Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 25 - Defense Case Continues

Lauren Sarene Key, 4, died November 8, 2000.
Copyright Sarah Key-Marer, all rights reserved.

UPDATE 5.8 2:20 PM final edit for spelling, readability and accuracy.
UPDATE 5/6 6:15 AM edited some of Dr. Booker's testimony for spelling, readability, accuracy.
UPDATE 12:45 PM edited some of Lynn Brown's testimony for spelling, readability, accuracy.
Tuesday May 5, 2015
Schedule
After several stops, I finally get a seat on the train so I can type.

Today will be a short by at least an hour. The Superior Court has requested that the building be completely empty by 3:00 PM because of the street closures celebrations that are scheduled in downtown for Cinco de Mayo.

Trial Notes
I do not have yesterday’s entry fully edited. I will try to work on this entry during lunch.

Today, we will finish with Jan Mueller. I do not know the rest of the defense witnesses, However, I believe we will have the prior testimony of Brown’s mother read into the record. I will do my best but this type of testimony is difficult to keep up with, since there are no pauses or hesitations in questions and answers, like what you get in a live witness.


9:22 AM
When I get inside the courtroom, DDA Hum and Mr. Laub and the court are arguing about what parts of Lynn Brown's prior testimony can be admitted into this trial. The court is deciding on the objections.

9:24 AM
Sarah and her friend arrive.

DDA Hum also states there is proposed testimony of the defense investigator. Mr. Laub states that he is going to rest today. The court asks if his investigator is going to testify on the entirety of his report. Mr. Laub states that he is. 

9:29 AM
Judge Lomeli leaves the bench.

9:36 AM
The witness Jan Mueller takes the stand but we are waiting for one juror.  Judge Lomeli comments that they've never been late before.

While they are waiting, DDA Hum suggests that he and Mr. Laub go over the defense investigator's testimony. This is not the current investigator, but one that was on the case in 2009-2010.

Mr. Laub is to call Mr. Royce to testify when he interviewed Mr. Poingsett, he never reported what Brown said to his superiors and he wasn't contacted by police. DDA Hum gives the explanations that Poingsett gave to police why he didn't initially come forward. He heard Brown was arrested and that he wasn't getting out. [He felt they didn't need his testimony.] When investigators came to speak to him, he also feared for his life. [I'm not sure I have that correct.] DDA Hum states that he did testify under cross that he never used the words murder, kill [etc.,  more words].  The court reporter will verify that. If that's the case, then I believe Mr. Laub agrees he does not need to call this witness.

9:47 AM
Jury files in.

Judge asks the jurors who it was that was late. There is a pleasant conversation as to who it was.

JAN MUELLER
One page letter failure to appear to be marked People's 143. Defendant did not show up for scheduled mediation on September 14, 1999.

Question about her question she wanted to ask DDA Hum from yesterday.

Cross ends and redirect examination begins.

When you were testifying yesterday, you had concerns about Mr. Brown's emotional stability, was that something that came from your observations in the meetings? Yes, it was.

Was that based on Mr. Brown's allegations of child abuse of the mother that you didn't believe? No, I had concerns before that.

Did it have to do with frustration? Frustration and anger.

And you felt his frustration and anger.... ? It's not unusual for parties to be very emotional, but I would say that he was more distrustful and angry than usual. It seemed like he was mistrustful of the process. ... But I still had some concerns about those issues. [Brown was better in the second session.]

There were some issues that had come up about wanting to take Lauren on his boat, and why that wasn't a good idea for a 3 year old and not having a life jacket, and some issues like that.

Since, I've sent you your testimony from 2006 and a report with Detective Leslie. Did you review? Yes I did.

Whether you had felt Mr. Brown from your observations from him, where he had actually loved Lauren Yes. Reading the prior testimony, ...  Laub asks the question again. Objection. Sustained.

Laub now asks a more detailed question. Objection. Sustained.

Is it part of your job to determine that [there is love between a parent and child?] I don't believe so.

Did Mr. Brown expressed himself passionately about spending time with Lauren. I know that word has been used before, but not how I would [identify].

Did he express that he wanted to spend more time with Lauren? Yes.

Did he, in his face and demeanor, when he said he wanted to spend more time with Lauren, how would you characterize it? That he wanted to spend more time with Lauren.

Another question about how Brown appeared [regarding seeing Lauren]. He seemed engaged. He seemed excited.

Another question about the finances. We don't discuss finances in mediation.

No redirect but Mr. Laub has another question.

Laub corrects that she isn't a psychologist.

The witness is excused.

Dr. Booker is the next defense witness.

KEVIN BOOKER
Tall black man, a trauma specialist. Gives his training as a trauma specialist in brain behavior.

Currently owns a practice in the South Bay area. Worked for the past ten years in evaluation PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] in veterans. Is asked to describe what PTSD is. Psychiatric conditions a person experiencing a life threatening event. Also experienced in assesses malingering.  Malingering is, a phenomenon when individuals intentionally seek to feign or misrepresent themselves in relation to clinical data.  He is an expert on the court's panel.

At the VA medical center. Member of the medical staff in psychiatry. I am part of the professional standards board, reviewing members of the clinical staff, more CV.

Doctorate in applied adults clinical psychology in brain behavior relationships. Has post doctorate training, in adult trauma related behavior. Construct of brain behavior relationships on how the brain functions.

More of his CV, he teaches at Irvine. Has several peer review publications. Multiple conference presentations.

In this case, I contacted you and asked you to review materials? Yes that is correct.

I reviewed a 911 audio recording, a written transcript for Nov 8, 2000. Reviewed a LA County incident report dated 11/8/2000. Also reviewed two LA county sheriff's supplemental reports dated 11/8/2000.

In sending you these materials, I posed to you, if you saw anything in Mr. Brown that is consistent with trauma or shock.  Did you come to an opinion. Yes. My opinion is, after having reviewed those materials, the behavior exhibited by Mr. Brown is consistent with behavior we recognize as shock, secondary to trauma.

What did you see in Mr. Brown's actions that was consistent with shock related to trauma? There is not traumatic one on one relation. With respect to what I reviewed, specifically, the behavior htat Mr. Brown exhibited, with example asking about the results of the election, would be comparable  to post traumatic shock.

Mr. Brown's affect, and lack of apparent emotions, would that be considered [?]? Yes. the absence of any overt emotion or behavior, that would be consistent with psychological shock. Without any overt emotion.

Miss next question.

Those two poles, overt hysteria, and or they may exhibit no emotion? They may have a complete flat affect. Appear emotionless. Seem as if they were in a daze, so yes.  Would the reporting of what happened in the trauma, would the reporting of what happened in the trauma, what happened to Lauren, variations would that be consistent with shock?

I mean the details of content. yes. We recognize that one of the key components of shock is that they have a very difficult time remembering details. Amnesia.

When you say amnesia, it sounds as if someone has a total blank. How about a person who is given the report, is giving [the details] again, the details vary. Is that consistent or inconsistent. That is consistent with shock following trauma.

What can happen is that details of the traumatic even in how they are encoded in the brain, they are in bits and pieces, so they don't have a full picture, immediately, those memories become more integrated [verses?] disintegrated.

So what may appear to be bizarre behavior ... Mr. Brown took off some of his clothes when he dived in to remove Lauren from the water, ...[Mr. Laub details the 'learned on Baywatch  explanation], is the expression of strange thoughts and thinking along these lines,  .... consistent?

I would characterize it as uncharacteristic behavior [and] is consistent with someone who is experiencing psychological shock. some people are detached between what's happening and reality.  They may behave in unconventional ways so to say.

Did you listen to the 911? That's correct.

And listen to the tone and ways that Mr. Brown expressed himself? Yes.

And he was telling people at the nude beach to put their clothes on and his manner of speaking, ...?

It would be consistent with a person in shock. There's something that we call an inappropriate affect. It's how someone appears emotionally or physically. There's no one to one correlation, but it is consistent with someone that has experienced psychological shock.

And [you] read statements of officers at the scene had been with Mr. Brown and spoke with Mr. Brown? That is correct.

After looking through everything, is there anything that stood out for you, as being inconsistent with a person who is in shock. No there is nothing, that reflects malingering.

Am I correct in understanding that [it] flagged for you the concern that Mr. Brown may have been facing shock? Yes. That is correct.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Dr. Booker, malingering, you actually test for malingering? Yes I do.

There are tests that are set up, you can test for it? That's correct, yes.

So it's not reading a couple police reports, you actually test? That's correct.

In this case, you read reports? That's correct.

On Nov 8, 2000, you were no where near Inspiration Point? That's correct.

And you were not present during the interview of November 9, 2000? I was not.

What your basing your testimony on, are a few written reports of reported observations of officers as well as the 911 call? That's correct.

You didn't read any of the transcripts of the testimony in this case? No I did not.

When were you first contacted? Oh maybe a month ago.

And when did you receive the material that you reviewed? Shortly there after.

You read some supplemental reports dated 11/8/2000, or they related to events that occurred on 11/8/2000? They related to events on that date.

You mentioned, something called, [depersonalization] /derealization? That's correct.

Obviously [you are] as a physiologist? Yes.

[I believe Dr. Booker is asked to explain the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist.]

Psychologist's are trained at doctoral level in appraising human behavior without prescription privledges and not in a school of medicine.

Psychiatrist is a medical doctor? That's correct.

He is familiar with the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual].

There was revision called the DSM-5? Yes.

In the DSM-5, there actually a mental disorder called, depersonalization/derealization? Yes. That's one of the new classifications.  They extracted them from acute stress.

They made them one because it was two before? We could go with that.

[DDA Hum asks him to be exact.] They were a larger construct of acute stress. Now they can be stand alone conditions.

And there is criteria for diagnosing depersonalization/ derealization disorder? Yes.

Was the behavior reported in the police report, enough to diagnose depersonalization/derealization diagnosis? I would say no.

You [are] on the Superior Court's Board? [I'm not sure if I have this question correct. DDA Hum may be referencing the approved list of professional experts on the Superior Court.] Yes, on the panel.

How many times have you testified for traumatic shock? Five times.

Testified in court five times, Traumatic stress disorder.

That's different from traumatic shock? Yes.

First time testifying on traumatic shock? That's not correct.

The disorder of traumatic stress disorder is a disorder. ... Traumatic ... PTSD is a disorder. ... Shock really is, a syndrome that is in reference [to that disorder?].

You're not testify that these symptoms in these police reports, is significant to diagnose someone with PTSD? I'm not making that diagnosis, correct.

And the five times that you testified in Superior Court, how many times has that been for the defense? Every time it's been for the defense.

There are a number of, behaviors that could be consistent with someone who is suffering from derealization/ depersonalization, in addition to the ones reported in the police report? Yes.

[DDA Hum appears to read from a list of symptoms. I don't get them all.]

Dizzy, light headed, being an observer, feeling that head is wrapped in cotton, or that legs and arms are longer or shorter, feeling like living in a movie? Feeling ... [miss reading]?  That's correct.

That there is distortion of perception of time, distortion of distance and size and shape of objects? Correct.

Isn't it also true that according to the DSM-5 criteria depersonalization/ derealization is very rare in someone older? Yes. That's part of the new definition.

You would agree, that not everyone who experiences a traumatic event is in shock? That is correct.

You did however, state that, certainly someone who is acting hysterically, that someone is someone who is experiencing shock? That's correct.

Essentially, it would appear, anyone no matter how they appear, could be experiencing shock? That's correct.

[Miss question.] I would say that its specific and predicated on the behavior they are experiencing.

Specifically, High emotion or no emotion.

Now,  it would seem obvious, is behavior of traumatic shock or depersonalization does not cause someone to commit a crime? I would say yes, that is correct.

And, someone who exhibits, symptoms of depersonalization or derealization or PTSD, that is not evidence of any emotional attachment to a victim of a traumatic shock? Ask question again.

That would not be necessarily evidence of attachment, to the victim of an event? That is correct.

DDA Hum gives an example of a bomb going off [and people being upset and not knowing the people injured].

Behavior of someone who exhibits behavior or little emotion, is not necessarily experiencing depersonalization/ derealization, they could just not care? That's correct.

Someone experiences a traumatic event, could experience the same thing? Yes, that's true.

And someone who causes a traumatic event could also be the cause of that event? That is correct.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

Dr. Booker. Why don't we talk about the DSM-5.

That edition replaced the DSM-4? It replaced the DSM-4TR.

And one of the things that came out on cross examination, that what had been a larger diagnosis for acute stress, has now been broken down into independent depersonalization/ derealization order, is that correct?  With this caveat. It's not been the exclusion of PTSD. What's happened is, depersonalization and derealization, according to some research groups, deserved greater attention as stand alone disorders.

Within the psychatiatric community there's been criticism for creating what is now a greater multitude of greater disorders, because it plays into the pharmaceutical and medical industries, that now address these [scandalus? issues?].  In some respects I would say that's true.

He did no see or diagnose Mr. Brown? No.

Would it make any sense to diagnose the person he was 15 years ago? No that wouldn't make any sense.

Not making a diagnosis [of Mr. Brown] 15 years ago? No I am not.

Now when asked about the prosecution about disorders, ... [?] ?

It would be an impossibility at this time to diagnose Brown? I agree.

DDA Hum asks that questions not be leading. Laub agrees.

Because coming in at this time, does that limit your professional opinion. Yes it does.  And listening to audio tapes, ti doesn't make it able to make a diagnosis.

I'm rendering a clinical opinion, that behavior at one point in time is consistent with construct of traumatic stress.

The things you observed by others and the things you heard on the tape, exhibit symptoms of a way person could react in a state of shock? The things I heard and reviewed in this case, suggest to me, those things are consistent with the people that we experience post traumatic shock.

Prosecutors have contacted him but he has not been asked to testify. If asked, would you have? Yes.

The witness is excused.

DONALD DeARMAN

The bailiff give a few jurors new notebooks.

Do you know Mr. Brown? Yes.

When did you meet him? Approximately.  Been about 10 12 years ago at the farmer's market in Redondo Beach. ... We do a farm up in Fresno. Still do that.

Met him at the farmer's market? Yes.

Tell us a bit about your interactions with Mr. Brown at the farmer's market? I was wearing a motorcycle t-shirt. He's aked me if I rode dirt bikes. We would talk about riding and things like that.

Had you ever ridden professionally? Yes. Won awards? Yes.

They became friends. and rode 2 times together. Went to gorman and trail riding. Took him to the motocross park and we went riding together.

He mentioned to me that he was going to get custody of his daughter from a previous relationship. When he talked to you about it [did he seem ... ?] ?. He seemed fine. He seemed like a pretty happy go lucky guy.

Do you remember a phone call from Mr. Brown around Halloween 200)? I can't say that I do.

Did you in Halloween of 2000 .... [?]? He asked if he could bring his daughter to Halloween. I think my son was 3 at the time, almost 4.

Before he asked you, did you talk to him about ?? I think so, yeah.

Did he acutally come over and join you? He did. Did he bring his daugher Lauren? He did.

Was anyone else with him? No I don't think so.

[How did it happen?] Met up at his brother Randy's house. Was a big group of kids.

How was Lauren? She was a cute little girl dressed up as a princess. She seemed like she was having fun.

How long were they out trick or treating? They were all pretty young. I don't thing it was more than an hour.

[Did you walk or drive?] We all walked together.

[When was the next time you saw him?] I saw him about a week after that. At the farmers market at the pier. ... He looked, he didn't look happy. His eyes were kind or red, his eyes were kind of shaken up.

Did he ask you if you had seen the story about a child falling off the cliff. I didn't He said that his daughter Lauren had fallen off a cliff. he took her up there and he was broken up.

Did he have tears in his eyes? Yes.

Did he appear to be in shock? Yes. Objection. Stricken.

Direct ends and cross begins.

You said that Lauren appeared to be having fun? Yeah.

Walking around with a bunch of kids and getting free candy? Yes, Cam had her on his shoulders for a time.

Did it seem unusual to you that a little four year old girl would enjoy that, going around and getting candy? [Miss answer.]

So a bunch of kids, about 20 or so on Halloween of 2000? Yes.

Did you and the defendant socialize other than that? He came over to my house once before and  I helped him move into a new place, he was getting a new apartment at the time.

Testified in 2009, under oath? Yes.

Reading prior testimony./ questions.

Now would you say that you were friend with the defendant? [Your answer.] We were acquaintences.

You spent time on Halloween? Yes.

And you went dirt bike riding? Yes.

And did you socialize with the defendant beyond meeting at the farmers market, going dirt bike riding a few times, talked on the phone but that's about it? Yes.

 First time contacted about this case was also back in 2009? Correct.

So about nine years after your encounter with the defendant at the farmer's market, was the first time [you were] contacted about this case? Correct.

And would it be accurate to say, when you spoke to the defense investigator, you stated that the defendant was crying and physically upset? Yes. So he was displaying emotion in public? Yes.

He didn't tell you that it was just his daughter just died.  It was Lauren and they think I did it? Isn't that what he said? I believe so, yes.

Do you remember, what day of the week this was? It had to be Thursday, because it was Redondo Beach.

So you take produce from the farm and sell it? Correct. Brother in law owns the farm in Fresno.

When you first met the defendant, you thought it was 10 12 years ago? It had to have been about a year or two before this incident occurred? Yes.

So went dirt bike riding twice and met Lauren once? Yes.

No further questions.

Mr. Laub needs. to coordinate the transcript corrections for his witness.

Will need the to take a break.

10:48 AM
The court calls for the morning break, and they will be back at 11 AM. It's

Mrs. Laub who will be reading testimony into the record again.

The power/energy bars come out again for DDA Hum and Detective Leslie.

11:09 AM
Back on the record.
Person on the stand who read testimony to you previously. The testimony Ms. Garrett will read the testimony of

LYNNE BROWN

What is your relationship with Cameron Brown? Cameron is my son.

You have 4 boys? Yes. Cameron was second in line? Yes.

The witness is asked if her mother and father are still alive. Mother and father not alive.

Your mother owned a house on The Strand in Redondo Beach? Yes.

The witness is asked when her mother died. She died in 2004 or 2003; I can't remember. She lived there for seven years [On The Strand.]

The witness and her husband were living in Idaho. She got a call from her sister that her mother had Alzheimer's. She came to live with her mother and take care of her. [I believe her husband followed a year later.]

Mother lived on The Strand? Yes. It's a wide strip of cement that goes along the beach. ... It was beachfront property.

Were there times when Cameron Brown would come and stay with you? He lived there [with her mother, Brown's grandmother.] He would help her, [the grandmother].

What would he do? Everything.  [Mentions many home improvement tasks like putting on new shingles, etc.] She wore diapers. He would hold her up while I would change her. He would do the grocery shopping. ... He lived with her on and off, helped her after her mother's husband died. ...[He would] Protect her.... Driver her places in that big truck.

Now questions about the family growing up and the activities they participated in.

Family participated in a lot of outdoor activities when they [the four boys] were growing up. They all continued and still do it [outdoors activities] to this day.

Did you meet a young girl named Lauren Key? I did.

[How did that come about?] Her mother called me and asked me if I knew she had a granddaughter. I didn't. I was thrilled and we set up a time to meet.

[Question about meeting Lauren and Sarah.] Yes we met her. My sister lived in Huntington Beach, and she put on a big [Christmas?] party event. [I got ] to meet [Sarah, Greg,] Lauren and Josh. Cameron was asked to stay away by Sarah.

Met Lauren for about a year. Lauren came down, sometimes every weekend. Sometimes every other weekend. Sometimes the witness drove down to Lauren's house.

When we first met, Sarah and I spent time together. Sometimes Sarah would leave and go visit a friend in the Valley. And I got to visit with Lauren by myself. [The witness enjoyed that.]

So sometimes she would leave Lauren and you would have Lauren to yourself? Yes.

Was Cameroon living there at some of the times during these visits? Yes.

He was told he had to leave the house when Lauren came? Yes.

Would you describe her as a docile sit on the floor type of girl? Just the opposite. ... She was very active. She would run down to the beach to the water. She would climb up on the table and go around the pole like a Maypole. [I was scared.] I would have to catch her. She would jump [off the table?]. She was a busy girl. And she also had quiet times where I would read to her.

Witness is s asked about one time where Lauren wasn't careful. She had come running up from the beach. because she had seen her friend Shannon. And I was [shouting? yelling?] at her not to cross the bike path. [Lauren kept running toward her friend, crossing the bike path.] And she barely missed getting run over by a bike.

The witness is asked about what type of activities she would do with Lauren.

We would walk on the beach, on The Strand.

Did she like the beach? She did. We spent a lot of time on the beach when the weather was nice. She had toys things [the witness bought for her] that you fill with wet sand and make imprints in the sand. She would dig. We would walk and search for seashells. [There's more.]

Would you also go down by the piers? I wouldn't take her to the Manhattan beach pier, it was too far for me. But I would take her to an old pier.  Would she walk long distances with you? Yes. [I believe the witness is asked if Lauren would walk a mile, mile and a half distances with her, and the witness said yes, and that Lauren didn't have a problem with that.]

I believe the witness is asked if Lauren needed to be carried.

The only time she would want to be carried is if she didn't have her shoes and the sand was too hot.

There were times that your son would pick her up in Orange County? Yes.

Now questions about where people lived at the time, and who lived where. Where Sarah lived, where her sister lived, where Brown lived.

He [Brown] lived in your house? That's right.

You knew Sarah lived in Huntington Beach? Yes.

And you knew he was going down to pick up Lauren? That's right.

He would bring Lauren there? Yes.

Did you ever get a phone call from Sarah, saying that Cam did not bring Lauren back? No.

So questions about the travel and where Cam stayed and if Sarah ever stayed with her.

So when he would bring Lauren to the house, she would observe Cam with Lauren.

They were very affectionate. He was shy at first.

Did he seem to take pride in being a father? Yes. Did he seem to be enjoying it? Yes.
Would he talk to you about Lauren? He was very proud of her.

Did something happen before her death? He was concerned that she was being abused. He would bring me photos of bruises.

There were no [other] children, nephews or nieces in their family? Brown seemed to be trying to learn to be a father.

I remember one time, walking on a boat dock to see an old boat [that a friend of Brown's had]. And Lauren was running and Cam told her to stop but she wouldn't.

Did it appear to you that Cam was making efforts to see Lauren? Yes.

Did a rift occur between you and your son Cameron? A small one. Not a big one.

Did you argue with Cam during this time period? Yes.

When you would argue would he be visibly upset? Yes.

In this time period, were you getting to see Lauren on a frequent basis, and Cam only saw her on his court ordered visits? Yes.

And when you saw her Cam couldn't be there ? Yes.

Did you in actuality, make an effort to see Lauren because she was her granddaughter because Cam couldn't see her because of the court order? Yes.

Was this the basis of the argument that you and Cam got into? Yes.

Questions about Cam growing up.

He was the most sensitive of the children I think. He would bring me rocks and stones and [always] sending birthday cards when he got older. He always remembered birthdays and Christmas.

After he became a man and moved away, did you maintain a strong bond with Cameron? Yes.

Brothers and other sons, [she] had strong bonds with them. And Brown had strong bonds with his father and brothers.

More questions about the rift they had.

Did you ever tell Sarah, during that time that she couldn't speak ill of Cam, in front of Lauren? Yes. Did you tell her to stop it? Yes. Did she? She did.

She went through the same thing with Cam.

[The witness was asked if she spoke to them both together about this.] They weren't together, but I spoke to them separately and they stopped it.

Did Detective Leslie come to your home at some point? He did.

What did he ask you he could do? He said that he thought that Cam was not guilty, and I think he said that he could help him. I don't remember much. I ended up crying. I remember Ian coming to my rescue.

Another question about what Detective Leslie said.

Now a question about whether Sarah came to her home after Lauren died.

Sarah came to her house. She had been away and when she arrived, Sarah was waiting at her house.  She asked me if Cam had done it. I said no, He's devastated. I gave her a hug and walked in the house.

Now there are occasions, that Lauren was picked up by Brown at Lauren's home and at her school, where Lauren would throw a fit and not want to go [with him].

Was there the same thing that happened with Lauren when Sarah came to pick up Lauren? Yes, I remember one time where we were trying to get Lauren in the car and she was arching her back and didn't want to go.

Now there are many questions about Brown and money.

Cam was the least of her sons, to ask for money.

The doll collection. Her mother had collected these dolls, and they were part of the family. Did Cam at some point and ask you for something? He asked if he could give one of the dolls to Lauren. It took him a week to decide, because he wanted to pick out the best. Did those dolls have great sentimental value for your family? They did.

Mr. Laub and DDA Hum whisper off the record.

Mr. Laub tells the court:  We need a moment to set up and exhibit that's already been seen before.

[It's very difficult to get all the testimony. I missed quite a bit.]

A video of Lauren, walking around on roller skates in a garage is shown.

I'll ask you to identify pieces of video. Does that appear to be Lauren to you?

[What we are seeing are the video clips of Lauren that was played during Sarah's testimony.]

Is that Lauren on inline skates? On inline skates.

Does that appear to be Lauren playing in the sand and the dirt? That's Lauren.

Is that Lauren playing on Monkey bars at the park? Yes.

Does that appear to be Lauren attempting to skateboard? Yes.

Brown looks up at the video as Lauren scoots along the sidewalk, sitting on the skateboard.

Does that again appear to be Lauren playing at the park? [Yes.]

Does that appear to be Lauren with the tire? Yes.

Brown still watches the video.

Does that appear to be Lauren playing in the water? Yes.

That is Lauren walking through the mud and water near the park? Yes, it looked like her.

Is that Lauren playing atop those large pipes? Yes.

Does that appear to be Lauren at the beach? Yes.

Does that appear to be Lauren walking in the ocaean? Yes.

[Something about the skateboard. But I'm not sure]

Direct is finished cross begins.

The video continues to play to the end.

Judge Lomeli asks that the video be stopped.

Direct ends and cross examination begins.

Those video clips that we saw of Lauren did you take those No.

Did your son take those? No.

IS this the first time you've seen them? Yes.

In any of those videos, did you see Lauren hiking? No.

She was present in the courtroom during the first proceeding and at [part of] the second proceeding?

Actually shortly after Detective, Leslie came into your house, you asked him to leave. because you wanted him to speak to your son's lawyer? Ian asked him to leave, because I was getting upset.

Do you remember your son Ian, asking Detective Leslie to go through your son's lawyer? Yes.

Do you remember me asking you at the prior proceeding, at the prior proceeding you said why would  I need a laywer? I never did. ... I think it was Ian who said, that we wanted our lawyer there, to get theim out of the house.

So just to get Detective Leslie to get out of the house? That is the way I feel.

Are there other instances where you had to help your son out? No.

There are questions about the former girlfriend, and her testimony about Mrs. Brown paying for the damage to her car.

Testifies, that if Ms. Allen testified about you paying her $600.00 that would be a lie? Yes.

Have you been talking to your son's wife about the testimony in these proceedings? Only about that.

More questions about her conversations with Patty about the trial.

Cannot remember him [Brown] ever asking to borrow money. He always worked and made his own money and bought his own toys and bought the clunky cars.

So are you telling us now, that your son never asked to borrow money? I don't remember. Maybe for a senior ring in high school.

More questions about Cameron and if he ever asked if he borrow money. She can't remember if Cameron ever did.

Now questions about buying cars for the other sons. You said that you had bought cars for your other sons. Yes. And the defense attorney asking if Cameron ever asked you to buy a car. And if he did, you certainly would have bought him a car? We had an extra car that we gave to him. He didn't ask for it and we didn't buy it for him.

The witness insists. We didn't buy it for him, and he never ask him for it.

Brown watches the witness read his mother's prior testimony.

Questions about if her other son Ian, testified at a prior proceeding about Cameron being given a car.

Have you been to visit your son in jail? Yes. When we lived here, we went on a regular basis. Now that we live in Missouri, it was hard to get there.

She is asked how many times she visited her son. About 10 times because I was taking care of my mother. My husband went more than I did.

Do you remember when you son married Patty? Yes. They were married in Hawaii, so we couldn't go there.  Doesn't remember when [the date] Brown and Patty got married.

[This testimony was orginally taken over two days. This is the second day.]

Doesn't remember if it was her son or Patty who called you and told her about Jane Doe? It might have been Cameron telling me about the Jane testimony.

In any way over the phone or by letter, how many times does she talks to Patty? She doesn't remember. Naybe 10 times, and by email much more.  And significantly more than 10 emails back and forth?

In the past two months? We've had 10 phone calls.

You've been in Missouri? Yes.
And you know the trials been going on, correct? Yes.

And you've been interested int the proceeding, and this numerous emails, the defendants wife hasn't told you what's been going on in court? No. We usually talk about Cam and how badly he's doing.

We just don't talk about the trail. Patty and I, talk about Cam.

So it's your testimony today, that it was your son who told you about Jane Doe? Yes.

But you told us yesterday that it was your daughter in law? I thought it might have been [but it was Cam.]

Is it your testimony that your son called you up and told you things that he had done? Things that he's done in the past.

Questions, about Jane, and the witness states she never knew her.

Questions about when she lived in Colorado, and when her son lived with her there, when he moved out, etc. Cameron went away to college for a couple of years.

At that point in time, it is your testimony that you had a good relationship with your son? Yes.

And you would discuss what was going on in his life? No.

So it's your testimony, he never told you about a girlfriend that he had at the time?

Insists that she didn't know "Jane" and explains that her son Ian had known a Jane who had a crush on him. [She thinks that's who this Jane was.]

Questions about the photos of Lauren that her son showed her. Didn't you tell your son that bruises on children is common? [miss answer]

Questions about if she knew that her son told her about what he said to a court mandated reporter.

Now more questions about the bruises, and if she had spoken to her son's lawyer previously about the bruises and who brought up the issue.

At this proceeding you volunteered information that you weren't asked about? Yes.

11:59 AM
The court orders the noon break. After the jury leaves, the court asks Mr. Laub if he has any more witnesses. He does not. The defense will rest.

After the defense rests, the prosecution will call Detective Leslie as a rebuttal witness.

1:26 PM
Back inside Dept. 107. Sarah is by herself. Her friend must have left.

Mr. Laub, DDA Hum and Detective Leslie are having a friendly conversation in the well. They appear to be going over testimony.

Brown has not been brought out yet.

1:32 PM
DDA Hum, Detective Leslie, the bailiff and the court reporter joke about the names of colors and the word "Taupe" and what color that is.  The court reporter is wearing a pretty fuchsia colored sweater.

1:33 PM
Brown is brought out. The clerk calls in the hallway for the jurors.

1:34 PM
The jury gets settled.
We are back on the record in the matter of people verses Cameron Brown. People you may continue.

Continuing with cross examination.

Have you spoken with your son's lawyer in the past month? I haven't. My husband has.

Within a week of the prior proceeding you spoke with your son's lawyer? I don't remember.

Isn't it true that within a few days, of the proceeding, you spoke to your son's lawyer's? I don't remember that either.

Isn't it true that you sent your son's lawyers an email about Lauren prior to the previous proceedings? I guess I did. [ The document is shown to the witness.]

That's right.

Do you remember testifying prior that two days prior and three days prior to testifying in the previous proceeding, you spoke to your son's lawyer before testifying? Yes. It said I spoke to them in the hall.

More cross examination as to what she remembers she did, speaking with her son's lawyers going over her testimony.

We went over what happened what happened prior to Lauren going up in the hills.

[Brown] ived in her mother's house on the Strand. Moved in there in 1999.

Over what period of time, did your son live there? I can't remember. He would live there and then live on his boat, then sell the boat.

[You? Brown?] lived there until 2004? I think it was longer than that.

Beginning in 1999, your son Cameron started living there? I think he was living on a boat, then he sold it and came down and helped with my mother.

When? I'd say about 1999. And lived there until he married Patty.

Is it then your testimony that he bought another sail boat and lived on that boat? No he had bought another sail boat but it wasn't liveable.

Testimony about other parents.

Was there some type of a camera at your mother's house on the strand? Oh there was a surf company that set that camera up. And that was in El Portal? That's correct.

Met Lauren through Sarah? That's right. You met Lauren through Sarah, not your son? Correct.

But he didn't introduce you to your granddaughter, Sarah did? [Yes.]

You first met Lauren at a Christmas party at your sisters house in Huntington Beach? Yes.

Isn't it true that the first time you met Lauren, it was at your mother's house and it was Sarah who brought her? No.

So it's your testimony that there was a Christmas Party, and your husband came and your family came but Sarah said Brown couldn't come. Yes.

Questions about what type of party it was. It was a Christmas Party to met Lauren.

It's your testimony that Sarah would say derogatory things about your son the defendant? Yes.

So is it your testimony that the first time you met Lauren that Sarah would say derogatory things to you, about your son, [at this Christmas Party]? No, it was at my mother's house.

DDA Hum reads her prior testimony from 2006, where she said that the first three or four visits, Sarah would say negative things about the defendant.  But also states, that the first time she met Sarah was at the Christmas Party.

Isn't it true that she would bring Lauren by once a month to visit? No.

Is it your testimony that Sarah made Brown leave when she would bring Lauren by? Yes.

More cross on her testimony as to how often Sarah brought Lauren to her house at the beach and how often he brought Lauren to her home after he got married.

Were there times where he would bring Lauren to you while he went out and surfed? Yes.

Were there times when he would bring Lauren to your house and he would go to sleep? No.

Is it your testimony now that your sister brought Lauren to visit? [?]

Now your testimony is that your son would bring his daughter to the beach and he would watch her? Well we would both watch her. And when he was surfing? She would watch Lauren.

Now cross on when Brown asked to bring Lauren before she died and she told him not to bring her.

Claims that the reason she said not to bring Lauren was because she didn't want Lauren to see her great grandmother was having an episode.

More about what she said about in the email to Brown's attorney, that Brown couldn't come to her mother's house because of her bad knees?

Now prior testified that Brown loved Lauren.

Now asking if she knew that Brown tried to have Sarah have an abortion.

Asking if she knew the defendant tried to have her [Sarah] deported.

If she was aware that when her son would try to pick up Lauren she would try to hide?

More questions about whether she knew what other people observed of Brown's behavior or statement.

Now questions about if she was aware of things that Brown had said about her.

If she was aware [about how Brown didn't want her to see Lauren, that he called her a bad mother, that he said she was an evil woman, that he signed a court order saying his family had disowned him.]  No answers, to all those questions.

If your son had done those things, would it still be your testimony that you had a good relationship with your son? I don't think he did those things.

That's not what I asked you.  I would think we would have a bad relationship.

Cross ends and redirect begins.
About writing in the email that you feel some responsibility for Lauren's death. I do.

Because Cam called and asked if he could bring Lauren over, and you said no? That's right.

You're aware are you not, that the prosecution has accused him of per-planning, taking her to Inspiration Point to kill her? The day that he was supposedly per-planning to take her to that cliff, he called you? He did.

She sat in the gallery during all the last prior proceeding, and heard all the testimony about what Lauren said, etc.

She was not present when these events occurred, but she was at the prior proceeding where these events were testified to.

I can't keep up. The testimony is coming too fast for me.

In a prior proceeding, did you ever see any document, or evidence, that Cameron ever yelled at Lauren? No.

More questions about if she and the attorney spoke in the halls. What did I tell you? Just speak from the heart and be honest.

Now questions about what the defense attorney and she talked about in those conversations.

Now questions as to whether the attorney spoke to her husband and not her, about when they talked about this proceeding [2009].

She had health issues in 2009. Have I ever called you to talk to you about these proceedings? No.

Did I call and talk to your husband? Yes.

Now questions about living with Brown in Colorado and this woman Jane. Her son is not the type that would open up and talk about things. Didn't know all the names of his girlfriends. Did he ever bring this Jane to the house? No, never.

Now questions about the bruises on the legs.

Did anyone ever tell you what to say in your testimony? No.

Were you aware that Cameron only had one hour a day initially? One hour a week initially? No.
Were you aware initially, that he had to have Sarah present initially? No.
Were you aware that he originally only saw Lauren in Orange county? No.

Initially, Sarah would bring Lauren to your home, because Cam wasn't allowed to?

And the first time you got to meet Lauren, was this Christmas party? Yes. And your husband was there? No he wasn't there.  [Oh, it was your Aunt.]

