Re: Jury to visit cliff in RPV near where 4-year-old girl died


"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:447EF266.746A9106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dane wrote:

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Pat Pritchett-Sophy wrote:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/2901241.html

Geragos had also argued that an e-mail between a detective and a
California 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.

Which all that Hayes did. So what's the difference?

Bull***. Hayes conducted experiments

What kind of experiments did he conduct? There certainly isn't any
evidence
of experiments in his report, except for some BS about having an aide
throw a
sand bag around his back yard. What kind of "experiment" is that?
24 A YES. AND THIS SIMPLY DESCRIBES THE STEPS

25 THAT WE TOOK TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO

26 TO LAUNCH A 44-POUND CHILD, IF THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

27 AND SO TO UNDERSTAND THAT, ONE OF MY

28 ASSOCIATES WAS FILMED WITH A 40-POUND WEIGHT WITH



251


1 HIGH-SPEED VIDEO. WE ASKED HIM TO LAUNCH THAT 40-POUND

2 WEIGHT AT VARIOUS SPEEDS, DO IT EASY, DO IT AS HARD AS

3 YOU POSSIBLY CAN. HOW FAR DOES IT GO? WHAT ANGLE DOES

4 IT LEAVE?

5 SO WE FILMED THAT WITH A HIGH-SPEED DIGITAL

6 CAMERA; AND IT TURNED OUT THAT WE COULD DETERMINE THE

7 LAUNCH SPEED THAT IT TAKES A PERSON -- THIS ASSOCIATE IS,

8 I THINK, FIVE-EIGHT AND 160 POUNDS. TO LAUNCH IT AS FAR

9 AS HE COULD, HE WOULD HAVE TO START AT 15 FEET PER

10 SECOND. THAT'S ABOUT 10 MILES AN HOUR, SOMETHING LIKE

11 THAT.

12 AND THE NEXT SLIDE.

13 Q YOU OBTAINED THE WEIGHT OF 44 POUNDS FOR

14 LAUREN FROM THE AUTOPSY REPORT, CORRECT?

15 A THAT'S WHERE HER WEIGHT WAS LISTED, YES.

16 AND HERE IS MY ASSOCIATE, WHO IS A

17 RELATIVELY FIT 28 YEAR OLD, LAUNCHING A 40-POUND WEIGHT

18 AT AN ANGLE OF ROUGHLY 22 DEGREES AT A SPEED OF ABOUT

19 15 FEET PER SECOND.

20 SO WE KNEW THE RANGE THAT ONE COULD

21 CONCEIVABLY LAUNCH A CHILD OF LAUREN'S WEIGHT INTO SPACE,

22 IF THAT'S WHAT ONE WAS DOING.

23 NEXT.

24 Q CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US, THEN, WHAT THIS NEXT

25 SLIDE ILLUSTRATES?

26 A SO THEN KNOWING THE SORT OF MAXIMUM LAUNCH

27 THAT AT LEAST MY ASSOCIATE COULD DO OF 15 FEET PER

28 SECOND, WE THEN LOOKED AT THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES THAT



252


1 WERE PART OF THIS CASE. WHAT IF THE LAUNCH HAD BEEN NOT

2 A MAXIMAL EFFORT, BUT A SUBMAXIMAL EFFORT? SO WE PICKED,

3 FAIRLY ARBITRARILY, 10 FEET PER SECOND.

4 AND FINALLY WE USED WHAT'S KNOWN AS AVERAGE

5 WALKING SPEED FOR A CHILD OF LAUREN'S AGE, WHICH IS ABOUT

6 ROUGHLY 5 FEET PER SECOND, 4.6 FEET PER SECOND, AS THE

7 LOW END OF THE POSSIBILITY. THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT

8 WITH EITHER TRIPPING OR SLIPPING OFF THE EDGE OF THE

9 SLOPE.

10 Q AND THEN DID YOU PLOT THE VARIOUS RESULTS

11 ON A GRAPH?

12 A YES.

13 THESE ARE OUR BASIC RESULTS OF THIS

14 ANALYSIS THAT PULLED TOGETHER THE SHAPE AND CONTOUR OF

15 THE CLIFF, ALONG WITH THE RESULTS OF OUR PROJECTILE

16 MOTION FOR THE RAYS THAT I MENTIONED, THE SLICES OF THE

17 CAKE, THAT WOULD PUT HER IN THE WATER.




and applied that with the data of the topography of IP,

Oh, you mean the PHONY topography that he had manufactured (when there was
already EXISTING non-faultly topography data available)?

factored in the autopsy reports

Except that what he says the Autopsy Reports says and what the Autopsy
Report
ACTUALLY says are 2 different things.

and evaluated the results with his expertise in biomechanical
engineering

I think his REAL "expertise" lies elsewhere.

and established conclusively that lauren's death was inconsistent with a
slip and fall but was consistent with being launched in a very specified
manner.

