Misrepresentations

Misrepresentations
Let us now examine the “Expert’s” Report submitted by Prof. Wilson C. Hayes—a supposed “expert”—which is the document that finally enabled the authorities to obtain an arrest warrant against Cameron Brown. This is from Page 5 of the original “Expert’s” Report submitted by Prof. Hayes (and it was on the basis of this particular document that the arrest warrant was obtained):
	The question you have asked me to address, to a high degree of engineering and medical certainty (and thus beyond a reasonable doubt), is whether on November 9, 2000, Lauren Key-Marer fell unintentionally to her death from Inspiration Point, or instead was pushed or thrown from the top of the cliff by her father, Cameron Brown. To address this question, we based our analysis on the fact that Lauren’s injuries serve as a “signature” to the events that produced them. From a careful review of the autopsy report and post-mortem photographs, we determined that Lauren’s massive, traumatic injuries were consistent with a single, high velocity impact to the cliff face. Her injuries could not be explained from her sliding and tumbling down the cliff face or with multiple impacts to the cliff face before landing in the water of the inlet. ...
Notice that in the first paragraph above, Prof. Hayes uses the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In my view, this is highly improper. “Doubt” (whether reasonable or not) resides in the mind of the “trier of fact”—in this case, each member of the jury individually. And the jury as a whole must come to the unanimous conclusion that the facts presented at trial have dispelled all reasonable doubt about the guilt of the defendant before a conviction can be declared. But it seems as if Prof. Hayes might be trying to say that, as the “expert” who [ostensibly] understands highly technical issues that are beyond the grasp of the mere layman, he will resolve the question to a level that is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And the members of the jury are obliged to accept the issue as settled just on his say-so. The problem is, in such a case the jury are no longer triers of fact, and the trial becomes just a mere formality with an already-foregone conclusion (which, presumably, is just fine with the prosecutor). But that is not justice. In any event, the issue that I want to address here is Prof. Hayes’s assertion that is it a “fact” that “Lauren’s injuries serve as a ‘signature’ to the events that produced them.” This is nothing more than a gratuitous statement, made on an ad hoc basis (i.e., to suit the need of the moment). Nowhere does Prof. Hayes offer any support for this assertion—for the simple reason that it is unsupportable. In fact, even the investigators themselves—though they are mere laymen with respect to medical issues—should nevertheless be aware of this (even if they may not have been aware of it when they originally contracted with Prof. Hayes). In late April of 2006, just as the trial of Cameron Brown was ready to proceed, Detective Jeff Leslie traveled to Missoula, Montana to meet with Dr. J. Bruce Beckwith, a noted pathologist (who is now retired). Detective Leslie was seeking to gain support for Prof. Hayes’s position. But he didn’t get it from Dr. Beckwith (nor from anyone else, for that matter): The above is taken from an evidence log that is part of the trial court record. But even before this, back in January of 2001, Detective Danny Smith (Jeff Leslie’s former partner, who has since retired from the Sheriff’s department) had an email exchange with Dr. Joel Burdick of the California Institute of Technology. In an email message, Dr. Burdick responded to Smith, telling him that “it is often difficult to determine the exact sequence of events” using science. Apparently this wasn’t the answer that Smith wanted to hear, hoping instead for Dr. Burdick to use even “magic” if necessary to help him make his case. Consequently, Dr. Burdick never heard from Smith again. This is not a minor point. The investigators have gone to exceptionally extraordinary lengths to bring a case against Cameron Brown, from just about the very outset (witness Detective Jeff Leslie even committing perjury about the time that the call about Lauren’s death actually came in). We believe that the comment about “magic” was actually “code,” telling Dr. Burdick that what they really wanted was someone to confirm their already-predetermined result, they really didn’t care how, and not so much in arriving at the actual truth of the matter. But Dr. Burdick wasn’t willing to play that game. Prof. Wilson Hayes apparently was. Let’s take a look now at the “conclusions” that Prof. Hayes “arrived at” in his “Expert’s” Report to see if indeed these “conclusions” are supported by, or are even consistent with the Autopsy Report. Prof. Hayes’s “conclusions” begin on page 12 of his “Expert’s” Report:

1)	Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a single, high speed impact to the cliff face at Inspiration Point; the impact produced massive head, neck and brain injuries, abrasions and contusions to the head and chest, and lacerations that were confined almost exclusively to the head and upper chest;
2)	These injuries are inconsistent with a slip and/or trip and fall from the point of departure since such a scenario would have produced signs of multiple impacts over multiple body regions consistent with sliding, tumbling and multiple impacts with the cliff face;

