text:
Cameron Brown 3rd Trial, Day 16 - Prosecution's Case Continues
Lauren Sarene Key, plunged to her death at Inspiration Point,
in Ranch Palos Verdes, CA, on November 8, 2000.
Copyright © Sarah Key-Marer, all rights reserved.
UPDATE 4/26 9:20 AM final edit of last witness completed
UPDATE 4/22 9:30 AM still editing the testimony of the final witness
UPDATE 4/21 7:30 PM more editing for spelling, clarity accuracy
UPDATE 4/21 7:30 AM editing for spelling, clarity, readability
UPDATE 4/20 8:00 PM editing for spelling, clarity, accuracy
When I get inside Dept. 107, counsel are discussing a letter that one of Hum's witnesses sent him over the weekend and was sent to Mr. Laub on Sunday. The letter contains new information. They are discussing what the letter says and whether or not the witness can talk about what they said in the letter.
The court states the witness can opine as to Brown's personality as she experienced it. Laub is asking for a hearing outside the presence of the jury before she gets up on the stand. The court states that if she gets on the stand and says the reason she didn't come forward with this information before, is because she was afraid of retaliation, if/when he gets out. that's acceptable to explain her state of mind.
DDA Hum argues in gang cases, that's acceptable testimony all the time. Laub argues that this isn't a gang case, the case is 15 years old and it doesn't apply.
Mr. Laub is still arguing that this is beyond the issues of probative value.
The court rules that it is not only applicable to gang situations. It's applicable to any witness, to their state of mind and why they did not state this information before.
The witness is brought in. She has an older woman with her. The clerk calls for the jury, waiting in the hallway.
JANE DOE (Witness requested anonymity)
Sentenial, Colorado is where she lives. She's lived in CO since 1972. She knows the defendant. Identifies him. We met after high school, in the early 1980's.
We had a mutual group of friends.
After you met the defendant, did you become boyfriend and girlfriend? Yes we did. We were boyfriend and girlfriend for almost a year. 1986.
Observed him around small children? Yes I did. Observed him when a child would do something cute or adorable? He would just say, "Later." She would laugh, and find it cute? Yes I did.
I'd like you describe for us, how the defendant treated you during this relationship? What was his behavior and how he acted toward you? He was very controlling. He didn't like when I did things without him.
What are you basing that on? Court.
We ended up living in a cabin up in the mountain.s Old mining cabin at 12,000 ft. There wa a time I wanted to go back to Denver, take a shower and see my friends. Told him I was going to go back down to Denver by myself. He didn't say anything but I could tell he wasn't happy because of his demeanor.
What happened when you got back? He had thrown all my stuff off the cliff
Because the cabin is, .... [miss the rest of the question]. First of all, he told me this one arm guy in Breckenridge, was mad we were living in the cabin and threw my stuff off the cliff.
Based on your conversation with your sister and her boyfriend, did you believe the defendants statement that this one arm guy did this? I believed it was a lie.
The defendants stuff was not thrown off the cliff. Only her things were thrown off the cliff.
In addition to the defendant being controlling and this example that you've given us, how else would he treat you during your relationship? She sounds emotional, I'm trying to um, can I just explain what the relationship was like?
We started dating and moving up to that cabin. That was one incident that happened. I ended up moving back to Denver and you can't live up there at 12,000 feet during the winter. He had an apartment in Denver also.
She had friends she would meet. He would call and tell her he saw her at a certain place. He would ask me if I was at a certain place because he said I saw your car there.
Had you been at those places? Yes.
When she was at that place, did you see the defendant? No.
This happened more than once.
During the relationship, would you describe him as selfish, or giving? I would characterize him as selfish, not giving. I believe that he was manipulative. I saw him be very manipulative with his mother. He was dependent on his mother financially. I saw him manipulate her to get money.
Was he a spur of the moment kind of guy or a planning [kind of guy]? He wasn't spur of the moment. He wouldn't do something unless it was something that he wanted to do.
Towards the end of the relationship, did he accuse you of doing certain things to him? He would accuse me of looking at him a certain way. And I would say, what way? It was very strange.
Were there times during the relationship that you could tell the defendant was angry? I remember one incident when I was at my parents house. There was a rec room downstairs and he came downstairs, and I could tell he was trying to hold back anger. I could see it in his eyes. It scared me. It's just that look when they're about to... It looked like holding back anger in his eyes and body language and it was frightening.
On more than one occasion? More than one occasion.
Did the defendant ever confront you directly with his anger? Never. I wouldn't even know that he was mad at me, prior to an incident. We would be talking on the phne of dong something. Then I came out and found my car smashed in, and he admitted to doing it. The police wanted me to press charges.
[Why didn't you press charges?] We had the same friends. I didn't want to be the person who got one of our friends in trouble.
Were there other incidences of situations, where rather than confronting you directly, he would go around your back and do something indirectly? Yes. Did you want another example?
I came home one night, after being out with my friend, I got into my apt, and my sliding glass door is open.
Hum stops her from talking about this incident.
Were there any other incidents where you saw something that was physical evidence of the defendants anger? She saw a hole in the wall of the defendant's apartment and he admitted to punching the wall.
The incident about the car? Can't remember how much damage. But it was somewhere between 600 and 900. His mom wrote me a check.
She looks like, at times, she 's holding back tears. She's sniffling a bit.
Incident regards to the car, it was towards the end of the relationship? Didn't continue the relationship much longer after that.
Why did it end? Because I was afraid of him.
In addition to the emotions you described for us, did you ever see the defendant exhibit other emotions? In the fall of 1986, did you learn that you were pregnant? Yes I did.
Who was the father? Cam..
I became pregnant, I was very young, unemployed, in a relationship. We hadn't been dating that long, to know each other well. We both agreed to have an abortion.
What was his emotional reaction? He went with me to have the procedure. We went back to his apartment afterwards and laid on the couch and listened to music, and we both cried a little and cuddled. It was, very sad.
At any point during your entire relationship with the defendant, did he ever confront you? Only when he said I was looking at him strange. Never confronted her directly. It was always behind her back.
Just to put this in perspective, this was the year of 1986? Correct.
You were both in your early 20's? He was in his mid 20's. I was in my early 20's.
You were together for about a year? Almost. Explains a party, and that's when they started dating.
It sounds like for some period of time, he was a fun guy? He was fun.
And you must have thought that he was thoughtful? Thoughtful? I wouldn't call him thoughtful. I was in his life, but he was more self absorbed, selfish. I felt more like, my feelings were not as important as belonging to him. I was in a relationship with him I was to be a certain way and felt a bit manipulated.
And that was okay? I was young. I was enamored with his image. He was this California guy, the idea of him.
Don't you think it was more than enamored? [You?] lived in that cabin 12,000 ft with no electricity and running water? I loved the outdoors. I worked in my sisters store. It was fun.
It was fun to share the outdoors with Mr. Brown? Yeah. It was.
Among this group of friends, was there someone named Bill Urban (sp?)? We're friends to this day.
You talked about having some things that were thrown over this cliff where you were living? Yes.
A boom-box and some clothing? Yes.
At the time, did Mr. Brown tell you that he also had some things that were thrown over? I don't recall that. And the man he accused was named George? Yes.
He told me that he went and told the police and they came up on horseback.
Do you know if George was arrested? I was never certain that George was found or that the police ever came up on horseback.
As soon as Mr. Brown told you this George, was angry at the two of you living at the cabin, you immediately decided that Mr. Brown was lying.
Living in Breckenridge at 12,000 feet, is sort of novel. You could sort of brag about it. I heard Cam multiple times, tell people I live in this cabin, there's this one arm man named George. It's part of a novelty story.
I was upset about the incident. I went to my sisters store and told her and Bruce what happened. They said that he (George) had lost his house and they had not seen him up there and that he hadn't been around for years.
Mr. Brown did go and get these things? Not all of them. He brought up a few.
The hole in the wall you say you saw in Mr. Brown's apartment, you blew it off as just being guy stuff? Completely.
Witness wipes her nose with a tissue.
One last thing about the abortion. You said Mr. Brown said he felt to you that it was wrong? I believe that he told me it was wrong because he thought it would change our relationship.
Cross ends and Mr. Hum asks for a sidebar.
The side bar continues. Mr. Hum has no more questions for this witness. She is excused.
The people call Joni Dodge.
JONI DODGE
Back in June of 2000, what was your occupation? Senior social worker for Orange County Department of Children's Services. Did you investigate alleged incidents of child abuse? Yes.
How long did you work for OCCS? (miss answer) Has a master's in social work. Before that, worked for the probation department. Worked in various departments before she became an investigator. Lists them.
Explains her training for her various assignments as an investigator. She initially shadowed another investigator for a week or two.
She investigated a case initiated by a court employee, a "mandated reporter," JAN MUELER (sp?).
They are mandated to report, whether or not they believe it to be true. It can come from other sources, such as a school teacher would call in and say that the child reported that the mother hit the child.
Or a mediator meets with a parent, connected to family court. So maybe a parent reported to a mediator, about another parent regarding abuse or neglect.
This report that you received, was it a report to Ms. Mueler, that the father of Lauren Key and made a report of physical abuse of Lauren by her mother? Yes.
Did they claim the abuse happened? June 22, 2000 was the mediation meeting. She was assigned the case the same day. It ws probably within a couple days.
Emergency response has 30 days from initiation from the start to close the case. The case was closed July 19, 2000.
Are there different categories of urgency that they, the cases they are assigned? IR. Immediate response. That would mean someone would have to be out there in two hours. NDR. Next day response. Gives example.
What's the lowest level? That would be no report at all. The next would be a 10 day response, which is what this was. Then must contact within 10 days of the report was made. She got a copy of Ms. Mueler's report.
Screener alerts are notations basically to the investigating social workers. There may be some risk factors, violence in the home, or gang area. On this particular report it was custody dispute.
Why is it important for you to be aware of that, when going to investigate allegations of child abuse? That would indicate the parents were not in agreement over custody of the child. Because of possibly the emotional issues with the child, or parent wanting more time with the child. It's emotionally charged and we needed to be aware of that.
