Friday, September 01, 2006

A Trial is a Sales Presentation

Having been in some form of sales or sales support most of my career, I can see the parallels between presenting a case in court and a sales presentation. Think about it: it’s an adversarial competition that plays on all the same things that selling to you does: your heart, your pain, and your common sense. Each side attempts to make you feel good about deciding (“buying”) that their “product” is better.

The People want to sell you the story that the defendant is guilty. They may try to dazzle you with science, baffle you with psychology, bore you with detritus and sway you with emotion. The defense tries to “sell” you that its client should walk free because either the People’s case ("product") is weak, or because its client is (ahem) “factually innocent”, whatever that means.

So it is with the case of California v. Brown. Craig Hum and his team did its best to portray Brown in the most unflattering way possible. They vilified him. They treated him like ersatz coffee. It was as if they posted a picture of him with a bandito mustache and “Wanted: Dead or Alive!” in town square. We know that perception is everything. Even if the allegations were false, based on the “sales presentation” we perceive this man as being capable of murdering his child because we can now perceive him as being a very bad man.

This is how it works.

So, what did the defense do to erase or modify this perception? Put his mother on the stand! Put his brother on the stand! Seriously, that’s like getting a product endorsement from the salesman's mom – “Buy this from my little Johnny. He’s a good boy.” Would you insult your potential customers that way? I hope not, because you would starve as a salesperson.

If the defense wants to change the jurors’ (and public) perception of Cam Brown, they had better come up with something convincing. Their current sales presentation stinks.

166 comments:

Mgt said...

Nobody says it as well as you, Loretta.

Did the guy whose phone Cam used, testify? If not, he must have thought Cam was guilty, or at the very least, didn't think he behaved like a panicked parent. Huh, it doesn't look good.

loretta said...

Hi Mgt! Yes, GerEgo like a a smarmy internet marketing raconteur at best.

Used car salespeople at least have a visible product.

CountryGirl said...

Yes, Mgt--he testified. During closing Geragos told the jury that the CPM (Cell Phone Man) testified that CB sounded less frantic on the 911 call tape than in person, so the jury should weigh that in favor of CB because the CPM was right there.

(Remember, he bashed Jeff Leslie for not taping his interview.)

loretta said...

I see the whackjobs have a weekend pass again.

ken said...

[I'm moving this post over, as it doesn't belong in the tribute to Lauren]

Astonishingly, Ted Kaldis wrote:

Were you there? No. So how do you know she was "murdered"? Short answer: You DON'T. So don't castigate someone else when you are doing exactly the same thing that you are castigating them for.

Unless you were there, you don't know whether Cam did or didn't murder Lauren, either. All we can do is look at the evidence, and make up our minds on that basis, and if you were fair and candid about it, you would be as eager to castigate yourself as you do your adversaries.

As I see it, it is best to extricate ourselves from this mountain of minutiae this forum has become mired in, and look at the big picture.

To better explain why any self-respecting prosecutor would salivate at the prospect of taking this "turkey" to trial, we need to take a look at the "big picture," and the toughest aspect of this case from the defense perspective: getting Lauren to Insipration Point. Even if you use facts that the defense claims as true, Cam's cover story is wildly implausible at best.

We know that, when Cam picked Lauren up at the Montessori School, she was "fussy"; there's no particular point in debating why. We also know (I'm going on my recollection of what Ted has asserted) that originally, Cam had planned to take Lauren home, where Patty was said to have been. And allegedly, he decided to take Lauren to a playground, in an attempt to rectify that situation.

But why Abalone Cove? As Loretta said, "location, location, location" -- ultimately, it is the best argument for Murder One. Why? Because it just doesn't make any sense that he'd take her there.

This will make ZERO sense to Ted because he has never had a meaningful relationship with a woman, but others here might see it: If you are in a happy, healthy, and committed relationship, there's quite frankly no one else in the world you'd rather spend your time with. You tend to plan your day around being around her -- and it is as true thirty years on as it was on the first day. (One of our friends fell in love with a man in Kansas and now, she doesn't sleep well when she isn't there.)

