermarket, you actually bounce. The position where you end up, as the position of rest.
Can you relate this to this case? Fundamentally, where do you start. Did she slip or trip or slide, or was she launch, or did she go running off the edge of the cliff.
Descent. Her center of gravity follows a path. If she's launched at a certain path, her parabola, she would end up in the water.
Position of rest is where she's found. Under other scenarios, if you will, she would lets say, trip off the top. Go down, impact the cliff multiple times right at the top of the clifl, perhaps go off the cliff again and then enter the water. So that's impact and descent together.
Lauren, according to her father, was found face down in the water. So we only know where she was according to her father as to where she was found. So these various phases of the fall, fall very closely, and other phases, she does not.
Prepared a Power-point presentation? I did. Laub asks to briefly approach.
The presentation will take about an hour. The jurors are given the morning break.
10:52 AM.
Dear readers, please excuse my horrible typing. I'll be editing entries as soon as I can.
11:07 AM
The jury is called back into the courtroom. Brown is standing, Mr. Laub is standing with his back to the jury. The defense investigator is seated. Mr. Laub turns around. Sarah and her two girlfriends enter right before the jury. We are missing one juror, #8. The court jokes with her. "They said you went home." The juror replies, "There was a line."
Direct examination continues with Dr. Hayes presenting his PowerPoint presentation.
Is that the unedited or unredacted version of your report? [Document handed to the witness that he reviews.] Yes. So 92 is the unedited version.
Presents the PowerPoint.
This is an introductory slide, to remind us of the events.
Nov 8, 200 Inspiration Point, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Lauren Key's Injuries
Topography of Inspiration Point.
Fall Bio-mechanics.
Her injuries, we can look at them as a fingerprint. If you know how to read them correctly, they can tell us what happened.
Topography, particularly in the point of departure. That's important, to put in the simplest way, if Lauren went off the cliff unassisted, she would have received injuries that would have shown that she interacted at the top of the cliff. So we need to know what that is, and what it would take to clear that upper region, to hit somewhere else on that cliff, and where interactions could have occurred.
Fall Bio-mechanics.
The path of the center of gravity that her body had to take for her to receive the injuries that she did.
Case question:
Did Lauren Key fall unintentionally to her death from Inspiration Point or was she instead pushed or thrown from the top of the cliff?
While we are here, and I just said the top, this is the eastern promontory that sticks out. Here is the inlet. Marking with the laser on a photo. Here is the knob I was referring to. You could think of it as the container, or the wall as the point of departure, as on top of that knob.
You analysis is a scientific inquiry. You make a hypothesis, to the laws of physics to apply. Then you test them, 1, 2, 3, could this have happened.
Did you prepare a slide showing the three significant issues you had to examine? Yes I did. And two of them are on this slide.
Anatomy of Laurens injuries. Were injuries consistent with sliding down or from impacting cliff face? How many impacts occurred?
Detailed topography of Inspiration Point
Aerial photograph/GPS and ground based survey methods.
Point of Departure/Cliff Face/Inlet.
He used the coroner report, and the pathological findings of Dr. Ishibara (sp?) [who evaluated the x-rays ?] Looked at the radiology report. Looked at photos of Lauren at the scene.
Second significant issue is the topography. Talks about the aerial photography that was done to make a map of the topography. And focused on the point of departure, the cliff face, that joins the point of departure that joins the inlet and the geography of the promontories that jut out.
And the third issue is the fall bio-mechanics.
Fall bio-mechanics for 1 slip/trip 2 Launch
Initial conditions?
Path of center of gravity?
Where would Lauren hit the cliff?
Which scenario is consistent with Lauren's injuries and death?
Putting all of those together, which scenario is consistent with her injuries and cause of death?
Now, very graphic photographs.
You prepared slides that were important to you. Why? Autopsy photos. They are important along with the coroner's report. Autopsy photos. They give us a sense, of what was put down in black and white. Verses where on Lauren's body, the devastating impacts occurred.
A couple of the female jurors, don't look at the photos.
On her head, are open lacerations and gaping wounds with the head. That's to be contrasted with tiny marks, from hitting a little stick, or being placed on the promontory. These are particularly important because they tell me where the main impacts occur.
The major impacts occurred to her head and face. She had major fractures to the forehead bone, particularly on the left side, ... towards the base of her brain and her skull. She had vascular skull fractures. Her head was bent back. She had a [mandibular?][?] subluxation. She had major impacts to her upper chest. Primarily on the left hand side. She had a fractured dislocation of the right wrist. You can see the skewed angle of her wrist. So directly from this slide, we can say, hypothesis starts to refine and become more focused. She had to hit this cliff face and chest first.
Dr. Hayes brings out a small art doll, that used for drawing. I would like to use it to display the position had to have ocurred fro just looking at this slide.
She had to have hit the cliff, face down, so that her head and chest hit first. Her wrist fracture is consistent with her reaching. And essentially, that's it. There is no evidence, no reliable evidence, there were multiple interactions a the top of the cliff with scraping and sliding. There's no evidence of multiple impacts at this one site. And there's no evidence that she hit on the promontory rocks themselves.
So, basically from this slide she went off the cliff at sufficient speed to hit the cliff once, and go into the water.
What about going off the cliff and go into the water, and missing the cliff entirely? But she would not have sustained these injuries.
The rest of her body, is essentially untouched.
Are all of these injuries, consistent with a single velocity impact with the cliff face? Yes.
If there had been some type of accidental fall? I'm not sure of the question.
The significance of this slide is that, Lauren is esentially unmarked on her back. Unmarked. Three photos, of Lauren's naked body. I'm about to cry seeing these photos. It's her back side, and the front of her legs.
If she had fallen back, and if she had slipped, we would have seen lacerations from her hitting that cliff. If she would have been running off, just running as fast as she could to jump off that cliff, she would have hit feet first, and hit her back. She did not hit her back. She did not hit her feet.
Would you expect to see these injuries, from an accidental fall, from the pair of [pants?]? She was wearing thin clothing, and yes, we see these kinds of injuries, and clothing doesn't matter.
in addition did you prepare a slide documenting the injuries on her front and back? Yes.
The slide shows a drawing of a small child's body and shows the major injuries. Shows the major injuries that contributed to her death are here. She had a fracture at occipital/C1 junction. [This is where her first cervical vertebrae attaches to her skull.]
The most obvious is that her head and upper body hit the rocks at 45 miles per hour.
The wrist [was] put out, to try to break her fall.
Adults and children, their bodies going at high speeds and stops, instantaneously at the point of impact, is that your viscera, your organs continue to move. They pull away from the body. Contusion of both left and right lungs. Contusion of the spleen. That happens because the organs don't stop. They keep moving.
Next slide.
Lauren's massive, traumatic injuries are consistent with a drop from a height and an assisted drop and not consistent with an accidental fall [Dr. Chinwah autopsy report.]
Lauren's injuries indicate she was head down and facing the cliff when a high velocity impact occurred.
There were no notable abrasions consistent with sliding down the cliff face. (None on the front, back or middle of her body.)
Are your conclusions dependent on Dr. Chinwah's conclusions? I would say it's not dependent on his conclusion. It's parallel and comports with [it]. I'm looking at it from a engineering and bio-mechanical aspect. He's looking at it from a physiological [aspect].
The next important thing to address was the topography of the cliff? Yes.
Topography of IP
Aerial photograph was conducted on [?] by the LA County Sheriff's Department Aerial Bureau. Psomas, Inc. acquired detailed aerial topography of Inspiration Point using GPS and ground based survey methods on 1/31/03 and 2/17/03.
Measurement accuracy is 8.0" horizontally and between 6" (top) and 2.5' vertically (NMAS647, US National Map accuracy Standards, 1947)
What did you do with that, in order to have information that was useful to form your conclusions? If anyone of you have familiarity with AUTOCAD .... We imported that data into graphic programs that would interpret the mathematical data of the cliff. So he could make graphical representations as to what's going on.
We'll see in the next slide, how well it tracked the aerial photographs to characterize the cliff.
There are two photos on the next slide. This is one step. Survey data placed over aerial scene photo to orient point of departure with survey data.
If the lines are far apart, the land is flatish. Here off the edge of the cliff, there is a steep slope.
We have taken the data from Psomas, and laid it over a photograph, and show the contours directly on the cliff.
So to orient you, Inspiration Point goes from North towards the South. Inspiration Point projects southward. Explains other locations as related to Inspiration Point.
Here on the photo, with the big red arrow, I've called the point of departure. Here is the large bush. It's actually on the cliff face, below the trail, at the bottom of the U shaped region. Here is the direction... she had to be launched back towards a direction, that would land in the inlet.
Did you also prepare a slide to help us visualize parts of the cliff? Now another slide.
Scene Survey: Cliff profiles.
One image is a top down view and there are lines going out, from one point of departure. [Because of the bottom of the inlet and the rock outcroppings, there is a very narrow path, arc [or basically slice of a pie], that she could have traveled.]
It is difficult to describe this to T&T readers, without having the photos.
The second drawing in this slide, is a side view of the slope, a slice of it, from the side.
The next is a slide titled Fall Bio-mechanics
These are the laws of physics that apply to a projectile. This of a tennis ball. If I launch this tennis ball, it will follow a path, that is a parabola.
Dr. Hayes throws the model doll to show a parabola. Throws it straight in an arc, and throws it with the doll spinning head over heels. It still follows the same parabola.
Next slid I miss documenting. It had drawings of athletes throwing from the shoulder, like a shot-put.
And also miss the next slide, typing the above line.
Next photo, showing someone throwing a weight in a back yard.
We know what people could do with 15 pound shot-puts. We needed to know what people could do with 40 lb weights.
Video. The first few frames of Jeremy throwing the weight over head, Dr. Hayes is able to document the speed of the throw by comparing a slide of video to another slide.
Initial Velocity
To determine initial velocity (v 0) for the launch scenarios.
And adult male subject threw a 40 lb weight [comparable to Lauren's weight at the time of her death of 44 lbs) as far and as fast as possible, [miss the rest of the slide].
Jeremy was shorter than Brown, who is 6'3" and was about 200 lbs at the time of Lauren's death.
Next slide, did the mathematics of Walk then slip/trip.
He put in the average walking speed of a five year old. [Miss rest of slide.]
Fall bio-mechanics: Results. Five different slides and the lines have different colors.
Black lines are the edge of the cliff face.
Each line color, shows where Lauren would have impacted under scenarios:
1. She had slipped/tripped = would have impacted upper cliff and more injuries.
2. If she was thrown at 15 ft per second (missed the cliff entirely).
3. Now if she was thrown at 10 ft per second = would produce a single impact and go into the inlet.
They went back and did replicate what they have just shown us.
Site Experiment slide. Photo of Jeremy at top of Inspiration Point. There's the knob. Points out where he was.
Jeremy will launch pelican box. The video shows a launch.
Judge calls the lunch break. 12 noon.
1:25 PM
Inside Dept. 107 In the morning session, there were a group of young looking, DDA staff sitting in the back row. I didn't learn until the end of my lunch, that the short haired blond woman [not young, like the others], sitting behind me was DDA Patricia Wilkinson, the Head Deputy of Major Crimes. DDA Craig Hum is the Assistant Head Deputy.
Dr. Hayes takes his seat in the witness box.
Some of the young DDA staff return and sit in the gallery. The defense investigator is over at the clerks desk, going through some manila envelopes.
The court reporter was just up on the bench, getting something set on the court's computer. She's now back by her desk, speaking with Mr. Laub.
Now the investigator calls Mr. Laub over to the clerk's desk, and goes over the manila envelopes with him. Judge Lomeli is in his robes, standing at his bench and opening an envelope.
1:33 PM
Brown is brought out from custody. The court asks if the parties are ready. They're ready. The court report is getting set up. The clerk goes to get the jury.
Dim the lights. Back to presentation of Dr. Hayes. Plays the video again. DDA Hum asks him to show the significance of the video and how it relates to his conclusion.
Asks about the various significance of the videos. We're looking up. My associate Jeremy is at the top, at one of the points of departure, on the knob at the right, he's launching a 45 lb pelican box. He's launching it back towards the inlet. And he's standing about four or five feet back from the edge.
Now there's a side view video of the throw. You can see the box strike on the shelf of the cliff and then drop into the inlet.
From that experiment, could you also calculate the launch velocity? Yes we could and we in fact did. We just needed two consecutive frames of video. And what was that velocity? It was about 12.5 feet per second.
Intermediate between 10 ft. per second and the 15 feet per second that cleared the cliff. It offered an opportunity to check the physics. It proved Newton was right. (Jury laughter.)
He plotted that on the side view graph. The side view graph shows the cliff outline, a slip/fall, 15 ft per second, 10 ft per second, and 12.5 feet per second.
Site Experiment
The launch angle was 4 degrees with a velocity of 12.5 ft per second.
Physics-based predictions were confirmed by direct experiment at the scene.
Experiment shows that an adult male of height and weight considerably less than Mr. Brown, and an occupation that did not involve lifting, could achieve a launch velocity and angle at the point of departure to reproduce the facts surrounding Lauren's fatal descent on November 8, 2000.
Thus far we've been talking about the path of Lauren's center of gravity as she left the cliff. Is there a way to simulate the interaction of Lauren's body with the face of the cliff, than simply the path through the air? Yes there is.
We have other types of advanced modeling programs. This approach allowed us to go one step further.
He prepared a slide, as to what type of simulation was done and the programming [involved?] in it. You've seen crash dummies, and multi-part bodies for crash dummies. We had used those kinds of models to simulate how grandma falls down and gets a hip fracture.
Used one to represent the slope of the cliff and a second to represent Lauren's body. And these two, provided a mulit-link simulation of human motion. It's been validated in a number of applications including falls.
Is this a simulation as opposed to an animation? It is NOT an animation. It is built on a simulation.
In an animation, something done by Disney. I could have a blue elephant on top of Inspiration Point and fly over to Portuguese Point. See it all the time. That of course, violates the laws of physics. In a simulation, it is defined as something that must follow the laws of physics. The stiffness of the body, of the neck, are all incorporated into the simulation.
Can you give us some examples, as how this simulation has been used in other settings? In motor vehicle applications, most often used in sports, or in simulating things like falls. Nike uses it, Golf uses it; used in Olympics and training. I have used it with orthopedic implant situations. Its used in work. Used with trying to better help people that are caught in vehicles in a bombing situation in wartime. Used by motorcycle manufacturers. It's been validated and vetted under many circumstances.
It's used to calculate the forces with a helmeted or unhelmeted rider. It's accuracy checked, with predicting motions and forces and things. It's also used with how one walks, and how to design artificial joints.
It's been more recently used for the study of falls. There are small gifs that show a skeleton in a fall and the same gif with muscles and skin over the skeleton.
This type of modeling is used in the scientific community and it's accepted in the field of bio-mechanics? Yes, it is.
In these programs, the larger the arrow, the stronger the force. In slip and falls, you see a short arrow. In what we will see, will be a huge force, flash. I don't think I will be able to slow it down so you can see it.
What do you need to input to get an accurate representation/ I need her height and weight and I need to know the stiffness of different parts of her body, her interaction with the ground surface. I need to know how appropriately hard for a child.
We don't have the arms try to actively resist, the motion down the cliff, we can't do that. But we certainly represent the stiffness of the neck and the head and that it's different than the buttocks.
On the left you see a diagram of a body, the size of Lauren, you see the joints as hinges. And various parts of the body indicated as harder. Also a diagram of the cliff face that was obtained from Psomas.
More explanation as to the limits of the program. If we were to have this dummy, actively resisting, it would be less likely to support his position that she slipped tripped and went off. By not having it, it's a conservative position, more beneficial to the defendant.
Whether two surfaces slide in the respect to each other. More explanation of co-efficient of friction.
Ice is slipperier than asphalt? What kind of range are we thinking. Ice is 1.5; very low. Modern tires on an asphalt road, are about .8. So we are about half way in-between.
You take volunteers and drag them across various surfaces. [?]
Video. 3D Simulation: POD/Trip
This is looking at what if Lauren trips or slips. focusing on the slide. We know how people slip and trip, and how kids do. The friction = 0.55
The definition of a trip, your foot stays in the same position. The video shows us, that if she tripped, at this co efficient, she would not have gone over the edge. She would have come to a stop down the cliff. The arrows in the video show the amount of force exhibited on her body.
Also did a simulation for a launch.
Video 3D Simulation POD/Launch.
The body goes head down, in towards the cliff. The video goes so fast you can't see the arrow impact.
With this simulation, would that produce the injuries you saw on Lauren? It would.
With regard to, all of the information you had, all your analysis, information you recieved, Lauren's injuries, all your training, experience, the bio-mechanics, what were your conclusions?
My conclusion and opinions, ... was that Lauren died from a single high speed impact to the cliff face. Her injuries are inconsistent with a trip, slip or fall. That she was launched from 10- 12.5 ft per seconds. The fall trajectory that would predict this, was well within the physical capabilities of an adult male. The slip/trip would not allow Lauren to fall, depending on the location.
So my conclusion bottom line, Lauren sustained her injuries by being launched from the point of departure, impacting the cliff face once, and landing in the water.
Dr. Hayes, you are president and CEO of private company? Yes. They have 17 people plus me. Does not work for free. Does not work for the Sheriff's office.
He first started working on this case in 2002. Yes, it was in 2002. The site visits, the work performed, testified several times and also had others in his firm working on this case. How much have you been paid so far? In the range of [over] 12.5 years, $71,000.00.
Does the fact that you've been paid, affect your analysis or conclusions in any way? It does not in any way.
Also just want to ask you, with regard to reading the information in the police reports, are you aware that at one point the defendant said he looked over and saw Lauren's feet go over? Yes, I am aware. Does that follow the laws of physics? No it does not.
If he had thrown her over the cliff, wouldn't he have fallen over also? No. Why not. The best explanation would be, that Jeremy bower threw a weight over the cliff of approximate the same weight and he didn't fall off.
So the next is, the laws of physics, that the weight pushes back on you at the same time. It depends. Mostly, it doesn't mean that you move backwards, just that the weight pushes back on you. If I'm running and launching a weight, but you could take one step and push, and you stay right in that location.
If you're standing on ice and push a weight, you'll go back on the ice. But if you're standing and slowly [?], you'll stay right there. But if you're running and throwing, you'll go over the cliff.
If you launch a weight, it doesn't mean you will fall backwards, but you will be pushed back. It doesn't necessarily mean you will be pushed back.
Could she have been pushed or shoved, rather than actually thrown? There are a rare set of circumstances where that could happen, it depends on where the center of gravity was launched. If pushed from top of the head, then she would go down and have the lacerations on the head.
You could have a push, if done at the appropriate speed and launch angle.
I can't tell her exact position. I can give what I believe is the best estimate. What I can tell with exact certainty, is she had to be launched at 12.5 ft sec, and launched slight angle upward, and at a certain distance above her center of gravity.
If she was in certain position, if I pushed right at the center of gravity, she would go up like this and not turn over. She has to be pushed in the right area of her body, so that she turns and impacts with her head.
Direct ends and cross begins.
Mr. Laub asks that the lights go back on.
Laub has several large binders out in front of him. Lets talk about the laws of physics. You had a slide earlier with a shot-putter. I do recall that slide. Also had one with a diver? You want me to help? I had one with a trampoline jumper.
And this all had to do with the center of gravity? The center of gravity has a parabola. Now, Newton's third law, is pushing of the shot, causes an equal and opposite reaction and that means the shot-putter stays where he is? Yes, that's possible. And he can foul? The trick is to put as much velocity and force, without fouling, going beyond the circle.
So when they do fall and go over the line, what is it that s causing that? The balance between the motion that enters into the process, and the motion and the force that is applied.
So there is training, in order for Newton's law not to overcome? It depends on whether you're trying to throw a shot 60 or 70 feet, but I could throw that shot, and move myself a certain distance and not come close to fouling.
Children on a trampoline. I'm always concerned about children falling off. You're talking about people going up and down? Well if you're worried about children, you're worried about them going sideways.
So if I understand correctly, the reason why the concern with children, they may not land with their weight balanced perpendicularly to that trampoline ... and cause a flip to the side? Well, I wasn't talking about a flip to the side.
So we've got a monstrous father who wants to throw his daughter off a cliff, your word Launched, in order to produce the results that were gotten, he would have to have one hand under her bottom and one hand over her back?
There are many ways this could happen. One hand under the buttocks, one hand on the back. A launch at a certain velocity, that produces the tipping, that as she goes down she rotates 180 degrees. It's also possible to do the same thing, and holding her by the ribs, with a little forward rotation, does precisely the same thing. There are multiple ways that this could be accomplished.
In order for us to determine how the launch was done, first start with the signature injuries? We work our ways back, from the fingerprint injuries. What I'm having trouble with is "first." There are parallel lines that we have to look at. There's a really simple question here, it seems to me.
Are the injuries we see, are a consequence of a bunch of low level impacts a the top of the cliff, or are we seeing something that misses the top and hit one place far down the cliff.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one has been able to find the impact on the side of the cliff? No one has found an impact on the cliff. I'm telling you that the physics tell you, that [this is what happened.]
Mr. Laub asks: Assume that any of these are varied. He's this guy who wants to toss the kid, how do we know that each arm is exerted? We don't and we don't care. We know that a person smaller than Mr. Brown, 5 ft 7 in, as apposed to 6 ft 3 in. A person 160 pounds verses 200 pounds. A baggage handler vs a graduate.
I don't care; and I don't mean that I don't care about the facts of this case. It is in fact, it is irrelevant to the analysis to know that particular force.
But if in fact you have one variable, where one arm is more than another, and a child is bouncing off to the side, then the conclusion that Mr. Brown would had to have been standing at a different location. I must say I don't understand your question.
What I'm trying to say is, what I'm hearing you say, is that you have certain injuries, you applied the laws of physics in your expertise, in science you've called them givens, things that you use as assumptions? I've used that word.
One of the given's, is these injuries. Yes, but that's an objective fact. We have to again produce the injuries. I' know you've studied those injuries very carefully. How far would Lauren at the age of four would she have to fall, to cause those injuries? I don't know that we have a good answer to that. These are not injuries that would be sustained at anywhere close to the stepping [slipping?] or falling off the top of the cliff.
What's important to keep in mind, we are not comparing subtleties. We're comparing a situation where it's alleged she slipped or tripped. And comparing that to was she launched.
The kind of things as to where or how far she would have to fall, don't enter into whether she hit at the top of the cliff don't enter into it. .. It is beide the point. It's whether she could slip and trip, verses whether she was launched.
As a bio-mechanics expert, have you ever worked on a car injury case? Yes. And you have to consider if the injuries occurred at the speed the car was going? All the time.
Doesn't the speed increase, the father it falls? It does. It would depend what she hits.
Let's say both hit rocks. Assume we now know, what it's hitting, and it's the same every time. Would the damage be the same at 20 feet vs 100 ft.
Laub argues, back to the witness, that he didn't ask that question.
You're not a medical doctor? I'm not a medical doctor. I don't treat patients.
How far did she fall, to get the result of those injuries? She fell approximately, 72 feet, or 42 feet above the water.
You're first assume she hit the shelf? No, I didn't assume that. ... I started with a set of trajectories, and look where she did impact the cliff, And looked at the velocity, and said she would be going 60 feet sper econd or 45 miles per hour.
You're saying the distance she would have to fall to cause those injuries, it's 72 feet or whatever you said? ... What if she hits the rocks in the water, and hit the front of her head, but at that point, of hitting the rocks below, she would have enough velocity in the rest of her body as it colapsed around her striking head. {not sure where the question ended and the answer began.]
So what you can tell, is that she hit head first? Yes. I believe she hit head first to her frontal lobe. She hit hard enough that she snapped her neck and then bounced into the water.
So if I understand what you're telling us, she hit head first, it was snapped back, at that point there's a moment of time separation, the second impact of the body, where the body gets the damage that shows on the left side, is that correct? Yes.
And the right wrist. One of the ways it could happen, since there are, in my view, no other impacts involved. There is a reflex, you put your hand out to break your fall. I believe that explains the right wrist fracture dislocation.
I believe you tell us that the majority of the injuries were on the left side? I wasn't particularly focusing on the left side. I noted the ones were left sided mostly. I also noted that the right wrist was the dislocated, right wrist.
For a single impact, the person that is falling here, what is coming up fast coming up to the left side, and the right side is trying to stop it? What happened to the left hand? Who knows. [There are more explanations.]
If Lauren is a person who is very unadventurous, and generally doesn't like to be on heights, even small heights, in your thinking about this whether or not her monster father picked her up like this, she likely struggled? It's not figuring into the calculation. I've done work on people who are in mortal fear, they are frozen into position. In morttal fear of her life, it's also possible that she froze. There are many possibilities.
When you say in fear of your life. What do four year olds understand about death? I think what you are soliciting here is speculation about what happened. What's useful, to think about the center of gravity. Your center of gravity stays in place.
If your father has a grip on you to throw you off a cliff, your center of gravity stays in place? The arms flailing doesn't pull it off? Essentially not.
How about the center of gravity being, with the arm hitting a rock? And this is related to the center of gravity [Laub, maybe not.] A fractured dislocation is not the consequence of hitting against the rock. It's an outstretched hand. She would not generate the type of forces that an adult would.
It doesn't change the center of gravity. It might slightly perturb the center of gravity.
Let's not say that she flails her arms, she's falling head first towards the cliff, and what's coming up towards her, and she pushes out her wrist, does that affect her descent? I have a hard time if she's cleared the top of the cliff, ...
Laub proposes that Lauren with her right arm wrist, pushes off with something.
You showed us some graphs that were two dimensional and some graphs, ... let me tell you what I saw, I didn't see how she could reach out and push herself out from the cliff? [miss answer]
DDA Hum objects to Laub saying several times "from what I saw." These are improper questions. The court indicates that Mr. Laub can state, "How I interpret."
Is there anything in that, that shows that Lauren could have used her hand to push off, with her right hand .... " The first feature of the cliff that is sticking out enough to interact with is that shelf below. The rest of the time she has cleared that.
Who prepared the slide with Jeremy, slide 18, that shows Jeremy on top of Inspiration Point? Is that slide 18? I do know the one. It's a multi-video, looks from different locations.
Who prepared that? Jeremy. At your direction? Yes.
Are you familiar with the filmmaker, [?]
From an advertizing point of view, the way in which you place images together, will give a different message, depending on how it's edited? If you're interested in advertizing, that's correct. If you're interested in science, you show what's relevant.
You have an establishment shot? That may be what you call it.
I started with an establishment shot, to show that we are at Inspiration Point.
Then you moved to the shot where you had Jeremy did the throw? Yes, because we needed to show where Jeremy did the throw. Then that faded into the cliffs so we could see the object fall? Yes.
How did you decide to cut off the point to cut off where Jeremy threw the object and then fade into the shot below? I don't recall a fade. It was established because the pelican box disappears from one view and we have to use another shot to see it.
Your honor, at this point, I would like to show, we have an exhibit in a previous proceeding that was marked SS. We need just a moment. Judge Lomeli asks, "How long is it?"
Laub. It's seconds. Laub then states, it's at the most five minutes. They are uploading the video onto Mr. Hum's laptop while we wait. Now the video where Jeremy is working with two 20 lb weights to create a video. It takes some time to set this up. The court states, lets take a 15 minute break.
2:58 PM
The court addresses a white haired be speckled attorney in the gallery. "Were you waiting for something?" I've seen this man before in pretrial hearings in Dept. 108.
As the counsel comes into the well, as he passes Brown, the defendant and him exchange words and the counsel shakes Brown's hand. The attorney first speaks to Judge Lomeli at the bench and then goes over and speaks to Mr. Laub.
3:20 PM
Back on the record.
Laub plays video of one of his experiments. It's actually two, scaling, to show a yardstick. And that was throw number one.
Plays another video. This was throw number two? I don't think. I think what you just showed us. I think that was a repeat of number one.
Plays another video. Is that 2? I think that's number 2.
In the first video, did he jump a little bit? You have to remember, that he was not trying to replicate what was at Inspiration Point. He was just trying to show two different frames, [to get the reference points]. ... He was trying to produce a parabolic arc. The intent was to get a starting point for the trajectory calculations to get a speed. 160 lb 5'7 man and what velocity it produced.
And that first attempt he was at a standing position, he didn't run? That's correct.
And in the second one he hops? I believe that he's not distinguishing in launching. He takes a step, and he comes back.
You didn't see a hop? I didn't see a hop.
Lets go to #2. Did you see anything there that had his body moving forward after the launch? I wouldn't be surprised if it did. In many of these, he's walking to pick up the weights. It has nothing to do with the launch.
Laub wants to show the video again. In the second video, he does go forward, but it doesn't appear that he's trying to stop his forward motion.
Then shows a "fourth?' video? In every single one, we were looking at his angle of throw, to establish velocity. Nothing else.
Laub plays another video. Shows an underhand throw. Mr. Hayes states there were nine. Laub plays more.
So what you're telling us, is him moving forward is irrelevant. He was not expected or told to stop? He was not pretending he was at the top of Inspiration Point. He was just trying to get a velocity.
When you had him on top of Inspiration Point, you had him wearing a harness? Yes. Even though the laws of physics, you even had a safety harness? [You are] wrong in your question. I did not and very carefully, and said just the opposite. There is an equal and opposite force in each and every one of the throws. I never said it moves him back, it pushes him back. But it depends on how [fast] he's moving. Hayes says, that even at the top of Inspiration Point, he can take one step forward, and still not get to the end of his protective tether ropes.
Oh wait a minute, not this one. This video is the throw of the pelican box off the cliff.
Laub asks for the video to be inched forward. When he threw this, Now looking at the harness, where is the rope and below the harness? Where is it now? I can't see it. Laub shows the rope, and in the stop video, it looks like it's taught. Dr. Hayes states he believes the rope is not taught in the video.
Laub asks about a jump rope and how it's taught. Dr. Hayes states he needs a bit more.
Laub challenges that there is someone back there, holding the rope taught. Dr. Hayes states, that over a short period of line, any rope will be taught. Dr. Hayes insists that, Jeremy did not in this video, go beyond the point where he did pull the rope taught.
What's important in this is that, if Mr. Brown is doing what you're demonstrating he is doing, then there's a risk that he could be going over the edge. Yes. So if he's four feet from the edge, there's a serious problem for him.
And this slide is the demonstration. It's a short piece of video on the right where the rope is taught.
Laub continues to argue with the witness as to whether or not the rope was taught that was holding onto Jeremy when he threw the weight.
You can see on the video, that the rope pulls him back, Laub states. DDA Hum asks, is that a question or is that testimony? I believe the court states Laub must ask a question.
When a person picks up and throws an object, how important is it to determine where the object is going? It's one of the variables that plays a role, along with many others.
A lot of secondary things come into play when one throws a baseball.
In the back yard you used 40 lbs weight? Yes. And on the cliff, you used a 44lb weight? Actually, it was 45.
So you used a 10% more weight, on the cliff? Remember I called it a starting point, for those analysis.
And how did that affect the formulas that you were applying? The starting weight gave us a 15 ft per second. Then increased the weight closer to Lauren's weight, asked Jeremy to use the same throwing motion. And what we found when we did the projectile motion, it went into the water directly. Then Jeremy's experiment close to Lauren's weight, it was between those two that we did in the back yard, and....
And you used the point of departure from where Mr. Brown supposedly said he was.... And supposedly told Detective Brothers that he was sitting on a rock?
He supposedly said he was siting on a rock? I know of no rock that purports with [that] description.
Laub confers with his investigator.
Cross ends and redirect begins.
Dr. Hayes I want to ask you in regards to the point of departure using the description. Yes.
Did you create two additional simulations from different points of departure, [Where Lauren ended up in the water?] even those didn't comport with the defendant's description? I did.
Can you tell us what this slide depicts. It's the mathematical representation of Lauren's height and weight. It shows the point of departure the U shaped region. It also looks at a point of departure called 2 and to the west. And comports with the statements of Mr. Brown. And #3, which is further along the path, and there is a rock over in that direction.
Did you do a slip and fall for departure location number 2? Yes.
I believe Dr. Hayes plays a video.
Simulation from Pt 2/ trip. She doesn't get the massive injuries from this point.
Simulation from Pt. 3 trip. Sliding down the top of the cliff, producing sliding abrasions, several impacts,
Did either of those slip and trips from point of departure 2 or 3, were any of those consistent with the injuries on Lauren's body? Neither was. ... Even if she had, gone off of those points, it would not produce the injuries that she had.
Redirect ends and recross begins.
Asks about small injuries on her right shoulder, and her right knee. What I'm trying to say is that these [that Mr. Laub is referencing] are [not] the substantial injuries. By putting her on the rocky ledge down below when coming out of the water, [or they] could have happened on the walk over. But these are not evidence of any sort of forceful or high speed impact.
Am I correct in understanding, you don't have an explanation for the scratch on her shoulder? Other than the possibilities that I just gave you ...
You're not speaking as an expert, you're just thinking like anyone else could come up with?
More questions Laub asks about minor injuries and that Dr. Hayes doesn't have an explanation for how those occurred. Dr. Hayes states there are numerous possibilities for how those occurred.
And taking your model is the motion used, the projection coming up from the cliff, and the impact from this that her organs stopped so abruptly, that they pulled loose? No. She's going down, with the impact that's going further. The internal organs keep going as the body stops. They tear away from the internal organs that hold them in the body.
The ribs are not broken because of the impact of the head.
I believe the witness is finished.
DDA Hum, tells the court, regarding Dr. Hayes' PowerPoint presentation, "I will prepare an exhibit for the slides as used. and present them as exhibits."
While the jury filed out, Brown leaned into Laub to speak.
Now there is argument about the scheduling of Mr. Laub's witnesses.
The court states the sheriff's need an answer whether or not Brown is going to the jury site visit. The court states they will take that issue up on Monday.
And that's it, until Monday at 9:30 AM
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment