The Lost Hour

The Justice System must absolutely exemplify the ideal which it is charged to maintain, otherwise there can be no justice at all. Rather, what we will have will be officials abusing their power at their convenience to oppress innocents, while at the same time excusing those malefactors who happen to gain or have their favor.

The Justice System must first of all be impartial. That is, it cannot accord a greater measure of rights and privileges or of favor to one party over another: all men stand equal before the law, and no man is above the law. A corollary of this is that the Justice System will have nothing to hide. All evidence will be taken into account and presented, regardless of what it might happen to indicate. Whether the evidence tends to implicate or to exonerate can be of absolutely no concern to those who are charged to administer justice. The truth of a matter is what it is. And the truth of the matter is the objective that officers of the Justice System are [ideally] striving to achieve.

In the Cameron Brown case, these officers have failed woefully to live up to these ideals. As a matter of fact, in our view, it is much worse that just a simple “failure,” it is from all appearances an active neglect of them, a willful, and intentional attempt to mislead and deceive. It is a deliberate violation of Cameron Brown’s rights, because it is manifestly evident that he is in fact not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged. This is, to be sure, a very strong statement—one that might even strain credulity. But it is one that I believe I can support.

In the Cameron Brown case, the Grand Jury that indicted Cameron had been misled at just about every turn.  This is certainly true with regard to the Autopsy Report. Let’s see how the Autopsy Report is described on the list of exhibits from the index of the Grand Jury transcript:

1

                   EXHIBITS

2

                                           INTRODUCED

EXHIBIT      EXHIBIT                       OR IDENTIFIED

3

NUMBER       DESCRIPTION                   AT PAGE          

13

9            FOURTEEN-PAGE AUTOPSY REPORT     16

“Fourteen-page Autopsy Report”? Lauren’s Autopsy Report is actually thirty-two pages. Now, to be sure, it is permissible for a prosecutor to present only certain sections of an Autopsy Report to a Grand Jury—as long as he discloses to them that there are other sections of it that are not being presented. And Prosecutor Hum did inform the Grand Jury of this in this case. What is not permissible is to give testimony that is contradicted by the undisclosed part of the Autopsy Report.  And that is exactly what has happened here. Let’s look at Jeff Leslie’s testimony, regarding what time that Smith and Leslie received the call about Lauren’s death, from page 136:

11

       Q      AND ON NOVEMBER 8TH OF 2000 WERE YOU AND

12

YOUR PARTNER, DETECTIVE SMITH, ASSIGNED TO INVESTIGATE

13

THE DEATH OF LAUREN KEY?

14

       A      YES.

15

       Q      AND DID YOU RECEIVE A CALL REGARDING THIS

16

INVESTIGATION ABOUT 5:20 IN THE EVENING?

17

       A      OUR DESK RECEIVED A CALL AT ABOUT THAT

18

TIME, YES.

19

       Q      THE DESK AT THE HOMICIDE DIVISION?

20

       A      THAT'S CORRECT.

21

       Q      AND THEN WERE YOU NOTIFIED?

22

       A      YES.

According to trial testimony, Deputy Detective Antoinette Martinez was working the homicide desk and taking incoming calls on that day, and she was the one who first received the call about Lauren’s death. And Smith and Leslie received the case from her. Also, Coroner’s Investigator Allen Moses reports that he was notified about Lauren’s death by Detective Martinez. An account of this can be found in his “Investigator’s Narrative” that is a part of the Autopsy Report.  But this Narrative seems to have been removed from the redacted Autopsy Report that was shown to the Grand Jury. Let’s look at what Allen Moses wrote in his Narrative:

This is interesting. According to Coroner’s Investigator Allen Moses, the Coroner’s Office was notified by Detective Martinez—who testified at the trial that she was the one who took the call about Lauren’s death. And in fact the call at the Coroner’s Office was taken at 4:14 pm. And Allen Moses’ Investigator’s Assignment Form confirms this same information. Yet Sheriff’s Detective Jeff Leslie, who testified that he received the case from Detective Martinez, contends that the desk—which Martinez was working that day—didn’t receive the call until 5:20 pm. Something’s fishy here—and this is no mistake. Something was going on during that first hour after the call came in, something that they don’t want us to know about—and something that they are willing to commit perjury over in order to conceal. Anyway, testimony by Detective Jeff Leslie continues from above:

23

       Q      AND BASED ON THAT NOTIFICATION, DID YOU GO

24

TO AN AREA NEAR INSPIRATION POINT IN THE COUNTY OF LOS

25

ANGELES?

26

       A      YES, WE DID.

27

       Q      AND TELL US ABOUT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME

28

YOU ARRIVED THERE.

137

1

       A      WE ARRIVED THERE ABOUT 6:30 P.M.

This would be the correct time frame of arriving on the scene—had the call actually been received at about 5:20 pm. But at 5:20 pm, Allen Moses was already arriving on the scene, having been dispatched in response to a call that had been made by Detective Martinez—who was working the desk in the very same office as Detectives Smith and Leslie! Let’s reiterate: the Coroner’s Office was informed of Lauren’s death by Detective Martinez more than an hour before Detective Leslie asserts that Detective Martinez received notice of it!

Taking all of this into account, it looks like the call really came in much earlier than when the investigators would have us believe. And it is inconceivable that the prosecutor would be unaware of this. Rather, it is much more likely that he excluded Allen Moses’ Narrative for this very reason—which would make Hum’s question to Leslie about what time he received the call to be subornation of perjury. And this would not be the only instance of subornation of perjury in the Grand Jury testimony.