Monday, August 14, 2006

Mistrial

Judge Arnold has declared a mistrial. 2 jurors were not going to change their mind. It was 9-2 1 abstaining on Friday. 9 guilty. They said it wouldn't help to have the attorneys argue.

196 comments:

loretta said...

Very contentious jurors 10-2, the two hold-out jurors were not going to change their minds.

This is really unfortunate for the victim's family. I wonder if there was any way to bounce either of the hold-outs during deliberations. That's why they have alternates.

On KFI right now there is a commentator discussing that there was "virtually no evidence" - but he's a defense attorney, so go figger.

Ronni said...

Why can they replace recalcitrant jurors in some trials and not in others?

I am depressed by this. I can imagine how it is for Sarah!

So, what happens now?

CountryGirl said...

Yeah, he ticked me off by saying the DA tried it on emotion because the jury cried during the trial. HELLO! Every MURDER trial has a VICTIM and this victim was a CHILD. Not everyone lacks emotion (except the killer).

CountryGirl said...

Eric/Erik Chase defense attorney.

rhonda j. said...

I am just sick by this. Sarah is going through so much right now and she deperately wanted this to be over.
Please continue to keep her in your prayers. She's a strong woman but she's oh so tired.

CountryGirl said...

Rhonda, I am just SICK! I will continue praying for Sarah.

AmyJo said...

I really hope the DA retries this case.

Especially with 10-2 guilty.

I wonder if they can afford Geragos for another go-round.

tamiann said...

I am VERY upset that the jury could not pull it together for a verdict in this case. How terrible for Sarah and her family.

Sometimes justice seems so elusive.

I am hoping that there will be a trial with same charges (murder 1st, 2nd and manslaughter) and not a plea deal.

I disagree with the defense attorney talking on KFI that this case had virtually no evidence. From what I have understood to be presented by the DA's office during this trial, there IS evidence. What I have found, however, is there was NO DEFENSE.

Hopefully this case be tried during this year. My thoughts go out to Sarah, family & friends.

Thanks again for keeping us all abreast on this case.

loretta said...

I doubt it, but you never know. He's probably cheaper to keep than to start over with a public defender. I'm sure Brown would qualify for a PD, though.

I can't see another lawyer doing a worse job. GerEgo might consider this a victory, but it's really not. The odds are extremely good for a conviction the second go-round.

Koklich had two trials and the second trial was a swift verdict for guilty. There wasn't even a body in that case.

I am confident that there will be a proper verdict in the next trial. I hope they can try it in October as they planned. I can see a lot of potential delays.

loretta said...

According to Charlie listening to KFI:

2 jurors were voting for manslaughter, 2 for 1st degree, and 8 for 2nd degree.

Pretrial conference Sept. 27th.

Trial date set for Oct.

Even if they agreed on Second Degree, that's still a 20-to-life sentence. That's good enough for me.

CountryGirl said...

So NOBODY voted Not Guilty.

CountryGirl said...

Mark Geragos staying on the case.

loretta said...

I'm going to look on the bright side and say that this gave the People a good idea of how to try the second time. They will pull out all the stops for sure.

GerEgo can't invent exculpatory evidence, and he sure as heck won't promise a "Don't Die Guy" and not produce him.

I predict the People will be really prepared.

AmyJo said...

Interesting that nobody voted NG.

So, where's Ted?

Ted? This turkey went to trial.

A jury found Cam guilty - they couldn't agree on the DEGREE of guilt - but they certainly found him guilty.

So, are you now convinced of his guilt, then?

It's ok to admit you were wrong - in fact, it shows a sign of a strong character to do so.

Poor Sarah. :( Now she's going to have to relive this all. Again.

CountryGirl said...

Now that there has been a mistrial and a new trial in October, I am praying that people who have been following this case and have information will come forward and contact Craig Hum.

Until Craig knows that information, there is no way to know if it will be of value in the next trial or not. Please contact him. Let him decide.


KFI just played an audio clip:

Patty Brown said, "Cam loved his daughter very much, he's innocent".

Geragos wasn't surprised about a mistrial.

CountryGirl said...

Jurors stayed and spoke with Craig Hum. They just left. Geragos had already left. SF doesn't know if that was his choice or if jurors didn't want to talk with him.

loretta said...

Maybe Denise Nix will be back for the second trial. That would be great.

According to SF (I am listening live), Patty told the press that Brown woke up having nightmares, crying, "Don't fall!"

Yeah, riiight. What a phony (Brown, that is.)

This is not a victory for the Browns by a long shot.

CountryGirl said...

LA Times

loretta said...

Btw, This would not be the first murder case to require two (or three) trials. It happens more often than you think.

Juries are unpredictable. (Especially in Collyforny.) Hey, they have more people on death row than anywhere else in the country, IIRC, and they hardly ever execute any.

Randy Kraft has been on death row for what, 15, 18 years, and he's now Scott Peterson's new best friend, according to the National Enquirer. (LOL!)

CountryGirl said...

From the LA Times article:

Two jurors voted to convict Brown of first degree murder, eight voted for second degree murder and two for manslaughter.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos said he had hoped a new trial would be unnecessary. Nonetheless, Geragos said the divided verdict showed how far away the jury was from believing that Brown intentionally murdered Lauren.

(snip)

"It was a clear repudiation of the prosecution's theory that this was an intentional act," Geragos said. "We're gratified by that and we're hoping that cooler heads prevail next time."

When he told Brown the news, Geragos said, Brown was philosophical.

"Well, he obviously wanted to be acquitted, but he understands this is a large step towards getting him home."

loretta said...

Brown/GerEgo theme song:

We're living in the land of Make-Believe
And trying not to let it show....


(moody blues)

Barbara said...

He is a magnificient spin doctor, isn't he. He can call himself "Spin Geragos, MD"

CountryGirl said...

Yeah Barbara, he's had lots of practice.

CountryGirl said...

Hum coming up on KFI.

CountryGirl said...

Craig Hum on KFI right now.

Your reaction? Obviously, I am disappointed the jury wasn't able to reach a verdict. Sometimes this happens but we have an opportunity to retry the case.

Disappointed the jury didn't want to hear more arguments.

KFI: What do you conclude 10-2?

What happened was there were 2 jurors who wouldn't believe a father could do this to his daughter. Won't speculate on who the 2 jurors were.

Hum thinks the evidence was very compelling. Ten jurors agreed it was very compelling. Ten jurors agreeing

KFI: Do you believe in your heart he threw her off that cliff?

Hum: Absolutely in my heart I believe that's what happened.

I don't think bad parenting and bad judgement can account for this behavior. It went well beyond just bad judgement and bad behavior.

Totality of all the factors can't account for all of that.

No evidence he was in love with this little girl. No evidence of this compelling and passionate love the defense talked about in the opening.

Lauren's mother is a strong woman and she will get through this too.

Character assination misses the entire point. There were many other pieces of the case that came together. Biomechanical expert=didn't fall.

Officers on scene=no evidence of any slipping and falling on the edge of the cliff.

KFI: How do you start over?

Hum: We bring the evidence, the witnesses again and we try the case again.

Hopefully the next time we try the case we will be able to get all the jurors to reach a verdict.

(Excuse typos, etc)

Barbara said...

Thanks for the updates CG!

TCB said...

I have to say that I told you so. Hope that you find this case as reason why you should wait for the verdict. You are all lazy thugs with nothing to do. May Cam be free soon

CountryGirl said...

That's funny. 12 people voted GUILTY and you told me so?

Ronni said...

I have two jobs and a hobby in Theater. I do not consider myself to be a lazy person by any stretch of the imagination. Cam Brown, on the other hand, had nothing going for him except that beautiful child, and he was too selfish to support her. When you look on his face, you are looking into the eyes of evil.

Robin said...

The former airport baggage handler knew that his daughter, with whom he had only recently begun spending time, did not know how to swim, Hum said.

Uh, huh, swimming is the last skill one needs if thrown from a cliff!

Mgt said...

This is a major disappointment.

In the UK 10-2 would have been enough to put him away for ever.

Manslaughter?? He threw her off a 120ft cliff, unintentionally?

Morons!

I see there is an idiot ^^up there - I can only guess who 'it' might be.

I really glad that they were all going for a guilty verdict.

My thoughts are with Sarah and her family. Hang tough! Hum will not let him get away with this.

Mgt said...

Jon, please come forward with your evidence!

And, if you know of any other friends of Cameron Brown who could help this case. Please contact them!

For Evil to prevail, good men must do nothing!

Ronni said...

So true, Mgt!

loretta said...

Margaret, you bring up a very interesting issue about our criminal jury system. It's already swamped with morons, wanna-be-detectives, stealth whackos with personal agendas, ignorant mouth-breathers and bored retired people who think it's all a big adventure - but it's also really an anachronism.

12 people have to agree? The Supreme Court doesn't even have to have unanimity! Our democracy is "majority rules" in every aspect except this one. Most 12 folks together couldn't agree how short to cut the lawn or what to eat for lunch.

Another problem is the fact that in the days when the jury system was developed, there were no readily available newspapers, much less mass media on an instant and global scale.

I think there should be professional juries.

jonaskinny said...

I think there should be professional juries

ever seen the WALL? How about the legal system in the Middle East?

I think he should be convicted but even this case should not warrant throwing out the key stone of our judicial system.

Mgt said...

That is a bit dramatic, jonaskinny.

A Jury in Britain needs at least 10 people out of the 12 to convict or acquit! It is a good way to make sure that precious funds are not wasted on nit-picking!

This is just my personal opinion.

jonaskinny said...

