Trials & Tribulations: Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 28

Lauren, 4, playing house under a dining table.

Prosecutors allege Cameron Brown threw his daughter off of

Inspiration Point, Ca., to avoid paying child support.

UPDATED 5/14 12:50 PM final edit of closing summation for spelling, readability, accuracy

UPDATED 5/12 2:45 PM finished editing defense closing
UPDATED 5/12 8:45 AM edited some defense closing

UPDATED 5/12 6:00 AM prosecution opening closing edited for spelling, readability, accuracy

Monday May 11, 2015
Inside Edition
Last Thursday, Inside Edition covered the jury site visit and produced a short video clip.

The video has a reporter at the top of Inspiration Point and then the camera pans down the side of the cliff. Where the camera pans is not where Brown allegedly told detectives they were when Lauren plunged off the cliff. It appears the camera pans down the east side of Inspiration Point and not the tip/south end where the prosecution says Brown and Lauren were.

The reporter states, "today a memorial stands at the site." The memorial was placed on a knoll above Inspiration Point in 2001 or 2002. [I will verify.] The memorial does not sit directly on Inspiration Point. The jurors were not shown the memorial.

When the video states, "lawyers and police officers were there, too," from left to right you see DDA Craig Hum, LA County Sheriff's Detective Jeffrey Leslie and defense attorney Aron Laub.

The reporter states, "then jurors walked the same trail, that Brown and his daughter hiked up that fateful day." That's not exactly correct. The jurors were transported via van to five separate locations in the area. The jurors did not take the 1.5 mile hike from the Abalone Cove parking lot to Inspiration Point. It's my understanding that for the Inspiration Point location, the vans stopped on Palos Verdes Drive South. The jurors took a direct route from the road out onto the point. Once the jury was on the point, then yes, they could have followed the same path Brown and Lauren took.

The video talked about the two previous hung juries but did not clarify that all jurors from both trials voted for guilt, they just could not agree on the degree of guilt.

In last Wednesday's trial coverage, DDA Hum gave a detailed description to the court as to how the jury site visit would commence and the five different locations the jurors would visit.

1. Abalone Cove parking lot
2. The preschool
3. Portuguese Point
4. Inspiration Point
5. Archery range

8:11 AM
I'm on the 9th floor of the Criminal Justice Center. About half of our jurors are here already in the hallway.

8:16 AM
DDA Hum, Detective Leslie and an assistant from the DA's office arrived on the 9th floor with their cart loaded up with their files.

8:17 AM
More jurors arrive.

8:20 AM
Judge Lomeli came out of Dept. 107 a few minutes ago and unlocked the door. DDA Hum, Detective Leslie and their assistant went inside to set up.

8:22 AM
I'm inside Dept. 107. Off the record, Judge Lomeli tells DDA Hum that he wrote a note for Juror #11. He has had problems with his employer. There will be a break after jury instructions.

DDA Hum has his 16 file binders set up. He's working on getting his PowerPoint presentation set up.

8:25 AM
Defense attorney Mr. Laub arrives.

DDA Hum and Mr. Laub discuss arguments and the flexible timing to break for lunch.

I believe I've heard off the record estimates that the reading of jury instructions will take about an hour.

DDA Hum drops off with the clerk the recordings from the site visit.

8:28 AM
The court reporter comes out. A moment later, the bailiff arrives. The bailiff asks the clerk if he opened the door early. I pipe up that the judge opened the door.

8:31 AM
DDA Hum asks the court if they can do a few housekeeping issues when the defendant is brought out. It will only take a few minutes.

The bailiff brings a suit back into custody for Brown.

Judge Lomeli comes out. Mr. Laub waives Brown's presence.

Housekeeping matters to address. DDA Hum wanted it to be clear that the site visit was part of the people's evidence. The other issue is Fran Cifford's evidence. The testimony by Ms. Clifford and what he would argue. Detective Leslie recorded whatever was said at the site visit. Converted to a CD. Gave a copy to Mr. Laub and gave a copy to the court and asked that it be marked as court exhibit as Court 2.

Judge Lomeli describes the court exhibit and puts on the record the jury viewing. When it began at 11 AM. And items that were shown to the jurors.

Judge Lomeli asks if they are read to go. They are going to take a half hour less of lunch and will inform the jury of that. They expect to complete arguments today. The court informs counsel that they have to end at 4 because jurors have trains to catch.

8:38 AM
Brown is brought out.

Judge Lomeli informs the gallery that once they start jury instructions there is no entry or exit out of the courtroom.

Judge Lomeli addresses the jurors about the scheduling of lunch. The bailiff hands juror #11 the note the court wrote for him.

The court starts reading the instructions.

Judge Lomeli has a device that is holding his papers for him to read. The jury interrupts the court to tell him that they cannot hear him. They ask him to get closer to the microphone. One juror asks him to slow down in his reading. The court starts over.

I will not transcribe the jury instructions. I will save my energy for closing arguments.

Brown appears to look at the judge. DDA Hum and Detective Leslie face the jury. Mr. Laub is writing at the defense table.

I forgot to mention that Sarah, her close girlfriend, and three other women friends arrived right before 8:30 AM.

Judge Lomeli explains what Brown is charged with, and the special circumstances attached to first degree murder. Now he explains second degree murder.

Now the court is explaining evidence; direct and circumstantial evidence and how facts can be proved by either one.

8:50 AM
Explains jury instruction 224.

Now explaining that the testimony read into the record is to be considered the same as if the witness had been in front of them.

Now what they can consider in believing witness testimony.

You may reject all the testimony of a witness who has testified falsely.

Should not count the number of witnesses for each side, but consider the weight of the evidence presented.

Judge Lomeli takes a break to take a sip from his cup.

9:06 AM
Judge Lomeli explains reasonable doubt.

9:10 AM
Judge Lomeli asks the jurors if they can hear him. "Yes," comes back from the jury.

Premeditation is explained. Explaining that there is no measure of time to define premeditation. The court explains lying in wait and that it doesn't have to be a specific amount of time.

Now second degree is explained with expressed and implied malice.

9:17 AM
I note that Brown has the beginnings of a bald spot on the top of his head.

Distinction between second degree and involuntary manslaughter.

Mr. Laub turns to his client gets close to him and whispers into his right ear. Brown covers his mouth with his left hand when he whispers back.

Explaining the filling out of the jury instructions and the order in which they should go in signing and dating verdict forms.

Explaining the special circumstances [lying in wait and murder for financial gain] and what facts must be proved.

9:30 AM
Interpretation of evidence of special circumstances.

Judge Lomeli takes a sip of water.

"You are impartial judges of the facts."

Judge Lomeli sips from his cup again.

Explains that their cell phones must not be used in the jury room. Judge Lomeli explains that most jurors turn their cell phones off. That if there is an emergency, they will be able to be contacted through the court.

And finally ladies and gentlemen, actions they must not take during recess. Alternate jurors are still bound by the admonition.

One juror in the front row is fanning themselves with their notebook.

DDA States that he doesn't believe that jury instruction 8.10 was read. DDA Hum is correct. Judge Lomeli reads instruction 8.10.

Judge Lomeli gives the jurors a break.

After the jury leaves, several people file into the courtroom. Friends and other family of Lauren as well as media.

Vanna Stuelp from ABC is getting their camera set up for closing arguments. Shannon Farren from KFI is here. My fried Katie who I met during the Phil Spector trial is here. Patty Brown is here.

9:49 AM
Laub comes out of the custody area. The bailiff speaks to Vanna from ABC about not video taping the jurors.

There was a bit of an awkward moment when Patty took a seat in the front row. Sarah had to squeeze by her when returning from the restroom.

The bailiff opens the little gate door to the well area. He is going to bring the jury in through the well since the back row is filled with media.

Back on the record.

DDA Hum begins.
He stands by the podium and addresses the jury.

Before we begin I want to take a minute to thank you for your participation in this manner. We've been together over seven weeks now. Jury service is a hardship. I appreciate the sacrifice you have made and your attention in this manner.

By the conclusion of this day, this case will be in your hands. Justice will be in your hands.
I'm confident you will reach the only conclusion in this case, that is the defendant is guilty of murder.

You have two duties. That is to decide the facts. From the testimony, exhibits ... from all of that evidence you have to decide what happened on Nov. 8. Second duty is to take those facts and apply the law to them.

Going to talk about the law first. Charged with one count of murder. Two special circumstances. that the murder was committed by lying in wait and for financial gain.

A human being was killed.
The killing was unlawful.
The killing was done with malice aforethought.

There are two types of malice. Express malice. An intention unlawfully to kill a human being.

Intent to kill
Second type implied Malice
1. An intentional act or omission or failure to act.

2. The natural consequence of that act or omission of failure to act are dangerous to human life.

3. The act or omission of failure to act as performed with knowledge of the danger to and with coconscious disregard for human life.

DDA Hum continues to explain the requirements.

Express malice an intention unlawfully to kill a human being.

Intent to kill.

Did Brown intent to kill Lauren when he threw her from the top of Inspiration Point. That's expressed malice.

Explains that they have both types of malice, they only need one.

Those are the only three requirements for murder. The law really is that simple. And that makes the defendant guilty of murder.

Also decide if guilty of first degree murder, or second murder.
[Defines what the words mean under the law.]
1. Willful = Intentions.
2. Premeditated = Considered beforehand.
3. Deliberate = Careful thought and weighing of considerations.

[Premeditation does not require] No particular length of time.
No planning required.

The word planning doesn't appear in the instruction at all.

Applies the facts to the law. DDA Hum goes over each one of these points.

There was significant evidence that he had decided to do, even before he took Lauren out on Inspiration Point.

Even if he didn't do that, even if he thought about it, before he did it. That still makes it first degree murder.

Second reason why first degree murder. Lying in wait.

1. Waiting and watching for opportune time to act.
2. Concealment of purpose.
Take the victim by surprise.
Victim may be aware of murder's presence.

He waited until the coast was clear and he took Lauren by surprise. That is also first degree murder. It really is that simple.

Also going to have to decide the special circumstances. The first we just talked about murder by lying in wait. Lying in wait makes this first degree murder, it is also the special circumstance.

Murder by financial gain. Getting out of a debt getting out of paid child support is financial gain.

Financial gain.
1. Murder was intentional.
2. Murder carried out for financial gain.
May be to end financial obligation.
Need not be a dominant substantial or significant motive.

