|
Outright Lies |
||
|
Let’s examine now whether Prof. Hayes’s misguided “conclusions” are merely the result of sloppy workmanship and shoddy scholarship, but arrived at in good faith: or whether there was something far more sinister at work here. I will say up front that I believe it to be is the latter. I believe that Prof. Hayes was asked (whether overtly or not—and most likely not) to provide “evidence” against Cameron Brown, and to do so regardless of what the actual facts might indicate. And Prof. Hayes agreed to do so, and has followed through with his falsified travesty of an “Expert’s” Report. To be sure, this is not a light charge. But given the overwhelming number of instances in which the Grand Jury has been misled in this case—to the extent that officers of the law have given perjured testimony against Cameron Brown—and also that the investigators have completely ignored all exonerating evidence in favor of him, it only seems reasonable to suspect that it was somehow effectively communicated to Prof. Hayes that the authorities were completely unconcerned about what the actual truth of the matter might be, and that all they wanted was a means with which to convict. Accordingly, I believe that Prof. Hayes understood quite well what what they expected from him, and that he was apparently more than willing to accommodate them. And accordingly, Prof. Hayes acted with a callous and wanton disregard of the possibility that Cameron Brown might actually be innocent! And the net effect of this has been that it is Prof. Hayes who is most responsible for the illegal incarceration of Cameron Brown, because without the falsified “evidence” of his travesty of an “Expert’s” Report, the authorities would never have been able to bring these bogus charges against Cameron. This examination is therefore not so much intended to address the scientific viability Prof. Hayes’s “study” (such as it is) but primarily his ethics—or more correctly lack thereof. Prof. Hayes has cited his formidable qualifications to give his assertions substantive credence—which means that there is little doubt that when he compromises accepted scientific principles, he does so knowingly and deliberately. Indeed, some of his assertions are so manifestly lacking in scientific credibility—even to the layman—that it becomes even more manifestly obvious that Prof. Hayes is bereft of even the barest shred of intellectual honesty. Prof. Hayes has already shown his propensity for mendacity in how he has completely mischaracterized the extent of Lauren’s injuries as recorded in the Autopsy Report; why should it then be any surprise to learn that he has misrepresented even elementary principles of science as well? In his “study,” Prof. Hayes purports to do a “trajectory analysis”—and this when he doesn’t even have a trajectory to analyze! Investigators never took Cameron to the top of the cliff so that he could show them where he was when the accident occurred. Instead, they are now trying to place Cameron on a spot that is sloped more than 40º downward—a spot where all the investigators except for one were completely unwilling to venture out to, even while tethered—where it is far too dangerous to stand without almost certainly going over the cliff. And all this just on the basis of some depressions that only “might” be footprints—on a surface that is pockmarked all over the place with gopher holes. |
||
 |
 |
|
|
Moreover, Prof. Hayes has been on the cliff where the accident happened (as he notes on page 4 of his “Expert’s” Report), and he knows for himself just how impossible it is for Cameron to have been standing out there. Did Prof. Hayes venture out to that spot himself? Of course not. Because had he had, he also would have almost certainly gone over the cliff himself. And on top of that, Lauren landed in water, so it is impossible to ever be able to determine exactly where she landed. Nor were the investigators able to find any points of impact on the face of the cliff where she had hit on the way down. So just what kind of “trajectory analysis” is it that Dr. Hayes is purporting to have performed without having had any sort of reliable trajectory upon which to perform it? The answer is obvious: just like almost everything else in this case, one with which to mislead the Grand Jury and the court. Prof. Hayes writes in his “Expert’s” Report, on page 5:
|
||
|
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. ... |
||
|
