Curiosities

On the afternoon of Wednesday November 8^th, 2000, Cameron Brown arrived at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park in Rancho Palos Verdes with his 4 year old daughter, Lauren Key. As he paid the fee to park his car, he was given a brochure by the attendant that had a map and a description of the park. The map showed hiking trails in the park, among them a trail leading to Inspiration Point (which is part of the park). And at the time, the Recreation and Parks Department of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (operator of Abalone Cove Shoreline Park) was also distributing another brochure that included a passage which said that a hike to Inspiration Point would be “a good hike for children.” Ultimately that afternoon, Cameron and Lauren ended up on the top of Inspiration Point (which is a part of Abalone Cove Shoreline Park). And tragically, Lauren fell off the cliff to her death that day.

In light of Lauren’s tragic accident, I should believe that the above passage in a brochure that the Parks Department was distributing could possibly have been construed to expose the city of Rancho Palos Verdes to liability—not only to Cameron Brown, but also to Lauren’s mother Sarah Key-Marer (a former girlfriend of Cameron’s) Below is a portion of the minutes of the April 17^th, 2001 meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council (which may or may not allude to this potential liability):

You will notice that in the bottom portion of the copied minutes above, the City Attorney has identified a “potential litigation matter” that is “not yet known to the potential plaintiffs” and that could expose the city to litigation. As details of this matter were discussed only behind closed doors, we have absolutely no idea of what the specifics of it were. But the thought does cross one’s mind that this may have been a secret discussion about potential liability on account of Lauren Key’s death from a fall off a cliff in a city park. Or else it could have been about something totally unrelated. There is simply no way of knowing, and they are not going to tell us.

Whatever the case, two weeks later, on May 1^st, 2001, the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council had another meeting. One of the agenda items in that meeting was a request from Lauren Key’s mother Sarah Key-Marer to have a monument placed at Inspiration Point in memory of her late daughter. Below is a portion of the minutes of the May 1^st meeting:

What is notable here is that the City Council agrees so readily to place a monument in memory of Lauren Key at Inspiration Point. The language is a little ambiguous, and it isn’t exactly clear who will be placing the monument—i.e., is this a request by Sarah to arrange for its placement, or is this a request for the Council to place the monument? As there is no discussion about the need for further approval of subsequent issues that might potentially arise were Sarah placing the monument (such as its location and/or its design), or that concerns about such issues be communicated to Sarah as they arise, it would seem far more likely that the Council would be placing the monument.

There is also no apparent discussion regarding who should bear the cost of this monument. As there is also a request by a local resident that the Council should also consider a similar monument to her son—one that she is willing to pay for—and given that the Council takes no apparent action on the resident’s request, it seems just a little bit curious that the Council was so readily accommodating to Ms. Key-Marer’s request—and unanimously at that. It’s not as if they’re always in such a compliant mood.

Subsequently, in September of 2002, the body of Polish college student Kamil Szybinski was found at the foot of Inspiration Point. While the police have ruled his death a suicide, there seem to be some irregularities associated with it, and Kamil’s parents have never accepted this assessment. Moreover, they also requested that a monument in memory of their son’s untimely passing be placed at the same site where Lauren’s monument was ultimately placed. But in this case, in their September 2^nd, 2003 meeting, the City Council voted to deny the request by Kamil Szybinski’s parents:

To be sure, the Council did vote to express to Kamil’s parents their sincerest condolences. And there was also at the same meeting some discussion about objections to the existing Lauren Key monument. And ultimately, a monument of sorts to Kamil (a bare rock, but without any plaque or refernece to Kamil) was later approved and placed next to Lauren’s monument. The point here is that it strikes this writer as somewhat curious that the City Council should have been so readily accommodating to Sarah Key-Marer with absolutely no objection.