Mentions the defendant's hatred for Sarah.

And that's it. That's the law as it applies to murder.

There are a couple other jury instructions that I want to mention. Credibility of witnesses.

One of the listed factors, is a biased interest in what they said. [Talks about the reliability/bias of:] The defendant's mother? The defendant's brother?

Another instruction related to circumstantial evidence. We talked about this in voir dire.

There were only two people who witnessed what happened on Inspiration Point that day, and one of them, Lauren is dead. So this case is proven with circumstantial evidence. Is just as good, just as powerful as direct evidence. Neither has more weight than the other.

Lets talk now for a few minutes of some of the witnesses. I'm not going to go over everything, but the reality is we've been here for a while. I do want to discuss some of the important aspects of the testimony of the witnesses.

Lauren's mother, Sarah, she testified about six weeks ago, some of the force of her testimony may have worn off a little.

Jon Hans, his best friend for over 10 years. Remember how he testified, read your notes. Read back if you need be.

Remenber the way these witnesses testified when they were up on that stand.

Lets talk about some of the testimony.

Sarah. Raised her as a single mother on her own until she married her current husband.
The woman, who he tries to get her to get an abortion.
Then he tries to get her deported.
From the very start, the defendant didn't want anything to do with a baby. Didn't want anything to do with Lauren. [He did everything he could] so he wouldn't be responsible.
He didn't want her to be born, and he hasn't wanted her since.

For the first three years, the defendant denied her existence.

The defense tried to state that he didn't know that she was pregnant. We know from Anne O'Mera, that he spoke to her about his girlfriend who was pregnant. If he didn't know she was pregnant, then why did he take her in for the appointment? DDA Hum mentions the many people [he lists them], that Brown told that his girlfriend was pregnant so he tried to have her deported.

They [those witnesses] have no reason to lie that the defedant said this unless he didn't [?]. He wanted to get out of having a child. He wanted nothing to do with being a father. He told Sarah that, the former girlfriend [Jeanne Barrett] that and Linda Peterson that. He leaves messages on her [Sarah's] voice mail, "Are you still here." He tells Sarah the INS is going to be knocking on your door any minute.

These all tell us not only did the defendant not want Lauren, he didn't want this burden on his carefree life style. It also shows us the level of anger and it shows his desire for revenge. It shows us the lengths the defendant was willing to go to avoid being a father and to hurt Sarah. How badly he wanted to make her pay.

Never contacts Sarah after Lauren was born. [Why Sarah never contacted Brown when Lauren was born.]The defendant had made it abundantly clear, that he didn't want anything to do with her.

She doesn't contact him because he's contacted her work to try to have her deported and she was afraid that she was going to lose her insurance.

In fact, the defendant told two of his best friends he was trying to hide out from Sarah. Moved his boat to a different dock he changed his phone numbers. It shows the lengths hes willing to go to to not be responsible.

Sarah never heard a thing from him when he was served by the Orange County DA.

Then he has to pay $1,000.00 a month for a child he never wanted, to a woman he hated. $1,000.00 is a lot of money to a man like the defendant.

He tries to get the child support reduced. The first thing he does is try to get the child support reduced. He asks for joint legal custody and he's never even met her. He doesn't want custody, he wants to get his child support reduced. He said in papers this was in the best interest in the child, how would he even know? He's never even met the child.

He cares only about him and he cares about getting back at Sarah.

After the visits started, problems started. The defendant told Sarah his own mother is a bitch, and evil person and he hated her. He [didn't want his mother to have a relationship with Lauren.] He wanted to get back at his mother.

Sarah offered the defendant to have Greg adopt Lauren. Why would Sarah lie about that if it wasn't true? It was in June, months before the murder.

Defendant told Jon that the child would be adopted and he could move closer to Jon Hans.

Motion for 32% reduction in child support was filed months before and the defendant [was willing to have Greg adopt Lauren. He] wasn't going to remove that, unless the adoption goes through.

About the adoption has to go through in 30 days. This happened in February. He was going to get married in March. Patty wanted a family. But she was 47, and she couldn't have a family. That's what it meant by getting it done in 30 days or it would get ugly.

DDA Hum talks about how Brown got angry and threatened Sarah in the hallway of the court. He said to her, "Your just like my mother." Mentions Jerome [Tony] Poingsett testimony, that he wanted to torture the mother. He's going to get his revenge. It's all about him.

Using Lauren as a tool to torture Sarah. When Lauren came home, she refused to talk about her visits with Brown. [And she talked all the time.] [Mentions the statements that Lauren said, Greg's just a step dad; Josh is just a step brother.] Now mentions the statements that Lauren said to Leanne Ormes. "Pappa Cameron is going to put my mommy in jail because she's stealing his money."

He falsely accuses Sarah of child abuse. Jon Hans, he doesn't believe them for a second. Jan Mueller, the mediator, didn't believe them.

The defense said, well, maybe he's just concerned about these bruises. Brown lied. He said [to Jan Mueller] that Sarah grabbed Lauren by the mouth. She kicked her. She spanked her hard. He's doing it to torment Sarah. You can see the lengths hes willing to go. Puts Lauren in the front seat of the car. Tells Lauren to tell her mother to shut up because you're with your father now.

He enjoys the torture. He shows the length he's willing to go to hurt Sarah, how vindictive he is. Using Lauren as a tool. He knew he could use her, to punish Sarah.

Wednesday, 11/8/2000. Lauren singing on her way to school, until she learns that she has to go with her father and she starts crying. And she doesn't stop crying. She cries all day long. She wants to go home. She want's her Mommy. We know this from everyone was there.

And crying, as every parent knows, it wears a child out. The teachers who saw Lauren crying, and the other witnesses. She's crying all day long and she's still crying as she's carried away for the last time.

We all know how Sarah found out that her daughter is dead. He's worried that his wife would see him on TV but couldn't care less how Sarah found out that her daughter was dead.

We saw how it affected her, and we saw how it affected her 15 years later. She was physically ill, throwing up. [That's way] different than the defendant, complaining about his boots being wet.

What does she say [when she learns about Lauren's death]? She knew. He killed my baby. He murdered. And from that day, all the way up until the defendant was arrested three years later, the defendant has never said a word to Sarah about the last minutes of her daughter's life. She's begging. You've heard the phone calls. I just need to know about my baby. He mocks. He's enjoying her pain. Helllooo! Helloooo! He's having a great time. He's laughing on the phone, while Sarah is begging him.

It just goes to show, how much the defendant hated Sarah. Even more, we have the meeting at LAX International. And that's recorded. Not only does the defendant mock her, "I'm ignoring you." Sarah says at one point, "You did it, didn't you?" And he doesn't deny it. All he has to say is no, I didn't do that. But he never says that. Never once does he deny to Sarah, that he killed her.

Even more, the next day he goes to the police, and claims that Sarah committed a felony against him. And those are total lies. And we know that because the whole incident was recorded. He goes to the police and he wants her prosecuted. We even have a note that he wrote to that. And that was a flat out lie. It goes to show the lengths he would go to hurt Sarah. He tries to have her arrested and prosecuted for a crime he totally made up? Who does that? Especially to the mother of a dead child? Who does that? He does.

You don't think he enjoyed tormenting Sarah? You don't think he wanted to hurt her in any way he could? He wanted to have her arrested and prosecuted for something he just made up. Psychological issues. Ya think?

And of course, Sarah tells us about Lauren and the kind of little girl she was. She was 4 years, 2 months and 10 days old. Everyone who knew her described her the same way. She was obedient.

No one would ever say [Lauren wouldn't do something physical. She liked to read. She liked to color. She liked to play house; play dress up. But she also liked to play on the playground she liked to play on the swings. But that's as adventurous as she got. She was afraid of heights. [Mentions Mitchel DeGraff's testimony.] She came inside if the kids were playing too rough.

She was scared of a worm. She was screaming that it was a snake. She's screaming when she was carried to close to the pier at Huntington Beach. Imagine a girl like Lauren, leading the defendant up to Inspiration Point and running around. That U shaped area that we saw? Seriously? She was afraid of a worm. She was afraid of the tunnels at McDonald's. That was utter nonsense.

She always wanted to be carried. [Mentions the defense witness who testified about Halloween.] We went trick or treating. We walked for almost a mile. Oh yeah, but the defendant had to carry her.

From everyone who knew Lauren, mentions all the witnesses. They all tell us, how Lauren was, and they all tell us there is no way, that Lauren is going to be running around out there on the edge of the cliff. They also say that Lauren would not be hiking. Mentions the camping trip. And the easy hike that Lauren didn't go on. Sarah encouraged her to go, but Lauren didn't want to go. Laruen was sitting with Janice's baby in the stroller.

All the pictures of Lauren that the defendant brought in? What was she doing. What she always does. [She was playing with dolls, birthday party, eating cake.] Not hiking. Does the defendants lawyer really want us to believe she was running at the U shaped slope? She was four. She was not like that.

When the defendant [lawyer?] said she was running around at the edge of the cliff, he's lying. And innocent people don't need to lie. He's locked into that story. But unless you believe that story, then the defendant threw her from that cliff.

We heard from some of the teachers at the school. Why would Lena Patel lie? She tells us every time that when the defendant came to pick up Lauren, she would hide. The defendant would raise his voice with her. [Gives examples?] When the teacher offered suggestions, he told her, "Don't tell me what to do."

He has an anger management problem, Jan Muller, the defendant's own witness thought so. The defendant never asked about Lauren at school. And that Lauren said that the defendant was mean to her. And that every time that Lauren was picked up at the school, he was with Patty, when he picked up Lauren, except for the day he killed her.

Why are these witnesses important? They show that the defendant is a liar. He is lying about what happened out on Inspiration Point. He was lying when he claimed that Lauren was running around on Inspiration Point. He's lying when he says that Lauren was playing on that U shaped area of Inspiration Point. All the witnesses who knew Lauren said she wouldn't do that. Innocent people don't lie.

He just decided to take her to these cliffs alone, rather than take her back to Patty's condo, while Patty's on the internet, trying to find ways to take Lauren from Sarah.

He decides to take her to Inspiration Point, a place the defendant states that he's some what familiar with.

