GUILTY CA - Lauren Key, 4, thrown off cliff, Rancho Palos Verdes, 8 Nov 2000

[concernedperson]

Forgot to add in cross of Cam's brother pros pointed out that Cam owned 2 boats a motorcycle and 2 1/2 Ton Army vehicle.

Boy toys are more importent, I guess. I am not bashing men just the mindset. I am a mom of a boy too.

 

[jilly]

Thanks for the update, Jilly!


(And "EWWW" to the court watcher! Well, at least it wasn't "Favorite Recipes of Cannibals", I guess.)

YW! I forgot to add a somewhat important one witness for the defense:

He was the public defender who looked after Cameron in the beginning before Geragos.

He said that he had a conversation with the autopsy doctor and asked him if Lauren's injuries were consistent with being thrown off the cliff. The doctor answered "Of course not!".

This same doctor called by the pros apparently told the jury the opposite.

There was no mention of the cross examination.

 

[tybee204]

I actually think there is a good chance the Prosecution is going to lose this case. I think they over reached on the charges.

 

[jilly]

I actually think there is a good chance the Prosecution is going to lose this case. I think they over reached on the charges.

That's my feeling right now too from what little we've been able to scrounge up.

 

[Anita Richman]

YW! I forgot to add a somewhat important one witness for the defense:

He was the public defender who looked after Cameron in the beginning before Geragos.

He said that he had a conversation with the autopsy doctor and asked him if Lauren's injuries were consistent with being thrown off the cliff. The doctor answered "Of course not!".

This same doctor called by the pros apparently told the jury the opposite.

There was no mention of the cross examination.

WOW! That could be huge.

 

[LaMer]

I actually think there is a good chance the Prosecution is going to lose this case. I think they over reached on the charges.

I agree. I believe he is guilty, but that won't cut it, cause this is one case where from what I have read there could be reasonable doubt but that is looking from afar. I would have to know a lot more than what I know now to vote 'guilty' and condemn a man to life in prison without the possiblity of parole. It will be interresting to see where the jury stands when it is all over.

 

[jilly]

KFI today -

No "please don't die witness", surprise, surprise!

Bob Brown (Cam's father) kicked out of court today for remainder of trial.
A witness was on the stand being asked about the timeline. Lawyer asked "was it 2004?". All of a sudden this loud "YES!!" from the gallery.

Jury was asked to leave. Judge says "What was that"...."whoever it was isn't man enough to speak up (or something). Bob Brown says it was him.

Judge - "That's enough" and bans him.

Bob Brown - "Don;t you want to hear what I have to say?"
Judge - "No".
Brown - "Then I'll write you a letter"
Judge - "I don't want your letter"
Brown - "Well I've already written it"

Brown leaves.

Patty is paying for the defense not father. Lien on her home in Ventura.

Rebuttal witness Jeff Leslie called. No details.

Field trip tomorrow - 6 hrs - jury going to 5 different locations. (I think the reporter is going).

Closing arguments Thursday. Jury to get case Friday.

 

[Pepper]

A longtime friend of Cam Brown (Jon Hans?) wrote a letter on Loretta's Cam Brown site that appears to be pretty damning to Cam. I guess this person wrote a support letter that was placed on the freecambrown.org site. Jon later requested the letter be removed and his request was denied by Ted Kaldis, Patty Brown's brother.

Hmmm doesn't look good for him when former friends turn against him.

 

[Pepper]

I actually think there is a good chance the Prosecution is going to lose this case. I think they over reached on the charges.

I was very much on the fence in this case in the beginning. Then when snippets of the trial came out, it seemed to me that he was guilty. Now I'm not so sure again.

The problem comes with there being no eyewitness who actually saw him pitch her over the cliff. With differing expert testimony on the injuries being consistent or not with an accidental fall, it looks like reasonable doubt.

He is definitely a weird duck, but that doesn't necessarily mean a guilty duck.

 

[tybee204]

I dont necessarily believe anything Loretta has on her site. She has a history of editing and adding her own words to other people posts etc. An 11th hour post on any site of Lorettas reeks of her attempting to validate herself.

 

[Pepper]

You gotta good point Tybee. She does have a way with manipulating other people's words to suit her agenda.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

You gotta good point Tybee. She does have a way with manipulating other people's words to suit her agenda.

I was also a little suspicious of the friend's letter. And...that's too bad that many of us are so cynical about anything that kinda surrounds Loretta's facts/sources, etc. I feel bad if that was really a friend that wrote that. But, I'm just not totally convinced. Oh well. :silenced:

 

[LaMer]

Defense in Brown murder trial rests

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/3473391.html?page=1&c=y

Jury will visit five Peninsula sites, including where defendant is accused of hurling his daughter off a cliff.
By Nick Green
DAILY BREEZE

The defense rested its case Tuesday as a two-month murder trial neared its conclusion for a former South Bay man accused of hurling his 4-year-old daughter off a Rancho Palos Verdes cliff.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos called 10 witnesses and introduced 40 exhibits as evidence during just four days of testimony designed to convince the jury that former South Bay resident Cameron Brown is not guilty of murder.

