Friday, September 15, 2006

Timeline

August 29, 1996
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer born

April, 1997
Sarah Key-Marer files for child support in Orange County, California

May, 1998
Cameron John Brown requests paternity test

February 11, 1999
Cameron John Brown ordered to pay child support

July 22, 1999
Cameron John Brown files for a reduction in child support and requests 32% (approx 117 days) visitation and joint legal custody of Lauren.

Cameron John Brown has still never met Lauren Key-Marer

November 1999-May 2000:

November, 1999
Supervised visitation begins. One hour, then one and a half hours, then two hours, etc.

Lauren is 3 years, 3 months old.

December, 1999
Cameron throws Lauren in the swimming pool at his apartment building during a supervised visitation. Sarah tells him Lauren cannot swim.

February, 2000
Sarah discusses adoption by husband Greg with Cameron and, according to her testimony, he immediately agrees. She tells him to discuss with Patty (his fiance, then wife) and let her know in a week.

Unsupervised visits begin; not overnight.

March, 2000
Judge denies CB’s reduction of child support and joint legal custody.

Sometime after March, 2000, Cameron files another request for reduction of child support and claims he has 50% custody. He actually has her less than 2 ½ days per month.

June 2000-November 8, 2000:
(5 months, 8 days)

June, 2000
Unsupervised overnight visits begin.

Every other week Tuesday 4:30pm to Wednesday 4:30pm in addition to every other Wednesday 12:30pm to 7pm. (48 + 15=63 Hrs/Mo)

October 31-November 01, 2000
Halloween overnight visit.

Cameron picks Lauren up and tells her to get in the front seat of the car. She doesn’t want to ride in the front and eventually gets in the back seat. As they are pulling away in the car, Cameron’s wife, Patty, leaned out the window and shouted to Sarah, “What else is it you do when you’re not smacking your kid around” and chuckled and drove away.

The next day when Cameron returned Lauren, he put her suitcase on the side of the car in the road and told her to come back and get it. He said he wasn’t going to do it for her. He told her twice.

He wasn’t parked next to the curb so it was almost in the middle of the road. Lauren bolted towards the road and Sarah screamed for her to stop and she ran back crying. Cameron drove away laughing.

Seven days later Lauren Sarene Key-Marer was dead.

November 8, 2000
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer dies

Lauren was 4 years, 3 months old.

423 comments:

1 – 200 of 423   Newer›   Newest»
Kent Wills said...

A very telling time line. When was the motorcycle incident? Cameron picked Lauren up from school with his motorcycle, and couldn't be bothered to bring a helmet for her.

Astrologer said...

What a caring dad! Helmets are mandatory in California.

CountryGirl said...

It was a teacher for Lauren and she testified on Monday, July 17th; however SF/KFI did not say if the teacher gave the actual date of the incident.

CountryGirl said...

The teacher testified that Cameron came to the school to pick up Lauren on a motorcycle and had no helmet for Lauren.

The teacher testified that she told Cameron he wasn't taking Lauren anywhere on the bike without one, and Cameron told her, "Don't tell me what to do with my daughter."

ken said...

What a daring cad! And some people actually wonder why others might despise him....

Ronni said...

Thanks for the timeline.

He THREW her in the POOL?? I wonder if she was wearing a "flotation device."

Somebody should make him into a pinata just for that.

CountryGirl said...

A We'd gone to visit Cameron at his apartment

4 complex, and he invited Lauren to go to the pool. So we

5 took our floaties up there, and we sat in the hot -- lauren

6 sat in the hot tub with Cameron, and I sat on the edge.

7 And then a while after that, she was playing by

8 the side of the pool, and he just walked by her and picked

9 her up and threw her in. And I think she was wearing her

10 floaties, but I'm not sure. But she was very

11 distraught because she couldn't swim.

12 Q What was her reaction? What did she do?

13 A She screamed and cried and made a fuss. Because

14 she was shocked that he had just picked her up.

15 Q Did you say anything to the defendant about doing

16 that?

17 A I told him she couldn't swim, and that that's not

18 a good thing to do to any child.

19 Q But you specifically told the defendant Lauren

20 couldn't swim?

21 A After the fact, yes, I did.

CountryGirl said...

Wearing floaties should have clued him in that Lauren did not swim, or should have. It doesn't matter. He threw her in a swimming pool and scared her.

His own mother testified about him letting her run around unsupervised on the sailboat and climbing up on the table on the 2nd floor balcony at his grandmother's house.

Sarah repeatedly told him to keep Lauren off the boat and he ignored her. She even got a court order to keep him from taking her on the boat and he did it anyway.

Kent Wills said...

Cammeron's action, as reported under oath, are NOT those of a loving daddy.

Ronni said...

I agree with Kent.

Actions speak louder than words, and his actions are cussing him out.

Wayne Delia said...

"LIES! None of you has a clue what you are talking about! None of you were there, but I was, of course, and it all happened much differently from the timeline you imagined. So just shut up and take my word for it, there is more than meets the eye here and I'm not at liberty to discuss or support it at this time. We're saving it until after the verdict, for some reason. [...] Cameron should be assumed Christ-like unless proven guilty. I don't have time for you tossers. (Anonymous)"

Sorry, I was channeling Kaldis there for a minute.

Speaking of the porky puppy, he's evidently got something else going on for the past couple of days - so all the anonymous posters to the KKK Blob are also off duty, too.

WMD

loretta said...

It's just a coincidence, Wayne. :)

Kent Wills said...

At one time, wayne delia wrote:

Speaking of the porky puppy, he's evidently got something else going on for the past couple of days - so all the anonymous posters to the KKK Blob are also off duty, too.

I noticed that since we've stopped posting to the KKK blog, almost nothing is going on. Every once in a while, Ted (or Patty) will post something that has NOTHING to do with Cam's case.

This morning, one of them postes something about a judge, who has NO involvment with the case, being removed from a case. Um... What, like exactly, does this judge have to do with Cameron? I don't see any connection.

ken said...

Kent wrote:

This morning, one of them postes something about a judge, who has NO involvment with the case, being removed from a case. Um... What, like exactly, does this judge have to do with Cameron? I don't see any connection.

In Ted's eyes, all judges are evil ... except those judges who clearly violate the law to rule against Ken. The obsession continues....

Skye said...

That summary of events gives me shivers! He was cruel and mean to Lauren and quite capable of killing her in cold blood.

Sarah, apologies to you. This must be difficult reading our comments. I sincerely hope you get the justice you deserve for Lauren's sake!

Wayne Delia said...

Kent wrote:

I noticed that since we've stopped posting to the KKK blog, almost nothing is going on. Every once in a while, Ted (or Patty) will post something that has NOTHING to do with Cam's case.
It's a damning coincidence when Ted and/or Patty have something else going on, none of the "anonymous" posters posts anything to the KKK Blob. For the past week, there's only been one lengthy post, one throwaway post, and one commentary on the throwaway post. But Ted has been posting on Usenet (and, as usual, getting his ass kicked) while not even posting on his own blog, either as himself or as any of the anonymous roles he's created. Even puppets need a real hand up their butt to control them once in awhile. I guess Ted's lost interest in the charade, but it's too much of a coincidence that all the other anonymous supporters have also lost interest at the same time. So Kent Wills's Cricket Chirping Machine has been running 24/7 over the past week.

This morning, one of them postes something about a judge, who has NO involvment with the case, being removed from a case. Um... What, like exactly, does this judge have to do with Cameron? I don't see any connection.
That's easy, with just a little understanding of Ted's psyche (and "a little understanding" may be all that's possible).

It reduces to "Here's a story about a case in Los Angeles, in which a U.S. District Judge was removed because his 'impartiality in handling the case might be questioned.' Camoron Brown is a defendant in a California trial, so all we have to do is question Judge Arnold's impartiality and he will be removed from the case. Judge Arnold prohibited the 'H-bomb' evidence, even though Geragos never actually attempted to enter it into evidence, and the judge would not allow free expression and freedom of speech in the courtroom by Camoron's wife and father. So, Camoron's wife (who happens to be my sister) and I will create this anonymous vanity blob - er, blog - which will be chock full of positive, supportive, anonymous comments while we censor all dissenting opinions. That way, the judge's impartiality will be questioned, and Camoron's inevitable guilty verdict will be overturned as a wrongful conviction. Then all those people persecuting me will bow down to my planet-sized brain and will accept Jesus into their hearts, instead of serving their dark lord and master Satan."

He's that transparent.

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

A sudden thought: The entire KKK Blob and the exchange of comments has some comic relief value, but I'm guessing that in the near future, the whole thing might be taken down out of embarrassment and disillusionment.

A few months ago, on an ultra-conservative Christian apologetic web site, the author reacted strongly against an online news article which depicted a young woman taking a cheerful, casual attitude about her abortion. The trouble was, the original article was published in The Onion, a well-known and extremely funny satire site. What followed was a mention on several of the most widely-read blogs on the web (I found it on www.boingboing.com), resulting in almost two thousand comments describing in various colorful terms exactly how stupid the blog's author was. Some of these insults were truly creative. The author left all comments intact to demonstrate how the ultra-liberal satanists were persecuting him, until he finally realized his mistake. Then, his story switched, when he claimed he knew he was responding to a satire article but that it characterized the position he intended to attack. (That made little to no sense, because in his blog entry, he directly addressed the character which he claimed to know was only fictional.) Finally, after about a week or two, he removed all the comments, but not before he ended up with a Wikipedia entry as one of the most widely-spread, deeply critical, and quickly disseminated responses to ever hit the blogging scene. It's all gone now, but some have managed to save almost all of the comments. I'm afraid I do not have any specific details or names (although I think the author's name was Pete).

On second thought, the KKK Blob will probably still be around years after the fact, which Ted will refer to as a reference and authority in order to avoid ever having to face up to reality. Look how long the hokey www.freecambrown.com site has been around! "Here are pictures of the defendant and his daughter, who is smiling after the photographer said 'Watch the birdie, say cheese, etc.' - therefore he is innocent of murdering her."

WMD

Anonymous said...

The silence is not due to nothing to say, it is due to the fact that there will be more evidence and witnesses this time around> I know for a fact some of the things going on in both camps. But why let it become public knowledge on either of these freaky sites when it should be told in the court of law.

Skye said...

Better watch you don't go "poof", Anonymutt.

Geragross has probably got a wiff of the wind-bag. LOL

How do you tell someone who will not be told, to shut up?

CountryGirl said...

Interesting that "Case Insider" AKA/Patty-Ted can't even spell Lauren's middle name correctly on their tribute blog.

They then defend their ignorance by saying the GJ transcripts spelled it Serene (which they did); however it is spelled SArene.

Skye said...

IIRC, they spelled Sarah's name incorrectly, too!

They lack all the attributes that result in having a bit of "class", CG.

If either of them had just the slightest "bit", it would have shown by now.

Of course, it is possible that they are basically ignorant and don't know any better.

Blessings to Sarah and her family.

ken said...

Anonymous wrote:

But why let it become public knowledge on either of these freaky sites when it should be told in the court of law.

More like, should have been told in a court of law three months ago. Why wasn't it? That is the REAL mystery here.

Skye said...

The reason/excuse for questions not being answered, changes on a daily basis. Why bother asking?

Mind you! He is getting exactly what he wants from his BS: Attention!

loretta said...

Excellent reading on the Usenet thread regarding this case. I finally caught up and it was well worth the time and effort.

Just a few observations:

1. I have done some research into "spells" and "voodoo" and have a passing acquaintance with these things - nothing like Moe, but more than the average Joe on the street. I recognized immediately from the description of what was under the bed (inside a cigar box, inside a suitcase - both very important facts), and know that there are several spells/curses/hexes, what have you, that involve cutting out the head only of a person in a photograph. Photographs are not nearly as effective as actual DNA from a person, such as a lock of their hair or even a piece of worn *unwashed* clothing. However, it must have been the best Patty could come up with, so she used what she had.

If you are curious, I could post some links to actual spells/hexes/curses that involve the use of cut-out pictures (the face/head is the most common) and candles and other items that are used for these things. I wrote a paper on Voodoo for a religion class I took in college and I tested several Voodoo spells myself. I'm not sure how effective they were (one was alarmingly effective, but I can't be certain it wasn't just a coincidence), but I am certain from my own experience that they are not something to be dabbled with by laypeople. They most certainly will backfire in a very ugly way.

I have been telling everyone for weeks that the KKK Blob has only a few "members," including Patty, Ted, Jeanne/Valerie Jean/JA Paredes (aka "Just Amazed" and "InteresTED" among others), and a few token mutts from the old muttville who are participating only for fun (they aren't in the KK Kamp, they just like to be in opposition to me as a kind of mini-career); and maybe a Brown family member. The rest who are supporters are, as everyone has guessed, "sock puppets."

Why they would not use their names or a consistent nickname is rather foolish and self-sabotaging. As I predicted long ago (and warned them), their blob(s) will die from lack of interest as long as they are populated by anonymi and censored.

This blog may be censored on occasion, but nothing of substance has ever been poofed. Just insults, mutt droppings and illegible smudges.

I would like to thank Wayne for making me laugh out loud, wish I had written what he wrote, and pushing Ted to the cussing w/o astericks point again.

I might have to do an entry on spells/curses/hexes so that you can see what I'm talking about. I about fell over when I read the list of things found under Patty's bed, it raised the hair on my neck and sent a chill through me like ice.

Patty Kaldis Brown has some 'splainin to do. Whatever possessed her to attempt this magick was not love.

Skye said...

Looking forward to your entry on spells, Loretta.