Now talking about arriving at IP and the parking lot. [Deborah Jenkin's testimony about feeling there was something wrong. She thought it was a kidnapping.] The photos he took of her with the disposable camera. Take a look at those photos. Does it really look like she's having such a good time? And then the defendant states that she just took off hiking. And we know that she doesn't do that. Lauren doesn't hike. And the defendant said that he was having trouble keeping up with her. She had too much energy. That's not how the people out at Inspiration Point, describe it. [Mentions Sam Omar's testimony.] His family described how athletic he is how hes surfing and hiking.

It's just a total lie. The people out there [mention's their testimony]. [That he can't keep up], that's a lie. Mr. Omar, he saw the defendant when they came out of that ditch area, Mr. Omar sees them there, the defendant is at least 4-5 feet in front of Lauren. Does that sound like the defendant is struggling to keep up with Lauren?

The defendants story is, she is leading him. Mr. Omar has no reason to lie.

The whole time that Mr Omar saw the defendant and Lauren, the defendant was in front and Lauren was trying to keep up. He said that Lauren was very quiet. There's no talking. Where are the photos of Lauren hiking up on Portuguese Point? The testimony of Mr. Omar contradicts the story that Lauren was leading him and he was having trouble keeping up.

[Mr. Omar] It was so strange that he contacted the police. It was weird to him. It shows the defendant was lying and innocent people don't need to lie.

[Witness] Mr. Withrow on the hills. Every time he saw the defendant, the defendant was in front. He has no reason to lie. All three times he saw the defendant the defendant was in front of Lauren and Lauren was struggling to keep up.

[Witness] Mr. Barber, man who was driving by, he saw the defendant in front of Lauren.

Stop and think about it. The defendant is lying about Lauren on that playground, about what happened on the hike, and about Lauren wanting to go on Inspiration Point. Terry Hope, when they come to the Y in the trail that comes up the side, the defendant is steering her up on the trail, up onto Inspiration Point. His hands are making contact with her back, and she's crawling up on Inspiration Point. Does that sound like he had a hard time keeping up with her? The defendant is lying.

And if the defendant is lying about the beginning of the hike, if he's lying about what when on, on the hike, if the defendant is lying about Lauren wanted to go out onto the point, then why would we believe [what he said] what happened out on Inspiration Point?

Putting aside for a minute the claims she slid off, the bio mechanics, why should be believe anything because the defendant has lied about everything about that hike.

Dr. Berkowitz' testimony, the pediatrician. She's asked from a child development perspective, if Lauren would have initiate the hike and done it unassisted. She said Lauren would not have initiated that hike [and would not have completed the hike] unless she was assisted or coerced.

DDA Hum gives examples of how Brown could have coerced Lauren. [You don't want to go, then I'll just leave.]

It's hard to appreciate the difficulty of that hike without doing it, but remember being out on Portuguese Point and looking back at the hillside and the distance. You can't even see the parking lot from Inspiration Point.

Now where the defendant said that Lauren went out on Inspiration Point to enjoy the view. Why not stay on Portuguese Point where it's fenced in and wide and safe? Well we know why. There are too many people on Portuguese Point. He saw Sam Omar on Portuguese Point.

Portuguese Point has a fence and Portuguese Point has people. The defendant told detectives that he sat on that U shaped area. The defendant would have us believe that Lauren was running around and throwing rocks in that area.

He tells Detective Leslie the first time that he looked away and then when he looked back she was gone. That's also what he tells Deputy Brothers. The second story [he tells Detective Leslie] he sees her feet go over. The third story he sees the back left portion of her body with her arms out in front of her.

If the defendant was telling the truth, we wouldn't hear several different stories because the truth doesn't change. All those stories are different from what he tells his buddy Mark Thompson. He told Capt. Curcio, that he looked over the cliff and saw Lauren in the water. That's different that what he told Detective Leslie that he couldn't see Lauren in the water.

I would want to think that someone would want to see if their daughter is still alive. He doesn't do that. He goes to the nude beach and spends five and a half minutes on a cell phone. Listen to that 911 call. He's chuckling. He's apologizing to the nude sun bathers. [The witness Jeremy Simmons who loaned Brown his phone.] He thought the defendant was so nonchalant, that he thought it was a scam. When you listen to that 911 call, you'd think he was talking about where his car broke down or ordering a pizza.

He never asks them to hurry up. He even thanks them and says goodbye. After, then he goes back over Inspiration Point to get Lauren face down in the water. This daughter that he so loves, what does he do? He strips down his clothes, so he won't be cold. Just like he saw on Baywatch. What was he thinking about? He was thinking about himself.

He first lays her on the rocks. By getting her out of that inlet, and he has to hoist her out of the water. That's where the minimal scratches on her body come from. He tries to say that he did CPR? She's been in the water for 15 minutes, but there's no blood on the defendant's goatee. He takes the time to take off his wet underwear, before he gets dressed.

How does the defendant react to this horrible accident? Indifferent; in control. No one had ever seen anything like this. Detective Leslie has only seen a reaction like this before. Only once.

The defense brought in Dr. Brooker to say that different people react differently. I'll agree with that, but not like this. More people who have [experience responding to emergencies] never seen a reaction like Brown's before, while his daughter is lying dead on the picnic table.

He's not concerned about Lauren. He's concerned about being filmed by the media. He's concerned about his car, his surfboard. His wet boots.

And that attitude, that complete lack of concern carries over with the interview with Detective Leslie. He's not in shock. He's just not interested. When something like this happens, no matter how removed, whether parents or caretakers, they try to blame themselves. Brown's mother felt guilty. The person who took the money in the parking lot, she felt guilty. The defendant took no responsibility at all. He blamed Lauren.

When the detectives tell him you're the adult you should take responsibility, he said, it wasn't his fault. She wanted to go up there. He blamed a four year old child.

Talks about the undeveloped film in the camera, no photos, of Lauren on the hike or running around on Inspiration Point. Because, she wasn't.

And a few days after this, the defendant is ready to move on with his life. Scott Simonson's testimony. First words out of Brown's mouth. "Hey dude what's up!" Then says, he can't let it affect me long term. So what's up with you.

So [the defense says?] maybe he's just not an emotional guy. We know that's not true. Former girlfriend Jeanne Barrett. The testimony of Fran Clifford. Other testimony of other witnesses is mentioned.

He doesn't confront you directly, you see the anger, he gets his revenge behind your back.

The defendant is very emotional when it's about him, just not when it's about Lauren. And we know the detectives tried to talk to him again after that night. We know it's not that they didn't try.

Remember when he was talking to detective Lillienfeld, the defendant said, he got a lawyer because the detectives came to his house and got photos and took my computer. That's interesting because the search warrant wasn't served until two months later. He said Patty also got an attorney because she was on the hike.

Two days after Lauren' murder, the defendant is back on the computer, checking the surf reports. They also see that Patty was the driving force, of trying to get custody of Lauren. That note she wrote. They also find that on the day Lauren was murdered, Patty, for the first time, is on the Internet checking out web sites, trying to find ways to take Lauren away from Sarah. You can bet that Patty was the one who was bringing that topic up to the defendant.

The creepy photos of Lauren in the defendant's house, where she's clutching her hands. She's also doing that in one of the photos taken on the hike.

Talks about the cut out photos in the cigar box, with black candles and ceramic figurine and they're under the defendant's bed.

The financial aspects. We also know that Patty was after the defendant to adopt Lauren. And the defendant didn't want anything to do with having Lauren in his life. He's selfish. He wanted to surf. Even ... it's about the way he was treated in jail. Conversation with Hans while in jail; [it's all about him] nothing about Lauren.

Take the declaration that was filed in court, where the defendant claims Lauren was being abused. That was drafted, by Patty. It's a draft, alleging abuse, and it was drafted by Patty. The defendant doesn't want Lauren. She'd be around for 18 years.

The money. The defendant brings in the mother and brother who said he didn't care about money. Oh really? Look at those documents he filed in court. Look at all the witnesses he told that the child support was a hardship.

Patty had the money. She controlled the purse strings. On the day that Lauren was murdered, Patty had a condo in her name. Money in retirement and she was unemployed. Money is tight. The defendant had no credit, no access at. [Mentions the amount that was in his accounts.] He had a small amount of money to his name.

Complained to Tony Poingsett, his coworker, wouldn't it be nice, if we could just get rid of the kid? You remember Tony, He was a bit of a character. He has no reason to lie. Unless you believe that he want's to get him convicted of murder, because he wants to get back [at him] for the defendant complaining about people at work.

Dr. Hayes testimony that Lauren died from an assisted drop. Dr. Chinwah's testimony. An expert in the manner and cause of death in human beings. Performed over 8,000 autopsies. He knows they types of injures that people suffer. He knows what these injuries look like. He didn't rely on photographs or diagrams. He went there. He looked at the cliff. He said absolutely, this is a homicide. This is not an accident. This is an assisted fall. He went over his findings with Dr. Lakshmana [the department head and he agreed with the conclusions].

We were out there last week. Because of the nature of the cliff, it's not just a straight drop. If Lauren had slid down the cliff, Lauren would have had numerous lacerations and abrasions. And what she had, was just not enough, for that to have happened.

There was no evidence of multiple impacts with the cliff. Dr. Chinwah was adamant. This was not an accident.

Dr. Siegmund's analogy, [with the apple] well, maybe she hit twice in the same spot.

This lack of slipping and sliding is consistent with what Detective Leslie and Deputy Falicon found when they inspected that cliff. Deputy Falicon found no evidence to support the claim that Lauren slipped and fell.

Remember the claim by the defendant that he heard some slipping and sliding to [Firefighter] Lt. Erickson? We saw no evidence that was true. There's no evidence on Lauren's body and there's no evidence on the cliff. It doesn't support the defendant's claim.

The footprints that Falicon saw on the U shaped area. They saw five footprints, just like what Deputy Falicon saw. Detective Leslie saw he was making the same type of prints that Falicon saw. They didn't not see any child footprints.

If Lauren had slipped and fallen, there would have been evidence on Lauren's body and there would be evidence at the top of the cliff, and it's not there.

The physical evidence contradict the defendant's story.

Now goes over the testimony of Dr. Hayes and his extensive CV. He reviewed all the relevant evidence, not just selective reports. Dr. Hayes went to the scene three times. He did extensive experiments backed it up with detailed reports. He shares he work with anyone and everyone. He provided those reports 10 years ago [to the defense] and when there was updated information, he gave it to the defense. He comes to two separate related conclusions. Lauren could not have slipped and fallen and received those injuries. And two, Lauren could only have received those injuries if she was thrown from the cliff.