Among those who testified for the defense were Brown's mother and his youngest brother. However, Geragos did not call the 44-year-old former airline luggage handler to testify in his own defense.

Why?

"Because they haven't proven their case," Geragos said.

-continues

 

[LaMer]

I dont necessarily believe anything Loretta has on her site. She has a history of editing and adding her own words to other people posts etc. An 11th hour post on any site of Lorettas reeks of her attempting to validate herself.

Me either, from the beginning she has had an agenda!

I think it is so sad a little girl lost her life, and only four years old. She didn't ask to be brought into this world, yet maybe because of irresponsible adults she is dead. Cameron Brown didn't want her, didn't want to pay child support, and ironically she ends up dead at the bottom of a cliff. Very suspicious.

The reporting on this case, leaves a lot to be desired! don't ya think?

 

[jilly]

The reporting on this case, leaves a lot to be desired! don't ya think?

No kidding!! This is what happens when we don't get to see the transcripts. It would have been like this in the Peterson case too had we not had the luxury of reading for ourselves. So many times when I watched all the talk shows I'd have a feeling of despair thinking the prosecution was going to lose.

This Daily Breeze seems to be a bit of an amateur act. We've hardly been informed with respect to the cross examination or the detail of the prosecution's expert. Maybe there's nothing to report but right now, from what I've read, I'm wondering how he could have ever been charged with murder.

I'm hoping for a mistrial.

 

[tybee204]

Most of the reporting seems to be anti Garegos rather then the testimony.

 

[LaMer]

No kidding!! This is what happens when we don't get to see the transcripts. It would have been like this in the Peterson case too had we not had the luxury of reading for ourselves. So many times when I watched all the talk shows I'd have a feeling of despair thinking the prosecution was going to lose.

This Daily Breeze seems to be a bit of an amateur act. We've hardly been informed with respect to the cross examination or the detail of the prosecution's expert. Maybe there's nothing to report but right now, from what I've read, I'm wondering how he could have ever been charged with murder.

I'm hoping for a mistrial.

Jilly I remember when the P first started, I was having panic attacks! YES! thankful for the Transcripts and I do remember the tide changed--Thank Goodness! Sometimes (most of the time) it's the defense spin on the talk shows where we have to plug our ears

Nick Green's reporting is scant at best, nothing in paper yesterday about Monday. LOL Hope he hasn't worn himself out too much! :doh:

 

[LaMer]

Most of the reporting seems to be anti Garegos rather then the testimony.

For sure with KFI, Ken and John! It is Ken and John, right? O well!

 

[jilly]

Nick Green's reporting is scant at best, nothing in paper yesterday about Monday. LOL Hope he hasn't worn himself out too much! :doh:

Hahahaha! Yes, when you consider that the pros had 47 witnesses, the reporting was definitely "scant'.

 

[katiecoolady]

No kidding!! This is what happens when we don't get to see the transcripts. It would have been like this in the Peterson case too had we not had the luxury of reading for ourselves. So many times when I watched all the talk shows I'd have a feeling of despair thinking the prosecution was going to lose.

This Daily Breeze seems to be a bit of an amateur act. We've hardly been informed with respect to the cross examination or the detail of the prosecution's expert. Maybe there's nothing to report but right now, from what I've read, I'm wondering how he could have ever been charged with murder.

I'm hoping for a mistrial.

The forensic science would be the determining factor for me.

The first CTV trial I watched was the case of Stephen Lucas who was convicted in a second trial (first was a retrial) of throwing his mother down a marble staircase and then bashing her head in with some kind of candle holder.

His "story" was that he went to her house to return a VCR she'd loaned him, she jerked it out of his hands and sprinted up the staircase (in her granny gown..ha!) and at the top of the landing there was a struggle, she yanked back the vcr and with that momentum flung her own body over the railing and died at the bottom.

They had aerodynamic specialists analyze her size, his size, the physics of the possibility of her flying off the railing like that with her own momentum generated as he said. And the height of the railing, etc. etc.

It was abundantly clear it did not happen the way he claimed (combined with his bizarre behavior afterward and motive) and he was convicted.

But it was the science that sealed it for me.

What is going on with the testimony in this case along those lines? His size, her size, the angle of the cliff, her injuries. Someone sent me an article a while ago which stated her injuries were consistent with her landing head down ( ) and that didn't fit with the kind of fall she would have with an accident.

Thoughts?