Did you conduct an investigation? Yes I did. Did you review the report from Ms. Mueler? Yes.
According to Ms. Mueler's report, what did his father claim was the source of abuse? Um, the father said that the child said the mother kicked her. The child had bruises on her legs.
Were there other claims? The child told the father that the mother grabs her with her fingers on the side of the mouth, leaving marks. Lauren had nail marks on her ears. Also said both parents allege emotional abuse of each other. Back and forth, And the child is given information, called bad mouthing, a child is given info about the other parent.
Was that also in Ms. Mueler's report? Yes, That the parents were giving info about each other. Did the father claim that her mother disciplined her in a particular way? I don't think it was on the report, just the kicking and grabbing. And something about throwing her on the floor, and I think that came later.
Lets talk about what you did to investigate these claims? Did you go to Lauren's home on June 20, 2000? Yes. What happened. No one was home. I left my card and left a message for the mother to call me.
She talked to the mother on the phone, as well as the step-brother. Did have a phone number for Cameron Brown. He lived in Los Angeles County.
She did speak to him and talked to him on the phone. What did he tell you? There were little scabs on the corner of her mouth, which the child said it was from a boo-boo. When [the child was] asked if she was pinched she said no it was from a boo boo. The father said that Lauren said the mother pushes her down in the kitchen, and the child also told the father that the mother spanks her and also that, the mother grabs her on the face. The father saw what looked like fingerprint marks [on her face and ear].
Lauren refused to talk about this to the father. This is what Cameron Brown told you, he had been told by Lauren? [Yes.]
Did you also go to Lauren's school? She interviewed Lauren. There was a teacher present, Ms. Iniaot (sp?). The teacher sat in on the interview.
Did you make observations of Lauren? Yes. Why is that important? Well, a visual check of the child's appearance can indicate the level of care. Also cleanliness, health, facial expression, in terms of sadness or to see what, how the child responds to someone else, turning away, or crying. Or just to see if there were any observable marks on the child.
Tell us what were you observations of Lauren. She was very well dressed and clean. Her hair was very together. She looked like she was a well cared for child.
Did you talk to Lauren about the claims that her father had made? Yes.
What was Lauren's reaction to the claims? I used the word surprised in my report.
What did you ask her and what did she tell you? I asked if she had ever been pinched on the face, her ears pulled, bruises to her legs, anybody slap or hit her hurt her or threw her to the ground.
She said no to each question. Did you ask Lauren what type of punishment she recieved for discipline? What did she say? Time out.
Did you specifically ask Lauren to the allegations? Did you ask her if anyone thrown her down on the floor and her response was? No. More specifics about the questions.
Lauren said no to all the questions.
Her reaction you described as surprised? Did that seem to be her reaction to all these questions. Yes.
Did you ask her if her mother and step father had ever hurt her? Yes. What did she say? No.
Also spoke to a teacher, Ms. Lena. Yes. Did what the teacher also tell you factor into the validity? Yes.
Often times what school personell have to say about a child is important because they see them on a daily basis.
What did Ms. Lena tell you? The child was happy, well cared for and behaved. There were no concerns about the mother and step father. They were always interested in how her day had gone so there were very attentive to her school and functions.
Did they school, provide you with any information about Lauren when her father would come pick her up? That she would hide. Her conclusion would be, that she didn't want to go, that she was hiding.
I did see that behavior as very unusual (not very unusual?) because, Lauren didn't know her father for that long. She came into his life at 2.5 maybe? She'd lived with her mother all her life. She didn't have that familiarity and contact. It's not that unusual. That didn't trigger any red flags for you? No.
Spoke with Sarah, Greg and Josh. Also made observations as to where Lauren lived? Yes. Explains why they do that. To ensure there are no potential dangers there. Want to establish that it was a safe environment, and that it had high standards. The standards of Lauren's home were very high. It was a neighborhood that was very nice. The house was clean, there were toys, it was very orderly. She had no concerns.
Do recall that Lauren had her own room? I might have looked in, I don't recollect it. I did interview Josh in his own room, so I assumed Lauren had her own room.
Did your interview with the mother help you determine if the allegations were true or not? Yes.
How was Lauren disciplined? Time out. Three minutes. Four, four minutes. Also so if there were safety issues, if child ran out of the house, she would maybe give the child a slap on the back bottom, clothed, and never hard enough to leave any injuries.
What did Ms Key-Marer mar tell you as to her feelings as to physical discipline? She was never physically disciplined as a child and she didn't believe in it.
Questioned Sarah Key-Marer about if she ever kicked, or grabbed, or threw Lauren on the ground? She said no.
In response to the allegations, Sarah took Lauren to a pediatrician to determine if she was abused in any way. And also provided a letter from the doctor that said the child was not abused in any way.
Asked the same questions of Greg Marer, and his responses were the same as Sarahs.
Interviewed Josh in his room. What did Josh tell you? He denied any abuse or neglect. He usually got a time out for punishment 5 to 15 minutes or sent to his room. He said Lauren had no physical discipline. Maybe she would get a slap on the bottom. He said she "Cried over nothing." He denied any kind of abuse to himself or any kind of abuse to Lauren.
Did you specifically ask Josh, in regard to the allegations, whether he or Lauren were pushed to the ground or kicked or punched? Yes. What did he respond? No.
In your entire investigation, the observations you made, ... did all of those observations seem to you to be completely appropriate? Could you ask that again?
Everything you found out, from interviews, the home, her appearance, Josh's appearance, did all those observations, seem completely appropriate to a normal family? Yes.
Did you investigation cause you to be concerned for Lauren's safety? No. Did you find any indication from the things that you discussed that there was any abuse of Lauren? No.
Did you find anything to support the claims by Cameron Brown at all? No.
The case was closed with the finding, the disposition would be either substantiated, unsubstantiated or inconclusive, unfounded. What was your conclusion to the claims by Cameron Brown? Unfounded.
Did you expand on that in your report? It appears that Lauren's father made exaggerated or false accusations. There is no indication of abuse or neglect.
Cameron Brown is not the father who called in Child Services? That's true.
You called him and he didn't do anything to push the investigation? Yes. He never called you back, to push the investigation? That's correct.
Her report was initiated by the court mandated reporter.
You learned that she did have scabs on her mouth and that was from her not washing her mouth correctly? Yes. And you did learn that she did have bruises on her shins? Yes.
You questioned Lauren, to include Mr. Brown? Yes.
You talked with Lauren whether anyone had hurt her at all, and she told you no? Yes.
There was something that she said, she referred to [him?] as Papa Cam. He would tease her and throw her in the water. She didn't consider that unusual. Certainly not something that would be considered any kind of abuse or neglect. I didn't investigate that further, but she [Lauren said] didn't like it.
She said no one makes me fearful? Yes.
And she actually said that she wasn't afraid of anyone? Yes.
When you talked with Lauren's mother she was explaining to you what she felt was behind the allegations against her, Mr. Brown had made to Ms. Mueler, one of the things she said to her was that he wanted more time with her? Yes.
When you said that anyone had done anything to her, what was the context? It was specifically in regards to the mother and step father, that the allegations were against her. I also asked her if anyone she was fearful of. I don't remember specifically asked her about her father.
In mediation, there is a pamphlet that people get? Yes. Presents the pamphlet to her.
Under mediation, the document reads that it's a confidential process, unless there are grounds of allegation of abuse.
Laub objects to the information on this document.
DDA Hum states this is offered to show that proper procedures were followed. It's also offered to show that when people enter mediation, they are given this document to show what mediation is.
Laub asks for a sidebar.
In this pamphlet, it specifically reads that, judges and attorneys do not receive any information unless they are provided information from a parent. And that was the procedure followed by Ms. Mueler? Yes.
Have you found situations where, parents make allegations to mediators, to shield themselves from calling child protective services? Yes.
Redirect ends and recross begins.
About this pamphlet. You don't know if Mr. Brown ever received this pamphlet? I don't know that. You don't know if he ever read that? It would be highly unlikey that he didn't get it, as part of mediation.
DDA Hum interjects. There is a bit of confusion as to what document they are talking about. Laub admits that he may be confused.
There's nothing in her investigation file that she gave this specific document to the defendant.
No more redirect and the witness is excused. The court calls the morning recess at about 11:12 AM
Patty Brown comes into the courtroom, just as Brown is taken back into custody for the morning break. I believe Patty calls to Brown as he is led away. I don't believe he responded to her. He may not have heard her. Patty speaks to the bailiff about clothing she had brought to court for Brown that he never got.
I hear Patty Brown speaking to the bailiff in the ante chamber about shirts for Brown.
Brown was brought out a moment ago. DDA Hum brings in his next witness. She has a seat in the gallery.
The jury files in. People call Ann O'Mara
ANNE O'MARA
Retired from social work. Medical social worker at Kaiser in 1996. Describes her duties. Worked to clinic patients. All age groups. Sometimes with children in abuse cases. ADAD, learning problems, teenage pregnancy. Medical, financial problems.
Would you as part of your duties, discuss with patients, related medical issues going on with your lives. Would document interviews via notes? Yes.
Document conversations you had with Cameron Brown. Presents her with notations on a patient record that are hers.
Did you always go by the name Anne? I'm always called Sally by all my friends. There are signatures by S O'Mara, but that is also you. [Yes.]
Did I give you an entire medical file back in the past of Cameron Brown? Yes.
Did you have any other contacts with the person named Cameron Brown? No.
These notes you made in these contacts, were they made near the time you had contact? Yes.
These notes would be in the medical files of Kaiser Permamente? Yes.
When was the first contact you had with Cameron Brown? Jan 13, 1996. Month and birth of person, September 1961. The meeting was to discuss the pregnancy of the girl that he had been dating.
How long had he been dating her? Two months.
Did you offer an appointment with the two of them together in January 1996? Yes.
What was the substance of that contact? What was discussed? We discussed the pregnancy and how they were getting along, and, a paternity testing.
Coughing juror #8. Apologies. It was the coffee.
Second contact on 1/9/96? It was only with Cameron Brown.
Information related to paternity testing, how they were getting along essentially the pregnancy and offered a return appointment with her?
Was there a return appointment on 1/16/96? Yes.
Was this visit documented in [the] notes? Yes. It was with Brown and Sarah Key. She was from England and just that she was pregnant.
What else occurred during that visit? It's hard to remember, I believe I had the impression that she wanted to continue the pregnancy and no other option was of interest to her, and he wanted to end the pregnancy.
Did you discuss possible options for a pregnancy in situations such as that? Yes.
Was there anything discussed about how this pregnancy was affecting the relationship? It was putting a great deal of strain on the relationship.
Was there, another appointment arranged with the two of them. Yes. Another arraigned about a week and a half later. Was that 1/25/96? Yes.
Did that appointment take place? There was a message that he had called. She wasn't able to keep the appointment. He never called back.
Direct ends and cross examination begins.
It's been a long passage of time, it's difficult remembering what happened all that time ago? I think I have a vague recollection of that time, but I don't have a lot of detail.
When you answered the question about generally, you would discuss options. I'd like you to elaborate on that some more. If the conflicts [have conflicts?] as a couple or whether they have a difference of opinion on the pregnancy.
She wanted to continue the pregnancy and he did not want her to. Not continuing means, considering an abortion. Sometimes prospective mother doesn't know if she wanes to be a mother either, and considers adoption.
Would you start off by telling them that one of the options that there are women who continue the pregnancy ... ? I don't think that I would start off that way. The couples themselves would have a lot to say and we'd go from there.
You wouldn't say to her that may be the way they handle it in England, but that's not the way we do things here? That doesn't sound like something [she would say].
You wouldn't push the idea of abortion on someone who indicated that wasn't their choice?
She states she may have considered... [miss rest of answer].
The fact that Mr. Brown was the person who set the thing in motion and he was interested in abortion as a choice, that wouldn't cause you, once the pregnant woman was in his office, to act as his advocate? No, that's not her role, to set one person against another.
Would it be accurate to say you don't know what discussions happened between Brown and Ms. Key before they came to you? Correct.
Or after? That's right.
She assumed that, he wanted her to see a doctor and have her not be pregnant.
You had a role that you thought was yours to fulfill? Right. You didn't know what conversations they had or that Ms. Key had previously told Mr. Brown she was not open to abortion? No I was not aware of that. Objection sustained. Well, you didn't know about [her position or that she had told Brown she didn't want to have an abortion?] No.
Within the logic of that question. similarly, you have no knowledge of anything going on with this couple other that what was going on with this couple? Other than what he told me, no.
Witness is excused.
Mr. Laub has concerns with a witness, Scott Simonson. [From memory, I believe there is a discussion with counsel and the court as to what this witness can testify about.]
In the past, Scott Simonson testified about an incident involving someone named Troy, that Simonson wasn't directly involved in, involving Brown. Simonson ended up mediating.
The information came in previously with limiting instructions. Laub states, my objection today is irrelevant. Going to object on relevance grounds. It's not relevant to bring in the substance of the dispute.
DDA Hum, Let me just advise the court what the statement is and what the discussion in the prior court was. He was informed by Troy Nichol, what the substance of the abuse was, and that the defendant threatened to punch him.
The witness went to Brown asked Brown about it and the defendant agreed that happened. It's an adopted admission. What happened at prior [trial] ... The relevance is whether the defendant shows emotion.
DDA Hum explains what happened in the prior trial, that Pastor said that it was admissible under 1221. It technically was only admitted for Mr. Simonson's state of mind. [I believe DDA Hum tells the court that Judge Pastor didn't want to add another instruction to muddy things up for the jurors.]
Court rules on this issue. It is admissible as an adopted admission. Will be in recess until 1:30 pm.
During the lunch break, I had to go to CVS to get a phone cord. My phone's battery is low and I need to charge it off my laptop. I will try to do some editing later tonight.
The next witness will be William Gnam.
Gnam sits in the gallery and observes Brown when he stands for the jury. Brown appears to avoid Gnam's gaze.
Back on the record. The people call William Gnam.
WILLIAM GNAM
Lives in San Diego, He is a chef. He grew up in Colorado. Met Brown in high school. Knew mutual friend Jane Doe. Doe and Brown dated.
[Was there anything unusual about their relationship?] Nothing unusual about relationship. It seemed pretty basic. Cam pretended to be a bit jealous from time to time.
[How could you tell that?] By the way he acted around us and other friends. When camping, if she went off and did something with someone else.
Other than jealous, any other words to describe [their relationship]? It didn't seem like the best relationship.
He's asked if Brown and him were good friends. We were extremely good friends from [when I was] 15 until 1999, when I lost complete track of him. Cam was a few years older.
He's asked what year that was, when he was 15. 1980, 1979 possibly.
Until that time, [you lost track of him] considered the defendant pretty good friends? Yes.
[Asked what activities they did together.} Hiked, skied, snowboarding, snow mobiles, camping sailing. All activities were either in California and or Colorado. We went surfing once. Cam showed him how to surf. Cam is an expert outdoors man.
Describe for us his attention towards safety in the outdoors? Could always tell if there was a danger, in any setting.
What about when the defendant was outdoors with other people? He would realize if someone would get in a danger situation. He would warn them.
At some point during your friendship did he [Brown] leave Colorado? Yes. He left in 1989 or 90. He left a few years before I did. Even though Brown was in California, they still stayed in touch. They still stayed in touch, in person and on the phone.
Sometimes he went to visit Cam in California. Did one time. Cam picked him up in Santa Monica [Airport?] when he was working at a particular hotel there, or applying for a position there.
Also Brown went back to Colorado, when Gnam was still living there. [Brown went out to California a few years before Gnam did.]
Considered the defendant a close friend and thought he felt the same way about him? Yes.
He was working for Loews Hotels in Denver. He then transferred to Loews Coronado property. He had his option of another city, and he chose Coronado. He moved to that area. Once he transferred, he was living in Imperial Beach.
Would you visit with the defendant? Yes. Cam would usually come visit me because the surfing was good at Imperial Beach. He came down quite a few times. from 1993 to 1996.
Once you moved to Imperial Beach, still considered yourself to be a very good friend of the defendant? Yes. And he felt the same way about you? Yes.
Do you recall the last conversation you had with the defendant? Yes I do. It was a phone call in the evening. He was very distraught. It was his ex-girlfirend he was going to have her deported. [Since the witness lived near the border] Gnam thought the girlfriend was Mexican. That was his immediate thought.
Wow I didn't know you were dating a Mexican girl. He said he was going to have the bitch deported and he called INS. That was the end of the phone call.
He didn't tell you why? No.
He specifically called her a bitch?
That was the gist of the conversation.
Describe for us the defendant's demeanor? He was very irritated with her. He was talking with me about it. I'd never met her. I didn't know what's going on. I still didn't know she was British.
Was there also an incident in Colorado that stuck in your mind with the def and his parents? Yes there was.
He had already moved to Colorado. He picked Cam up at the airport for a wedding. And his parents were in the car next to us and he ducked down, and he didn't want them to see him. Gnam thought that was very odd.
Now, did something happen in 1998 with regard to your relationship with the defendant? He just dropped off the face of the planet. Gnam moved to La Jolla, in 1997. He used to come down to La Jolla to surf a lot, once ever six weeks. He was good friends with my roommates at the time. He changed his phone number. I hadn't heard from him at all.
Did you try to get in contact with the defendant? Yes, but his number was changed and I had no way to access the boat he was on.
Up until that time, did you consider yourself to be a good friend? Yes.
Did you think that he felt the same way about you? No, because I'd never heard from him.
Until he disappeared on you, did you think Brown still consider you a good friend? I think so.
Did the defendant ever tell you that he had a pregnant girlfriend or had a child? No.
When was the first time that you had become aware that he had a daughter? When he was arrested.
Do you think it was unusual that he had never told you that he had a child? Yes, it was very odd.
Mr. Gnam, did you ever see the defendant angry? Yeah.
How did he act? It depends on what he was angry about. He was condescending, just irritated I suppose.
Did you ever have the opportunity to see how the defendant responded to criticism? He wouldn't like it very much.
Now, Mr. Gnam, at some point did you become aware of this case on the Internet? Yes I did. Did you become aware of the defendant's claim as to what happened? Objection! Sidebar.
You became aware of what the defendant claimed happened, and that the defendant claimed Lauren fell, and you became aware of where Lauren fell? Yes, yes, yes.
How did that claim strike you? It made no sense at all. He was an experienced outdoors man, and was aware of the dangers. Gnam had seen him in other outdoor situations. Brown had always been on top of safety in the outdoors.
Brown leaned in to speak to Laub for a moment.
You said that you grew up with Mr. Brown. Yes I did. I was about 15 when I met him.
Did you know where did he grew up? I believe he grew up in Huntington Beach.
And you said he was a few years older than you? You went to Cherry Creek High. [Asks if that's where Brown went.] You're right I don't think he did.
You were excellent friends? Yes.
Had you ever been over to his house? Yes I have.
His parents? No. I've met his brothers, but didn't know them very well.
You talked about Mr. Brown being an excellent outdoors man? Yes.
And was someone who was aware of safety issues? Yes.
And there was a situation where you were in a situation and he had to advise you? No but there was someone else.
Yeah, I remember when we were camping in Breckenridge, and there was an avalanche zone, and Mr. Brown pointed out where he had been caught in an avalanche, and he warned Jon Ranias (sp?), on his own snowmobile, to be careful in that area.
Did you consider Mr. brown to be a risk taker? Um, but more in a good way, more like an adrenaline junkie.
He had learned and had gotten caught in that avalanche? Yes.
And he told others to be careful of that experience.
You've never seen Mr. Brown get physically violent with anyone have you? No.
You mentioned that, Mr. Brown came to pick you up at an airport? Yes. [I thought this was the other way around from the prior testimony.} Was he thoughtful that way? Yes.