Dr. Chinwah had the same conclusion. Her injuries are not consistent with a slip and fall. Those small injuries could have been received when she was crawling up the cliff, or when the defendant brought her body up out of the water.

Goes over Dr. Hayes' simulations that he did.

Cross examination of Dr. Hayes. He was obsessed about the back yard experiments and about the rope. It has nothing to do with what the defendant did on November 8, 2000. It was just trying to distract us from what actually happened.

Dr. Hayes got nothing from anybody. Dr. Hayes wrote everything down, and turned everything over.

Dr. Chinwah and Dr. Hayes came to the conclusion independently that Lauren was thrown and could not have sustained her injuries from a slip and fall. And that's supported by the evidence at the top of the cliff.

Now talks about defense witnesses. The defendant's mother. She kept changing things. She sat in on all the witnesses said at the prior testimony. John Jack Dietzler's testimony, about how he met Lauren ten times and that he met her at Christmas. And we know that's not true because the defendant' didn't get unsupervised visits until February 2000. DDA Hum goes over more testimony of Mr. Deitzler.

Mr. Thompson's testimony. That Brown told the witness that Inspiration Point was one of their [Brown's and Lauren's] favorite hiking spots. Now goes over the testimony of Thompson about how he couldn't remember what he previously testified to.

More testimony from Thompson. Then testimony from Joseph Creenan, and how he called him and told him that he wanted to have the mother deported.

Terry Hope who said he had sweat in his eyes and he couldn't remember what the defendant and Lauren were wearing. He also said, in November 2000, that the grass [on Inspiration Point] is slippery where this happened. Except he's never been up on Inspiration Point, until six years later when the defense investigator [takes him] up there.

He sees Brown and Lauren half way up the trial at 2:05 PM. He knows because he looked at his watch. We know that the 911 call was about an hour later. What were they doing up there all that time? Mr. Hope states that the last time he saw them, Brown was assisting Lauren up the cliff, even this witness, thought, something's not right.

Now going over the CV of Dr. Siegmund and comparing his expertise to Dr. Hayes. The defense never prepared a report. He presented a PowerPoint about a week before he testified and it's basically Dr. Hayes' PowerPoint. Talks about what Siegmund did and didn't do and how his opinions are contradicted by Dr. Hayes.

Talks about the thrown golf balls video and the problems with it. The girls were told to run faster, make a bigger throw. And of all the 32 instances of encouragements, they could only get one girl to step over the twig. It's also troubling that Dr. Siegmund never read Dr. Chinwah's testimony. It was available. It directly contradicted what he said.

Dr. Booker, but he doesn't really add anything. He had to read about the defendant's behavior in reports. Can't say that is was in shock. Never saw the defendant's behavior. Lists the witnesses that were there, [Detective Leslie, Deputy Brothers, Captain Curcio, etc.] that saw the defendant. The first responders know shock when they see it and they said he was not in shock.

Now Jan Mueller, the defense witness, that she had concerns about the defendant, that he was emotionally unstable. Reads in all the other testimony that Jan Mueller stated that the defendant hated his mother, the false accusations against Sarah and the very same day, asked for a reduction in child support.

All I ask is that you consider the evidence, look at it, and apply the law. And that I ask that you use your common sense. And remember what Inspiration Point is really like. I ask you to look at it as a whole and how it all adds up. It's like Jon Hans said, when you look at all the evidence, it all adds up.

Mentions all the things that Brown did, to hurt Sarah. He never wanted a child . He hated paying child support. He lied about everything that happened on Nov 8, 2000. Lists all the things that Brown lied about. No evidence of children's footprints. No evidence of slipping and sliding. There are insufficient injuries. There are no injuries consistent with slipping and sliding off the cliff. The only way that could have happened is if she were thrown.

Also remember last week, remember what we saw with our own eyes. Remember that U shaped area, that the defendant claimed that Lauren was running around playing. It brings us to only one horrifying, inescapable conclusion. The only reasonable conclusion is that this man threw four year old Lauren Sarene Key to her death. He murdered that little girl.

The people [ask you to come back with a verdict of murder?]
.
The court states they will take a 10 minute break. They resume in a few minutes to 12:30 where we will take our break.

Bailiff. Remain seated until the jury leaves.
11:47 AM

11:56 AM
The gallery gets set. People file back in. The judge asks for the jury.

The bailiff warms the gallery about turning their phones back off to mute.

We wait for the jurors.
11:59 AM

The bailiff comes in and speaks to the judge. Judge asks for counsel at the bench.

The court states they are going to release the jurors until 1 PM and then we'll be back in session at 1 PM.

Stand in recess.

12:21 PM
My friend Katie and I decide to try to get a quick lunch at Pitfire Grill, on the corner of Main and Second, just behind LAPD Headquarters. We're going to try to be back in Dept. 107 by 1:00 PM.

12:59 PM
The gallery is brought into the courtroom a few minutes before the jury. Now the defense is up. It will be interesting to see if the defense closing and the prosecution's final closing argument will be finished before 4:00 PM

DDA Hum and Detective Leslie stand in their regular spot, right in front of the jury box. Defense attorney Aron Laub isn't here yet. Most of Sarah's supporters are her. Sarah makes it into the courtroom at 1:01 PM.

1:04 PM
Mr. Laub arrives.

The jury files in.

1:06 PM
We are back on the record.

First on behalf on Mr. Brown and myself, also would like to thank you. What's you're doing is a public service and it's taken a long time and the hardest part is to come. so thank you for doing this.

I told you at the beginning is two tragedies, is that four year old Lauren and the other is the prosecution of Cameron. That second statement of mine is hard to follow, because what you've heard from the prosecution, it doesn't sound like this is very tragic. That there's been any real mistake made. But what you haven't seen, is the way in which a large part of the prosecutions case is ? The very first thing I'm going to address is a battle of the experts. I don't mean Dr. Hayes and Dr. Siegmunt. I mean Dr. Hayes and Dr. Chinwah.

Contrary to the prosecution they did not come to the same conclusion. They came to directly opposite conclusions. Dr. Chinwah stated they injuries could only have come from an impact at the bottom of Inspiration Point in the water where the rocks are. I went over this two or three times with him.

One of the the things the court is going to tell you, you can have testimony read back. If there's anything that the prosecution said in closings or the prosecution says in closing that doesn't match up in your notes, ... you can always have it read back.

You will have to have Dr. Chinwah's testimony read back in regards to where the impact took place. And what you're going to hear that it could not be a side impact. That it's not the impact that Dr. Hayes says. [That he lied?].

What he was talking about, as he described those injuries, he was talking about Lauren hitting the rocks horizontal, not head first. One of the ways that came up, is that I asked him, what about these scratches, these bruises, one of the things he said was, one of the possible explanations was, the rock was uneven. And so a major injury could occur in one part of the body, and that's because the rock at the bottom is uneven.

Because that was so important, I asked him, what about the ribs. If Lauren's ribs were not broken, then how was this flat horizontal impact. He explained that Lauren doesn't have bones in her ribs that were hard enough to have broken. But there was enough impact to cause lacerations to the spleen but the bones that were protecting her, would not have broken because she was too young.

Brown watches his counsel.

Dr. Hayes. Now, I agree with the prosecutionrwith the extent of, both of these men have very extensive credentials, and each has an opinion that carries weight. However, if you examine both there are problems. But the biggest problem, is that Dr. Hayes told you that these injuries are a signature that tell you a story. And that Lauren hit the cliff and she hit it head first, and that's the only way it could have happen. When I asked him about the ribs, the answer was, well, she has young bones. Dr. Hayes has studied medicine.

What he talked about is, they didn't break because the impact was on the head. When I said, what if she had fallen all the way to the bottom? Impossible. In his expert opinion, she had to hit her head first, and she would collapse like a beer can. The whole body would go [Mr. Laub makes a sound like splat].

Dr. Hayes when he spoke to you, in a warm friendliest way. Some of you may have felt he was a bit patronizing, or he seemed to be trying very hard to explain things simply, and at the end of his testimony and crossing him about Dr. Siegmund, he kept repeating that the laws of physics showed that anything that Dr. Siegmund said couldn't be true because of the laws of physics and the injury itself, supported the claim that this is what happened.

Dr. Hayes locked himself in that, that the body landed head first ... maybe he didn't read over Dr. Chinwah's testimony very carefully.

What does it tell us? [It] is the very reason why this is a tragic case, in regard to Cameron Brown, because everything in this case is filled with contradiction. We have a case where a horrible thing happen, as a father, as like many of you who are parents, I just got a chill, because I have to talk to you about something in a dry way that's totally foreign to my emotions. So this innocent four year old girl dies. And all of us are moved by that. All of us know, there is absolutely nothing that complicates that [?]. As a parent it's the most horrible thing to imagine.

And yet, I have to talk about the tragedy in regards to Cameron Brown, by the end of my talking with you, what I'm hoping is that you'll realize, what you'll come to the conclusion, is that it's an injustice to prosecute Cameron Brown for murder.

The prosecution has tried to persuade us that there are two motives that would cause him to kill this four year old child. One is monetary. The child support. The primary motive, some type of psychologically unbalanced motive against the mother Sarah. What one would have to be [is] insane to murder a child to get back at someone.

Just addressing the first motive. Finances. At the center of that, I'm sure you've thought about this, it's obvious. Is to express things and that they don't come to crosses, the adoption issue. We know that the easiest way out of the child support payments. And that if Sarah Key-Marer really said .... and that would have eliminated the whole issue. The prosecutor argues to you. Look at the timing of this.

Cameron brown told Sarah Key-Marer, I want to do that, and then he threatened her that it's got to be within 30 days. In a month he was going to marry Patty. I say it's the exact opposite. Lets assume you're a manipulative S.O.B .. is [to] have your cake and eat it too, and you will marry someone solely for her money and you're the kind of guy who only thinks about himself and is very selfish and unfeeling towards other people. I'm describing a psychopath. Lets assume we got this guy. And this guy has a problem to solve. He knows the woman he's marrying for money he knows that she's too old to have a baby and he's got this child with this other woman, and how is he going to somehow have his cake and eat it too. Is the better way for him to say, I don't want to adopt, and lead his perspective wife on, and then yeah, now I've got it on the hook I'll somoth talk her and things would be good.

