Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 8, Prosecution Testimony

Exclusive T&T Cameron Brown Case Coverage.

Lauren Sarene Key, 4, died 11/8/2000.
Photo copyright © Sarah Key-Marer, all rights reserved.

UPDATED 4/12 8:10 PM
UPDATED 4/10 11:15 AM
UPDATED 4/7 12:10 PM
UPDATED 4/7/15 added additional witness testimony
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Note: I did not attend court on this day. This is a summary I prepared from the court reporter's transcript.

Morning Session
Court is called to order. Mr. Laub, DDA Hum and the jury are present. The defendant is not present. Judge Lomeli addresses the jury and informs them that "..the defendant has a swollen foot, so he is being treated..." The court tells the jury that "...they will be able to have him down here ... by 1:30."

Judge Lomeli apologizes to the jury and tells them that he just found out this information. He tells them he is frustrated, but he was able to salvage some of the day.

One of the jurors asks, "April Fool's?"  The court tells them that it isn't April Fool's and that they will see them back by 1:30 pm.

Afternoon Session
Once the jury is seated, Judge Lomeli again apologizes to his jurors and explains this was a medically related issue and that it can't be helped. The people call their first witness.

LINDA PETERSON
Ms. Peterson knows the victim's mother, Sarah Key-Marer. Peterson is six to seven years younger than Sarah. Peterson met Sarah at the Countryside Inn & Suites, in Costa Mesa, where they both worked. They became friends then roommates. They lived in an apartment together for approximately a year.

In late 1995, Peterson became aware that Sarah was dating Cameron Brown. She believes they dated about two months. Although they were roommates, Peterson was in college and had a boyfriend.

Peterson learned that Sarah was pregnant. At some point later, she overheard Sarah talking on the telephone to someone. DDA Hum asks Peterson what Sarah was saying. Objection! Hearsay.

DDA Hum states it's not offered for the truth of the matter; offered under Evidence Code 1250, for state of mind.

What was Sarah saying? She was crying and she was saying "How can you do this to me" and "just leave me alone."  Also, "Please don't have me deported."

Peterson later drove Sarah to Redondo Beach where Brown was living because Sarah didn't have a car. Sarah was going to leave a note on Brown's car, begging him not to have her deported. Peterson observed Sarah write the note. She observed Sarah go to leave the note, but she did not see where Sarah left the note. When Sarah got out of the car she had the note. When she got back in the car, she didn't have the note.

After this incident, Peterson states Sarah and Brown continued to see each other for "... a short period of time."

Peterson did meet Brown, "About three times, four maybe." It was when Brown came to pick Sarah up from her apartment. Peterson and her boyfriend did not double date with Sarah and Brown. Peterson states the reason she and her boyfriend didn't go on double dates, "Because we didn't really like him particularly."  Peterson adds, "He wasn't very friendly."

At one point, Peterson asked the defendant how he felt about the pregnancy. His response was, "Well, it doesn't matter to me because I don't want to have anything to do with it anyway."  Peterson denies ever telling the defendant that Sarah got pregnant to stay in the country and denies ever discussing Sarah's immigration status with Brown.

Peterson explains why they stopped being roommates. Sarah was pregnant and going to keep her baby. She moved in with her boyfriend. She remained friends with Sarah. They kept in contact. After Lauren was born, she met Lauren a few times. It was not regular visits, but sporadic.

Peterson and Sarah had plans to meet the week Lauren died. After Lauren died, their lives drifted apart. They stayed in contact on social media.  They've not had any face to face meetings in the past five years. Peterson has moved out of the country.

Direct ends and Cross begins.

Peterson states at the time she lived with Sarah she was nineteen. There was a six year age gap between them. Peterson agrees that Mr. Brown was about 20 years older than her.

When you talked to him, did you say to him anything about it really doesn't matter whether he wants to be part of the baby's life, that Sarah is going to have the baby anyway? I don't really remember. I might have. I don't recall.

Peterson is questioned about what she told Detective Leslie in November 2000, that Sarah didn't care whether Brown was involved or not. She wanted to have the baby. Peterson does not recall telling Brown that Sarah didn't love him, or that she told detective's that. When confronted with a report of an interview she had with detectives, Peterson agrees she might have said that.

Laub question's Peterson on how long Sarah and Brown dated. She states two to three months.

Laub confronts Peterson with a declaration she made in support of Sarah during the custody child support proceedings. The declaration is shown to Peterson, where she wrote: "I can testify that Sarah and Cameron dated form August 1995 until February 1996."  She signed this in June of 2000. Peterson can't remember why she wrote the months August. She testifies it wasn't on purpose. She doesn't remember if she or Sarah prepared the document.

Peterson confirms that when she drove Sarah to Brown's residence, she did not see where the note was placed. She remembers that Sarah did not have the note when she came back.

Cross ends and there's no redirect.

UPDATE 4/7/15
People call Jack Laisure

JACK EARL LAISURE, III
The witness identifies the defendant. In the 1990's, Brown lived at the same marina, Port Royal Marina in Redondo Beach, where Mr. Laisure berthed his boat. Laisure moved to the marina in June 1990. His boat was on "C" Dock.  Brown's boat was also located on C Dock.

Back in the early mid 90's, Mr. Laisure agrees that the boating community at Port Royal Marina was a close community. Laisure testifies, "... all the boaters got together. We went sailing on each other's boats. We had barbecues. We did different things around the harbor." The witness indicates that Brown participated in these activities.

Mr. Laisure states that his boat at the time was a sailboat. Brown also lived on a sailboat. One of the people that Mr. Laisure  and Brown would socialize with was a man named Troy Nichols, who is now deceased.  Another individual they both socialized with at the Port Royal Marina was Scott Simonson.

Mr. Laisure still lives at the marina, on a different sailboat. At some point in 1995 or 1996, the witness states he overheard a conversation between Brown, Troy Nichols and Scott Simonson regarding someone who was pregnant.  There is an objection. It's overruled.

The conversation was between all three individuals and another man named Tony. Laisure did not know Tony's last name.  Laisure testifies he overheard the defendant say, "... he didn't want to pay child support. He wanted to know how he was going to get out of this. He didn't want the child. He just wanted to be done with it."

Mr. Laisure also heard the defendant talking about having the mother of his daughter deported. Mr. Laisure testifies, "I believe he said something ab out she had overextended her visa and wanted her deported. I believe she was from England."

Brown also said that he didn't want the child.

At some point after this overheard conversation, Brown left the marina with his boat. He was gone from the marina for about two and a half years. Laisure states that when Brown returned, his boat went to B dock in Port Royal Marina. The defendant told the witness that during that time, he had gone to Marina del Rey.

Laisure clarifies that he heard the conversation about the child support after Brown's boat was docked at B Dock. Brown also said, "What is this going to cost me?"

Laisure is given a transcript to refresh his memory about what else he remember's Brown saying. The transcript refreshes his memory. Brown also said that in reference to the child support that he couldn't afford it. Brown said this more than once. Laisure doesn't remember how many times Brown said it.

When Brown came back and docked at B dock, he had a different boat.

Mr. Laisure states he knows a woman named Cari Dunlop, who also socialized with him, Brown Scott Simonson and Troy Nichols. After that last conversation, at some point Brown moved out of the marina.

On television, Laisure learned that the defendant's daughter Lauren, had died. He never met Brown's daughter.

Direct is finished and Cross begins.

Laisure states that he and Brown were not friends, but associates. At some point, Brown accused Laisure of "keying" his van. Laisure states that he wasn't the individual who did that.

One of the things that made Brown unpopular with Laisure and other people at the marina, is Brown would call certain people who had boats "sneak-aboards." Brown would complain about people who lived in the marina but didn't pay fees.

Laub asks, he was kind of one of those obnoxious personalities who snivels about other people breaking the rules; is that right? I wouldn't necessarily put it as sniveling. Tattletale, yes.

Laisure admits that he doesn't have any memory of exactly when any of these conversations took place. Laisure never overheard Brown make any statements about violence towards the pregnant woman or the child.

Cross ends and there's no redirect.

UPDATE 4/7 12:10 PM
The people call Marlene Quiram.

MARLENE QUIRAM
Ms. Quiram has two daughters, CAQ, 19, and CLQ, 11. In 2000, CQ would have been five, a year older than Lauren.

I have decided not to publish Ms. Quiram's daughter's names. Sprocket.

The witness knows Ms. Key-Marer, and her husband, Greg Marer. Quiram's daughter CQ went to the same preschool, Montessori, as Lauren, and she went to the same church as the Sarah and her husband. She knew the entire Key-Marer family, including Lauren and Josh.

The witness would see Sarah at church as well as at the preschool. CQ and Lauren were friends. The witness testifies, "They were friends, and Lauren was always happy to see my daughter, and she was always friendly with the both of us."

The witness and daughter CQ attended a birthday party at Sarah's house for Josh. She would see Sarah during pick up and drop off at the preschool when she mostly saw Sarah. She interacted with Lauren every day. Lauren really took a "shine to CQ," so when Lauren would see them she would come over to Quiram and CQ, say hello, etc.  The witness describes Lauren as "very outgoing and friendly, always had a smile on her face."

On occasion, she would have conversations with Lauren, relevant to Lauren because she was four. Lauren would talk about her mother. The witness never heard Lauren say anything negative about her mother.  Quiram never heard Lauren speak about "Papa Cameron."

On November 8, 2000 she went to the preschool to drop off a lunch for her daughter. The witness describes how the school was set up. The school was off the street. First was the parking lot, then the school and behind that the playground.

When she arrived at the school, she heard a sound that struck her as unusual. It was a wailing sound. She was trying to pin down where it was coming from. She thought one of the children was upset. It was odd. It was a loud sound. She heard it as soon as she got out of her car. She tracked down the sound, concerned it was coming from her daughter. It wasn't. It was coming from Lauren.

The witness describes Lauren's behavior as she observed it. It was unusual behavior for Lauren. She was wailing at the top of her lungs and Lauren wouldn't make eye contact. Every other time she interacted with Lauren, she would make eye contact and occasionally a hug. 

Lauren was outside when she observed her, and was making her way into the school. Lauren was with a man Quiram had never seen before. Quiram identifies Brown as the person she saw.

By this time, Quiram was inside the classroom and so was Lauren and Brown. Lauren had calmed down a bit. She was still upset. She wasn't wailing but tears were running down her face. Lauren was about four to five feet away from her. Lauren would not make eye contact with Quiram or even acknowledge that she was there.

She observed Lauren and Brown leave the preschool. She could still hear Lauren sobbing as they walked to Brown's truck. The witness approximates the time when she first arrived at the school to observing Brown and Lauren leave to be about 15 minutes. The entire time she heard and observed Lauren, she was crying.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Mr. Laub asks: You talked about Lauren not paying attention to you after Mr. Brown was there. She was involved with her father at that point; isn't that right? She was standing next to him, yes.

And he was calming her down? He tried; yep.

He told her it would be alright? He did.

