The Distortions of a Silver-Tongued Svengali

Cam Brown is being prosecuted by Deputy DA Craig Hum for allegedly "murdering" his daughter, Lauren Key, when she accidentally fell to her death on November 8, 2000. Lauren fell from Inspiration Point, a sea cliff located in Abalone Cove Shoreline Park, a municipal park belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. (Abalone Cove Shoreline Park has recently been incorporated into the new Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve.)

Cam Brown was arrested on November 16, 2003 and has been in prison without bail for nearly three years. He was indicted on July, 19, 2004 (after 8 months of incarceration) and his case went to trial on May 30, 2006. The trial ended in a mistrial and Cam continues to be incarcerated without bail. His imprisonment has functioned as a means to reduce his opportunity and ability to defend himself.

Prosecutor Hum portrayed Cam as a "nasty, vindictive and spiteful" man. However, those who personally know Cam maintain that he is a kind and gentle man with a generous spirit. They describe him as someone who is always thinking about other people's needs. If he has a conversation with a neighbor and the neighbor tells him about a problem, Cam will go out of his way to look for a solution to the neighbor's problem. If a neighbor tells him of a need, Cam will pick up what the neighbor needs and surprise him with it. Cam is always thinking of other people.

Those who know Cam say he puts other people first. He goes out of his way to help others, without thinking of himself or asking for anything in return. He will not, for instance, drive past someone whose car is broken down. It doesn't matter if he has just worked a double shift and is tired, or if he is on his way to an event he enjoys. If someone is broken down Cam will stop and help them. And, he will not leave until they are taken care of. He’s been known to tow people himself. He has sat with the distressed motorist waiting for a friend or family member to show up. He has put his own car at risk when pushing a stranger's broken down car out of traffic. At times like this Cam doesn't think about his own safety. If it's late at night he doesn't think the distressed people may be dangerous. He stops and helps them. We’re told he met his wife when her car was broken down and he stopped to help her.

They talk of instances where Cam has been witnessed risking his own life to help a stranger in trouble without giving any thought his own safety. One example of such action is the following. While Cam was driving on PCH, he saw a stranger who was caught in a rip tide. Cam pulled his car off the road, ran down to the beach, jumped into the ocean and pulled the stranger out of the rip tide. He didn't give any thought to his own safety. He saw someone in trouble and sprang into action. This is who Cam is and what he does.

Mr. Hum contends Cam killed Lauren to avoid paying $1,000 a month in child support. However, the people who know him say Cam doesn't care about money. They describe him as a very loving and giving man who puts people above money. His parents say when he was young he never asked for money as his three brothers did. They say their three other sons each asked for and received a car. Cam is the only one of their sons who never asked them for a car. Even while in jail Cam tries to be helpful to those around him, to the degree that he is allowed. Cam had collected a small library to share with the other inmates. When a new inmate came in Cam always made sure he had a couple of books to enjoy. But when the deputies caught wind of that they took his books away from him.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos said that the prosecution's case was based on "character assassination," emotion and misrepresentation rather than evidence. The theme of the prosecution's case was "slam Cam," Mr. Geragos said. He said Mr. Hum attempted to "dehumanize" and "demonize" Cam Brown. This was all part of the prosecution's strategy to convince the jury to hate Cam so it would be easy for them to do what the prosecution wanted them to do.

It does appear the prosecution's case was designed to elicit emotion. And it seems the prosecutor went out of his way to seat a jury whose heart strings he could pull. At the start of jury selection prosecutor Craig Hum announced that he was bringing in the famed jury consultant, Howard Varinsky to help with jury selection. (See: Howard Varinsky ). He asked Judge Arnold to issue a court order requiring that no one reveal the prosecution had hired Mr. Varinsky for Cam Brown's trial. Judge Arnold did not so order, but he did admonish the attorneys not to tell jury members of Mr. Varinsky’s involvement.

Mr. Hum's performance in the Cam Brown case proved him to be a master of misleading statements. Throughout the entire trial Mr. Hum demonstrated how to present facts in a misleading manner. In the August 5, 2006 edition of the LA Times he is quoted saying, "Brown had only 14 visits with her" (Lauren). That contention has been repeatedly attributed to Mr. Hum in the coverage of this case. It was questioned online. "I learned that the record shows that Cameron obtained 'weekly visitation' in Sept or Oct of 1999. He missed all of two visits (one to get married in Hawaii and one for a doctor’s visit). He saw his child once a week for a little over a year. That is more than 14 visits! Why did Hum say that it was only 14," a poster questioned. A defender of Mr. Hum quickly sprung up and responded, "Hum never said [Cam Brown] only had 14 visits with Lauren. His visits were a total of 14 days of her 4 years. That was adding up all the hours and overnight visits he had with her." "Very interesting how facts can be presented in a misleading way," a third voice chimed in.

This is indicative of the pervasive way the "facts" for this case were generated and handled. Let's critically examine examples (a few of the plethora) of Mr. Hum's "facts" and what testimony at trial revealed. The instances we have chosen to explore are Mr. Hum’s cliff-top "shoe prints" and Mr. Hum's assertion that Cam tried to persuade Sarah Key-Marer, Lauren's mother, to have an abortion. (Note: We have chosen these two examples because they were already examined at trial. This method can be applied to a great many of Mr. Hum's "facts" and the same results will occur. For instance, Mr. Hum's contention that Cam only saw his child to reduce his child support payments can be debunked in this way.)

Throughout the prosecution's case Mr. Hum referred to "cliff-top shoe prints." He based that assertion on the opinion of Deputy Falicon. Deputy Falicon testified that he had been assigned to go to the top of Inspiration Point on Nov 10, 2000. He was to document any type of shoe prints or other marks found near the edge of the cliff by photography and plaster casts and to bring them back to the laboratory for analysis. He testified that his job was to document the scene. The job to determine what the marks and impressions were belonged to others who had the expertise to make those determinations. He further testified that he found impressions in the ground which in his opinion, he thought were adult shoe prints.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos objected because the official crime lab analysis had determined the impressions were NOT shoe prints. Mr. Hum ignored the results of the crime lab analysis and deferred to the opinion of the scene photographer. It was not the job of the scene photographer to determine if these were shoe prints. Mr. Hum never called the officer whose job it was to analyze the photographs and plaster casts and determine if they were in fact shoe prints. Judge Arnold agreed with Mr. Hum and throughout the prosecution’s case the impressions were permitted to be referred to as shoe prints.

Mr. Geragos called officer Schliebe - the officer from the crime lab - the one who had the expertise to determine if the impression were shoe prints - to testify. He testified that he had analyzed the photographs and had determined (for very specific technical reasons) that the impressions were NOT shoe prints. He testified that he did not analyze the plaster cast because he had not been asked to analyze them. He told the court that the plaster casts had been lost while being held in evidence. Mr. Geragos asked him if he had been available to testify during the prosecution’s case. He said he had, but Mr. Hum had not called him to testify. "Maybe they forgot," Mr. Geragos mused.

However, what is especially indicative of Mr. Hum's propensity to mislead whoever he is speaking to is this: even after officer Schliebe testified that he had determined that the impressions were NOT shoe prints MR. HUM CONTINUED TO REFER TO THE IMPRESSIONS AS SHOE PRINTS WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE JURY!

A myth has been generated by the prosecution that "Cam tried to persuade Sarah to have an abortion." This falsehood has been borne out of the following. In January 1996 Cam went to see a counselor for guidance regarding Sarah's pregnancy. (Before we go any further, we want to say this. We understand that Sarah has suffered a horrific tragedy, one that no parent should have to endure. We feel for Sarah and do not wish to say anything that will add to her suffering. We apologize for revealing any personal details and would prefer to avoid it. However we need to tell the whole story.) Cam sought the guidance of a counselor, in part because he had legitimate reason to believe the child was not his.

Sarah testified that when she first told Cam about her pregnancy he was a little shocked but he seemed okay with it. However, shortly thereafter his attitude changed. The official court record states the following:

Within weeks of learning Key was pregnant, however, Brown drove over to Key's apartment and parked his car. As he approached the apartment building, he saw a man and woman kissing passionately in a car outside the apartment building. Brown looked into the car and saw Key was the woman. Brown left without incident.

Perhaps Cam's attitude towards Sarah's pregnancy changed. But what everybody is neglecting to say is there were reasons for the change. After seeing his girlfriend in the passionate embrace of another man, Cam doubted that he was the father of Sarah's child.

This was the situation that Cam found himself in when he sought the guidance of a counselor. Mr. Hum called the counselor as a prosecution witness. She testified that she did indeed meet with Cam and Sarah, and the topic of abortion was discussed. Under cross-examination we learned the following. Cam first went to see the counselor by himself. They discussed life paths and commitments. It was decided that Cam would return with his girlfriend. Cam and Sarah subsequently met with the counselor together. They discussed life paths, commitments, options -- including abortion, and paternity testing. It was concluded that they would make a follow-up appointment, and continue working with the counselor, but that never happened.

Abortion was one of the options discussed at the counseling session but it was certainly not the only issue discussed. Yet from this Mr. Hum created the falsehood that Cam tried to force Sarah to have an abortion. And from that he created an entire mythology about Cam, alleging Cam never wanted Lauren. During the two-month trial, Mr. Hum strove to paint Cam as a coldhearted man who never wanted a child. "From the very beginning, ladies and gentleman, the defendant didn't want Lauren and he tried to do whatever he could to get rid of her," Hum told the jury. Those who know Cam personally know that is absolutely false.