She's not just marrying me for the kid and the marriage will keep moving forward after Lauren being adopted by Greg. The prosecutor is saying he would push the mother to go forward with the adoption that it would be completed before the marriage. I say that makes no sense. That's risking that Patty doesn't marry him. If he's a player and trying to keep things in place. Okay, I'll cool it to after the marriage. It doesn't matter what Patty says. The adoption is something that holds a major escape route to get out of the child support payments.

Where do we hear about the adoption? We know that Jan Mueller the mediator said that he heard it from the mother that adoption [was] from the mother. She never heard that from the father. In fact, nobody ever head that he wanted to have Lauren adopted, unless they heard it from Sarah Key-Marer with this exception, Was the past friend, who no longer felt the same way towards him, Jon Hans. And what did he claim.

Well, who was he? He was the guy who was once great friends with Cam, on and on, and at a certain point while Brown was in custody, Jon Hans ... Brown was in custody, he [Hans] could no longer stand being in limbo, That's what he said in the letter to Cameorn, and what did he mean by that? He's been trying to get Cam to talk on the jail phone, something Brown wouldn't do, about Mr Brown that's negative, because there are people on there are prosecution [?].

What is it that people do? They go on line and they get angry. In a situation like this what do people do? Jon's on there [online]. He 's read the grand jury transcript. [Mr. Laub mentions that the grand jury is just a one-sided proceeding, just prosecution evidence and no cross examination of witnesses by a defense.] [Hans] He's seen all that, and now he's really bothered about Cameron Brown and wanting Brown to talk to him. So the day comes that Jon Hans said, that it was it for him and he breaks it off. He decides that Cameron Brown is guilty. Now the options.

What he said was, that Cameron and Patty and told him that he and Patty were purchasing a trailer park in Moave Utah. They were able to do this because Cam was going to sign over custody and he was excited to do this.

Now the prosecution has talked about how Cam didn't have any money and he's relying on Patty to keep his immature lifestyle. Patty buys and sells property. What sense is there in Jon Hans claims? Brown says to him that Patty and I are buying property, and we can do it because Laurens going to be adopted. Which you've been told by the prosecution that Patty passionately didn't want to have happen. His testimony is a contradiction in itself. It's just another one of those things, when you first look at it it looks like he's been lying to different people. That conversation never happened. Why would he lie? All that I can tell you is, that people are complex. Just how people move to toward a pro prosecution resolution to this. Lets take a look at the evidence.

You've been t old the truth never changes. Who was an example of truth changing. We know that this table is solid and if I tap on it you'll hear a noise. A physicist will tell you that this is another form of energy and that solidity is only something that we perceive. But we're not dealing with people. We're dealing with physics here.

1:32 PM
Patty Brown arrives and sits in the gallery on the defense side.

The only thing, that keeps that moment a alive are the people who saw it heard it recorded it and later on tried to talk about it. That's the way truth comes about as an expression of human experience that has not been recorded. What's coming out of another person's mouth. That's a truth that can change from the moment it's perceived. It can change because their memory is not accurate.

Now they think that they have a memory that isn't exactly what they had. Mr. Laub mentions the people at the school. You saw Ms. Miletiech, said how hysterical Lauren was on Nov 8, 2000.

11/8/2000, Sarah said that Lauren was more hysterical than anyone had ever seen her. On the one hand, I say, ofcourse, we all feel upset for children. On the legal significance, I say so what. In what way, does Lauren being upset, that day at school, have anything to do with proving that Cameron Brown hand anything to do with her death. There's no cause and effect there.

Like the people at the school, [that] she had a premonition. If we take that out, Lauren being upset means nothing in this case becasue if she had been taken home, if she hadn't had an accident, there was a kid at school who was upset. Nothing more than that testimony was emotionally upsetting to all of us. Nothing more.

More on Miletich testimony. Miletich was comforting her and holding her on her lap. And this is, all very moving until you get to the cross examination, Miletich remembers something that she had never said before in the last 15 years and interviews of testimony and that suddenly she remembers that Lauren was saying to her, daddy is doing mean things to me. [Note. This is not correct. I missed this day and purchased the transcript. Miletich testified that Lauren said to Miletich that her father was mean, not that he said mean things to her. Sprocket]

That was so outrageous. Well, I asked her, did you ask Lauren what mean things her father was doing to her. She said, I don't remember.

There's an explanation for that. Miletich isn't a bad person, given the tragedy that everyone was dealing with. but it's largely explainable by how charged people feel about the death of a child. She can't remember. She's a mandated reporter yet she doesn't remember if she asked her that. And the most important question that she could have gotten answered, the most important thing she could have asked, was what was he doing because that would be critical.

Laub explains that if she had, then she would have not let him take her.

Now talking about Jean, asst director of the school. Because of the emotional burden of this case, she said something absolutely ridiculous, I'm sure motivated by a feeling that Cameron Brown had done a horrible things. She said, that Lauren was hysterical, and that she was talking to Lauren and Mr. Brown comes in, then says to Mr. Brown in and said to work with him. She said, she's [Lauren] not feeling well. And at that moment Lauren, instantaneously becomes a robot. Speaks in a monotone looks her straight in the face and says I'm fine. Then her father picks her up and starts crying again.

Mr. Laub talks about actors and actresses, there isn't a child in the world who acts like that. That was made up. She's not concerned in justice in the same way that you are. She's expressing the burden of this case by suddenly having memories with the way she feels.

Talk about the other witnesses from the school. We had another person who was friend of Sarah Key-Marer and a parent there. Jacquewyn Martin told us that Lauren was always a happy girl and when she got back from England her personality had changed. And that when she found out that a child at the school died, she just knew it was her.

One of the things that Sarah Key-Marer said, was that he killed her and that he murdered my daughter. And that is that Lauren is somehow perceiving her future death. And the friend who just knew that Lauren had died. And that Sarah just knew.

Laub talks about that none of this is legal proof of anything. It's all stuff that you heard presented by the prosecution because it creates a feeling like a horror movie. You just know. You heard that sound. was it really just a window shutter banging in the wind. And that's whats' going on here, is our minds and emotions are being played with here. They're not proving anything.

Marlene Quram. Said she had never seen Lauren cry before and that Lauren cried on this date. Seemed like on the stand, she said, that Lauren had calmed down a bit with Cameron, but she was still crying as she went to Brown's car. She said Lauren was walking. No one was outside but her and her daughter. So, every one of the adults that was in the school, that were concerned about Lauren being upset. How was it, that there wasn't another adult, who didn't see Lauren being so upset with her father.

It helps to put things in perspective. So instead of what you have this horror event going on in the school, it's custody battle, things are going well, and later we'll talk to Mom. One parent who isn't getting all carried away is the one person outside. ...

Custody issues, it's just business as usual. So that's the school.

Will take less time talking about some of the other things. Out at the scene, on Inspiration Point, we heard from Deputy Brothers. [She] said things that is this theme of people getting over emotional and creating their own truth. And that was Victor Rosenthal, who contacted the prosecution and said he could help them get this guy.

He thought that what he had to say, was bring him into the theater, and hear what he had to say, that Cameron Brown was emotionless. He said things that were clearly untrue. That Brown was 20 feet away from the table. He didn't notice anyone there from the Sheriff's department. And we know that's not true because Deputy Brothers never left Brown's side.

More about what Rosenthal testified to. So what they got in is a human story and not evidence. Rosenthal really wants to help convict Mr. Brown. Because he didn't see any emotions on Cameron Browns face. He can't tell you anything at all. It part of the theme of the case. Horrible tragedy that occurred, and people want to solve it regardless of the facts.

At the scene Deputy Brothers. You heard a lot of what she had to say, the only point I want to make, and the prosecutor in his argument kept mentioning that his shoes were wet. I don't understand, maybe you will have a different view, maybe I'm limited in the way I look at this. What is that supposed to mean? He's being made to sit there for hours. He's not being made to sit there for hours. He voluntarily sat there.

This was supposed to be a planned murder. And, everyone is talking who sees him that he doesn't have a proper emotional affect. He's blank he's seems not to care. And comments that seem bizarre. Mentions the election comment. Does a weird thing down at the water. Says, I saw on Baywatch, and changes his clothes. To me that bizarre. He's doing things bizarre as to what he's relating to the fire department or other personnel.

So maybe he's a lunatic, but no one is saying that. Going back to former girlfriends of 14 years. They don't say he's a lunatic, they say he's a, you know what I mean. ... He a lousy boyfriend. He's a nasty guy. But they're not saying he was a total raving lunatic. And the people at the scene are not saying he's a total raving lunatic. In fact, anything, the prosecution is not saying he's a lunatic. Why would someone who so plans to kill his four year old daughter of his because he's filled with hatred for the mother and get out of child support.

Why doesn't he make it and put on his best impression that someone is really sad, and I'll made them feel? ???? But he doesn't do that. And he shows no emotion in all the years of a parent who lost a child.

Well either it means that he didn't plan, and it wasn't thought through and it isn't like the prosecution says, or it .... [he is crazy] then we get to Dr. Booker.

Goes over how the prosecution, in the way DDA Hum cross examined Dr. Booker. He was there for one specific purpose, in the things that were recorded, the 911 call, and I was upset by that audio recording because it was hard to identify with, that voice as the voice of someone who's child had died. What did Dr. Booker said, all these things are within, normal human response, of this kind of tragedy. He didn't say that he knew that Cameron Brown was not guilty. He didn't say that he knew that Brown was in shock. He was a serious highly educated, very calm professional man, who said one limited thing. And that is that these things that were recorded were odd. And this tape recording that sounds odd, are withing the range of normal actions of people who go into shock like this.

Now what did the prosecutor do, to overcome that? Well he didn't address it. He pulled out the DSM-5, what is in that manual, in the cross examination, are diagnoses. And these psychiatric diagnoses, that a doctor has to have are conditions. This, this, this, this, this, and out of those ten there must have been these present and this point of several at this point. It's a diagnosis tool for a disorder.

It's what psychologists works with or psychiatrists for deeply rooted problems.

What he was saying is it was transitory, symptoms of shock.

What I can tell you is that the reported things that Cameron Brown said and did are consistent with a normal response to a human tragedy. What did that do for the defense, is it created a reasonable new possibility from the mouth of someone who knows about these things.. The prosecution theory is that it's evidence of guilt. It could have reasonably been, symptoms of shock.