The witness agrees that Brown spoke to Lauren in a low and calm voice, while he was removing her things from her cubby.  The witness agrees that Brown was unruffled and that he took her crying well.

The witness states no adults were outside with her and her daughter, as she watched Lauren and Brown leave.  She remembers Brown was walking with Lauren, but doesn't remember Brown holding Lauren's hand.

The witness states she did not see Brown pick Lauren up and carry her.

Mr. Laub confronts the witness with her prior testimony at another proceeding. The witness asked, "What did I say? What's in the statement?"

In 2009, she testified that by the time Lauren and Brown left, Lauren had stopped crying.

Cross ends and Redirect begins.

DDA Hum redirects the witness to additional testimony in 2009. At that time, the witness was shown her testimony from 2006.

So once you reviewed your testimony from 2006, your memory was the same as it was here today, that Lauren never stopped crying; is that correct? Correct.

Redirect is finished and there is no recross.

UPDATE 4/10
The prosecution calls Fiorella  Miletich.

FIORELLA MILETICH
In November 2000, Miletich was working at Christian Montessori as a kindergarten teacher. The school was located in Newport Beach.  She taught preschool and kindergarten. She knew Lauren Key. She identifies a photo of Lauren (people's exhibit 95). Lauren was in her classroom, about less than a year. There were 16 or 17 children in her classroom at that time.

Along with teaching, one of her duties was to supervise activities on the playground. She was also present when parents would pick up and drop off their children. The children at the school called her Ms. Fiorella.

Miletich is asked to describe Lauren's personality.  "Lauren was happy, playful, very friendly, very outgoing, overall happy."

In class, she liked to draw and color. On the playground, she would play with friends in the sandbox and the tire swing. Lauren was cautious, not a daredevil. She liked to run on the playground and participated in class.

Miletich was present about three or four times when a man would come to pick up Lauren. She does not remember what the man looked like. At the time she remembered, but now she does not.

When the man came to pick up Lauren, he cam with a woman, not Sarah. These pick-ups did not always go smoothly. The first pick-up did not go smoothly because she had to ask for ID. That was because she didn't know him. That first time, he wasn't pleased. She knew this because of the look on his face. The lady was with him.

Miletich states that she didn't talk with the man after she asked for ID. The man addressed the lady with him and said to her, "Just deal with it." Miletich testifies that she had to talk to the lady.

These three or four times that the man would pick up Lauren, did he ever ask how Lauren's day way? No.

Did he ever ask what Lauren did at school? No.

Did he ever ask anything about Lauren? No.

Did he ever ask anything about drawings or report cards or anything like that? No.

Miletich was also present when Sarah would pick up Lauren. Sarah would ask about Lauren's day each time she picked her up. She would ask how her day was, She would talk with Sarah, every time, about Lauren. She heard Lauren talk about her mother. Miletich never heard Lauren say anything bad about her mother. She observed Lauren interact with her mother. "She loved her mom. She was always happy to see her."

Sometime in October 2000, Miletich was aware that Lauren had gone away on a trip.

Now there are questions again about when the man would pick up Lauren from school. The man was always with the lady who wasn't Sarah. The first couple of times, the pick ups went smoothly. Then the last time, that's when she didn't want to go. Miletich knew Lauren didn't want to go because Lauren told her, and, Lauren cried all morning.  This was after Lauren came back from her trip.

Miletich doesn't remember how Lauren was [the entire week] when she came back from the trip. She does remember the last day she saw Lauren. Her behavior that day was, "Very odd. She was not being herself."  She was crying the whole morning. She was really sad.

Did she say anything to you? She said "Ms. Fiorella, I'm very sad. I'm so sad, I just can't stop crying."

Miletich remembers holding Lauren. Lauren was on her lap, facing her. Miletich states she will never forget the look on Lauren's face. Lauren said she wanted to talk to her mother. Miletich had never seen Lauren behave like this before.  Lauren asked Miletich to hug her. She hugged Lauren, trying to make her feel better. Lauren kept on crying and crying. She wouldn't stop.

At some point, Sarah called the school and Miletich let Lauren talk to her mother. Miletich does not remember the length of the call. Lauren calmed down a little bit but she was still upset.

Miletich was not present when Lauren was picked up that day. On all the previous occasions that Brown had picked up Lauren, he was always with the same lady. Miletich had never seen the man pick Lauren up by himself.

After that day, she had never seen Lauren again.

UPDATE 4/12 8:10 PM
Direct ends and cross begins.

You saw this man pick up Lauren three or four times? Yes.

My understanding is, that Lauren was happy being picked up all of those times except for that last one; am I right?  Not happy, but she was okay.

Laub asks if she remembers talking to detectives on November 20, 2000. She does.

Laub turns to a transcript and confronts the witness that at that time, she told Detective Leslie that on prior occasions when Lauren's father, Cameron, came to pick her up, she was happy.  She replies, "Yes."

As time when on, Lauren was becoming upset. This was during the week after she came back from England. In Miletich's mind, she correlated this with a custody battle. She heard about the custody battle from Lauren's mother.

The witness corrects Mr. Laub. "She didn't tell me about the custody battle, but she told me that he was going to pick her up -- that he was going to pick her up, yes. So I didn't know about Mr. Brown until she told me, yes."

Mr. Laub confronts her again, with what she told detectives that she correlated [Lauren's behavior?] with a custody battle. Laub asks where she heard about a custody battle, that the parent's were in a custody battle.

Miletich answers again that she didn't know about Mr. Brown until Sarah told her that Brown would start picking Lauren up. When asked again where she heard about a custody battle, the witness states she doesn't remember.

Laub asks about the first time that Brown picked up Lauren, and that she asked for ID from Brown and that she had to "...clear it with Sarah that it was okay."  Yeah, of course.

Did someone inform you that there was court order that Sarah was the person who was supposed to approve visits? Miletich doesn't remember about a court order, no.

What was supposed to be the reason for Sarah being the one to approve a visit after he comes to get her? What was the reason for that? Miletich didn't know about Brown until Sarah told her. She didn't know about him. Didn't know he was in the picture.  Miletich assumed there was a court order.

You told Detective Leslie that you had heard that the dad had said mean things to Lauren? Yes.

Where? She just said that he was mean, but I didn't say, said mean things.

Mr. Laub confronts the witness of this last answer.

AL: Lauren didn't say that.
FM: What?
AL: Lauren didn't say that.
FM: Lauren told me
AL: No. Lauren did not. Sarah said that.

DDA Hum interjects repeating what the witness said Lauren said. The court then asks it's own question. "What said that? Was it Lauren, the child, or ..."

FM: Lauren.
JL: The child.
FM: Yes.
JL: All right. There's your answer.

Laub then confronts the witness on prior statements where she said that Lauren never spoke about Mr. Brown. Laub wants to refresh her recollection. DDA Hum objects, the witness never said she needed her recollection refreshed. The court sustains the objection.  Mr. Laub the n beings to read from [I believe] the detective's report.

"As time progressed, she, Layren, became extremely sad, which Fiorella correlated with the custody battle. Ms. Miletich also stated she heard that the dad had said mean things to her." 

You said to Detective Leslie, that you heard that the dad had said mean things to Lauren? Lauren told me that he was mean.

That's not what you said to Detective Leslie? Well....

DDA Hum objects. Argumentative.  The court interjects "... and she's stating that that came from Lauren, the child. Is that correct?"  Yes.

Laub challenges the witness that Miletich never testified before that this came from Lauren? No. I told Mr. Leslie, yes, that that's what, that's what Lauren told me.

Your claiming this is what oyou told Detective Leslie back on November 20 of the year 2000? Yes.

You've never testified in any courtroom at any time that this was something Lauren told you; have you? Hmm, no. This is the first time I'm saying it, yes. But I remember telling him. Because last time nobody asked me.

Laub asks the court for a moment because he's surprised. DDA Hum objects to defense counsel making statements about his state of mind. The court sustains the objection.

Are you saying Lauren told you this on the day when she was so upset? Yes.

You were questioned in prior proceedings about what Lauren said on the day that she was so upset. DDA Hum interjects. DDA Hum asks if this is a question or if Mr. Laub is testifying.  Mr. Laub states this is a question after the court asks.

The court asks if she was previously questioned about that subject, whether Lauren told you anything about that, in a prior proceeding? No. 

The witness agrees that this is the first time she's saying this.

Laub reads from a 2006 transcript. The witness was asked if she ever heard lauren say anything about anyone who she would refer to as Papa Cameron.  Her answer was no.

So when she told you that someone was saying mean things to her, how did she refer to that person? She said her dad was mean.  The witness affirms that Lauren said the word "Dad."  Miletich assumed Lauren was referring to Mr. Brown.

Laub asks if Miletich had ever met Greg Marer. Yes. Now there is a question if Sarah ever told her Greg Marer was  called "Dad" and Mr. Brown was called "Papa."  There is an objection by DDA Hum and a bit of back and forth with the court.  The court asks counsel to move on. The answer remains that Lauren used the word "Dad."

Laub goes over a question that DDA Hum asked the witness to describe what Lauren was like the last day, the day that she died. Laub repeats her answer.

That's all you said at that time in 2006; isn't that right? DDA Hum objects that the question is vague.

There is a bit of back and forth between the court, Mr. Laub and the witness. The witness interjects a couple of times.  Mr. Laub asks why she never added that Lauren said "Dad is mean."  The court addresses Mr. Laub, "Yes, but she's already state, Counsel, this is the first time that she's ever state it, so the answer is no."

Mr. Laub asks why she didn't add that when she was testifying in 2006 about what Lauren was saying [about Mr. Brown].  The witness asks, "Can I tell why you now?" Laub responds, "Yeah."

Miletich answers, Yeah? Okay. Because his previous attorney wasn't you.  Miletich continues, He came up to me and pointed at that -- pointed that out and he said, "Did you say this," and I said, "Yes." But he didn't ask me "Exactly, did you say that he was mean or you said he said mean things?

Miletich keeps going. I read it and, what you're reading, I read it , and I looked at it, and I said, "Yes, I said that." But nobody asked me, and I didn't say it. That's why I said that I did not say it out loud.

The court responds, "All right."

Miletich continues. But I read it. And he pointed, he pointed it out to me and I read it. And he didn't say anything, he just walked away.

Mr. Laub reviews and the court asks counsel to move along. Laub asks the witness to review another part of a transcript. Mr. Hum objects because the witness never said she needed her recollection refreshed. The objection is sustained.

Laub starts to read from the 2006 transcript and the questions the witness was asked. DDA Hum objects and asks what the purpose of this was.  The court tells counsel to approach.

There is a short argument at side bar.  DDA Hums objection is sustained. The court asks counsel to move on.

Laub continues with his question about what Mr. Geragos showed her in 2006, and asked her to read the statement that she had given to Detective Leslie.  The witness disagrees. "No, he pointed it out."