I also cracked up at Ted's "shouted" swearwords without the asterisks. Hitting a nerve certainly has its rewards. LOL

loretta said...

would not be surprised to some day learn that Patty is still practicing voodoo and has downloaded my pictures and those of CG and has cut out our little heads and chanted a spell or two.

I don't know about CG's vulnerability (I would guess it was rather low), but I can assure Voodoo Patty that I am immune.

It's just not really very smart at all to try an and "out-occult" a person who was born on a Friday the 13th in November.

Seriously. Don't waste your candle wax.

Skye said...

Yes, looking like that, you don't need any spells backfiring! LOL

Wayne Delia said...

Lately I've been hammering away on the question of why evidence that Ted characterized as "H-bomb" caliber was withheld from the defense case in the first trial.

I was surprised to see that the latest blog entry (almost three weeks ago, dated Sept. 1) asked virtually the same question and raised the same issue:

If those [autopsy] pictures were withheld from evidence, what else is being withheld that could defend or even exonerate Cameron Brown?

When asked about his "H-Bomb" evidence, Ted is essentially admitting that it was withheld by Geragos. And he characterized it as evidence which would exonerate Camoron. If the "Case Insider" was truly concerned about evidence suppressed in support of Camoron, he might want to start by asking Geragos and Ted about the missing "H-bomb".

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

OK, which one of you guys was messing with Ted's KKK Blog this evening at 8:01 PM? Highlights:

The foolishness from Usenet never ceases to amaze me. Ken Smith would like us to believe that Cam killed his daughter because he was possibly physically able to do so. ahuh. sure. Because we demonstrate that Cam Brown has always been very athletic, this somehow makes him suspect?... No one will deny that Cameron Brown was an awesome dude and had participated in many sporting activities throughout his life. He was an outdoors person. He loved nature. He loved the mountains and he loved the sea. But do those facts make him a murderer? Of course not!... Perhaps this is why people who know Cam are not surprised that he would follow Lauren out to the point...much like his own parents had done with him throughout his life. No one who knows Cam would be surprised that he would hike as far as Lauren wanted to go, and no one would be surprised by him picking her up and carrying her back to the car if she got tired. That was Cam. Is that shameful? Is that something he should feel defensive about? Hell no... If Cam had been inclined to pick something up and throw it off the cliff he probably could have easily done so. The problem is, he didn't. It wasn't something Cam would have been capable of because he loved his daughter and had no motivation to harm her. He did have motivation to sit on one of the most awesome spots in all of that area with his daughter and look at the sights. It fits exactly who Cam is. An awful accident happened that day. Cam had not anticipated it and he obviously misjudged the situation, but that isn't against the law. Of course, if you look at Jeff Leslie, Danny Smith and Craig Hum, it's pretty obvious they are not athletes so it's no wonder they would have some trouble understanding someone who is.

Even Ted couldn't have anonymously been this comical without trying.

'Fess up. Which one of you jokers added that lampoon comment? "No one will deny that Cameron Brown was an awesome dude?" That's WAY over the top.

WMD

ken said...

Ted apparently wrote (in the KKK Blog):

The foolishness from Usenet never ceases to amaze me. Ken Smith would like us to believe that Cam killed his daughter because he was possibly physically able to do so. ahuh. sure. Because we demonstrate that Cam Brown has always been very athletic, this somehow makes him suspect?... No one will deny that Cameron Brown was an awesome dude and had participated in many sporting activities throughout his life. He was an outdoors person. He loved nature. He loved the mountains and he loved the sea. But do those facts make him a murderer? Of course not!...

To set the record straight, I was just pointing out the fact that Ted's claim that Cam was physically unable to keep up with a four-year-old girl on a hike (although he had appropriate shoes, but she did not) was risible -- as are most of Ted's claims concerning this case.

If Cam had been inclined to pick something up and throw it off the cliff he probably could have easily done so.

Was Cam physically able to throw Lauren off the cliff that day? Absolutely, as was clearly evidenced by his ability to wield his surfboard. Was he inclined to throw Lauren off? The evidence does seem to point there....

Of course, if you look at Jeff Leslie, Danny Smith and Craig Hum, it's pretty obvious they are not athletes so it's no wonder they would have some trouble understanding someone who is.

The same could, of course, be said for Ted Kaldis, who hasn't seen the inside of a gym since at least the last time he was inside a woman (belived to have been relatively early on in the Reagan Administration). But what about me? A Boston-class marathoner, double diamond skier, avid hiker and cyclist who lived on a boat once upon a time, I am by the writer's metric capable of "understanding" Cam. But perhaps more to the point, it is what I know on that account which tends to persuade me of Cam's guilt. Specifically, a seasoned outdoorsman doesn't take unnecessary risks -- Nature can be a mother, and you don't want to fool with her. That Cam acted as he did toward Lauren on any number of documented occasions is tantamount to an admission of intent. Cam quite obviously wanted Lauren dead, and he'd take an "accident" if he could get it.

Skye said...

But, more importantly: Who won the election?

All those pictures of Cam the "awesome dude" and NONE of Patty (dang!).

Skye said...

Geez, Ted! If you don't want others to see profanity then why post it in the first place. You really are a nutcase!

Today, I'm going to refrain from calling you an ugly nutcase.

Skye said...

Wayne, have you forgotten that Jesus is in a box under the bed in the Kaldis/Brown household?

Careful, KKK! Jesus might actually be able to see under that bed.

ken said...

Yeah, one of the anonymi at the KKK Blog is definitely Ted. Regardez-vous (from the KKK Blog):

But what Ken, Jeff Leslie, Danny Smith, Craig Hum or any of the other morons who believe this absurd story don't understand is Cam was NOT mentally able to harm Lauren. He is NOT spiritually able to harm Lauren. He is NOT psychologically able to harm Lauren.

Why would the "spiritual" angle matter, Ted? And why the capitalization, Ted?

I wonder if Jeff Leslie, Danny Smith and Craig Hum are capable of understanding that; or are their minds too depraved to know what that would be?

The evidence adduced at trial -- e.g., the motorcycle incident, the suitcase incident -- demonstrated that Cam had consistently acted with a reckless and even shocking disregard for Lauren's safety and personal well-being. On its face, this is sufficient to enable a reasonable person to conclude that Cam was mentally and psychologically capable of harming Lauren. As to his spiritual state, that is never properly at issue in a murder trial.

As for absurd stories, that is the problem: Cam's cover story was so absurd that it would take a seasoned con-artist to even begin to try to pull it off. Again on the face of it, the chain of events that found them on that cliff was so implausible that it should immediately raise suspicions in the eyes of those we pay to be suspicious.

There's more than enough to take this case to trial, but it is comforting to know that the State is still digging to find more dirt on the Camster. If one of my loved ones were murdered, I'd want the State to leave no stone unturned in its search for justice. Props to Jeff Leslie and Craig Hum.

Skye said...

He was malicious to Lauren, Ted!

Whether Lauren was wearing a floatation device or not the act of picking Lauren up and throwing her in the pool is wicked to the point of being evil.

But then, you sound evil, too. Which would make it impossible for you to understand just how vicious that was.

ken said...

More foolishness from the KKK Blog (I can see why Ted doesn't want this to go to USENET):

The fact is when the prosecution started the trial their story was Patty considered Lauren a financial burden.

Which is why they presented evidence of the voodoo kit, right? It sounds to me as if they were attempting to show that (a) Patty had her motives (she desperately wanted a child) and (b) Cam had his motives (a child would seriously screw up his surfer-dude lifestyle, and be a material financial drain). Whether you like it or not, they are within their rights to do so.

They had skewed police reports supporting that position and were ready to go with it. Then, once they realized how foolish that position made them look - considering the reality of the situation - they needed a new motive. So mid-stream they made up the story that Patty wanted to adopt Lauren.

This claim might go farther if it weren't coming from one of Ted's anonymous sockpuppets, and wasn't at variance with the known evidence, but the voodoo kit and Google search certainly tend to suggest that Patty had a nefarious end in mind. (Whether she did or not is quite another matter, but we can only ascertain her state of mind from the evidence we have at hand.) It's up to the jury to determine what happened.

And you idiots are buying it hook, line and sinker! So, how foolish do you think that makes you look?

We're only commenting on the available evidence.

I mean, think about it. For five years the story was Cam wanted out of child support. But, they hadn’t investigated enough to realize that story would not stand up.

From Cam's perspective, it still stands up quite well. An extra thou a month can buy a lot of surfboards.

As a result they realized half way through the trial they had a problem. SO THEY CHANGED THEIR STORY - HALF WAY THROUGH THE TRIAL!!!

I don't know where you get this, Ted. Patty had her motives. Cam had his. It wouldn't exactly be the first time in recorded history that marriage partners had different motives for acting. All we can do is deduce what most likely happened from the evidence as presented.

And you don’t see a problem with this?

Quite frankly, no, Ted. Why should we? The ball is in your court. Persuade us.

There is nothing wrong as far as you are concerned? You are going along with whatever you’re told like good little sheep!

What?! I'm a Golden Buffalo and Pioneer and most emphatically, not a Ram. Seriously, those who know know that the State is entitled to do precisely what they did. You might not like it, but your likes and dislikes are none of my concern. All I care about is that Cam get his day in court, and that the proceedings be as fair (as defined by the law, as opposed to your subjective and partisan views) as possible.

What does that say about you?!

That we're not infected with a massive cae of trial delusion?

Skye said...

Wasn't Patty looking up website about custody issues? I might be wrong.

Ted, you write like a juvenile! This reduces the impact of anything you have to say.

Things like "What does that say about you?" and "how foolish do you think that makes you look?"

None of us have spent years in prison, Ted! Paying mega bucks to a lawyer who doesn't use his trump cards!

You, Ted, actually look like the fool here!

loretta said...

The Kaldis Kooks have given me a plethora of fisking material, which is coming right up.

Since they have effectively banned anyone who can argue with them, point out their misanthropy, misstatements, mischaracterizations and mistakes, (heh) I will have to address them in here.

Wayne Delia said...

Ted's been obsessed for quite some time on creating the impression that he knows something that all his detractors don't know, and that he's so important that it's incumbent upon him not to reveal this special knowledge. That technique is plainly obvious in the Camoron Brown case, of course.

When he's irrevocably cornered, as has happened several times, he generally brings out the "pious Christian" persona. His vocabulary switches from crude Australian to Old English in the King James Version style. From there, he blatantly makes up shit that's not in the Bible at all, and hides behind the "spiritual interpretation" smokescreen. He can make any arbitrary point which suits his agenda at the time, and his only support need be an evasive, mystical "You know not the Scriptures."

No kidding! His latest foray (on usenet) into Biblical exegesis is that it's a Scriptural principle that unforgiveness causes cancer - presumably, that Sarah's unforgiveness toward Camoron killing her daughter resulted in Sarah's bout with cancer. The trouble is, there are no verses in the Bible which include either the terms "unforgiveness" or "cancer", and the only references to "will not forgive" refer to God not forgiving a person's offenses against Him. Ted dropped this particular topic shortly after his profanity blowup against me, when I pointed out that in Matthew 12:31-32 Jesus describes God as never forgiving the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, either in this world or the world yet to come. If God holds His grudges for eternity, as those verses indicate, what kind of cancer does God bring upon Himself for His own unforgiveness?

I'm just an atheist who knows the Bible better than Ted does, and it's relatively easy to deflate any spiritual claim of his. In fact, any time he turns to his "Pious Christian" persona among his split personalities, it's a clear indication that he's out of ammunition, has already thrown the empty gun at his target in vain, and is now invoking threats of his invisible, imaginary friend who will beat up all his opponents. Even so, the comic value declines rapidly the more he employs that tactic.

WMD

loretta said...

Some rebuttals. (It's like shooting fish in a barrel, folks.)

The fact is when the prosecution started the trial their story was Patty considered Lauren a financial burden.

The child support was a financial burden. Patty had lost her job, remember? Between the child support, Cam’s debt and the couple’s Collyforny overhead, life was getting rather tight.

[…]

I mean, think about it. For five years the story was Cam wanted out of child support.

He did. I’m sure Patty did at first, too, until she got it in her head that taking Lauren would allow her to have her cake and eat it too: she’d have a foothold in the marriage to keep Cam from straying (which he very likely would have, based on his tomcat history), and she could raise a child that she was no longer capable of bearing.

Recently in the news is a story about a woman who kidnapped a baby and slashed the mom’s throat. It is not that out of the question to compare that to what Patty was doing. Patty knew that as long as Sarah was in the picture as Lauren’s custodial parent, that Sarah held the “papers” on Cam Brown and would always be a thorn in her side. Never mind her deep-seated jealousy of Sarah’s obvious superior looks, class, charm and position of power. That is why Patty resorted to voodoo and researched ways in which Cam could obtain “full legal and physical custody.”

It’s an ugly, ugly motive, but it’s very realistic.


This statement isn't meant to imply that they didn't do enough investigation. But that they were only interested in whatever they could find to support their theory. Anything (and everything) they found that did not point to where they wanted to take their case, they disregarded, suppressed, threw away, ignored or in someway got rid of. Anything that did not point to the guilt they wanted to prove, they did not pay attention to....

Cue up the Peterson apologists’ defense. Or any textbook defense. Please. You gotta do a lot better than that.


He did have motivation to sit on one of the most awesome spots in all of that area with his daughter and look at the sights. It fits exactly who Cam is. An awful accident happened that day. Cam had not anticipated it and he obviously misjudged the situation, but that isn't against the law.

This argument is so ridiculous as to be an insult to anyone reading who has a 3-digit IQ. The continued attempt to justify Cam’s sitting on a “rock” watching his child throw stones off a 120-foot cliff is so preposterous, there may be a MAD TV skit made out of it soon. Seriously, Kooks – you have GOT to stop defending this action. At least concede that Cam was a spectacular idiot to go up there, much less STAY up there, when he realized the height. If you cannot concede to this point, you have effectively excluded yourself from reasonable discourse. Then again, banning everyone who could point this out to you kind of served the same purpose, eh?


And they are continuing. Since the trial ended Leslie has been flying back and forth to Colorado, talking to everyone who knew Cam in the 80s, trying desperately to find something - anything at all - that they can use against Cam. Cam has been in jail for nearly three years and they are still desperately trying to make a case against him.

Good. You gave them another bite of the apple, and they are going to take full advantage of the opportunity. If your buddy, Geragos, had used that H-bomb-class evidence to exonerate his client, Jeff Leslie wouldn’t be having coffee with Cam’s former friends. As far as I’m concerned, there is no “H-bomb-class” evidence AND your lawyer is an idiot. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive issues.

You'd think, in America, they would make their case first then throw someone in jail. I guess that is not the way things are done in LA County!

It’s Geragos you should be complaining to, not us.

Wayne Delia said...

From the True Case Insider's Absolutely True Inside Look at the Camoron Brown Case True Stuff Blog from Reliable Anonymous Sources:

But what Ken, Jeff Leslie, Danny Smith, Craig Hum or any of the other morons who believe this absurd story don't understand is Cam was NOT mentally able to harm Lauren. He is NOT spiritually able to harm Lauren. He is NOT psychologically able to harm Lauren.

According to Camoron's own version of the events leading to Lauren's death, he was also NOT physically able to keep up with her on the trail.

Thus, we have a defendant, 44 years old, athletic, conditioned, a surfer and marathon runner - who was capable of being completely overcome by a four-year-old girl, psychologically, mentally, spiritually, and physically. That's not a reputation one would want to have, either in prison or out on the street.

It's good to see that Ted has decided to take my advice from early on, though. "But what [they] don't understand is that Cam was NOT mentally able to harm Lauren..." IF THE GUY'S A TWIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT! (I coined that phrase.) Perhaps the H-Bomb evidence, indeed, is a surprise change of plea to Not Guilty by reason of Insanity, or at least Not Guilty by reason of Not Being Smart Enough.

Again, my interest in this case is based, in part, on the fact that I have a bright, beautiful, delightful daughter who is about a year older than Lauren would have been, and at every turn, I cannot even begin to imagine how I could have done anything to her that Camoron is said to have done to Lauren.

Someone might want to explain to Ted that this is not how the insanity defense works: "My client is Not Guilty by reason of Insanity, Your Honor. Anyone who would murder his own daughter would be insane. If he did not murder his daughter, he's not guilty, and if he did, he's not guilty by reason of insanity."

WMD

Skye said...

Christianity is all about dying, and not being able to get into heaven because you have been bad. I know, I have a twisted view.

Those thoughts and words of yours are heading you South, Ted!


I'm an athiest too, Wayne.

loretta said...

One of the many problems the KK's have is that they have stepped entirely out of their realm in order to defend Brown. Neither Patty nor Ted has ever been a parent. Neither has ever even been a step-parent more than a few months. We parents know that the learning curve is Herculean when you inherit a child in middle-age.

I wouldn't have trusted Cam Brown with a Chia Pet, much less a child. I'm sure Sarah rues the day she didn't stop the visitation. But none of us has a crystal ball.

Currently, I am dealing with an ex who is a relapsed alcoholic and he has visitation with my Lauren (two months older than Lauren Key) and I can't stop it. Why? Because the courts are not going to stop visitation because of my misgivings. It's not illegal to drink even if you are an alcoholic.

This brings me back to the anemic and insulting "defense" promoted by the Brown apologists - it wasn't "illegal" for Brown to bring his 4-yr old daughter to a cliff. It wasn't "illegal" for him to let her wander around unsupervised on a sailboat in deep water. It wasn't "illegal" for him to leave her suitcase in the street. It wasn't "illegal" for him to throw her in a swimming pool by suprise. It wasn't "illegal" for him to badmouth his mother and badmouth Sarah to Lauren.

See what I'm getting at?

If any of the Brown apologists knew anything about children, they would not be defending him.

Their entire premise is obscene and based on bottomless and irreconcilable IGNORANCE.

They should stick to what they know. (Engineering? Math? Where to buy cheap cookies? Voodoo?)

Skye said...

Careful, Loretta! That nutjob is going to start with the name-calling again.

He doesn't have a sensible argument in him! He certainly will not have a retort for any of this.

CountryGirl said...

Cam couldn't spiritually murder Lauren?

So out of character for a man who laughed in Sarah's face when she was crying, pleading with him about how Lauren died two months after it happened.

A man who smirked during closing arguments about his daughter's death.

/SARCASM

Mgt said...

It is really hard to refrain from calling Cam, a POS! But I will...!

We are not fooled by your shouting and screaming or your blasphemy, Ted.

loretta said...

I don't know what the purpose is of creating a photo blob of Cam Brown and his outdated sporty photos. Cam on a bike. Cam in a boat. See Cam pedal. See Cam sail. See Cam look at the horizon with furry friends.

I mean, what's the point? Does this show what a great guy he is? Are his freckles and chest hair relevant? Seriously.

I think if the Kooks want to demonstrate what a great guy Cam is, let's see his interviews. Let's read his letters. Let's see video of him instead of the sappy songs.

If he's so great, how come he's in jail?

Skye said...

Those pictures are a confimation of the disparity in the looks of Cam and Patty, whom we assume looks like Ted.

What I would like to see is a picture of Cam and Patty.

Ronni said...

I loathe the pics of
Cameron with his hooded eyes.

Skye said...

Sarah, you and your family are still in my thoughts.

I should mention that more often, I think.

Bless you all!

Kent Wills said...

For those who don't know, Moe has posted an article regarding the "Voodoo" kit found under Patty's bed. While we'll probably never know how accurate Moe's essay is, it is VERY plausible.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/2b7e97073d821c33

Nadine said...

I haven't checked in here in quite awhile.

Sarah, I just wanted to let you know that my thoughts are with you.

Skye said...

Well, Kent. That could explain how Patty caught Cameron Brown. Let's face it, that woman had to be desperate.

Being Ted's sister, she can be no oil painting, not even a Picasso!

Sarah, you have many *good* people generating positive thoughts for you.

Thinking of you every day that comes.

Skye said...

I see we immediately had the same thoughts about Patty putting a spell on Cameron, Loretta.

That really amused me.

Mgt said...

Ha! You certainly know how to get him out from under his rock, Loretta.

Priceless!

Wayne Delia said...

Am I having technical troubles with my browser, or is it actually the case that Ted has removed all comment sections from the pages of the KKK Blob?

WMD

loretta said...

It must be your browser, Wayne. The comments are still there.

Wayne Delia said...

I think that's a problem I won't try too hard to fix :)

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

Dang - the comments are indeed back. I guess Ted was just playing webmaster again this afternoon.

WMD

Skye said...

Positive thoughts for Sarah. I hope you ignore the ignorance of the Kaldis Klan.

Their ugly words will boomerang, for sure!

Kent Wills said...

From time to time, the comment section on the kook blog is unavailable. It might be Ted playing around, but I actually think it's the server having a hicup or something.

Ronni said...

Do you have a link to that? I have a new computer, and lost all my links.

CountryGirl said...

I was just told KFI said the trial has been postponed to mid-November and Geragos is stating he hasn't been retained for new trial--yet. Anybody hear this?

loretta said...

That would not be a surprise if KK couldn't afford GerEgo for a second trial. No wonder he said he wouldn't abandon his client - he already knew he wasn't retained for the second trial.

I wonder if the Browns are getting a new attorney (thus delaying the proceedings further) or if Brown has a PD.

This second trial could be months off, if that's the case.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, countrygirl wrote:
I was just told KFI said the trial has been postponed to mid-November and Geragos is stating he hasn't been retained for new trial--yet. Anybody hear this?

GRUMBLE!

Another delay! This is getting old. Guilty or not, I want to see this matter concluded.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:

That would not be a surprise if KK couldn't afford GerEgo for a second trial.

Geragos isn't cheap. And Team Cam can only raise so much money.

No wonder he said he wouldn't abandon his client - he already knew he wasn't retained for the second trial.

If Geragos is not going to be Cam's lawyer, doesn't that mean he's abandoned his client? :)

I wonder if the Browns are getting a new attorney (thus delaying the proceedings further) or if Brown has a PD.

If the report of the delay is accurate, I wonder how it will be Hum's fault. You know Team Cameron will somehow claim Hum is at fault.

This second trial could be months off, if that's the case.

Grumble!

Skye said...

Poor Sarah! If this is true. She has been through enough.

We know the Kaldis Klan are cleaned out, so, it must be up to his "stuff-shirt" of a father, if he is so inclined.

ken said...

CG wrote:I was just told KFI said the trial has been postponed to mid-November and Geragos is stating he hasn't been retained for new trial--yet. Anybody hear this?

This is something we have to ask Ted. No wonder he's been so silent lately.

Kent: If Geragos is not going to be Cam's lawyer, doesn't that mean he's abandoned his client? :)

Not technically. The Code can't force you to work for nothing, but as a practical matter, they should have cut a deal with a maximum fee, to cover contingencies like these. You need continuity in your representation, and this development, if true, is a VERY BAD THING.

If Geragos is going to just walk away, Cam is absolutely screwed. Hum has the enormous advantage of having gone through the first trial, playing against an overworked PD who would be coming in cold.

Worse yet, if there is no pre-existing deal for Geragos to come in, they'll have to hold a trial when he can make it. If his dance card is full until next June, then the re-trial will be held in June. No matter how you cut it, if this is true, it is a VERY BAD THING.

Loretta: That would not be a surprise if KK couldn't afford GerEgo for a second trial. No wonder he said he wouldn't abandon his client - he already knew he wasn't retained for the second trial.

What does that tell us about the H-bomb? :)

Remember, Bobby Brown is an investment banker -- a ruthless sonofabitch, who knows enough not to throw good money after bad. He may well have decided that Cam is guilty and is going to be convicted anyway, so ther is no reason not to simply throw him to the wolves....

Team Cam, can we get something authoritative here? Are the rumors true?

Skye said...

The Kooky Kaldis twins thought that if they got GerEgo to defend Cam, there was no chance of failure.

Cam is back to square one and Patty has no home and debts up to her eyeballs.

Know your limitations!

ken said...

From the other blog:

[to me]don't you realize that sometimes it takes longer than that to liquidate funds?

I don't see why it would have been necessary. First, I would have expected that the original fee agreement would have covered the possibility of a mistrial. Second, I would have expected Bobby Brown's sig to be good enough, given the apparent size of his exchequer (besides, he could have borrowed against his portfolio for a very favorable rate). Finally, I'm surprised his portfolio is that illiquid, in light of the fact that he was an investment banker.

If the delay in the retrial was due to financing issues, it's all on Geragos, and it is inexcusable.

As I see it, they need Geragos, and it's a good thing they have him (especially for the blog :-) ). If they had to bring in a PD at this point, s/he'd be massacred.

loretta said...

Ken wrote (on the KKK Blob):

I'm happy to hear that he's still on the case -- and for that matter, so is Loretta (albeit for different reasons).

yeah, I would have been a little bummed out, but he has two other clients that I'm watching: Keith Carradine and Holly Ashcraft. Ashcraft is on trial for murder and Carradine is part of the Pelicano Debacle.

However, with GerEgo's own private eye in the cross hairs, this could get really interesting.

Skye said...

CG, I didn't know that Patty had hurled abuse at Sarah from the car, until I read it here.

I'm visualising Ted in a dirty-blonde wig, pulling a witch face. Scary!

Makes that paraphernalia under the bed even more sinister, doesn't it.

Today, I will refrain from calling her *TRASH*!

Kent Wills said...

At one time, ken wrote:

Kent: If Geragos is not going to be Cam's lawyer, doesn't that mean he's abandoned his client? :)

Not technically. The Code can't force you to work for nothing, but as a practical matter, they should have cut a deal with a maximum fee, to cover contingencies like these. You need continuity in your representation, and this development, if true, is a VERY BAD THING.


Very bad to say the least. If we presume Geragos will not be Cameron's lawyer in the next trial, it means the new lawyer will have to play catch-up. I presume Cameron will allow the new attorney access to everything Geragos has on the case, which will help, but it's not the same as having the lawyer who was there.

If Geragos is going to just walk away, Cam is absolutely screwed. Hum has the enormous advantage of having gone through the first trial, playing against an overworked PD who would be coming in cold.

I would hope Team Cameron could afford a "regular" attorney. They may not go with Geragos (which, IMO would be a mistake since he was the cousel for the first trial), but they should find someone with a lighter case load than the average public defender.

Worse yet, if there is no pre-existing deal for Geragos to come in, they'll have to hold a trial when he can make it.

Wouldn't that happen even if he were retained as counsel? You can't hold a trial if the attorney can't be there.

If his dance card is full until next June, then the re-trial will be held in June. No matter how you cut it, if this is true, it is a VERY BAD THING.

Very true. For Cam's sake, I do hope Geragos will be his attorney again. There are better lawyers out there, but for the second trial, Geragos is the best choice.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, skye wrote:

Cam is back to square one and Patty has no home and debts up to her eyeballs.

Am I reading this correctly? Are you saying Patty lost her home over this? I know Geragos put a lien on it, but this is the first I'm hearing/reading that she lost her home.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, skye wrote:

CG, I didn't know that Patty had hurled abuse at Sarah from the car, until I read it here.

There is a great deal Team Cam isn't telling. They would prefer everyone fail to notice.

I'm visualising Ted in a dirty-blonde wig, pulling a witch face. Scary!

EEEEEWWWWW!!!!

Still, that's not the worse thing ever.

http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/camandtedinlove.jpg

I should point out that I didn't make the picture. It was sent to me. I did add the bit about it being a parody, but that was my only contribution. Our Usenet bloodhound sent it to me. I don't know if he made it or not.


Makes that paraphernalia under the bed even more sinister, doesn't it.

I don't know about *more* sinister. That Patty kept items in such a way as to make the police believe it was a Voodoo kit is already pretty sinister.

Today, I will refrain from calling her *TRASH*!

What about tomorrow? :-)

ken said...

From the other blog:

Assuming the anonymous poster is Ken Smith, we do not await any finding by you that Cam Brown has been treated in a way that violates his constitutional rights. Your opinion is not the one that matters.....thank God. You have even been willing to say it is the "job" of law enforcement to skew the evidence in whatever way possible in order to ensure a conviction. Wrong. They have a responsibility to the public they serve to be honest and trustworthy. When they skew evidence in favor of whatever they wish to show rather than the facts, they are being dishonest. There is no way that kind of behavior can be reconciled with the job the public expects from law enforcement. That you would even suggest otherwise shows me that what you think isn't of any real consequence except that it is a sad commentary on the segment of our society you live in.

You seem to have difficulty grasping (a) the difference between the law as it stands and the law as perhaps it ought to be, (b) that facts are often amenable to two or more interpretations, and (c) that two people can (and often do) perceive the same incident differently.

"Facts" are often slippery things, and as I recall it, you had some witnesses saying that Lauren was behind Cam, and others saying she was in front of him. Cam's version of events, as was reported by Ted, is simply ludicrous -- as your website shows, he was quite athletic, and would have exactly no problem in keeping up with a four-year-old child in shoes poorly suited for hiking. Beyond that, all the witnesses could have been telling the truth, and all of them could have been mistaken; that is a matter for the jury to decide, and I'm confident in their ability to do precisely that.

Under our system, the State is permitted to put on the strongest case for the defendant's guilt, while the defense is expected to put on the strongest case for his innocence. If I were named dictator -- a concept I abhor, btw -- and could design a legal system from scratch, I would take what I see as the best from both our system and the Continental system. By way of example, as I detest the notion that the cost of a defense is absque damnum injuria, I would insist upon having some sort of an ombudsman in the grand jury room, whose job is to present the known weaknesses in the State's case. In addition, I would raise the burden of proof and weaken the presumptions the State enjoys in that venue. Unfortunately, under the new torture law, there is no process left at all when they decide to send you to the concentration camp. Welcome to the Christofascist Republicanazi Paradise....

Ted and I have had this discussion already, which you can look up on Usenet; run searches with the terms "Carey v. Piphus" and "Hurtado" if you are at all interested. My position is that even the obviously guilty are entitled to the protections of due process; Ted seems to think that only the innocent (read, "people he likes") are entitled to these niceties. I really don't care to rehash that debate here on grounds of brevity.

Oh wait. You said the prosecutor would be the one to put a cap on the skewed evidence of law enforcement. Where do you live, Mr. Smith? If this were true, the prosecutor would have used the testimony of the witness who heard Cam screaming for Lauren not to die. He would have known that the original report of the witness driving by did not match what the witness said in court but in fact supported Cam's version of events instead. If there were honesty in the justice system defense attorneys would not have to spend so much time sorting through prosecutorial lies and distortions. If the lies go all the way up the line and are presented in Court, who better all pray to God you can afford to get a good defense attorney when the time comes that you are falsely accused of something. It can....and does....happen to good people every single day of our lives.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (with respect to my battle with the Bar). Ted seemed to have no problem with it when it happened to me; in fact, he reveled in it.

I honestly don't know how you CAN force-feed honesty into the justice system. There is zero accountability for prosecutors or judges, and I could go back to Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, as they explained why this was such a bad idea. In theory, each step in the process is a 'brake' upon the system, designed to prevent injustice. But these systems are only as good as the people administering them ... and at this point, it's all pretty much a moot point. Cam is going to have an awful lot of company, and most of us won't even get trials.

For this weekend, Reichchancellor Hitler will sign the Enabling Act. Those of you who voted for the bastard got the chains you deserved. America is finished.

ken said...

More fun from the KKK Blob:

We are talking about blatantly falsifying things,

What things? The first trial is already over, so there aren't any secrets left to hide.

blatantly lying,

Specifics? Just because the State doesn't see it your way doesn't mean they are lying, Ted.

purposely suppressing exonerating evidence,

What wasn't turned over to Geragos before the trial (Hayes' notes weren't exactly "exonerating evidence")? Please be specific, and identify where you brought that to the judge's attention.

intimidating witnesses,

You have presented no credible evidence to support this claim and besides, I don't see that there were any witnesses so important to the case that they would need to bully anyone.

You have asked for specifics. We have told you that they will be provided when this case is over. Until that happens, perhaps we are at an impasse.

Perhaps we are. With the exception of the allegations of witness intimidation -- serious, if they are credible, but unlikely on their face (I tend to discount your claims, because no witness was all that important) -- everything was 'out in the open' in the first trial. If those alleged incidents happened, you should be able to document them at this point.

But, please understand what our complaints are about. Don't pretend you don’t know what we are talking about, when we have told you again and again.

As near as can be determined, your claims appear insubstantial. Moreover, many of your gripes are due to practices which are a natural part of our adversary system and thus, not considered as 'fouls.' I'm just trying to cut through the chaff to find the wheat, and only end up finding the chaff.

They are not allowed to lie, to coach witness to lie, to falsify evidence, etc.

Who lied? Craig Hum told the jury what he thought the evidence would show, as did Mark Geragos. You can't actually know what a witness is going to say. As for coaching witnesses to lie, you would have had to have been in the room, which I find incredibly difficult to believe. (Cops don't need coaching.) As for falsifying evidence, I have seen zero evidence of this, even though the first trial is over and there is no reason to hold this back if you have it.

Please explain why sneakers are poorly suited for hiking. Talk about "facts" being "slippery things"!

They aren't nearly as good as hiking boots, but some sneakers aren't bad. You wouldn't expect a four-year-old girl to be in running shoes or cross-trainers, though

Remember, I am gonig on vague recollection here. I don't live this case.

Ken: all the witnesses could have been telling the truth

Most likely, Ted: Except perhaps the ones who recieved something for their testimony.


You mean, like Cam's ultra-high-priced defense whore? Ted kept telling us that Dr. Hayes got three times the going rate for his testimony; imagine my shock when we learned that your guy was paid even more to be a whore.

Ken: that is a matter for the jury to decide, and I'm confident in their ability to do precisely that.

Most likely, Ted: When they aren't blanantly lied to, misled and manipulated. Those lines were crossed in this case!


Wasn't Geragos doing his job?!? Perhaps Loretta and Ann Coulter WERE right about him. Geragos was supposed to be the antidote -- it's the way our system is designed.

I would be happy with forbidding the state to blantanly lie!

Translated fropm the TKTFD: "Lie" = "Something I don't agree with."

We need a system that balances going after criminals with protecting the innocent from unwarranted and overzealous prosecutions.

Problem is, under our current system, this prosecution was absolutely warranted. If you think that the State should have to clear a higher hurdle to begin prosecuting someone, you won't get much of an argument from me (as I agree and have said so). I think there is a better balance, and tort liability for judges and prosecutors is the number one fix in my eyes. (Again, it is ironic that my success or failure may affect Cam.)

If there was once such a balance, it is gone. I'll admit I don't know Ben Franklin's and Thomas Jefferson's arguments, but I do know that power corrupts (John Mills).

The paradigmatic quote is from Lord Acton.

When anyone has power with no accountability it is going to corrupt the individuals and the office.

George W. Bush. How many of you voted for Republicans last cycle? How many of you approve of the new torture bill?

What happened in Cam's trial is a prefect example of that!

I have yet to see any meaningful quantum of credible evidence upon which such a conclusion could responsibly be founded. As Ted said, everyone was just doing their job. I'm not going to say that it isn't possible but rather, that you have an awful long road yet to establish that this is the case. There may have been some minor mistakes -- there is in every prosecution, even at the best of times -- but there doesn't appear to be some massive conspiracy involving everyone this side of Vlad Putin. Indeed, Ted won't even use the word "conspiracy," and if he won't, you are skating on pretty thin ice here.

I will say this again: There doesn't appear to be an identifiable motive, and the ones advanced heretofore (e.g., The Great RPV Conservancy Conspiracy) have been risible.

ken said...

More fun from the KKK Blog (it may be the best discussion we've seen on it for weeks):

I won't get into the politics of this with you because I see both sides having their good and bad points, but it is my interest to preserve the concept of America that was established by our forefathers.

I see a structural and systemic betrayal, of the kind you can pretty much expect when anyone has power without accountability. Jefferson predicted that the lack of judicial accountability would be the ultimate downfall of the Republic; the two brightest man America have never known (Ben Franklin), when they agree (which is almost always), are not very often wrong. To solidify their position, the judges could be expected to share immunity with the other branches, but what we have today is absolutely Orwellian. We don't have a free media or transparent elections, two of the most essential prerequisites of a free and democratic society.

Perhaps you and I both see America faltering for different reasons. But it's going to be a cold day in haitis before I will give up on the rights of all American to have a fair and just trial.

The problem here is that your concept of what is or is not a "fair trial" doesn't quite comport with the vision contemplated by the Framers, or the English common law which spawned it. From that perspective, the checks against abuse are (1) a defense attorney who is loyal to his client and (2) has full access to all relevant information, and (3) a neutral trier of fact (a jury of one's peers). None of our Founding Fathers would have expected the State to argue against its position at trial under our system, even if that is the way things are done in some countries.

This means that we can not approach cases with preconceived notions of guilt or innocence that we are unwilling to deliberate. But more important then that, we must expect the highest level of truth from our justice system.

We take as axiomatic the notion that when two parties with opposite interests argue the point in a vigorous contest, the truth will emerge. It is the marketplace of ideas predicted by Adam Smith's "invisible hand." You can agree or disagree with the premise, but it is the concept upon which we as a citizenry have staked our all.

We can't afford to compromise the civil liberties of our citizens by accepting dishonesty from those who are tasked to find truth and justice.

The system itself is supposed to find truth and justice, not the participants. It's designed to be self-correcting. Please understand this before you venture any further.

When the cops lie, they have to be held to account. When a prosecutor is willing to distort things he has to be held to account. If we lower our expectations, we set the stage for injustices. If we do not hold the feet of those tasked with maintaining truth and justice to the flame, we fail.

As one who has been on the business end of perjury, I have zero tolerance for it. But when a prosecutor distorts things, it is the business of a defense attorney to set them right. Why didn't Mark Geragos do his job?

If the prosecutor does not perform with the highest level of integrity, he needs to be disbarred.

See, e.g., http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/jdc43006.doc. Judicial discipline is a farce, and attorney discipline isn't much farther behind. Our system is as arbitrary and capricious as any in the civilised[sic] world.

If he lies, he should be severely sanctioned. Maybe then we will stop seeing cases overthrown on appeal because of prosecutorial misconduct.

You don't see that many overturned on that account. For an error at trial to precipitate reversal, it has to be truly egregious.

If our judges fail to stand up for truth and justice, we are doomed.

Then, we are doomed. They stopped doing this a very long time ago.

Often there is a fine line.

Not really. When you say there is a fine line, you invariably say that when you like a decision, the judge walks with the angels and when he does not, he is 'Ol Scratch incarnate. What you have to be willing to say is that there is a class of cases that could go either way, and that a judge has to have the freedom to issue a decision you do not like. That having been said, there is a class of cases where the judge's actions cannot possibly be defended -- such as a recent federal case of which I am aware wherein a judge affirmed a magistrate's recommendations five days before the statutory deadline for the litigant's response ... and then, had the temerity to strike the litigant's response from the record! When an abuse of that caliber occurs in Cam's case and you can actually document it -- as opposed to the baseless innuendo and vague allegations you have been throwing around for months -- wake me up.

For those of us who have been truly aggrieved by our legal system, the process Cameron Brown received would have been a blessing beyond our imagining.

Ronni said...

They have a total lack of understanding of the system. They seem to think that the system should be skewed toward the poor pitiful defendant.

What about Justice?

What about the victim?

ken said...

More fun from the KKK Blog:

Patty Brown does not deserve your attacks on her personally.

What have I said about Patty that is demonstrably untrue? Personally, I could care less that she is frumpy, fat, and fifty-three; I wouldn't think any less of her as a person on that account. But it is a fact relevant to the case -- as Sarah and the Baywatch Babe have been described as hotties, who were substantially younger than Cam. And whether you like it or not, jurors will be noticing. If the person we were describing was Anna Nicole, everyone would be assuming that she was just a gold-digger. Why the double-standard? Why can't we talk about facts relevant to the case?

Then there is the matter of the voodoo kit, as described on KFI. Our resident expert, Maureen (a.k.a., "Moe"), is a Wiccan who knows a thing or three about the occult. If she says it probably is a voodoo kit, that's good enough for me. You have the transcripts; I don't care nearly enough about this case to buy my own. Give us the description, if you claim that I am in error.

What is it about our society that has created this atmosphere wherein people can throw out purely slanderous and untrue notions without any regard whatsoever to the reality of their claims?

I might be inclined to ask that question about you; given your defamatory remarks regarding the entire prosecution team, you have no standing to complain. Everything I've said is backed up by some authoritative testimony or representation, and/or admissions by Team Cam, except where my recollection is fauilty. I leave the scurillous innuendo to you.

What is it that gives us the right and freedom to unmercifully attack innocent people without any regard for the pain we might be causing? The basic tenants of our society are violated without any remorse whatsoever. What happened to "do unto others"? What happened to common decency? What happened to dignity and respect?

Ask Ted.

Leo said...

Ken, you should take note of the last sentence. You are truely becoming one of them.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, leo said wrote:

Ken, you should take note of the last sentence.

"Ask ted."?

You are truely becoming one of them.

You write as if mnay people think Ted's advice should be sought. Odd position to take.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, ronni wrote:

They have a total lack of understanding of the system. They seem to think that the system should be skewed toward the poor pitiful defendant.

The system is skewed toward the defendant. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defendant doesn't not have to prove s/he is innocent.

Leo said...

Kent... Ah, you funny guy!!! Actually a sentance needs to be reflected a little more than what you learned in second grade ( are you still in 2nd or have you made it to 3rd?). Noting from the last sentance in the paragraph," What happened to dignity and respect?" This was meant for more than the simple minded folks from the south like Kent, but directed to Ken to look at the way you are acting, and think for a minute that you are making Ted out to be some moron, however the more you post like this, the more you seem to fit the description of the incompetent clowns on this site.

CountryGirl said...

I see another one of Cam's sand pounders found the blog.

Skye said...

Kent, tomorrow I may refrain from calling Patty something else...!

Just to answer your question.

Hope you are hanging in there Sarah. Don't let the *twins from hell* get you down. They are ignorant and lack class and basic, common decency.

ken said...

More fun from the KKK Blog:

The description is two cut out pictures of Sarah. That is all that was said in court. Ask Moe how that constitutes a "voodoo kit". The rest of it is all rumor and innuendo.

The contents of the cigar box were described in court, were they not? They would not have been described if there wasn't something relevant about them, and two cutout pictures of Sarah, absent anything more, would not have been legally relevant. Bottom line, Teddi slipped up, and told us more than he probably wanted to; this constitutes an "admission against interest." The other source merely corroborated it.

Everything we have said about Craig Hum, Jeff Leslie and Danny Smith is true.

And how do you respond to: "Everything we have said about Cam Brown is true, and there is record support in a court of law to prove it?" :-) It seems to me that it is incumbent upon you to prove up your claims ... or to have your precious Cam judged by the (standards inherent in the) judgments you render.

Craig Hum has the reputation of being the most unscrupulous, most nefarious, most corrupt prosecutor in LA County. Those from LA who are on the inside of the legal system say there is nothing he would not do to win. He will lie. He will cheat. He will break any law he has to, to win.

Didn't you just say this:

What is it about our society that has created this atmosphere wherein people can throw out purely slanderous and untrue notions without any regard whatsoever to the reality of their claims?

And how do you respond to this:

"Cameron Brown has the reputation of being vindictive, irresponsible, and quick-tempered. He will lie. He will cheat. He could even kill his daughter if he had to."

Remember, ALL of those statements have record support in a court of law.

It seems to me that you are doing what you claim to abhor. 'Do unto others,' indeed.

ken said...

From the KKK Blog -- these guys are great! :-)

So who is the source of the rumor? And, what does it say about you that you are indulging in rumors?

Ted confirmed the "rumor" -- and if it was as innocuous a find as you claim, I'd expect to find something in the record like this:

Hum: "Detective Leslie, what did you find under the bed?"
Leslie: "Two cut-out photos of Sarah in a cigar box."
Geragos [in sardonic tone]: "Your Honor, objection, relevance."
Arnold: "Sustained. Let's get to something relevant, Counselor."

While it is possible that Geragos would have let that one go, there would be no tactical reason for doing so. As such, it logically follows that the contents of the cigar box were relevant to the case -- and the only reason they would be relevant is if they comprised a spell kit.

How is this inference inherently unreasonable?

ken said...

From the KKK Blog (mostly for Leo):

How can you have access to "some authoritative testimony or representation" if you don't care enough about this case to get the transcripts?

You seem to forget that I have the GJ transcripts, the 995 motion, and other documents -- but would it satisfy you if I emended my statement to add "reliable sources," just for good measure? It seems to me that both the Breeze and Shannon Farren of KFI are both reasonably reliable, on account of the fact that (1) they don't have a dog in this hunt, (2) Ted admitted that Farren's reporting was reliable (again, an admission against interest), (3) they have corroborated each other at numerous points (the 911 tape spoke for itself!), and (4) they are prepared to put their names to their claims. You, otoh, admit to having a horse in this race, consistently make wild and unsubstantiated claims, and won't even use your real name. All things being equal, who is more reliable on his or her face? If this were any other situation, who would you tend to believe first, and why?

Hopefully, you see the problem inherent in lobbing facially defamatory claims from the comfortable bunker of anonymity.

ken said...

Leo wrote:

Kent... Ah, you funny guy!!! Actually a sentance needs to be reflected a little more than what you learned in second grade ( are you still in 2nd or have you made it to 3rd?). Noting from the last sentance in the paragraph," What happened to dignity and respect?"

What about it, Leo? Don't you find it incongruous for the KKK Bloggers to complain about the reasonable inferences drawn about Cam from information revealed in a legal proceeding, while they hurl an endless stream of baseless and shameless innuendo against Jeff Leslie, Craig Hum, and Danny Smith (who didn't even testify in the case, btw!)? It seems that the only standard they (and you) have is a double-standard.

This was meant for more than the simple minded folks from the south like Kent, but directed to Ken to look at the way you are acting, and think for a minute that you are making Ted out to be some moron, however the more you post like this, the more you seem to fit the description of the incompetent clowns on this site.

It seems on the face of it that you don't have the intellectual firepower to even begin to understand conversations directed to adults with some semblance of a secondary education. If my points are too subtle for you to grasp, then they are.

Wayne Delia said...

Leo wrote:
Kent... Ah, you funny guy!!!

I agree - he does have a sense of humor which is better than he thinks it is. You had referred to the last sentence, which was, in fact, "Ask Ted," but what you were probably referring to is the penultimate sentence, "What happened to dignity and respect?"

Actually a sentance needs to be reflected a little more than what you learned in second grade

You misspelled "sentence". Are you still learning about them in 2nd grade? And what does it mean to say "a sentence needs to be reflected a little more?" The last sentence in Ken's post, "Ask Ted," has a noun and a verb, resulting in a well-formed imperative sentence. Clearly, you were referring to the last sentence in the post to which Ken was responding, but you incorrectly identified it, so the point you were trying to make was lost. Let's stipulate that you were referring to the rhetorical question, "What happened to dignity and respect?"

( are you still in 2nd or have you made it to 3rd?).

"What happened to dignity and respect?" What you wrote to Kent here sounds neither dignified nor respectful. You've lost your right to complain to someone about a particular behavior if you engage in the same behavior yourself.

Noting from the last sentance in the paragraph," What happened to dignity and respect?" This was meant for more than the simple minded folks from the south like Kent,

Again, "What happened to dignity and respect?" Dontcha just hate it when your own words jump up to bite you in the ass?

but directed to Ken to look at the way you are acting, and think for a minute that you are making Ted out to be some moron,

Ted is a moron, and much worse - a dishonest, disingenuous, evasive moron. Ted, in particular, deserves no respect. The reasons for that might be made clear if you followed the imperative in the actual last sentence: "Ask Ted" why the standards he uses don't apply to others. Quite often, he gets roasted because the standard he's applying to others is not applied to himself or his allies (such as the indignant fuss over the cost of professional prosecution witnesses, despite the professional defense witness actually being paid more). What he's getting now is the business end of karma, in spades - what goes around, comes around, and the standards Ted has imposed on others are now choking him with public embarrassment.

however the more you post like this, the more you seem to fit the description of the incompetent clowns on this site.

"Whatever happened to dignity and respect?" Again, the point you were trying to make has been turned against you for the third time. You lose the right to complain about a particular behavior if you engage in the same behavior. You can't say "Damn him to hell for doing X," while you're doing X at the same time, even when justifying it with something like "I was just giving him a taste of his own medicine."

You share a distinguishing symptom with Ted: both of you, assuming that the two of you are actually separate entities, are unable to admit when you're wrong. Ted's the type of guy who would have posted as "leo", intentionally misspelled "sentence" as you did, then when someone claims he is using a sock-puppet, he could indignantly claim "I know how to spell 'sentence' correctly," which might be true - he just intentionally misspelled it in a weak, disingenuous attempt to throw the hounds off the scent.

WMD

loretta said...

This post from the KKK Blob:

Ken, I believe you are a nutball. I responded to your post because I "thought" it was directed to one of my posts. I was wrong, so get over it. That it was actually directed to one of Ted's posts makes sense to me, but at the time I didn't realize that.

You certainly have been investing a lot of time into trying to prove Ted is me and anyone else who choses to post anonymously. NEWSFLASH! You are wrong. D'oh!
Anonymous


I would bet major money (and could afford to lose it) that this poster is none other than Valerie Jean Paredes, aka "Jean" aka "Jeanne" aka "JA" aka "Just Amazed" aka "InteresTED" aka "Mistyblue" aka "Misty" aka "JeanneCA" aka "OpinionaTED" and other nicks I have forgotten.

I recognize her anywhere, now. I heard her daughter is dying, which is quite sad. However, I would appreciate it if she would refrain from corresponding with my 10-yr old daughter. TIA Jeanne.

loretta said...

Ken, check your email. I have sent you something you might find interesting.

loretta said...

Since I am still a persona non grata at KKK, here is a post to which I would like to respond:

How can you have access to "some authoritative testimony or representation" if you don't care enough about this case to get the transcripts?

Everything you have heard about this case is either a misrepresentation or a rumor or a blatant lie. The question is are you unwilling or unable to discern that. Because of you own experiences with the justice system I would put my money on unwilling.
anonymous


I would ask the same of you Brown apologists. There would not be anything better than the transcripts to prove us wrong. To prove your case. To prove that what you state about false testimony, coerced testimony, inconsistencies, misconduct, blah blah blah was true.

The best thing I had to argue the Peterson case against the Scott Is Innocent freaks was the transcripts. The best thing I had to argue that the media was misrepresenting the trial and talking out its rear was the trial transcripts.

If there are a group of Brown supporters who can pool their money, the transcripts are not unaffordable and you can select certain days to buy.

So, rather than whine about Ken's lack of commitment to the case because he didn't spring for the transcripts, why don't YOU get them?

I would be delighted to read your excerpts of them that prove me and others here to be ALL WET.

I would like (in particular) the testimony about what was under Patty Brown's bed. I got the info from someone in the court room, so I know that there was more than merely cut-out pictures listed.

Oh, yes. Much more.

But, if the KKK don't produce the transcripts to prove me wrong (and they can't) they are just blowing smoke.

I can't think of a better way to argue your points than by using the court record. Already the memories of what transpired are fuzzy. Why not get the real deal?

(((maybe because you know that the trial transcripts would not support your allegations?? oh, say it ain't so!)))

ken said...

More fun from the KKK Blog:

And in due time it will be revealed (to the prosecution's chagrin) that the court proceedings in question were corrupt and all those statements are perjury!

Oh, come now! Are you now proclaimng that you have conclusive proof that the incident with the morotcycle helmet never happened? That Daddy's car had a child safety seat? That his mother lied on the witness stand?!? To say that Cam is irresponsible is like saying that Patty and Ted are "large" -- it's pretty obvious on its face.

That is pretty much what you will see in the record. Except Geragos didn't bother to object or question the relevance [of the alleged "spell kit]. Perhaps he thought it was pretty obvious that those pictures were a silly thing for the prosecution to be displaying.

If that is the case, then perhaps you can publish the relevant portion of the transcripts to prove that claim up, so that it can finally be off our radar screens (speaking of which, I now have a fair collection of trial transcripts to go along with my GJ transcripts).

I didn't say that, but I agree with it. However with regard to Craig Hum I am repeating what I have been told by a number of members of the legal system who work in LA. This has been the consist report about Craig Hum by those who know him and who work with him. For the past three years that we have been aware of him this is the only kind of thing those who have experience with him have to say about him. It is Craig Hum's bone fide reputation.

I've heard that he's tough and aggressive, but a pretty straight shooter. Still, "reputation" can be a slippery thing. (Just ask the good folks in alt.fan.bob-larson about Ted's reputation for veracity: When Ted tells the truth, it was purely inadvertent.) "Reputation," in a Biblical context, comes out as another word: "Gossip."

What you have heard about Cam are the slanderous lies that Craig Hum has put out there to create a false image about Cam so he could convince a jury of the lies he is telling because he doesn’t have a case that will stand up on it’s own.

What I have heard is testimony given under oath, either directly or through the reports of reliable reporters (such as CG), which I am inclined to accept over the word of some anonymous jake (or jill) who has a dog in the hunt. That Cam was irresponsible as a matter of course does not seem to be an unfair conclusion. That Cam could have murdered Lauren is self-evident from even the facts Team Cam admit to being true. Whether he is to be adjudged guilty is for a jury to decide, and I don't have a dog in that hunt.

Yes, and there was a picture of the open cigar box showing all the contents. The contents were...two cut out pictures of Sarah! There was nothing else in the cigar box!

If true, that is just plain weird. Shows pathological hatred. Not a good fact, no matter how hard you spin it (and you've been doing your best Tony SnowJob imitation).

I didn't say that, but I agree with it.

I can't tell which sockpuppet I'm conversing with any more....

Kent Wills said...

At one time, leo wrote:

Kent... Ah, you funny guy!!! Actually a sentance needs to be reflected a little more than what you learned in second grade ( are you still in 2nd or have you made it to 3rd?).

Sentence structure is a concept most four-year-olds can grasp.

Noting from the last sentance in the paragraph," What happened to dignity and respect?"

This was not the last sentence. As you wrote your comment, you meant, "Ask Ted." That you don't understand the simplest concepts of language structure is your problem.


This was meant for more than the simple minded folks from the south like Kent, but directed to Ken to look at the way you are acting, and think for a minute that you are making Ted out to be some moron,

Truth be told, Ted does that without any help from anyone else.

however the more you post like this, the more you seem to fit the description of the incompetent clowns on this site.

And by what do we judge competence? Should we use your post as a guide? A post in which you prove you don't understand what the last sentence is? I'm sure you'll understand if no one outside of the Kook Blog accepts this standard.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, ken wrote:

And how do you respond to: "Everything we have said about Cam Brown is true, and there is record support in a court of law to prove it?" :-) It seems to me that it is incumbent upon you to prove up your claims ... or to have your precious Cam judged by the (standards inherent in the) judgments you render.

I requested some sort of evidence of the claims on multiple occasions. To date, I've seen none. Ted would agree with me that this means there is no such evidence.

ken said...

From the KKK Blog:

K: What I have heard is testimony given under oath,
A: And no body lies under oath - you sound gullible.
K: either directly or through the reports of reliable reporters (such as CG)
A: More gullible!


Explain this one to me. How is it "gullible" of me to choose to believe that a witness with no interest in the case will probably tell the truth as s/he sees it on the witness stand? And why should anyone believe an anonymous source with a vested interest in the case over three independent reporters?

Yours is vintage KaldisLogic[tm], which betrays your probable identity.

ken said...

From the KKK Blog:

K: "Reputation," in a Biblical context, comes out as another word: "Gossip."
A: It is gossip when it is idle talk. When people say something about a person with the intent to warn someone about that person and show them how they need to protect themselves from that person, that is not "gossip".

If you have heard Craig Hum is a straight shooter, you could not have been talking to anone who has personal experience of him. I have talked to a number of people with personal experience. They all say the same kind of thing - and not one of them has said anything that comes close to "straight shooter"!


By that logic, Ted is an inveterate liar, and if you have heard otherwise, you could not have been talking to anyone who has personal experience with him. I have talked to a number of people with personal experience (ignoring my own extensive experience here to make the point). They all say the same kind of thing - and not one of them has said anything that comes close to "honest man"!

Your logic, consistently applied.

[It almost can't get any funnier.]

ken said...

More fun from the KKK Bog:

The incident with the motor cycle helmet did not happen! At least not the way it was described in court. Cam had an appointment that morning near Lauren's school. He took his motor cycle and Patty was to meet him at Lauren's school with the car and car seat. Patty was to take Lauren in the car and the three were to go off together. Patty was running late that day. When Cam showed up on the motor cycle, the teacher jumped to the wrong conclusion. About 15 minutes later Patty showed up as planned. They explained to the teacher that it had always been the plan that Lauren would ride in the car with Patty. Cam never intended to take Lauren on the motor cycle. That is just more misleading on the part of the deceptive prosecutor.

Whose fault is that, if not Mark Geragos'? What you fail to understand is that Craig Hum doesn't have to believe your side's sorry excuses, and it is incumbent upon your side to put evidence on to support your position.

Nothing personal, but under our system, it is your attorney's job to put your case on. Don't blame the prosecutor if Geragos is grossly incompetent.

loretta said...

I know this is probably stating the obvious, but in order for the motorcycle story or the swimming pool story or the luggage in the street story or the roaring off in the van story to be clairified by the Brown camp, GerEgo would have had to put Patty or Cam on the stand.

Clearly, if Cam were innocent, there would be no fear of putting Patty or Cam on the stand to tell their side of the story from their eyewitness observations.

The fact that GerEgo did NOT put either Patty or Cam on the stand says a lot.

If in the next trial GerEgo does not put either Brown on the stand, it is a big fat flag that they would do more damage than good.

Hello? This is not rocket science.

ken said...

loretta said...

I know this is probably stating the obvious, but in order for the motorcycle story or the swimming pool story or the luggage in the street story or the roaring off in the van story to be clairified by the Brown camp, GerEgo would have had to put Patty or Cam on the stand.

Clearly, if Cam were innocent, there would be no fear of putting Patty or Cam on the stand to tell their side of the story from their eyewitness observations.


You are right, of course, Loretta. It's comical. It's sad. But what I can't help worrying about is that they may have some legitimate cause for complaint, which is getting lost in their desperate and generally pathetic attempt to contest every point. If there is something there, I'd like to know about it, but their credibility suffers horribly whenever they do things like this.

If these things were happening, Geragos should have already played those cards.

From the KKK Bog:

K: What you fail to understand is that Craig Hum doesn't have to believe your side's sorry excuses, and it is incumbent upon your side to put evidence on to support your position.

A:It is incumbent upon Craig Hum not to alter physical conditions thus misrepresenting reality to make his case. It is incumbent on his team to not intimidate witnesses - so they fear for their safety if they testify to what they saw and heard! You fail to understand the caliber of our complaint!


I fail to see how any of your unsubstantiated allegations bear any relevance to the motorcycle incident. If the witness saw what she saw, which even you implicitly concede as true, then she testified to the truth. As for your excuse as to why Cam didn't have a safe place to put Lauren, that has precisely nothing to do with Hum's alleged misconduct.

If there was a plausible explanation for what the teacher obviously saw, it was incumbent upon Geragos to provide it f/b/o the jury. I'm sitting here, knowing what I know about the law and shaking my head in disbelief, because I know what Geragos was obliged to do there, should he feel the need to do so. It may well be that he didn't want to put Patty on the stand, as it would open a can of worms he didn't want to, but that has nothing to do with what Craig Hum can and arguably should do as the State's advocate.

Don't conflate the issues. If you have credible evidence that either Hum or anyone else either tampered with physical evidence or threatened witnesses, I am all ears, as there is no way that what you allege, if true, should EVER be tolerated in any legal proceeding. This is an issue of proof, or to be more precise, your lack thereof.

Skye said...

Ooooh, Lee! Temper, temper!

Skye said...

Umm, Losers? Like Cam you mean?

Anonymous said...

The incident with the motor cycle helmet did not happen! At least not the way it was described in court. Cam had an appointment that morning near Lauren's school. He took his motor cycle and Patty was to meet him at Lauren's school with the car and car seat. Patty was to take Lauren in the car and the three were to go off together. Patty was running late that day. When Cam showed up on the motor cycle, the teacher jumped to the wrong conclusion. About 15 minutes later Patty showed up as planned. They explained to the teacher that it had always been the plan that Lauren would ride in the car with Patty. Cam never intended to take Lauren on the motor cycle. That is just more misleading on the part of the deceptive prosecutor.

Geragos allowed the testomony in without debunking it by asking the teacher about Patty's arrival? In order for the claim above to be true, Geragos would have to have screwed up more than is acceptable.

Wayne Delia said...

I'm just getting caught up here after a few days of intense database work. When Ted started his vanity blog, I did a comparative statistical analysis of the number of anonymous posts on the KKK Blog as opposed to this one. Turns out that since September 11 (of this year), all posts have been anonymous except for the one from Ken Smith on 9/28 asking about Geragos's availability for the second trial. Ken's been posting anonymously, evidently, in order to thwart Ted's banning of individual IP addresses. All the rest are anonymous posts by Ted and Patty, with maybe one or two by others with an axe to grind against Loretta.

Hell, if I was Ted, I'd be ashamed of my own name too. But I'm not, and I can therefore post while identifying myself.

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

One thing I can't stand about Ted's blog is the constant reminder of why top-posting is bad. His posts are arranged with the most recent posts occurring at the top of the material. So, in order to get caught up with the comedy over there, I need to find where I left off, read a post, then back up to read the next post above it, then back up to read the next post above that one, etc. On this blog, it's easy and convenient to read all posts sequentially instead of starting at the bottom and reading up.

That being said, the posts here are only timestamped with a time indicator, but no date. Is this a configuration setting which can be modified? Ted's blog shows the date and time, which is a bit better.

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

Ted or Patty wrote at 11:12AM today:

Nope. That wasn't it at all. Add it to the hints about his strategy and see if you can figure it out.

Translation: "Can somebody please figure it out for us? We're the ones paying the six-figure legal bills and we don't have the slightest idea what the hell he's doing."

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

From the KKK Blob:

K: By that logic, Ted is an inveterate liar, and if you have heard otherwise, you could not have been talking to anyone who has personal experience of him.
A: It always comes back to Ted doesn't it? Have you noticed he hasn't been here for a while?
K: I'd have to be exceedingly gullible to believe that.
A: My point exactly!


This looks like one of those delightful Raymond Smullyan logic puzzles which is equivalent to "You'd have to be exceedingly gullible to believe what I just told you was a fact." In the zeal to deliver what was thought to be a clever retort, Ted or Patty admitted that one must be gullible to believe the statement that Ted hasn't been there lately.

More and more, this is turning into one of those singularly embarrassing moments, as if Ted or Patty (or both) are TV game-show contestants who are doing so bad, you need to grab the remote and change the channel or turn off the TV even though there's nobody else in the room.

WMD

loretta said...

There would not have been a conversation about the helmet (or lack of one) for Lauren if he was planning on having Patty pick her up at the school.

He would have politely said, "Oh, I have no intention of taking her on the bike, we're waiting for my wife!"

The conversation as testified makes no sense if this story is true.

ken said...

More fun from the KKK Bog; this one is especially for Loretta.

Your problem is you don't understand Geragos' strategy. Sorry, I'm not going to explain it here. If you did I suspect you would say brilliant.

I rather doubt it -- especially, if there is some sort of "H-bomb-class" evidence lurking out there at his disposal. I don't think you realize how close Cam came to being convicted, and how bleak his chances would have been for a successful appeal. An appeal takes 12-18 months, and normally costs ~$100,000; if I have something that is going to win the case hands-down, I'm going to use it at my earliest convenience, and get my client out of jail as soon as humanly possible.

I'd call it "Peterson-class-brilliant." Geragos LOST that case, when he probably should have won an acquittal. That sort of gamesmanship comes with a high price; I just don't think it is terribly responsible to gamble with a man's life like that.

ken said...

More fun:

K: But what I can't help worrying about is that they may have some legitimate cause for complaint, which is getting lost in their [the phrase "desperate and generally pathetic" was Tedited out]...attempt to contest every point.
A: This is a very good point. Every point we contest is because there is legitimate reason to contest it.


I would disagree. By way of example, consider the big deal you make about Hum's tete-a-tete with Dr. Janice Ophoven. Like most expert witnesses, Ophoven is an old pro, and she isn't going to be intimidated by a relatively green cop like Jeff Leslie hovering over her while she is conferring with Hum. Given the facts as described, this was a conference which came about as the result of a sidebar -- one so mundane, Geragos didn't think it was worth his time to be there.

If the kind of people you want to read this blog read this, they'll tune you out, because you are quite obviously griping about things that aren't worth griping about.

For all the nasty things you have said Ken,

What "nasty things?" My comments are candid, and if you were wise, you wouldn't want them any other way.

loretta said...

About that "strategy" of GerEgo to not present the H-bomb-class evidence at the first trial, and not present exculpatory witnesses and not put Cam or Patty on the stand --- well, as Dubya would say:

Yer doin' a helluva job, Marky!

ken said...

More fun:

Our complaints are about changing physical evidence to make their case, intimidating witnesses so they feared for their safety...amoung other things of that caliber.

[note the extra "u" -- is that the Aussie spelling? ;-) ]

Of which, I might point out, there is precisely zero evidence presented on this blog. The only things that matter are noticeable only by their absence, while the things you do complain about are, for the most part, part and parcel of every investigation and/or trial. Sure, the government is going to see the facts a little differently than you would prefer them to; that's why you have a defense attorney to present the facts you want before the jury. Sure, specialists are called in to help the coroner determine a cause of death in difficult cases; our coroner is a dentist, for cry-iy!

This case is pretty plain vanilla on the face of it, if you ask me. While the prosecution plays "Slam Cam, thank you, Ma'am," the defense puts the cops on trial. There's nothing on the surface that would leave anyone to suspect that a shadowy cabal is prosecuting a private vendetta for some nefarious purpose, and you offer nothing that would reasonably hint at it.

Forgive my dated Clara Pell imitation, but "Where's the beef?!" :-)

Ronni said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ronni said...

Let's try this again. "Among" is "among" wherever you are from. Putting in the extra "u" might be an ignorant attempt to sound English/Aussie/Canadian, or it might be a typo.

Ronni said...

They are all going to whine and whinge until "Cam shows them his true colours, and then they will quietly fade away.

And, yes, I am English/Canadian.

ken said...

Get a life you hoser eh? Does that make you feel better Ronni?

CountryGirl said...

Good grief! Cam's own mother said under oath that he didn't watch Lauren and allowed her to run unsupervised on his boat, etc. Was she lying too?

Skye said...

Balderdash, Ted! Feared for their lives?

From whom? And don't even bother coming out with the "Dirty Cop" reply.

If GerEgo is feeding you this Cr-p in order to get your sister's money. He should be shot! But, I don't believe he is...

Loretta is 100 percent correct when she says there would have been no argument if Patty was running late to pick up Lauren. Another one of your childish, made-up responses, in my opinion.

Certainly, Cam's response to the teacher would have been less aggressive if he was only there to wait for Patty to arrive.

You must think you are dealing with gullible idiots.

ken said...

More fun from the KKK Blog:

K: and how bleak his chances would have been for a successful appeal.
A: If it had come to that because of all the wrongful and abusive things that were done in this case it would have been the fastest appeal in the history of California!


For an objection to be the proper subject of an appeal, it must be in the record at trial. As such, these grievous fouls you complain of must by definition be a part of the public record and can be pointed out today, and it is a matter of record that you have failed to point out even one. Based on what I've seen, you got bupkis.

Removing pages of the autopsy? No luck. Judges have WIDE latitude in determining what is and isn't heard, and it's almost always dismissed as harmless error. Intimidation of witnesses? Unless someone actually testified to that effect, you've got nothing but hot air. Tamerping with physical evidence? Unless it's in the record, forget it. Visiting the crime scene? Arnold made the right call in not allowing the jury to perform their own experiments (remember Peterson's boat?). Stacking the jury with people inclined to favor the prosecution? A biased judge? Good luck proving THAT! Fact is, Arnold could have kept them there until Labor Day, and if he had threatened them with that, that 10-2 would have become 12-0 for Murder Two in short order.

Do you even know how appeals are decided in America? If an appellate panel spends more than ten minutes on yours, you're one of the lucky ones.

I don't think I'm out of line in concluding that had Cam been convicted, there is no way he ever would have gotten out of the stir. Geragos' "brilliant" strategy nearly cost him as much as it did Scott Peterson.

"Ted Kaldis" said...

ken said...

Get a life you hoser eh? Does that make you feel better Ronni?


Looks like we've got a new "Ken."

ken said...

You must think you are dealing with gullible idiots.

They've become used to dealing with themselves over there.

Ronni said...

Did somebody say I was feeling bad?

"Better" as opposed to what?

Ronni said...

Ken, you're trying to teach a pig to sing.

loretta said...

Please ignore the trolls. Their posts will be poofed.

Anonymous said...

Will Judge Arnold preside over the next trial?

ken said...

More KKK Blog fun:

K: For an objection to be the proper subject of an appeal, it must be in the record at trial.
A: They are on record.


Then, you can tell me precisely what they are (fwiw, Patty has my e-mail).

K: Do you know what "prosecutorial discretion" is?
A: I know it doesn't allow them to blatantly lie, coach witnesses to lie, present physical evidence that has been altered, etc. Or are you say it does?


Obviously, you don't. [Prosecutors have discretion as to who they do and don't want to prosecute, which is why judges are never prosecuted. One of my favorites was the married Michigan judge who exposed himself in an airport men’s room, apparently while soliciting anonymous gay sex (he ‘got off’ -- because district attorneys try hard not to prosecute judges).]

A: But what is behind it could destroy careers and put powerful people in jail.
K: In your dreams.
A: If it were not the case there is no reason for the prosecution to have gone through the extreme efforts (most of which you have not heard about) to make this case.


Maybe they just wanted to catch a person they honestly believed to be a child-killer. It happens every once in a while, you know....

ken said...

Ronni said:

" Ken, you are trying to teach a pig to sing" What the hell you talking about women?

Skye said...

Yes, Ken. Child-killers are the most unforgivable murderers of all!

We are meant to protect our children, because they cannot do it for themselves.

Humans are the most vulnerable of all animal off-spring. In my opinion!

It is hard to describe adequately how appalling this type of killer is. (sorry for bad grammar).

Ronni said...

The real Ken would know.

Skye said...

Can somebody please remind me what excuse Ted used for Patty cutting Sarah's face from those pictures!?

IIRC, some rubbish about Patty buying tiny frames. That would imply that Lauren's face had been cut out - wouldn't it?

ken said...

The other Ken wrote:

What the hell you talking about women?

It's patently obvious, Ken. Caesar put it this way: "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." [Men willingly believe what they wish.] Team Cam believes what they want to believe, and no amount of logic, reason, or evidence is going to disturb their immaculate preconceptions.

There might be anomalies in Cam's case which point to official misconduct. There might not be. Problem is, I have yet to see any of them, as every concrete example which has been presented to me has been more the function of their lack of understanding of the system and how and why it works than any actual evidence of wrongdoing. Ronni suggests (and not without foundation) that attempting to point this out is an exercise in futility; I see it as an exercise in separating the wheat (if there is any) from the chaff.

She could be right.

As for our children being helpless, the same can be said for many offspring, from crocs to deer. The vast majority of crocs get eaten in their first year ... and then, they get revenge. :) We protect our offspring because that is what we do, on an instinctual level. Turtles do not, and most of them end up as soup for local birds; they rely on numbers to propagate. At the other end of the spectrum, kangaroos make us look positively reckless by comparison.

Skye said...

I wasn't including reptiles, Ken. In the first few months of human life, our babies are absolutely helpless.

Not meaning to be argumentative. It is just my opinion.

loretta said...

I don't have time to blog sit today, so I will have to put this on moderated for awhile.

If your comment doesn't post right away, that's why.

There's nothing to discuss that is urgent enough to worry about anyway.

ken said...

skye said:

I wasn't including reptiles, Ken. In the first few months of human life, our babies are absolutely helpless.

Indeed, they are. But for that matter, so are a lot of mammals' offspring (allowing for differences in lifespan). Still, ours are remarkable in the sense that they aren't really ambulatory for several years.

I'm just saying taht, compared to kangaroos, human mothers are downright reckless. :)

Kent Wills said...

At one time, skye wrote:

Can somebody please remind me what excuse Ted used for Patty cutting Sarah's face from those pictures!?

IIRC, some rubbish about Patty buying tiny frames. That would imply that Lauren's face had been cut out - wouldn't it?

Ted first claimed they were pictures of Lauren. He claimed the pictures of Lauren were in the box because they had been cut out from bigger pictures. I'd have to check the kook blog to be 100% certain, but I think he claimed they were going to be used in a scrapbook.

Of course, he was made to look the fool, since someone pointed out that the pictures were of Sarah, not Lauren. I find it very difficult to believe Patty would put together a scrapbook of Sarah's pictures.

Skye said...

Thanks Kent.

That man has no shame!

TJ said...

Does anyone know when the trial is scheduled???

Skye said...

Sending good wishes to Sarah and her family.

This must be a very trying time for you...

Jose said...

Sending Cam and his family good wishes.

This must be a trying time for them all, like Sarah.

Skye said...

Does anyone know when the new trial starts?

Sarah, blessings to you and your family.

loretta said...

All Breezy's posts have been deleted and she is not welcome to post here any more. When the second trial starts, she will not be welcome here. For whatever reason, she is accusing me of "stalking" her when, in fact, I have never uttered a single negative thing to her, nor did I concern myself with her identity. She has been posting as "Castaway Jo" in Muttville, and has a blog accusing me of stalking her. This is preposterous.

I suspect she wants attention from me. Well, Breezy, you got it. Now, you can go away. I am not interested in you, your whereabouts in "the sticks" or anything about Florida or your horse or dog or whatever. I don't care who you are or where you are. Just go away. This response to you where I figure you might see it was more than you deserve.

Skye said...

Shaking head. Every single time you have ignored them, they find a new mug and escalate.

What's up with that?

CountryGirl said...

Catch my eyeballs.

Skye said...

Has a date been set for the new trial?

CountryGirl said...

I'm not aware of a hard and fast date for the trial.

It probably won't happen until next year. He has another appearance in court in November.

Skye said...

Thanks, CG. Do you know whether he still has the goat for a lawyer?

Kent Wills said...

At one time, skye wrote:
Shaking head. Every single time you have ignored them, they find a new mug and escalate.

What's up with that?


Some of them have a desperate need for Loretta's attention. When she doesn't give them the attention they need, they re-sock and try again. The nature of blogs is such that when someone knew shows up, few will know that it's Ms. [insert name here] under a different name. Most will presume it's someone new, until they out themselves.

The admin for a blog can find out sooner, by checking the IP, but if the admin doesn't bother, or if the poster uses a proxy, then there's no way to know.

The mutts count on Loretta's having a life and not wanting to check the IPs of every new visitor to further their collective attention seeking.

Kent Wills said...

I've been banned again from the K00K blog.

I post one comment showing how Geragos commited a serious ethical violation by withholding the H-bomb class evidence (I know, it NEVER existed and Ted was lying about it), and I get banned.

Ted really HATES having the lie about H-bomb class evidence brought up. I'm sure he regrets ever having made the claim.

An interesting twist: Now Team Cam is claiming Geragos didn't present this evidence because he didn't want a fellow lawyer (Hum) to get disbarred.

That Putin is something. He's even got the defense lawyer in on the conspiracy that isn't a conspiracy.

These folks are so desperate for Cameron to be innocent, even though the available evidence shows guilt, that they will contradict themselves frequently.

Wayne Delia said...

Time to get ready for the re-trial. I have no idea when it will be, but there is one important strategy that Team Cam has put into place:

Every single post on usenet, written by Ted Kaldis, in any thread, involving the subject of Camoron Brown's case, has been canceled.

This is just for posts available on the regular news servers provided by ISPs, accessible with an email client such as Mozilla Thunderbird (which I'm using) or Outlook Express. Google Groups still maintains an archive of all of Ted's steamin' piles of crap, much to his surprise when he went off on me with an uncensored blue streak.

My main workstation at home has been taken over by my son Joe, so I moved all my critical data down to a spare computer in the downstairs playroom. After defragmenting the hard drive, I reviewed the old messages on my account on that machine, and found many old message headers from the past summer.

All of Ted's message headers in threads involving Camoron Brown resulted in an error message similar to the following: "Error!
newsgroup server responded:No Such Article In Group
Perhaps the article has expired
[SCoPg.59112$QM6.528@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net] (306734)"

But posts from Ted in other threads not involving Camoron show up with no trouble at all. For example, another post of his from the same day in the thread "Bounty Hunter Arrested?" shows up fine on the news server.

Ted was undoubtedly told to STFU on usenet, retroactive for anything he's already posted on usenet. He's issued cancel requests, which prevent the messages from showing up on the regular news feeds on the usenet servers, but Google Groups still has a fairly complete archive of his blustering. For example, the post with a timestamp corresponding to the error message I mentioned above reads as follows:

----------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:44:50 GMT

Pat Pritchett-Sophy wrote:

> They can't even spell Lauren's name correctly!!!

Are you telling me that her name is spelled incorrectly in the Autopsy
Report? Because it's spelled the same way on the website as in the
Autopsy Report.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
---------------------------------

So I can't really see the strategy of canceling posts on usenet which are still maintained in Google's archive and cache.

WMD

Skye said...

Wayne, I think Ted will be dismissed as a kook. Anyone reading his comments would be able to tell that the man is off balance, mentally.

The defense has nothing to lose by acknowledging that fact. IMO

Anonymous said...

Please light a candle or say a prayer for Sarah and Lauren today. Its been 6 years today, since this beautiful little girl passed away. Not a day goes by without them both in my thoughts. Thank you for your continual support.
AJ

Skye said...

I visit here every day, JA. Looking for any news.

Lauren is never far from my thoughts. Neither is the rat responsible for her death.

I hope Sarah is managing to keep things together.

Skye said...

I beg your pardon! I mean AJ.

CountryGirl said...

Light a candle tonight for Lauren and Sarah.

ron said...

Lets all say a prayer for Cam too as he has been in jail for over three years now. No justice for anyone. We need to speed up the justice system.

Ken said...

Six years ago yesterday, Lauren Sarene Key was taken from us. An anniversary not even worthy of mention from Team Cam. Not even in their cold, cynical, and calculated "tribute" to Lauren. Like, what a surprise....

It's kind-of like forgetting your wedding anniversary.

Since day one in this affair, Cam Brown's apologists have been doing everything within their power to dehumanize Lauren. In the posts Ted Kaldis spewed onto USENET -- posts that, evidently, he has been recently ordered to remove by attorney Mark Geragos! -- he assiduously avoided using Lauren's name. Geragos did the same at trial and, or so we are told by detectives on the scene, did Cam Brown.

To Team Cam, Lauren wasn't even human. Not deserving of remembrance ... or even a tear. You can rest assured that Sarah Key-Marer did not let that tragic day pass so uneventfully. For that matter, the folks at Loretta's blog didn't ... and they didn't even know her. (For my part, I kept quiet about it -- wanting to see what Ted, Patty, and their squadron of sockpuppets would do, if anything. They did not disappoint.)

Stunning. Not unexpected -- indeed, even predictable! -- but stunning. Thanks for showing us all how little you really care, Team Cam. [This post was also copied to that other blog, as I rather expect it to make an unceremonious disappearance here.]

Skye said...

My blood runs cold when I think of Lauren's last moments.

Cameron Brown, WILL pay for this!

Kent Wills said...

Here's something interesting. EVERYTHING posted to the kook blog after 11/1 has vanished. Ken's comment about their inability to even acknoledge Lauren's death has vanished (as expected). Lauren meant and means so little to them they can't even allow people to see that they don't and didn't care about her at all.

Sadly, I've come to expect this sort of thing from them.

Ken said...

Looks like I've been censored again [over at the KKK Blog]. God forbid that Team Cam should have to admit that they have been shut down by their quarterback (Geragos), that Ted Kaldis has excised all his USENET posts defending Cam, and that they couldn't even bother to mention the anniversary of Lauren's tragic demise.

We can't even get an authoritative answer as to when the re-trial starts (as Nancy Grace put it, "cases get retried all the time") from Team Cam. I'd find out myself, but I'm just not that vitally interested.

Ken said...

Ron: Lets all say a prayer for Cam too as he has been in jail for over three years now. No justice for anyone. We need to speed up the justice system.

We need to revamp our justice system, which no longer dispenses justice in a reliable and transparent manner. That having been said, the fact that Cam has been in the slam for three years is due in large part to his own actions and those of counsel representing him. Ted Kaldis has claimed that Team Cam has evidence which, if released, would have the effect of an "H-bomb"; if it does exist (Kaldis is a compulsive liar, who can never be taken seriously), Geragos' failure to detonate it constitutes malpractice on a galactic scale. Similarly, his failure to invoke his right to a speedy trial translates into consent to the delays in question. Finally, Judge Arnold could have threatened to hold the jury in the first trial over the Labor Day weekend, which almost certainly would have resulted in a second degree murder conviction.

Why should we feel sorry for Cam, given that he is ultimately responsible for the delays?

Secondly, it is not lost on most of us that ten of the twelve jurors in the first trial voted to convict Cam on at least second-degree murder charges ... which in turn, leads us inexorably to the reasonable conclusion that he was lawfully incarcerated pending a trial on the merits. Accordingly, I would submit that our prayer should be that he receives a fair trial, and that the jury acts on the evidence presented at trial in accordance with its best judgment and conscience. Whether he is acquitted or convicted, so be it.

loretta13 said...

> Cammy's got a Trial date on his 3-year aniversary in jail, Nov 16 2006
>
> Next Court Code: SWG
>
> Next Court Date: 11/16/2006
> Next Court Time: 0830
>
> Next Court Case: BA25520601
>
> Court Name: TORRANCE SUPERIOR CT DEPT G
> Court Address: 825 MAPLE
> Court City: TORRANCEUPT

jane truth said...

That happened pretty quickly. It's only three days off!

Skye said...

Yay! Glad things are moving. I wonder if Ted is wearing his muzzle?!

Kent Wills said...

At one time, ron wrote:
Lets all say a prayer for Cam too as he has been in jail for over three years now. No justice for anyone. We need to speed up the justice system.

While most of us would agree the time it took to get Cameron to his first trial was excessive, it's ultimately Cameron's fault. He waived his right to a speedy trial and for reasons only he knows, never rescinded it. That Cameron is in jail right now is Cameron's fault and no one else's.

Skye said...

I hope we will be following this case, CG.

If anyone deserves to be removed from society, this man does. Even the Mafia hit men would not commit this type of crime. It is beyond belief and words.

Ronni said...

So what happened?

Kent Wills said...

Did the trial start yesterday, or was it just another hearing?

Ronni said...

CG says it was a pre-retrial hearing, and the retrial will not start till January.

Wayne Delia said...

It's been deathly quiet over at the KKK blog, with good reason: there's probably a stiff "gag order" self-imposed by the defense, and I can easily imagine Geragos making it a condition of retention of his services that Ted and Patti completely refrain from posting anything, anywhere. So details are probably very sketchy and scarce. I suppose we'll have to rely on the Daily Breeze and KFI-640 for any relevant details.

BTW, I did a quick search on the name and the crime charged, and came up with very few search results, most of them my own postings (and Ken's), along with a Google prompt "Did you mean: 'Cameron Brown'?" It occurred to me I was spelling his name with an "o" instead of a second "a" (since the "moron" part looks so natural) that it's become a force of habit.

WMD

CountryGirl said...

Next Court Code: SWG
Next Court Date: 01/26/2007
Next Court Time: 0830
Next Court Case: BA255206RM

Court Name: TORRANCE SUPERIOR CT DEPT G
Court Address: 825 MAPLE
Court City: TORRANCEUPT

Denise Nix will be back by then so hopefully we will get court coverage. I'm not betting the trial will even start in January. No excuse really if Geragos is sticking with his client. Somehow I think the second time around will be with a PD or another attorney. JMHO, no information on that -- yet.

I am hoping Sarah can enjoy the holidays with her family and friends.

Skye said...

I agree, CG. Lauren would certainly want her mom to be happy. She has suffered more than anyone should have to.

Allow yourself to enjoy Christmas, Sarah. You will soon be thrust into another painful trial.

Best wishes to you and your family.

Ronni said...

That's a Friday. Why would they start on a Friday?

country girl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kent Wills said...

At one time, WMD wrote:

t's been deathly quiet over at the KKK blog, with good reason: there's probably a stiff "gag order" self-imposed by the defense, and I can easily imagine Geragos making it a condition of retention of his services that Ted and Patti completely refrain from posting anything, anywhere.

At least about the case. To tell them they can't post *anything* would be beyond reasonable, IMO. Of course, knowing how Ted is, he probably couldn't go without bring up Cam's case, so it's possible the gag order you suggest is real.

Since Ted LOVED to post hints at what the defense was planning, there's every reason to think he would do so again.

Ted has been absent from misc.legal, which has made it a much more pleasant place to visit. And Larry and I have agreed on a few things.


So details are probably very sketchy and scarce. I suppose we'll have to rely on the Daily Breeze and KFI-640 for any relevant details.

I guess we'll all findout in January, presuming there isn't another delay.

CountryGirl said...

Ummmm, that 8:34pm WAS NOT me.

CountryGirl said...

Ronni, it's probably another pre-trial conference and not the actual date of jury selection.

Skye said...

We could tell that wasn't you, CG. No prizes for guessing who I think is the culprit.

Let us hope that they do things properly, this time.

Wayne Delia said...

Coming up, within two weeks...

Camoron's fourth Christmas in the slammer. At this point I agree completely with Kent Wills that fer Chrissakes, let's get this thing over and done with.

WMD

Kent Wills said...

At one time, wayne delia wrote:

Camoron's fourth Christmas in the slammer. At this point I agree completely with Kent Wills that fer Chrissakes, let's get this thing over and done with.

Even though Cameron waived his right to a speedy trial, he's been waiting far too long. Get the re-trial started already!

Ken said...

I'm bitchin' 'bout a white Christmas.... over two feet at the house, and the storm still has 12-18 hours to go.

Hope everyone is enjoying a happy holiday season.

Ronni said...

Good thing you don't have to go anywhere, Ken! Hope you're stocked up on all you need for the duration. Stay warm.

CountryGirl said...

Ken, I was thinking about you. Stay safe and warm.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Ken said...

Greetings from Stonekey (Kent should get the [Bob Larson-related] inside joke). We just can't seem to stay at home.

Final tally from the snowstorm: About one meter (38"). So bad, the wife couldn't get home.

Happy Chrissie to all (except those in Aus and NZ, for which it is now Boxing Day). I long since gave up praying (as Bible Answer Man Hank Hanegraaff and the late rocker Jim Morrison both argued, it is an act of utter futility), but our thoughts are with you all and Sarah, especially.

loretta said...

Merry Christmas, Ken!

ken said...

Mother Nature just keeps on giving -- looks like we're going to get bitch-slapped with another 2-3 feet of snow later this week.

As for me, I'll settle for a happy new year.... :)

Anonymous said...

We made The Weather Channel! 18" already, it's coming down at a rate of 3"+ per hour, and it's scheduled to continue through the night.

Good night for building an igloo!!! :)

Ronni said...

Look after yourselves! Check in when you have a chance.

Al said...

Ken

You are a pussy for whining about the snow. Did you not live in Breckenridge and have turned on your friend. Loser!!

Ken said...

Sorry, Al. I've never lived in Breck, and I don't know Cam from Adam. That having been said, snow isn't nearly as delightful when it is at your house, as opposed to being on the slopes.

As far as I am concerned, as long as Cam gets a constitutionally acceptable fair trial, I care not a whit about the outcome. Even if he murdered little Lauren in cold blood, if he is acquitted, our law declares that he must go free, and I will respect the verdict of the jury. I respected the jury's verdict in the first case, as it proved at bare minimum that there was probable cause to bind him over pending a trial on the merits, and that his pre-trial incarceration was not a violation of his rights under law. That he had to wait so long for a trial was, in the final analysis, substantially his fault.

CountryGirl said...

Happy New Year! Ken, hope you can shovel out! Yikes!

BTW, someone posted =====> recently about Cameron's letters to his wife. Anyone know where the letters are posted? I wasn't aware any of his letters were online.

Judging from the comment about it, they were all whining about his situation and nothing about Patty's situation, financial or otherwise.

ken said...

It seems to me that we ought to preserve this, because you know that Teddi will make it disappear the moment he sees it:

Chelle wrote:

Just some generalized comments. This is the first time I have read entries at this website and the associated links.

I think the writer of this blog is mistaken about the evidence. In order for medical records/autopsy report to be admitted into evidence at trial, it MUST be certified. Certification can only happen if the record is complete. Therefore the 32 pgs downsized to 12 pages still must be the complete record.

As far as the autopsy photos go, the Court has the discretion to limit the amount of autopsy photos shown during a trial. The reason being is so the DEFENDANT is not prejudiced by the graphic, gruesome details depicted in the photos.

Nonetheless, it is the job of the DEFENSE ATTORNEY to object to the admission of any evidence that is incomplete and/or not certified. Did Geragos do this? Did Geragos admit into evidence the "missing" abrasion photos?

Incompetence by the defense attorney is not the same thing as an overall conspiracy by the judicial system and law enforcement!

I also found it terribly odd that Cam Brown writes his WIFE letters of continuous whining and complaints about how poorly he is treated. Whoa-is-me! Where is his concern about his wife? Where is his asking about how miserable her life and finances are now that they are facing yet another trial? Where is his concern for her living situation? Her new job? Loving husband? - hardly!

The three letters written clearly show a paranoid, pitiful, self-absorbed, manipulative, life-is-about-me-me-me-me, type person who in my estimation would clearly be capable of doing the crime he is accused of having committed. Where is his concern for anyone OTHER THAN HIMSELF? Just not present. The letters posted do him a disservice even though he somehow believes that the cavalry will read the letters and rush into his rescue from the oppressive LE assigned to guard him during incarceration. Really Cam, if you must, fake being the LOVING HUBBY you profess to be! instead of calling yourself that and failing to demonstrate any words of lovingkindness~!


All valid comments, except we wish we knew where those letters were.

ken said...

Guys, the letters are on the Free Cam Brown website; I've preserved copies, in case they magically disappear. :)

Now that I've read the letters, I'll have to back away from some of my earlier comments, and here's why:

First, I don't know about you, but I have some serious concerns about what is going on in that jail if any of what Cam is saying is the truth. The idea of a deputy pissing on his toothbrush is outrageous; it's something you'd expect to see at Gitmo. And based on what I know about guards, his stories have a ring of truth to them.

Second, as for his letters to Patty, if he had anything private to say, I wouldn't expect it to be disclosed. Those things are private, and I'd be loath to disclose their financial situation to the world. These letters are written with a specific purpose, and should be read in that context.

Finally, unless and until we see the autopsy pix, we can't ascertain whether that limitation was within the proper discretion of the trial court. Knowing what I do about our courts, I tend to take every judicial decision with a pillar of salt; the only less credible person is our Teddi.

This is something Geragos would let out. It doesn't analyze the court proceedings and/or reveal his incompetence.

loretta said...

Hmmm. Sux to be in jail, doesn't it.

He complains about the same few things over and over.

Why would he be 'shrinking' if he's on a high-protein/meat diet instead of his "special" vegetarian type diet? You'd think the opposite was true.

Gee. What did Cammy do to pizz off the deputies? I'm sure he's just an innocent victim.

I don't doubt that they are turning off his hot water or hazing him this way. Just more reason why GerEgo should have had him out of jail a long time ago.

Who do we blame for that? Not the LE Sheriffs.

ken said...

You forget what he is, Loretta. Convicted child-killers are at the very bottom of the prison totem-pole, and as far as pretty much everyone is concerned, he was about 95% of the way there. Innocent until proven guilty might go a long way in the courthouse, but it doesn't in the joint.

Cam could have about thirty years of that ahead ... if he lives that long.

Nonetheless, I still think that sort of treatment is wrong, especially when it comes from the guards.

CountryGirl said...

At least the POS is eating. Lauren is dead. I have NO SYMPATHY for Cameron.

Six pages of whining about his diet but NOT ONE MENTION OF LAUREN, written 6 days before the anniversary of her death.

He makes me sick!

CountryGirl said...

Ken said:
These letters are written with a specific purpose, and should be read in that context.

~~~

Of course they are. They are all about poor Cameron. He's getting nonfat milk instead of lowfat, etc. He's lost weight. Down from 220 to 165 (he says, but it's still within range, his prior weight was not--see below)

Ideal Weight for Men

Ideal Weight = Healthy Weight Range = BMI 19-24.9
Fig 1. Weight Range - BMI 19-24.9
Height
(ft/inches) Weight Range
(Pounds)
6' 2" 147-194

CountryGirl said...

Oh, he told Patty he loved her, missed her, Happy Birthday, etc while asking her about $$ on his books and care package from his parents, asked for calling cards. The rest of the six page letter was about his diet, cold showers (didn't he complain about not being allowed to shower?), medication.

Geez, he should just get on with it and not allow it to ruin his life, just as he told his friend calling soon after Lauren's death.

I need to take a walk.

ken said...

CG, when it comes to athletes -- and Cam was athletic! -- you throw BMI out the window. The late Denver Bronco cornerback Darrent Williams was 5'11" and 200 lbs (a BMI of 28), and I guarantee you that he didn't have any more than 5% body fat. I have the heart and lungs of a guy in his 30s (zero plaque) and legs like a Nebraska linebacker (complete with shredded knees); last time I was properly checked, I had a BMI of 27 and 8% body fat. He's lost 50 lbs in the joint, and judging from his photos, most of it was muscle.

As for his not offering a sufficient expression of his undying affection, you have the presumptive answer: calling cards. I don't know about you, but if I were in Patty's situation, I wouldn't want those intimate thoughts blasted all over the Internet. The lack of grief concerning Lauren is disturbing and arguably damning, but I can't reach your conclusion as to what the letters say about his relationship with Patty when an extremely plausible alternative exists.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 423   Newer› Newest»