Now back at the scene, and why he's talking about his wet shoes, and he stayed at that scene voluntarily. If you were going to plan a murder, why would you stay there for all these hours? He didn't have to. My thinking about this, hopefully it will be clearer having you look at this. I'm putting myself in the shoes of someone I really can't. I'm trying to think how as a manipulative psychopath, I'm going to go ahead and say that. I'd tell them a story, and I'd leave. I can't be there. I'm too much in sorrow.

Or maybe I want to call my wife. Or maybe I say you can keep me out her for hours and then take me to a police station where I'm going to sit for hours, you can do all of that. No. In order for that to be understood, the best way the best answer to that is is that in fact Brown is upset, and his way to respond to that is to withdraw. He tried to make awkward social connections from that dark place. So he does things like, he says to the people, [at the nude beach] to get dressed now.

But, you and I wouldn't even think about that. But he is just lost, and he's trying to talk to the people on the other end. I'm sure anyone being on the phone for trying to talk to the 911. It was ridiculous. Did you hear their tone of voice? It was just a reaction of hearing Cameron Brown's tone of voice.

Brown is not the only one who sounds weird on that call, they sound weird on that call. While this is going on, Brown says to these people, you can her it in his voice. He's trying to make a chuckle out of it. The same way he leads with. ... Sgt. Brothers on the cliff, the same way he says to her, who won the election.

These are, feeble attempts to connect to another human being because you are so lost inside yourself, you're not really doing well at all. That's what I read into it, because you can't understand it any other way.

Laub states he will move on. One of the things that we did hear throughout the witnesses that support Cameron Brown, that he was never violent to a living [person]. Although you've heard that 4 years before Lauren died, he rammed his car into a girlfriends. I'm not saying I'd never try to tell you that Cameron is a guy that everyone is going to like. I don't think it's necessary to like him as an individual to to give him justice. I don't think it's necessary to defend his immature actions or his destruction of property or the way he speaks to people to give justice as a human being. Because the testimony you've been given doesn't add up to murder.

I'm not defending a murderer. I'm standing up here for a man whose been wrongfully accused of murder.

Being told the primary motive of Cameron Brown. You heard form Tony Poingsett. This is the only time we've heard anything about hurting a living creature. And Brown would open the bag and the pigeon would flap his wings. Something that happened at the airport. He was angry at Cameron Brown and he was standing there and laughing at people when the bird was looking at people. I don't like it that someone would do this. I don't like it that he would have that kind of crappy teenage attitude thinking that is funny. As someone [Mr. Laub] with three dogs and three cats, but one that doesn't like that.

That's the closest the prosecution came to showing that he's a ? creature. The hatred. Detective Lillienfeld. He's the one that Detective Leslie set up so that Brown would talk about the incident.

Did Cameron Brown do something wrong in filing a report? Maybe yes maybe no, I say maybe no because there is evidence before you that he had his helmet on and she was yelling at him. I'm not going to argue that it was actually said by her, or if he heard it or not .Maybe he did. Questions how much of the prosecution calls murder as hatred is[?].

The custody battle. I'm sure all of you who have had, or heard from someone custody battles. They file false police reports and they used children, and even the attorney testified that the worst thing that happens is that people end up killing the kids and that didn't happen here either.

When Lillienfeld talked to Cameron Brown he doesn't say he's with the Sheriffs' Department. Cameron Brown takes to him. Brown relates to him as an authority figure as a grown up who listens to him. Lillienfield had instructions to try to get him to talk to abut the case. An try to get him to say things where he hates Sarah Key-Marer. Lillienfeld says basically he tries things several different ways to say male chauvinist ways that it us against them, and as guys we can talk freely because we all know how bad women are to us. Brown says nothing. Why? In the talk, Brown doesn't even take that bait, when the officer asks him why do you thin she would do that? [Brown answers] I think she may think I killed Lauren. Some words to this effect.

And at a certain point, he says to Lillienfeld, I really want to talk to her, but the lawyer won't let me. Does any of what I've just described, show a man of gun wrenching hatred, that hes going to kill a child to get back at her? Do these pieces fit together?

Prosecution says that he perjured himself on the court document that he said he at 50% custody. And that it's a lie. The family law attorney cleared that up. Her name was... Laub is searching for the witness name.

What happened was, I had her look at the form she said on the form the defendant is requesting, why the child support should be lowered, because I had 50%.

I thought it would be obvious. He made a mistake in filling out the form. He wants it lowered in the figure that he's requesting. Why does the prosecution keep pushing that? I call it the magic show. A sleight of hand and a use of misdirection. So what happens is, you thin you're focused on one thing but the magician has you focusing on another.

The prosecution is focusing you on this perjurious time share, when their own witness explained it on it's own face, that it was a mistake. It makes no sense that it's anything but a mistake. More on this point.

2:20 PM
So how else is it that Cameron Brown shows his hatred? Because he refuses to tell Sarah Key-Marer, how Laruen died? Explains that she might twist what you say, you can't talk. That's just standard attorney advice. That's what he was given. Why does he stick to that advice?

[In the interview with Detective Leslie and Danny Smith] he's already jumped by detectives who yell at him, and accused him of murder. And also that they yelled at him to look at a dead photo of Lauren. [I believe Laub also mentions that Brown was reluctant to look at the photo.]

Also the issue that he didn't contact the mother or to let he know that Lauren is dead. Why doesn't he have detectives call in his presence and so he can hear her response, this sadistic psychopath?

No, it's just everything, that you're being presented with by the prosecution. Walk around [it?]. Look at each one of the supposed fact argued by the prosecution, walk around it and see if there' another facet, another explanation that is reasonable. Which is why it makes it such a tragic case.

He refuses to talk with her on the [hone. There's a point in the recording, where Sarah, keeps calling him and finally you hear him say Hello. And that's supposed to be him torturing her? What that is is she's called so many times, and that he's at this point, he knows that he cant' talk to her. [I believe Laub presents this as Brown's exasperation, that Sarah keep calling and she knows that he can't talk to her.]

It's so lacking in adulthood, this kind of detached, why are you keep bugging me this kind of response. That's one of the things that would be unlikeable, where one witness said hes' a teenager in a mans body. He reverts, in ways that are just obnoxious, that are really, offensively just obnoxious.

Quick moment, to try to trim this down. I''ll just make a couple of quick comments by Detective Leslie.

So he got shown these photographs, Photos of Lauren [the Polaroids of Lauren's legs]. You heard me ask if there was any evidence of any type of sexual abuse. Because if that's not said out loud, because there's some chance that somewhere in you mind what's that about. You heard from the mediator, that Brown had photos of Lauren, showing the bruises. His mother said he had photos of Lauren showing the bruises.

Now whether these bruises shown in the photographs .. I agree with the doctor that these are typical play bruises that children get. Those are the photos, that what Cameron Brown talked about. This isn't a magic show. The prosecution ... why did they throw those up on the screen, it's to get to to get you to think about something unusual is going on.

Those are not perverse pictures, that was Brown's evidence ... and that's why those shots are there.

Another [thing?] more about Detective Leslie, that Brown was so worried about the media, that Brown pulled the shirt up over his face. So what? Wouldn't want people in that situation not have their face show up on the media. If you take a look, what you will see is, that Detective Leslie said that Brown was wearing a plaid shirt that day and that it was buttoned up. You're going to see that Brown was pulling a plain, blanket up, and where else would he get that blanket but from the police car that he was riding in? Someone gave him a blanket and said, here cover you face. You'll see it.

When Detective Leslie was on the stand for his rebuttal, I asked him if Jan Muller passionately wanted to be with Lauren. Mueller said she wouldn't have used that word. Why is that important, why is that important. because the credibility if Detective Leslie comes up.

[Regarding what Brown allegedly said] all there is is what Detective Leslie tells us. There is no recordings of his interviews. She [Mueller?] provides us with one possibility, but [it] does tell us how the evidence got created.

Laub asks the jury about a change in a word, and if a change in a word could change the meaning in what people had said.

We pot her on the stand because we're not trying to put just one side of a complex story. And this is a complex story.

The prosecution is picking and choosing and you're supposed to look at all the evidence. The problem with that is, you're trying to buy a car and you're looking to drive it. The break lines are broken down, the tires are worn out the spark plugs were never changed. If everything is wrong with that car, well, the prosecution's theory is that the defense is just picking at things. [The prosecution] they did produce a car.

Jan Mueller did let us know, that was a word she wouldn't use. Detective Leslie told us that is was. It does explain that how misreporting of statements does occur. And now we get to the problems of, why things were not recorded, and should have been recorded.

Everything that you've heard, about the three things that Cameron Brown said, comes from Detective Leslie. That's it. He's very likable. Is it possible that Detective Leslie is a human being like other witnesses in this case, he had emotions that affected how he handled this case. Mentions the note his partner wrote in his notebook.

You've also heard from defense [witnesses], mother and brother that Detective Leslie told them that he really believed that Brown was innocent and wanted to help him. Detective Leslie is it possible that he really said that, and he's just not telling us.

He wanted the family to open up, It's an easy thing to say. Now Mr. Deitzler, who said that Detective Leslie was going to railroad Cameron Brown. I don't think he said that. Did he say something negative about Cameron Brown? Possibly. Now references the testimony of Terry Hope, who said that Detective Leslie said that Cameron Brown was a scum bag.

Why would he say that? Because this is a witness who helps the defense.

More statement about what different witnesses said about seeing Brown and Lauren on the trail.

2:39 PM
Why would a cop say that to Terry Hope? Because, does Terry Hope really understand what he's doing by saying these things, is by helping some guy get away with murder? It's like when the police go into the community and the cops are out there on the scene, and they say there's a gang shooting and did anyone see anything. More argument as to why Detective Leslie would have said that.

Is it a coincidence that you have a friend who said I was told the way he interpreted it, and now a family member.... who says [the same thing?]. Each one of these things has a manipulative [component] abut it.

Or just like when Detective Leslie says, he was doing the interview with Cam Brown, in the beginning that they were on the side [?] then confrontational then they blast him and keeping Cameron Brown from his family. Is it reasonably possible that Detective Leslie said any of these things to people? It is reasonably possible.

So what that does ... let me ask you this. When Sarah Key-Marer the night she was giving her testimony ... by Martinez, it is a thing, and I felt actually that's one hell of an awful job [Martinez's ?]. ...

Does anyone believe that what she said, he killed her he murdered her, that, that didn't become what moved this case along? That Detective Leslie isn't a human being also, and that's what moved this case along? And that it's going to be tough to move a circumstantial case along? That it will be tough to throw emotional [words around?]..