Laub asks the court to give this it's proper context. "Briefly, Counsel,"

There are questions again about what Mr. Geragos asked the witness in 2006, about when Mr. Brown would pick up Lauren, and that she was happy when her dad would come pick her up. And that her response at that time was, 'The first time she was okay.'  Then Laub asks her about the next question from Mr. Geragos, asking her about being interviewed by Detective Leslie on November 20, around 3:20 in the afternoon. That refreshes her recollection as to when it was.

Laub then asks the witness to read [a transcript?] to herself. This is about her prior testimony, about what she previously testified, about Lauren being "happy" when her dad came to pick her up, on prior occasions.

There is a bit more back and forth between the court and Mr. Laub, about what his point of the question was.


Mr. Laub moves onto the first time that Brown and the lady picked up Lauren. He asks the witness about the point where Mr. Brown turned to the lady and said, "You deal with it," he had already shown you his ID, correct? Yes.



At that point, you had to make a phone call to Sarah to get clearance for this visit? Yes.

And that's when he turned to the other lady and said, "You deal with this"? Yes.

Cross ends and redirect beings.

Miletich agrees that she testified in 2006. In 2009 she was in Chile and did not testify. She corrects DDA Hum and states she was in Peru.

In 2006, when you testified, you were never asked about Lauren saying the defendant was mean, correct? Yes. Miletich verifies that she never said that in 2006 and the defense counsel in 2006 never asked her.




And in this proceeding, the defendant's lawyer asked you about that statement, and you testified to us what you remember; is that correct? Yes.

DDA Hum has nothing further. The court then asks Mr. Laub, "Based onthat, just those questions counsel. Let's not go over what you jsut did."  Laub responds that he will not.

Recross examination.

This must have been somthing that really stuck in your mind as being very important, as you say, lauren told you that Mr. Brown said mean things to her; am I correct? She said he was mean.

She said he was mean.  Yes, okay. Miletich clarifies her answer. But not mean things; that, I didn't say. Miletich clarifies that it was Lauren, not Sarah who said this.

And at that moment, at that moment, as a very concerned person, and you obviously are, as a very concerned person, I'm sure you said to her "What does he do to you:; am I right?  I don't remember.

Recross examination ends and there is no more direct.

The afternoon break is called.

UPDATE 4/13 7:30 AM
After the break, the people call their next witness, Jacquewyn Martin.

JACQUEWYN MARTIN

Ms. Martin has female children, aged 18 and 20. [I will not publish her children's names.] SM is 19 and JM is 20.

Back in 2000, SM was four years old.  In 2000, her children attended Christian Montessori in Irvine. She worked a short distance away at an architecture organization. It would take her about five minutes to get to her daughters school, in bad traffic.

The witness knew Lauren Key. Identifies People's exhibit 95. Lauren was a student at the same school. Lauren was a friend of SM and JM as well. Martin knew Sarah, Lauren's mother.

Martin knew Sarah through Lauren, and interaction with other parents at the school, such as drop offs and pickups. Sometimes, they would run into each other at a store. She attended Lauren's fourth year birthday party at Sarah's house.

Martin observed her daughter SM and Lauren interact together on the playground. "There was a big rock on the playground. They typically liked to sit there and do each other's hair. They would pull the hair back to make ponytails, and talk, a lot of talking, so -- hold hands, run bach and forth across the playground. So they were pretty active and engaging with each other there; but, typically, I remember the rock and the hair."

Martin agrees that she spend a significant amount of time at the school. She went most lunch periods, if work didn't prevent her from being there.

She knew Lauren for two years, but the second year the most. Martin spent more time with her at that time.

What was her personality? What did she like to do? Sure. "Well, I had no choice to interact with here. She would come up and she would ask a question, wait for an answer, you would giver her an answer, and she would have another why. Endless whys. She would want you to hear her sing a song, and she would sing for you." 

Lauren liked getting the attention. She was a very happy kid. As far as play, she mostly remembers Lauren and Sophie doing each other's hair. Martin remembers that more than other things. They would run on the playground, and talking.

Lauren was inquisitive. She would ask a lot of questions.  The witness was aware that shortly before Lauren died, Sarah and Lauren had gone on a trip. After Lauren had gone on this trip and returned, the witness noticed a change in Lauren's personality. It was around Halloween. Lauren seemed more introverted. She seemed to be more to herself than the other kids. Usually, Lauren had no problem engaging with other kids, but when she had come back, at the Halloween parade, Martin noticed she just wasn't engaging with the other kids from that point on.

Lauren died on a Wednesday. Martin is asked about Monday at the school, two days before. On that Monday, Martin noticed something different about Lauren's personality and behavior on that day. This time, it was not Lauren in her typical round of questions of things but rather a very specific question.  She was asking Martin to take her to her mom. "She wasn't really happy. It was more of a serious request. Umm, she wasn't distraught, but she -0 she did approach me and just asked if I could take her to her mom.

Martin did not take Lauren to her mom.



The next day, Tuesday, when she arrived at the school, Lauren followed Martin in. Lauren found Martin in Ms. Miletich's room. Martin would usually walk through Miletich's room to go to the playground. Lauren beat her outside and approached Martin when she was inside. So just as Martin walked in the door, Lauren came out of the playground and approached me.


What was Lauren't demeanor and interaction on Tuesday. It was still the concern and asking to be taken to her mom again, but there was something more to it. It was more "whimpering" to that when Martin told Lauren she couldn't. As Martin recalls, "... it was just a wind-up. Monday was okay, Tuesday she kind of whimpered when I told her I couldn't."

On Wednesday, Martin went to the preschool on the lunch hour, and interacted with Lauren on that day. She had promised her daughters she would go there to take her daughters to go get a doughnut. She went into Ms. Miletich's room. Her oldest daughter was there. "Lauren again, I believe she captured me -- I'm sure she captured me from the playground." Lauren came up to her and asked Martin to take her to her mom. Martin told Lauren she couldn't. This time, she turned around and started crying outside.

Lauren was going to the playground, as she reached the door, Martin's daughter SM came in with her finger up, the whining cry, Mommy I hurt my finger. Lauren did a 180 turn, came back to Martin with her finger up in the same way and said, "I hurt my finger. Can you take me to my mom?"  Martin kissed Lauren's finger and Lauren continued to cry.

As Martin was leaving the school with her daughters, she saw Lauren run onto the playground. Her mouth was wide open and she was wailing. Martin asked her daughters what was wrong with Lauren. They told Martin that Lauren had been crying all day. As Martin was backing up her car, she's facing the playground. She saw Lauren exit the room and observed her wailing.

What Martin observed on Wednesday was not typical behavior for Lauren at all. Martin states she had never seen Lauren cry before. When Martin got back to the school from the doughnut trip, Lauren was no longer there.

The next day, she took her daughters to the school to drop them off. There was a notice on the door that classes were closed that day du to the death of a student. At that time, she didn't know who the student was. She found out the child was Lauren later that same day.

She took her daughters home and contacted some of the other mothers because school was closed. Once she knew it was Lauren, she started to read the newspaper and started to find information on the case. There was a request in the paper, that anyone who had seen Lauren within several hours prior to the incident to call detectives, so Martin called detectives.

People's 97, a two-page document, LASD Homicide Bureau Include Sheet.

When she called detectives, she advised them of Lauren's unusual behavior that day. She provided detectives with her contact information. Martin is asked to review the document to see if it accurately states what she told detectives.

Martin states that when she read the note on the school door she felt it was Lauren.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Mr. Laub tells the witness he's not going to ask her about Lauren being upset, since he knows that she was. Is it true that Lauren was a dainty girl? I would consider her dainty, yes.

And not a typically physical child? As far as rough handling? No.

In your experience, she was vically expressive but not physically so?  She was physically expressive. It depends.  The witness gives the example of her own children. Her children will play like boys, but when the youngest is away from her older sister, she becomes dainty.

And when her daughter and Lauren were together, they were dainty girls? They did girlie things, yeah.

Lauren never said anything negative about her mother.

And she never said anything negative about her father? No. She wasn't a negative person.

Cross ends and there is no more redirect.  Court ends. The jurors are ordered back at 10 AM.
Note: I will be adding more witnesses to this post in the week ahead. Sprocket.

More to come.....

Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 10, Prosecution Testimony Continues

Lauren Sarene Key, 4, died 11/8/2000 

Photo copyright © Sarah Key-Marer, all rights reserved

UPDATE 1:34 PM small clarity edits.

Friday, April 3, 2015
9:23 AM
I'm inside Dept. 107.  Brown was wheeled into the courtroom via a wheelchair. Sarah and three girlfriends are here with her. There are two nicely dressed young women, possibly law students who are in the gallery.

The session is only half day today. The jurors opted to only work half day today.

I've spoken with Judge Lomeli's court reporter about purchasing the transcript for Wednesday afternoon.  The cost will be under $50.00. I'm going to splurge and purchase this transcript. Thank you to those of you who have made donations to my court costs.

9:36 AM
Judge Lomeli asks if everyone is readh. Brown has been brought out. The jurors are in the jury room. It's my understanding that Judge Lomeli brings doughnuts to his juries on Friday mornings.

9:38 AM
The jury thanks the judge for the doughnuts.

Sgt. Jessica Brothers
JESSICA BROTHERS

Currently Sgt. with LA Co. Sheriff's Internal Affairs Bureau. At that time she was assigned to Lomita as a patrol trainee. She's been with Sheriff's 19 years.  How long out on patrol, aproximately 5 weeks. Prior to that she was assigned to a jail facility.

She was working, in uniform and Klaus Girmes was her partner. Started work at 2 pm. On patrol in a marked black and white. Her area included Rancho Palos Verdes. She received a rescue call, and that indicated a child over a cliff.  Directed to PV Drive S. Between Cherry & Peppertree.

Responded lights and sirens.  It took 8 minutes to respond. The area is within LA County. The main road along the coast in that area is PV Drive South.

She saw other emergency vehicles. A fire engine along. Dep. Grimes was driving. They parked on Palos Verdes Drive South. She was directed to follow the fireman down to what turned out to be an archery range.  She traveled on foot. Not sure if there was a trail. But followed the fire men down along the brush.  She went down a sloped area in the directon of the ocean.  She left her partner down the road.  Partner drove the vehicle down to the archery range.

As going down the hillside, which side IP be on? As I traveled down it would have been on my right.

At the archery range, she saw paramedics around a picnic table and there was a little girl that they were working on. She was on top of the picnic table.

Did you see anyone at the location that you see in the courtroom today? Its' the gentleman seated at the end of the table. Identified the defendant.

Where was the def. when you first saw him? He was at an adjactent picnic table. When she first arrived he was about three or four feet away. At some point learned her name was Lauren.

When first saw the defendant, standing three to four feet away. He was not doing or saying anything, not that she recalls.

At some point they pronounced Lauren dead. Did you ask the defendant what happened. I did.
At that time I would have been Lauren's body, within a foot or two. The defendant was still about three feet away from Lauren's body.

He had said that hand and Lauren had gone to Abalone Cove and took a hike towards IP and when they arrived at IP Lauaren was throwing rocks then suddenly she was gone. And she didn't see her go over the cliff, but he knew she did.  Did he describe at all, seeing Lauren going over the cliff. No. Did he describe seeing any part of her body going over the cliff? No.