And he was not someone who you considered a penny pincher was he? No, I would say he was.
Do you remember talking with Detective Leslie on May 19, 2010 that was recorded? Yes. Do you remember being asked, so he was cheap? He was not cheap, he paid for beer and supper. He was budget minded like most of the young guys, in late, early 20's.
And you were asked, let me ask you this...[miss rest of question] Because of the love of the great outdoors, where it would limit him. Being outdoors was Cams life and that's all he wanted to do. Be out on a boat, on a chair lift, out in the outback. A lot of our friends felt that way about being outdoors and being active, and camping.
Let's say that Mr. Brown, was, something was cutting into his money at any given point, was that something that might have thrown him off, and made him different? Well, surfing doesn't cost anything. If there's something decreasing his wealth, that he would need money for to do an outside activity. I could see that affecting him greatly.
Do you remember this exchange with Detective Leslie?
Crossing him on previous statements.
Sounds like when talking with Detective Leslie, the way you were describing Mr. Brown at that time, he'd have a level attitude. Well like it said, it depends on the activity. Some, like skiing, cost a lot of money. Some like surfing, don't cost a lot of money.
Would you say that Mr. Brown when you knew him was a happy guy? Yes.
When it was appropriate to laugh he would laugh? Yes.
Appeared to be emotionally stable? Yes.
You testified that specifically, your recollection in regards to money was the defendant was budget minded like the rest of us. In the interview you said he was frugal, is that correct? Yes.
Nothing further.
One other point, question. I asked you about the being careful to help other people in other dangerous situations? No that's a very specific one. When I was surfing with him, he was looking out for me. We were in the same area, by Inspiration Point. I had a 14 foot surfboard in my arms, and I was worried. And he looked out for me. [He was] very conscious of the marina and the locals that lived there.
Gnam talks about getting down to the terrain, and Sacred Cove. and how difficult that was.
This witness is excused.
Next witness, the people call Douglas Scott Simonson.
Good afternoon. Do you know the defendant seated? Yes I do.
We both had boats down in Port Royal Marina in Redondo Beach. He was friends with the defendant.
Would you feel you were one of his closest friends in the Marina? Can't think of anyone who hung out with him more than I did.
Simonson was living on C dock. They would go sailing together, barbeque on weekends on the boats, barbeque and drink beer.
Was there a mutual friend by the name of Troy? [Yes.] Troy is now deceased.
If you know, what type of work that Troy did? He cleaned the bottom of boats, removed barnacles, etc. The defendant worked at American Airlines in the baggage department.
Were there occasions when the defendant was on disability? Well, [while Brown was on disability] we continued to go sailing together, and that he surfed.
Did he ever tell you about concerns that people were watching him? Yes he did.
He met Sarah just the one time. I'm pretty sure it was on C dock, in Port Royal. Doesn't remember the year. Thinks it was in the 1990's.
Do you notice an accent? Yes. Did you know where she was from? England.
Did the defendant tell you anything in regards to Sarah? Did he tell you Sarah was pregnant? Yes.
What did the defendant tell you what Sarah had said, and what was the defendants response?
Sarah had contacted him and let him know [she was pregnant]. He said he couldn't be the father, because he always used protection. She said he had to be the one because she was the only one she had been with in a long time.
He said it wasn't his and he was denying it. It was sometime later, I guess when she pursued it, it seemed like he was avoiding her.
When the defendant told you that Sarah had told him that she was pregnant, did he say he called anyone? Yes, he said he was going to call INS on her and I believe he did, because [he said] her visa had run out.
[What did you say to him, if anything?] I told him to think about it, because not only would he be deporting her, he would deporting his own child. He said it couldn't be his, it wasn't, and he didn't want to be responsible.
Did the defendant say he didn't want to be responsible, even if it was his? Yes.
Around the time you met Sarah, was the defendant also dating someone else? I think there was someone after.
Did you know Jeane Barrett? Yes. She was a lifeguard? Yes.
Did the defendant [state?] at some point, did you become aware that he and Sarah broke up? Yes.
Did the defendant move his boat somewhere else? [Yes.]
First he moved his boat to Marina Del Rey? Yes. Then he came back to B dock.
Did you become aware that the defendant hand changed phone numbers? Yes. He [Brown] had a cell phone all the time, and he would call me with a new number. I recalled crossing out an old number in my phone book and must have done that a few times.
[What did the defendant say regarding calling him at work?] At work, he said don't call there, he's not answering and he's told his coworkers that he's not available.
Did he actually tell you, that he told people at work? [Yes.]
Do you recall specifically what he said to calling at work? Yes. He told him that if people did call, they were to tell the caller that he wasn't there.
At some point after that, did the defendant tell you that Sarah had tracked him down? Yes. I guess he had to go take a blood test, to prove paternity. and it turned out that it was his.
At some point did he bring his daughter to the Marina? Yes.
Did he make any comments about child support? I believe his support was about $900.00 a month, he was told by the court, that to reduce his child support payments he should try to get some type of visitation.
Did he specifically tell you, that to reduce his support, he [would? had to?] get some kind of visitation? [Yes.]
There is another case issue brought to Judge Lomeli's clerk. The judge steps off the bench for a moment.
Back on the bench.
Did he tell you he was told by someone, to reduce the amount, he should ask for visitation?
He didn't like the amount he was going to have to pay.
Did he look like he was upset? It was a lot of money back then, for what he made.
Describe for us what Patty is like. They came down to my boat on New Years Eve. And that was the first time I met her. They [the group?] wanted to go down to Hermosa Beach. She was wining. She complained about the dock moving and she was going to fall into the water.
You met several of the defendants girlfriends? Yes. What was different [between them and Patty]?
Jean and the others, the other were more athletic, outgoing outdoorsy type people.
He told us she was a city engineer for the city [of Hermosa Beach].
What did the defendant say to you about Patty's financial situation?
That she made good money working for the city of Hermosa Beach. She lived in a condo. And she made good money.
After the defendant married Patty, did you see him as much? No.
At some point after the defendant married Patty, did you learn that Lauren had died? Yes.
[How did you hear about Lauren's death?] Well my next door neighbor on the docks told me. And I believe it was the day after. And she mentioned that he was on the news. I'd seen the story the night before, on the news. But I didn't put it together at the time.
My [neighbor] Elizabeth told me the next day, and then I put it together that what was on the news was about [Brown's daughter].
Did the defendant call you and tell you that he had moved? Yes. He said he moved to Ventura County.
Did the defendant ever tell you that he was thinking of moving to Ventura? No.
He believes that Patty purchased the house (that the defendant told him about).
What else did the defendant say Patty had purchased for him? When he told me they moved to Ventura and he worked at LAX, and she also bought him a motorcycle, some tools for the garage and also a small sailboat.
Did the defendant tell you about Patty? I asked about Patty and he said that she isn't working right now.
Going back to finding out [about] Lauren dying. Once you saw that on the news, and put two and two together. What did you do? I called him up.
First of all who answered? Patty answered.
She said, "Hi how are you?" She yelled, "Cameron, Scot's on the phone."
Did the defendant get on the phone? [Yes.]
What's the first thing he said to you? "Hey dude, what's up?"
Did that stick in your mind? Yes it did.
Why did that stick in your mind? Because his daughter just died, and it was, Hey dude what's up. It didn't seem right to me.
What did you say? I just heard about your daughter and I'm so sorry and I just wanted to call.
[What did the defendant say?] [He said,] Yes it was a terrible accident. I was there with her. I turned around and the next thing I knew she had fallen off the cliff. But I can't let it ruin my life. I have to move on. Then he kind of wanted to know what I was doing after that.
I asked him, you know, ... I didn't know if that was the time that he told me he had an attorney, He just didn't seem to be that concerned with it.
You t
testified previously correct? Yes.
With regard to the specific wording, would it help if you looked at your prior testimony? Yes.
The next thing he asked was "What's going on." [Yes.]
This entire conversation, from the first words he spoke, to the end of it, did that strike you as odd? Yes.
Why is that? The entire conversation after we'd spoke, and we hung up. I actually went out and told my neighbors. Objection. Sustained.
Did the defendant. behavior's seem so odd that you did something? Went out and told my neighbors. [There might have been another objection here, but I believe the answer stands.] I believe it's ruled that the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter.
What did you tell your neighbors? Told them what our conversation was, and I told them this didn't seem right, because it seemed he didn't even care at all. [miss rest of answer].
Had you ever see the defendant exhibit emotion? Not really no. What about anger? Yes, anger.
Do you recall specific instances where you saw the defendant exhibit anger? Yes. I did.
This was probably early in 1992, 1993 there, Brown's girlfriend Cathy (sp?) and him [witness], Troy, Troy's girlfriend Michelle, were going to New Year's at the Red Onion. Cathy and Cameron got in an argument. He didn't want to be with her any more. He was calling her names.
What did he call her? You fat ugly bitch. He would call her names like that, to get her to leave.
She came back crying. Then [when] he came back and locked the boat and told us that he didn't want to see her. They all went to the Red Onion without her.
Tell us about the defendant and his father. We were going to a restaurant to meet his father there. We already ordered out food and ate, then his father walked in. When his father walked in, Cameron said, "You're late," and wanted to leave. Cam, I said, he just walked in. His father apologized and said I had things to do. Brown said, you're late don't do this again. I suggested that we sit and speak to him and we did.
Is there an incident where the defendant got upset with you, regarding your [suggestions about his] Trimaran? He had sold his boat and he bought a Trimaran. Went down there to go on the boat with him. I made suggestions about what to do on the boat. Paint this, paint that.
He didn't like to be told what to do. He said to me, "Don't tell me what to do." In the back of the boat, where the battery [compartment] is, I suggested that he strap the battery down. He said, "Don't tell me what to do. It's a Trimaran. It's not a sail boat."
Incident involving Brown and Troy Nichols. Did Troy Nichols tell you about the [conflict between Brown and Nichols]? Yes.
Did you talk to the defendant about what Troy told you? Yes.
Did the defendant deny what Troy told you was true? No he didn't deny it.
What did Troy tell you? When you live on your boat, you pay a little more in fees than just a slip fees. There were guys that were living on their boats and not paying the extra fees. Cam thought Troy should go tell on these people that they weren't paying their fair share. Troy felt it wasn't Cam's business or any of our business. Cam though that the witness [Simonson] should also go and tell the Marina.
After that, it got worse, Cameron was working on B dock and Cameron came down and threatened Troy and threatened to beat him up. Troy went to the harbor patrol and filed a complaint against Brown, because he didn't want anything to happen to his business.
Objection. Move to strike as hearsay. Over ruled.
After Troy told you this information, did you talk to the defendant about this situation? I spoke to Cameron. I said that, "One, I was upset because I was dragged into this fight between you two." I said, "It's none of Troy's business, it's none of your business. It's up to the Marina. You've been friends for a long time. We should all try to get along."
Brown called him up from jail. He had a land line. He would have messages that he missed on that phone.
He didn't put it together. Several months to almost a year went by, I answered one of these calls and it was Brown, calling me from jail.
Did the defendant ask you anything in regards to any investigation? He asked me if anyone had spoken to me and I said no, [miss rest of answer].
You also told us that, you were his closest friend at the Marina. His brother in law asked you to write a letter of support for his brother in law web site? Did you? No I did not.
Let's start with your meeting Lauren. Yes.
Brown brought Lauren down to the Marina? Yes.
It wasn't that day that he was talking about child support? No. He actually introduced he to you? Yes he did. He said in his words, it was pretty cool to have a daughter? Yes. He displayed pride? Yes.
This actually, ... he brought her down there about three or four times? As I recall, yes.
And saw that you had a chance to say hello, and your impression was, they were a normal dad and daughter? That's correct. And she appeared happy? Yes. And he appeared happy? Yes.
The thing about Patty making purchases for Mr. Brown. In all the time that you had known Mr. Brown, prior to moving to this house, you had never heard him say he wanted to live in a house? Not prior, no.
And you never heard that this was purchased for Mr. Brown? No. They were already married, and they had lived in Palos Verdes. They said, they were tired of getting all these phone calls.
As far as the motorcycle goes, do you know if that was a gift for him at Christmas? I don't know what time that was purchased, I just remember asking about [his long drive to] LAX.
Laub asks if he knew these were tools purchased as a birthday gift? I don't know. I just remember it was the same conversation.
When you called him on the phone, he appeared very emotionless? Yes. And the time you knew him, he was a guy who was not overtly emotional? No, not that way. Happy when surfing and sailing, seemed to enjoy life.
Am I correct that Mr. Brown [at] the time you knew him seemed like just a big kid? Yes. A guy who had a teenager in a grown ups body? Yes. He was happy most of the time? Most of the time.
This incident where on the boat with him, and you told him that the battery was not safe, this was a situation where, Mr. Brown , was it his boat? It was his, and he had a partner on it.
And you thought you found a dangerous situation on his boat, and you said he wouldn't listen because he didn't like criticism? Yes, which was typical.
Situation where he threatened to beat Troy up. Didn't Troy say, hit him? Hit him, beat him up.
And wasn't that kind of laughable, because Troy was much bigger than Mr Brown? [Miss answer, I think he answers, "Correct".]
Miss next questions.
Luab looks over his notes.
You talked about, you were asked about a situation where Mr. Brown showed up and Mr. Brown's father was late and Brown was upset about that. Brown didn't get physically violent? Correct. And you ended up staying? Reluctantly, yes. Mr. Brown got there when you two had finished eating? [Yes.]
As far as, you were asked by prosecutor, examples of anger, over 14, 15 years, you guys were friends, and so, the examples today of, some examples that had been now, are, conflict with dad at breakfast, being upset about being told battery wasn't tied down, the date he was upset with, and getting in an argument with Troy, threatening to hit Troy, and not doing it. And these are your expressions of anger? There's more. Those are the ones that stand out, but those are the ones that I recall.
Laub, confronts that he testified in the last two proceedings and these are the only ones that have come up until today? Mr. Hum has asked you in previous proceedings.
You were asked in prior proceedings if there were any more and you said no, but now you have more? Well things come up and you remember them.
He was not invited to Cam's wedding.
His friends took Brown to a strip club and the witness went along. As things progressed there, he acted in a way that was very prudish, [Yes.] Because he didn't want to engage in lap dances? He was getting married, and this wasn't the way he wanted to celebrate getting married? [Miss answers.]
Cross ends.
The afternoon break is called. As the jury exits, Brown leans in and whispers to his attorney.
The court is off the bench. DDA Hum and Laub are speaking to the witness now. It could be the is documenting another event where Brown got angry.
I apologize for my horrible typing today. The questions were coming fast and furious. During the lunch break, the court's free WiFi connection went down, so I could not publish for some time, until the connection came back up.
You told us that the defendant's relationship with his daughter appeared to be a normal relationship? During their time on the dock, they seemed normal.
That did not take in consideration his reaction on the phone? [No.]
The defense lawyer said that he didn't appear to be outwardly emotional. You did tell us the defendant appeared to be happy most of the time? Correct. You also had seen the defendant angry on several occasions. And that would be based on his outward expression/appearance? Correct.
Now details another event. About a guy who had a motorcycle, who would chain the motorcycle onto Brown's bike.
Did the defendant threaten the gentleman at any point in time? He kept calling him names, He said, he called him,
Another incident on B dock. He thought some food, he thought Chuck was throwing a tortilla, that it had landed on his boat. Thought someone was throwing food at him. He was yelling across, and complaining about that. This was based on what Cameron told him.
This witness is excused. The prosecution calls their next witness.
JEROME POINGSETT
The witness is a tall, impressive black man.
Do you also go by the name of Tony? His middle name is Anthony. He's 63. He's retired. He retired on Sept. 21, 2011. He worked for American Airlines.
What did you do for AA? I did all the jobs.
At some point did you work with baggage? [As a] Point service clerk.
Do know the defendant at the end of the counsel table? Yes I do.
How did you know the defendant? We worked 'inbound together. Explains the difference between inbound and outbound planes.
[I believe the witness is asked if he came to court with anyone today.] He has a daughter Shelly. She's in the back row. She's 28.
At some point did you pay child support for Shelly? Yes I did.
At some point when you worked with the defendant, did you discuss the fact that you paid child support for Shelly? We discussed it. We all talk about that.
The witness's demeanor in how he answers the question, his emphasis, the jury laughs.
Does that mean a number of men in inbound? We all had those issues.
Was there something that Brown said, that stuck in their mind? Most men talk about killing the mother. Most don't talk about killing the kid.
There were a few times were they talked about killing the kids? We would talk about, um, child support problems, stuff like that, and so, that's how it got started.
Did the defendant talk to you about his relationship with his daughters mother? I talked about mine and he talked about his.
How did the defend say [what] his relationship was with the child's mother? They were done. He didn't really have one. [I asked him], Why don't you make some arrangements with her like I did [with the mother of Shelly]. He [didn't want to talk about it.]
Did he tell you about how much child support he paid? Somewhere around eleven hundred.
Did he tell you how he felt about it? He said it was messing him up. It was uncomfortable. That's child support. It messes us all up.
Let me ask you, did he ever say anything about, [to] you about visitation? He said that as long [as] I'm paying the money I might as well go get the kid.
[Miss question.] He didn't. The kid didn't want to go with him when he would go pick her up.
He didn't want the ... [?] He wanted him and the mother to get along? [?] He knew it bothered her.
He wanted [to] kinda like jabbed her. [?] [When he went ]to come and pick her [Lauren] up at the mother's. He said, I might as well get her anyway.
Do you recall specifically, any other reason where the defendant said he had visitation? No, just remember him saying, I might as well go get her, as long as I'm paying my money.
He went into [this reasoning?] 3 or 4 times. That's a lot.
How many times did he say that, it was a jab at the mother? I recall him saying that once. Just that, he would go get her anyway. And we talked about so much. There was things like, well, what I really remember him say, [for] me and him [to] come [up] with some scenario to get rid of the kids.
[How did that come about?] I would talk to him about my daughter and he would talk about his.
[And he would ask about coming up with scenarios, to get rid of the kid(s).] I would look at him and, I, like sincerely put in an effort, of [coming up with ideas?] ... So what could we do to get rid of the child.
[It's like, [I?] would become blank.]
There was nothing you could come up with? [No.] And I would look at him like he was crazy.
Did you ever agree with the defendant to actually get rid of your kids? It was kind of like an agreement like, like it was like strange. It would be kind of, get rid of the child support, to get rid of the kids, but really, like [I'm thinking] are you really saying that? But he wouldn't look at me. He just wanted to hear me say [in agreement]. But I was like, nah.
Calling attention to page eight, might that refresh your recollection, as to what he said?
Nobody talks about getting rid of the kid. After about the third time, I was like, oh wow.
Why don't you refresh your memory.
The witness is asked to read lines 13 to 16.
What other reason did the defendant give for visitation? It was about it, just to jab the mother, I might as well go pick her up since I gave her money.
And did you, saying, he wanted to torture the mother and the kid? Do you remember saying that? That's what I mean by saying jab. Jab the mother. Because, he would, not talk about the mother. He didn't want to make arrangements for them either.
Did you ever hear the defendant say anything good about his kid? No.
It was a terrible mistake. He was serious guy about. It was really, ... these weren't casual conversations. These were serious thought processes.
When he was talking to you? This was serious stuff. This was child support. This was a big inconvenience.
You said that on about three occasions, the defendant said, what if we got rid of the kids? Did he say anything?
We tried to come up with any scenarios. I couldn't come up with anything.
I was, like, You CAN'T come up with anything. When you solve a chess problem. ... When you talk about getting rid of a kid, there ARE no scenarios.
At the time the three times the defendant talked to you about getting rid of the kids, did he sound to you as if he was serious about it? Yes. he was serious.
Direct ends.
Mr. Laub.
You spoke with Robert Royce a defense investigator on July 15 2014? Correct? Dates I don't remember but I do remember talking to somebody.
This would be approximately a year ago? Was it a year ago, I think it was shorter than that. Some private guy, some investigator called me.
He wanted to get together, because you were busy so you suggested to talk on the phone? Not that I was busy, I'm retired. I said we could do it on the phone if you wanted to. Because I was constantly busy? I'm in the music business. I'm cool. ... The guy said, we could do it on thephone. It was his choice.
He tried to get together with you in person? Yes.
And you talked about working for American Airlines? Yes.
And the various assignments that you had, including the one here? Yes.
And that you actually worked with Mr. Brown for what you called two bids? A bid was actually a shift for about three or four months? Sometimes they were extended. They would extend the bid.
When you worked with Brown it was three to four moths here, three to four there? Yeah.
And you two had discussed child support payments? I remember we had discussed a third, and I was on my way back to the work area. He asked me to look at a paper bag. I opened the bag and there was a pigeon in there. It wasn't funny. They were laughing, and it wasn't funny to me.
And he said ... wasn't there another guy standing there? But he [Brown] was the one who asked me to look in it.
That was because when you were talking to [Detective Leslie?] in 2010, you had told them that Brown had put the pidgeon in the bag? I assumed he did because he asked me to look in it.
There was another guy standing there? Brown was laughing and he was standing there? Yes. ... It wasn't funny. there's no assuming. It's not funny.
It wasn't funny to open the bag and you were surprised by the pigeon? Yeah.
Who put the pigeon in the bag? I don't remember, I do remember that pigeon face. It was trembling.
Jury laughs.
When you talked with Mr. Brown about child support, and told Mr. Royce about this, [?] it would be better if the child and mother just went away? No, it wasn't like that.
So you're saying that's not the words you used? [miss answer] There is some confusion by the witness. I don't remember child and mother. Child and mother like that?
You were specifically asked, if Brown had ever used the words murder, kill, death, during the statement [where] he wished they would just go away? I don't remember those words. I do remember he said just to get rid of the kid. ... [Another question.] This PI, we weren't on the phone that long.
Mr. Brown had never refereed to any words or violence in talking about any words or violence. The words that he used with me, he said, wouldn't it be nice, if we could get rid of the kids.
[I believe the witness adds after another question:] Now anything he said after that, that's on him.
[Another answer:] I don't remember him saying, Mr Brown would never used violence. I don't remember him getting in to that, what you're trying to project right now, that he said to me.
I believe Laub wants the witness to look at the defense investigator's report. It's a two page report.
Hum asks to approach.
The court asks the witness a question.
The witness says, bring that paper over. The jury laughs. (This was during sidebar).
Sidebar over. The witness is not shown the PI's report. I don't believe it's a transcript.
Did Mr. Brown ever talk to you about having the mother deported to get rid of the child support payments? I don't remember his talking about getting her deported, he talked about her, as less as possible. [Possibly another question here.] He didn't talk about her very much. He didn't like her. Him going to negotiate, paying money, he refused my suggestions. I did it two or three times. To him it was like, out of the question.
He was like an arrogant guy, yes? But it was more than that.
Most of the white guys you were working with were arrogant? I'm going to say, there's a white arrogance that exits on AA, where, they can get away with things and there's nothing that you can do about it.
When you spoke to Detective Leslie, and you talked about Mr. Bronwn's arrogance, you did mention that most of the white boys out there were arrogant? You can't say everybody, but there is an atmosphere of hate out there. I have had several hanger nooses in my work area.
What I'm saying is, they can get away with more? They get away with more things. There's cover up and there's a lack of humility.
Laub interrupts the witness. The witness replies, "It's your show."
[I believe there was more back and forth about race relations and they get far afield of the issue. Here, possibly DDA Hum made an objection.]
I'm not doubting there's hatred out there and racism, the point I'm making is, in taking about Brown's arrogance, the way you brought it in to your discussion, [with detectives?] you said like most of the white guys out there? He has an arrogance like most of the white guys out there.
His arrogance, he would complain about other people trying to get away with stuff? For instance... ? The witness breathes heavily. One of the things that the people would do, would smoke on the job? And Brown would complain about that? And that was arrogant and petty?
[These could be Laub's questions, or they could be answers.] He was eccentric. Overboard.
He was really on about? "He would go bananas on you."
And another thing, he would get arrogant about, and he was carrying three or four bags and they were only carrying one or two? [Question or answer: He was pretty silly.]
He would pick up more weight than anyone else? He could be stupid about it.
Another thing he would do, there were specific places where you should put that cart he would arrogantly say your not doing your job the right way? "He would say, he'd work by himself. I'd go back in and play chess. I said cool." ..."He didn't want me working around him if he could get away with it.
His arrogance would take him that far? He would. He's different.
So, there were lots of eccentrics?
I believe the court interrupts and says, "There were a lot of eccentrics, as long as they're not the pilot." The jury laughs.
The court tells Mr. Laub, he has five minutes. It's about 3:55 PM
I think Mr. Laub is looking for a question. He's looking through his papers. Then the witness addresses Mr. Laub The witness says, "You've got four minutes." The jury breaks up.
You never saw Mr Brown get physicallv violent? If you get caught, you get fired.
The court asks, "You never witnessed Mr. Brown get violent??No.
Luab. says one more thing, and and then states to the court, I'm really almost done.
Oh Mr. Brown did show you a picture of his daughter right? Yeah, because I asked him. And I remember seeing a picture. He said, No, it's mine. There was test, it's mine.
Yeah he did show me a picture. [Another question.] I don't remember. Yeah, I did see a picture, I wanted to know. I wanted to see.
Asked you about Mr. Brown ... not having used any words of violence, and I think you agreed [he? didn't] use words of violence, he used this phrase of you two geiting rid of child support?
The witness answers, he said, "Wouldn't it be great if we could get rid of them" And witness asked [Brown], Me too? [Inferring, the witness would get rid of HIS child, too.]
In your position you talked about a lot of guys at work. You acted in some ways, as an adviser in some ways? Yes I did; a lot of experts out there.
I believe Laub asks again if Brown was asking if they could get rid of child support. The witness interrupts Mr. Laub. He reaches his arm out and points his finger at him. He's adamant that's not what Brown asked. The witness is clear. He shakes his head. He tells Laub, Brown was talking about getting rid of the kids. NOT child support. The witness won't let Mr. Laub re characterize his words like that.
That's as far as this went? For you, it seemed like to you, about literally getting rid. of, but that's as far as this went?
Objection. The court asks, "Neither of you could come up with anything?" No.
And that's it. 10:00 AM tomorrow for the jury.
I tried to edit some of my typing on the train. I will try to edit as soon as possible.
Gregg the Obscure said...
In the 2009 trial you identified this morning's witness as Jane Doe, at her request.
Gregg the Obscure:
Correct. No one approached me this time, requesting not to publish her name.


Why choose us for Hot Rod insurance?
We eat, sleep and breathe hot rod insurance. Our passion for hot rods is unmistakable and we have been running the members hot rod insurance scheme for the National Street Rod Association (NSRA) for the past 20 years. Our close relationship with the club and their members means over the years we have taken feedback and developed the scheme to be exactly the cover a hot rod owner needs.
Our scheme is completely bespoke for the modern day street rodder. One of the most appealing aspects of our scheme is our sky's the limit attitude towards customisation; we don't need to know about each and every modification. With the tinkerer mentality in mind we also offer insurance for your on-going project/SORN vehicle. Check out our laid up policy, which also gets special NSRA treatment with discounted rates.
There's no reason to not have an agreed value in place as being a member of the NSRA entitles you to a valuation through the club. Fill in the form with some photos and we'll correspond directly with the club to get your value agreed on the policy.
Without the right to retain salvage your hot rod will become property of the insurer when a total loss is paid out. This would suit most people as they have no attachment to their ordinary cars, but we know that hot rods aren't ordinary. An insurer can write off a vehicle for purely cosmetic damage which they see as uneconomical to repair. However lets say you know someone who could repair it for less, or maybe you could repair it yourself? There's no choice in the matter, you have a cheque and the hot rod you've sweated over for years is no longer yours. We give you that choice, you'll always have final word over your hot rod.
Roadside assistance in the UK & EU including homestart.
Further discount available if you're a member of the NSRA (National Street Rod Association).
In the process of building a hot rod? Taken on a long term restoration project, or just have your hot rod in storage? Our laid up cover is the perfect protection.
If we're insuring your hot rod then we can look to quote on any other vehicles you own, whether they be other hot rods, classics or even your daily driver.


Sell your damages to the jury, and sell them well. It is easy enough to grab different witnesses who have some relation to the case and ask them to testify. However, if not done properly this will likely become a one-way ticket to an objection based on cumulative evidence. Many times, it is easiest to put the plaintiff on the stand because the plaintiff is the person who is best qualified to testify about their damages or their loss of enjoyment in their life. This easily can lead to a pitfall, a Catch-22 if you will. If the plaintiff testifies truthfully of their injuries, they are likely to come off as whiners to the jury. It is not likely that a jury takes well to whiners. Secondly, jury's likely expect plaintiff's to exaggerate their suffering. Thus putting your plaintiff on the stand may not be your best choice, right away.
There is no doubt that the injured person has the most information on their pain and suffering. In most cases, it would be a great idea to put them on the stand, but maybe not right away. Instead, ask the injured party about people they may know who could testify to their damages. Make a list of these witness including names, phone numbers, emails, and possibly what they will testify. Then contact the potential witness.
If you do not believe the witness, it is almost a sure thing that the jury will not believe the witness either. If they aren't credible, get rid of them.
"2.) How often did the witness interact with the plaintiff before the injury?