The reality is Cam loved his daughter very much. From the first moment he met her he was a changed man. The first time Cam met Lauren he was on cloud 9 afterwards. The second time he met Lauren, Sarah gave him pictures of her. That evening Cam spread them on the table and stared at them all goo-goo eyed for over an hour. He talked about his weekly visit with her all week long. He talked about what activities they would do during the following week's visit. His visits with Lauren were the highlight of his week.

Cam worked very hard to spend as much time with Lauren as he was permitted. He loved spending time with her. It didn't matter what they did, so long as they were together. Her favorite game was playing "tea." Cam bought her a tea set and would sit with her on a child size table and play "tea" with her regularly. They would walk to De Portola Park where Lauren loved to play on the monkey bars and swings. They would color together. They played "hide and go seek." Cam would pretend like he couldn't find her. They played tag. Lauren out of the blue would often tap Cam and proclaim "you're it." He would scoop her up and tickle her and she would laugh and giggle. He would carry her on his shoulders.

He was very proud of Lauren and very proud to be her father. He loved taking her to meet his friends. It was as if he was showing her off. He talked about how smart she was, and how when she was old enough he would teach her different things. He was teaching her to swim and talked about when he could teach her to surf. He showered her with gifts and enjoyed her company. His mother testified at trial, "He wanted to see her all the time just like I did. When they were together they were very affectionate. He hugged her a lot and held her hand…They were just good buddies."

This is who Cam Brown was in relationship to his daughter. Who is Craig Hum in relationship to the youth that cross his path? Below is a story from the April 26, 2000 edition of the LA Weekly News about another Craig Hum case. The story describes how Craig Hum locked up a 14-year old boy for 8 months for a crime the boy did not commit; a crime for which the boy had a solid alibi -- and Craig Hum knew it. So why did Craig Hum lock up the boy? Because he could? He got some perverse jollies out of the act? Only Craig Hum knows. But what this article appears to be telling us is Craig Hum has no compunction locking up an innocent 14-year old boy. This is who it appears Craig Hum is in the matter of our youth.

LA Weekly News
Wednesday, April 26, 2000

HOMIES UNIDOS TRIUMPH

Jose Rodriguez almost missed his court date Wednesday morning, April 19, but it probably wouldn’t have mattered. His case was closed before he got there.
Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum told a Superior Court judge that the prosecution was “unable to proceed” with murder charges against Rodriguez, who spent eight months in juvenile hall as a suspect.

Rodriguez attorney Jorge Gonzalez said his client, a lanky and taciturn 15-year-old, arrived late because he resented having to come at all. He’d protested his innocence from the beginning, Gonzalez said, and had an ironclad alibi to boot.
Rodriguez, then 14, was arrested by LAPD Rampart CRASH last August 12 and charged with a gang-related homicide. He was released from custody last month after the survivor of the double shooting failed to identify him in a live lineup.
Rodriguez and his attorney contend that the arrest was actually a frame-up, part of an escalating campaign by Rampart officers against Homies Unidos, a gang-peace project operated out of a Wilshire Boulevard church. In fact, Rodriguez told police investigators the night he was arrested that he’d been inside a Homies theater workshop when the shooting took place.

Deputy D.A. Hum said Wednesday that it was the testimony of the people at that meeting — particularly the statements of Thom Vernon and Rana Haugen, instructors at the Homies workshop — that persuaded him to drop the case against Rodriguez. “With these alibi witnesses there’s no real room for error. Either he didn’t do it or they’re lying, and they [Vernon and Haugen] don’t have a real strong motive for lying.”

It seems like a reasonable conclusion — one that the cops might have reached last August, when Vernon, four days after Rodriguez’s arrest, told the investigating officers that he could vouch for the 15-year-old. Four days after that, by sheer coincidence, Vernon encountered the investigating officer on the case at a party and repeated that Rodriguez was at the Homies workshop when the shooting took place. Both Vernon and Haugen, along with a third witness, Kim Gee, also submitted sworn declarations to that effect to attorney Gonzalez, who submitted them to the District Attorney’s Office.

Prosecutor Hum said last week that the charges were not dropped at that time because detectives were unable to get Vernon and Haugen to agree to an interview. “We’d been trying to get in touch for several months, but they were advised not to cooperate,” Hum said.

Attorney Gonzalez said that account, like the charges against Rodriguez, is bunk. “The entire gist of the case, from the moment I got it, was to try to get them to look at this as a case where the guy was innocent.”

—Charles Rappleye

Found at: LA Weekly