|
Where’s the Rock? As the Cameron Brown trial was winding down in early August of 2006, the jury was taken out to the site where the accident occurred. Along with the jury and other members of the court were also several members of the press, who went along to observe and [presumably] report on their observations. Among them was reporter Nick Green of the Torrance Daily Breeze. Writing about the site visit in the next day’s edition of the Daily Breeze, Nick Green wrote: Still, jurors had previously been told that Brown sat down on a flat rock to admire the view and when he looked away Lauren was gone. “Where’s the rock?” one juror asked Torrance Superior Court Judge Mark S. Arnold. There was no answer; there is no rock.
This article makes it absolutely and undeniably clear to us that a lie has been told. There is no way getting around it. The jury had been told that there was a rock on the top of Inspiration Point that Cameron was supposedly sitting upon when Lauren fell. And yet there is obviously and unquestionably no rock! And this observation is most certainly beyond debate. But what is not so clear from this account is, who was it that told the jury that there was a rock up on top of Inspiration Point? The underlying presumption seems to be that Cameron had said that he was sitting upon a rock and that he was lying about it. But Cameron never testified in the trial, and so this account must necessarily have been told to the jury by someone else. Several important questions arise here. First of all, why did it come to light so late—after testimony had been completed in this case—that such a lie has been told? And secondly—if indeed it was Cameron who was lying—why had the prosecution not taken advantage of this lie, so as to cause whatever story Cameron Brown had been telling to become unraveled, and to have the truth come to light? Or was it really Cameron who had told this tale in the first place? When conducting an investigation, detectives are constantly on the lookout for a lie, no matter how seemingly insignificant and inconsequential it might appear to be. That is why they constantly question a suspect about the same things over and over and over and over again—to see if the answer that he gives will ever change. And if it does, then the investigators will focus on that particular issue. And they will keep hammering and hammering until the story finally unravels, as it inevitably will. Because a lie can virtually never stand on its own—there will always be the need to keep telling more and more lies to support the original one. But no one can ever fully keep track of all the lies. And eventually it will all finally collapse. Moreover, police and prosecutors generally operate under a presumption of integrity. There are several reasons for this, and primary among them is that they generally don’t have an interest in any particular outcome. It is their job to pursue justice wherever that pursuit might lead them, and they arrive at the truth. And there is never any overt reason for them to favor one side over another. Besides, they know that they will pay a very heavy price for any misconduct—particularly if it is deliberate. For these reasons, we cam be assured that we can generally count on whatever they say—though not always. Cases where the conduct of police and/or prosecutors has been less than exemplary are certainly not unheard of. So let’s examine the particulars of this case, and see where they lead us. Keep in mind that our general inclination is to accord to the police and to prosecutors our complete confidence, and to regard them as acting with the utmost of integrity. And in like manner, we must necessarily regard with suspicion whatever a defendant might say because he is presumptively the one with something to hide. This second presumption is actually an extension of the first. The investigators, after all, must have performed an honest and conscientious investigation, and in doing so have found enough evidence of wrongdoing to bring the case this far. As such, then in all probability the defendant must likely be guilty. And a guilty defendant will always deny his guilt, so we can pretty much dismiss his denials out of hand. And as such, whatever he says is regarded with suspicion. I bring all this up in order to ask the reader to be aware of such presumptions, and to evaluate them while reading this material, to determine if they are indeed warranted in this case. But, back to the matter at hand. Let us start here by looking at the Grand Jury testimony of Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Jessica Brothers. Specifically, let us see what we can find out about what her role was in this case and how she came to be involved in it, and what she contributed and where she fits in among the investigators. Let us start by taking a look at her Grand Jury testimony, beginning on page 50:
|
|||
|
21 |
Q GOOD MORNING, DEPUTY BROTHERS. |
||
|
22 |
A GOOD MORNING. |
||
|
23 |
Q MA'AM, WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION AND |
||
|
24 |
ASSIGNMENT? |
||
|
25 |
A I AM A DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS |
||
|
26 |
ANGELES, LOMITA STATION. |
||
|
27 |
Q AND WERE YOU SO EMPLOYED AND ASSIGNED ON |
||
|
28 |
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8TH OF 2000? |
