Monday, August 21, 2006

Once Upon a News Group - Part III

Patty Brown first began posting using her real name on my blog last summer after I published an analysis of the case as I knew it at the time (republished in this blog). At first, I thought it was Ted or someone else posting as Patty, since I found it hard to believe that the wife of a defendant charged with first-degree murder would be so indiscrete; especially in a venue where most (if not all) of the participants were clearly in the "guilty" camp. It was a hostile environment where she was either viewed with skepticism at best, or believed to be a “troll” at worst.

A couple of months later, Patty began to participate on one of the bashing blogs and was warmly embraced by the mutts; one of them, not surprisingly, was “Just Amazed” from Usenet (formerly “Mistyblue" from Free Republic; and if you know anything about that message board, you know what kind of politics are expressed there). Eventually, many of the mutts kicked Patty to the curb once they had more information about the case during the trial. (As it is with thieves, there is no honor among psychos). The “moderators” of the bashing blog forbade anyone from discussing the Brown case; how ironic, since all of the posters from that group originated from discussions about the Peterson case or other murder cases that I reviewed on my blog. When taking a position on the Brown case was verboten in Muttville, it was obvious that the mutts were welcoming Patty simply because she shared their contempt of me. Their commonality was a tenuous thread and ultimately snapped when the facts of the case and Ted Kadis’s lies were revealed on Usenet and other forums to which the mutts were privy.

Meanwhile, a strange satellite blog appeared where the author promised to share his observations about various “blog wars” around cyberspace; however, he only managed to post three entries, two of which were devoted to yours truly. He linked his blog to the kennel, and all the eager mutts clicked on this link to read yet more absurd blather about how I had acquired a little army of brain-dead minions who were mesmerized by my sociopathic charms, or other such nonsense. The blog author embedded a site meter to the main page but forgot to make it private, so anyone could click on the meter and see the IP addresses of the people reading his site, including those originating from Muttville. This careless error proved to be the mother lode of information, and I and others noticed that an IP from the Ventura, California area had visited this site several times a day. This IP matched exactly one of Ted Kaldis’s IPs from his posts at Usenet, and the IP of the poster named “Patty Brown” at my blog. Curiouser and curiouser.

Was Ted posting as Patty on my blog and at the kennel? That was our first guess. He vehemently denied this and insisted that they shared a router. I concluded that this could only be the case if he used her computer or lived with her. At that point, Ted had to admit that he was living with his sister who, as it turns out, was his fraternal twin as well. Kaldis had posted on a high school reunion site where his and Patty’s graduation year were the same. Ribald and rambunctious ridicule resulted. Ted’s fellow posters on Usenet found this peculiar revelation to be irresistibly whacky and tormented him for weeks with amusing speculation as to why he would be a stow-away on the ill-fated Brown boxcar destined to derail in short order.

I couldn’t make this stuff up.

Once Ted and Patty’s IP were exposed as the same, Patty challenged Ken Smith from the safety (and censorship) of the kennel to view the information she had gathered that she believed would exonerate her husband. Apparently, she hoped to persuade Ken that Cam had been railroaded by a corrupt and single-minded district attorney and that Lauren’s death was an accident. I’m not sure what she sent Ken, but based on the lack of his subsequent defense of Brown, I assume it wasn’t very convincing. Patty and Ted continued to post disparaging comments about me with their little pals, and they basked in the mutt sympathy. I believe this just served to make them look like bigger fools.

In Usenet and on my blog, I speculated that Patty had something to do with Lauren’s death. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but my intuition told me that she was involved in some way. As it turns out, she was, even if it was just because she nagged Cam to death about getting custody of Lauren (although, that would have been virtually impossible under the circumstances), or because she complained about the money it was costing them in child support. I never believed the Browns were all that well off, especially since we knew that Ted had been living with Patty for several years. Hers and Brown’s credit profile and all the judgments against them and the lien on her house were proof enough.

When Ted posted on Usenet that Patty and Cam had filed for “joint custody” I asked to see the court documents, because I knew it had to be based on bogus information or had never been formally filed. I knew that there was no way that Patty and Cam could demonstrate that taking that child at the tender age of 4 from the only home and parent she knew would ever be in her best interests. Based on the law, the Browns would have had to design a shared parenting agreement that mapped out all the arrangements for where Lauren lived and how she got to school. I knew that the Browns would have had to relocate near Sarah in order for this to be considered by the court. When none of those things ever occurred, I knew that either Ted was lying or that Patty and Cam were lying. The custody issue had never seen the light of a courtroom, and would not even if Lauren were still alive, despite Patty’s diligent research or the Brown’s spurious allegations that Sarah was physically abusing Lauren.

It was outrageous that Patty would consider taking that child (re: “full custody”) from her mother just to spite her husband’s ex-lover or to further solidify her newlywed bliss. Later, the prosecution would posit that this was a way for Patty to have her cake and eat it too. Perhaps her experiments with voodoo or witchcraft were designed to harm Sarah, never imagining that Cam would ultimately kill Lauren. One could argue that Patty Brown indirectly caused Lauren’s murder, and the guilt of that has compelled her to make reckless decisions and expose herself to unnecessary scrutiny. Meanwhile, her twin brother’s frantic theories and protestations on Usenet were becoming equally implausible and desperate.

To be continued.

47 comments:

Ronni said...

That Ventura IP was all over my blog, as well. I guess that explains where Ted got the pic.

Mutts find their own level.

loretta said...

Here's just one of many doozies posted by Patty Brown in the former bashing blog (now defunct) Muttville:

QUOTE:

Whatever your name you are an idiot. There are many Anonys on LH. For you to assume you know who an Anony is just shows what an idiot you are - yet again. As Admin has already confirmed I did not post this. When I post about myself I use my name!

I shouldn't bother responding because what you write here is of no consequence. But since you brought it up, let me set you straight - just this once. You are not worth the bother to make a habit of responding to you. And, out of respect for this blog and the blog owner I would not make a habit of responding to you here, even if I were inclined to. So savor this ONE response.

The “reports” you are referring to are by someone who is covering her butt because she came out on the wrong side early on. So she is slanting her reports in one direction. KFI was initially interested in this case, until they saw the defenses side of the story emerging as fact. Then they lost interest. The same can be said about the LA Times.

You heard the testimony of a couple of gay guys who were arrested for lewd behavior in public, or something like that, and traded their testimonies for deals in their arrests. What credible witnesses! Wait until the witnesses with no motivation testify!

Oh, and the witness said he heard something but could not say if it was a scream or a sea gull. Big deal!

Unlike the other witnesses, there was another prosecutor watching this witnesses testimony. Then that prosecutor escorted him out of the court room. The witness seemed quite apprhensive of the prosecutor. I guess they don't feel discretion is needed here. (And the other arrested gay guy had one of the public defenders with him!)

As far as the verdict is concerned, I stand in absolute, unwavering faith that divine right justice prevails in this case. Since my husband is IN FACT innocent, and the prosecutions case has no integrity, of course my husband will be acquitted! That is if the case isn't dismissed first!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Isn't she charming?

loretta said...

Here's another impressive rant:

QUOTE:

I have not brought the trial to the blog. Nor have I not brought any of the antics of this sleazy prosecutor to the blog. He has already lost his credibility with the jury anyway, so who cares about anybody else has to say - right now.

I take huge issue with how this case is being handled. I would have expected better from the American judicial system. Yet I have been silent and just let things unfold. I do intend to say something about all this in due time. I plan to say a lot about it actually. But not on the blogs. There must be accountability for misconduct by prosecutors and judges who look the other way. There must be consequences for agencies that pursue wrongful prosecutions when they have a conflict of interest and when there is millions of dollars at stake for them. If there are laws against these things on the books they must be enforced. Therefore, the appropriate parties to speak to are the state legislators, not the blogs. But that is a conversation for another time.

At this time on this Allen person has come to the blog and it seems is trying to lure me into a fight. This blog isn't a crime blog. It's not like other trials are being discussed but my presence is stifling a discussion about Cam. There is no place for this! This asshole is just taking pot shots at me! So I ask you again Allen – WHAT IS IT THAT YOU INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH HERE?

Allen maybe it’s time to for you start hanging onto Loretta's asshole and LEAVE OUR PEACEFUL BLOG ALONE!
Patty | 07.05.06 - 6:14 pm

loretta said...

I guess gay bashing runs in the family.

QUOTE:


Nope, I have an issue with suborned perjury. I have a problem with sleazy prosecutors arresting people, for whatever reason, then using those arrests to make deals for false testimony. I have a problem with a system that allows prosecutors to commit such acts with immunity. And I have a problem with idiots who prefer to look the other way and pretend (often to themselves) that they know there is room for improvement in our judicial system so they can pretend (again, to themselves) that they are right, when in reality they are clueless!
Patty | 07.05.06 - 7:24 pm

Ronni said...

Did that make a lick of sense?

Anonymous said...

Way to go Patty! I think I would pay good money for a All Out Fight between you (Patty) and CG, Loretta and the numbskuls on this site.

Ronni said...

One way to pay Geragos!

loretta said...

errr. That would be "numbskulls", numbskull!

loretta said...

Cruella deVille! That's great. Do I get to make a coat out of the 101 mutts?

loretta said...

Since you can't spell, Susan, you are an idiot and will be poofed.

Say goodnight!

loretta said...

If you trolls can't behave, I'll put the comments on moderation.

Thanks for demonstrating what a bunch of immature whackjobs you are.

Get a life, mutts.

Ronni said...

It just takes a bad apple or two, doesn't it? Why in the world do they have to come here? And they accuse you of stalking? Geez! They have nothing relevant to say about the case, so they have to say a whole lot of nothing at all.

CountryGirl said...

I see you had to put it on trollprevention.

Ronni said...

Apparently they were out in force.

Anonymous said...

Loretta & CG, sorry for the Anonymous post.

This is Syke.

I have been trying to make a comment since yesterday. I do apologise.


There is not one word of empathy from Patty about Lauren's death. Not that it surprises me. She should hang her head in shame.

It is only an opinion, but I believe that Patty is the single cause of Cameron Brown's desperation. If that nasty woman had not wanted to wrench Lauren away from her Mother, this awful tragedy would have been avoided. Cameron would have let the adoption go through.

Cam Brown would then have been free of the monthly payments and his obligation to be a part of Lauren's life.

What was all that stuff under your bed about, Patty?

Sarah, I hope my words don't cause too much pain. It is just that I feel nauseated by the detached way this family speaks about this horrendous crime. I'd love them all to pay, in the worst way.

Skye

skye said...

A message for the ignorant Trolls.

please find another place to spew your hatred and show your lack of breeding, especially if it has nothing to do with the Cam Brown Trial.

If you have no respect or empathy for Sarah and her family, who have lost a precious little girl, then at least have some respect for yourselves.

True, there is a lot of anger and disgust for Cameron Brown, and rightly so. This was a heinous crime the likes of which most people would never contemplate. Unfortunately, he did!

loretta said...

Just ignore them, Skye. They are living in the land of make believe, just like Patty Brown, just like Ted Kaldis, and just like Mark Geregos. It's not reality. ((yaaaawwwwnnn))

Imagine if Patty and Cam had tried to get custody of Lauren -- how likely would that have been? Picture a snowball in Laredo, Texas.

You can't reason with people who are constitutionally incapable of being honest; especially with themselves.

It's a sort of collective unconsiousness.

Skye said...

You're right, of course. To respond is to validate their pettiness.

ken said...

Patty Kaldis Brown wrote:

Nope, I have an issue with suborned perjury. I have a problem with sleazy prosecutors arresting people, for whatever reason, then using those arrests to make deals for false testimony. I have a problem with a system that allows prosecutors to commit such acts with immunity. And I have a problem with idiots who prefer to look the other way and pretend (often to themselves) that they know there is room for improvement in our judicial system so they can pretend (again, to themselves) that they are right, when in reality they are clueless!

I also have an issue with all of those things, where they occur. Indeed, I don't think anyone would be dense enough to say that I am in favor of judicial and/or prosecutorial immunity. Fortunately, there was exactly nothing of which I am aware that would suggest that anything untoward happened during the Cam Brown trial. Our system is broken, and arguably beyond repair, but there was no obvious evidence of it in Cam's case, as Judge Arnold called a pretty clean game.

While Patty has made some claims regarding the trial in response to my posts here, I don't believe it appropriate to share them here, other than to say that if what she told me was true, the blame for the alleged flaws rests *solely* on Mark Geragos' shoulders. If what she said was true, it presumably would have helped the defense, but no one can know whether it would have had a material effect.

ken said...

CG/Loretta:

Although I respect your decision to ban them, I almost feel too bad that we can't see the KKK's (Kooky Kaldis Klan's) trolls -- as their virulent missives have heretofore spoken for themselves, and have provided a continuous source of vicarious amusement. Whilst[sic] I can appreciate the angst going on in that household, it's difficult to fathom why they insist upon directing it at you. After all, the most brutal assessment of the incident came from John and Ken of KFI, and the redoutable Shannon Farren.

Thanks to them, Ted's baby-killin' brudder-in-law doesn't have a reputation left to rehabilitate. If he ever gets out of this in one piece, he should change his name to Jones. :)

ken said...

CG/Loretta:

Although I respect your decision to ban them, I almost feel too bad that we can't see the KKK's (Kooky Kaldis Klan's) trolls -- as their virulent missives have heretofore spoken for themselves, and have provided a continuous source of vicarious amusement. Whilst[sic] I can appreciate the angst going on in that household, it's difficult to fathom why they insist upon directing it at you. After all, the most brutal assessment of the incident came from John and Ken of KFI, and the redoutable Shannon Farren.

Thanks to them, Ted's baby-killin' brudder-in-law doesn't have a reputation left to rehabilitate. If he ever gets out of this in one piece, he should change his name to Jones. :)

loretta said...

hey Ken. These mutts are not supporting Ted or Patty or Cam.

They are attacking my minor daughter, so their posts will not be displayed.

loretta said...

If they were just Kooky Kaldis Klansmen, I'd let it stand because of the comic value.

googleid said...

"They are attacking my minor daughter, so their posts will not be displayed."

Just goes to show their mutturity level. ;-)

CountryGirl said...

Ken said:
While Patty has made some claims regarding the trial in response to my posts here, I don't believe it appropriate to share them here, other than to say that if what she told me was true, the blame for the alleged flaws rests *solely* on Mark Geragos' shoulders. If what she said was true, it presumably would have helped the defense, but no one can know whether it would have had a material effect.

I thought Patty was providing Geragos with research, etc.

According to Ted, Patty was practically his right hand--working into the night, right up until opening statements (and beyond). Or was that just busy work to keep her out of his hair?

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Skye wrote:
What was all that stuff under your bed about, Patty?

Ted informed us that Patty deals with witchcraft, though I don't think he meant to. My ignorance of the craft is vast, so I could be completely wrong here, but I expect she was trying to put some sort of spell on Lauren. Just what kind of spell is anyone's guess.

Given that Patty wanted to adopt Lauren, I serious doubt it was designed to harm the child. At least not harm her in any serious way.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:

qouting Patty Brown;
I take huge issue with how this case is being handled. I would have expected better from the American judicial system. Yet I have been silent and just let things unfold. I do intend to say something about all this in due time. I plan to say a lot about it actually. But not on the blogs. There must be accountability for misconduct by prosecutors and judges who look the other way.

Judge Arnold went out of his way to ensure Cameron got a fair trial, if reports from KFI are to be believed. And according to Ted, the reports were accurate.


There must be consequences for agencies that pursue wrongful prosecutions when they have a conflict of interest and when there is millions of dollars at stake for them.

Is Patty also a member of the "Conspiracy of the Week Club?"

If there are laws against these things on the books they must be enforced. Therefore, the appropriate parties to speak to are the state legislators, not the blogs. But that is a conversation for another time.

**IF** you have evidence of any wrong doing on the part of the prosecution and/or judge, take that evidence to the California Attorney General's office ASAP! If, as the evidence more than suggests, you are simply blowing smoke, then just shut up about it. No one ever bought the conspiracy angles when Ted presented them, and no one is byuing them now.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:
Since you can't spell, Susan, you are an idiot and will be poofed.

Hey! I can't spell either :)

Kent Wills said...

At one time, ken wrote:
While Patty has made some claims regarding the trial in response to my posts here, I don't believe it appropriate to share them here, other than to say that if what she told me was true, the blame for the alleged flaws rests *solely* on Mark Geragos' shoulders. If what she said was true, it presumably would have helped the defense, but no one can know whether it would have had a material effect.

Would you be willing to forward her comments to me via E-mail? If she sent them under confidence, or if you feel it would be wrong to share them don't send them. I'm merely curious as to what her current claims are.

ken said...

You forget, CG, that the source of that comment (re: Patty doing research) was Ted. :)

As for the mutts, they're on misc.legal. I see what you mean, Loretta.

loretta said...

It's common for people who are relatives or spouses of accused murderers to claim that the system is corrupt or that cops have tunnel vision, blah blah. Sometimes this is true. Read _Mean Justice_ for a shocking example of corruption in Kearn County, CA.

However, just as in the Peterson case when the cops were being accused of incompetence or tunnel vision, or the detective was accused of skewing the evidence to fit his theory, etc., there was never any hard evidence to demonstrate this. And you know Geragos tried.

If and until the Browns or Kooky Kalids Klan can demonstrate any real proof of these allegations such as perjury, incompetence, or prejudice, they remain just one of many loud voices in the dissonant choir of bad singers that comprise the defendants' apologists.

So far, Ted never proved anything he claimed and he was shown to be a liar. He has no credibility with anyone who matters.

Pam said...

Kent,

What is your view of this trial? You seem to be the most knowledgable person, who's spelling is not edited.

Pam said...

Loretta<

You claim that you will not post the responses from folks bashing your daughter. Very sad. How did they find out you have a daughter? Why not put them on the spot, and reflect them in your blog by mame?

Some folks have been saying things about everyone. Why not let them speak.

Barbara said...

I wouldn't expect anyone to tolerate posts bashing a child. What's that about? It's sad that someone (and in particular a step-girlfriend who claims to "love" a child) would publicly bash a child on a public message board.

Pam said...

I am lost, who is bashing who? Is this about Loretta'a child or Cam browns dead child? Is Loretta related to Patty, Lauren or Sarah?

Barbara said...

You brought up Loretta's child.

I don't blame the moderator for deleting posts bashing ANY child. Do you disagree?

loretta said...

This conversation is not about anyone's children except Sarah Key-Marer's, the victim of murder, IMO, and the only child worth considering in this dicusssion.

Any other off-topic discussion will be ignored or deleted.

Pam said...

I do not disagree. I am just trying to understand if this site is being destroyed by hackers who are defaming Loretta and her family or if she is related to the case or the family of the Sarah? From the post, I cannot tell if she is a true person who has devoted the site to looking at the legal case or if she is just pissed at the Browns. Hopefully not the later as I have trusted this site.

loretta said...

If you read the entries from the beginning (click on all the archives from early on), you will see that I have covered the case from the beginning. The News Group story is a secondary story that is peripheral but relevant to the case, since the players involve the defendant's wife and brother-in-law.

It will be interesting to find out if the news groups, blogs, crime forums or message boards impact criminal trials. It appears that they might. I think it would make an interesting topic for a research paper or dissertation.

Pam said...

Thanks for the information. I will read the archives.

Barbara said...

This site is about a beautiful little girl who did not deserve to die. Whether her death was the result of negligence or malice is not known but suspected.

There are some that would like to turn this into a bashing blog because they dislike a beautiful individual. The fact that they have difficulty accepting this individual has created a "trolling" atmosphere that makes it difficult at times to have adult conversations.

Sometimes the trolling has to be addressed in order to get past it and back to the adult conversation.

That's my understanding and I hope that clears it up so we can go back to the subject at hand.

Pam said...

When is the next installment as it is noted to be continued?

loretta said...

I'm working on it.

loretta said...

Ok, continued above. ^^^^

ken said...

All I will say about Patty's communication with me is that she alleged relevant facts -- no proof was offered, and I never pressed the matter -- meaning that, if proven at trial, they would tend to suggest Cam's innocence, but not so dramatically that they would establish (a) his innocence or (b) that this was a politically or personally motivated prosecution. (I won't get into details unless she asks me to, and I know that she reads this blog.) What surprised me about these revelations was that they weren't presented at trial, which suggests that either Geragos is negligent and/or the facts as alleged couldn't be proven. As far as I can see, getting this evidence in would have been easy, thereby begging the question as to why it apparently wasn't presented at the first trial.

As I see it, the first trial is conclusive evidence that this case was good enough to bring to trial, regardless of whether you believe Cam is innocent or guilty. Certainly, involuntary manslaughter was a walk in the park, and the sentence he has already served is not out of line for a conviction on that count. (It should be noted for the record that Ted lied when he said it was not a lesser-included offense.) Indeed, it was remarkable that Judge Arnold didn't lean on the jury a little harder (telling them, for instance, that he would hold them over until Labor Day if they did not reach a verdict before then), which likely would have resulted in a second-degree murder conviction.

Personally, I'm quite content to let the jury make the determination of whether Cam's guilt on capital murder charges has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I always thought this was going to be a nail-biter, even from the outset, and my assessment of all aspects of the case has been thoroughly vindicated. (The "reasonable doubt" standard is a rigorous one, and I really wouldn't have it any other way.) This "turkey" went to trial, and it looks like it might well be cooked over Thanksgiving....

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Pam wrote:

Kent,

God? Is that you? Why do you sound like Pam? :-)

What is your view of this trial?

Based on what I know, and please note I don't know ALL of the evidence presented at trial, I believe Cameron murdered Lauren.


You seem to be the most knowledgable person, who's spelling is not edited.

Watch out folks. My head is swelling :)

I doubt I am the most knowledgable. CG has transcripts and attended closing arguments. Ken has the legal back ground. I'm just someone who pays attention to what is said and makes observations/asks questions.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, pam wrote:
Is Loretta related to Patty, Lauren or Sarah?

Because their cousins
Identical cousins and you'll find..

OK, I'll stop.