I believe I will go with the wisdom of our founding fathers over the British system any day. One day I may be in a court room clinging to my freedom by a single nit.

Again I believe he should be convicted... by a jury of his piers. ‘Professional juries’ are a bit dramatic if you ask me. What’s next... trial by elder?

Mgt said...

We do not have double jeopardy either.

You can try a person again in this country if you find new evidence. I really like that decision too.

We have decided to change our Judicial system in favour of the victim in this Country.

In other words, Justice was lopsided over here, but not anymore!

loretta said...

If I had a week, I'd enlighten you on the justice system in this country, what it's really based on, and how intrinsically corrupt, inept, biased and injust it is.

Suffice it to say, it may be the "best" of a bad set of systems, but it is far from admirable. Speaking of ADMIRAL - much of it is based on maritime law, and virtually all of it is based on property property property.

Wayne Delia said...

In a retrial, does everything have to be re-established from scratch, or can the record of the first trial be entered on the record of the second trial? Will Hayes & the defense witness have to testify again or can their testimony in the first trial stand?

WMD

loretta said...

They do the whole thing from the top.

A oney and a twoey and a three...

From scratch.

Captain Joe said...

It's the wacko CA jury pool.

BFD said...

so does the defendent stay in jail or is he set free? Can they call the same witnesses or do they have to start fresh without anything or anyone from the last trial? A little help for those of us not in the know about Cali Law.

ken said...

I'm actually down with the verdict (or, more precisely, the lack thereof). I wouldn't want a jury to convict anyone unless they were certain and unanimous. It sucks for Cam and Patty (having to pay Geragos for one more go-round), but for a 45-y.o. man, a second degree conviction is just as good as One. Odds are good that the second trial will result in precisely that.

At the risk of saying I told you so, Ted.... :)

Mgt said...

Law of averages: You will eventually get a couple of idiots on a jury.

Makes you wonder what they were doing during the trial. Surely, people with A.D.D. should not be allowed to sit on a Jury. Well, not without taking their Ritalin.

At least they all thought Cam was guilty. Although, two of the jurors thought he threw her over the cliff, unintentionally. What?

Lets face it, anyone with a pulse, knows that precious, little Lauren did not slip.

I hope I haven't caused Sarah or her family any pain by my comments.

loretta said...

To "bfd" and anyone else who wonders:

Will Brown be released on bail or on his own recognizance? Possibly but not likely - IMO

Will the People use the same witnesses they did in the first trial? Yes, and maybe a few more. They will review the transcript and see where they could have brought out other facts, how they could have questioned certain witnesses differently or how the cross would be more effective, etc.

Then they'll call the same group and others (or possibly eliminate some) and do it all over again as if it never happened.

Since this trial and case have gotten very little publicity, it shouldn't be too difficult to seat a new jury of folks who haven't formed an opinion of it.

CountryGirl said...

From the LA Times article on closing arguments:

Then there was the subject of Lauren's adoption.

At one point Key — now Key-Marer — proposed that Brown sever his parental rights and allow her husband to adopt the child, Geragos said. The prosecution had said Brown eagerly agreed to the idea, but Geragos said his client adamantly refused.

"If he didn't care about Lauren, wouldn't this be a godsend?" Geragos asked.

~~~

This is why people should come forward for the next trial so Hum can present witnesses who can say CB told them Lauren was going to be adopted! This lie need to be refuted.

Mgt said...

Come on! There has to be at least two or three people out there who are prepared to fight for Lauren.

If you know something, please do something about it.

Don't let this Evil killer walk free. Please!

tamiann said...

loretta said...

Will Brown be released on bail or on his own recognizance? Possibly but not likely - IMO


Brown cannot be released on bail or his own recognizance. The case filed against him has Special Circumstances allegation. This eliminates the possibility of gaining bail or being released from jail. Now, if the Prosecutor wants to drop the Special Circumstances, then Brown/Geragos could file a motion for bail. However, in this case, I doubt highly the DA will agree to remove the Special Circumstance (financial gain) since that allegation is the very motivation the DA argues as to why CB killed Lauren.

Brown stays put until the case is either dismissed (charges dropped) or a jury acquits him (not going to happen). Hope Patty has an empty credit card cuz hubby is going to need lots of paperback books to ease the lonely hours her hubby is going to spend in a cell.

Scott said...

It should be known that Cam has a good amount of friends who will come to his rescue and pay for his legal bills should all other means fail. Expect that you will also see some new evidence (wait for a few surprises) this time around.

loretta said...

If they had evidence that would exonerate Brown, why did they not use it in the trial?

Makes sense. NOT.

loretta said...

First, Ted claims for two years that there wasn't even going to be a trial. Then he claims there is H-bomb class evidence to exculpate Brown. Then he says we don't know what we are talking about and that it will all come out at the trial.

And now, the one illiterate Brown supporter here claims that there will be evidence to exculpate Brown in the NEXT trial?

Seriously.

Pick a lane.

Ed said...

So what kind of one sided Blog is this? Why can you write things about Cam that are negative, and not even be able to take some facts about the truth? Is Lorreta part of this regime to get Cam? How about making this a blog that people can voice their true opinions without being Poofed???

CountryGirl said...

You will continue to be poofed when you use the CWord. Don't like it, don't visit.

Anonymous said...

CG, Do not want to get Poofed, and will keep language appropiate. Can you not be so biased in your messages though?

WA said...

I agree with the poster above. This has been a good spot for all of us to hear news and opinions. Even though we cannot all agree on the case, we should leave personal slams out of the blogs. Lets here the legal stuff, and opinions of all in a open forum. This case will most likely a open and shut case one side or the other. Lets keep it clean.

loretta said...

When I determine that you are posting "truth" and not merely nonsense, idle threats, insults or idiotic apologetics, I'll let them stand.

I never said it was a democracy. It's an idiot-free zone, and I intend to keep it that way.

WA said...

WOW! Strong words!

Lets see how the trial goes and we will make this an idiot free zone without heavy editing. Let the trial begin!

Ronni said...

Most of us are of the opinion that Cam is guilty. We are not the jury; we do not have to presume he is innocent. If you have some information that supports your contention that he is innocent, cough it up. We will happily listen and evaluate.

I, for one, would sleep better at night if I thought Cam was innocent. The picture in my mind of him picking her up and throwing her over the edge is not conducive to sweet dreaming.

I have seen and heard NOTHING that convinces me he is innocent. The pictures from the party? What party? There were Cam and Lauren and the person taking the pictures. No other kids. Just a cake and a few presents.

Nobody denied that he picked her up from school on a motorcycle with no helmet. His mother said that he continually endangered her. No wonder he didn't want Lauren to be with his mother! He didn't want his mother looking out for her, or, indeed, establishing a relationship with her.

This man is poison.

& said...

Thank you Ed, Wa, and Anonymous for your quest to bring some balance to this blog.

Ronni said...

This blog needs balance? By whose standards?

CountryGirl said...

Balance?

It's no secret that both Loretta and I (and a majority of others) believe that Cameron Brown is guilty. I won't pretend otherwise.

Is there a pro CB Blog out there anywhere?

Ronni said...

If you want to bring balance, tell us the good stuff about Cam Brown. Tell us how he looked out for Sarah because she was the mother of his precious daughter. Tell us about his efforts to ensure Lauren's safety on the boat, at his mother's apartment, oranywhere, for that matter. Tell us about how he looked after her. Did he pay her doctor's bills? Did he take her to the dentist? Did he make sure there was a night light, in case she woke up afraid in the dark? Did he provide well for her? Did he have life insurance with her listed as the beneficiary? Did he know her favourite colour? Her favourite food? Did he make sure she got enough vegetables? Did he brush her hair? Take her to ride a pony? Ride the kiddy rides with her at the amusement park? Play with her?

Do tell. We are waiting with bated breath.

Ronni said...

Positive answers, with at least anecdotal evidence to back them up, would go far towards convincing me of his innocence.

Where was the witness who saw Cam sobbing over her tiny broken body?

& said...

We are all entitled to our standards.

Lauren appears content, playful, and quite happy in those pictures.

Have you read the letters on the FreeCamBrown site?

I agree that picking a child up from school on a motorcycle without a helmet on is far from a safe decision. IF this is true, it is consistent with his poor choice of being in such an unsafe area at the time of the tragedy. However, it does not prove that he intentionally pushed her from the ledge. It shows that he is a man who has made poor choices about safety.

Lack of emotion or “shutting down” IS a documented psychological response to serious tragedy or trauma.

What IS the evidence that he intentionally threw her? It is so hard to believe that mere interpretations of circumstances can be considered sufficient for such a terrible crime.

Ronni said...

He tried to deny her.
He tried to get her mother to have an abortion.
He tried to have her mother fired and deported.
He lied about his disability, so he could pay less support.
He lied about the amount of time he had her with him, for the same reason.
"Shutting Down" means just that. All emotion is turned off. He did not display those symptoms when he spoke on the phone to the 911 dispatcher.
I have read the letters on the Cam Brown site. They speak to what a good guy he is. They say nothing about how well he cared for his daughter. And several of the letter-writers have asked Ted to have their letters removed from the site, but Ted won't do it.

Ronni said...

The incident with the motorcycle was testified to in the trial.

You think her teacher/caregiver lied under oath?

Right.

CountryGirl said...

There was NO evidence of a disturbance on the cliff face. None. How did she 'slip' and magically go airborne over the edge? People don't fall and then grow wings.

& said...

“He tried to deny her.
He tried to get her mother to have an abortion.”

This sort of quarrel unfortunately happens frequently amongst unmarried couples who experience surprise pregnancies. It is not unusual. People typically want some say in big life decisions such as becoming parents.

”He tried to have her mother fired and deported.”

The mother did nothing to incite such anger? The relationship between Sarah and Cameron was contentious and this was only due to Cameron?

”He lied about his disability, so he could pay less support.
He lied about the amount of time he had her with him, for the same reason.”

This sort of lying is consistent with attempting to avoid full financial burden however looking into the child’s face, picking her up against her will, and hurling her over a ledge just does not make sense for $12,000/year. This was much less than 39% of Cameron’s salary because his wife’s income was not taken into account.

"Shutting Down" means just that. All emotion is turned off."

Not really. It is not all or none. Emotions are quite unpredictable. Wild things can occur in the deep emotional regions of the brain when the mind is under shock. If he was guilty, it would be more likely that he would have "attempted" to put on a show and display more emotion.

“He did not display those symptoms when he spoke on the phone to the 911 dispatcher.”

The person who lent him the phone believed that he urgently needed and wanted help.

”I have read the letters on the Cam Brown site. They speak to what a good guy he is. They say nothing about how well he cared for his daughter. And several of the letter-writers have asked Ted to have their letters removed from the site, but Ted won't do it.”

He had all of 14 visits with the child. It is true that Cameron was not part of this child's life during her first years. This was due to poor decisions and relationship issues between both the mother and the father. Both parents are responsible. There is evidence that Cameron was attempting to be close with his daughter in a genuine way (for ex the birthday pictures, descriptions and letters from friends describing the Cameron's new experiences of being a father to such a wonderful little girl).

It is hard to believe this latter statement about the requests to have the letters removed. But I guess some people don’t like to be in the public eye when it comes to controversy over such a tragedy.

It does seem true that Sarah has a much stronger support system or at least a stronger internet voice than Cameron. This however, does not mean that this man is guilty.

You folks know quite a bit more detail than many of the observers thus far. For example, I was not aware of the motorcycle testimony by the teacher. However, it would be more likely that this was intentional act if he had been observed to be someone to portray consistent "safe" behavior. It was not out of the ordinary for this guy to be a bit reckless (Ex, not wearing a helmet). Therefore this is consistent with the behavior of not being cautious enough about heights with a child who is picking grass and throwing rocks. It is well known that if you turn your head for a split second, a small child can suffer a serious accident. Cameron however, had very little experience of being a father. 14 visits is hardly enough time to develop an intimate knowledge of a child's behavior.

“There was NO evidence of a disturbance on the cliff face. None. How did she 'slip' and magically go airborne over the edge? People don't fall and then grow wings.”

The defense biomechanical expert said that the information available from the scene does not prove the child was intentionally thrown.

Cameron Brown was the type of person who for example, consistently would stop his car on the freeway and take the time to help a person fix a flat tire. This is how he met his present wife.

You are free to your beliefs as I am to mine.

Mgt said...

No matter how many names that clown ^^ uses, he/she always spells your name incorrectly. Good disguise, mate!

As for the 'letters' on the FreeCamBrown. site. The authors have begged for them to be removed, to no avail. The site is a farce!

And, Cam didn't 'push' Lauren, he 'threw' her off the cliff.

Geragross, must be even more useless than I thought. Heck, all these friends of Cameron Brown and he didn't call even one of them. Sheesh! Now, that is real incompetence.

~~please note, dripping sarcasm~~

News flash! All the people who used to be friends of Cam, now believe him to be 'guilty'!

Just thought you should know, Scott, Ed and &. Don't bother to thank me.

Bless you, Sarah!

Ronni said...

A loving father educates himself about child safety issues, and does not use ignorance as an excuse for endangering his child.

It was also testified to, under oath, that once, when dropping her off at home, she forgot her suitcase. Cam set it in the middle of the street and yelled to her to come and get it. He also, according to testimony used to drop her off and just drive off, without making sure she actually entered the house.

This level of willful negligence bespeaks an extreme desire to be rid of the child.

As for the Cameronomics; of course he was on solid ground--as long as he kept Patty happy. Do you really think that trying to get out of paying support indicates that he loved Lauren? Isn't that inconsistent?

Loving parents support their children, as well as the custodial parent. Loving parents keep their children safe.

As far as the letters go, the owners of this site have received that information directly from the authors of several of the letters. If the letters are all true, where were the authors during the trial? Why did Geragos not put them on the stand?

As far as his emotional affect goes, he appeared totally unaffected on the 911 recording. You can hear one of the bystanders offer to go and look, and Cam doesn't jump at it. He sounds much more concerned with inconveniencing the nude bathers than with his daughter's "fall."

I'm still waiting for the evidence that Cam was a loving father. Please see my post at 11:07 last night, and answer all those questions.

Mgt said...

I'd like to hear the answers to those questions too, Ronni!

Believe me, if that POS had even a solitary 'friend', his 'fly by the seat of his pants' lawyer, would have called him as a witness.

Maybe, you should offer yourself up, 3 names, he needs all the help he can get! Or, has his lawyer aleady decided you are more of a liability than an asset?

ken said...

Actually, "&," Loretta and CG have been eminently reasonable. I have been kicked off both the anti-Loretta blog and David Horowitz' FrontPageRag message boards for the crime of voicing disparate opinions.

As for Cam's apparent guilt, the only thing we learned for certain from the first trial is that everything Ted Kaldis told us about Cam and the facts of the case were complete and unabashed lies. I can see why he had to run back under his hole and slither out under a cloak of anonymity.

You say, "It is hard to believe this latter statement about the requests to have the letters removed." Why? We had at least one person come out and state so in public, and voice his opinion that Cam was guilty. That others might do so is thus hardly surprising at all.

You say that the child support "was much less than 39% of Cameron’s salary because his wife’s income was not taken into account." We learned at trial that at the time of the alleged murder, Patty was unemployed, and she didn't have more than a month's cash reserves. Pulling your money out of an IRA can get expensive (as you have to pay income AND excise taxes), unless you can pay it back within a VERY short period. They were hurting financially, as Cam's robust bank accounts (under $100 in total) establish conclusively.

You say, "There is evidence that Cameron was attempting to be close with his daughter in a genuine way (for ex the birthday pictures, descriptions and letters from friends describing the Cameron's new experiences of being a father to such a wonderful little girl)." Problem is, almost nothing of this was presented at trial, and the bulk of what was presented consistently showed indifference and reckless disregard for Lauren's safety. Was this incompetence on Mark Geragos' part? I don't hold him in the contempt that others do, and assume that he had a reason not to produce this suspect testimonial evidence.

You also say, "The defense biomechanical expert said that the information available from the scene does not prove the child was intentionally thrown." As Ted pointed out, a highly-paid defense whore will say anything, and we know that he was highly paid. :) Seriously, this was a "battle of the experts," and it all depends on who you believe. If you are Ted Kaldis in disguise, you will choose to believe who helps you. As for me, I'll leave this one to the jury, as I don't have all the evidence in front of me and am unlikely to possess it in the foreseeable future.

Finally, you proclaim: "Cameron Brown was the type of person who for example, consistently would stop his car on the freeway and take the time to help a person fix a flat tire. This is how he met his present wife." How do you know this? Clearly, you must have some reasonably intimate tie to the Kooky Kaldis Klan.

Ronni said...

The voice of reason!

loretta said...

The idea that Toad is posting here and deliberately re-spelling all those affected British words he normally spells with extra vowels or UK spellings ---- under the cloak of anonymity, makes my skin crawl.

But, not surprisingly, Cam has no real constiuency of support. I have heard from several (more than one, fewer than five) of Brown's former friends, and I can attest that their support is NIL.

That's why GerEgo couldn't find anyone to support Brown on the stand besides his mother (whom he hates/hated, don't forget - pretty pathetic), his brother, and some guy who hadn't been in touch with him in a decade.

You can't help but be reminded of Peterson, as well as other trials of sociopaths like Brown. These guys have superficial relationships. They really don't have many true friends. They act like Mr. Nice Guy as part of this phony facade to keep people from getting too close to them or suspecting the monster inside.

It's always brutal when the mask is off and you see the real person. Cam, like monsters of his ilk, is incapable of real love. He never loved anyone and never will, IMO.

Ronni said...

When I think about his mother's testimony, one possible reason Cam didn't want Lauren to have a relationship with her grandmother comes clear. It's pretty difficult to arrange an "accident" when Grandma is on protection duty.

Mgt said...

Now, there are a few facts. Well said, Loretta.

You really live on the Dark side of the Sun, when your 'friends' are of no use when it comes to being character witnesses; for fear that they will do you more damage than good.

Well, if Ted is anything to go by...?! Wonder why he wasn't on the Stand?! Sorry, I'm joking!

Ronni said...

I'm mildly amused at the request:

"Can you not be so biased in your messages though?"

We are merely expressing an opinion. We are not jurors, we are not news anchors, required to be politically correct. We have opinions; we express them.

I am still waiting for the answers to my questions from 11:07 last night.

Mgt said...

Yes, Ronni. Someone who knows how Cam Brown met his wife, would surely know the answers to your questions.

Unless, of course, they don't have any examples to offer...

Ronni said...

A few little anecdotes, that's all I ask. The truth, please.

Did he have a life insurance policy which listed her as a beneficiary?

Did he and she ever do what she wanted?

Did he know who her medical providers were? Did they know him?

Did he ever take a parenting class to prepare himself?

Did he buy her presents with her specific tastes in mind, or were they all, like the doll in the birthday photos, just generic?

Breezy said...

If Cam wanted Sarah deported, didn't he think she would take her daughter? That surely does not sound like a man that wanted any kind of relationship with his child other than to be rid of her.

How do these or this Cam-supporter rationalize such inconsistent behaviors? A man that loves his child, thinks first of her safety and well-being; not his own petty revenge or desires. It seems to take a person that is equally narcissitic or just plain bamboozled to agree that Cam had any ability to love or care about anyone but himself.

Cameron has yet to accept any responsibility for the death of his daughter. He can not even admit to being a hapless father that was too busy to pay attention to her in a very dangerous spot in which HE took her. At best he was negligent and should have plenty of remorse but he feels none. He blames the child instead. He blames Sarah for getting pregnant as if he was not even there. Cam did what he thought would be the best thing for Cameron, he put an end to his problem named Lauren when he threw her over the cliff. He feels no remorse for her slipping because she didn't.

Ronni said...

Actually, Breezy, an illegal immigrant can be deported, and the child born here can remain here. He could have been granted custody quite easily under those circumstances.

& said...

The answers to many of your questions in the 11:07/8:15 posts may very well be “no”. Cameron was not apart of this child’s life for her first three years due to ill relations with the mother. He had 14 visits with her. He was in the process of just beginning to spend some quality time with Lauren.

On the first visit to Patty’s and Cameron’s house, Lauren requested that they play “house”. Lauren told Patty to pretend that she was the mommy. This sort of thing made Patty and Cameron fall in love with this little girl. Spending time with Lauren became the delight of their lives.

It is not appropriate for me to be sharing anymore detail with you as this case will be tried again.

The defense may have not wanted to argue each point of the prosecution's character assassination because it was strongly believed that this body of evidence did not prove that Cameron Brown threw this child from the cliff.

ken said...

Ted Kaldis apparently wrote:

"The defense may have not wanted to argue each point of the prosecution's character assassination because it was strongly believed that this body of evidence did not prove that Cameron Brown threw this child from the cliff."

That was one hell of a gamble, as that evidence damn near convicted him -- I don't know about you, but I look at 10-2 for Murder Two (with the dissenters calling for involuntary manslaughter) as a pretty close call. Nine times out of ten, they would have reached a compromise verdict.

"It is not appropriate for me to be sharing anymore detail with you as this case will be tried again."

Have you been named as a witness in the trial? If you aren't, then you have nothing of relevance to offer, and can speak freely about what you think you know.

ken said...

Looks like a computer glitch -- you'll need to erase some duplicates.

& said...

LOL! "&" is NOT Ted. There are very good reasons why at this time it is not appropriate to publically share more details in answering the 11:07/8:15 posts.

Ronni said...

Sounds like Ted.

Please state the reasons why it's not approrpiate to answer the questions.

If you are not willing to post arguments that *might* change my opinion, you can't very well blame me for sticking with it, can you?

jonaskinny said...

looks like you may need a new blog. not related to CB but you should love this if you track this kind of case.

looks like they found the guy

ken said...

LOL! "&" is NOT Ted.

Prove it.

There are very good reasons why at this time it is not appropriate to publically share more details in answering the 11:07/8:15 posts.

Name one. After all, if it didn't come up in the first trial, it shouldn't come up in the second.

We're interested in considering any and all credible exculpatory evidence. Problem is, we haven't seen much which meets those simple criteria.

Anonymous said...

Hello - this is Sarah here, Lauren's mother. I want to thank All of you who have prayed, supported and have so much compassion for my dearest LAuren. Thanks for the candles, the love and your invested time. I read all the comments and I appreciate all of you who care about what happens in this case.m It means alot to me.

loretta said...

Welcome, Sarah. It is my pleasure to have you here and write about this case. Hang in there, I'm sure there will be justice soon.

CountryGirl said...

Sarah, I saw your strength when I met you and I know you also have a wonderful family and great supportive friends. We are here for you.

Charlie said...

Sarah, our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

CountryGirl said...

Hi,

jonaskinny said:
looks like you may need a new blog. not related to CB but you should love this if you track this kind of case.

looks like they found the guy

I've been watching this circus since last night and this fiasco is going to blow up in BDA Mary Lacy's face.

This whacko is looking for his 15 minutes of fame. I have no doubt he is a pedophile and needs to be held accountable, but he has made statements that he picked JBR up from school and took her to the basement, etc -- things that don't match the evidence in the case.

Is Michael Tracey looking to make a new documentary?

I'm very sad that her murderer hasn't been prosecuted but I'd bet it isn't this guy, IMO.

loretta said...

Fake, fake, fake. It's a way to distract the sheeple from the real issues in the news: the war in Lebanon, the war in Iraq, the 9/11 truth, the sham of this administration, etc. etc.

But, I don't want to turn this into the political blog. There are plenty of those already out there.

Breezy said...

Dear Sarah,
You have so many supporters that are inspired by your strength and discusted by the tragedy that has befallen you at the hands of one sick and evil man. I will continue to pray until justice is done. God bless you and yours.
Breezy

Ronni said...

Bless you, Sarah! This jerk will get his just desserts.

loretta said...

"frank" -- don't do that again or I will block your IP.

Frank said...

Loretta,

Why do you not let folks voice their opinions on this site? This should be a balenced Blog. If Sarah is not women enough to hear the truth, nor you, you should not publicize the trial in such a one sided way.

Ronni said...

This site is owned by a private individual. It's purpose was to make available in one place all the news the owners can find or glean from the media about the trial of Cameron Brown, and

~read carefully~

to support Sarah in her fight for justice on her daughter's behalf.

The trial updates are strictly as they are found in the media. The editorializing is the perogative of the owners.

If your aim is not the support of Sarah, perhaps you should start your own blog where people can feel comfortable supporting poor mysogynistic, narcissistic Cam.

CountryGirl said...

Frank, this blog will not tolerate any bashing of Sarah. Period.

CountryGirl said...

If anyone wants fair and balanced, go watch Fox News Network.

WA said...

Said,

It seems to be a blog where folks are one sided. No Sarah bashing as stated before, however MGT can use things like POS, and not get tossed. Sarah has gone through some tough times yes, but many ask for information on the real Cam, things that could have a impact on the case. There are many of us here who know Cam, know things about the case that will come out in the next trial. Folks want to know, but they do not want to hear the truth on this site.

Ronni said...

We are here to SUPPORT SARAH. What part of that do you not understand?

The site owners are not obligated to present any point of view but their own.

Click the "X" in the upper right, and go bash Sarah in some other forum.

loretta said...

Some idiot wrote: "There are many of us here who know Cam, know things about the case that will come out in the next trial. Folks want to know, but they do not want to hear the truth on this site."

So, go open a blog. It's free. Click on "BLOGGER" at the top of the page and sign up for your own blog! Then all your Brown supporters/friends/apologists can have a field day. Good luck.

Don't go away mad. Just go away.

Ronni said...

What...all three of them?

Ronni said...

I saw the post a while ago about Sarah getting pregnant in order to stay here.

To the xenophobe who said that:

England is not a third world country. They have better health care, lower infant mortality, fewer murders, more history and a cleaner countryside than we have. And, before you go off saying, "Why did she come here at all, and outstay her visa," I read in more than one place that she planned to go back eventually, but only stayed because she was having fun.

You got a problem with that?

Also, bearing a child that is a citizen is no guarantee that the mother will be allowed to stay in this country. An illegal alien mother is always vulnerable to the threat that the child's father will keep the child and have her deported.

Sarah's pregnancy was as big a surprise to her as it was to Cameron Brown. If she had been looking on purpose for an American father for a planned child, don't you think she would have picked one more economically stable, such as a degreed professional, preferably in immigration law?

Sarah's life may be saddened, but Cameron is the ruined one, and by his own hand.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I am one of Sarahs best friends and attended the trial pretty much everyday, bar 2 1/2 days. It was a very emotional straining experience, but would not miss it despite that. Sarah has an amazing support system and this is quiet simply because she is an amazing person. She gives love constantly so it automatically comes straight back to her.
We all lost something that hurrendous day back on Nov 8 2000, I still re live the moment I first heard and still am affected on a daily basis of that loss, and thats me, I can NEVER imagine her pain. I dont think there will ever be closure, as we can never bring our sweet little Lauren back. All because of one persons actions, how far its trickled down.
I also would like to thank the people who have been the voice over the years for Lauren.
I met the wonderful Country Girl at closing arguments, I could feel that it was her, as you could see her compassion and her loss (also) clearly in her eyes. And all the other voices that support Sarah on this blog.... Loretta, I feel like I also know you now.
You could also feel that everybody that testified in this case was also affected by this tremendously.
Thank you again for your support to Sarah...
AJ

Ronni said...

AJ, what a beautiful post!

An old proverb states, "Never pray for strength," the implication being that you'll need it, or you won't get it.

So, I pray for peace.

Skye said...

Sarah, I'm not a religious person, but I am keeping you and your family in my thoughts.

May you find peace within.

Wayne Delia said...

A Toad wanna-be wrote...

There are very good reasons why at this time it is not appropriate to publically share more details in answering the 11:07/8:15 posts.

And, of course, there are very good reasons for not explaining why it is not appropriate to give the reasons why more details can't be shared. That's been Toad's motivation for posting for the past several years on Usenet: "I know more than you do, and I'm part of the inner circle, and I'm important, and I need to keep it a secret, so I won't tell you all I know inside my planet-sized brain, you'll have to wait for it to come out in trial."

The first trial is over. There was no "H-bomb-class evidence" explosion. There's no need to keep quiet about potentially exculpatory evidence which, for an unknown and completely stupid reason, was not brought forth at the first trial.

Ted Kaldis, as a non-anonymous poster, has been shut down for the foreseeable future, over a combination of his own extreme embarrassment from either his own lies, or Camoron's intentional misdirection of the Kaldis twins - or else Geragos has stuffed socks down his throat, told him to "STFU", and duct-taped his cavernous mouth shut. The only reason for such an internal "gag order" would be that Kaldis is doing much more harm than good to Camoron, most likely by providing the prosecution with leads or defense strategy hints.

An appropriate response for anyone posting anonymously, using the same line of reasoning ("There is exculpatory evidence which I know about, but I can't tell you about right now") is "Son, you're either Toad, or for some reason, you want to appear as stupid as Toad actually is."

Ted, we hardly knew ye. We can now reminisce on the good old days when you weren't too self-embarrassed to post non-anonymously.

WMD

loretta said...

Never mind that it's a tired note that everyone is sick of hearing.

ken said...

Frank wrote:
many ask for information on the real Cam, things that could have a impact on the case. There are many of us here who know Cam, know things about the case that will come out in the next trial. Folks want to know, but they do not want to hear the truth on this site.

While I certainly share the sentiment that Sarah deserves all the moral support we can give her, and I'll be honored to add mine whenever asked, I can't agree with the sentiment that Cam doesn't deserve his day in court, either in the courtroom or in the court of public opinion. Having been on the business end of persecution for my views, there are few practices that disturb me more. While the site owners are not technically obliged to present any view but their own -- which would make them no better than FAUX News! -- suppression of dissenting views is never a prudent practice in the long run.

As for "the real Cam," it seems almost axiomatic to me that he has not received the best representation, especially in cyberspace. Ted Kaldis' claims often reached the point of being sociopathic; judging by what has come out at the first trial, it is fair to say that Cam is a man who proves the axiom that, while growing old is mandatory, growing up is strictly optional. Were his actions toward Lauren reckless to the point of being criminally actionable? Yes, if we are to believe the jury. Were they sufficiently egregious to warrant a murder conviction? Once again, based on what we know from the results of the first trial, one could make a compelling argument in the affirmative. But should it carry the day? Not having sat in that jury box, I don't know for certain -- I think it more likely than not, but I might hesitate when it comes to reasonable doubt -- and I'd prefer to leave that delicate decision to the next jury.

That having been said, I see no downside in hearing positive things about Cam from people who are in the position to know and be candid with us. I don't want to be part of a lynch mob, and I think that if you really pressed the whole of our contingent here, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would. Let the unvarnished (and unparsed!) truth be spoken, no matter what the outcome!

Loretta and CG have done a marvelous job (along with Shannon Farren and Denise Nix) in informing us about this case, and for that, we are indebted. I'd hate to see all that good work ruined by intolerance for dissenting views.

Just my take, fwiw.

CountryGirl said...

Ken, email me if you would like some of the deleted posts they are whining about. Sickening.

Breezy said...

I would not have a problem with someone writing something positive about CB, but they don't. They just write "I know things you don't know and I am keeping it secret until the next trial". What kind of hogwash is that? These suposed supporters (totalling one) are just repeating the same mantra toady espoused the first time around. He was never called as a witness either to the crime or to CB's proclaimed "love" of Lauren. Geragos is an egomaniac but he is not totally incompetant. He commands the big bucks for a reason. If he really thought he could pull even one more stop out to help his client, he certainly would have. Do you not recall the boat stunt in the Peterson trial? Geragos had nothing more to work with, no other witnesses to attest to CB's fine charector or his devotion to Lauren. I seriously doubt he will represent CB again. This was a complete failure on his part to show or make Cameron a decent human being to even one of the 12 jurors. Every single juror found him guilty and culpable in Lauren's death. That part will not change with a new trial.

Sarah has been tortured by Cameron John Brown probably since her first encounter with him. He has continually harassed her and tormented her in every conceivable way and he deserves no pity. She is to be admired for standing up to such a piece of garbage and remaining vigilant in the fight for justice for Lauren. Anyone that can not understand that has serious issues that no blog can ever undo.

loretta said...

Ken, were there any posts written on here that were salient testimony about Cam's real personality or his background, they would stand. Unfortunately, the only "support" offered Cam is through insulting the victim - in this case, Sarah, and casting aspersions on her character and motivations.

Sarah Key-Marer is not on trial, and her feet won't be held to the fire on my blog.

If the various anonymous posters want to post things that are favorable to Cam, they are free to do so. They are not, however, permitted to insult Sarah.

& said...

I have become interested in this case in a large part because every person, when accused of a crime is entitled to a fair trial.


Ken,

I appreciate your most recent post. I thank you. The truth needs to prevail in a situation like this because, if in fact this has not been a fair trial, this sort of behavior will eventually impact the freedoms of all Americans.


Listen, I am really not Ted. If I were, as you can read in my previous posts, then I would very likely have known about Cameron picking up Lauren from school on a motorcycle and the teacher's testimony.

If I were Ted, it would be a miracle, because I can give birth. Actually, I am the daughter of one of Pat’s high school friends. I have known Pat all of my life.

"Cameron Brown was the type of person who for example, consistently would stop his car on the freeway and take the time to help a person fix a flat tire. This is how he met his present wife." By the way this is a true story and this IS an example of what a good guy he was.

I have spoken to the family and requested to share what I know. The answer was “yes”. So here is some of it. I really don’t know where to begin. There is so much. It probably will not all fit into this post as I have to get back to work.

Cemeron’s general nature is very much about giving and helping. He was known for lending his tools, his bike, his sports equipment, etc. He is described by people who love him as a very loving man.

He stayed with his grandmother for a time to help her after his grandfather died. He was the only one who volunteered of the six grand grandchildren.

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/ or this blog say that it was only 14?