Please note that Prof. Hayes asserts here that he “based [his] analysis on the fact that Lauren’s injuries serve as a ‘signature’ to the events that produced them” [emphasis added]. “Signature” implies uniqueness. In other words, what Prof. Hayes seems to suggest here is that there is but one—and only one—set of events that could have produced Lauren’s injuries. And if this assertion is accepted at face value, then all that Prof. Hayes needs do is to present a scenario that would account for Lauren’s injuries (never mind that he mischaracterizes the nature and the extent of her injuries in the first place). And then he could simply declare that that is in fact the sequence of events that did indeed cause these injuries. And that seems to be exactly what he has done. But this is not science. Notice also that Prof. Hayes has characterized his assertion as “fact.” What he is saying by this characterization is that this is a principle that is in general acceptance among the scientific community. This is an important point. One of the standards under which “expert” testimony (such as the testimony of Prof. Hayes) may be deemed admissible in a California court is that the principle on which the expert testimony rests must be found by the court to be “generally accepted” by the scientific community. Except that in this case, the court has simply taken Prof. Hayes’s word on the matter, and has not bothered to try to determine on its own whether or not this is indeed so. But even a cursory investigation of the matter should have revealed that Prof. Hayes’s assertion is under general rejection by the scientific community—as not only California Institute of Technology Professor Dr. Joel Burdick indicated to Detective Danny Smith in an email response, but also as retired pathologist Dr. J. Bruce Beckwith told Detective Jeff Leslie in an interview that is part of the court record. As such, this “evidence” should have been withdrawn by the prosecutor as soon as it became obvious that it did not meet the Frye test (which still applies in California courts)—let alone have been deemed as admissible by the court. Let us turn now to the “method” that Prof. Hayes employed to supposedly “deduce” that a crime has been committed here. What he did was that he created—at great expense to the taxpayers of Los Angeles County—a highly detailed and precise topographic map of the area of Inspiration Point. And then he ostensibly applied his nonexistent trajectory to that map to somehow deduce “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a crime had been committed. Let’s go over this in a bit of detail. We read from page 5 of Prof. Hayes’s “Expert’s” Report:
|
||
|
Methods. An aerial survey of the cliff face was commissioned by the LA Department of Public Works and conducted by Psomas Inc., a Civil Engineering consulting firm. The ground survey control for the aerial mapping was established by Psomas using a combination of GPS Control and Ground Survey Methods. Due to the tight site constraints, four aerial targets were established on top of the bluff, with measurements tied between these points and the GPS Control. These measurements were within accuracies of 0.03 feet horizontally and vertically. Additionally, several points were rayed out, utilizing reflectorless technology (i.e. the instrument uses a measurement mode which does not require a reflector on the point being measured), onto rock outcrops in the ocean and top of the bluff. These points provided a much wider base to supplement the primary photo control. The aerial photography for Inspiration Point was secured on January 31, 2003. Two stereo models were used to do the aerial mapping. One model was flown in the north/south direction and the other was flown over the Point in an east/west direction. A second flight was secured on February 17, 2003 after Psomas determined the east/west model perspective was insufficient for mapping the steep face of the Point. The new east/west model was flown with the photo centers placed farther south of the Point, which allowed for a better camera perspective on the steep face of the cliff ... |
|||
|
Above, Prof. Hayes basically describes, in somewhat technical detail, how the data was gathered so that he might be able to create the detailed topographical map. The important thing to note in the above passage is that there wasn’t just one overflight of the area, but two—greatly increasing the cost. At this point it might be relevant to ask: why it should be necessary to create a new topographical map of Inspiration Point? Didn’t he check to see that there was already such a map—of the same resolution as the one that he had just requested? This map was on file with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works—the same agency that was commissioned to create the new map. Why go through the substantial expense and effort of creating a new map when there is already one on file that can simply be requisitioned? Prof. Hayes just might have an answer for this. Let’s look at his Grand Jury testimony, starting at page 246:
|
|||
|
13 |
Q OKAY. FROM JUST THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU |
||
|
14 |
TOOK AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT |
||
|
15 |
TOOK ON NOVEMBER 9TH, WERE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH JUST |
||
|
16 |
USING THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS TO MAKE YOUR ANALYSIS; OR DID YOU |
||
|
17 |
COMMISSION OR REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? |
||
|
18 |
A AS YOU MAY RECALL, AFTER REVIEWING THE |
||
|
19 |
PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WE HAD AVAILABLE, AFTER REVIEWING OUR |
||
|
20 |
OWN PHOTOGRAPHS, DOING THE MONTAGES, WE REALIZED THAT WE |
||
|
21 |
DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON THE DETAILED |
||
|
22 |