There's a lot more to say. One thing briefly jury instruction. .. But Mr. Laub then mentions Dr. Hayes now.

Dr. Siegmund ... when prosecution had Dr. Hayes on rebuttal. Oh yeah, his graph was superimposed, that somehow, Dr. Siegmund was doing something lazy or [?] ... But, Dr. Siegmund said that he was working with Dr. Hayes' material. And that he only did two things. And he used the 11.3 feet per second and used the laws of physics, and that the fall would have resulted in the impact. The fact is it hasn't been distinguished because if she falls then she's going to have these injuries.

Describes what Dr. Siegmund did with the golf balls, the video of the kids.

It doesn't matter what they were doing in those experiments, we were only getting a speed in that video.

My fingers are quite tired. I am having difficulty keeping up.

Is [it?] that she could run a few feet, trip and go off. Used the same data that Dr. Hayes used. What he shows is that Lauren hits the projection of the cliff and she had these same injuries.

Dr. Hayes states that a trip means a certain thing, and blah, blah, blah, and he never plugged into that information; put in that information. Blah, blah, blah. He didn't do the work of following up of what Dr. Siegmund showed you the laws of physics showed you, is that her injuries could have been caused by running a few feet and running and tripping.

I have to take a rest. My fingers are throbbing.

Patty is sitting sideways in her seat, and I see what appears to be a smile, almost close to a smirk on her face as Mr. Laub is talking about the battle of the experts and what he argues Dr. Hayes didn't do.

Mr. Laub talks to the jury about the jury instruction [I believe the one that includes the words, "beyond a reasonable doubt"] an abiding conviction, in one of the instructions. It's been criticized forever, but it's still in the jury instructions. What the courts have said is that means, is abiding means enduring. They've said it by the supreme court.

There's nothing in experience that endures forever, if you feel, if [a] conviction you've reached it after your discussion of the evidence, that Cameron is guilty of a crime, and you think about the word abiding. ... Is this something I feel so certain about, this is something that isn't going to change?

One [thing?] that's really significant in this case. The involuntary manslaughter instruction. It was read by his honor. I want to emphasize by talking a little bit about it. Every person.. Mr. Laub focus' ... I'm hoping that, once this case is turned over to you, that you, will see, that murder has never been and is not now, the real problem in the case. Between not guilty and guilty, this charge is the real problem.

What I'm telling you is, as a father, who has taken his kids hiking etcetera, the facts of this case, cause this charge to be one to be given serious thought. Mr. Laub reads the instruction.

Laub continues to reads the charges and the difference between second and involuntary manslaughter.

Presses the difference between intentional and unintentional.

What does that mean? Well, that's involuntary manslaughter. Mr. Laub reads it again.

2:56 PM
So what happened on top of Inspiration Point, in order to find beyond a reasonable doubt, which is implied malice, this conscious disregard for human life, you have to say that Cameron Brown intentionally did not protect his daughter, intentionally placed her in a position of danger and he deliberately, knowing that what he was doing was going to endanger her life. There's nothing that's been shown to you, that supports that conclusion.

No. what you have seen and heard from testimony, was a father who had a duty, to hold her hand and hug her, and somehow make sure she didn't run around, he didn't do it. And if you believe it was aggravated reckless and such a departure from a prudent person, that it would disregard from human life, that's involuntary manslaughter.

I think when you take as much of the emotion out of the case as you can and take as much of the misdirection out of the case as you can, ... With something this horrible, then you don't see a not guilty, then I honestly don't .... [miss rest of sentence]

[I'm not going stand here and ask you for a not guilty, because as a father... I think he's guilty of involuntary and how (negligent?) his actions were.]

I am looking for what is justice. I'm not going to stand her and try to convince you somehow that ... should and say that Cameron Brown is not even guilty of involuntary ... that he reverts to this immature offensively obnoxious [person?] ... it's just obnoxious. ... because I would cry. ... That he didn't even hold hold her hand.

Laub is finished and the court will take a few moments break.

Patty appeared to get a mad look on her face when Laub made these last statements about involuntary. She appeared to throw back her head in disgust and throw up her arms.

Patty is now talking to Laub. She appears to be upset about his last arguments. Laub is explaining to Patty his arguments.

I hear Patty say to Mr. Laub, "I don't want to sit here and listen to his lies." Patty tells Laub that she can't stay and listen to DDA Hum's lies. She gets up and leaves.

3:09 PM
The clerk calls for the jurors.

After this summation, the case goes to the jury.

DDA Hum, I'm not going to go over everything. Going to address the defendant's attorney's argument. It is not your job, to make this case an accident.

We're here because the defendant threw 4 year old Lauren Key off of Inspiration Point. The defense arguments were to try to distract you from that.

So it's pretty standard to attack the police and distract us. You heard the magic show. To make you look away from the evidence. Forget the evidence, look at the police. They called Detective Leslie a liar. That's what they're saying when they say he didn't record the interview.

They were trying to get a statement when the defendant's mother and father were screaming to either release him or charge him. Before they had even spoke to the defendant, the wife was on the phone calling an attorney.

Talking about how the detective was trying to make him guilty they were affected by their emotions. That detective Leslie lied to his mother and brother. said that he was going to railroad him and put him in jail.

Now there's something about that. There's no evidence of that. Second problem is why? Why would he lie to us? And they can't come up with a reason. Well, maybe he would felt bad for Sarah. As he told us, it would have been easier on Sarah, if this was an accident.

The big problem with the claim by the defense that detective Leslie is lying is that they were just trying to convict him.

They interviewed over 100 hundred witnesses in this case and turned over everything to the defense. This was a thorough, comprehensive investigation. [There was no rush to judgement.] And it makes no sense for Deective. Leslie to lie to us. It is the defense trying to deflect us from the evidence.

It is a conspiracy [the defense argument]. DDA Hum mentions all these people that the attorney implied were lying. They never gave a reason. We were all so moved by the tragedy of this death. There was one person in this courtroom that wasn't moved by it.

The argument that the defendant hadn't hurt a living thing. Or that every person who kills, goes around kicking dogs? Or like in the open argument that he wasn't a hunter.

The statement in the declaration, was a mistake? There was no evidence that this was a mistake. Orange County DA's office didn't think it was a mistake. They filed documents that said he lied about his disability.

He misheard what Sarah said at LAX. There's not a shred of evidence that he misheard. He was very specific to Officer Masey and to Detective Lillienfeld. He also said she blocked his motorcycle and we know that's not true.

This was no mistake. This was not ateenager in an adult body. Give me a break. What does that even mean anyway.

Both Dr. Chinwah [and Dr. Hayes, they] both said this was not an accident. She does not have sufficient injuries for this to be an accident. It was an assisted drop, and they both said that. There was not the battle of the experts.

And the defense atty attacked Dr. Hayes, because by itself, [his testimony] it convicts the defendant.

He said, that Dr. Hayes ... and [that he is a lawyer?]. And you notice [in his cross examination] that he focused all his attention on the rope, nothing about what happened on Nov. 8, 2000.

DDA Hum puts on the overhead screen an image. He shows the throw from the cliff of the pelican box, by Dr. Hayes' assistant, who is tethered with a rope.

The rope has nothing to do with what happened on November 8.

He has no reason to lie to us.

The defense said he didn't do these calculations that Dr. Siegmund came up with. DDA Hum mentions the golf balls experiments and what they really showed.

They come up with this number, from a faulty experiment, and that Dr. Hayes didn't do a calculation from this faulty information. And Dr. Siegmund didn't do the calculations either!

Things the defendant's lawyer said, why didn't the defendant just leave at Inspiration Point [after Lauren is dead and they were waiting for detectives]? Don't you think it would look awfully suspicious to the police if the defendant said, oh, my daughter just fell in a tragic accident, and then just leave?

Just because a defendant didn't behave in the way the attorney's lawyer said he would have done it this way, is not evidence that the defendant is not guilty.

The 911 call, and why [the defendant's behavior was suspicious].

The adoption. The defendant didn't agree to the adoption, because now Patty knows about it. Patty is the one who is interested in taking Lauren away from Sarah. Take a look at that note. The other problem is, he never did ask for full custody in those documents.

That would have come out in court. That Patty would have known that. Jon Has his best friend from 18 years thought it was odd. And that's why the defendant wanted the adoption done before the wedding.

[It's a big?] coincidence that, the day that Lauren was murdered, that Patty is on the Internet looking at Father's custody .dom.

If everything was true with how much he loved Lauren, how much fun they had together that the defendant didn't [want Lauren adopted?], isn't there someone who could have told us all that? The defendant's wife, Patty. She was in this courtroom earlier today. They don't call them [her?] to testify.

Where is his Dad, Bob? Where is his other brothers and sisters/ What about the people [Patty's sibling] who is running this web site? Why don't they say anything about what a great guy he was? Notice that they were all men? They didn't call his wife. They put on this guy that saw the defendant twice.

It's not that these witnesses don't know about the defendant, this is the best they've got. The people that really know the defendant, they don't really know him.

The photos and the bruises. It wasn't just concerned. He said [to Jan Mueller], Lauren told me that her mother kicks her and throws her down in the kitchen and leaves marks and spanks her hard. It was a lie.

Dr. Siegmund's credibility. He said he didn't know if a little girl wouldn't know the danger of a 120 ft. cliff. She noticed the danger in the McDonald's tunnels at seven feet. She noticed the danger of leaning over the pier at Huntingtion Beach.

Dr. Siegmund's testimony, that anything is possible. The judge read the instruction that a possibility had to be reasonable.

Why did he take her to Inspiration Point that day? Why did he take her there? There are plenty of beaches. Why did he take her there? He was trying to call Patty all along the way, because he was going to take Lauren to the beach. Inspiration Point isn't on the way, from the school to the condo. It isn't on the way.

There is no innocent explanation for that. Why didn't they just stop at Portuguese Point? Why did the continue onto Inspiration Point? We know why. The defense doesn't even offer a reason. We know why.

They still have to go back to the car. Why keep going? The defense doesn't even try to explain that to us.

Every single witness who knew Lauren, every single witness told dectectives is that she was obedient. If the defendant told her to stop running around on Inspiration Point, she would have stopped.

He told us essentially, convict him of involuntary manslaughter. And the defense would love for you to convict him of involuntary manslaughter. This case isn't even close to an involuntary manslaughter case. Even if you believe every single defense witness. Even if you buy their entire case, it is a second degree murder case.