Cameron did take Lauren to amusement parks and rode kiddy rides with her. He brushed her hair. He played with her. Her favorite game was playing “tea”. Cameron’s mother purchased a child size table and chairs and Cameron bought her a tea set. He would play “tea” regularly with her.

They would often color together and Pat says the crayon’s would be all over and cover the living room floor.

They often played “hide and go seek”. Cameron would pretend like he couldn’t find her. They would play tag. Lauren out of the blue would often tap Cameron and proclaim “your it”. He would scoop her up and tickle her and she would laugh and giggle. He would carry her on his shoulders.


Cameron loved his daughter and he worked hard to spend as much time with her as was permitted.

More later.

Theodore A. Kaldis said...

"&" is NOT me. I know who "&" is (and "&" is female). Unlike unlike virtually everyone else here, "&" actually knows Cameron Brown.

One more thing, I have never posted anything else here before, and it is unlikely that I should need to post anything else here again.

You may now return to your regular fantasies.

CountryGirl said...

Hum never said CB 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.

Anonymous said...

Country girl,

Very interesting how facts can be presented in a misleading way.

holmes said...

Did you personally know Cam? Or is this what you have been told?

Patty wasn't married very long before Lauren died. So your mother and yourself couldn't have known him too well at the time of Lauren's death.

Yes, I'm sure Cam was a good old pal with his surfing buddies. Yet, none of his friends or co-workers have spoken up on his behalf.

At least anyone that has had contact with him in this decade.

Anonymous said...

So who was Jack Dietzler? He testified on behalf of Cam.

holmes said...

I don't recall if it was Jack, but some old friend testified and on cross it came out that he hadn't seen Cam in ages. I'm sure Loretta or CG have the exact number of years.

Did you understand my comment about the last decade?

I doubt it was too devastating since the jury all voted guilty, just different degrees of guilt.

loretta said...

No anonymous posts. Pick a name or be poofed.

If "&" is Patty Brown, she's got a lot of nerve posting here.

Hey, Patty - open up your own blog. Too mad most of your newfound mutt friends think Cam is guilty, too.

Oh, you might get one or two to hang around, but most of them won't touch you with a 10-foot pole.

loretta said...

Funny how that voodoo you were trying out backfired on you.

It usually does when you don't know what you're doing.

loretta said...

Jack hadn't seen Cam for 10 years. The only "friend" of Cam's put on the stand was some guy who hadn't seen him in a decade. The other character witnesses were family members. Very lame.

holmes said...

Thanks, Loretta.

Ten years was on the tip of my tongue. Knew it was a very long time.

googleid said...

I wonder if the real reason the Kaldis clan is standing by Cam now is to protect their monetary investment in legal fees?

How long, exactly, has the Kaldis group known Cameron?

loretta said...

Brown has been in jail about 3 times longer than he knew his current wife before they got married.

holmes said...

I think Patty genuinely loves Cameron. Face it, she's not getting any younger and if she's Ted's twin, well enuff said.

I had never heard when or where they met until tonight. The flat tire was news. IMO, it was probably a short courtship.

I think Cam saw $ signs and lots of surfing in his future when he met Patty. He strikes me as a user and freeloader.

& said...

There have been requests to hear information about the good side of Cam. I am not Ted nor Pat. That should be apparent my questions in previous posts (ie, motorcycle example) Again, Pat is a long time family friend. I might not have known Cameron for that long but I very likely knew him longer than any of you. He seemed very devoted to Pat.

"Jack hadn't seen Cam for 10 years."

I learned that is not a true statement. The following was presented during the trial. Jack saw Cam on an average of about three times a week during the time Cam had visitation with Lauren. Jack saw Cam with Lauren a number of times. And Cam and Lauren had spent time at Jack's house and with Jack's family. He gave testimony about first hand experience of Cam with Lauren.

So if this is in the transcripts, why would you say that Jack had not seen Cameron for 10 years?

D J L said...

Hey Breezy CG and Loreta,

It now appears that more and more of Cams friends are showing up to support him. I for one just heard about this event and I can add some good things about cam and his little girl. I can also add some things that may be damaging to Sara, but will not do it here. She is not on trial, but is the person who's Mom has a relationship with Craig Hum. Smell a fish here? But may she have a peaceful life.

I have never met Ted, but I admire that he looked at this post. Only met Patty once, but like Ted and Sara, she is not on trial either.

Perhaps you may want to moderate this in a way that allows the truth to be told? Both sides, not just the one you are on, having never met anyone involved.

Ben said...

Hey Holmes,

Do you really know the story of how Cam met Sara??? I do.

& said...

dji and Ben,

Thank you! Thankyou for your posts.

loretta said...

Is that all you got? I'm waiting for this great biography and glowing review of Cam Brown from all his supporters.

Where is it? And don't point me to those letters posted on Kaldis' site. Where are Cam's friends from now? Today? This week? This year?

I couldn't afford all the transcrits and did not read the day when Jack testified. What did he say, really?

dj writes, "...more and more" of Cam's friends? Where? We're happy to hear from them if they are the real McCoy. I've heard from a handful of his "friends" and they don't have many good things to say about him.

I don't trust anonymous internet posters, so if you have a story to tell about Cam, you need to choose a name of some kind and be more specific as to why you think he didn't murder Lauren.

I don't want to hear about what a great surfer he was or how much he could bench press, or if he could have casual sex like a tomcat.

Tell me something about how he treated Lauren. If you are not witness to that, you are not very useful.

ken said...

"&" wrote:

Listen, I am really not Ted. If I were, as you can read in my previous posts, then I would very likely have known about Cameron picking up Lauren from school on a motorcycle and the teacher's testimony.

Do the rest of you find it intriguing that Ted popped up a mere two minutes after "&" posted a lengthy reply to my post?

With respect, "&," that fact casts grave facial aspersions upon your credibility -- as by far the likelier scenario would be that Ted posted using that pseudo and then, wanting desperately to respond, posted under his own name.

Loretta and/or CG, do you have the ability to determine the IPs of posters and if so, is "&" posting from a different city? Not that that is conclusive (Ted once traced me to Tahiti ;)), but it would tend to either confirm or quash that suspicion.

ken said...

Loretta and CG:

If you had explained it in the manner you had originally, I wouldn't have had reason to object. Thank you for that clarification of the seemingly reasonable bounds you are placing on posters.

While Team Cam is certainly entitled to attack Sarah's character (subject to the obvious limits of libel law), they aren't necessarily entitled to do it here. The difference between a blog and USENET is that the administrator gets to establish the bounds of the conversation. Personally, I might grant them more latitude, but that is more my personal preference.

ken said...

Ben:

Do you *know* how Cam met Sarah at first hand?

To do so, you would have to have been there. Otherwise, all you have is hearsay. With respect, I really don't see it adding to the discussion.

Ronni said...

I am very interested in ampersand telling us about how Cam played with Lauren. Were you there at the tea parties? Did you help pick up the crayons?

Did he stay with his grandmother for altruistic reasons, or because he was the only one without a family, and hence, could pack up and go there without unduly disturbing others? That's how my ex wound up staying with his aunt after his uncle died.

Thank you for telling us about Cam's activities with Lauren.

Breezy said...

d j I said,
It is obvious that you are not a very close friend of Cam's if you are just now hearing about this incident. Do you even know when it occured?
You have told us nothing about why you believe CB is a good or decent person. You simply claim that he has friends suddenly coming out of the woodwork. This makes me smell fish! Are these 'friends' real or imagined? Are they seeking monetary compensation from Patty or just 15 minutes of fame? Where were they for the last 6 years?

IF Sarah's mother had any sort of relationship with the prosecuting ADA, it would have no bearing on this case. He is not the only person that makes the decision to prosecute. Familiarize yourself with the legal system and you will not sound like Ted's mouthpiece, attempting to make a conspiracy out of nothing. Try to understand that if the investigators and coroner did not bring the facts of Lauren's murder to the attention of the SA, there never would have been further review, her murder would have been ruled an accidental death.
You admire that Ted looked at your post? If you have never met him. how do you know this? How did you know he looked at your post before you even posted it?

If you address a post to me I will likely answer you. I can't say that you are going to be happy with your reply. This is not my blog, but I fully support what Country Girl and Loretta have done here. They have kept those of us interested in this case updated. Like the jury, we believe that Cameron is guilty. Unlike the jury, Ted, Patty and the few friends of CB's can write back and want to argue. This appears to be the only outlet you have to disply your dismay. Don't expect it to go unchecked. If that is what you want you have to start your own blog or website. But as Ted knows, no one is interested. Anyone that has paid very much attention to the FACTS has determined that Cameron is guilty to some degree, just like this jury did. There is no getting around that fact.

Supporting someone on trial for murdering their own helpless 4 year old child is not an honorable thing unless you truly know the person you are supporting. By your own admission, you have not had contact with Cam or anyone close to him in years. You are simply making a fool of yourself and showing just how loyal but stupid people can be.

ken said...

"&" wrote:

I appreciate your most recent post. I thank you. The truth needs to prevail in a situation like this because, if in fact this has not been a fair trial, this sort of behavior will eventually impact the freedoms of all Americans.

With respect, I have seen absolutely nothing in this case which, to my legally-trained eye, would suggest that Cam received anything short of a scrupulously fair trial. Quite to the contrary (and to his credit), Judge Arnold seems to have bent over backwards to ensure that Cam have a fair go. Granted, I haven't been reading the transcripts with a fine-toothed comb, but most errors at trial are not legally sufficient to warrant a reversal.

As for Sarah's mother knowing Craig Hum personally, I am not aware of any canon of California's code of professional responsibility that would require him to recuse himself; judges won't even do that. And while it might have mattered in a closer case, a finding of involuntary manslaughter in this case was a slam-dunk. Ted has told us that Cam would not plead out to a lesser offense, so we have no way of knowing whether Hum offered him a deal -- not that he was obliged to.

If you cared to look back upon my comments on this case, you'll note that it has turned out almost exactly as I said it would more than two years ago. That they had a case worth bringing is evident from the 10-2 decision by the jury; that is as perilously close to a second-degree murder verdict as you can get. And given that Cam is in his forties, a second-degree murder verdict is as good as a first-degree one.

While there are other cases that leave you scratching your head, this is not really one of them. Reasonable people can conclude that Cam murdered Lauren, and the overwhelming consensus is that he did.

Where is the manifest injustice in this case, &? The State didn't rush to judgment, waiting several years to file charges. They sought and obtained a grand jury indictment. That the indictment was proper is demonstrated by the jury's ultimate quasi-determination. The trial itself was fair, and the only reason he wasn't convicted is that we give the accused the benefit of an awful lot of doubt.

And I happen to think that that is the way it should be.

Again, I ask: Where is the manifest injustice?

Anonymous said...