It was because her sister lived near Sarah, and her sister offered to have a little dinner to meet Lauren and her family.

Would your sister occasionally go by and pick up Lauren and bring her to your house? Yes.
Were those the days that Cameron had visitation? No.

I think these were days where Sarah had something to do, and my sister brought her.
And were there days where Sarah would also come with your sister too? Yes.

You testified that Lauren was quite active? Yes.

More questions about Lauren's level of activity and if [she? Cameron?] needed help looking after Lauren.

Do you remember a phone conversation with Sarah, after Lauren's death where she asked you about Cameron? No. I remember another one.

The defense has rested.

The prosecution has a rebuttal witness, Detective Leslie. There is a sidebar.

Judge tells them they are going to stop at 2:45 today.

People recall Detective Leslie

DETECTIVE JEFFREY LESLIE

Detective Leslie is asked a few questions about defense witnesses that he interviewed.

Do you remember Aron Carter .. was he contacted the day after Lauren's death? No it was a week later.

First checkpoint on 11/15? Correct.

Second checkpoint was on 11/22? Yes.

Now you heard testimony about a web site being run by the defendant's brother in law? Yes.

That's the defendant's wife's, twin brother, ... [and the website is] called Free Cam Brown? Yes.

Now, you also heard testimony from Ian Brown and Lynne Brown? That's correct.

DDA Hum and Laub confer off the record.

Is that Lynne Brown, the defendant's mother? Photo [of her from, I think a driver's license]. Yes.

That's how she looked when you tried to interview her? Yes.

On Feb 6, 2004, did you go to the residence of the mother in an attempt to speak with her?

Yes.

Phillip Martinez was his partner. Not involved in investigation.

Where was Detective Smith? Thinks he had either been a training officer or was retired.

What was the purpose of going? In order to speak to Mrs. Brown.

When we got to the residence, the defendant's brother came to the door. I introduced myself and he said he would get her. We had brief small talk. We discussed his T shirt, and his military. I was questioning the 87 airborne [from his shirt].

You heard Ian Brown's read in testimony, [where he] described the encounter and heard Lynne Brown's [read in] testimony? Yes.

How did it happen? I had a brief conversation about Ian's millitary service.

Mrs. Brown entered the room and I told her I wanted to ask a few questions about her granddaughter and son, and Mrs. Brown actually said that she didn't want to speak without an attorney present.

Did she start crying at some point? No.

Did you or your partner ever say anything where you thought the defendant was innocent? No.
Did you or your partner ever say anything where you wanted to clear him or get the defendant out of jail? No.

Did you ask her any questions at all? No there were no questions made of Lynne Brown.

Were you asked to leave? No. Once we knew they wouldn't talk to us, we left.

Did speak to Defendant's attorney? Yes. Did you arrange a meeting to speak with Lynne Brown? He [the attorney] felt that it was a good idea, however, the interview was never arranged and never came to fruition.

Interviewed Terry Hope. Did you speak to Terry Hope? Yes.

Is that how Mr. Hope appeared when you interviewed him? [photo of Terry Hope, from I believe, a driver's license.] Yes.

We you the person or someone else who interviewed him a week later? No.

It was someone else? I only spoke to Mr. Hope on the trail out at Inspiration Point.

Only spoke to Mr. Hope on the trail? Yes.

Describes where he spoke to Terry Hope.

Describe for us how you encountered Mr. Hope.

We had arrived, I believe in preparation for the second checkpoint. I was on top, looking down toward Sacred Cove. I saw some movement in the bushes, when he saw Mr. Hope, there was a naked guy in the bushes.

Mr. Laub asks to approach.  The court asks, "What? About the naked guy?"

The jury chuckles over the judge's question.

Sidebar with the judge.

Detective Leslie, after you encountered Mr. Hope at the bush, did you have a discussion with Mr Hope? Yes.

Did you go to that location specifically to speak to him? No.

Did you specifically discuss with Mr. Hope, the incident with Lauren's death? Yes.

Did he tell you he had been in that area on Nov. 8th? Yes, he said he swam in that area regularly. He was a member of the polar club and that's why he was there.

Did Mr. Hope ever tell you, that Lauren was happy or smiling? No.
That Lauren was 10 or 15 feet in front of the man she was with? No.

When was the only time that Mr. Hope described to you the distance between Lauren and the defendant? It was after they had passed Mr. Hope on the trail. It forks one way towards Inspiration Point and another toward [?]. [That] was when Mr. Hope stated the defendant was three feet behind Lauren and was encouraging, pushing with his hands, making contact with her back and pushing her up towards Inspiration Point.

Did he physically demonstrate that motion to you? He did while we were on the trail.

Where did he say the defendant was guiding Lauren? It was on the fork, just past the trees where he was changing.

Did Mr. Hope say that the defendant was guiding Lauren on the trail up to Inspiration Point? Yes.

What, any words that the defendant were saying to Lauren? "This way honey, this way, good girl."

He said it was very impersonal, as if you would speak to a dog.

At that time, there was no railing on that section of the trail to Inspiration Point  at all.

Also read that Mr. Hope stated that the grass in that area was somewhat slippery? I do recall hearing that.

Was there slippery grass on the edge of the cliff in 2000? Not on the edge of the cliff.

Was there slipper grass on Inspiration Point? Back near the bottleneck. It was November and starting to die, but it was back on the flat portion.

Did Mr. Hope ever indicate he had been out on Inspiration Point? No.

Did you ever refer to the defendant as a scumbag or a rotten scumbag? No.

Did your partner join you on the interview with Mr. Hope? I believe at the end of the conversation.

Did Mr Hope ever indicate to you, he had trouble seeing the clothing because his eyes were sweating or his eyes couldn't focus? No.

Did you interview Mark Thompson on March 5, 2009? Yes.

Was that in Hawaii? Yes.

[Who was with you?] Detective Sargent Kevin Lloyd was with him. Detective Lloyd was not involved in the investigation, just his partner at the time.

Did Mr. Thompson tell you that information came from the defendant himself? Objection. Vague.

The court asks, "What information?" All the information.

He repeatedly told Detective Leslie all the information came from the defendant himself. He told us he was relaying the information to the best of his recollection that he heard from Mr. Brown.

Did Mr. Thompson indicate to you the defendant had told him that Patty was well off? Yes.

Did Mr. Thompson tell you that the defendant and told him, how Laruen died? Yes.

Did Mr. Thompson say this happened at work, in person, and before anything happened on the news? Yes.

Did Mr. Thompson ever indicate to you, that the defendant looked forward to doing things with their daughter's together? No.

Mr. Thompson said that Mr. Brown and Lauren we hiking in the Palisades area, which was close to where Mr. Brown lived. It was an area where they often [hiked?]. He [Brown to witness] spoke of Inspiration Point as being their favorite place.

Did Mr. Thompson say he know where Inspiration Point was? I believe he did.

What did Mr. Thompson tell you the defendant told him face to face? He said there was an area on the trail that was steep and close to the rocks or cliff, the defendant would normally help Lauren [up] as it was steep. He would help hold her up. He indicated that he was told by Mr. Brown, [that] when he turned around when he tried to reach for Lauren, he said that a foot was mile and things were set in motion and she fell. He said he was kind of dazed and out of it and walked to the road where he saw a woman in a minivan, who he said was the person who called 911.

Did the defendant tell Mr. Thompson this was a tight section on the hike and he was reaching to help Lauren when she fell? Yes.

Did Mr. Thompson ever indicate that the defendant ever told him that she was on the top of Inspiration Point and she was running around throwing rocks and fell? [No.]

More questions about facts about if Mr. Thompson ever said that Brown talked about calling 911, [traveling down] to the nude beach, or taking his clothes off before going in to get Lauren? Mr. Thompson did not.

Did Mr. Thompson ever tell you about Mr. Brown saying Sarah could run him over or hunt him down? He did tell me that, yes.

Interview with Mr. Dietzler.

Yes I did interview him at his residence. His partner was with him, Detective Danny Smith.

Prior to going to interview Mr. Dietler, were you aware that they were friends? We knew that they werr co-owners of a boat and they were friends.

2:40 PM
Did it appear to you as the interview progressed that Mr. Brown and Mr. Deitlser were close? Yes.

Did you or your partner ever tell this person that appeared to be a close friend that you were going to railroad the defendant? No Or that you were going to put him away or convict him of killing his daughter? No.

Questions about whether he or his partner were "going rogue."

Did Mr. Deitzler ever ask you to read his resume? No he did not.

In any case, do you ever tell them your personal feelings about a defendant? No I do not.

Why? Well, several reasons. it doesn't do any good, and it could sway their opinion. It's not professional and it's immaterial what I think about anyone in any case.

Did you prepare a report of his interview with Mr. Deitzler? Yes. You didn't just make it up? No.

Did you put in that report what was good or what was bad about the defendant? Yes.

Did you just read Mr. Deitzler's letter and put that into your report? There was no website at that time he wrote the report.

When did Mr. Deitzler say he met Lauren? Christmas 1999 and one prior time at the grandmothers.

He believe's he [Dietzler?] said that the defendant brought her to his house.

Did he tell you how he found out that Lauren was dead? During a phone conversation with Mr. Brown.

[Question about that conversation.] Mr. Deitzler said he had spoken in the phone with Mr. Brown talking about the boat and other topics and Mr. Dietzler thought he [Brown] was acting weird. Then the defendant asked Mr. Deitzler if he had heard about what happened.

Did Mr. Deitzler tell you that the child support payments were a hit on his salary? Yes he did.

[Did] Mr. Deitzler say that the defendant [and his?] mother had a falling out over painting the mothers house? Yes.

More questions about Mr. Deitzler and what he said in the interview.

Mr. Dietzler said that he had talked to the defendant's wife on [miss the day.]

Court is ending for today at 2:45 pm. Detective Leslie's testimony is not finished yet.

The jury files out.  Sarah got up quickly and left right before the jury left.

That's it for today.

The court then goes back on the record about Brown's right to not testify.

You've exercising your constitutional rights not to testify in this matter? Brown answers, "Yes your honor."

Your doing so [solely] and  freely? "Yes your honor."

And that's it.

I believe court continues tomorrow at 9:30 AM

Monday, May 4, 2015

Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 24 - Defense Case Continues

Complete Cameron Brown Case Coverage.

Inspiration Point, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
Four year old Lauren Sarene Key plunged to her death off of
Inspiration Point on November 8, 2000. 

Lauren, on the last day of her life.

UPDATE 5/8 11 AM final edit for spelling, readability and accuracy.
UPDATE 5/7 8 AM More editing of Dr. Siegmond's testimony.
UPDATE 7:00 PM I have edited part way through Dr. Siegmond's cross examination for spelling, readability and accuracy.
UPDATE 4:20 PM I will try to edit this entry tonight and over the coming week.
Monday, May 4, 2015
9:05 AM
When I get inside Dept. 107, DDA Hum and Aron Laub are arguing whether or not the defense expert can present the dummy drop videos.

It's complicated. I can into this in the middle of these arguments. DDA Hum is arguing that these videos have nothing to do with travel through space, but impacts with the cliff.

Mr. Laub is arguing that the dummy shows the movement through space after the impact.

The court: It seems like your witness is trying to get this in through the back door, how Lauren's body would have reacted once it left the cliff, impacted with the cliff and after. The court has already ruled on that. There's a real problem with the video.


DDA Hum states that the simulations by Dr. Hayes do show how a human body would react with the cliff.

The court rules that these dummies have never been offered to replicate a human body.

Mr. Laub states that they will eliminate the human body video. We will present the golf ball throw videos.  He explains that there will be another another slide inserted that doesn't mention the dummy drop video.

The court asks Laub to go talk to Mr. Siegmund.

DDA Hum brings up the issue that the defense wants to read into the record Lynn Brown's testimony. The court asks who this is. DDA Hum states it's the defendant's mother. DDA Hum states he understands why they want it read into the record; there are health issues. He doesn't have a problem with that. He does have an issue with some of the testimony that he is objecting to. Mr. Laub states that he [knows?] the objections and will be submitting a redacted testimony to DDA Hum.

The court informs counsel if you need me to intervene, let me know. Judge Lomeli leaves the bench.

There is a young woman sitting in the row in front of me. Once Judge Lomeli leaves the bench, the defense investigator comes over to speak to her.

9:22 AM
Sarah and a friend arrive.  DDA Hum comes over to speak to Sarah to warn her about upcoming slides in the defense witness' presentation.

I forgot to mention that the court asked the defense if they expected to rest tomorrow. Mr. Laub states that they will rest tomorrow.  DDA Hum confirmed he will be putting on a rebuttal case.

9:29 AM
DDA Hum is helping the defense work out the logistics of getting the defense expert's presentation to work with the ELMO projection.

9:34 AM
We wait. Dr. Siegmund is working on getting his PowerPoint presentation to display on the overhead screen. Brown was just brought out.

9:38 AM
Jury enters. Judge Lomeli states "Jury walking" and Brown gets up from his seat, buttons his jacket and turns towards the jury.

GUNTER SIEGMUND
Please tell the jury what it is that you do? I am a mechanical engineer with a PHD in bio mechanics. He analyzes how injuries are caused in various incidents.  He gives his CV, his professional training, etc. His company is Mea Forensics Engineers & Scientists.  His work is hands on work, verses the academic who does the study of [this work].

He's testifying in regards to the death of Lauren Key. He was provided with a number of photographs, autopsy reports, reports from the police, Dr. Hayes's reports and things of that nature. And provided testimony of Dr. Hayes. Reports, did that include the work that he had done in this case? It described the work that he had done.

He produced a PowerPoint presentation to take us through the significant factors in this case? Yes. He also relies on Dr. Hayes' PowerPoint; a number of those slides.  He also did experiments with children throwing golf balls, to determine the speed/movement of children. Yes.

DDA Hum asks that Mr. Laub occasionally ask a question, verses a narration.

First slide is the same slide that Dr. Hayes was shown.  In the course of my PowerPoint, I'm going to be addressing the same question, and showing why I disagree with Dr. Hayes.

This slide shows, autopsy reports.

This slide as it stands, is Dr. Hayes slide. Will you explain why this is important? Dr. Hayes summarized Lauren's injuries, and there are some injuries that are missing. There are injuries on the back shoulder and injuries on the abdomen that don't show up on this slide. They are on Dr. Chinwah's autopsy.  He puts up a slide of the autopsy drawing from Dr. Hayes' presentation, the front and back sketch of a child's body and the major injuries.

Now showing autopsy photos. The left side of Lauren's body. They are photos of very small injuries on the left side of her body. The black arrows are Dr. Siegmund's.

[My observation: These do not appear to be massive injuries, like on the face and upper body. They are small bruises and cuts.]

There was another autopsy photo of Lauren's body showing an injury of her right shoulder.

Another slide of Dr. Hayes: The Scene Survey: Cliff Profiles. Going over this slide and his interpretation of this slide.

It's difficult to describe this testimony without the attached slides.

Now a photo of the cliff face, looking straight on and then a blow up of the photo on the left.

Regarding the previous slide. They dropped a rope and shows the cliff face is under cut. And taking that back to the previous side drawing, Dr. Hayes' side drawing of one of the pie slices shows this part of the cliff going out, when his dropped line weight shows that the cliff face is undercut.

[So, the interpretation is, Dr. Hayes drawing outline, of this pie slice of the cliff, at some point, is wrong.]

Now stating that he doesn't know if the rest of the graph is correct, but the bottom portion of Dr. Hayes' side graph, in the vicinity of where the dropped line is incorrect.

Now showing another slide of Dr. Hayes: Fall Biomechanics: Results.

Showing the cross section of the pie/line slices B, C, D, E & F.  These are all sections that end up in the inlet of the water.

A juror yawns. Another juror tries to keep his head up.

These represent fall trajectories. They represent the path as [the body? Lauren? would?] free fall. States that these lines don't all use the same point of departure. They would be beside each other. They also change in space.

Explains what Dr. Hayes chose as a point of departure.  Also explains that each black line on the latest slide, shows different cliff profiles, because there are different profiles at each pie/line slice point.

All of these slides show the bottom of the cliff face extending out, so they are incorrect.

The comparison is what Dr. Hayes is presenting is slip/fall [slip/trip] verses thrown/push.  The green line shows the slip/trip.

Explains that some of the lines show that they penetrate the cliff and that wouldn't happen.

States that there's something missing as far as another arc because nothing could penetrate the cliff. It would follow a new parabolic arc.

If you fell onto the ground and slipped onto the ground, and enough friction and insufficient distance then you would go over the cliff. There are multiple variables as to whether you would go over the cliff if you tripped and these graphs do not show that.

His understanding of what the graphs are showing, is that they don't properly represent what would happen.

If we consider all the departure points, there would be many, many graphs and not just [these?]. [Yes.]

Now more testimony as to what the yellow lines mean.

I think the import thing that this slide depicts, is it's only five slices, a single departure point per slice. There are many, many other possibilities that have not been analyzed.

What is a spread sheet? It's a software program that allows you to put numbers or equations in a cell that relate to other cells, that generate numbers based on equations.  That's what engineers use it for.

Did Dr. Hayes create a spreadsheet showing the formulas or mathematics that led to these lines? Yes. These lines are generated from a graph. the spreadsheet contains the full equation. They show spots in time.  These are created from a spreadsheet, that Dr. Hayes created.

They do not represent everything on the spreadsheet.  Now showing an image of the spreadsheet that Dr. Hayes created.  It's many boxes with numbers in them. And the various computations on the spreadsheet that were not represented on the previous pie slice graphs.

The trip/run [scenarios] are generated in the spreadsheet program but not plotted on the graph [images that were shown to the jury].

What he did was plotted the trip/run on Dr. Hayes' graph, to show where it doesn't fall. He plotted the trip/run on Dr. Hayes previous graphs in blue and overlayed them on Dr. Hayes' graph.

They fall similar to the yellow lines in some of the graph images.

More explanation of the interaction of the yellow and blue lines that I don't understand.

Dr. Siegmund states that his overlay blue lines show, that they would end up in the same end point on the cliff place that Dr. Hayes says she could only have happened if she was thrown.

If we go back to the other graphs that Dr. Hayes showed us here, you're saying that ...[?]? No these are ones that I've redone.

You're saying that the point of departure in these, the yellow lines, is different than the yellow lines in the site experiment? Yes. These start at the same departure line, but [?] lines are above other lines.

If you look at this line, it no longer intersects the cliff face here, because now the yellow, red and blue line have moved back and now are behind. I understand why Dr. Hayes did this, he was attempting to match the point of departure that his associate used, to launch the pelican box.

In Dr. Hayes' experiment, he threw the pelican box, it hit the cliff face and bounced into the water.

In this bottom portion of this line, the blue line, that seems to be going inside the cliff, that portion is an analogy, you would take a point of impact, that blue line and shelf, you would end up with a new parabolic arc? Yes. The pelican box would bounce off the cliff and start a new line into the water.

What I then did was, in Dr. Hayes' hand written notes, there was a graph that was essentially the same as this graph, as that it shows the same cliff profile, the slip trip and throw, you can see these together lines, going back from that original departure point. But on the graph that was in his notes, there is an additional scenario that was in his sheet, a run scenario. The run scenario.

Because the colored lines are difficult to see, I created a colored version of this so we could better see what this would look like. Here is the green and yellow line, from Dr. Hayes' graph. The two lines I want to draw your attention to are the blue line that intersects the shelf here, and a different color blue that starts here at Lauren's center of mass height, that falls along a different trajectory, but arrives on the cliff point but ends at the same point as the pelican box.

This shows that there is another possible explanation [for the results of?] the pelican box throw, that does not involve a throw.

Did you do any of your own work? Yes. The run profile that Dr. Hayes uses, is at the speed of 11.3 feet per second, which is the run of a child of 4 years old. It would be a run on a level surface. We are on a slope surface that is 20 degrees down hill. A child might be able to run, but a 4 year old could reach a run speed of this.

What did you try to do, to approximate the speed using a run slope? I had two twin girls who were a bout Lauren's size, where they threw golf balls down a 20 degree slope. What a child of Lauren's size, would do, approaching a throw.

We had them stand there take a throw. Take a step and throw. Take a few steps and take a throw, and Take several steps and stop at a stick on the ground and take a throw.  The stick represents the edge of the cliff? It represents a point where, beyond the cliff you would slip and fall. It didn't [represent the edge] but as far as you should go.

Keeping in mind that on this slope, there was no cliff there. There was no consequence.  Did anyone give them directions? Yes. My partner was there instructing them to throw golf balls as [far? fast?] as they can.

What I was trying to understand was, how did the girls behave when they were throwing. Did they overstep when throwing. I was trying to find an explanation for Lauren's unintentional fall. One of the possibilities.

Going to see a film of this? Yes.

At times there is a voice that is telling them to run faster? Yes. We were trying to determine possibilities. It was to evaluate the range of possibilities that the girls would undertake in this case with encouragement. Lauren on the cliff may have been encouraged to see where her rocks would have landed.

DDA Hum. Objection! That's complete speculation. Sustained Stricken.

So when the voice is giving direction, that voice is not meant to represent something that happened? Correct. The purpose was to encourage the girls to throw as hard as they can to simulate possibilities.

The video of the girls throwing is played now.

Its a grassy slope. I remember this video from the second trial.

The first throws are simply standing throws. The female adult was the girls mother.

Stops the video to show the "stick" line. It's in line with a level that was held up by the camera bag.

On the video, the man in the video is encouraging the girls to throw real hard.

10:44 AM
I glance over at Sarah as the video plays. I wonder what she is thinking.

To me, from the photos I've seen, the surface of this hill doesn't look anything like the surface of the "horseshoe" area that detectives and law enforcement believe Lauren plunged from. It's more uniform. In the video, to me, there appears to be more grass.

10:52 AM
The video is still playing.  More examples of the girls throwing. The "stick" is now removed, and the girls are told to run as hard as they can and throw as hard as they can.

Dr. Siegmund explains that there is another one where she stumbles as she throws.

10:58 AM
Judge Lomeli calls the morning break.
As the last jurors exit, Brown leans over and with his right hand cupping over his mouth, whispers into the left ear of the private investigator.

11:13 AM
On the breaks, DDA Hum and Detective Leslie often quickly down an energy or power bar.

11:14 AM
The investigator comes over to look at something in the corner of the bailiffs box/desk area. They have a conversation.

11:17 AM 
Brown is brought out.
Off the record, the court and Mr. Laub talk about how much more direct Mr. Laub has.

11;18 AM
The clerk calls for the jurors into the courtroom.

Judge Lomeli tells the jury that this past weekend, it was his bailiffs birthday. The jury yells out to the bailiff, "Happy Birthday!"

After watching the experiment with the girls, what did you get out of that? First to see if the girls stumbled and over stepped. And second what was their speed. He could use that speed in a projectile motion calculation.  How did you measure the speed? The same way that Dr. Hayes did the pelican box.

What speed did you discover the girls were moving? Objection.

What speed did you find the girls were moving at in the instances they were over stepping? There's one where she takes multiple steps over that. 8.2 or 8.9 or an average of 8.55 feet per second.

That's not the same time that Dr. Hayes was using in his trip/run data? Dr. Hayes used 11.3 per second. And that was the running speed of a child on level ground. We used a lower speed of one of the girls after she threw, on the sloped ground. She was not ina full run.

11.3 is the average speed of a child running. [I'm not positive if the per second run speed that Dr. Hayes used was 11.3 or 11.13. I'll have to verify that tomorrow. 5/7 Update: It's 11.3 I'm correcting notes to reflect 11.3 Sprocket.]

After establishing your own speed, for overstepping, what did you do? He used Dr. Hayes' graph and input his own speed overlayed what he got with that over the graphs of Dr. Hayes.

Input 8.55 feet per second over what Dr. Hayes had input of 11.3 feet per second. In these graphs now the blue line falls just to the left of the yellow lines. Now instead of starting below the yellow line and crossing it, it stays just inside the yellow line for the fall trajectory.

Looking at the five boxes up here, is there an example of, where the overstepping with a run of 8.55 ft per second, resulted with an impact with the shelf? In C and D .... they impact with the shelf just a little above where Dr. Hayes says she struck without impacting the upper portion of the cliff.

I miss seeing a young man come in and sitting in the gallery while I was typing.