And this is why.

If the defendant threw her from the cliff and he didn't premeditate. If he saw an opportunity and he just took it. Gives examples of where Brown wanted to fight people or when he was angry at other people. If he just lost it and didn't premeditate, it's a second degree murder case.

It's also second degree if you believe everything of the defense case.

DDA HUM Reads the three points of m malice. That's second degree murder, and that's exactly what he claimed in his story to Detective Leslie. The law also recognize that every parent has a legal duty to exercise control over Lauren and take care of her and he did not do that.

If he did not take care of her like he is required to do, that is a second degree murder, by failing to exercise reasonable control, by failing to protect her, because he was a parent and he failed up there. This is a second degree murder and that's if you believe everything of the defense case.

There's just one difference between second and involuntary and that's knowledge.

Murder
Defendant realizes the risk.
Involuntary
Defendant does not realize the risk.

Of course the defendant knows it was dangerous. We were up there. Letting a child run around up there within four feet from the edge is dangerous to human life.

Cameron told Detective Leslie, the whole place is dangerous. He failed to protect her when he was legally required to do that.

We heard from witnesses what a great outdoors man he was. Witnesses from Colorado, stated he was an excellent outdoors man. He would recognize the danger.

You don't need ot be an expert outdoors man to recognize the danger especially that U shaped area.

Even if you believe every word of the defense case, it's second degree murder. [Jury instruction 8.51] When you cut through the legal ease, if the defend realizes the danger and does it anyway, it's second degree murder.

It's one of the reasons we went out there. We all know the dangers of letting a four year old run around a 120 ft cliff.

This is not an involuntary manslaughter case. If after looking at all the exhibits, if you can't agree it's first, it's absolutely at a minimum second degree, by even the defendant's story.

Questioning by the defense of Lauren behaved differently with the defendant than she did with anyone else. There's no evidence of that. Even his mother, she bounces on the bed, or runs across a bike path.

Based on that testimony we're supposed to believe that she runs around Inspiration Point because she bounces on the bed?

Defendant's behavior when Lauren went off that cliff is not consistent with an accident. He's been around water all his life. His father was a blue water sailor. He knows that Lauren could not swim. He knows that if Lauren is in the water, she would drown right away. Theres no way that he would have gone to the beach.

On the other hand, if he's not sure if she hits the cliff and he's not sure she's dead, by taking that long [time]route] to get to her, if the fall didn't kill her, she'll drown. He knows that because he's been around water all his life.

The 911 call, he knew that he couldn't get to her from the nude beach.

Now the site visit. That U shape area. We saw for ourselves, and to see why the defendant chose that particular point. It can't be seen from the trail. It can't be seen from the beach. It can't be seen from [Portuguese Point or Inspiration Point]. He can watch the archery range to see if someone was watching from there.

We did not experience the entire trail they took. We took a small hike.
I miss the next few arguments.

We were driven. Lauren had to hike. Lauren had been crying all day long. It matters because crying is a very fatiguing event. Lauren would have been exhausted from crying. We were driven on that hike. Lauren had jet lag. We had lunch. Lauren didn't eat. She didn't have any water. We weren't scared. And she was four.

The defendant never was going to take Lauren back. It was a one way trip.

What was the other big problem they had, when they said Detective Leslie lied? What is the other big problem? If Detective Leslie was going to make up a lie, why would he make up this story? If he wanted to frame the defendant, all he had to say was after five minutes, he could say [Brown said], Yep. I did it.

I'm going to make up a story to frame him for murder, so lets make up a story that he didn't do it. It makes no sense because Detective Leslie wasn't lying. Dr. Hayes wasn't lying. Jon Hans wasn't lying. We know who the liar is.

Innocent people don't lie.

They want us to believe that he had this loving relationship with Lauren but we know that's not true. He didn't want anything to do with her. He was selfish. He had nothing to do with her for the first three years of her life.

Look at the photos the defense showed of Lauren. The were taken on two different events. She was playing with dolls and eating [birthday?] cake. [What child doesn't like to eat cake?]

On her 1032 days of life on this earth, the defendant spent a total of 16 days with her. By the time Lauren was 16 days old, Sarah spent more time with her than the defendant.

The accident story. Disregard all the people's evidence. Disregard the witnesses as to what kind of girl she was, and just focus on the defendant's story, that this was an accident.

Look at how he treated Sarah. And we knew that the child support was a big hit on his finances. That wasn't disputed. And we know that Patty was after him to get full custody. We got the note, we got the statement of Jon Hans. An we know that there was a hearing set for 11/30 to set custody and child support. And all the problems the defendant had were because of Lauren.

Mr Laub objects to DDA Hums arguments. Something about them being improper. Over ruled.

The only person who accidentally fell off of Inspiration Point, just happens to be a 4 year old Lauren.

What an amazing coincidence, that the source of all the defendants problem happens to be the only person to fall off Inspiration Point, on the day that he happens to pick up Lauren on his own, to a place that he's been to but not with her, ...[There's more I miss.] What an amazing coincidence. He destroys Sarah's life, he gets out of 14 more years of child support, no more of Patty nagging him to get custody. The defendant's story is a fairy tale.

Laub shakes his head rubbing his forehead.

My fingers are frozen.

DDA Hum mentions that the defense wanted involuntary manslaughter from the beginning. And that's why the defense said, that he had to be a psychopath, because the defense hopes, that we want so badly, that an adult wouldn't hurt a child. And that you just don't want to believe it .I understand that. Sometimes it's not easy to recognize that there's evil in this world. It's easier that it doesn't exist. It's easier, that it will just go away.

We know that adults kill children and we know that. Don't want to beleive the defendant did it. Lets listen to the testimony who know the defendant better than anyone us ever have. [Jon Hans.]

He didn't want to believe it. He thought about what he knew about the defendant over 18 years and he's certain that the defendant [he] knew ... That the defendant murdered Lauren.

Laub objects. This is improper arguments. The court over rules.

It's evidence that John Hans believes that you can consider.

Ladies and gentlemen, the case is now in your hands. And all I ask is that you look at how all the evidence fits together. Use the law and use your common sense. All I ask for you ladies and gentlemen is simple justice. Don't be afraid of the truth. Because we know the truth. The evidence tells us the truth. And the truth is, the defendant never wanted Lauren. Never wanted her to be born. The turn is he tried everything he could to keep her out of his life.

[The truth is, he despised Sarah for ruining his life. The truth is. that Lauren was a financial burden. The truth is that Patty pressed him to get custody of Lauren. And the truth is that the defendant took her out to Inspiration Point and threw her off the cliff as a piece of luggage. You know the truth, you know it. I know it. And all I'm asking is that you tell the defendant and find him guilty of first degree murder.

The court asks counsel if there's any reason the bailiff shouldn't take charge of the jurors. No objections.

The jurors are told by the bailiff that they will be leaving the courtroom. To leave their notepads on their chairs and when they return tomorrow, they will get further instructions.

Laub kept shaking his head at Hums arguments, but Brown looked straight ahead. The jury doesn't look at Brown as they pass.

The jury is dismissed. The bailiff takes charge of the jury, and the bailiff takes the oath to be responsible for the jury.

The jury exits. The court states that the defense wants to make an argument on the record. The court asks that the courtroom be cleared. [This is interesting. Even the prosecution team leaves the courtroom.] The gallery is cleared. Out in the hallway, Sarah cries and is comforted by her family and friends.

The jury was ordered back at 9:00 AM for further instructions.

5:28 PM
I'm home, finally in some comfortable clothes and the kitties, Jumpy and Scout are fed. I have some house chores to get caught up on and will need to relax some more before I can start on the editing. I don't think I will get done tonight. I'll work on editing the lengthy closing arguments while I sit on verdict watch.

I'll be in the courtroom, waiting for the jury to give those three, Buzz!! Buzz!! Buzz!!, that they have a verdict.

5 comments:

Gregg the Obscure said...: Wow! Laub's last statement is stunning. Though I believe Brown is guilty of the most serious charge, I think Laub's statement may have set up grounds for an appeal. What was the defendant's reaction to Laub asking the jury to find him guilty?; May 11, 2015 at 3:29 PM
Ronni said...: Hoping for a verdict soon. Thanks for your coverage of this.; May 12, 2015 at 9:21 AM
BusyWife said...: Up until closing statements did laub ever acknowledge that Brown should be guilty of involuntary manslaughter? I don't remember that. I wonder if this is the strategy to give the jurors an out so they don't hang again. I wonder what Brown thinks of it.. if you're truly innocent and this was a tragedy I can't imagine agreeing to accept some culpability, especially because if the jury hangs again he will undoubtedly walk.; May 12, 2015 at 9:31 AM
Sprocket said...: At the end of Laub's closing he did tell the jury that he thought [as a father?] his client was guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

I don't know if Brown was upset about that or not, but his wife Patty, who was in the gallery was observed to throw her head back and lift her arms a bit in exasperation.

I do not think Laub's statements are grounds for appeal, but I'm no legal scholar. Remember, appeals are usually based on errors in judicial rulings. I don't know how often appeals are successfully based on closing argument statements.; May 12, 2015 at 10:24 AM
Sprocket said...: Closing these comments. Please leave comments on the new post, the Deliberations post. Thank you!; May 12, 2015 at 10:45 AM

Trials & Tribulations

Monday, May 11, 2015

Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 28 - Closing Arguments

5 comments:

Betsy A. Ross

ABOUT T&T

Donation to Sprocket's Trial Coverage

FULL TRIAL COVERAGE LINKS

CONTACT US

CONTRIBUTORS

T&T Page Views To Date:

CORRECTIONS

T&T on Twitter & Instagram!

T&T ARCHIVE

LINKS WE LIKE

LABELS

© COPYRIGHT ©

DISCLAIMER:

Trials & Tribulations

Monday, May 11, 2015

Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 28 - Closing Arguments

5 comments:

Betsy A. Ross

ABOUT T&T

Donation to Sprocket's Trial Coverage

FULL TRIAL COVERAGE LINKS

CONTACT US

CONTRIBUTORS

T&T Page Views To Date:

CORRECTIONS

T&T on Twitter & Instagram!

SUBSCRIBE TO T&T

T&T ARCHIVE

LINKS WE LIKE

LABELS

© COPYRIGHT ©

DISCLAIMER: