Firstly - HELLO SPROCKET!! I missed you since the Spector trial. Can you direct me to a specific part of your blog that describes the area where the child died? Was it a recreation area...with cliffs? Was it a hiking area? I am wondering why a parent would even take a child to a potentially dangerous area and not supervise him/her.

Court Jester

To get a view of the terrain where Lauren died, put into Mapquest, Abalone Cove, CA.  When the map comes up, select satellite view.  This will give you a visual image of the terrain.

You find the parking lot at Abalone Cove where they parked and they took a trail head from the parking lot down to the beach where, at the time there was a nursery school and a playground. 

You will need to put the view on the highest resolution possible and scroll from left to right to see everything I'm talking about.  This area of the coast is actually facing "South."  What comes up next, east of the parking lot is Portuguese Point, the flat area about the size of a football field. So there is a "west side" of PP, and an "east side" of PP>

From there, they hiked up the cliff face to Portuguese Point.  They were on Portuguese Point, then they went down the side of Porguguese Point (their path from there is not clear). They eventually ended up on the road, Palos Verdes South and walked along there at  distance until Inspiration Point.  I believe they entered onto Inspiration Point from Ranch Palos Verdes.  Lauren went off the cliffs at Inspiration Point.  This is a very dangerous piece of land.  You can see where the land mass narrows (called the bottleneck) and on that stretch, the path comes precariously close to one edge of the cliff.

The defendant and Lauren went out to the very end of Inspiration Point, to the far eastern corner/edge.  You can see that the entire area of the point doesn't come to an exact point, but is kind of like a triangle.  On the east edge at the point, there is an area that sort of overhangs down to the inlets below. That ground is quite sloped. It''s been called a "horseshoe" in court; it's been called a "V" area itself by the defense.  That's where Lauren went off Inspiration Point.

So how's the trial looking to you, Sprocket? Do you have any idea when it will finish up???

Depending on if there is a rebuttal case or not, I'm guessing that it will end sometime between the 10th and 14th of September, so earlier than expected. (Final projection date was 9/18).

Although I have not said this on my blog, I have felt from the very beginning that he was guilty.  I'm very sorry that I missed the testimony of the physics expert on trajectory.

The discrepancies in the defendants statements to various first responders at the scene and the Sheriff's homicide detectives.

His insistence to the homicide detectives that it wasn't his fault, he just followed Lauren out onto Inspiration Point.  (What about his responsibility as a parent to take charge?)

The lack of affect following his daughter's death.  Many first responders commented on this. To me, this is some of the most important evidence.

The 911 call that showed no indication that the defendant cried, contradicting his statements to the homicide detectives.  In fact, you can hear him laughing to the nude sunbathers that they should cover up since help is coming.

The many lies he told about when Sarah confronted him in the parking garage at LAX. 

The lies he told to the family court about being on disability and having a reduced income when he clearly didn't.

The lies he told that initiated an investigation against Sarah for child abuse.

The clear documentation that Patty was the driving force behind the deisre to get Lauren away from her mother, suppored also by new witness testimony.  And the witchcraft under the bed.  That was a jaw dropper.

Unless the defendant takes the stand to explain his lack of affect and the lies he told about the LAX incident, it's going to be tough to prove this was an "accident."

 Hmm, Sprocket, I must say I am not surprised at your opinion based on the content of your blog. However there are a few points of yours that I take issue with. Mainly, you pretty much admitted that there was not any real evidence that Cam Brown 'did it' if a crime was even really committed which I am not convinced a crime was committed at all.

However the fact that (if it is true which no one knows whether it is or isnt because it is hearsay) however lets assume for the sake of argument that what the paramedics and the first cops at the scene said was true. Let's assume that Brown really did give different version of different people and lets even assume for the sake of argument that it really is true that Brown said that what happened to his daughter was 'not his fault' how does any of this make him a killer? This one has yet to be explained to me. If you define 'guilty' as the fact that he was negligent in allowing his daughter to roam on a cliff than yes he is guilty of being negligent. At best that is involuntary manslaughter and even that is reaching. 

However as I have stated before, if a verdict is reached in this trial than I do expect it will be a 2nd degree murder conviction. I do not like saying that but I just do not think the jury will be able to put aside their emotions. Evidence or not whenever a kid dies people have this need to want to see someone pay for it. There is not any evidence to prove first degree murder here, period.

Basically the prosecution is arguing that Brown should be convicted because even if you do not believe he threw or pushed his daughter off of the cliff that he was negligent in bringing her up there in the first place so the prosecution is trying to argue that is 2nd degree murder. However 2nd degree murder despite the prosecutions claim, is intent without premeditation or malice a forethought. That is 2nd degree murder. So in order to convict Brown of that, you would have to believe that while he did not premeditate the crime that he wanted his daughter dead, meaning he wanted her to fall off the cliff or something along those lines and that in any event he was negligent for bringing her up there. However in my opinion that is not 2nd degree murder. That is involuntary manslaughter. 

Now, in the first trial, Geragos argued the most against involuntary manslaughter. Of course he was arguing Brown was innocent, but Geragos took the gamble because he wanted to argue not only was Brown not guilty of murder he was not guilty of negligence. Geragos pushed the envelope and almost talked to his client into a 2nd degree murder verdict. It seems in the first trial most of the jury rejected the premeditated murder angle and I expect that will happen again. But as I said, people will want someone to pay for the death of a child so I expect Brown will get a 2nd degree murder conviction. It is an easy compromise verdict as in California, unlike most states, 2nd degree murder gets you a life sentence, so Brown would get an automatic 15 year to life sentence if convicted of that. 

In terms of the other charges, Brown could face the death penalty if he is convicted of first degree murder. However, in my opinion, a conviction on this charge is highly unlikely. However if that did happen, for Brown to face the death penalty or LWOP he would have to have the jury unanimously agree on the special circumstances of murder for financial gain and lying in wait, neither of which I see happening and neither of which has been proven by the prosecution. So if he was convicted of first degree murder and the special circumstances were not agreed on by the jury than Brown would get a sentence of 25 years to life. If he was convicted of even one of the special circumstances he could only get either LWOP or death. 

However if the first degree murder charge winds up in an acquittal than the special circumstances go away. 2nd degree murder, as I said would be 15 years to life. Involuntary manslaughter, Brown would be sentenced to time served and released. Is voluntary manslaughter on the table? Even with voluntary manslaughter, Brown would probably be sentenced to time served and released. Since no deadly weapons were involved, I believe the most he could get for voluntary manslaughter is 10 years and since inmates in California are typically released after serving half of their sentences, I would expect Brown would be sentenced to time served and released.

The big question is, will Brown take the stand? My guess would be no as he did not in the first trial. However if I was Brown's defense attorney I would encourage him to take the stand as juries like to see defendants take the stand. However it is always the defendants call ultimately whether he takes the stand or not. Having the client take the stand is a gamble though because it can either make your case or break your case. In Brown's case, it would make more sense for him to take the stand as he has already been dragged through the mud so much, he basically has nothing to lose by taking the stand. 

In regards to Brown lying about Sarah, big deal. So he lied. That hardly proves murder. If everyone that has ever lied is a murderer, no one would be on the streets. Sarah Key-Meyer is hardly innocent, an illegal alien, who slept with a guy to have a baby so she could stay in the country. Brown did not lie about being on disability, he was on disability at one time, albeit not appearing to be disabled as he was surfing and seemed physically able but many people have lied or faked or exaggerated injury to get on disability, it does not automatically make them murderers. I guess I find this just incredible how Cam Brown is assumed a murderer all because he wanted to reduce his child support payments. Pretty much anyone that pays child support hates paying it and will look for any legal excuse they can to reduce payments, it hardly makes them murderers.

As for Brown not having a clue about AA's disability police, why is that abnormal? You have baseless allegations where you call Cam Brown a liar over and over all because you do not like his story. I have worked at places for a couple years at a time and never knew their disability policy. I would assume this is more common than what you care to realize. If you researched the issue than good for you. I did not know about the workman's comp at my work in terms of how much it paid or what benefits were entitled with it. The company did give a workbook when first hired but I never read it. I never really bothered to read earnings statements. I only would take brief notes to write the check amount in the ledger of my checkbook for how much I was depositing but otherwise I did not pay any attention. To me this is not unusual. I worked for a large corporation (the largest in America, Wal-Mart). 

Yawn.  It is a big deal the taped LAX incident where he lied about Sarah.  He lied to the extent he accused her of a crime. He wrote out a false statement to police and signed it.  Said he wanted her prosecuted.

That's all I read was that one line.  I'm not taking the time to read your uninformed arguments or explain my conclusions. I was inside the courtroom. I heard the witnesses testify. You did not.

 Sprocket, all of my opinion was based off of what YOU wrote. So, I think you should at least respond to my opinion instead of taking the cheap way out by claiming I am stupid and then further claiming that exempts you from having to respond. If you read my argument very carefully sprocket you would see in the regard Cam Brown lied, I did not even disagree with you! Yes he did lie. What I was asking you to explain was why this makes Cam Brown a murderer? So,  how about you do what I did and explain your arguments? 

Sprocket didn't call you stupid. She called you uninformed. Also she is not obligated to respond to me or to you.... or to anyone else.

Whether agreed with or not, your opinions are always welcome :)

Cloey-In my opinion Sprocket  did call me stupid, period. Yes sprocket did not actually say the word stupid but sprocket implied it. I am, in my opinion just as informed on this case as Sprocket is. I merely have a difference in opinion from Sprocket and when Sprocket makes a baseless allegation against me, I think Sprocket has an obligation to respond and I am going to keep a continuing objection to Sprocket's comments because I guess Sprocket is not used to someone disagreeing with them and therefor cannot handle it when someone actually asks some questions.

It is obvious what side Sprocket is on in this case, and I guess I do not understand why Sprocket is allowed to make a baseless allegation that I am uninformed when the info I got was from Sprocket's own blog but yet when I try to get sprocket to respond to my arguments I am told they do not have to do that? You are right, Sprocket does not have to do anything, however it really says a lot when I disagree with Sprocket, go through the trouble of doing a point by point analysis and all I get in return is Sprocket basically saying I am stupid and therefor they are not going to go through 'the trouble' of reading and responding. The fact Sprocket said that tells me that Sprocket thought I was stupid from the get-go because I was actually asking Sprocket some questions and not letting Sprocket go unchallenged.

Sprocket tried/tries to present themselves as not being biased when they were and are biased in favor of the prosecution in basically all cases. I am biased towards the defense in most cases as most people that post here know and I have no problem admitting that. However, I would not stoop to call sprocket 'uninformed' aka stupid all because I disagree with their views. I read Sprockets blog, that is where I got a lot of the info in this case from, I just happened to have a different interpretation of it. 

Cloey, thanks for allowing me to post here and thank you for saying my opinions are welcome. I know you disagree with a lot of my opinions and mine with yours but thank you for allowing me to post here. Sorry for the rant, but I wanted to get out my full opinion on that and that will be the last of that, now back to the case! 

Although Sprocket tries to report from an unbiased view we must remember that she is a BLOGGER-- not a court reporter. She is allowed her biases IMO and does us all a great favor by BLOGGING from the courtroom when the so-called REAL REPORTERS aren't doing their job.

No-one owes anyone an "obligation" to respond to an opinion or question and ALL of us have the right to our own opinions.

I'm a little taken back by the "Obligation" comment. It makes me want to ask who the heck you think you are???

JMHO

I am not arrogant. If that was the implication you are simply wrong. However, it does tick me off a bit when I go through a lot of trouble to rebut a person's point and rather than saying why the person disagrees with me they simply say I am uninformed and because in their opinion I am uninformed that it exempts them from responding to my opinion. Okay, if sprocket does not want to respond fine, but I think sprocket can come up with something a little better than the whole you are stupid so I do not have to respond to you routine. That is what I saying. I was not saying sprocket did not have the right to be biased, I myself am biased as I admitted above. You are also correct when you say that you would expect a blogger to be biased in one way or another. I would too.

But again, when someone tries to present themselves as not being biased when in fact they are, that is a problem. I actually like sprocket's blog because yes, since Sprocket is in the court room, Sprocket can hear and see things most of the rest of us cannot. However I disagree with Sprocket's interpretation of the evidence and I guess I do not see why Sprocket would get bent out of shape to such an extent as to not respond to another posters questions when I was merely asking questions?

 

QUOTE:

However, it does tick me off a bit when I go through a lot of trouble to rebut a person's point

END QUOTE

So sorry to hear you are "ticked off" because I ignored you.  (Understand, that's as far as I got in reading this latest post.) 

The truth is, my time is valuable to me and answering your questions was on the low priority end of how I decide to spend it.