||
|
51 |
|||
|
1 |
A YES, I WAS. |
||
|
2 |
Q HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN A DEPUTY |
||
|
3 |
SHERIFF? |
||
|
4 |
A I HAVE BEEN A DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR EIGHT |
||
|
5 |
YEARS. |
||
|
6 |
Q NOW, ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8TH OF 2000, AT |
||
|
7 |
ABOUT 3:00 O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON, WERE YOU WORKING? |
||
|
|
|||
|
16 |
Q WERE YOU BY YOURSELF OR WERE YOU WITH A |
||
|
17 |
PARTNER? |
||
|
18 |
A I WAS WITH A PARTNER. |
||
|
19 |
Q AND WHAT WAS YOUR PARTNER'S NAME? |
||
|
20 |
A HIS NAME IS KLAUS GIRMES. |
||
|
|
|||
|
25 |
Q BY MR. HUM: AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE ON |
||
|
26 |
PATROL WITH DEPUTY GIRMES, HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN OUT |
||
|
27 |
ACTUALLY ON THE STREETS, THAT IS, ON PATROL? |
||
|
28 |
AND WHEN I SAY "HOW LONG," I DON'T MEAN HOW |
||
|
52 |
|||
|
1 |
MANY HOURS; I MEAN WHAT PERIOD OF TIME, A WEEK, A MONTH. |
||
|
2 |
A APPROXIMATELY FIVE WEEKS. |
||
|
From this we discover that, on the day of the accident, Deputy Brothers was new to patrolling the streets, having only been assigned to patrol duties just a mere five weeks earlier. (Prior to that, she had been assigned to the jails.) As such, she would have been considered a “rookie,” and was essentially being “trained” by her partner, Deputy Klaus Girmes. Therefore, on that day, lacking experience on the streets, she would have simply been assigned to “watch” Cameron Brown—to “babysit” him, as it were—until more qualified homicide investigators could arrive. And indeed, Deputy Brothers even admits to this herself, toward the bottom of page 64 of her Grand Jury testimony, in response to questioning by Prosecutor Hum:
|
|||
|
23 |
Q AND WERE YOU ASSIGNED TO STAY WITH CAMERON |
||
|
24 |
BROWN AND WITH LAUREN UNTIL THE HOMICIDE DETECTIVES |
||
|
25 |
ARRIVED? |
||
|
26 |
A YES, I WAS. |
||
|
27 |
Q WHERE DID YOU AND CAMERON BROWN WAIT FOR |
||
|
28 |
THE HOMICIDE DETECTIVES? |
||
|
65 |
|||
|
1 |
A IN THE PICNIC AREA WITH LAUREN. |
||
|
Because of her rookie status, it is inconceivable to suppose that Deputy Brothers would have been allowed to question—or even to engage in conversation with—a potential murder suspect (which is what Cameron Brown would have been considered at that point). There is too great a chance that she could possibly say the wrong thing and compromise the entire investigation. And moreover, she doesn’t have any recorder and doesn’t appear even to be taking notes. The assertion that she as a rookie would be conducting an interview by herself out in the field is utterly ludicrous on its face, and must necessarily be regarded with suspicion. Now I do not mean to suggest that the officers would have avoided all conversation with Cameron Brown. It would be silly to suppose that they did. They certainly would have necessarily been required to conduct a field interview of him, just simply to find out what was going on, and what his account of the situation was. Indeed, he is the one who summoned them in the first place (with his 911 call), why wouldn’t they be talking to him? But if Cameron had been in a talkative mood, and with Brothers having had so little experience on the streets, it would have been her partner, Deputy Klaus Girmes—by whom she was being trained—who would almost certainly have been doing all the talking. And it would have been Brothers’ job to watch and listen—so that she could learn the job on the streets. But for some reason, Girmes’ role in this case is completely ignored here. He was not called to testify either before the Grand Jury or in the trial, and he is most conspicuous by his essentially complete absence. And yet, testimony from Detective Jeff Leslie (one of the homicide investigators who arrived later) seems to confirm that Deputy Girmes was in fact fully involved here, as we should expect him to have been. The following exchange is from page 137 of Jeff Leslie’s Grand Jury testimony:
|
|||
|
2 |
Q NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION, WERE |
||
|
3 |
YOU DIRECTED TO AN AREA WHICH IS KNOWN AS THE ARCHERY |
||
|
4 |
RANGE? |
||
|
5 |
A YES, THE SOUTH BAY ARCHERY CLUB. THAT'S |
||
|
6 |
CORRECT. |
||
|
7 |
Q WHEN YOU ARRIVED, DID YOU SPEAK WITH THE |
||
|
8 |
HANDLING UNIT, DEPUTIES GIRMES AND BROTHERS? |
||
|
9 |
A YES. |
||
|
10 |
Q DID THEY PROVIDE YOU WITH A BACKGROUND OF |
||
|
11 |
WHAT HAD OCCURRED -- |
||
|
12 |
A YES. |
||
|
Notice here that Detective Leslie says that he and his partner (Detective Danny Smith, who has since retired from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and now lives in Idaho) spoke with Girmes and Brothers. So from this we know that Deputy Girmes was certainly involved in the initial stages of this investigation. But aside from Brothers informing us that he was her partner, we never hear anything from him, or anything else about him. Brothers’ testimony isn’t that Cameron told “them” anything, but rather that he told her whatever he ostensibly said. And this can be potentially misleading the Grand Jury, particularly if it creates an impression that she had a significant role in the initial stage of this investigation if in fact she did not.
Let us now go to page 58 of Deputy Brothers’ testimony, where they are discussing Exhibit 5, a board of six photographs of these picnic tables, and also of Inspiration Point from the perspective of the area at the picnic tables. Prosecutor Hum is questioning Deputy Brothers:
|
|||
|
16 |
Q AND THEN WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT AS WE GO |
||
|
17 |
THROUGH PHOTOS C, D, E AND F? WOULD THAT JUST BE THE |
||
|
18 |
PATH DOWN TO THE BEACH? |
||
|
19 |
A YES, IT IS. |
||
|
20 |
Q OKAY. AND THE AREA IN PHOTO C AND D, THE |
||
|
21 |
ROCKY AREA ON THE RIGHT, IS THAT INSPIRATION POINT? |
||
|
22 |
A I'M SORRY, ON C AND D? |
||
|
23 |
Q YES. |
||
|
24 |
A YES, IT IS. IT IS THE UPPER POINT BY WHERE |
||
|
25 |
THERE IS A LITTLE -- IT LOOKS LIKE A BLUR FROM HERE, BUT |
||
|
26 |
IT'S A BUSH. AND THAT'S THE TOP OF INSPIRATION POINT. |
||
|
Now let’s skip forward a few pages, to page 66:
|
|||
|
21 |
Q AND YOU SAID THAT HE POINTED -- HE ACTUALLY |
||
|
22 |
POINTED TO A BUSH WHICH WE CAN SEE IN EXHIBIT NO. 5, |
||
|
23 |
PHOTO C AND D, UP ON THE TOP OF INSPIRATION POINT AND |
||
|
24 |
SAID THAT WAS THE AREA THAT HE WAS; IS THAT CORRECT? |
||
|
25 |
A CORRECT. |
||
|
This exchange is actually quite revealing. If we are to take this information at face value, we are to suppose that there is a bush on the top of Inspiration Point, that Cameron Brown said that he was alongside that bush when Lauren fell, that the bush is visible from the archery range where Deputy Brothers was watching Cameron Brown, and that he pointed out this particular bush to her. Furthermore, we must also assume that investigators were later able to identify this same bush from the top of Inspiration Point, and determined that it is indeed the same bush that is seen in the photographs that are part of Exhibit 5. This is important, because the Grand Jury is being led to believe that the bush seen in the photographs of Exhibit 5 is indeed on top of Inspiration Point. And if in fact it is not, then the Grand Jury is, again, being misled. Moreover, if the prosecutor wishes to bolster his case, we should expect to see him present close-up photographs of this same bush, taken from the top of Inspiration Point. And he should be able to associate such a bush to the supposed bush that is seen in photographs C and D of Exhibit 5 that being shown to the Grand Jury, and that were taken from the area of the picnic tables at the archery range. And why should this be such a hard thing? We know that the area at the end of the top of Inspiration Point was well-documented by the investigators—not only with photographs, but also with a video that was shot from a helicopter circling at close range. We know this because these photographs, as well as the video, were presented at the trial. But alas, it seems that no such photos were presented to the Grand Jury, at least certainly not in conjunction with Deputy Brothers’ testimony. |
|||
This account is found on Page A13 of the August
3rd, 2006 edition of the Torrance
|
Anyway, let’s take a look at some pictures to see if we can find the bush that they are talking about, and to see if indeed it is a bush that is located on the top of Inspiration Point. Here are two pictures, one looking down at the archery range from the vantage point of the top of Inspiration Point, and the other looking at the side of Inspiration Point from the archery range: |
||
 |
 |
|
|
The above picture on the left was taken from the area of the archery range, adjacent to the picnic tables, looking towards the end of Inspiration Point—where Deputy Brothers was watching Cameron—and the picture on the right was taken from the top of Inspiration Point, looking down toward the archery range. (Clicking on any picture on this page will open a new window with an enlarged and more detailed copy of that picture.) The question that we are trying to resolve here is: is the bush that was photographed in Exhibit 5, photos C and D, indeed located on the top of Inspiration Point, as asserted by Deputy Brothers? Because it has been asserted that the supposed bush that is seen at the end of Inspiration Point from the area of the picnic tables (which is actually not much more than just a blur in the photos) is actually on the top of Inspiration Point. But the prosecutor has never bothered to demonstrate that this is indeed the case. And if in fact it isn’t, the Grand Jury has been misled. Just at the very end of the top of Inspiration Point, right as it starts to slope down, there does appear to be some sort of a growth that just might be a bush (and, as Deputy Brothers states, it appears as just a blur). But for the purposes of Grand Jury testimony, “might” is grossly insufficient. Whether Cameron Brown actually pointed out a bush or not—and if so, regardless of whether it was this one or not—is immaterial at this point. The implicit assertion contained in Hum’s question is that there is a particular bush located on the top of Inspiration Point that is visible while standing near the picnic tables at the archery range, and that it is this bush that is seen in photos C and D of Exhibit 5. But if this assertion fails at any point, then the Grand Jury has been misled, and its integrity has been compromised, rendering whatever conclusions the Grand Jury arrives at as suspect. This is not a minor point. Testimony presented to the Grand jury is sworn to be “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” or else it represents perjury, for which the witness can potentially go to jail. It should go without saying that if it is discovered that perjury has been received by a Grand Jury, any resulting indictment will be undermined and should properly be dismissed. A conscientious prosecutor will therefore be extraordinarily careful to insure that his case will not be compromised by even an inadvertent misstatement that could potentially mislead a jury, let alone by willful perjury. If, on the other hand, an unscrupulous prosecutor even merely allows perjury (when he is aware of it), let alone introduces and facilitates it, then he is guilty of subornation of perjury—a crime for which he can be disbarred, and can even potentially go to jail. Now some of you might object that I am just making a mountain out of a molehill, that this is just a minor issue of no real and substantive consequence when taken in the complete context of a very serious murder case. You might suppose that I am trying to facilitate an apparent murderer getting off on what really amounts to nothing more than a mere technicality. This is a fair criticism. And if this were the only thing that I could come up with to challenge this prosecution, I never would have bothered. But in fact, this point pales in comparison to what you will read further on here. Nevertheless, a little skepticism can be healthy, and I welcome the same kind of scrutiny that I am asking you to apply to the prosecution. With regard to the bush, can anyone identify, from the vantage point of the archery range, a particular bush that we can say with certainty is located on the top of Inspiration Point? We would absolutely necessarily need to be able to do so, in light of Prosecutor Hum’s question to Deputy Brothers, in order to maintain confidence in the Grand Jury proceedings. Or on the other hand, do we have any photos taken from the top of Inspiration Point of a bush that we can incontrovertibly associate with the blurry growth that is alleged to be a bush seen in the photo above? If there is no such bush on top of Inspiration Point that is visible from the archery range, then how could Prosecutor Hum have even possibly posed such a question without having deliberately suborned perjury—and obviously so? The issue of the bush is presumed to have been investigated and resolved long before this matter was ever brought before the Grand Jury. Or else, the Grand Jury is simply being misled. (In fact, it gets much worse than this. We are only getting started here.) But in any event, after closely examining the pictures above, and comparing them also with the leftmost of the three pictures toward the bottom of this page that make up the panorama of the end of Inspiration Point, it seems fairly clear that the growth seen in the left photo above at the end of Inspiration Point is not a bush. Or at least it is certainly not one that is on the top of Inspiration Point. Rather, it appears to be a large patch of scruffy overgrown grass that is actually on the side of Inspiration Point. (The top of this patch is seen at the center of the leftmost panoramic picture, and in fact the above right picture, looking down on the archery range, was taken from a spot adjacent to it.) But there is no bush at the top of Inspiration Point that is visible from the archery range below. Which makes it absolutely clear that the Grand Jury has been misled! |
||
|
Let’s resume examining Deputy Brothers’ Grand Jury testimony, continuing from above (pages 66 & 67):
|
|||
|
26 |
Q IN ADDITION TO POINTING TO THE BUSH, DID HE |
||
|
27 |
DESCRIBE THE AREA TO YOU AT ALL? |
||
|
28 |
A HE SAID THAT THERE WAS A LARGE ROCK THAT HE |
||
|
67 |
|||
|
1 |
WAS SEATED ON -- AND THEN, AT THE TIME, IT DIDN'T MEAN AS |
||
|
2 |
MUCH TO ME -- BUT THAT LAUREN WAS A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE |
||
|
3 |
EDGE OF THE CLIFF AND SHE WAS THROWING ROCKS FROM THERE. |
||
|
It is here where the supposed rock is introduced. Deputy Brothers testifies to the Grand Jury—under oath—that Cameron Brown told her that he was seated on a large rock. But of course we now know that there isn’t any such rock, which leaves us with one of only 2 possibilities: a) Cameron Brown lied to Deputy Brothers about sitting on the rock. Or b) Deputy Brothers lied to the Grand Jury about Cameron telling her about the rock, thereby committing perjury—and Cameron Brown really never said anything about any rock in the first place, Brothers having made the whole thing up. Both of these possibilities cannot be true at the same time; someone is lying. And if it is Brothers who is lying, she is committing a crime by doing so, as her lie is told to the Grand Jury under oath, and constitutes blatant, deliberate, and undeniable perjury. If on the other hand, it were Cameron who was lying, then this would have been exactly the sort of opportunity that investigators would have been looking for. And you should expect to see them attach a major emphasis to it and exploit it, because it would serve to absolutely discredit Cameron Brown. Deputy Brothers would have been testifying to the Grand Jury about how Cameron had lied to her about sitting on some fictitious rock, when in fact there is no rock there. But that’s not what has happened. It is now patently obvious that no such rock exists, and that Deputy Brothers lied to the Grand Jury, thereby committing perjury. And aside from Deputy Brothers’ testimony, this rock is never mentioned at all. Ever. Not even in the Grand Jury testimony of Deputy Dale Falicon, whose job it was to document the site where the accident happened, and who walked all around the area where this phantom rock is supposed to be located, is there any rock ever mentioned. We have heard much about supposed “impressions” on the top of Inspiration Point that might be footprints, but we have heard absolutely nothing about any rock anywhere else but here. The reason, of course, is because the rock doesn’t exist, and is something that Deputy Brothers obviously made up. By now, it is abundantly clear that Deputy Brothers has lied to the Grand Jury and has thereby committed perjury! And it also seems fairly clear that Prosecutor Hum was complicit in this nefarious deed, as it was he who introduced the pictures (Photos C and D of Exhibit 5) as if they were pictures of a bush on top of Inspiration Point—when in fact there is no such bush, that is located on top of Inspiration Point, that can be seen from the archery range. In fact, it seems to be an inescapable conclusion that this has been an intentional effort to mislead the Grand Jury. Nevertheless, there is still more to this sordid tale. Brothers’ testimony continues, from page 67:
|
|||
|
4 |
I CAN GIVE YOU A BETTER DESCRIPTION. I |
||
|
5 |
HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THAT TIME, OBVIOUSLY, SO I AM |
||
|
6 |
FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE WAS REFERRING TO. |
||
|
7 |
Q SURE, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND DESCRIBE |
||
|
8 |
IT FOR US. |
||
|
9 |
A UP AT THE TOP OF INSPIRATION POINT, WHERE |
||
|
10 |
THE BUSH IS, THERE IS -- IT IS NOT A TALL ROCK, BUT IT'S |
||
|
11 |
A BOULDER THAT'S SORT OF -- IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE SOMEBODY |
||
|
12 |
TURNED IT INTO A SEAT. IT'S PRETTY FLAT ON TOP, SO YOU |
||
|
13 |
CAN SIT THERE. |
||
|
Incredibly, here is Grand Jury testimony where Deputy Brothers is describing a fictitious rock that doesn’t exist! To a Grand Jury, under oath! With the apparent assent, what’s more, of the prosecutor, who in fact called her to present this perjured testimony in the first place! And by doing so, it seems apparent that Prosecutor Hum has committed the crime of subornation of perjury! What other conclusion can one possibly draw from this? Or else, where are the photographs of the rock that the investigators took? Just to be clear that there is no rock at the end of Inspiration Point—contrary to the perjured testimony of Deputy Jessica Brothers, below is a panorama of three pictures of the end of Inspiration Point, looking to the southeast, the south, and the southwest: |
||||
 |
 |
 |
||
|
There is a slight overlap at the margins of these pictures. And as mentioned before, clicking on any picture on this page will open a new window with a larger, more detailed copy of that picture. But in none of these pictures do we see any rock that Deputy Brothers lied to the Grand Jury about. |
||||
|
We are still not finished, let us continue examining Deputy Brothers’ Grand Jury testimony, talking about the bush and the rock, from page 67:
|
|||
|
14 |
I KIND OF HAVE TO USE A LITTLE HAND |
||
|
15 |
GESTURE. BUT THE BUSH AND THE ROCK WOULD BE UP HERE AT |
||
|
16 |
THE TOP. WELL, THE CLIFF GOES DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT |
||
|
17 |
MORE; AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, LAUREN WAS A LITTLE |
||
|
18 |
FURTHER DOWN ON THE CLIFF, AND THAT'S WHERE SHE WAS |
||
|
19 |
THROWING THE ROCKS, ACCORDING TO THE DESCRIPTION THAT |
||
|
20 |
CAMERON BROWN GAVE ME. |
||
|
21 |
Q SO THE ROCK AREA THAT YOU WERE DESCRIBING |
||
|
22 |
WITH YOUR HANDS IS MORE OF A FLATTER-TYPE AREA? |
||
|
23 |
A IT IS MORE OF A FLATTER-TYPE AREA. |
||
|
24 |
Q AND THEN WITH YOUR OTHER HAND YOU ARE |
||
|
25 |
SHOWING THAT THE CLIFF ACTUALLY SEEMS TO ANGLE DOWNWARDS |
||
|
26 |
MORE -- |
||
|
27 |
A IT ANGLES DOWN. |
||
|
28 |
Q -- TOWARDS THE OCEAN? |
||
|
68 |
|||
|
1 |
A CORRECT. |
||
|
2 |
Q AND CAMERON BROWN TOLD YOU THAT LAUREN WAS |
||
|
3 |
FURTHER DOWN THAT ANGLED PORTION WHEN HE CLAIMS SHE FELL? |
||
|
4 |
A YES. |
||
|
In this portion of her testimony (which is immediately subsequent to the portion above, Deputy Brothers talks about an angled area at the end of the cliff that slopes down towards the ocean. She further says that she believes this is the area that Lauren was throwing rocks from. And indeed there is such an area at the end of Inspiration Point. But this area is sloped very steeply—almost forty-five degrees—and it is far too dangerous to venture out onto. This area is seen in the photos below, in the left photo looking down towards it from above, and in the right looking at it from the side: |
||
 |
 |
|
|
As you can see, there is a small bush on this sloped section. But this bush is most certainly not visible from the area of the picnic tables at the archery range. And even here there is no rock Moreover, this is a very dangerous area that anyone would be extremely unwilling to venture out onto. If you were to slip and fall from here, you would almost certainly go over the side, and if you did, there would be nothing to stop your fall. And anyway, if Lauren had fallen from this area, she would likely have fallen on the rocks below, and not in the inlet where her body was found. And she would have suffered more injuries than were found. There is absolutely no reason to believe that either Cameron or Lauren were out on this sloped portion of the cliff. |
||
|
Now let’s look at some testimony from page 70 of the Grand Jury transcript, paying particular attention to the questioning by Prosecutor Hum:
|
|||
|
3 |
Q BY MR. HUM: DEPUTY BROTHERS, A COUPLE OF |
||
|
4 |
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. |
||
|
5 |
DID CAMERON BROWN INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE |
||
|
6 |
TRIED TO STOP LAUREN WHEN SHE WAS THROWING ROCKS? |
||
|
7 |
A NO. HIS INITIAL STATEMENT WAS THAT HE WAS |
||
|
8 |
SITTING ON THE ROCKS AND THEN WHILE -- ON THE ROCK WHILE |
||
|
9 |
SHE WAS THROWING ROCKS AND SUDDENLY SHE WAS GONE. |
||
|
10 |
Q DID HE INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE ACTUALLY LET |
||
|
11 |
HER CONTINUE TO THROW ROCKS FROM THAT AREA, DOWN CLOSER |
||
|
12 |
TO THE EDGE, WHILE HE SAT ON THE ROCK? |
||
|
What’s significant about this exchange is that Prosecutor Hum refers to the fictitious rock here. It is inconceivable to think that this is the first time Hum had heard what Brothers’ testimony is going to be. He had been working this case for almost two years by the time that he presented it to the Grand Jury. He would most certainly have known what the evidence was going to be. And the site has been investigated and well-documented (even if little—if any—such documentation was presented to the Grand Jury in conjunction with Deputy Brothers’ testimony). And it has even been documented that Prosecutor Hum has been out to the site. And yet here he refers to a non-existent rock at a locale that by this time he is [presumably] intimately familiar with. The inescapable conclusion here can be nothing but that Prosecutor Craig Hum has suborned perjury—and has done so deliberately and willfully, with full knowledge of what he was doing! There is one more portion of Deputy Brothers’ testimony that we need to examine. The issue here is, how long did Cameron Brown take to retrieve Lauren’s body after making the 911 call? Brothers tries to suggest, at Prosecutor Hum’s leading, that Cameron took his time, that he “walked” back over Inspiration Point, and along a long path, thereby indicating that he had no sense of urgency about the matter. This particular portion is a little long, and begins on page 71:
|
|||
|
21 |
Q BY MR. HUM: DEPUTY BROTHERS, DO YOU |
||
|
22 |
RECALL -- I THINK YOU TOLD US THAT CAMERON BROWN |
||
|
23 |
INDICATED HE LEFT INSPIRATION POINT AND WENT DOWN TO THE |
||
|
24 |
NUDE BEACH TO GET A CELLPHONE; IS THAT CORRECT? |
||
|
25 |
A CORRECT. |
||
|
26 |
Q AND THEN HE WENT BACK OVER TO THE ARCHERY |
||
|
27 |
RANGE SIDE OF INSPIRATION POINT TO GO AROUND TO LAUREN'S |
||
|
28 |
BODY? |
||
|
72 |
|||
|
1 |
A CORRECT. |
||
|
2 |
Q DID HE INDICATE TO YOU WHETHER HE WALKED |
||
|
3 |
ALL THE WAY AROUND THE CLIFF OR WHETHER HE WENT OVER THE |
||
|
4 |
CLIFF, THAT BEING INSPIRATION POINT; OR DID HE INDICATE |
||
|
5 |
HOW HE DID THAT? |
||
|
6 |
A HE COULDN'T ACCESS WHERE HER BODY WAS FROM |
||
|
7 |
THE NUDE BEACH, SO HE HAD TO WALK -- TAKE THE TRAIL BACK |
||
|
8 |
UP TO THE TOP, WHICH IS NOT THE POINT PART OF INSPIRATION |
||
|
9 |
POINT, BUT MORE A BASE OF INSPIRATION POINT CLOSER TO |
||
|
10 |
PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH. AND SO HE HAD TO TAKE THE |
||
|
11 |
TRAIL BACK UP FROM THE NUDE BEACH, CROSS THE TOP OF THE |
||
|
12 |
BASE OF INSPIRATION POINT AND THEN TAKE THE TRAIL BACK |
||
|
13 |
DOWN TO THE ARCHERY RANGE AND AROUND THE COVE. THAT WAS |
||
|
14 |
DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT'S A ROCKY COVE AREA AND THERE ARE |
||
|
15 |
SEVERAL PLACES -- MY EXPERIENCE WORKING ON THE PENINSULA, |
||
|
16 |
THERE ARE SEVERAL PLACES YOU CANNOT JUST FOLLOW THE |
||
|
17 |
PENINSULA ALL THE WAY FROM SAN PEDRO TO TORRANCE. THERE |
||
|
18 |
ARE A LOT OF PLACES THAT JUST ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE DUE TO |
||
|
19 |
THE FACT THAT THE TIDE POOLS ARE AT VARYING DEPTHS AND IT |
||
|
20 |
IS JUST NOT ACCESSIBLE. |
||
|
21 |
Q AND SO DID HE INDICATE TO YOU THAT HE |
||
|
22 |
ACTUALLY TOOK THE TRAIL BACK UP TO THE TOP OF INSPIRATION |
||
|
23 |
POINT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSER TO THE ROAD, AND THEN |
||
|
24 |
OVER THE TOP? |
||
|
25 |
DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION? |
||
|
26 |
A I DO. |
||
|
27 |
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PATHWAYS. |
||
|
28 |
YOU CAN TAKE THE PATH FROM THE NUDE BEACH DIRECTLY UP TO |
||
|
73 |
|||
|
1 |
THE ROAD. AND I AM NOT POSITIVE IF HE INDICATED THAT HE |
||
|
2 |
WALKED DIRECTLY ALONG PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH OR IF -- I |
||
|
3 |
BELIEVE THERE IS A SMALLER WALKING PATH MAYBE 20 YARDS |
||
|
4 |
FROM PALOS VERDES DRIVE SOUTH, TOWARDS -- HOLD ON. LET |
||
|
5 |
ME PICTURE THE AREA REAL QUICK. |
||
|
6 |
I DON'T REMEMBER HIS EXACT WORDS, TO BE |
||
|
7 |
HONEST. I KNOW THAT FROM THE NUDE BEACH, THOUGH, THAT |
||
|
8 |
PATH ON THE BASE OF INSPIRATION POINT BEFORE YOU GO OUT |
||
|
9 |
TO THE POINT, YOU NEED TO WALK BACK TO PALOS VERDES DRIVE |
||
|
10 |
SOUTH TO ACCESS THE ARCHERY RANGE. THAT TRAIL IS |
||
|
11 |
ACTUALLY A DRIVEWAY THAT YOU HAVE TO WALK DOWN TO GET TO |
||
|
12 |
THE ARCHERY RANGE. |
||
|
13 |
SO I DON'T BELIEVE HE SPECIFICALLY STATED |
||
|
14 |
THAT HE WENT ON ANY UNMARKED PATH TO THE ARCHERY RANGE. |
||
|
15 |
I HOPE THAT HELPS. |
||
|
The problem with this account is that it is contradicted by an established timeline. From testimony in the trial, we know that the CHP 911 center received Cameron’s call at 2:58 PM, and that the call lasted approximately five minutes.. From Brothers’ own Grand Jury testimony, we know that she and Girmes, while on patrol, received the call dispatching them to the archery range at approximately 3:00 PM, and that they arrived at approximately 3:08 PM. When they arrived, there was already a Los Angeles County Fire Engine on the scene, parked on the side of the road just above the archery range (having been dispatched, presumably, by the same 911 center that had also dispatched Girmes and Brothers). Deputy Brothers isn’t all that explicitly clear about the path that she and Deputy Girmes took down to the archery range. But one of the paramedics who had arrived on the scene prior to Brothers testified in the trial that they didn’t follow any established trail down to the archery range, but rather went down the side of some very steep terrain to get there as quickly as possible. Brothers testified that the paramedics led them down to Lauren and so we must assume that Brothers and Girmes went down the same way as well. And after going down the steep path, Brothers and Girmes found Lauren already on the picnic tables, with paramedics already working on her. |
|||
|
To get an idea of what the area looks like, here are two more pictures. The picture on the left is taken from the archery range on the east side of Inspiration Point looking up toward the street. The picture on the right is a direct overhead shot of the area (taken from Google Earth, and reproduced here under provisions of “fair use”), including the long driveway that leads from the road down to the archery range. This picture has a number of points marked and labeled, and a precise value of longitude and latitude for each of these points has been determined and is listed on a table below. And the distances between adjacent points have been calculated and are also listed on the table below. (As will all pictures on this page, clicking on the picture will open a new window with a larger, more detailed copy of that picture:) |
||
 |
 |
|
|
In the above left picture, taken from the perspective of the archery range, you can see the lower part of a steep, not very well defined path that leads down to the archery range. This is presumably the path on which Girmes and Brothers came down after they found the fire engine parked up on the street. The head of this path is marked “Z” in the above right picture. The area of the picnic tables is marked “X,” and an intermediate point on the path from the road to the archery range is marked “Y.” The entrance from the road to the driveway that Deputy Brothers mentioned in her testimony above is marked “A.” This driveway winds around down to the archery range, and several points along it are marked “B,” “C,” “D,” “E,” and “F.” |
||
|
The calculated distances (in feet) between adjacent marked points on the map above are seen in the rightmost column in the chart below. Basically, a precise value of latitude and longitude was determined for each point and the distance between points was calculated using a formula. As a check, latitude and longitude was determined for two points on a detailed topographic map of Inspiration Point (obtained from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works—this is not the map that was used by Professor Wilson Hayes in preparing his “Expert’s” Report), and the distance between these points was calculated using this same formula. And then the distance on the map was measured. The calculated distance was 470 feet, while the measured distance was found to be 462 feet. While the discrepancy indicates a slight inaccuracy, the accuracy nevertheless seems to be within a tolerance of about 2%, and is sufficient for our purposes here. |
||||||
|
Point |
Latitude |
Longitude |
From/To |
Distance |
||
|
A |
33.740189 N |
118.550111 W |
Z to A |
620 |
||
|
B |
33.740111 N |
118.549203 W |
A to B |
277 |
||
|
C |
33.739542 N |
118.548056 W |
B to C |
406 |
||
|
D |
33.738931 N |
118.548167 W |
C to D |
226 |
||
|
E |
33.738681 N |
118.549222 W |
D to E |
333 |
||
|
F |
33.738889 N |
118.550486 W |
E to F |
391 |
||
|
G |
33.738411 N |
118.551378 W |
F to X |
322 |
||
|
ZABCDEFX |
2575 |
|||||
|
Z |
33.739589 N |
118.552022 W |
||||
|
Y |
33.738769 N |
118.552292 W |
Z to Y |
310 |
||
|
X |
33.738411 N |
118.551378 W |
Y to X |
307 |
||
|
Z to Y to X |
617 |
|||||
|
According to the above chart, the distance from the street where Girmes and Brothers presumably parked their patrol car and along the steep trail down to the archery range is about 617 feet. The distance from that same spot, but traveling along Palos Verdes Drive South (the paved street) to the entrance of the driveway, and then down along the driveway to the archery range is about 2,575 feet—almost half a mile! Here is the timeline, and it has been established: Cameron Brown initiated the 911 call at 2:58 PM, and the call lasted about five minutes. Girmes & Brothers were dispatched at 3:00 PM and arrived at 3:08 PM. By the time that they arrived, Cameron had been able to get over the top of Inspiration Point to the other side, reach the inlet and retrieve Lauren’s body from the water, and bring her back to the picnic tables at the archery range. And by that time, paramedics had already arrived and were working on Lauren. Given the above set of circumstances, it is completely out of the question to suppose that Cameron Brown had taken “the long way around”—or even that he would have said that he did, as Deputy Brothers tries to suggest. Brothers has already proven herself to be a liar. In view of established facts that we already know, her entire testimony makes no sense. Even if Cameron were guilty, there would have been no benefit for him to say that he took his time getting to Lauren. Indeed, in such a case we would expect him to lie—but in that case, the lie would be that he hurried over. As it is, other facts inescapably attest to the fact that he rushed over as fast as he could—and this is beyond question. Brothers’ mendacious assertion to the contrary makes absolutely no sense on its face, and can only be regarded as a misdirected attempt to falsely implicate Cameron. And in doing so, she has thereby overtly misled the Grand Jury, and committed intentional and deliberate perjury. |
||||||
|
Next, let’s look at Detective Jeff Leslie’s Grand Jury testimony about this matter, on page 182 of the transcript:
|
|||
|
2 |
Q AND WHAT DID MR. BROWN INDICATE HE DID |
||
|
3 |
AFTER HE COMPLETED THE 911 CALL? |
||
|
4 |
A AFTER COMPLETING THE 911 CALL HE RETURNED |
||
|
5 |
THE TELEPHONE TO THE PERSON WHOM HE HAD BORROWED IT FROM, |
||
|
6 |