Breezy- How is it living in the sticks. Got any power yet you scumbag ho? Someday we can discuss in a forumn that is not so jaded

ken said...

Anonymous wrote (referring to Breezy):

"How is it living in the sticks. Got any power you scumbag ho?"

Come again?!? Why is it that the defenders of Cameron Brown have to resort to personal invective? Have their hopes been so thoroughly dashed by Craig Hum at trial that they now have to hurl vile personal insults from behind a cloak of anonymity?

I honestly fail to see what Breezy has said that would precipitate that personal attack -- unless of course you are Ted Kaldis. As Wayne ably pointed out, Ted has so much invested in this case (and has shattered his credibility in his defense of Cam beyond any hope of rehabilitation) that he might be expected to lash out. If you aren't Ted (and I don't believe his disclaimers, or pretty much of anything else he were to say at this point), that attack is both inexplicable and incomprehensible.

If you want to discuss this case elsewhere, coward, you can do so at misc.legal and/or alt.true-crime, where personal attacks are more the rule than the exception. There is no place for it in civilised[sic] debate.

ken said...

Loretta/CG:

While I approve of your consistent practice of removing gratuitous anonymous attacks, I would respectfully suggest that the latest one (attacking Breezy) be left up, to give people some indication of the type of posts you have been removing. This isn't USENET, nor should it be.

ken said...

d j l said:

I can also add some things that may be damaging to Sara, but will not do it here. She is not on trial, but is the person who's Mom has a relationship with Craig Hum. Smell a fish here?

No. The evidence leads me to believe that the matter should have been prosecuted, and the outcome suggests that it could very well lead to a guilty verdict in a second trial. Both sides will have the opportunity to survey how the first trial went, and that usually favors the prosecution.

If this were a case that never should have been prosecuted, it wouldn't have been. There are too many brakes in the system, and even Ted Kaldis admitted that everyone was doing their job. The case didn't even get to Craig Hum until the L.A.S.D. submitted it. Capital murder prosecutions tend to be expensive, and good management dictates that not one but several people pass on them before they go forward (cf., Mark Hurlbert and the Kobe Bryant rape case). Both the charging judge and the grand jury could have stopped it cold, and their failure to do so has been vindicated by the outcome of the first trial. They didn't pay an exorbitant amount for an expert opinion (Team Cam actually paid more for their whore). If there is anything here that hasn't been on the up-and-up, please point it out to me (Ted has proposed some truly laughable theories, and I'd appreciate it if you not duplicate them).

Ronni said...

I would second that, Ken.

Anonymous said...

Love getting you Bloodhounds wanna be's all excited

rfd said...

ppp

ken said...

Anonymous said:

Country girl, Very interesting how facts can be presented in a misleading way.

What "facts" are those? Please be specific in your criticism, so that we can evaluate for ourselves whether your comments have merit. I think the reporting in this case has been exemplary, starting as I do from Ted's admission that Shannon Farren was calling them as she saw them. CG and Loretta have both played things quite straight, if you compare their efforts to the orgy of punditry surrounding the JonBenet trial. (Both Henry Lee and Cyril Wecht came out of the woodwork on that one; if you get Baden, you'll have the trifecta.)

ken said...

anonymous said:

Love getting you Bloodhounds wanna be's all excited

At this point, we have lots of time to wait for the sequel. If the evidence presented at trial stands, a conviction on second-degree murder charges is a high likelihood if not a certainty. I don't see much need to rehash the case as presented, but there is certainly no harm in vetting claims made here by Cam's defenders.

My natural question to his defenders is, "Why wasn't this information, if both relevant and true, brought out in the first trial?" I don't share Loretta's opinion that having Geragos as an attorney is almost as bad as letting a PD do it; there must have been some reason why he didn't present this evidence. Why should we listen now, if even Geragos didn't think it worth presenting?

ken said...

djl wrote:

I have never met Ted, but I admire that he looked at this post.

If you don't mind my asking, how would you know whether Ted looked at your post before you even posted it, if he is not (a) paying rapt attention and (b) orchestrating an attack upon this blog?

I am presuming that Ted reads everything here and is even posting anonymously, because he is obsessive-compulsive and a full-blown sociopath. Virtually everything he has told us about the trial has been a lie, and I don't expect that trend to suddenly discontinue.

Ronni said...

Teensy bit creepy. I'm glad I live a long way off. Oh, wait. Ted stalked somebody in Australia, didn't he? Back to creepy.

loretta said...

Ok, anonymous, you're beginning to bore me, and that will result in poofing your boring posts.

Theodore A. Kaldis said...

Ken, I ain't "&". She's about 10 miles up the road from me. So what if I posted 2 minutes after she did? I'm not there, I don't know what she's doing. Now STFU.

Theodore A. Kaldis said...

Ken, I just glance at things here and there on this forum. I certainly don't have time to read everything that's posted here. And, contrary to your misconceptions, I am NOT "obssessive-compulsive". Now STFU.

Theodore A. Kaldis said...

Who TF is "ronni"?

Theodore A. Kaldis said...

So this is "ronni"?:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ronni.htm

So "ronni", can you please tell me why you think that I should want to stalk you?

loretta said...

Get lost, Toad.

ken said...

Ted Kaldis wrote:

Ken, I ain't "&". She's about 10 miles up the road from me. So what if I posted 2 minutes after she did? I'm not there, I don't know what she's doing. Now STFU.

Given your amply-established lack of veracity, it surprises me not a whit that "&" would be from the very same area, and that the posts would be generated within minutes of each other. Too close to be a coincidence, and few would be willing to buy off on your claims, despite your protestations.

Ken, I just glance at things here and there on this forum. I certainly don't have time to read everything that's posted here.

Just my posts, right? Sounds like an obsessive-compulsive stalker to me.... :)

Speaking of which, given the staggering number of claims you made that proved at trial to be categorically false and obviously so, can we finally expect your acknowledgement that you are a compulsive liar, to boot? Are you going to give me my props for being so remarkably accurate in my predictions concerning this case? And are you finally going to acknowledge that this turkey deserved to go to trial, and that Cam's goose may yet be cooked in time for Xmas???

So, whatever happened to Patty's "cute genes?" Nothing personal, but compared to Sarah's and the lifeguard's "drop dead gorgeous," according to the always-reliable Shannon Farren, Fat Alberta was strictly "drop dead." It certainly looks as if Cam was just a gigolo, who was looking for a meal ticket.

Or, what about Patty's getting fired? When the incident happened, she had just lost her job, and Cam had the grand total of $96 in his bank accounts. Patty had two months' worth of cash on hand, and pulling money out of your IRA can be expensive. Seems like the forensic auditor painted a reasonably accurate picture of their financial situation at the time, and you were once again caught lying to us.

Finally, whatever happened to your H-bomb? ("I thought there was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!" Marvin the Martian exclaimed.) That either Sarah's or Greg's mum knew Craig Hum may have qualified as a Preparation-H bomb, but under the circumstances, it deserves no more than a yawn. Likewise, the mystery witness -- the Please Don't Die Guy -- appears to be another Geragos fraud.

I wouldn't be making that down payment on a Maybach any time soon if I were you, Ted. It doesn't look as if there is going to be a gigantic public hue and cry for the release of the Camster on the grounds that he has suffered the most egregious injustice since Sacco and Vanzetti. Anything you write about his case would have to be pure fiction, much as everything else you have written about it heretofore.

ken said...

Toad Anus. Kaldysfunctional wrote:

So this is "ronni"?: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ronni.htm

We know that this is Ted: http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg. It really isn't nice for you to use a picture of your last boyfriend like that....

Let's see a current pic of "Fat Alberta," so that we can know why Shannon Farren referred to her as a LARGE woman who was dressed in a slovenly manner. Stil, Ted, I have to give you credit for not getting kicked out of the courtroom at least once -- seems like you were about the only member of Team Cam to manage it. :)

Seriously, Ted, he who lives in a glass house should not get into the habit of throwing stones. This isn't USENET, and there is no place for your incessant personal attacks. Just remember that we can throw better than we get....

So "ronni", can you please tell me why you think that I should want to stalk you?

You've stalked me. You've stalked Kym Horsell. And you've tried to stalk Kent's wife. Why not stalk Ronni? You don't limit your stalking to supermodels. (Personally, I'd like you to get caught stalking Naomi Campbell BY Naomi Campbell. All the King's horses and all the King's men.... ;))

Ted, if you can't talk substance, kindly go back under that rock you've been under and stay there. Loretta and CG have the power to make you disappear, but I'd just as soon they didn't have to play that card.

Anonymous said...

Wanna see a recent picture of Toad the Oger!!!
Here u go!!! copy n paste that...
http://img244.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tedbundygc6.jpg

After I saw his ass in real life, I tried not to laugh, him scary I dont think so. He is a pussy who hides behind his computer!!! If you want to know what Patty looks like, just photoshop a dress on, leave the facial hair I am sure!!!

Anonymous said...

BTW Toad, why is ur website, just a poster!!! Why not allow freedom of speech or blogging on your site? Thats one thing that pissed me off when I saw your free cam brown BS site. There isnt even a guestbook on there, is that so PEOPLE who have asked you nicely to take their letters of your site cant post there stating that they didnt want that on there anymore? And why are u the crusader for Cameron? Whats up with Patty? Do you let her our of her room ever to speak for herself?

loretta said...

Ken wrote:

You've stalked me. You've stalked Kym Horsell. And you've tried to stalk Kent's wife.

He's stalked me, too.

Ronni said...

Well, he's obviously stalked me far enough to find a picture I posted for fun on my blog nearly a year ago. Don't know what it's doing there--I never posted it anwhere but at my own place.

Where'd you get it, Toad?

Ronni said...

He also accosted some poor woman at the trial and tried to insist she was CountryGirl.

Sorry, Toad. You made a fool of yourself that day. CG wasn't there. Not that day, anyway!

Kent Wills said...

At one time, & wrote:

Lack of emotion or “shutting down” IS a documented psychological response to serious tragedy or trauma.


NOT as it happened with Cameron. Had he COMPLETELY shut down, no reaction to normal outside stimuli, then I would say he was in shock. Cameron was able to CALMLY speak with the 911 dispatcher, and was heard to give a nervous chuckle. He was able to ask about the Presidential race, AND was worried about how he would look on camera.

Cameron was NOT in shock at the time of Lauren's death. She meant very little, if anything, to him at the time.

What IS the evidence that he intentionally threw her? It is so hard to believe that mere interpretations of circumstances can be considered sufficient for such a terrible crime.

Let's see, the autopsy report that shows injuries consistent with Lauren having been thrown, and not having slipped and fell. Dr. Hayes' report that shows the most probable way those injuries were recieved.

Kent Wills said...

At one time,WA said...

It seems to be a blog where folks are one sided. No Sarah bashing as stated before, however MGT can use things like POS, and not get tossed.

What's wrong with Point Of Sale? :)

Sarah has gone through some tough times yes, but many ask for information on the real Cam, things that could have a impact on the case. There are many of us here who know Cam, know things about the case that will come out in the next trial.