These two questions go hand in hand. This is establishing a foundation for the evidence. If the witness can testify to the plaintiff enjoying life to the fullest, then it will become a compare and contrast situation; people who knew the plaintiff before the accident vs. people who knew the plaintiff after the accident. These two different witnesses (or possibly the same witness) will likely tell a shockingly different before and after story that will stick with the jury.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 602 and 603, personal knowledge and an oath or affirmation to tell the truth determine the competency of a witness. If the witness fails to have personal knowledge or fails to affirm or take an oath to tell the truth, they will be deemed incompetent to testify. If your jurisdiction does not follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is likely that the same if not similar rules that apply. Make sure the witness has personal knowledge of the substance to support the testimony.
Stories help jurors remember things. The more detail in a story, the more enthralled a juror will be; an enthralled juror will remember facts and details of the story. The side that tells the best story wins the case.
If a witness is going to be easily led or confused, their credibility will be shot with the jury. This makes the testimony a waste of your time, their time, and the courts time. You can minimize this result by prepping the witness thoroughly before calling them to the stand.
You want the witness on your client's side. You want them fighting for your client. If they seem to dislike your client, a jury will know. They may wonder why that witness dislikes your client. What did your client do?
John F. Denvoe, The Advocate Magazine 85, (January 2017).
After you have found these witnesses, and they have passed the questions above to your satisfaction, call them to the stand before the plaintiff. If the jury hears testimony from a number of witnesses before the plaintiff, they are likely to view them as less of a whiner, and feel more sympathetic to their story. Have the plaintiff go last or close to last.
Expect the defense will object that the testimony is cumulative if you plan on using multiple lay witnesses to testify on the issues of general damages. Be ready to provide a concise statement as to how the testimony will not be duplicative.
It is an easy enough explanation. CACI 3905A provides: "[Past] [and] [future] [physical pain / mental suffering / loss of enjoyment of life / disfigurement / physical impairment / inconvenience / grief / anxiety / humiliation / emotional distress / [insert other damages]." Use this as your guide. For example, advise the judge that witness 1 will testify about plaintiff's physical impairment; witness 2 will testify about plaintiffs loss of enjoyment of life; Witness 3 will testify to plaintiff's physical pain; witness 4 will testify about plaintiff's family life; and another will testify about plaintiff's social life. Although a judge will likely delay a pre-trial motion based on evidence being cumulative, they will caution you. As a San Diego, California personal injury attorney or elsewhere, put your best lay witnesses on first, rather than at the end when the judge may rule the testimony cumulative.
Another useful way to sell your general damages to a jury is through the use of exhibits. There are a variety of demonstrative exhibits that can be used to show damages. Photos, videos, letters, anniversary cards, time-lines, animations, medical illustrations and medical records assist a jury in determining the extent or value of a plaintiff's general damages. However, again, it is likely that the defense will object based on the cumulative evidence.
When you use photographs, some photographs of the plaintiff's injuries will be useful to show, especially if the photo is helpful in forming an expert's opinion about the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries. Also, pre-injury photographs effectively compare life of the plaintiff before and after the accident. A defendant will object that the photographs are cumulative, but a quick response to this objection is that it would take the witness much longer to describe the testimony in detail than to make a brief statement describing a photograph. This is a policy argument that saves the courts time and money. Another tactic is similar to having different witnesses talk about different subjects as discussed above. With pictures, have 3 different witnesses discuss 3 pictures rather than one witness discussing 9 pictures.
For example, have one witness discuss the plaintiff's love of skiing and only use skiing photographs with that witness. Use another witness to speak about the plaintiff's activities with their family by showing photographs of these activities. Use another witness to speak about the plaintiff's hobby of building furniture and only use photographs authenticating the furniture the plaintiff has built.
Pictures are powerful. Find them at the beginning of the case.
As a personal injury attorney in San Diego, California, or a small town in Pennsylvania, medical records become an essential tool to proving your damages to the jury. Many attorneys read only the physical records and only the records that are typed. Why? Well, attorneys are busy people and finding the gems that lie in the minute takes time.
Look for nursing notes and therapy notes that contain comments about how the plaintiff felt or what the plaintiff's concerns were about the future. Look for pain drawings that the plaintiff filled out, such as a circle where the plaintiff's pain was located. A referral from a physician for an MRI or EMG will likely contain a reason for the exam; "chronic back pain," "burning in the back of the neck." Bringing these notes to the attention of a jury is more effective than having your client verbally describe the pain when the records were prepared years earlier.
General damages require evidence. What evidence you decide to use is determined by the evidence you have obtained. Find as much evidence as possible because selling your damages to the jury will become much easier when you can choose only the best evidence to prove your point.
For more examples on Exhibits and Testimony see: John F. Denvoe, The Advocate Magazine 85, (January 2017).


You can lock your windows and your doors, but you cannot lock your mind from The Hunter Inside.
Paul Wayans and Bill Arnold have something in common. They are being stalked by a vicious killer. Sandy Myers, rushing from home with her 7 year-old twins in tow, grabs a letter from the mailbox. It is addressed to Sandy Carson. Her maiden name. Contained within the plain manila envelope is a photograph. A photograph of a corpse.
The past has caught up with them, and now their lives are in jeopardy. A monster more fearsome than any the world has ever seen is hunting them, bringing with it echoes from the past and threatening the future of civilization.
Should they run, or should they stand and fight?
FBI Special Agent Sam O'Neill will fight desperately to solve a case he could not solve ten years before. Then, he had no clues as to the identity of the vicious killer. This time, things are different. But can he find them before it's too late? And if he does not, will ANYONE survive?
The Hunter Inside is a psychological thriller with a twist. It is a page-turning roller-coaster of a novel that you won't be able to put down until all of its secrets, twists and turns have been revealed. Packed full of gruesome murders, fear and suspense, it harbors a monster so fearsome it will give you nightmares.
Shimasou is here – and no-one is safe.
There's something going on in the skies over Camberway.
First come the noises, huge booming sounds that shake the ground below.
Giant UFOs have arrived, and things are getting stranger all the time.
Welcome to Camberway. Welcome to their nightmare.
Five years before, a madman was incarcerated for murdering his twin daughters, and a young boy drowned in a long-abandoned well. Camberway has never been the same since.
Now, that madman is on the loose, and another child is in danger.
Meet ten-year-old Tucker Turner and his black Labrador, Samuel.
Join Sheriff Jim Hoolihan and his deputy, Peter Barnes.
Can they save the residents of Camberway from the invading ships?
Can they figure out why the aliens are here?
In all of the chaos, through all the madness and destruction, can anyone survive…the ARRIVAL?
Sheriff Jim Hoolihan, Deputy Peter Barnes, Barrett Holroyd, ten-year-old Tucker Turner, his black Labrador Samuel, Marilyn 'Mirlo' Thoms, Deke 'the Geek' Sinclair, Earl Buckley and Daniel Warren.
Join them as they flee the invading spacecraft across a deserted, destroyed California, in search of civilization, in search of answers.
Did the aliens spare them for a reason? Is anywhere safe from the terrifying creatures?
Who is the entity that stalks them, and what does he want?
What is the shocking secret one of their group guards?
Can they stay alive, and sane?
Can all of them survive…the JOURNEY?
Killers and cowards, heroes and villains. Love and terror, triumph and tragedy.
Can you handle the twist?
After the devastating finale of JOURNEY, the survivors meet a man who will lead them to their final destination.
As they fight to stay in control of their lives and their emotions, they find themselves involved in a race against time.
Will they make it to the top-secret government base before time runs out?
Or will their precious cargo, the alien artifact, be destroyed?
Ten-year-old Tucker knows everything about the aliens, but one of their group could their mission before he has the chance to reveal the Falisiika's secrets.
Is the challenge facing them too large for mankind to survive?
When the From the Sky trilogy reaches its explosive conclusion, will your mind be able to handle the final revelation?
A prison two miles underground. A brutal gang, a suicidal man, and a fifteen-year-old boy.
Or, as allegiances change, as men despair and cracks appear, will it be too late for that fifteen-year-old boy?
Join Gabe and Bodge, Leader and his Gang, and the subhumans of the SUIC, for an epic adventure that asks what is important in life? How is happiness defined? And…can you survive long enough to get it?


The Men's Ministry at First Baptist Orlando seeks to challenge men to follow Jesus and lead others to do the same. Our Men's Small Groups create a place to surround ourselves with like-minded men – other guys who also want to follow Jesus and rise to the challenge. These groups at First Orlando are communities of men that meet regularly all over the city on various mornings of the week, usually done in time to get to work. Joining a group is an excellent opportunity to connect with other guys who may live or work near to you!
Periodically, we also have men-focused gatherings, such as Men's Retreat, Better Man Event, Authentic Manhood classes, all with the intention of challenging men to follow Jesus and lead others to do the same.
If you are wondering where to start, or want to sign up for the Men's Ministry Newsletter, complete the short form below.
The HUDDLE is a monthly gathering of First Orlando Men determined to pattern more and more of their life after Jesus. Huddling shoulder to shoulder with like-minded Brothers around God's Word is a winning game-plan!


Big Bear WorldMark is sky-high off the ground, lodged on the mountainside 7,000 feet above. At this altitude, visitors recharge and get to clear the mind and clear the air – and simply relax.
Cookouts and Warmth – there's a barbeque on deck, and also a cozy fireplace when the cool temperatures hit. Since it's located on higher grounds, there's no air conditioning in units. You'll feel cool air naturally at this height.
Cable TV – and other small electronics for entertainment including DVD, CD, stereo and more are in all rooms.
Living Rooms – feature murphy beds in most, to accommodate up to four guests at a time.
Keep It Clean and Fresh – with a washer and dryer, iron and ironing board, with laundry soap provided complimentary to guests. Each room is fully stocked with towels and soaps to make your stay as comfortable and luxurious as possible. No need to take a trip to buy the essentials.
Hot Tubs and Pools – are available, and open during warmer seasons.
Keep Active – on tennis and sports courts, or the fitness center. Arcade games, ping pong and air hockey are on site, so is a horseshoe pit that compliments the Western lifestyle.