TOPOGRAPHY, OR GEOMETRY, OF THIS CLIFF IN ORDER TO MAKE |
||
|
23 |
THE ANALYSIS, AND SO WE REQUESTED THROUGH YOUR OFFICE |
||
|
24 |
THAT THE L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND THE L.A. |
||
|
25 |
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONDUCT AN AERIAL SURVEY OF |
||
|
26 |
THE SCENE USING OVERFLIGHTS BY AIRPLANES AND |
||
|
27 |
HIGH-RESOLUTION CAMERAS TO SURVEY THE SCENE. AND THOSE |
||
|
28 |
SURVEYS WERE DONE ON JANUARY 31ST, 2003, AND |
||
|
247 |
|||
|
1 |
FEBRUARY 17TH, 2003. |
||
|
2 |
AND THESE ARE DONE AT SUFFICIENTLY HIGH |
||
|
3 |
RESOLUTION SUCH THAT THE MEASUREMENT ERROR, EVEN THOUGH |
||
|
4 |
THIS IS A HUGE REGION, IS ON THE ORDER OF INCHES. IT IS |
||
|
5 |
DONE VERY ACCURATELY, SO WE KNOW THE CONTOURS OF THIS |
||
|
6 |
CLIFF EXTREMELY WELL. |
|
What Prof. Hayes seems to be saying here is that his new topographical map was prepared with a high degree of precision. Accuracy (though he uses a form of the word) isn’t exactly the same quality as precision, which seems to be what he is really talking about. Click HERE for a chart that graphically illustrates the difference between accuracy and precision. So while there was an existing topo map on file with DPW, it almost certainly wasn’t prepared with the latest high tech equipment as the engineering consulting firm used to prepare the new topo map. So what this seems to indicate is that a high level of precision was absolutely vital to Prof. Hayes in performing his trajectory analysis—particularly in view of the high level of expenditure that was necessary to procure this very precise new topo map. And if this is indeed the case, we should expect to see Prof. Hayes using a high level of precision in his charts and graphs. But the question that still remains unanswered is: of what benefit is all this high level of precision going to be when we cannot even possibly know what Lauren’s actual trajectory really was? Short answer: none! Which means that Prof. Hayes wantonly wasted taxpayers’ money! And given his level of expertise, there cannot be any doubt that he certainly knew better. In any event, Prof. Hayes purportedly describes how he “performed” his fictitious “trajectory analysis,” starting on page 6 of his “Expert’s” Report:
|
||
|
Based on the aerial survey, and on police photographs and discussions with Detectives Leslie and Smith, the point of departure was identified and marked on aerial photos of Inspiration Point. ... |
||
|
And a completely unbelievable “point of departure” at that. The supposed “point of departure” is a spot on a piece of ground that is angled downward at over 40º toward the water. It is a spot so dangerous that no one would ever venture out onto it unless they were in the process of committing suicide. Indeed, Detective Jeff Leslie testified that none of the investigators were willing to venture down to that spot even while tethered, except for one. And Prof. Hayes knows just how dangerous it is, and just how impossible it is for Cameron to have stood out there without falling over the cliff. Nevertheless, he continues the ruse. From the “Expert’s” Report, on the same page as above:
|
||
|
... The L.A. County Public Works Department then provided nine profiles of the cliff face radiating from the point of departure (Fig. 3). Only five of these profiles (B-F) were consistent with trajectories that originated at the point of departure and ended with landing in the inlet. These five contours were used in our analysis. |
||
|
Below left is a copy of the topographical map prepared by the L.A. DPW, along with the potential “trajectories” rayed out, as it is displayed on page 9 of the “Expert’s” Report. This is the “Fig. 3” that is referred to above. To the right is an aerial shot of the area that is depicted in the map on the left. |
||
 |
 |
|
|
On the top of page 10 of his “Expert’s” Report, Prof. Hayes has prepared a chart (marked as Figure 4) that purports to show the trajectories along the five supposed “profiles” ostensibly supplied by L.A. DPW. Each of the profiles is marled with the letter (B-F) corresponding to the “profile” that it supposedly illustrates. Below is a copy of that chart:*
There are many problems with the above chart. For one thing, you will notice that the point of origin of the “trajectories” is at a different height for the various profiles (e.g., in “B” it is at about 130 feet; in “F” it is below 120 feet), so how could these possibly be trajectories that all emanate from the same point of departure? They can’t—and Prof. Hayes knows it. How can it possibly be any different when he also knows that there is no known actual point of departure. But that nevertheless doesn’t seem to have stopped him from manipulating his “results” so as to support his baseless assertion that in all profiles except “B,” Lauren would have hit the cliff face once and only once. Moreover, on page 12 of his “Expert’s” Report, Prof. Hayes asserts that Cameron threw Lauren off the cliff at an upward angle of about 22.5º above the horizontal. But the presumed “throw” trajectories illustrated above do not seem to reflect this supposed upward component.