Concurrently with her request to have a monument to her daughter Lauren placed at Inspiration Point, Sarah Key-Marer (through her attorney) filed a “wrongful death” suit in association with Lauren’s death, seeking monetary damages, against her former boyfriend Cameron Brown. Sarah’s attorney at the time was one “Ronald D. Wilton” of Encino, California. This suit seemed extraordinarily unusual in that Cameron Brown was named as the sole defendant. Lawyers generally file such suits on a contingency basis, meaning that the client need not pay the lawyer anything “up front.” And the lawyer only gets paid if he wins a settlement, as a percentage of the award (usually one third). Consequently, lawyers only take such cases if they have a good prospect of a big settlement—and they virtually always get it. Otherwise, the lawyer would require a hefty retainer from the client before pursuing the case.

It is unlikely that Sarah had the kind of resources available to her at the time that would have been necessary to hire a lawyer on retainer. And Cameron did not have any substantial assets to go after, with which to satisfy any judgment that might be won against him. Which raises several big questions: firstly, who was paying for this lawyer (or else what was his incentive for filing the suit in the first place)? And secondly, what exactly did Sarah hope to accomplish with the suit?

As it transpired, Cameron was able to have the accident covered under a homeowner’s policy. And the insurance company ultimately paid off a settlement to Sarah in the amount of $300,000—on a finding through their own exhaustive investigation that Lauren’s death was indeed the result of a very unfortunate and tragic accident.

Meanwhile, this case seems to have become even more curious. At the time that Sarah filed her civil suit, Cameron Brown was being actively investigated by detectives from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, ostensibly on suspicion of murder. Actually, it was really quite obvious to anyone who cares to admit it that the death of Lauren Key was the result of a very tragic accident, and that there really was no murder. But nevertheless the investigators doggedly refused to let the matter go—even after the insurance settlement was paid—and were instead putting forth extraordinary effort to turn it into a murder.

At the time, the lead detective who was investigating Cameron was one “Danny R. Smith.” Smith has since retired from the Sheriff’s department, and is now a private investigator in Idaho. And here is the lead entry in his “Testimonials” page from his website:

Yes, reader, this is the same “Ronald D. Wilton” who represented Sarah in her civil suit against Cameron Brown. And now we find out that he had some sort of relationship with the lead police investigator who was trying to turn the case into a criminal prosecution in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I should think that it is virtually certain that Danny Smith put Sarah together with Ronald Wilton. Even if not, according to his testimonial above, he seems to have been very well acquainted with Danny Smith, even at the time. And they were both involved in cases arising from the same event. Didn’t Wilton communicate to Smith the findings of the insurance company that enabled him win a settlement for his client? Indeed, shouldn’t Smith have been extremely eager to receive the details of the insurance company’s investigation? (Unless, I suppose, they were something other than what Smith would have wanted to hear.) But given that the insurance company’s interest would have been that they should come to a finding where they would have no liability, we should thus place greater confidence in the veracity of them.

And yet another question that arises here is: whose interests was Wilton really looking after: Sarah’s, or someone else’s? If he had included the city of Rancho Palos Verdes (owner/operator of Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, of which Inspiration Point is a part) as a defendant in Sarah’s civil suit, he could potentially have had a huge payday. But for some inscrutable reason he passed up this golden opportunity. Why?

I can envision a possible scenario or two, but such would be all pure conjecture with nothing upon which anyone could hang their hat. As such, there is no foundation for anyone to be able take any substantive action simply on the basis of conjecture. Because the likelihood that conjecture could potentially be wrong (at least in detail if not in actual substance) is just simply too great. Nevertheless, it strikes this this writer as all too curious that this should be just a simple coincidence. Because there is just too much funny business going on behind the scenes in this case (what with all the perjury and misrepresentations by the prosecution). I think that we can reliably say that, in this case, things are almost certainly not really as they might seem—or rather as how they are being portrayed).

Whatever the case, one fact remains: by advising Sarah to accept the settlement from the insurance company, attorney Ronald Wilton was accepting their finding that Lauren Key’s death was the result of a very tragic accident. And if it was an accident, then Wilton was obliged to explore the possibility that there might also be other potential defendants whose negligence could possibly have caused the accident. And if so, he could then seek further, more substantial damages on Sarah’s behalf against such defendants. And yet, it appears manifestly obvious that Wilton has failed to do so.