He pointed toward IP as to where she fell. Did he reference any specific point. He pointed towards a bush and that she had gone off over near that area.

This bush he pointed to, would that be the side nearest the archery range or the sunbathing beach? It was closer to the archery range.

The archery range is that, lower than the road? Yes. It's slightly higher than the beach.  He recalled seeing some of the people on the beach, and ran over there to find a phone to call. After 911 was called, he went to the archery range side, to where he believed Lauren body would be.

The beach and the phone call was made on the LAX side, not Long Beach side.

What did the defendant say when he got to Lauren's body, he had stripped down to his underwear to go into the water to retrive her body. He placed her body on some rocks, took off his wet underwear, redressed and took off to the archery range.

He said that he attempted to perform CPR on Lauren. She doesn't remember where he said he did that.  He asked if she saw any blood in his mustache or goatee. She did not see any. She didn't see anything in his facial hair.

While defendant was providing her with information, his demeanor I would describe as matter of fact. Was he screaming was he wailing, was he frantic? No.

Did he, give you the address where he was living. He gave information that he lived in Palos Verdes.  There were helicopters overhead that we believed were media.

He said he didn't want to be filmed by the helicopters. He asked me to have his wife, to call his wife and that he was going to be late. When he asked not to be filmed, he was still about three or four feet away.  Did he tell you why he wanted to call his wife? He didn't want her to see what happened on TV.

At that time, she was not aware that his wife was not Lauren's mother. Did not ask her to call Lauren's mother. Was he concerned that Lauren's mother might find out that she was dead on TV? No.

When she was getting information for police report, I noticed her last name was different than his was. Asked him about it. That was the first time that she learned that his wife was not Lauren's mother.

He left with Sgt. Rich Erickson. He was going to show Sgt. Erickson where he retrieved Lauren's body. She stayed with Lauren's body.  Then they came back. Where did he go when he came back, he retruned to the spot where he was before.  He was approximately three to four feet away. At some point her body was covered.  Doesn't remember at what point the body was covered.

The defendant never tried to approach Lauren's body. Never indicated that he wanted to see Lauren or say goodbye to her? No.

They were waiting for the homicide detectives to arrive. From the time they arrived before the detectives arrived, it was over 3 hours. He remained with her until homicide arrived.

For the most part, his demeanor was matter of fact, there was a couple times, where he put his head in his hans and appeared to be sobbing, but for the most part, matter of fact. Did not see any tears in the defendant's eyes.  Sobbing, was in her mind, an aduible expression.

When he came back with Sgt. Erickson, he provided more details. I know that some point Mr. Brown had gone into more detail, what had happened prior to Lauren going over the cliff. That they had arrived at Abalone Cove, and she played on the swings for 20 minutes or so and then they went on a hike, and that he had repremanded Lauren for throwing rocks and going near the cliff. And then when they got to the top of the cliff, that's where she was throwing rocks again.

He said he got to Abalone Cove around 2 pm. He said the hike took approximately 15 minutes to IP from the playground.

Doesn't remember if he said the hike went past Portuguese Point.

When said that he had repremanded Lauren for throwing rocks that was on the hiking trip. Did not say that was on the top of IP.  He indicated he was seated, on or near a rock at the top of IP.  He said that this rock was near the bush on IP.

Two days later, she went to the top of IP. She saw the bush that the defendant pointed out. She did immediately see any rock near the bush.  Did the defendant describe in detail to you, the point where Lauren and fallen.

She describes that it's flat towards the end, and then it slopes near the very end.  He indicated that Lauren was on the sloped portion of IP. The area slopes toward the ocean.

When she went back out to IP on 11/10 and with detective and other personnel, did you see that area that slopes, was that area near the bush? Yes. When she went out there, there was a deputy taking measurements and there were some cones placed out there.

Did the defendant describe to you, Lauren's demeanor? I don't remember her specific words, but that she was enjoying herself. Did he volunteer anything else. He said that he had taken pictures. He said the photos on the disposable camera were of Lauren at the preschool.

Didn't ask him if he had any proof that Lauren was having a good time. He offered the photos to her and she thought that was unusual.

Was there anything else, that you recall as unusual as you and the defendant were at the archery range? That Mr. Brown appeared matter of fact. Any conversation? yes. At some point while the helicopters were above, he asked if she had heard who had won the presidential election. (Between Gore and Bush, the contested election.)

Was there any other conversation that the defendant said that was unusual since yo uwere about three feet from Lauren's body? Not sure. He had complained that his boots were wet. He complained about it more than once, from her recollection.

And these conversations that you described for us, did they all take place about 3-4 feet from Lauren's body? Yes.

She stayed with Lauren until the homicide detectives arrived. She was directed to stand guard to in the area of where Lauren's body was recovered. They were concerned about the tides, and there was some evidence there on the rocks.

People's 109 for identification. Identifies IP on the photo. Identifies the archery range area, which is partway up the cliff on the Long Beach side of the area. Hum marks on the photo where she indicated the archery range was.

People's 117, large blow up photograph.  This is a photo of IP. Points out the downward sloping area. The overhead view doesn't depict the angled downward slope. It' is on the right side of the point in this view. She point to the area where I sat and took video.

People's 116a-b.
A. A very close up view of IP, and the downward slope of IP. The bush is actually below, where the sloped area is where I remember sitting.

B. A much closer view of IP

More Photos. 114a
General area of the picnic benches and archery range. And that's how it appeared when she was out there. 114b Closer view of the picnic tables of archery range. 114c A different view of the archery range.

Picnic table in the middle of the view, is the picnic table where Lauren's body was when she arrived.

114d, photo showing Lauren's body as it appeared on November 8. Her face is entirely covered in blood. Her shirt is off. One shoe is missing.

Direct ends Cross begins.

When you were with Mr. Brown on 11/8 and Lauren's body was lying on that table, you felt an intense dislike for Mr. Brown? No.

I had to run out of the courtroom, because of a phone call about Rocket.

Brothers: From my experience, carrying a child like a sack of potatoes. Her parents and grandparents carried her like that in her childhood. She did not think describing the carrying Lauren in that way was disrespectful.

He appeared to be sobbing? Yes. Verifies what she said about crying under direct.

You were testifying in front of the grand jury, in a response to a question, but as I said, we were there for quite some time, he sobbed and cried for two or three times. At that time, in front of the grand jury she used the terms interchangeably. Yes. And the reason you're using these different terms today, ... miss rest of question/answer.  She agrees that is how she defines those words today.

He was seating with you for over three hours? Yes. You were standing basically, in front of him as he sat? I was seated for a large portion of that time, across from him.

Showing the witness a photograph. It's a photo of her, Mr. Brown and Lauren.  Defense T.

Mr. Laub needs to be shown how to use the overhead projection screen. Brown is seated at another picnic table. Lauren's body is covered in a sheet. She was standing with her arms crossed.

During that time you were with Mr. Brown, you would not have left him leave? No. When he talked about his boots, did you recommend him to take them off?

More questions about the wet boots. Did you suggest to him, "If you're uncomfortable why don't you take them off?" She does not remember if she said anything in response to that.

He was waiting there and cooperating. Laub and questions as to why she didn't help to make him more comfortable.

You wern't thinking as you stood there, about Mr. Brown, a parent who had suffered a tragic loss, because maybe you would have said to him, why don't you take those boots off?

Judge inderjects? Meaning she was biased against him? Were you? "No."

Laub accuses her of looking at Brown as a suspect at that moment. No.

Laub accuses her of making her testimony more presentable to the prosecution. She denies this.

Now questions about using the word "near" in regards to describing the word "near." The prosecution used the word near, and you adopted it. In fact, Mr. Brown never used the word near. She doesn't know where the word near came from.

Laub references the second proceeding, you were questioned, he said she just fell off in the area of the bush and you answered correct.  Laub reads more of this testimony to the witness.

When this was happening, Mr. Brown was at the area of the archery range? When he was relaying what had occurred.  From the archery range, that bush, is the most visible on the marker on the edge of the cliff. At that time, I believe so yes.

So when he pointed up at this and said, "It was in the area of this bush, and he was standing at the archery range and using it as a marker, you had no way of knowing that Lauren had fallen to the left of the bush? Yes. No way of knowing if Lauren had fallen to the right of the bush. correct. No way of knowing if she had fallen from in front of the bush. Yes.

It's not in your report that he said she fell off the slope? If it's not there, it's correct.

Laub cross examine's the witness on her prior testimony at the second trial, and that this was how the connection between the bush and where Lauren fell came about.

Now questions about the pictures that he was using to show that she was happy. Actually the context in which this came out, Mr. Brown told you, you had asked him what happened. I asked him what happened. And he was cooperative with you. Yes he was. He never said, I need a lawyer. He never said, you can't hold me here, I'm leaving. No.

You were asking him questions about what happened, and he told you about the playground, and he blurts out, that he has pictures of her at the playground.  He wasn't

He told me that he had the camera when he was talking about the activities of the day, that is correct.
It was prompted by your question. Objection by Hum. (No ruling).

Laub now reads the prior testimony into the record. Hum objects. Laub wants to show the court the transcript. The court asks Hum to look. Hum states, "I've seen it, that's why I object."  Court asks counsel to approach.

Back on cross.

Laub returns to the testimony in the second trial.

Laub talks about the playground and the photographs and how it was offered from Brown and asking her how she took the answer.
At the time she was discussing it with him, she did not take it as anything.

Now asking about the throwing of the rocks and that he diciplined Lauren while they were hiking. That's how she remembers it.

You wrote a report in this case? Correct.

Laub reads from her report, Mr. Brown told her several times on the hike that she had to stay away from the cliff.  There wasn't a cliff there? I'm not sure.

Mr. Brown stumbles through his words. You don't know on that trail if there was a cliff, Objection.

If I was to ask you, if you condenced into your report, more than one sentence into your report. She condensed into her report. Agrees there were more words spoken. It was a summary. She did not record the conversation. So there were more words, but the report is a summary.

Also spoke to detectieve Leslie she he arrived at the scene. Also told Det. Leslie what Brown told you? Yes. And told Det. Leslie, Cameron Brown said he was hiking on the ridge above the locaiton, referencing IP. He said the victim would go toward the edge throwing rocks and he told her to stay away from the edge. And he kept telling her to stay away from the edge, and at that time she fell from the edge.

Doesn't believe that's an accurate summary of what she told Detective Leslie.

Presents her with the report.

Is it correct, what you told det. Leslie, that it was while Lauren was throwing rocks, she fell?  That's what Detective Leslie wrote, but that's not what I recall?

Laub, so even an experience detecitve, can get things wrong? Objection.

I'm saying that's not exactly how I remember telling Detective Leslie.

At the time, you were a trainee? Yes. And you were those first few years, you were working custodial? Yes. You were a trainee? Yes. And you were taking a statement from a witness .... and your product was not from many years of experience? Yes.