At the time, there was already an existing topo map of Inspiration Point on file with L.A. DPW, of the same resolution as the map that Prof. Hayes requested. An image of a section of that map can be seen to the right. (Clicking on the image will open a new window of a larger image of the same map.) While the existing topo map is of the same resolution as what Prof. Hayes had requested, it must be noted that the existing map most likely wasn’t quite as precise as Prof. Hayes’s new map. In other words, the tolerance for error (which will nevertheless be slight) will probably be a little higher with the existing map than with the map that Prof. Hayes had created. But now the question arises: if precision is so important, then where is the precision in the above profiles? Because there is obviously no precision present in the above charts. This is no minor point. The repercussions here are extreme. The above chart is composed not of actual profiles of the cliff, but of mere drawings that bear only the slightest relationship to the actual cliff. If the above chart is all that Prof. Hayes was going to construct using the topographical data, he could have just as easily misrepresented the existing topo map, and saved the taxpayers of Los Angeles County tens of thousands of dollars—if not more. Not that his results would have been any more credible, mind you, but at least there wouldn’t have been all this profligate waste of taxpayers’ money to no real purpose.
Actually, it is much worse than this. The fact of the matter is that the cliff profiles as they are illustrated in Prof. Hayes’s chart above are materially different than the actual cliff profiles. What this means is that the difference here is more than simply just a difference in form. Specifically, if the scenario that Prof. Hayes applied to his fictional cliff profiles above were to be applied to the actual cliff profiles, it would yielded different results. In order to illustrate this, we have taken the existing topo map (obtained from L.A. DPW), determined where Prof. Hayes’s supposed “point of departure” should be (which to be sure, is a spot that is far too dangerous to venture out onto), and have constructed veritable profiles of the actual cliff. And we have applied Prof. Hayes’s scenario to these profiles. Following are five comparisons of the profiles from Prof. Hayes’s chart with the actual cliff profiles. Notice that there are only two trajectories on each of the charts of the actual cliff profiles. That’s because, given that it is impossible for Cameron and Lauren to have actually been on this steeply sloped location, it is pointless to include a “slip/fall” scenario here—as this is not the spot where the accident happened. But the two trajectories in the actual profiles do reflect the upward component (at 22.5º above horizontal) that Prof. Hayes talks about in his bogus “Expert’s” Report, but yet does not depict in the trajectories on his chart. In each of the following actual profiles, the trajectory depicted in blue represents a throw at 10 ft./sec, while the trajectory depicted in red represents a throw at 15 ft./sec. In each of the profiles, the supposed “point of departure” is represented by the green circle, and it is at the same elevation in all five profiles, and placed at the same point on the map when generating the cliff profile diagrams. Following immediately below is a comparison of cliff profile “B.” |
||
 |
 |
|
|
Following is a comparison of profile “C.” |
||
 |
 |
|
|
Following is a comparison of profile “D.” |
||
 |
 |
|
|
Following is a comparison of profile “E.” |
||
 |
 |
|
|
Following is a comparison of profile “F.” |