Yah, right. Except there's one pesky little problem: there isn't another
biomechanical expert in the country who will back up Hayes's assertions,
not
even a single one. And they have tried FRANTICALLY to find one, you can
bet
on that.

If that is the case, pray tell why Geragos failed to present reports from 20
or 30 biomechanical experts in his 995 motion and have the pesky criminal
proceeding dismissed and Cam free as the breeze a year ago, eh?

It looks like the defense is severely handicapped by Hayes when the best
objection the mighty Geragos can raise against it is the complaint that
hayes failed to factor in the trajectory of a child slipping off the cliff
at running speed.

Why would the prosecution need another confirming opinion when Cam is unable
to to effectively dispute the math in the report?








Arnold said the professor made the statement without viewing any
evidence, so it didn't carry much weight.

So what is materially different between that and what Hayes did? Hayes
was given the same pitch that the CalTech professor had been given.
The
only difference is that Hayes told them what they wanted to hear. So
he
got the job.

Another overlooked [by you] difference is the fact that Hayes background
and proffessional expertise qualified him to conduct a study to determine,
if possible, whether Lauren's death was intentional or accidental, while the
proffessor was out of his league.



The CalTech professor made some guesses solely on the basis of e-mail

WTF are you talking about? This is PATENTLY wrong. The CalTech professor
MET with them, looked at "evidence", and then told them that what they
wanted
him to do COULDN'T be done. As such, his testimony BY LAW should have
been
presented to the Grand Jury.

That is in direct conflict with your statement in this post that
"Judge Arnold is NOT a "biased" judge, he is an HONEST judge. "



If anyone corresponded solely by email, it was HAYES, because he's 900
miles
away. I should think that they didn't go up there (or else have him come
down) until it was pretty well established that he would help them.

Q NOW, DR. HAYES, BEFORE WE GO ON, IN

3 ADDITION TO WHAT'S DETAILED ON THE SLIDE, YOU PERSONALLY

4 WENT OUT TO THE LOCATION WITH THE DETECTIVES AND ME AND

5 MISS SMITH FROM OUR OFFICE AND CONDUCTED YOUR OWN

6 ON-SCENE ANALYSIS AS WELL; IS THAT CORRECT?

7 A I DID. I ACCOMPANIED YOU AND TWO

8 DETECTIVES. WE STARTED AT -- I AM BLOCKING ON THE NAME

9 OF THE BEACH THAT IS BETWEEN PORTUGUESE POINT AND

10 INSPIRATION POINT.

11 Q SACREDS COVE, ABALONE COVE?

12 A ABALONE COVE.

13 WE STARTED AT THE PARKING LOT ABOVE THE

14 PLAY AREA WHICH YOU MAY HAVE SEEN. WE WALKED AROUND TO

15 PORTUGUESE POINT. I TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS BOTH FROM THE NORTH

16 OF PORTUGUESE POINT; I TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS UP ON THE SURFACE

17 OF THE POINT IN THE REGION OF WHAT MR. BROWN DESCRIBED AS

18 THE POINT OF DEPARTURE WHERE HIS DAUGHTER FELL FROM.




while Hayes made his evaluation by more accurate scientific methods.
See
above.

So in Dane's book, LYING for money is a "more accurate scientific method"?
Is that it?

I haven't seen anything to raise a suggestion that Hayes lied.



Fortunately Judge Arnold is not as biased as you are.

Judge Arnold is NOT a "biased" judge, he is an HONEST judge. But he is
ALSO
generally biased towards the prosecution side. Once he catches on to what
is
actually happening here, he is NOT going to be a happy camper.

~~~~
So the professor did not view any evidence.

Neither did Hayes. (He made his up.)

Then where were the facts given in the 995 Motion to establish this fantasy?



You've been saying that steadily, but you are deathly afraid to post the
report,

I'm not "deathly afraid" to post that report, I CHOOSE not to post that
report.


Interesting choice, considering your many railings directed against it.


and furthermore, you have not been able to refute it,

That report is EASY to refute. That's not the point.

Then why, considering your endless paragraphs devoted towards discrediting
it, have you not been able to refute it? And, more importantly, why wasn't
it refuted at the one time that refuting it would have paid maximum
dividends, in a successful Dismissal Motion that would spare Brown the
jeapordy of a trial?



and I have seen no evidence to this date that the defense is going to be
able to engage in a battle of the experts in any realistic expectation
of
seriously undermining it.

Wait and see. That's not afar off.

Oh, you can bet I have impatiently looked forward to those days since we
discussed this very issue after I posted my analysis of the 995 motion with
the prediction that a sno ball in hell was more suited for survival than the
labored convulsions of a dying presumption of innocence fully laid to rest
in that dead petition.

--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.