THAT PERSON HAD RETURNED TO THE BEACH AREA; HE THEN RAN, |
||
|
7 |
HE SAID, AS HARD AS HE COULD UP THE TRAIL, GOING BACK TO |
||
|
8 |
THE TOP OF INSPIRATION POINT, DOWN THE OTHER SIDE, WHICH |
||
|
9 |
IS IN THE GENERAL AREA WHERE THE ARCHERY CLUB WOULD BE, |
||
|
10 |
AND THEN ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF INSPIRATION POINT OUT TO |
||
|
11 |
THE ROCKS, WHERE HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER FLOATING FACE DOWN |
||
|
12 |
IN THE INLET. |
||
|
And let’s also look at a few lines from page 185:
|
|||
|
10 |
Q DID MR. BROWN INDICATE HOW LONG IT TOOK THE |
||
|
11 |
PARAMEDICS TO GET THERE AFTER HE HAD SET LAUREN ON THE |
||
|
12 |
PICNIC TABLE? |
||
|
13 |
A THREE MINUTES. |
||
|
According to this testimony, Cameron Brown said that he rushed with great haste to retrieve Lauren’s body—as we would expect him to say even if he were lying, which he is not—and that paramedics arrived three minutes after he brought her to the picnic table. Given the tight timeline, we have absolutely no reason whatsoever to question Cameron’s account. And given that Brothers has already demonstrably lied—and under oath at that—we must also conclude that she is lying again about this as well. And we have absolutely no other alternative than to completely dismiss her testimony out of hand. Finally, we need to look at the implications of this testimony. Let us review the established facts, about which there can be no controversy. First of all, we know that there is no rock on the top of Inspiration Point in the area where Lauren fell. Secondly, we know that there is no bush on the top of Inspiration Point that is visible from the area of the picnic tables in the archery range. And thirdly, we know that the timeline provided by the authorities themselves supports Cameron’s account of events, that after making the 911 call, he rushed over as fast as he could to try and help Lauren. With regard to the account of the rock, there is no credible scenario that can be envisioned in which this is simply the result of a poor recollection, and that the testimony is a mistake that was told in good faith. There are several aspects that we have to consider here. Firstly, Deputy Brothers asserts that Cameron told her that there was a rock when in fact there is no such rock. If indeed Cameron did say such a thing, then we should expect that the investigators would quickly discover that no such rock exists, and that they would attack Cameron’s credibility on this basis. But that’s not what has happened here. Instead, Deputy Brothers said that she later went up to the site, and indicates that she has seen this fictitious rock. And the prosecutor has put her in front of the Grand Jury to describe the fictitious rock so as to mislead them—committing perjury in the process! Secondly, this cannot be a matter of Deputy Brothers simply misremembering the whole episode, of what Cameron said and of what she “thinks” she saw on top of Inspiration Point. If this were simply the result of her memory playing tricks on her, then the investigators—and most certainly prosecutor Hum, while preparing for his Grand Jury case—would have caught the error and corrected it, and we never would have heard a thing about it. After all, the site is well-documented, and even Prosecutor Hum is known to have been to the site (Prof. Wilson Hayes says so in his report—on the upper half of page 4). The fact that no such rock exists, and that yet it is nevertheless a major part of Deputy Brothers’ Grand Jury testimony—with the apparent acquiescence and cooperation of the prosecutor—is most certainly an astounding development. There is simply no plausible scenario in which its inclusion can be viewed as anything but a conscious and deliberate attempt to mislead the Grand Jury. Both of these criticisms can in large measure also be applied to the account of the bush on top of Inspiration Point, a bush that supposedly can be seen from the area of the picnic tables at the archery range (with the exception that there is no associated perjury indicating that she has seen the bush while at the top). But the larger question is, what purpose does this testimony serve—even given that it is perjury? The answer to that is simple: it places Cameron at a particular location on top of Inspiration Point. And this is absolutely crucial to Professor Wilson Hayes, who has prepared an “Expert’s” Report about the event of Lauren’s death (the substance of which is covered elsewhere). The last issue we must address is the apparent misrepresentation that, after making the 911 call, Cameron “walked” over to the other side of Inspiration Point, and down a long trail to reach the inlet where Lauren had fallen, taking his time. But the tight timeline absolutely establishes beyond shadow of a doubt that such a thing could not have possibly happened. And it is completely incomprehensible that Cameron would say such a thing if it weren’t true—it serves no useful purpose for him even if he were guilty. And anyway, according to Detective Leslie’s testimony, Cameron said that he rushed to reach Lauren, running as hard as he could. And we have absolutely no reason to doubt that this is indeed what Cameron really said and did. The only plausible scenario that we can envision for why such a lie would be told (about Cameron supposedly taking his time) is that it is a deliberate and willful attempt to falsely discredit Cameron. And this is entirely in keeping with the misleading press conference that Prosecutor Craig Hum gave after Cameron’s arrest, where he asserted that a major point of his case was that Cameron “took his time” in reaching Lauren after she fell. And now we know that that is a lie—as is Hum’s entire case! |
|||