||
 |
 |
|
|
As is plainly evident in the five actual profiles above, Prof. Hayes’s scenario fails in every single one of them. In other words, had Cameron actually tried to throw Lauren over the cliff (which he would not have done under any circumstances—Cameron loved Lauren) from that spot (on which it is impossible to stand without going over the cliff yourself), she would not have cleared the edge of the cliff, and would certainly have rolled and tumbled down the side—which Prof. Hayes asserts did not happen. And given also that Prof. Hayes has mischaracterized also what the Autopsy Report says, there is absolutely no reason to place any confidence whatsoever in his travesty of an “Expert’s” Report. There is one more issue that needs to be addressed here. It has been pointed out that, even in the impossible case that Cameron could have stood on the steeply sloped spot where Prof. Hayes tries to place him, had he tried to throw Lauren over the edge as Prof. Hayes tries to assert, Cameron would have also gone over the cliff himself, as the forward momentum of the throw would have carried him over as well. Prof. Hayes gives a completely unbelievable answer to a question about this in his Grand Jury testimony, from page 260:
|
||
|
2 |
Q IF LAUREN WERE LAUNCHED AT A VELOCITY OF |
||
|
3 |
APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET PER SECOND BY CAMERON BROWN, WOULD |
||
|
4 |
THAT HAVE RESULTED IN CAMERON BROWN GOING OVER THE CLIFF |
||
|
5 |
ALSO? |
||
|
6 |
A THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, ACTUALLY. AND |
||
|
7 |
PERHAPS I CAN DEMONSTRATE AGAIN, IF I MIGHT. |
||
|
8 |
SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF NEWTON'S LAW |
||
|
9 |
AND THE PHRASE "FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A REACTION." |
||
|
10 |
IN ANSWER TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, WHEN |
||
|
11 |
YOU THROW SOMETHING, YOU GENERALLY ARE PUSHED BACKWARDS |
||
|
12 |
FROM THAT THROW. AND SO THE STORIES THAT HE TOLD ABOUT |
||
|
13 |
HER LAUNCHING A ROCK, THROWING A ROCK, THAT'S NOT THE WAY |
||
|
14 |
WE THROW THINGS. WE THROW THINGS AND GENERALLY WE COME |
||
|
15 |
BACKWARDS, UNLESS WE ARE RUNNING FORWARD. SO UNLESS HE |
||
|
16 |
WERE RUNNING TOWARDS THE CLIFF FACE WHEN HE LAUNCHED HER, |
||
|
17 |
WHICH WOULD GIVE HIM SOME MOMENTUM TOWARDS THE CLIFF |
||
|
18 |
FACE, I WOULD EXPECT, IF HE LAUNCHES HER FROM A STANDING |
||
|
19 |
POSITION, THAT HE WOULD BE PUSHED BACKWARDS, AS OPPOSED |
||
|
20 |
TO GOING OVER THE CLIFF. |
||
|
Does a pitcher move backwards off the mound after throwing a pitch? Does the shot-putter fall backwards after making his throw? Do you move backwards after throwing a rock? Of course not. And Prof. Hayes, who studies the mechanics of body movement associated with sports, most certainly knows better. Which means that he is knowingly and deliberately lying here, in order to mislead the Grand Jury. Which, given his expertise, I believe should make his comments qualify as perjury! It seems manifestly obvious that Prof. Hayes is not just being disingenuous here, but outrightly dishonest! And a man with credentials so formidable as his certainly knows better. |
|||
|
* This is a copy of the chart represented in the graphic labeled “Fig. 4” on the top of page 10 of the “Expert’s” Report. There isn’t very much detail (if any) visible in the scanned .pdf copy of the “Expert’s” Report that is available on this website. Click HERE to view a raw copy of the chart in its original size, which is stored as a .bmp file. This file is slightly more than 7 MB in size, and the image is about 2,000 pixels wide. |
|||