Big Bear Historical Museum – is home to a former mining operation with copious artifacts. Call ahead to see what days this historical museum is open to the public. The Big Bear Discovery Center is also an educational journey that focuses on the world and characteristics of bald eagles. The Big Bear Discovery Center also features numerous trails to take a nature walk. Other outdoor adventures include paddle boarding, hiking and miniature golf.
Water Fun – for the whole family is featured at the Alpine Slide – which is open all seasons, as transformation of weather appropriate activities takes place. Some chops include alpine slides, or go kart racing.
Bear Mountain Ski Resort – take a trip to the rugged terrain and find slopes that range in size from beginner to pro.
Big Bear Alpine Zoo – see orphaned animals recuperate and play.
Farmer's Market – take a stroll to Big Bear Convention Center to pick up fruits, vegetables, juices and crafts on select days during the spring and summer.
Fairs and Festivals – including the Pirate Fair in June, Jazz Festivals in July, car shows and trout fishing classics at other months during the year. Call the front desk to learn more.
In the summer months, there's a lot to do that's free of charge, including stargazing, for those who are intrigued. Away from the hustle and bustle of city life, stars abound without city lights.
This resort is located 63 miles from Ontario, and 92 miles from Palm Springs airports.
Live it up at Big Bear, and when you're through, check out some of our neighboring properties in California – the City of Angels.
Take your lofty dreams of vacationing seriously, without breaking the bank by calling 360-876-4777 to discover steep discounts for Big Bear Lake WorldMark.


JinFuLai Plastic Packaging Factory is a comprehensive professional packaging materials enterprise. We have a number of professional technicians and advanced technologies and equipments. We also have adopted integral management system. Our priority has been given to maintain and improve the quality, service and environmental protection in the fierce competitive world. We have five types of production lines; professionally produce Stretch film, Adhesive Tapes, PE bags, Air bubble film, EPE Foam.
The staff of our company scrupulously abide by Integrity Supreme, Quality First; Customer Supreme, Service First, with professional production and management system. We have quite a high share in regional market, and gained good reputation in the vast majority of our customers. Business is booming.
All kinds of cooperation are welcome. Hope we will have chance to cooperate and seek common development.


text:
Magazine Last Word Don't argue with a balance sheet, just face reality
Don't argue with a balance sheet, just face reality
Written by Robert McCaffrey Editorial Director, Global Cement Magazine
I can tell you the three most fundamental things you need to know about business in less than 30 seconds. They are hard-won and expensive lessons, but any business that does not apply them will soon be bust. They are as follows:
Make things that people want to buy;
Bring in more money than you spend;
Have money to spend when you need it.
Okay, there are some details that I have left out, but these are the basics. You have to provide something that people are willing to pay you for. It has to cost you less than people are prepared to pay for it, to give you a profit margin. It's no good having US$1m coming to you next week if you need it today. As they say, 'Revenue is vanity, profit is sanity, cash-flow is reality.'
A loss will be a loss, and a profit a profit. Billy Connolly, a seemingly down-to-earth Scottish comedian, after relating a story about swimming off his yacht, said "You can't hide the profits forever." In the same way, you can't hide the losses forever either. No business can afford to make an ongoing loss, since its owners or shareholders will eventually run out of patience, money or both. All real businesses are run for the benefit of their shareholders and if there is no benefit being derived and none in prospect, then the shares and the company are worthless. If the company makes an ongoing loss, then it is worse than worthless: you may as well just throw your money onto a bonfire. In such a case, the only sensible thing is to close the business. We've seen that in the case of several cement companies recently, where a loss-making factory is simply closed. I think that we will see more of this happening in the future, as CO2 permit costs rise and overcapacity bites.
A loss is a loss and a profit a profit, unless you enter the crazy world of the state-backed company. These cement companies, which include those backed by agencies of the state (such as the military, as in Egypt and Iran), those actually owned by the state (either built by the state or expropriated, as in Venezuela and Cuba) or explicitly or implicitly backed by government (such as various of the Chinese cement companies) are perfectly able to withstand ongoing losses, since they are backed by a shareholder with theoretically bottomless pockets: if they need more money, they just put taxes up. If you don't pay your taxes, you may end up in jail, so it's generally a reliable source of funds for the state.
A cement company can theoretically stumble on, neither making profits or losses, or making a small profit one year and then having it gobbled up the next (usually by 'increasing fuel and transportation costs' or 'increased taxes and tariffs' - we've seen all the excuses), for many years. These 'zombie' companies would have defaulted in a normal economic cycle but continue to function due to today's ultra-low interest rate environment. They are able to pay the interest on their debts, but they are unable to pay off the principal. To close them would be to crystallise their losses: the lenders (the banks) would lose the value of the loans (and us taxpayers might end up having to bail them out - again). The banks will have done their due-diligence: they should know that lending money to help build a cement factory that contributes to oversupply will depress prices so that the profit margin for all players in the market reduces or turns negative. However, there are such juicy fees for arranging loans and there are the reliable interest payments on the loans for decades to come: who could resist?
The other thing about zombie companies is that they do have an economic role: they provide jobs for the workers at the cement plant, and for the various contractors that a cement plant relies upon. Each Dollar or Euro paid to the workers is spent on further goods, spreading out in a valuable multiplier effect. That's one of the reasons why money spent on building concrete-based infrastructure has a general positive effect on the wider economy. (It does at the moment - but with increased automation and reduction in manpower in the cement and concrete industries, there will be less and less of the multiplier effect in the coming years). There's also the potential loss of face in closing a factory: only the most steely-eyed government minister will countenance closing a marginally-profitable zombie company.
The decision to cease production of the magnificent A380 aeroplane, after having large amounts of money pumped into the project by various governments, is a case in point. A lot of 'face' and thousands of jobs will be lost when Airbus stops making the plane in 2021. The plane has never made a profit and now it never will. I remember a few years ago boarding an A380 for a flight to the Middle East and being surprised, 20 minutes later, looking up from my newspaper, to find that we were already airborne. Now it will be consigned to the Apollo-Concorde era of 'how did we ever afford that'? However, you can't hide the losses forever.
For the A380 and some cement plants, when the merry-go-round ceases to turn, it's time to get off.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Will the shy Tories lead them to a Likud-like victory?
March 24, 2015 by Paul Goldsmith
A few weeks ago I wrote about the concept of the "shy Tory". These are the members of the electorate who tend not to tell pollsters they intend to vote Conservative, along with anyone else that asks, but end up voting Conservative when it comes to Election Day. The reason they are shy is because they recognise that part of our political culture in this country is to be embarrassed to say you are voting Conservative, yet people still ISO it. It is a bit like the "shy Unionists" who were concerned about telling pollsters in Scotland they were intending to vote "No" but then went and did so, although in their case the almost violent reaction by Nationalists to anyone saying they might vote 'No' is a pretty good bet for a reason top. These people are the bane of our pollsters lives. Shivers must have gone down many a pollster's spine last week as the election result from Israel came through. Hopefully, they will learn from it that they really do have to build in a an allowance for 'Shy Tories'.
Bibi Netanyahu's victory was not reliably predicted by anyone. The last poll published, on the Friday before the election, had his Likud party winning 22 seats. The image above, averaging out polls, had them at 23 seats. This was fewer than the Zionist Union, his main opposition. In between that last poll and Election Day, Netanyahu did go on the offensive. He warned of Arab Israelis being bussed to the polls, said he wouldn't remove any settlements and said the Palestinian state wouldn't happen under him. But in the aftermath many voting behaviour experts have also pointed out that what Netanyahu provided was the conservative choice. He was the self-styled "Bibi-sitter" for the nation, as shown in the advert during the campaign where a couple are going out and he turns up at their doorstep as their babysitter, leading to the question being asked about who Israeli's would trust most to keep their children safe. That Likud ended up winning 30 seats and will almost certainly form the next government is proof that the answer was Netanyahu. But that still doesn't mean Israelis intending to vote for him were proud to say so.
In this country, it has become increasingly difficult to say the same about the Conservatives, for a variety of reasons. Yet people do keep voting for them, and their campaign does rest on the central conservative principle that the economy in particular in set on a good course and we shouldn't risk changing it now. The trouble is that it has been shown time and again that they may not tell pollsters of their intentions. This is why bookmakers as well as political commentators are starting to edge more firmly towards a Tory victory – and possibly a Tory majority.
The Israeli election shows just what could happen. Stephen Fisher, associate professor in political sociology at Oxford University, commented: "The discrepancy in the Likud figures with the pre-election polls just five days out from the election is equivalent to 43 seats in the House of Commons. This is more than the difference between the current central forecast of a seriously hung parliament and a Tory majority in one direction and almost a Labour majority in the other."
Given few people will shy away from saying they are voting Labour, it is likely that the difference will be in favour of the Tories. Just don't believe everything the polls say.
Category: Politics	| Tags: CONSERVATIVES, GE2015, israeli elections, Likud, SHY TORIES, VOTING BEHAVIOUR
Cameron turns the election campaign into a leadership campaign. Why? »
« An explanation of the election debate fudge…sorry, compromise, reached


Fancy Media's 5 Web Development Phases – make web design efficient, effective, and exciting!
Define – We will guide you through this strategic planning process by providing answers to your specific Internet questions and ensuring that you understand the overall web design process.
Create – Developing your site structure takes into account all design elements to ensure that content, layout and navigation come together into one coherent website.
Design – You will be involved throughout the design process, as you provide feedback and confirm that your design specification is set in motion the way that you envisioned.
Integrate – Our Web Development Team focuses on backend development and testing to ensure that your site is free of errors.
Accelerate – Your website goes live! Now what? We provide launch assistance and site maintenance to maximize the benefits of your new website.


Tong Seng's palm oil commitments.
SASPO is proud to announce that Tong Seng is now an RSPO-member and has published their palm oil commitments. They are committed to selling 100% segregated certified sustainable palm oil to their customers by 2025.
Previous: Previous post: Nestlé's RSPO membership reinstated.
Next: Next post: Ngo Chew Hong is SASPO's newest Green Member. Welcome!