One of the things you noticed was that Brown had blood on his socks? She doesn't dispute that, but she doesn't recall that.

Looking at Detective Leslie's report, in reference to Mr. Brown's socks. She read what Det. Leslie wrote, but she doesn't independently recall that today.

When you spoke to Det. Leslie, and you were trying to give him as many facts as possible.  Objection.
Court, your not disputing it? No. Answer stands.

You mentioned that.... when you were with Mr. Brown at the table where Lauren was, there was a point where the wind blew the cover off her, and you put the cover back on her. There was media, and you didn't want to have her photographed? Taht was one of the reasons, yes.  Another question as to why she covered up Lauren.

Testified that Brown didn't want media coverage. Yes. Did you feel that Mr. Brown deserved less dignity than Lauren did? Obj. Sustained.

Well, you made a note of it. In the report, yes.  More questions about Brown's right to privacy, DDA Hum objects and Judge Lomeli rules everything is stricken.

Now questions about her testifying in 2006 about Brown asking about the election.  Back then, she wasn't sure who brought it up, but she doesn't believe she would be the one to bring it up. Today she is testifying that Mr. Brown brought it up. She agrees that was her testimony prior.

At no point in talking with you, does Mr. Brown say, that he initiated this hike with Lauren? Your question is that, Did Mr. Brown say he was the one who initiated the hike?

At any point did he say that he was the one who initiated the hike? I don't remember that today.

He didn't ever tell you, that he initiated the hike with Lauren? I don't remember whether he did that or not.

Now referencing 2006 transcript. Judge asks if Laub is trying to refresh her memory.  Judge asks her if reading a prior transcript would refresh her memory? She states it may.

Now Laub is questioning her about specific words. During the prior proceeding she answered No, he didn't tell her he initiated the hike. Today, she doesn't remember.

The report, is a summary of the events, but did not remark about the election in her report.

Now asking about her testifying about not seeing blood in his goatee when he asked after he supposedly tried CPR.

If he did CPR and if there was blood in his face, she did not see any.

People respond to tragedies with various grief responses, isn't that correct? Yes.

In the range of responses that you've witnessed, people just emotionally shut down? Sometimes yes?

In your experience, that's a normal reaction to grief? Yes. And based on your experience, you can't just look at someone, and how they're reacting to trauma, and know how their feeling? Obj. sustained.

Judge asked her if she's taken classes? No.

Laub asks if she's had experience. Objection 

Judge Laub asks Laub, it's a back and forth.  The judge finally asks, can you tell from looking at someone how they are feeling? No. Answer stands.

Redirect.
Works for Internal Affairs? Yes. What is the job in internal affairs? Have you investigated conduct by officers? Objection. Approach.

She investigates officers that have misrepresented facts. Would you come in here, and misrepresent facts to this jury? No.

Now questioning about the bush and area of the bush in your mind was there a [big difference]? No.

Reads transcript from a prior testimony. More detail about how Brown described the area. She remembers giving that testimony in a prior proceeding.

The defendant's shirt that he was wearing. From what she recalls now, there was some bloo and biological matter on the back of his shirt. Was it brain matter? Obj. Leading. What did it look like? It looked like some kind of biological tissue, but I couldn't tell you what it looked like today.

This questioning by defendant's lawyer who brought up the election.  In your testimony, you specifically said, I wouldn't bring something like that up. You wouldn't bring that up? I wouldn't think so. There were two people in the conversation.

The def. lawyer said, you didn't put the portion about the election question in your report. Did you tell anybody about that s tatement taht night? Yes. Who did you tell. I told the homicide detectives. I don't remember if it was one or the other or both. She told them the night it happened.

Questions about whether or not your report was condensed, and about the hike and where Lauren was throwing rocks.

There are three paragraphs on page 1. First paragraph begins with Lauren the background and leaving the hike. She at that time, she wrote that the defendant told Lauren not to throw rocks and stay away from the edge.

Then when she wrote that they got to the top of IP, she didn't write that Lauren was throwning rocks.

Refers to her report, she referred to Brown as a witness. On the report, the like for suspect is blank. Nowhere in the report, did she refer to Brown as a suspect.

Laub recrosses.
Questions about what DDA Hum crossed her on. Now questions about what she told Detective Leslie and his partner about Brown asking about the election. Is there any place in Leslie's report, where he wrote that she told them about the election.

Objection, foundation. She's not the author of the report. DDA Hum states that Det. Leslie will testifiy.

Now asked to see if Det. Leslie wrote in his report, regarding the election.  There's no statement in the report.  So this appears to be another error in the report by Detecitve Leslie.  Objection! Sustained.

Now asking her about being an officer in Internal Affairs. You're not part of an independent citizens review group? Correct. This is not oversight of police department. Correct. It's you're hired, to investigate the police department. I guess that's one way to look at it.

Laub asks about investigating police officers. Objection sustained.

So what you are, is the fox guarding the hen house? Do

I would not describe it that way. Our department is different. My role is to conduct the interviews to present an unbiased presentation of facts to the department that determines whether or not wrong doing has happened.

Laub tries to ask another question, DDA Hum objects and Judge Lomeli sustains the objection.

Cross examination is over and the witness is excused.  Side bar at the bench.

DDA Hum briefly will call Detective Leslie.

JEFFREY LESLIE
Det. Leslie occupation and assignment. Dep. Sheriff in Co. of LA. Assigned to det. bureary. Been with 31 years next month With homicide 16 years this month.

Asking him about a specific area of the investgation at this point. Aware that defendant made a 911 call. And that it's also on a CD. Going to play the 911 call.  People's 98. He has transcripts.

The 911 call is played.

This ends court for the day.

The jury is ordered back April 13. Some jurors ask what they are to tell their employer. The court instructs the jurors to tell their employer court is dark.

The court told counsel that he met this morning with the coordinator of the Sheriff's Dept. They need at least a week to co-ordinate a trip out to Inspiration Point. So the court is asking counsel to give them heads up, when they plan on the trip ti IP.

The court stands in recess on this case.

1:33 PM
Judge Lomeli told the jurors to report back on April 13 at 9:30 AM.

Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 9, Prosecution's Case Continues

Defense attorney Lara Yeretsian and Cameron Brown, 9/2009.

Photo credit: Al Seib, Los Angeles Times

UPDATE 1:00 PM spelling, clarity

Thursday, April 2, 2015
Note to Readers
I apologize. I was unable to attend court yesterday.

Our beloved 1 year old kitten, Rocket has been diagnosed with a fatal illness, feline infectious peritonitis (FIP). Rocket, named in honor of the original ‘Sprocket,’ was adopted from the Baldwin Park shelter last July, in celebration of Mr. Sprocket’s recovery from his heart attack. Mr. Sprocket and I are very sad. I’ve been up quite late the last few nights, researching alternative treatments and trying to find a homeopathic vet who has experience using Irene de Villers protocol.

Yesterday
It’s my understanding that court resumed Wednesday afternoon and that several witnesses from Lauren’s school testified. I will inquire about the cost of purchasing a copy of Wednesday’s transcript so I can prepare a synopsis of the witnesses who testified. If I am unable to afford the transcript, I will at least get the names of the witnesses who testified.

T&T is 100% reader supported, trial reporting website. There are no advertisements, except for my own modest sewing business. There is no budget to pay for research, travel costs or court documents. All the support comes from you. If you appreciate what T&T provides as a free service, please consider making a donation via the Paypal® link on the right side of the blog.

9:45 AM
I'm inside Dept. 107. Defense attorney Aron Laub is at the defense table. There are three women in the gallery I do not recognize.

9:50 AM
DDA Craig Hum and Detective Jeff Leslie arrive with their files.

9:55 AM
Sarah Key-Marer, Lauren's mother arrives with two friends. Since the middle of the second row is occupied, they sit in the third row.

The jurors are brought in and put in the jury room.

9:57 AM
Brown is brought into the courtroom handcuffed to a wheelchair. I have heard that Brown has an injury to his toe but I haven't had that confirmed via counsel. Brown was wearing an orange jumpsuit and the white long-john type shirt underneath.  The two sheriff's that brought him in exit.

9:59 AM
Two jurors enter a bit late.

10:07 AM
At sidebar, counsel and the judge are talking about Brown's foot issue. The foot is swollen. The court tells counsel that there is no issue with the court that he has a problem, but apparently, the doctor has cleared Brown. The court indicates that they are providing a wheelchair for Brown.

Laub argues to the court that Brown's foot issue is spreading. The court states that he's been seen by three doctors in three days.

The court responds that Brown said he wouldn't come to court unless seen by a doctor. The court tells Laub if he continues this behavior, then court will continue [the trial] with his absence.

Court goes on the record with what was discussed at side bar.

Laub states that he was first informed by Mr. Brown he was seen by Dr. Vilatie (sp?) [Va-lah-hee?] on Monday. The court corrects him and states that it was Tuesday. It was his memory that he saw a doctor on Monday morning and saw a female associate on Wednesday. Dr. Vilatie told Brown that he would need to be seen again. Laub claims that doctor ordered follow up treatments in prior occasions have not happened.

There is a long history of problems that Mr. Brown has had, at the jail. Understand from the jails perspective, that he is a complainer. Laub has talked to a watch commander ... some of Brown's complaints have been legitimate.  I can tell the court this morning, the foot remains swollen. And the red spot has spread to the outer side of the foot.  Feels that it is a violation of Mr. Brown's due process rights. It's not only going to be a discomfort, but now his health is at issue.

Laub states that the doctor who has cleared Brown is not the doctor who treated him. Asking the court to speak to the Dr. Vilatie directly. Laub mentions that one of the problems that the jail has had is staph infections.

The court states that Dr. Vilatie cleared him. Next day seen by the nurse. The court states that Brown would like to be seen by the same doctor every day. "We don't have that luxury." Based on the information that the court has received, Dr. Vilatie has cleared him for court. The court went through great lengths and the bailiff went to great lengths to ensure that Brown was seen by a doctor.


DDA Hum asks that the medical records be reviewed from all three trials. DDA Hum asks that any review in court, include all medical records.

Laub brings to the point that Brown was in a cell for two weeks without any light. (I remember when Laub brought this up last year.)

10:23 AM
Court asks tha the jury be brought in. Brown stays seated. The jury enters.

Judge apologizes to the court. "I'm so embarrassed I can't even look at you. Some jurors laugh.

JANINE HERRERA-SAUNDERS

Back in November of 2000. Working at a preschool Christian Montessori school. She had been working there approximately 2 years. She was the assistant director. Performed many duties from A to Z. Responsible for paperwork, interacting with parents, evaluated classrooms, compliance with state regulations and children interacting.

She also had children at the Montessori school. Their ages were: 6, 4.5, 2, and 1.  In everyday basis, she had contact with the children and parents. Via drop off and pick up as well as by phone. She was responsible for knowing who was allowed to pick up the children for safety as the school as a whole. 

Legal paperwork completed by parents before child enrolled as to who could pickup the child from school.

She knew Lauren Key. Photo of Lauren put up that she identifies. She was one of the children of the school and became a student in the kindergarten class. She interact with her on a daily basis. She was on the playground often, doing a lot supervising there. It was easy to get to know all the children.

What kind of little girl was she? Lauren was delight. Lauren, was very lovable. She exuberated life. She was very [?]. She had very good social skills, good child to child social skills. Her development verbally was very advanced. She could form sentences; very advanced. She could speak to adults well. She was just a very happy, well behaved child.


She was obedient? She knew her boundaries. To my memory, she was one of the children you wouldn't have reprimand. My description of obedient, she had social skills. She knew what she was allowed to do. And she would follow the procedure and enjoy her life.

Was she adventurous, or not so much? A risk taker, or not so much? Her temperament followed more into the docile side. She wasn't an adventurous child. She became like family to her. She was more docile.

What did she like to do? In regards to activities, predominantly on the playground, would be more [the playhouse].  There were various options for the children, she was a natural child she loved live, her temperament was more toward the playhouse and more toward pretend play, in the playhouse.

Did you also know Sarah Key-Marer? Yes.

Did you ever see Lauren interact with her mother? Yes. It was very open. Very loving. You would see hugs, it was back and forth between both, very loving and bonding. It was a very loving scene. Sarah would  be interested in what was going on with her life. It was a situation that you would expect.

What was her reaction when her mom came to pick her up? Happy. Her face was illuminated. She had the same bond with the staff at the school, even more so with her mom. Run to her. She was happy.

What a cubby? A cubby is space within the preschool classroom, where the kids would place their articles for the day. A lunch pail, a blanket, their personal belongings.

Were there swimming lessons offered through the school? Yes. They took place at the YMCA kitty-corner to the school.

Her memory of Lauren going there is not clear. She would wait to cross streets. When they would go to the pool, Lauren was extremely resistant into entering the water. Her body would tense up, she would shake her head.  Despite our relationship, despite, the training [by the swimming coaches] to get children into the water, Lauren would resist.

The witness gives a demonstration using the witness stand. Lauren would sit a half a yard plus from the water, the sitting fetal position and sit there. She did not want to go into the water.

Any individuals other than Sarah, who on occasion would pick Lauren up? Yes. She identifies the defendant.

Were you informed by Sarah who this individual was? Yes.

Was there a procedure that the court mandated if someone picked Lauren up, other than Sarah? According to school rules, they had to be properly be placed with the paperwork. As far as school rules, once they are on the form, they could pick up. Sarah would type up a document each time that Lauren would have a visit with Brown when he was picking Lauren up.

Had you personally seen Brown pick up Lauren from the school? Yes. She observed [about] three to four, less than 10.

When the defendant would pick up Lauren from school, was he ever by himself? No. He was generally with another woman who was his girlfriend.

Speaking of Patty Brown, she is not in court today. Sprocket

When they came to pick up Lauren, it was very tense from the moment of entering to the school. She observed this. The defendant came in [to the school], he didn't appear to want to engage [with Lauren?]. Being the father,  I tried to make, from the school standpoint, to engage him with Lauren's day. He appeared very disinterested. As Lauren would come in as well, she would come in more slowly, He appeared more irritable, more impatient. [The atmosphere when Brown and the girlfriend would come] was intense.

What else did you observe? Lauren would come in generally slow. Her face would look solemn. Her walk appeared to be hesitant. The girlfriend again, now showing, appeared to be more tense and impatient as well. She [the girlfriend] was more reactive and tried to hurry Lauren along. She would just try to get things going and move Lauren out the door. The witness, she's gesturing with her hands.

Questions the witness about November 8, 2000.

Do you remember that day? Very much so. She saw Lauren that day. She saw Lauren within the early morning.

How was Lauren acting on Nov. 8? From early morning until pick up time, Lauren was acting totally out of her normal character. Lauren was very frantic that day. She was crying all day long. She was whimpering. She was crying, very frantic. Her sentences, at the same time, one word. She woul, her mind would appear to be in a frantic state.

On Nov. 8 in 200, did you see Lauren engage in the playground? No. That was unusual for Lauren. Did not see Lauren socializing with her friends that day? No. She was with Lauren most of the day, walking with her, talking with her, trying to calm her down. She was unable to engage in her usual activities at all. That was because of her disposition that day.

Was Lauren asking you to do anything? She was asking me to phone her mother. Continuously all day, she was asking me to call her mother.

At some point, did you allow Lauren to speak to her mother? Yes. Not long prior Cameron coming to pick up Lauren, I placed Lauren on the phone with her mother. We were on the pick-nick benches when they called.

She cannot remember the conversation. I do remember her [Lauren] yelling, 'Mommy, Mommy Mommy,' and crying.

This was on the phone? Yes.

While on the phone, did someone come to pick Lauren up? Yes, the defendant.

As far as her observation, Brown was by himself. This was the first time that she saw Brown pick up Lauren by himself.  While Lauren was on the phone with her Mom, she was crying.

What happened when the defendant came into view? My memory is, he arrived a bit earlier. When he came into view, he asked what was wrong. I made light of the situation, and let him know, that maybe she wasn't feeling well and that she was talking to her mother. Lauren at that point immediately changed her dipsosition as to what was going on all day. She stood up straight, in a type of robotic stance. Her hands were by her sides. No emotion on her face at all. She looked at him with eyes of boldness as I was observing her. Lauren then said she was fine.

Brown was standing up straight as well. He bent down at his waist and picked her up under her arms and placed her on the right side of his body. He picked Lauren up and turned and carried her away.

Her arms were close to her body. Then her face was clenched. Then Lauren reached out with one of her arms, reaching for the teacher.

Was that the last time you ever saw Lauren? Yes, that was the last time I ever saw Lauren.

I have a coughing fit and have to leave the courtroom.  When I come back, Mr. Laub is cross examining the witness.

What does it mean to be here for Lauren to you? Lauren still lives in our hearts. I got to know Sarah very well. You're always looking for the best interests of the child. When I say the best interests, I'm not here taking Sarah s side or Brown's side, I'm just reporting what I saw that day. That's what I was trying to say.

But you do believe that Mr. Brown killed Laruen? That is not why I'm here today.

But that's what you told Sarah? She has not talked to Sarah in lieu of the case.

Where did it come that Brown had to have a separate approval every time that Brown came? Sarah asked that it be done as part of the custody case, so that it was documented, each time that Brown picked up Lauren.

Do you remember if you had a court document [ordering this]? She doesn't remember.

Isn't it a fact, that you didn't have a court document, that said you had to have a separate document when Brown picked up Lauren?  From her memory, she did not.

So that meant that each time Brown came up to pick up Lauren, he had to interact with the school staff? Insists that every parent interacted with staff when they picked up their child.

But that didn't happen with every parent? (Miss complete answer.)

She would call Sarah, if she didn't have a document for Brown to pick up. She assumed that
there was a custody issue with Lauren.

Another coughing fit. I leave the courtroom to get water.

Questioning the witness on differences in her testimony from this trial to prior proceedings as to how Lauren behaved when Brown picked up Lauren.

Laub challenges the witness that she never described Lauren as robotic before. Witness states that she didn't reread prior court proceedings.

Isn't it true that you do believe that Mr. Brown killed Lauren, and that you're trying to remember things in a way [that's supportive of Sarah/ Brown's guilt]... Isn't that what's going on? No sir.

Laub confronts the witness again that she's trying to testify this time in a way that supports Brown's guilt?  Witness asks to see her prior statements.

Witness explains that compared to the prior proceeding, she found her voice. That back then, she wasn't as descriptive. Now, she's using more ajectives.

Laub confronts her on that aspect of her testimony.

Laub states that the reason she's using those words, is because she's more convinced than ever, that Mr. Brown killed Lauren? No sir.

Now questioning about how she described Lauren's temperament, and that she used the word docile and described to detectives that Lauren was docile and did more feminine things and did not play on the obstacles? Yes sir.

Witness is excused.

I'm really struggling not to cough at the moment.

Deborah Jenkin

DEBORAH JENKIN
What is your occupation? Works with Los Angeles school system. In Nov. 2000, she was a Recreation Leader for Rancho Palos Verdes. Worked at a museum, park locations, City Hall. She was a city employee.

Was one of your jobs as a recreation person, was to work at parking lot at Abalone Cove? Yes. That park was beach access they had a parking lot. She took the money for patrons to go in.

There's a parking lot at Abalone Cove. Yes. She took the money for people to park and that's what she was doing on that day.

The parking lot is off of Palos Verdes Drive South.  It runs parallel to the coast in the area of Abalone Cove.  One direction is San Pedro, the other direction is LAX.

The road at that location is raised up. It is on the top area of the bluff. Explains how one gets into the parking lot from the main road.

On Nov 8, 2000, that day she worked from 9 am to 4 pm. She worked that entire shift. Describe the parking lot back then. The driveway was blacktop then it turned to gravel.  The booth to pay was located on the driver's side. She was looking towards the ocean, sitting in the booth. Parking was $5.00 on that day. The parking lot was raised up, on the bluff.

Was there any time of fencing or safety devices around the parking lot? Yes there was.  There was metal poles and wood slats all around the parking lot. Like a fence, the framework of the fence.  The fence was about four feet hall.

Were there any openings in this fence that encircled the parking lot. Yes. There was an opening for hikers to go down to the tide pools. There was a trail head. The trail head went downwards towards the beach. There was a preschool, tide pools and the beach area.

There was another way to get to the preschool. There was a private road. That road was further down the main road. There was a gate across this road.

The path from the parking lot that went down to the preschool and beach what is it? It's dirt.

The parking lot itself, were there bathroom? AT that time there were bathrooms that were connected to the shack where she took the money, and then an outhouse a few feet away. There were public phones in that area at the time.

There was a separate exit to get out of the parking lot. To get in the lot they would have to pass her. To exit, they would not pass her.

Nov 8, 2000, was that a busy day for the parking lot? Not at all. How many cars came in that day? Ten or eleven.

Somewhere between noon and 2 pm, there was a car that caught your attention? Yes. How many were in the car? Two. It was one adult and one child. The adult was a man. The child was a girl.

11:35 AM
People's 101 for identification. Is that the girl? Yes. Is that how she was dressed when you saw her in the car? Yes.  Lauren has on a long sleeve shirt, It looks like a tunic.

She identifies the defendant as the man who was driving the car.

The car was an older model, American made car, possibly white and gray. There was a surfboard on top of the car. Lauren was in the front passenger seat. She was not in a car seat and she didn't have a seat belt on.

What was it about this man and little girl that caught your attention? It's not what I saw, it's what I didn't see. First of all, she was in the front seat, with no safety restraints. I saw the man, who I can't even describe how he was, like I'd never seen. His eyes were different, his hair was all blown, so when I looked at him, I looked at the inconsistencies that were there. There was someone who was put together, [Lauren] and then there was the man.

The little girl was extremely still. Some kids are excited to get to the beach. She sat right there in the passenger seat. She turned and looked at me and stared me in the eye. We were locked in eye contact for the duration. It was just inconsistent behavior of what I've normally seen. It just raised my [?]. I just wondered what was going on. I was trying to like process, what's going on here.

One of her thoughts was, that it was a kidnapping.

Before the car pulled into the driveway, what were you doing? You were on the phone with city hall? Yes. She then put the phone down. Did the defendant give you the five dollars? Yes.

I gave him a map of the paths down to the tide pools.

What did the defendant do? He took the map and they drove off to the left into the parking lot. After they turned to the left, she could not see the car anymore. She then picked up the phone and continued with her conversation on the phone. [To the person she was speaking with on the phone] I told her that something just strange happened. I asked her what should I do. Should she report it or what.

Their conversation ended that she didn't see anything that this was a kidnapping. She had called the police before, and they would not come until you see something.

After you hung up the phone, did you go anywhere? She wnet to see where the little girl and the man had parked, and to see if she could see anything else going on. It was parked between the shack and phone booth.  There were parking spots closer to the trail head, but they did not park there.

Could not see the defendant or little girl when she went out to look where they had parked.

Later that evening, as getting ready to leave the job, did yo unotice anything unusual? there was a ton of sirens. Then they just kept coming. Then one helicopr came, then there were two then three or four helicoptors. Picked up the phone and calle city hall and asked if they knew anything that was going on. They didn't know anything. City hall said they would call back.

At some time she found out that a child had died on the cliff. Her thoughts went immediately to the little girl.

Group of six photographs, marked collectively 104.

First photograph  104aof the parking lot shack. It's a decent sized building.  This is the shack where she collected the money.  There are big windows in the center of the photo. Photo b.  This is the photo, of where you would go down the trail.

Photo C, of the fence and signs. That is closer photo of the trail head. Those signs were there on that day.  Photo D. Bottom right hand corner, was the preschool, nursery school.  The bluff off in the distance, is Portuguese Point. Inspiration Point is past Portuguese Point.  Photo E. Another trail that one can hike on. It goes down the nursery school. Photo F, some of the play equipment at the nursery school.

Direct is finished. Cross examination.

You sounded pretty emotional, about not calling the police that day, have you felt guilt since then? Of course. She testified prior. Yes.

Has it been frustrating for you that this case kept going on? Well I would like him to answer. I think there needs a finality to it?

Would that relieve your guilt some how? .... Nothing's going to bring that little girl back.

You feel in some way personall responsible? My thought is, that adults are here to protect children. And adults did not protect her.


And she fell off the cliff? And how did that happen? Objection!

Judge interceedes.

How would calling the police would have interceded? Maybe it would have [change his consciousness?]

Now questions about statements she gave the police. You did say that, that these two people, Mr. Brown and Lauren didn't seem right together.  Yes. They looked like two different socioeconomic levels.

That was one of the significant things that caught her eye. She was dressed very well, and he was in beach attire. She looked well kept. She looked clean. She looked gorgeous.

Judge interrupts. Calls the lunch hour.

Judge is off the bench.

12:23 PM
I've tentatively heard that five individuals testified Wednesday afternoon. I hope to have their names later today or tomorrow.

1:25 PM
In the 9th floor hallway. DDA Hum is pacing by the door to Dept. 107. He's wearing a black suit and white shirt. I finally get a close look at Detective Leslie's tie. It's stunning. A paisley pattern of tan, gold threads and touches of brownish-burgundy. 


1:32 PM
Inside Dept. 107. Brown is brought out. The jurors are asked to line up.  Judge Lomeli comes out from the back rooms and stops at his clerks desk. The jury files in.

Mr. Laub continues his cross examination.

Asks about the trail in one of the photos. She testifies that the playground and the school are connected.

The trail down to the beach was used regularly by school age children? Yes, by school aged children.

Asks how long the trail is, 1 mile, 1.5 mile?  1/2 to 3/4 mile. She's not sure.

Going back to when she saw the car, with the little girl going in, when you observed the little girl, she observed to her that she must have just awakened.  That's what I told Detective Leslie, but she didn't appear sleepy. All the things that she said prior to that were negative about the defendant.

You were struck by his eyes? His and hers. Because she looked at me and stare.

You went about your normal performance of your duties? And the whole time I'm looking at her.

And when you turned around to get the map?  Well, just for a second.

Their eyes were locked the entire time.

When looking at the eyes of the little girl, did you say anything to her? No, I did not.

So it sounds like, you don't know if she's staring at you and being polite, it's really hard to know what was happening. Well, it was she just turned, and stared at me, and I'd never had that with another child.

Well it sounds like, she turned to look at you, and different economical circumstance, ... Mr. Brown's face, it looked like a mad man? Yes.  It looked to you, like he was crazy? Yes.

Seven days later, you did have the opportunity to talk to Detective Leslie? Correct. And you were able to tell them, what it was? Correct. At that time, you didn't say anything about Mr. Brown's eyes? I talked about kidnapping. Actually, you didn't say anything about his face at all? No.

You were shown a photograph of Lauren Keywhich you identified. And you couldn't remember the photograph of Mr. Brown. Correct.

Redirect.
The attoreny sayd that you didn't say anything about the defendant's face, but it concerned you that it might be a kidnapping. Correct.

You made eye contact with Lauren? Correct. You saidit looked like they were strangeers? Correct. You said it looked like they didn't belong together? Correct.

He asked you about feeling guilty, about not calling the police. After this happened she left this career to go into something to help children.

Recross.
Doing special ed work is honerable and needed. Is the reason this comes out now, is your feelings of guilt made you become a special ed teacher?  (Miss complete answer.

Witness is finished.

People call Saad Omar.

SAAD OMAR

He also goes by "Sam."  He's 52 years old.

Back in Nov 2000, he lived in Long Beach.  He worked at The Coffee Clatch, in Redondo? Beach. Back then, he used to take Wednesday's off.

On his days off, he used to go to Rancho Palos Verdes, Portuguese Point. He would go about once a month. It was quiet, serene, beautiful.

How long as of Nov 2000, how long had you been going to PP? About 10 years.

Prior to Nov 8, 2000, had you ever seen a young child on the trails in that area? No.

Specifically about Nov. 8, 2000. He went there that day. He drove from Long Beach. He parked in the parking lot.

Where did you go after? I went down the trail to the beach area, and came back up.  Was preschool in session when you were down there? I don't think so.

The preschool is on the beach? Yes. When he got down to the beach and preschool, he went east/south, toward Long Beach.

He walked on to the beach area, and then he took a trail, back up to Portuguese Point. Went along this trail that goes up. It's a dirt trail. It's wider than a hiking trail, so that a vehicle could drive. There was a lifeguard station down at the bottom of that trial.

From the parking lot at Abalone Cove, how long did it take you to get there? About a half hour.

He went there, because he had a book he was going to read.

Asked to describe Portuguese Point. It's like a penensula. It's square, a long flat wide area. There is a fence around it. It's a nice view from there. It's a relatively safe area.

After he got onto PP, did you look in any particular direction? Yes. Towards LAX, where he parked.

Did you see any people who caught your attention? Yes, I did. Tell us what you saw. I saw a man walking with a little girl. Where were the man and the little girl. Just before, halfway through the trail, they were walking, coming up the trial.

This was the general area of the trail that he took, but some distance away.

Why did you notice them. It was odd seeing kids in that area. I'd never see that before.  I saw them walking up to portuguese point.

When you saw them were they together? The gentleman was in front, she was walking behind. Do you remember how far behind was the little girl? Four to five feet.

You were observing this from a significant distance? Objection? Sustance?

Witness estimates that the people were about a quarter of a mile away from him.

Observed the man and child as they came towards him.  They were walking up the same road that he had taken. And they continued up in the same direction he had taken. He watched them a couple of minutes. The man was in front of the little girl, the entire time.

Did you ever see the little girl running ahead? No.

What did you do? I turned around towards Catalina Island for a few seconds, 30 seconds, and then turned back around and saw the man and little girl again. Saw that he could see that the little girl was a girl.

Describes the next point where he saw the defendant and Lauren.  When he turned around, the man was still in front and the girl was still behind, three to four feet.

Did the man and the girl continue to come up the road in your direciton? Yes. About how close did they get to you? Four to five feet.

Hum demonstrates how far they were by standing 5-6 feet away. The man was still ahead of the little girl. When the man saw Sam, he stopped. [The little girl caught up] Identifies the defendant.

Asks him to look at people's 101. That's the little girl.

After the defendant stopped he continued to watch them. They walked to the other end of PP. When he first saw them, they were on the LAX side of PP. And he saw them walk towards the Long Beach side. The man was in front. Did the little girl look to be leading him? No. When they got to the Long Beach side, he stopped watching them. At no time, was the little girl ever in front.

He jumped the fence at the end of PP, and sat under the trees.  Did you see where the little girl and the defendant went? No.

He could not see IP from where he was sitting on PP. Now some time between did you hear a sound? 3:45.

Did you hear a noise that caught your attention? Do you remember how long after it was you saw the man and the little girl? About 45 minutes.

Tell us what sound you heard? I thought I heard a short scream, a faint scream?  I got up and looked around and didn't see anything. I thought it was sea gulls.  The sound came from the Long Beach direction.

After you looked around and didn't see anything, did you continue to read your book? Yes. Later did you see helicopters? Yes. Did you watch the news that night? Yes I did.

What did you do the next day? On the news they were saying if there were any witnesses, to call the police. What was it about what you had seen that day that made you call the police?  Just the fact that I had seen kids in that area.

After you called the police, did they get back in touch with you? Yes. He met the police out there, at PP, and pointed out the various areas, that he was describing.

Arial photograph, mark as 105. Big, blown up photo overview of PP.

Witness identifies the photo as Portuguese Point. Points out the trail that switches back up the side of the mountain, up to PP.

Witness points to where he was on PP when he first saw the man and the little girl.  The man and little girl, were off the photo, to the left when he first saw them.  When he first saw them, they were on the lower trail.  DDA Hum makes a dotted line as to the path that Omar saw the defendant and Lauren take.

He was still at the same spot, when the defendant and Lauren came within five feet from him.

The defendant and the little girl, went from left to right on the photo, the back portion/dirt area of Portuguese Point.  He went to a group of trees, at the very end of Portuguese Point. The spot is sort of in the middle, but a bit more towards the LAX side of PP.  That's where he was reading a book.

Another enlarged photo, People's 106.
Photo of the trail that goes up from the beach to the top of PP. A switchback road that climbs the side of the cliff from the beach to the top.  DDA Hum marks the exhibit in red dotted line, where the witness outlined with the laser pointer.

He went out with the detectives to PP. Photographs were taken to show the areas he was talking about.

Photos 107 a-d. Four photos on a big poster board. These were the photos that were taken when he went with detectives.  In the photo, Omar is standing where he was when he first saw the father and the little girl, and pointing to where he first saw them.

Photo B, part of the road that goes to the top of PP. Photo C, of Omar and the edge of the white wall in the photo, is where he last saw the defendant and Lauren.

