"Ooooops! I did it again!" (was Re: Jury to visit cliff in RPV near where 4-year-old girl died ---Arnold says evidence kept from GJ not exculpatory
- From: Ken Smith <forget@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 13:47:48 GMT
Dane wrote:
[...]
Excerpts from the article:
Jurors on Cameron Brown's murder trial will take a field trip to
Inspiration Point to view the Rancho Palos Verdes cliff from which
prosecutors say Brown threw his 4-year-old daughter, a judge said
Tuesday.
Craig Hum did precisely what I expected, and the judge did precisely what he should have. Even one look at the crime scene will be powerful evidence: http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/rpvcliff2.jpg.
After reviewing recent photographs of the cliffs as well as photos
taken of them immediately after Lauren Sarene Key's Nov. 8, 2000,
death, Arnold said he found the terrain had not substantially changed,
as defense lawyer Mark Geragos argued.
Geragos' "Magic Disappearing Landslide" theory suddenly got a lot less plausible. It sounds as if he'll be able to argue it, but the tale will be a lot less convincing without evidence that one actually occurred. If Jeff Leslie is on the ball and still reading, he is probably out looking for a geologist to say what needs to be said (that slides don't occur in early November becuase the soils aren't saturated). CG would do well to pass this on. :)
Although Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum wanted jurors to re-trace
Lauren and Brown's trek from the Abalone Cove parking lot to Inspira-
tion Point, Arnold said it would be too much to ask of a jury.
"Too much to ask of a jury?!" If it's "too much" for a freakin' JURY, what about a four-year-old girl?!? The jury should never hear this, but the judge thinks that Cam is guilty as sin, and effectively just said as much. [And no, it is *not* reversible error, Ted, since he doesn't make any determinations of fact. Just watch his comments CLOSELY during the trial!]
Hum said the entire scene is "part and parcel" of the crime.
Hum is absolutely right here, just as I've been saying since visiting the crime scene. The crime scene itself is damning evidence, insofar as it's about the one place out there where you can't be seen. Hum will do pretty much what I predicted.
In refusing to dismiss the case or return it to the grand jury, Arnold
said he didn't believe the evidence kept from the grand jury was nec-
essarily exculpatory, including whether or not Inspiration Point is in
a landslide area or if Brown had an injured back at the time of inci-
dent.
Once again, the judge is spot-on. As the prosecution gets the benefit of the doubt with respect to *every* inference of fact, evidence must be necessarily exculpatory" for disclosure to be required. Since there is evidence that Cam's back was good enough for him to load up a surfboard (CG can try this at home; go into any surf shop, and lift one), the fact of his WC claim isn't necessarily exculpatory. Since there is evidence that Lauren suffered injuries inconsistent with those suffered by those who had been victims of a landslide, the fact that IP was in a landslide zone isn't necessarily exculpatory. Since there was no reversible error in the presentation to the GJ identified by the defense -- Jeff Leslie's purported "perjury" wasn't even brought up, and if proven, it could have been reversible error -- we can conclude that the indictment was lawful, and no civil rights violations occurred therein. As for evidence being "manufactured," you would have to torture the definition of that word to even come close to credibly making that assertion.
Geragos had also argued that an e-mail between a detective and a Cal-
ifornia Institute of Technology scientist that was recently discovered
debunked the prosecution's theory. In the e-mail the Caltech professor
said he could "only make guesses" about the chain of events leading to
Lauren's death.
Arnold said the professor made the statement without viewing any evi-
dence, so it didn't carry much weight.
(Source: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/2901241.html)
To put it charitably, either Ted lied, or *Geragos* did. The Caltech prof didn't do any experiments and didn't even express the opinion that the theory was "hooey," but rather, expressed a view not unlike that of Dr. Henry Lee when I discussed it with him. It would be difficult for a forensic scientist to determine whether Lauren had been thrown, but NOT impossible. The Caltech prof didn't visit the scene -- or even give the matter more than a moment's thought -- which, in Ted's eyes, renders him manifestly unqualified to render a credible opinion. [Oh, wait! There's a separate set of rules for pro-Cam witnesses.]
At this point, we've gotten a fair indication of where Cam's case will be going, and the kind of questions Hum should be asking (phrased in the form of questions to Ted):
__________________________________________________
I've attached what you can't seem to deal with straightaway. So tell
us, Ted, which of the facts I used in that brief proposed 'prosecutor's
introduction' to the case against Cam Brown are "manufactured?"
Do you deny that there are suitable playground facilities in Long
Beach, Huntington Beach, and/or Redondo Beach?
Do you now deny that Abalone Cove is way out of the way (it certainly
was, in your humble opinion, when I went there ;) )?
Do you deny that, on a typical weekday during the off-season, Abalone
Cove is normally next to deserted (see, my pictures, and the USGS' pics
in 2004)?
Do you deny that the weather on that day wasn't particularly nice for
SoCal (mid-60s, iirc)?
Do you deny that as a practical matter, Abalone Cove is about the
only place in the Basin where a man could murder his four-year-old
daughter, and make it look like an "accident?" [only remote cliffs around]
Do you deny that most of the adults who visit Abalone Cove go there
to hike to Inspiration Point (three for three in my survey)?
Do you deny that, if a man intended to murder his child in the manner
proposed herein, the taking of photographs would help to establish his
excuse/alibi (he took her there to play)?
Do you deny that a hike from the pay parking lot to Inspiration Point
via the playground and back would be an extremely ambitious hike for a
four-year-old girl? (Kent knows a little about four-year-olds and their
capabilities.)
Do you deny that Inspiration Point (before the fence, which you tell
us was added later) was too dangerous a place to allow a four-year-old
to run around unattended?
Do you deny that a marginally sentient adult who surveyed Inspiration
Point from either the playground or the parking lot would know that it
was too dangerous a place to allow a four-year-old to run around unattended?
Do you deny that even a marginally responsible parent who was aware
of the dangers of Inspiration Point would let his four-year-old child
out of his grasp in such a place (much less, stray anywhere near the
edge of the cliffs)?
Do you now deny that Cam and Lauren were never separated (prior to
her hard landing)?
Do you deny that the cause of Lauren's death was a fall off a
40-meter high cliff?
_____________________________________________________________
That is a pretty respectable case for murder, regardless of whether it is enough to persuade beyond a reasonable doubt. If I am Geragos, I am going to make certain that the trip to IP is along the fastest possible route -- preferably, the one Cam was purported to have taken -- because if they go there from the courthouse, they'll go through RPV, and it is a horribly slow slog. (It's a beautiful drive, which is why you do it.) Put *THAT* in a jury's mind, and the timeline suddenly gets rushed.
To quote the Pop Princess: "Ooooops! I did it again! I got it spot-on. [I don't know the rest of the song ... but I'm sure it will get Loretta going. :) ]"
As I asserted earlier, I'm going to let this dog lie for a week or so; my surmise is that Ted is getting very worried at this point, as well he should be. The silver bullets have all missed wide right, and we'll get down to the nuts and bolts of this case. And there *will* be some grime and dirt....
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Being held prisoner by ASA with a student loan
- Next by Date: Re: Employer refusing to pay individual performance-based bonus
- Previous by thread: Re:enhanced image of IP with GJ notes
- Next by thread: Re: "Ooooops! Ken did it again!" says Ken Smith
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