The data that you found on the spread sheet, included the run/trip math, that was needed to generate you later used as your first blue line? Yes. All the data and graphs I presented were generated, up until this one, the calculations were already in Dr. Hayes' spread sheet.

The only think that I had done, was enter 8.55 feet per second. Otherwise, what I've shown you is from Dr. Hayes' analysis and spread sheet.  He's reviewed Dr. Hayes testimony? Yes I have.

Is there any place in his testimony, where it described the blue trip/run fall? There was no place in his testimony that referenced the run/trip/fall.

He said a slip/trip and run discounted as an explanation [that it].  You found, when run his calculations, did produce a single impact with the cliff shelf.

Now, Dr. Hayes first opinion and conclusion slide. He had six slides with conclusions.

Now will present what he agrees with and what he disagrees with.

Yes. That's his first three conclusions. These are Dr. Hayes second three conclusions.

[I type what I see up on the screen and add in any additional testimony from Dr. Siegmund.]

Now Siegmund has further slides to help explain this.

[I've bolded Dr. Hayes' opinion to separate it from Dr. Siegmund's. Sprocket]

Dr. Hayes First Opinion
Lauren died form a single high speed impact to the cliff face.

Partially agree. Lauren died form a high-speed impact to the cliff face.

But she could have interacted more than once with the cliff Multiple other abrasions on her body prior face or upper chest contact would be masked by a later high speed impact.

Dr. Siegmund explains that the other injuries could be explained by a child who fell prior to then tumbling off the end of the cliff face and striking the shelf further down the cliff face. 

It's impossible to say that she didn't stumble at the top and then the later impact obliterate those injuries.

Lauren had multiple other abrasions on her body, that can be explained by prior cliff action.

In particular Lauren had a facial and chest injury but she also had these shoulder injuries. Those abrasion likely occurred at a different time than the face and chest. could have occurred at cliff interaction at the top, a stumble, and where the impact speeds would be much less. It also could have occurred later on, when Lauren was in the water.

I could not tell where those injuries came from, but I do not think they came at the same time as the chest.

Not saying definitely that's true. It is a possibility. The discussion you just gave us about the multiple other abrasions, your conclusion are another possibility? Yes.

Dr. Hayes Second Opinion.
It's inconsistent with a slip/trip and fall.

I disagree.
Hayes trip run scenario could generate only one impact.
Overstepping a rock throw could generate only one impact.
Closer departure points could generate only one impact.
There are multiple scenarios involving a slip or trip that could have generated only one impact.

Based on the child experiments, overstepping after throwing a rock, could also explain the second impact on the cliff shelf. It's another scenario where a slip or trip or stumble could explain Lauren's impact with the shelf.

I've discussed already that the changing the departure point will change the trajectory.

More explanations.

Disagree a slip/trip and fall scenario are inconsistent. I believe they are consistent. They are one possible explanation.

Dr Hayes' Third Opinion.
Lauren injuries are consistent with being launched at between 10 and 15 feet per sec from point of departure.

Agree. This is one scenario consistent with Lauren's injuries.

But... other scenarios are also consistent with her injuries. Slip, trip, slide, overstepping after throwing a rock...

Other departure points.

The material at the top of Inspiration Point is loose and could cause a slip trip.

You've been to the top of Inspiration Point? Yes.

Dr. Hayes Fourth Opinion.
The fall trajectory that would produce she had an impact is well within the physical capabilities of an adult male.

Agree. [I miss getting the text of the rest of his answer on the screen.]

Dr. Hayes Fifth Opinion.
Slip/Trip scenario would not cause Lauren to fall. Launch scenario would produce all known facts of the case.

Disagree.
Hayes trip/run scenario would produce all known facts of the case.
Over stepping scenario would produce all known facts.
Other departure points would produce all known facts.
Minor contacts at the cliff top from a stumble would produce ... [miss rest of answer on screen.]

Dr. Hayes Sixth Opinion.
Lauren sustained her fatal injury [injuries] by being launched fofceully from the point of departure, impacting the cliff face once, and then landing in the water of the inlet.

I disagree. Throwing Lauren is one possibility consistent with the physical evidence of this case.
The physical evidence does not rule out other possibilities consistent with Lauren's fatal fall.

My conclusions.

Lauren's head injury indicates she struck a hard surface during her fall.
Lauren leg torso and should abrasions are consistent with one or more interactions with the cliff edge and or cliff face.

Possible explanations for Laurens fall include.

-pushed or thrown
-trip or stumble near cliff edge
-sliding on lose soil slope
-overstepping after throwing a rock

These are all possible explanations for Lauren's fatal flaw.

There is no physical evidence to suggest one explanation is more likely than the other.

I cannot discern based on the physical evidence whether she was thrown or fell. There's no physical evidence that proves Lauren was pushed or thrown from the cliff top.

Based on the physical evidence, science and bio-mechanics, [?] cannot be used to conclude whether Lauren's fall was accidental or intentional.

Is this something based on your training and years of experience? Yes. In order to conclude that something happened, we need to exclude all other potential possibilities.

Proving something happened, is proving everything else didn't happen. There are possibilities that we cannot prove.

Direct ends and cross begins.

Dr. Siegmund I have a couple of questions starting off.

You're not telling us that Lauren accidentally fell off? No.

Your not saying that Lauren death is an accident? No.

You're not telling us that Lauren was not thrown from a cliff? No.

You're not telling us that Lauren's injuries are inconsistent with being thrown from a cliff? No.

Dr. Hayes Opinion  #2.
I notice that where you say you disagree, you have four different scenarios.

I don't see in any of these, that ... I don't see where you say that Dr. Hayes could generate one impact?
They don't say that they would generate Lauren's injuries.

If Lauren left running with a leap off the cliff she would impact feet first? She would have to leave the cliff, with no forward rotation.

The defendant's lawyer asked you, if you read Dr. Hayes' testimony? Yes.

[You testified under direct there's no place where Dr. Hayes referenced a [run/ slip-fall as a single impact?]. What I would ask you to do, is look at Dr. Hayes' testimony. Look at the highlighted testimony there. page 5760 line 12.

In fact, in Dr. Hayes testimony he does discuss Lauren running off the cliff as fast as she could? Yes.

[Dr. Hayes testified that] she would land farther, hitting her back and hitting her feet. So on that basis, he ruled that out.

Mr. Laub argues that this is improper impeachment. Judge Lomeli shakes his head.

Laub argues with the court.

Your testimony was that Dr. Hayes said that a run could not produce this simple impact?

Laub very forcefully, or passionately argues his point. He argues that wasn't his witness' testimony.  DDA Hum just as forcefully states it is exactly.

Laub argues with the court again. The court states this is proper cross examination. [The court tells Mr. Laub that he will have the opportunity to redirect.]

The just ... [your?] testimony was the trip run test in that he had in his run sheet, was not on the graphs, and that he did testify that a run could not have.... [miss rest].

DDA Hum: Dr. Hayes did not say that a slip/fall/run would not produce a single impact, what he did say is that they would not produce Lauren's injuries.

I believe Dr. Siegmund did agree with that.

11:58 AM 
The noon break is called.  The court addresses counsel.

Let me say that these speaking objections. The court is not going to tolerate that. It's heated. The court is not going to tolerate that.

But this witness is being asked, Isn't that correct.

It's proper cross examination at this point. You're going to have to bring it down a notch, because it's too heated. The court informs Mr. Laub, like he did in front of the jury, that he would have the opportunity to redirect.

Laub argues with the court as to whether this is proper cross examination. Asking if his witness can ask to explain.

We are now on break. The young man [that I didn't notice come in] sat with the pretty woman in the gallery and they both spoke to the defense investigator.

12:01 PM
Everyone packs up for the noon break.

1:32 PM
Back inside Dept. 107. Brown has not been brought out yet. Judge Lomeli takes the bench.

1:34 PM
Jury enters.

Dr. Siegmund, did you talk with the defendant's lawyer over the lunch hour? Just briefly.  Did you discuss your testimony? No.

The court reporter is now reading the prior testimony that he was asked on direct.

Although using this calculations, the graph did [I can't keep up with the reading that DDA Hum is going over. There is read back by the court reporter.]

DDA Hum has made his point.

Do you agree with me that Dr. Hayes did not say, that running would not produce a single impact? What Dr. Hayes said was that it would not produce the injuries that Lauren sustained. [Yes.]

Dr. Siegmund's CV, is that in fact, your CV? Entered into evidence. Witness agrees that his CV is current as of December 2014.

The name of his firm, MEA, and there are about 60 employees. Their firm is located in Vancouver. They have offices in Los Angeles, Toronto and San Francisco.

Various areas that his firm covers and that they are all divisions of MEA forensics. It also has a marketing department. The marketing department helps to generate work.

They sponsor events, charity events, hockey, to help generate contacts in business? That's correct.

One of the things that you do, is you go and conduct analysis and testify as necessary? Yes. And other people do other things. And he gets paid for his testimony, Yes. You don't testify for free, correct? [Correct.]

Approximately how much to you anticipate making for your work in this case? The prior work in this case was I think, $36,000.00 but we weren't paid that much. And this portion of the case we were allowed to charge $14,400.00 plus travel.

So 50,000.00 without the travel? Except, I don't think we were paid the entire 36,000.00 I think we were paid about $25.000.00 ... US Dollars.

When did you get your Bachelor of Science degree? In 1986. Bachelor of Applied Science.

Is that when you also started with MEA Forensics? Shortly there after. Graduated in May and started in August.

At some point, you went back to school to get your Phd? Yes. Got that in 2001.

Then went back to MEA Forensics that same year? Yes.

He was an adjunct professor. DDA Hum asks if he teaches as an adjunct professor. Some do, I do not. I do not run a course of my own. He steps in for other teachers.

[Question about if he's ever taught a class.] He's never done that. He doesn't have time for that. He consults.

You co-supervise graduate students? Yes.

How many? Currently I have about 4.

[What is the total you've supervised?] He's supervised, it's not many. 10 or 8.

He's never been a salaried professor at a university. Never had appointments at hospitals.

Have you ever taught classes at any hospitals? No.

Now you have that medical training correct? I have taken classes with medical and dental students and those classes are offered by the faculty of medicine. How many? I think it was two or three.

It was part of his Ph.D. program.

Gross anatomy, which is a dissection course, where we dissect cadavers. The second is neuro-anatomy. It's the same thing except focused on the brain. The third was muscle biophysics, how muscles are studied.

How many cadavers did you dissect during your course in gross anatomy? Students are assigned a single cadaver, but exams are on all 50 in the room.

Dr. Siegmund expands. I would have spent time on all 50. The following year, I was asked to help as a TA [teaching assistant] the gross anatomy lab, but I wasn't able to keep that and do all my work as well. I ultimately declined.  How long was that? Eight months.

Dr. Siegmund worked as a TA less than a month.

Have you ever done any autopsies? No.

Not a medical doctor? No.

Not a forensic pathologist? Correct.

You talked a little bit about the materials you reviewed for this case, other than Dr. Hayes testimony, Have you reviewed any additional material, from the time you testified previously until the time you testified in this case? The only additional material recall reviewing was my prior testimony.

He testified in 2009 correct? Yes.

So you had reviewed [an] amount of material prior in 2009, and that was Dr. Hayes testimony in 2009, and subsequent testimony from Dr. Hayes in this trial.

Did you review the testimony of Dr. Chinwah who conducted the autopsy? No.

Are you aware that Dr. Chinwah had performed over 8,000 autopsies? No.

Are you aware that of those autopsies Dr. Chinwah testified somewhere between 100 to 200 those autopsies involved falls from heights? I recall a number like that.

You remember that from me questioning you previously? Correct.

Dr. Siegumnd, would it be accurate to say, your firm's focus is in traffic collisions and slip and fall from a standing height? Yes. And more recently football injuries.... concussion injuries.

[The witness is asked if that's soccer or American football]. American football.

The cases on which you have done work, would those be primarily civil or criminal cases? Many more civil than criminal. How many criminal [cases] have you testified in the US? Believe this may be the only criminal case in the US that he's testified to.

Now, you do have a in your CV a number of peer review publications? Yes. How many of those involve falls from great heights? None.

Research actives in your CV, how many of those involve falls from great height? None. Investigated falls from standing heights.

You've written a book correct? Yes. And additional chapters in other books? Yes.

Did the book involve falls? No. And [I] wrote three or four book chapters. Do any of those involve falls? No.

He's not testified in cases that involve falls from cliffs. They were step stools or ladders. Of approximately 3,500 cases he's handled, this is the highest fall. The fall equations are the same ones we use for bicycle impact.

The physics are the same, the physics don't change? Generally not.

When we're talking about fall, we're talking about a movement from one point to a lower point. [Yes.]

Dr. Siegmund, you were first contacted about this case in 2004? I have April 5th, 2004.

In 2004, did you actually go to Inspiration Point? Or did you just review materials? I went to Inspiration Point and [?].

Did you take photos back in 2004? Yes.

The photo you had in your PowerPoint, you remember when that photo was taken? Yes. I need to look in my computer. Jan 28, 2009.

So when you were testifying that the topographic map, doesn't comport with the photograph, the photograph was taken in 2009, that was your photograph? [Yes.]

Asks about Dr. Hayes' photos and topographic map and when it was done.

The witness did not use a PowerPoint presentation when he testified in 2009.

When did you prepare this PowerPoint that you used today? Last weekend.

So, eight or nine days ago? Yes the first slide may have been prepared on Wednesday, It wasn't all prepared until Sunday night.

You were first contacted in 2004 but the PowerPoint wasn't put together until two weeks ago? [Yes?]

And you gave the PowerPoint to the defendant's lawyer a week ago Sunday? Yes. Sunday night.

Are you aware that reports and materials that are generated by experts are supposed to be presented to the other side 30 days before trial to the other side? No.

Did the defendant's attorney tell you that? No.

When you provided the PowerPoint to the defendants lawyer on Sunday, did you discuss the PowerPoint with the defendant's lawyer? Yes.

Was that the first time you talked to the defendant's lawyer? Sunday.

Was the defense investigator Mr. Ross, was he there was well? Yes.

Did you suggest to the defendants lawyer any areas of inquiry that he might want to ask of you? [Miss answer]

Did you go over questions he might want to ask you? Informally yes, not formally, no.

Did you discuss any, [in?] any way, with the defendant's lawyer, questions that he might want to ask you? I showed him the presentation, and that would naturally suggest questions, yes.

Did you discuss any questions with regard to that PowerPoint, other than what are we looking at? I imagine, yes.

Now you also reviewed a report generated by Dr. Hayes? Yes. There was also a supplemental report as well? Yes.

Showing the reports to Dr. Siegmund. People's 92.

Primary report by Dr. Hayes. Yes he reviewed this.

And this report details Dr. Hayes qualifications, what he reviewed, what he did, calculations he made, findings and conclusions? [Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.]

And also reviewed Dr. Chinwah's autopsy report? Yes.
What he did and what he found? His observations, yes.

The injuries that he found significant? Yes.
Also reviewed the photos taken at the autopsy correct? Yes.
And also reviewed the diagrams? Yes.

In addition to Dr. Hayes report and the supplemental report which you said you also reviewed, correct? Yes.

And also reviewed supplemental material that was provided by Dr. Hayes that was not in the report, which is where you got the figures and the black and white diagram? Yes.

So all that was provided to you from Dr. Hayes? Yes. And it's your understanding that was generated by Dr. Hayes? Either Dr. Hayes or one of his associates.

Did you prepare a report similar to the report by Dr. Hayes, detailing your qualifications, what you did, your findings and conclusions? No.

Now, obviously you had the opportunity to review Dr. Hayes report? Yes.

And you would correct me if I' wrong, you would presume, that if you gave me a report, I would give that to Dr. Hayes and have him review it? [Yes.]

And had you been asked by the defense to prepare a report, you would have done that? Yes.

So we can conclude that you were not asked by the defense to prepare a report? Yes.

Now Dr. Siegmund. I think, one of the things you testified about this morning, Lauren could have suffered multiple impacts with the cliff, and one impact could have been masked by a second impact? Yes. You might be able to drop an apple and it gets a bruise, and if you drop it again, you might not be able to tell, it could land on the same spot.

In reviewing Dr. Hayes testimony, Dr. Hayes reviewed at least the same amount of material that you did. I believe so.

So Dr. Hayes may have looked at more? Yes.

I recall on that one of your slides, you [criticized? used one of?] Dr. Hayes slides of Dr. Hayes of the autopsy injuries and that you added some of your own? [Yes.]

You know that Dr. Hayes did not include the injuries that he when he testified, that he did not consider significant.

Did you know about testimony where a witness testified that he saw Lauren crawling on her hands and knees on a rocky trail? Wasn't aware of that.

Are you aware of Dr. Chinwah has seen injuries that involve falls from a great height that involve slipping and sliding. No, I didn't read Dr. Chinwah's testimony.

Well, from any source. Did the defense attorney tell you that Dr. Chinwah is familiar with injuries from great heights of slipping and falling? No.

Would you agree, that Dr. Chinwah, having performed this number of autopsies, ... [?] ?

I don't know what Dr. Chinwah has observed or the nature of the injuries whether they were inconsequential, I don't think that I can answer.

Are you saying you have the same familiarity as Dr. Chinwah does with falls from great heights? No.

Are you aware that Dr. Chinwah testified, that he would have seen more numerous scrapes and lacerations if she had slipped and fallen from a great height? No, not that specifically.

You know that Dr. Hayes testified, that he would have expected to have seen greater injuries specifically abrasions and lacerations.  I thought that was confined to his slip/trip on one of the maps.

Were you aware that Dr. Chinwah had discussed his conclusions about [this case]? I only know that from the question you asked me last time.

Anothe question about what Dr. Chinwah said. He testified that if Lauren had actually fallen, he would have expected more lacerations and abrasions, and if Dr. Chinwah had discussed those conclusions and with Dr. Lakshmana, and if Dr. Hayes, said that if Lauren had fallen from a great height, he would expect to see more lacerations and abrasions on Lauren's body, would that change your opinion? No.

Question as to if he knew that Dr. Chinwah had inspected Laurens clothing [missanswer]

Question as it if he inspected Lauren's clothing. [No.]

Are you aware that Dr. Chinwah testified that Lauren, under his opinion, that Lauren died from an asissted drop, and... [?]?

He read that, from the prior statement in the autopsy report that that was limited to the major injuries.

So Dr. Chinwah said, basically what Dr. Hayes said? Yes.

Now you testified that in order to draw a conclusion with regard to what happened, you would have to eliminate all other possibilities? Yes.

That Dr. Hayes in his slide, used limited points of departure? Yes.

And Dr. Hayes states in his testimony that he analyzed an area 8 ft by 12 ft? Yes.

And that Dr. Hayes stated that it's not necessary to analyze every point within that 8 ft by 12 ft area to draw a conclusion? Yes, but I don't necessarily agree with that.

Well lets talk about that. DDA Hum asks about a throw from 8 feet from the edge and Lauren missed the cliff and went directly into the water, and if you would then also have to test from 4 feet from the edge.

In fact that is what is mean by testing limits of boundaries? For example I give you a tennis ball from the back wall, I wouldn't need to have you stand from where I'm standing to see if you could hit the back wall? Well, that only takes into account ....

Now another question about throwing a bowling ball against the back wall.

So we do not need to analyze every point within this 8 foot area? That's correct. but if the scope within an engineering analysis, .... [miss rest of answer]

Would you say, there is a limited area, where someone could leave Inspiration Point and there is a limited area where they could end up in the inlet to the east? Yes.

Brown leans in to speak to his investigator. They have a conversation.

You did talk about Dr. Hayes of grasp of projectile motion. And about the black lines that you don't go inside the cliff. Didn't Dr. Hayes only testify that the lines only represented what would happen when Lauren first interacted with the cliff and everything else wasn't representative as to what would happen? [Yes.]

Has Dr. Siegmund read prior of Dr. Hayes testimony.

And he never said that her body would go into the cliff. [Yes.] And he's not suggesting that he was trying to tell us that he would be saying that she would be inside the cliff were you? I was not.

You did talk about the fact that in the materials that Dr. Hayes provided you indirectly, there was a scenario that if Lauren was running at 11.3 ft per second she would have a single impact with the cliff? Yes.

Did the defendant ever anyone that Lauren was running as fast as she could, and ran right off the cliff? No, I think he looked away.

No where in any of the reports, is there anywhere, that Lauren was running as fast as she could off the cliff? Not that I'm aware.

And, there's just one other area I want to talk about with you, and that's this video of the girls throwing golf balls.

In [your testimony, you testified that, you had two girls that were approximately Lauren's height and weight. They were Riley and Hunter? Correct. Both were a little taller and one a little lighter and one a little heavier. And they were 6 years old.

Lauren was 4 years, 2 months and 10 days. You put your [someone from your] department put a stick on the slope, correct? Yes. And the girls were instructed not to go past the stick? Correct.

The consequences of going past the stick, is not that they fell 120 feet to their death? Correct.

So the consequences for Lauren would have been significantly greater? Correct.

Out of the 44 trials, they went past the stick area, twice? Right.

And at one point, your partner had taken the stick away? Yes. We had removed the boundary.

Is your testimony, is that a four year old would not know what the edge of a cliff was like? I would not know [what a four year old would/wouldn't know?].

The stick that was there, there was one situation where someone went past the stick? [Miss answer.] One where they went past when they were told not to go past? Yes.

In addition to that, we could hear your partner encouraging them to take a big run and throw, go really fast up to the twig. Run really fast. Stop really close to the twig. We could hear that from the video? Yes. all of those were possibilities.

There were 26 times, where your partner encouraged [the girls] to run faster, get closer to the twig, take bigger steps? I didn't count them, but I think they did them for most of the trials where they were not standing still.

Do you have nay information that when Lauren was on the top of the cliff, [Lauren took a] big run and big throw? I don't have any information.

[Another question as to whether or not Brown said that to Lauren.] No I don't have any information that anyone said that to Lauren.

There's nothing that Lauren was encouraged to run as fast as she could and throw as far as she could? Not that he knows of.

Nothing further.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

The prosecution asked you a number of questions and number of points about Dr. Hayes and whether or not Dr. Yayes had [testified?] to Lauren running. Do you recall this portion of cross? Yes.

And the prosecution has placed this in the context of Lauren running full spedd off the cliff. [Do you] recall that? Yes.

When you looked at Dr. Hayes spread sheet, was there a label that Dr. Hayes had applied, that said running full speed off the cliff? No. ... The one area we focused on, was something labeled, run/trip or trip/run.

The question, you were cross examined on, your testimony had denied that Dr. Hayes, the question was asked on direct was regarding trip run? We were discussing that part of the analysis, yes.

So when you responded with the answer that the prosecutor sought from the record, and you said the run, without including the word, trip, were you referring to something different than the question that was? The question I was asked us as if the question I was posed, a trip ... a trip would catch the feet.

The witness gets confused on which question he was just asked about by Mr. Laub.

In repsonse to your question I had in mind we were dealing with the trip run scenario. So there's no significance that in your use of the word run, rather than the word trip, that you were actually speaking of something to running... Object to question. Leading.

I was referring to the trip/run, and if I just said run I apologize.

You were also cross examined whether the wording used by Dr. Hayes and his research, a single impact vs producing injuries? You recall? Yes.

Is it correct from you review of all the materials in this case including Dr. Hayes work, that when Dr. Hayes is referring to a single impact, he's referring to the injuries int he autopsy report? Yes.

You were also asked a number of questions of how much of an academic you really are? Do you recall this question? Yes.

As you sit here testifying for the jury, are you saying you are someone who is a nationally recognized academic? No. Is it what your are of [experience? experts?] ...? Objection. Leading.

If your expertise is not academia, what is it? My area is applying the knowledge in real world application.

Now questions regarding medicine, over how many years he has worked as a conslutant? 29. And 3500 consultations? Cases.

Was part of your task was to learn about injuries and how they relate to biomechaincies. Certainly since 2001, My focus was what causes inures. I'm not a medical doctor as to how to treat injuries.

[You] had to study a wide variety of injuries and a wide variety of causes ?Yes. Yes.

And this case for you, outside your experience? Skull fractures, neck injuries, not to belittle but are the bread and butter [of his business/practice] ... what kind of force, that could cause these injuries.