Let’s look now at what Dr. Chinwah says in his report, on page 11 of the Autopsy Report:

EVIDENCE OF INJURY:

EXTERNAL:

Head/face: There is extensive abrasion contusion of the forehead involving an area about 3-1/4 inch in diameter. The abrasion contusion extends down the face over the nose lip to the chin. It also extends to the left side of the face and the cheek. On the forehead are multiple irregular lacerations, some oriented horizontally, others diagonally. They vary in size from 1/4 inch to 1-1/2 inches. Three of the larger lacerations are gaping and underlying irregular skull fractures are evident. Palpation of the left facial bone reveals fracture of the maxillary bone.

Chest: On the upper chest are areas of brown abrasion. They extend to the top of the left shoulder area. These abrasions vary in size from 2-1/2 x 3/4 inch to 1 inch. On the lower chest in the midline between the nipples there is also a horizontal brown-red abrasion measuring 3-3/4 inch x 1 inch.

Abdomen: There are two linear abrasions on the abdomen. On the upper abdomen in the midline the abrasion measures 1-1/4 inch and is brown. The other abrasion is vertical on the left abdomen measuring 2 inches.

Extremities: On the back of the left forearm near the wrist there are red abrasions measuring about 1-1/4 inch. Close to the wrist on the back of the left hand, a 3/4 linear abrasion is also noted. On the back of the right arm near the shoulder a red-brown abrasion is present measuring about 1-1/4 inches. On the front of the right knee and left thigh there are small abrasions which are brown; the one on the right measuring 1/2 inch.

According to Dr. Chinwah, there are abrasions over “multiple body regions”—not just on the head and chest, but also on the abdomen and extremities. Moreover, please note that Dr. Chinwah documents “multiple irregular lacerations” on the forehead, “some oriented horizontally, others diagonally.” This is absolutely indicative of multiple impacts, contrary to the assertions of Prof. Hayes. Or else, I would be interested to learn how Prof. Hayes might suppose that horizontal and diagonal lacerations could both be produced at the same time by a single impact.

Let’s continue with the “Expert’s” Report, from page 12 continuing on to page 13:

Lauren’s fatal injuries were, however, consistent with her having been thrown from the point of departure at an angle of about 22.5 degrees from the horizontal at an initial velocity of about 10 ft/s in an initial orientation with her feet down and the force applied slightly above her center of gravity. Based on the fundamental physical laws of projectile motion, such a scenario would have produced not only the single impact with the cliff face but one in which the impact occurred in a head-down, face inward configuration and was of sufficient severity to produce the fatal head and neck injuries that she in fact suffered;

According to Prof. Hayes, the “single” impact to the head was the “fatal” injury that caused Lauren’s death. But let’s examine again Dr. Chinwah’s report to see if this is indeed so. (There is some highly technical language in this passage, which might be beyond the expertise of the reader regarding the details. But the general meaning should nevertheless be understandable.) This is from page 12 of the Autopsy Report:

INTERNAL:

Head and Central Nervous System: There is extensive compound fracture of the frontal skull with extension posteriorly on the right and left but particularly on the left. The fracture extends to the basal skull extensively fracturing the orbital plate of the frontal bone. The atlanto-occipital joint is dislocated. There is intracranial hemorrhage and cerebral contusion.

Chest/abdomen: There is significant contusion of both right and left lung particularly the right. Laceration is noted in the hilum area and hemorrhage is present in the right chest cavity measuring about 250 cc. There is contusion of the right hemidiaphragm and right lobe of the liver with hemorrhage into the subcapsule of the liver. The spleen reveals a small laceration at its attachment to the tail of the pancreas.

What is of significant note here is the extent of the internal injuries to the chest and abdomen. There was substantial bleeding (“hemorrhage”) in the chest cavity, measuring about a cup by English measure. Please pay particular attention to this, as we will refer to it later. But please note that there is also injury to some internal organs.

Dr. Chinwah did not perform a detailed examination of the brain, but instead referred that task to someone more specialized, to a neuropathologic consultant, Dr. Hideo Itabashi. Let’s look now at what Dr. Itabashi says in page 1 of his report, which is page 20 of the Autopsy Report:

Specimen consists of a formalin-fixed brain and incomplete portions of cranial dura mater including the dorsal convexity regions, attached falx cerebri, attached tentorium celebelli, and the adjacent areas of the posterior fossae. On the left side of the frontal vertex, there is a large gaping dural defect measuring approximately 6 cm in greatest diameter which has the appearance of a postmortem incision. The margins of the defect show no evidence of hemorrhage. Dura is otherwise unremarkable, showing no special congestion. Dural blood clots and stains are absent.