Why, oh why wasn't any of this brought out in the FIRST trial? If it's a damning to the prosecution's case as you imply, why didn't it come out earlier?


Folks want to know, but they do not want to hear the truth on this site.

If this is the case, you are free to create a blog telling the "truth" about Cameron.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Anonymous said...
Hello - this is Sarah here, Lauren's mother. I want to thank All of you who have prayed, supported and have so much compassion for my dearest LAuren. Thanks for the candles, the love and your invested time. I read all the comments and I appreciate all of you who care about what happens in this case.m It means alot to me.

I have no way of knowing if you are or are not Sarah, of course. If you are, I want you to know how sorry I am for your loss. The loss of a child is something no parent should have to experience.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Ken wrote:

I am presuming that Ted reads everything here and is even posting anonymously, because he is obsessive-compulsive and a full-blown sociopath. Virtually everything he has told us about the trial has been a lie, and I don't expect that trend to suddenly discontinue.

We can say with total certainty that Ted is reading EVERYTHING written about Cameron.

Currently, my favorite Ted lie, in regards to this case, is his claim that Dr. Hayes has skeletons in his closet that would destroy his credibility on the stand. Odd that Geragos failed to use these items at trial.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Ronni said...

Teensy bit creepy. I'm glad I live a long way off. Oh, wait. Ted stalked somebody in Australia, didn't he? Back to creepy.

Kym H (I can't recall his last name) was (is?) an on-line advisary of Ted's. While in Australia, Ted drove all the way across Melbourne to a neighborhood that those who know claim isn't convinient to anything, to take a picture of Kym's house. Ted quickly posted the picture to his web site, so that Kym, and anyone esle who wished, could see that Ted had been by.

The message was clear: "I know where you live and can stop by any time I want, and there isn't anything you can do to stop me."

Kym fully understood the message and wisely went into anonymous mode.

Ted thinks doing this sort of thing is normal and acceptable. It's more proof, if any were needed, that Ted isn't right in the head.

Ted has also admited to stalking my wife. Of course all he was able to do in that case was prove to everyone how incompetent he is. If you aren't listed on some on-line phone dirrectory, he'll claim you don't exist.

loretta said...

Theodore A. Kaldis said...
loretta said...

Get lost, Toad.

Don't you have the power to make that happen?

Why, yes. I do. POOF!

And WHEN have I ever stalked you?

6:14 PM


When you were searching for my marriage license, when you were involved in an e-mail coterie with your sister and some of the mutts, when you were tracing my IP from various places and announcing my whereabouts (mostly wrong, BTW), when you followed me around cyberspace to harass me. Just to name a few times off the top of my head.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Theodore A. Kaldis said...

Ken, I just glance at things here and there on this forum. I certainly don't have time to read everything that's posted here. And, contrary to your misconceptions, I am NOT "obssessive-compulsive".

That you have OCD isn't even open for discusion nor debate. You've PROVED it multiple times.

Now STFU.

YES! Stop The Furry Unicorns. In paticular, the Invisible Pink Unicorn! :)

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Theodore A. Kaldis said...

So this is "ronni"?

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/ronni.htm

Wow. A picture she posted to her site, over a year ago, as a joke. But you aren't a stalker, huh?

So "ronni", can you please tell me why you think that I should want to stalk you?

Why should you want to stalk Ken? Why should you want to stalk Kym H.? Why should you want to stalk Lindsay?

The answer is simple: You area very sick man who is in serious need of profesional psychological care. As far as I know, you've not done anything violent to your targets, yet. But it's only a matter of time. Stalkers can not be content with simply knowing about thier targets.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:

Theodore A. Kaldis said...
And WHEN have I ever stalked you?

When you were searching for my marriage license, when you were involved in an e-mail coterie with your sister and some of the mutts, when you were tracing my IP from various places and announcing my whereabouts (mostly wrong, BTW),

But Ted claims he traces IPs for a living. So you MUST live somewhere in or near Providence, RI. I mean, it's not like Ted could every be WRONG about something, right?

when you followed me around cyberspace to harass me. Just to name a few times off the top of my head.

Ted has proved he's a stalker more times than I care to try and count. Fortunately, he's also proved he's very incompetent.

Brian H said...

WOW! You all must be real board and have nothing else to talk about. How about a page out of your own book. Write a seperate BLOG about Ted. This is really getting boring as everyone is bashing everyone. Lets be a little more constructive when the trial begins. Can you all contain yourself for another month?

Brian H said...

Toad Anus. Kaldysfunctional wrote:

He is a pussy who hides behind his computer!!!

Is this the kind of Blog you want to host? It is losing its value everytime one of you idiots like Ken, Kent, Loretta us this type of language. Lets reel things back in and have fun learning about the trial.

loretta said...

Ted's issues with Ken and Kent precede this trial by years and years.

My first encounter with Ted online was when I began posting about this case. He proved himself long before I met him to be certifiable.

So, you have to take the good with the bad. I'm not going to censor Ken or Kent, or anyone else who has something of substance to offer.

Anonymous posters will be poofed, as will any posts that insult the victim's mother or family, and anything that annoys me.

CountryGirl is not around right now, so you have to deal with me. I'm not nearly as nice as she is.

Brian H said...

It looks like the hen is out of the cathouse. I really hope that this site will remain a good site for information, and not slams against people who are looking for information. It appears Cam may be guilty. When did everyone else become threatend by Ted? What has this guy done and why is Patty on trial from you all for being Cams wife?

loretta said...

It's a long story, Brian, and you can probably read it all over at Usenet. It's too long to tell over here. Sorry.

holmes said...

Brian, Google Cameron Brown Murder trial. It will direct you to the links on Usenet related to this case.

You will spend many weeks catching up on Ted, Patty & Cam.

I will win the lottery before you read all of Teds insanity on the Internet.

ken said...

Brian, you have to understand Ted. Every discussion he touches eventually disintegrates into personal invective, and often rather quickly. My point was that his personal attacks have no place here, and that we can give better than we get. I don't think there's much left to be said about the case until October, and I'm entirely prepared to allow the wheels of justice to take their course.

Others are free to do what they will.

ken said...

In case anyone's wondering, Team Cam is reading every word we write. I just got two e-mails from Patty, and we all know that Ted is here more than he will admit.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Brian H wrote:

It looks like the hen is out of the cathouse.

??? That makes NO sense to me.

I really hope that this site will remain a good site for information, and not slams against people who are looking for information. It appears Cam may be guilty.

At the very least, he's guilty of something. 100% of the jury agreed that he's guilty of SOMETHING. They couldn't agree on what. So much for the claim that Cameron is obviously innocent.


When did everyone else become threatend by Ted?

Ted WISHES he had that kind of power over us. Heck, he wishes he had that kind of power over anyone.


What has this guy done and why is Patty on trial from you all for being Cams wife?

What has Ted done? Other than stalk those who dare disagree with him, or expose his mental illness(es), not much. Ted likes to pretend he's somehow important, but the truth is, he's no more important than anyone else.

Patty isn't on trial. However, we will comment about her actions in regards to Cameron's case. For example: When she stated Cameron doesn't watch Baywatch, she told everyone who heard the comment that Cameron LIED when he claimed he got the idea to remove his clothing from the show. I'm sure you'll agree that her comment was not the smartest one she could have made.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Brian H wrote:

WOW! You all must be real board and have nothing else to talk about.

We could talk about the new definition of what makes something a planet, but that just doesn't seem to fit in with the Cam Brown trial.

How about a page out of your own book. Write a seperate BLOG about Ted.

If you wish, you may make one. No one here will stop you.


This is really getting boring as everyone is bashing everyone.

Really? Care to point out the entry where I have bashed Ken? How about the one where I bash Loretta? CG? Crickets are on stand-by.


Lets be a little more constructive when the trial begins. Can you all contain yourself for another month?

Sure. There isn't much to write about at this time anyway. We already know what the defense will be. Nothing at all.

Kent Wills said...

At one time ken wrote:

In case anyone's wondering, Team Cam is reading every word we write.

No suprise there.

I just got two e-mails from Patty,

whimper. She's only E-mailed me once, and that was to thank me for forwarding an E-mail to you, and to comment on my E-mail sig.

and we all know that Ted is here more than he will admit.

It's almost certain that Ted visits frequently and reads EVERY word written.

Kent Wills said...

At one tim, Brian H wrote:

Toad Anus. Kaldysfunctional wrote:

He is a pussy who hides behind his computer!!!

Is this the kind of Blog you want to host? It is losing its value everytime one of you idiots like Ken, Kent, Loretta us this type of language.

Please cite an entry where I've used such language. Just one is all I ask (and my quoting another doesn't count).

Lets reel things back in and have fun learning about the trial.

What is there to learn? Hum will present evidence showing that Cameron murdered Lauren while Geragos will bring forth witnesses to tell us what a great guy Cameron was 10 years ago.

loretta said...

NEW ENTRY ^^^ The first part of a series where the author meets the Kaldises - both Ted and Patty - in a rather unconventional way.

Please comment further in the new thread above. Thanks!

hd said...

brian h
"He is a pussy who hides behind his computer!!!"
Kent Wills didnt write that. I did, my apologies, that it didnt use my sign in name. I call it as it is...

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:
Please comment further in the new thread above. Thanks!

Where's the new thread? I don't see it :(

Kent Wills said...

Nevermind. Reloading is a good thing :)

brian H said...

Kent Wills:

I think it is time you take your medication. Perhaps an anger management class? Is this Blog Or Kent Wills Smog?

Brian H said...

Still Hoping that we can all contain ourselves.

Skye said...

Oh dear! This should not be a stage on which 'Floating Terd' displays his venom.

Kicking it all to the curb would be a good idea.

Sarah, I hope you are coping okay. My thoughts are with you.

googleid said...

"ken said...
I just got two e-mails from Patty, and we all know that Ted is here more than he will admit."

I keep trying to empathize with Patty, as I can imagine that her world has been shaken to the core...and yet, I think if my husband were accused to such a heinous crime, I would take a loooong step back and re-evaluate my beliefs about his character and try to be as honest with myself as possible about his motives, actions, past history, etc.

I hope, for her own sake, she has, or is, doing exactly that. Love (or what we perceive to be love) can blind us if we allow it to.

googleid said...

"Theodore A. Kaldis said...
Who TF is "ronni"?"

I am wondering...isn't Ted claiming to be Christian?

What does "TF" stand for?

Am also wondering about the post regarding Sarah's pregnancy in the US...what, if anything, does getting pregnant while here on a Visa have to do with this murder trial? What bearing does that have on the guilt or innocence of Cameron Brown???

Anonymous said...

I was one of the jurors on the trial and I have to say that Cameron is guilty. I hope the next jury will have reasonable jurors who can do their job.