Photo D. This is a rea that goes to, around the end that faces Catalina Island. This leads to where he jumped the fence and was reading his book.

In 2006, did you go back to this area with Detective Leslie and people from the DA's office. Another photo, Peoples 108, a-c.

Did you direct Detective Leslie, to a particular spot, via cell phone? Yes, directed them to a particular spot. In the photo, can you see Detective Leslie and someone from our office? Yes. Identifies the location as where he first saw the defendant and Lauren.  Photo B, another photo of where he saw the defendant and Lauren on the road.  Same thing in Photo C, is where defendant and Lauren came up the trail to PP.

Why did you keep watching them? I just, it was just weird. It didn't look right. It didn't make sense.

Been going to that area once or twice over 10 years. Had never seen children on those trails in that time.

When you were at the top of PP, and the defendant got to within five or six feet you, describe how the little girl looked. She looked tired, out of breath, and she was dragging down. It didn't look like she wasn't having a good time.

Did you hear them talk to each other at all? No. From the time that you first saw the defendant and the little girl, until the time they got up to PP and were five or six feet from you, did you ever see the little girl in front of the defendant? No. Obj. asked and answered. Sustained.

Did you always see the little girl behind the defendant? Yes.

During the time that you saw them, when you first saw them, did it ever appear to you, that the defendant was having trouble keeping up with the little girl? No.

Now you said that after the little girl caught up with the defendant, they then went to the Long Beach side of PP? Yes.

In that entire time, did the little girl, ever run ahead?

Judge clarifies in question. No.

Several more questions of this type, that Mr. Laub objects to. Judge asks the question to cover the entire area. The little girl was never ahead.

Did the police ever tell you what the defendant said happened? No. Did the police ever tell you to say one thing or the other? No.

You know where IP is located? Yes. Have you ever been out on IP? Once. When was that? A year later. Did you go out to the end of the IP? Yes.

The entire time you've been out to PP, have you ever seen a child out on IP? No.

Cross examination.

Back years ago, at some point you were contacted an investiagor from the public defenders office. Yes. And you refused to talk to him? No, I asked if I had to talk to him. I asked if it was manditory.

Is there a reason, personal to you, because you wanted to talk to the prosecution and not the defense? Because of what I saw that day?

I know that you are here to testify, is the facts different if the defense knows them? It was the bad feeling I have, and that's why I contacted the police.

What harm would there be in sharing facts as facts, to both sides of the investigation? If they told me I had to, I would have.  They didn't call me back.

You told them on the first call, you wouldn't talk to them, unless it was required.

You mentioned that you'd never seen kids in this area. Do you know of something. Do you know if Palos Verdes Conservatory took kids up there. I heard it in prior testimony, but before I had never heard that.

At any point at all, in any of your observations, did the little girl appear to stop and refuse to go forward? No. did she stop and sit down? No. did you ever see the man take the girls hand and start to pull her? No. When you saw her closer up, did she appear to have been crying? No, but her demeanor, she was subdued, really tired. She wasn't crying? No.

As she got closer to you, did she say anthing to you, Mister, please help me? No. Did the little girl say anything like I didn't feel well? no. Did she say anything to try to direct your attention to her? No. did you hear her, say anything to this little girl? At any time did you hear the man say anything to the little girl? No.

Cross ends, no redirect.

James Witherow.
JAMES WITHEROW

Back in 2000, in what city did you live? In 2000, Long Beach. Prior to living there, he lived in Rancho Palos Verdes, San Pedro. Back during that time, he would hike around the fire station near PP.

He would go hiking there, because hardly anyone went there and it was good walking because you had a hill to climb. He would go two to three days a week. He was hiking there since the 80's. He would hike 2-3 days a week.

He used to go there and dive and hike.

Did you have certain hikes that were set hikes he would take in that area? Yes. Did one of those involve the Abalone Cove, PP area? Yes.

In that area that you had been hiking in since 2000, was there other hikes you would take in that area as well?  He would hike down to what was called the nude beach and back up.

Nov 8, 2000. He went hiking in the area.  He parked his car on PV Drive, there's a firestation nearby there are a few parking spots on PV Drive, away from the parking lot, towards LAX.   Gives a long description of the trail that he takes.

Sounds like you were in pretty good shape back then? Still am for an old man. Jury chuckles.

More detailed descriptions of the trails on the side of the cliff from the parking lot. When he gets to the playground, there's a trail that drops that down into a gully, and then as soon as you get to the beach, there is a trail that goes up to the top of the bluff. When in the gully, you are at the beach level. Then he goes back up the other side of the gully, to the bluff area. After the blacktop road, there is a lifeguard station.

He continued to travel in the direction of PP. From the bluff, he went to PP. Eventually he connects with a road. This is on the LAX side of PP.  The road eventually connects to PV Drive. He intersected this road, part way up the cliff side.

The road, if you take it too quick, you can get winded. He took the loop around PP, then stopped at the rock wall. He hiked up to a little knoll, and then went up to PV Drive.

During this hike, did you see a man and a small child as well? Yes. I saw them three times.  The first time, when I cam up that narrow trail to that flat area, the bluff, and they were going up the blacktop road, in front of me.

Where were they, when you first saw them? On the blacktop road. When you first saw them, could you tell if the child was male or female? No. The child was behind the male, a larger person. The child was behind the man five to 20 feet. That's an estimate.

As you saw the two of them, were they moving at the same pace? I really couldn't tell but they seem to be moving at about the same pace.

The second time he saw them. He was on PP on the San Pedro side, where the fence and white wall meet. 

Now asking about the second time (?). At that time, the were near where there was a port-a-potty. They were on a trail, next to the road. PV Drive South. They were on the side of the road, [on PV Drive South].

3:00 PM
Judge Lomeli calls for the afternoon break. The jury files out.

3:10 PM
In the gallery, DDA Hum jokes with his witness. Now inside the well, DDA Hum paces. There is a suited gentleman who entered Dept. 107 about five minutes prior. He greeted DDA Hum. Now he's sitting in the gallery.

3:15 AM
On the record, provided defense counsel with a disk, that was redacted from previous 83. Less than what people's 83 had been, it's minus the excessive ringing. 

We start at 9:30 AM tomorrow.

The clerk gets the jury. The jury files in. We are back on the record.

Continuing with direct. The second time he saw them, the man and the child were on the side of Palos Verdes Drive South. They were walking towards San Pedro, towards IP. The second time saw them, the child was behind the man. About the same distance as prior.

Saw the man and child a third time. He went up the hill, from that white stone wall, to the top and back down. The next time he saw them, he was on PP, and saw them heading out towards IP.

When he saw the man and child the third time, he was basically in the same spot, when he saw them the third time.  The were in a narrow area, just before the trees and bushes. He saw them going out toward the end of IP. The third time he saw them, they were in the same position, the child was behind the man again. Anywhere between five and 20 feet.

Exhibit 110 a-c. Big blow up of three photographs. Photos on the board. Photo A, that's the top of the bluff. There's a flat area.  It's a side view of the cliff, from the view of the parking lot towards Portuguese Point.

It's confusing to understand this witnesses description. Photo B is an area of PV Drive South. The photo was taken from about the same spot he was in, when he saw the man and child.

Third time he saw the man and child. Photo C, another view of Inspiration Point. In the center of the photo, is where he last saw the man and child on IP.

Peoples 109, Ariel photograph of IP and PP. The view is in the direction of LAX.

In that photo, can you se the place where the man and child were, the second time. You can see Palos Verdes Drive South. The witness outlines on this road, where he saw the man and child the second time.  The first time he saw them, was when they were beside the rock wall.  Where he saw them, all three times are marked on the exhibit.

After he saw them for the third time, he went out to PV Drive, beyond where the landslide was. He then walked back to his car on PV Drive.

At some point he heard that something had happened. He asked the parking people about the helicopters. The police left a business card at his door, and they came out to interview him.

He saw the man and the child three separate times. Every time he saw them the man was always in front. Did you ever see the little girl, running ahead? No.

Coming to the area since 1984 1985. In the entire time going to that area, have you ever seen a child on Inspiration Point? No. Have you ever been out to IP? One time. There's a narrow area, where it's unstable. That was the area where he saw the man and child a third time.

Direct ends and cross begins.

As informed experienced hiker, you said IP is unstable? In my opinion. I didn't feel safe there. Is IP from your knowledge, a place where a person could fall off, slip off because of the instability of the place? Easily.

If you were to add all three different moments, it adds up to two to three minutes? And at no time, did I get to see the people. So I can't ask you how they were interacting? No. [He didn't see them that close.]

When you spoke to Det. Leslie on Nov. 20th, 2000. You said that the man was ahead of the child five to 20 feet? Yes. I made that mistake. From where you were, you couldn't tell how far it was exactly? [No.]  The witness adds, five to 20 feet.

Mr. Barber

RICHARD IKEL BARBER

Back in Nov of 2000, he was living in Palos Verdes estates. On Nov 8, sometimes between 12 and 2:30 PM. He was driving on PV Drive South. Headed in the direction of LAX.

At some point was in the area of IP and PP. Correct. HE was driving and he saw a man and a young girl on the side of the road. On the ocean side.  He saw them walking together.  They were 20 to 25 feet apart. The gentleman was in front.

Were they as far apart as you and I are right now? Close. Approximately 20 feet. Yes.

Were they on the same side of the road as you were driving? Opposite?  They were traveling in the opposite direction. They were near the intersection of Peppertree and PVDrive South.

People's 109 on the screen. Identifies where the streets intersect on the large exhibit. DDA Hum makes a mark on the exhibit.

111 a-b. Shows two view of Palos Verdes Drive South, each from a different direction. 111a, can see in that photograph, where he saw the man and little girl as they were walking on the side of the road. Saw the man in front of a bush, and saw the little girl, behind the man, behind the bush in the photo.

Back in Nov. of 2000, he drove that area of PV Drive S. regularly. His work took him down that road regularly. Was it common for you to see children walking on the side of the road? Absolutely not.

How often had you seen a child walking on the side of the road there? Never.

Would it be accurate to say you saw the man and little girl during a brief time? Yes. Did you ever see the little girl running ahead of the man? I can't be sure.  Did you ever see the little girl ahead of the man? No.

Cross examination.

You just identifed Cameron Brown as the person you saw in 2000, am I correct that you only saw this man and this girl for a few seconds? It was unusual. It left an impression.

Were they walking at a normal pace? The impression I had, was the little girl was a distance from him. Were they walking at a normal pace? I can't be sure.

You said there was nothing unusual about the man and little girl, you told that to the police back in November? Yes.

Redirect
You said it just felt weird? Just the expression between the two of them, it was a feeling.

Recross
Where were you living at the time? RPV. Were you aware of that the city blocked to have signs and guard views? He wasn't aware of that.

Then a question about children and running around but I miss it and the answer.

The witness is excused and the jury is excused.

4:01 PM
The defendant is brought back into custody and the judge is off the bench.

9:30 AM tomorrow.