Skipping a paragraph, let us continue where Dr. Itabashi writes on page 2 of his report, page 21 of the Autopsy Report:

Viewed from the front, a horizontal linear laceration cuts across the frontal poles bilaterally ending at the mid-level of the inferior frontal gyrus on the right but extending laterally across the Sylvian fissures and cutting obliquely across the left lateral temporal lobe. For the extent of the laceration, hemorrhage is minimal. ...

The points of interest in the above two passages are the two significant injuries to the brain, and specifically the minimal hemorrhage associated with the latter and apparent complete lack thereof with the former. What Dr. Itabashi is saying is that there was little or no bleeding associated with these injuries. And why should there be no bleeding? Because there was no significant blood pressure. And what would have caused that? Lauren’s heart had already stopped beating, meaning that she was already deceased by the time that these injuries occurred. But these was significant bleeding in the chest cavity, indicating that it was this injury which caused Lauren’s death—prior to when the head injuries occurred!

Let’s reflect on the above for a moment. Lauren had suffered chest injuries and also injuries to her internal organs, and there was significant bleeding in her chest cavity. She had suffered an injury to the front of her brain that showed signs of only minimal bleeding. And she had also suffered a significant injury to the left side of her brain that showed no apparent signs of bleeding. So then it appears that she suffered at least three impacts to the cliff—contrary to what the “expert,” Prof. Hayes, asserts.

Moreover, from the nature of these injuries we can deduce the order in which they occurred. Since there was significant bleeding in the chest cavity, this injury must have necessarily occurred first, causing Lauren’s death. Next must have been the injury to the front of the brain, the “horizontal linear laceration” that “cuts across the frontal poles bilaterally,” as there is minimal bleeding associated with this injury. And finally she suffered an impact to the left side of her head that caused the “large gaping dural defect,” from which there is no apparent bleeding.

But this is what Prof. Hayes says in his “Expert’s” Report, on pages 12 and 13:

1)	Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a single, high speed impact to the cliff face at Inspiration Point; the impact produced massive head, neck and brain injuries, abrasions and contusions to the head and chest, and lacerations that were confined almost exclusively to the head and upper chest;
2)	These injuries are inconsistent with a slip and/or trip and fall from the point of departure since such a scenario would have produced signs of multiple impacts over multiple body regions consistent with sliding, tumbling and multiple impacts with the cliff face;
3)	Lauren’s fatal injuries were, however, consistent with her having been thrown from the point of departure at an angle of about 22.5 degrees from the horizontal at an initial velocity of about 10 ft/s in an initial orientation with her feet down and the force applied slightly above her center of gravity. Based on the fundamental physical laws of projectile motion, such a scenario would have produced not only the single impact with the cliff face but one in which the impact occurred in a head-down, face inward configuration and was of sufficient severity to produce the fatal head and neck injuries that she in fact suffered;
4)	The fall trajectory that would produce such an impact is well within the physical capabilities of a reasonably fit adult male and can be produced by picking up the child, supporting her under the buttocks and pushing forcefully at a point slightly above the waist and in an outward and slightly upward direction;
5)	Since Lauren could not have slipped or tripped and fallen as described by her father, but could have sustained her fatal injuries by being pushed forcefully from the point of departure and based on the facts of the case and on the police autopsy reports, I conclude that Cameron Brown threw his 4-year old daughter, Lauren, off the cliff at Inspiration Point on November 9, 2000.
Yah, right. As if he knows with any certainty. Remember, Prof. Hayes claims, on page 12 of his “Expert’s” Report, to have resolved these issues “to a high degree of engineering and medical certainty, and thus beyond a reasonable doubt.” Prof. Hayes somehow “arrived” at these “conclusions” by performing a trajectory analysis while having absolutely no idea what Lauren’s actual trajectory was! One can only surmise that Prof. Hayes must have employed the sort of “magic” that Dr. Burdick was apparently unwilling to perform. In fact, Prof. Hayes has behaved irresponsibly, unethically, and outside the bounds of accepted science. And he has done so with callous and wanton disregard for the rights of Cameron Brown. It is Prof. Hayes who is most responsible for the illegal incarceration of Cameron Brown, because without the falsified “evidence” of his “Expert’s” Report, the arrest of Cameron would absolutely not have been possible.