Questions about work before, falling from a great height. Yes. The bio mechanics, is it necessary to have experience of reviewing great falls .... [in order to determine?] ... ? The great height simply changes the impact speed, with the cliff face, or in this case, the shelf. ...Mostly what I've studied have been lower impact. The speed of this case is what we more see in auto accident impacts. The principals are fundamentally the same. The exposure is greater than the falls that we've seen but not out of the range of car crashes.

A standing height fall can cause a skull fracture. The additional height we see here considerably causes a skull fracture.... but not ... [miss rest of answer].

Laub asks questions about [how] the bio-mechanics doesn't change and what you have to do is plug in a formula? Objection. Leading.

[I believe a rephrased question.] The witness states the physics are the same. As you get into higher and higher speeds, the equation breaks down because you have to get into air resistance. But as you get into that you can [work out?] the air resistance into mass.

Now questions about how he was asked about Dr. Chinwah's report. Asks him to look at the end of Dr. Chinwah's report. One of the things you also reviewed was his statement.

DDA Hum objects on hearsay grounds. Sidebar.

The jury relaxes and stretches and chats among each other during the sidebar.

Judge asks the jury if they are hot. The jury says yes.

Mr. Laub is back to questioning.

2:55 PM
You were further questioned again under cross about the issue of 11.3 ft per second that appeared in Dr. Hayes' spread sheet? Do you recall? Yes.

This was presented to you as running straight off the cliff? Yes.

Was that tied in that spread sheet to, running straight ahead off the cliff? Objection this has been asked and answered.

The 11.3 feet was tied to the trip/run.

Is there any evidence that you are aware of that Lauren understood that what would happen if Lauren went past a certain point? There is no evidence.

You were also cross examined ...  I should also clarify that last point.... but I don't thin he finishes this.

Questions on cross about partner encouraged the girls ran faster and throw harder.

What was the point? The point was to explore possibilities. These are things of Lauren's height and weight would do. The girls were encouraged to throw.

I'm going to object this is speculation. As to this is what someone what Lauren would do. [I believe this objection is sustained.]

Was the point of what you were doing, to try to show what in fact Lauren did, or was it to show there are possibilities that were reasonable as to what happened? It was the latter. I was exploring reasonable possibilities.

Redirect ends and recross begins

Is is your testimony Dr. Siegmond that is the reason ... possible that at the top of Inspiration Point, that the defendant was saying to Lauren, run as fast as you can run as close as you can to the edge, is that a reasonable possibility to you?

Its' possible. I'm not a judge of what's reasonable.

To you that's a reasonable possibility? I don't know what was said betwen Mr. Brown.
I know...

I believe there are more questions about what's reasonable for Lauren at the top of the cliff.

The utterance, but the reasonable possibilities, was the [speed?] of getting close to the edge.

It wasn't trying to replicate what Mr. Brown might have been saying? Objection leading.

Judge, I think he's testified to that.

Judge asks the witness, what was the point of your partner, in asking all those statements of the girls?

What were the possibilities, what would children would do, [what might happen] if they were to throw a rock.

Recross is finished and the witness is excused.

2:58 PM
Judge Lomeli calls the afternoon break.

3:22 PM
Jury files in.

Call the next witness.

JAN MUELLER

What was your occupation 1999 to 2000. I was a court mediator for Orange county Superior Court. I helped parents with custody issues come to some kind of agreement.  She has a masters in psychology. At the time, [to qualify for this work] she had to have five years past graduate experience. Also required to have continuing education.

When did you start working for the court? August 1990.   Family court? Yes. About how many? Currently done about 10,000 meditations.

She is employed by the court.

Met Mr. Brown? Yes. Met the mother, Sarah Key-Marer? Yes.

First mediation January 3, 2000. Before that, did you look and see that they had met another court mediator? Yes. Once before.

When you meet with parents, do you have an initial explanation about the mediation process? Yes. I tell them that the process is confidential. I don't tell the what should happen. That I don't tell the court what happens, except if there is a safety issue, regarding the parents.

And when you met Mr. Brown and Ms. Marer, did you explain this to them? Yes.

On January 2000, did you try to help these two parents about visitation? They reached a temporary agreement. That was to hold for how long? If made into a court order it can be held for so long, they were to see me in February.

In Feb did they also reach an agreement? They reached a temporary agreement. Did that include overnights with her father? Yes it did.

Did the parents at some point, the parents express that their relationship had [broken down]?

June 2000, learned Mr. Brown believed that the mother was physically abusive to Lauren and they weren't communicating well. Mr. Brown would sometimes not speak with Ms Marer and the relationship had deteriorated.

Other than that, she had telephone contact with both parents separately.  That's when she spoke with the parents.

She had an note from Sarah and she believe she spoke to her.

In these phone calls, would they complain about the other? Mr. Brown was making allegations Sarah was physically abusive to Sarah, and each of them talking negatively about them and to other relatives.

So Mr. Brown thought Sarah was talking negatively about him and Sarah thought he was talking negatively about her? That's correct.

So at the June 22nd meeting, realizing that you had tow parents that were not working well together, what did you decide to do? I met wit them individually to start with and just to find out what was going on.

Did you decide that it would be good to have a 730 evaluation? After the June 22 meeting? Yes.

Explains the 730 evaluation. A psychologist interviews the child, interviews the child with both parents, sees the parents separately, they do psychological testing, and the result is sent to both parties and the court.

The goal is to have recommendations made for custody and visitation.

Are you what is called a mandated reporter? Yes.

I am required by law, to make a child abuse report, if there are allegations of abuse.  A 730 evaluation, is that something that is mandatory or is that something that is discretionary to you? I don't understand your question.

Is a 730 evaluation different or part of the mandatory reporter. [That is not a part of being a mandatory reporter.]

Did you make any kind of report in this case? Yes, I made a report to social services. I did do a consultation with social services to see if it was a report that they wanted to make.

Did Mr. Brown ask you to make this report? Not that I recall.

One of the things that Mr. Brown had photos of bruises on Lauren's legs? Yes that's one of the things. she never saw the photos but that was one of the things that she was made aware of.

I don't know if I talked about forming a relationship, one of the things that...

I had some concerns that he was not very understanding about child development issues.  The child was young, so it was environmentally developmental for the child to be uncomfortable being away from the mother. He didn't understand why she didn't just want to be with him.

Did he ever say or do anything that indicated he didn't want to be with Lauren? No.

Did he want more visitation with Lauren? Objection. Foundation.

He wanted more visitation? Yes.

What is it that he expressed that he stated he wanted? That he wanted to have more additional time.

In your evaluation of his demeanor, did he appear to have strong interest in developing an interest in Lauren? Objection. Sustained.

Did he talk with you about Lauren? Yes.

Did Mr. Brown in his words, your perspective, did he show a strong interest in developing  an interest in Lauren? He appeared to be interested, yes.

Did you have any concerns about him visiting Lauren? No.

In regards to Mr. Brown's expectations of Lauren, the lack of awareness of Lauren's developmental stage and her relationship with her mother, when you talked with Mr. Brown about this, did he make any improvement? Yes. I think he did.

Asks about a note from Lauren's mother. [The] note said, that she wanted to reschedule the next mediation immediately, because Cameron was getting aggressive, if she didn't have Lauren adopted in 30 days, or that it was going to get ugly.  Did Mr. Brown say anything to you, that he wanted to have Lauren adopted? No.

Did Mr. Brown ever say it was financial burden? We didn't discuss finances.

Did he express Love for Lauren? Define Love. Mr. Laub moves on.

He was calm to angry. Would he have at times a muted affect? Sometimes.

[Another question about Brown's demeanor in mediation.] I expect people to be very emotional in mediation so I would say no.

Did he ever say he desired to have full custody of Lauren? Yes.

At some point, you were interviewed by Detective Leslie? Yes.

Did you tell Detective Leslie, that Brown wanted to form a relationship with Lauren? Yes.

And you told him that Mr. Brown's interest was growing stronger the longer he spent with Lauren? I don't recall that.

Did you say that Mr. Browns emotional ... okay I'll move on.

Did you tell Detective Leslie, you felt that Mr. Brown loved Lauren? I don't recall that.

Regarding difficulties you'd seen with Mr. Brown in your office, that he had problems compartmentalizing his relationships? What did you mean by that? He would put his relationships in separate areas and put that by the side. So when he would get angry he would just close off.

Did you tell Detective Leslie, that he was black and white in his thinking? Yes.

And that he had frustration issues? Yes, I did.

A juror's phone goes off.

Luab looks through his notes.

Direct ends and cross begins.

A few questions, you actually met with the defendant and Sarah on two occasions. and the third [meeting] separately? Correct.

In reviewing the file, there was a mediation prior to you on Jan 3 there was one before that? Yes.

That was on Oct 2 1999? Yes. And there was one prior to that where the defendant didn't actually show up? Yes. The date she doesn't remember.

There was a mediation scheduled on September 14, 1999, where Sarah showed up and waited 15 minutes and the defendant didn't show up? That's correct.

Back at that time, there's an orientation that they go through, with someone else, that would last about 15 minutes and they would get a pamphlet at that same time. 

DDA Hum goes over the pamphlet, and that it states that allegations of child abuse are reported to the court.

If you can mediate an agreement between the parties, then that actual agreement becomes a court order? Yes.

On Jan 3rd, they agreed to a graduated visitation schedule, and that was stamped as a court order? I don't know if they went to court [for that] but I assume they did.

Next saw [them both] on February 29, 2000.  Which transitioned from supervised to unsupervised visits? Yes.

Sarah thought the relationship was improving but the defendant thought it was staying the same? Correct.

There were phone calls prior to the June 22 meeting.

In June, Sarah, ... at that 22nd meeting, it was the same time that Brown made the allegation of child abuse.

At that meeting she learned that Brown was refusing to speak to Sarah, and she suggested that [the parents] use a notepad that Lauren could take back and forth.

Did Sarah indicate to you, that Lauren was saying things about distancing herself from Greg and Josh.? Yes. And that Lauren was saying things that Sarah was a bad mom? Yes.

[About Brown's allegations of Sarah abusing Lauren] He didn't just say that Brown was concerned about bruises on her legs, but that the defendant also said that Sarah had kicked her? Yes. And that Sarah had also grabbed Laurens face? Yes.

Did you believe those allegations Ms. Mueller? No I did not.

Did you tell Sarah that the defendant made those allegations? Yes. Did you, when the defendant make these allegations [did you tell the defendant] that there might be alternate explanations but he refused to believe that? I don't recall that.

Did you tell the detectives that you made suggestions to the defendant that there might be other explanations for the bruises? I don't recall that? Well if you did, would it be true? Yes.

She recommended the 730 report, because she had concerns about the defendant's psychological [?] emotional make up/stability.

She's not really there to diagnose, she's there to help work out a visitation plan.

She never saw Brown with Lauren together.

You were worried about his emotional stability? You knew he had issues with his mother? He didn't talk about it.

More questions about Brown and that he didn't want the child to spend time with his mother.

Noticed this anger and frustration when he talked about his mother? She doesn't recall. So DDA Hum will present her with her previous testimony.

DDA Hum goes over her prior testimony. Did the defendant in fact tell you he had issues with his mother? He said that he didn't want Lauren to see his mother.  Did he in fact say that she was a bad person? Yes.

Did the defendant tell you that his mother was an evil person? I believe so.  Do you remember giving those answers? I believe so.

From the mediation, because part of what you were trying to do was arrange a schedule, you knew how much time the defendant was spending with Lauren? Yes.

And that the defendant had filed a claim of 50% visitation? Yes. And the defendant never came close to 50% visitation? No he did not have 50% visitation.

You told the detectives to look at the court file? .... The court file was public record, but I don't recall telling them that.  I said they could go look at it.

I'm not there to diagnose. I had concerns about the stability and the behavior that I saw.

Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers?

Reads prior testimony.

Did you have concerns about psychological issues on part of the defendant ? Yes.

You had concerns about emotional issues on the part of the defendant? Yes.

And prior, you testified about... I miss this DDA Hum is reading too fast.

Going to recess.

4:01 PM
The court releases the jury. The witness will be back tomorrow to finish her testimony.