And therein lies the problem. If Lauren was so fussy that she needed to be taken to a playground immediately, there were lots of playgrounds in Huntington Beach. But if there was time, you'd expect our blissful newlywed to take her home to Patty, where they could all proceed to the playground together. Think about it: A lazy day at the beach, with the two girls you care the most about in the world ... how could it get any better than that?

Cam had no reason to even go to Abalone Cove -- at least, not without Patty. It didn't have much of a playground, and the chance that Lauren would have anyone to play with was about zero.


Excursus: "First, I Look At The Purse!"
Of course, there is one caveat, and an excellent example of why there are no intrinsically good or bad facts. It is quite possible that Cam and Patty both settled, and their relationship was not as great as they hoped for. Think about it from Cam's perspective: Before Patty, he was shacking up with *serious* hotties, significantly younger than himself. On the boat and near the beach, he was living his dream; the only minor drawback was a lack of cash. Lauren was a major drain on his exchequer -- we have testimony that he wanted to get out from under the burden of child support rather desperately.

Now, look at it from Patty's perspective. According to Ted (how that has changed!), she really didn't get all the "cute genes". Imagine Ted with shoulder-length blonde hair -- and you get the distinct impression that she was well on her way to becoming an old maid. We know from the reports of Shannon Farren and CG that this LARGE, slovenly woman looked more like the Hilton in Paris than Paris Hilton ... and yet, she landed a man ten years her junior?

One could argue that Cam needed a meal ticket, and Patty just needed a man. A marriage of convenience, instead of one motivated by love? This would be a bad fact for them, but a good fact for the case, as it would explain why Cam wasn't especially motivated to go home to pick up Patty.

This may seem awfully cold and brutal, but you have to understand what men like Danny Smith and Craig Hum do for a living. Think of the horror you felt when you looked at Lauren's mangled body. Now, think about how you would react if you had to see things like that EVERY DAY. (This was the reason I gave up the idea of going to med school.) Indeed, Ted even complained that Danny Smith cared too much, and let his emotions control his professional judgment.

It's brutal. It's cruel. But *this* is what's going on inside their heads ... provided that they are doing their job.


Another Peterson Parallel? The Tides Have It
If the trip to AC was thus implausible, the trek to Inspiration Point was doubly so. Team Cam has floated a number of trial balloons to see how they would stand up to scrutiny: alternatively, we're told that she wanted to see where all the people were going, that she wanted to throw rocks off a cliff, and that he simply wanted to show her the view. But no matter how you slice it, the only logical place for Cam to have taken Lauren was Portuguese Point.

Can you imagine that conversation? "Daddy, I want to throw rocks off that big cliff!" "Lauren, we can't do that, as you might hit someone with those rocks. Let's take an extra half-hour to get to another more dangerous cliff I know of, so that you can throw rocks off of it." Knowing how zealous Cam was about guarding Lauren's safety -- having her ride his motorcycle without a helmet, driving her around L.A without a car seat, and having her retrieve a suitcase out of the street -- we can rest assured that he was considerate of others' well-being.

We are assured by one of the locals that the base of PP is a popular place for looking at sea anenomes. Problem is, as any SoCal knows, the only time you would do that is at low tide. [correction noted] Our local expert assures us that it was near low tide, but the redoubtable Farmer's Almanac suggests otherwise:

http://www.almanac.com/tides/predictions/oneday.php?number=3021&day=7&month=11&year=2000

When the water is two feet over baseline, you're probably not going to go to look for anemones. Besides, Cam seemed to have marginal regard for even Lauren's safety. Accordingly, the notion that he went to IP to avoid having Lauren hit people with rocks is dubious at best.

For everything Cam was ostensibly after, Portuguese Point was simply perfect. It had a great view (comparable to IP), it was closer (which matters, when you have a four-year-old with you), it was a relatively safe walk (again, it matters!), and that is where at least some of the people were going. And if Lauren had her heart set on throwing rocks, there's no reason why she couldn't.

However, it is what IP (and Cam!) *DIDN'T* have that made it a better place for him to murder Lauren. As we are told, it didn't have a fence -- easier for her to "slip and fall." And Cam didn't have a cell phone -- easier for him to come up with a colorable excuse for him to not go immediately to her aid.

"If The Guy's A 'Twit, You Must Acquit!"
The most bizarre part of this whole story is Cam's behavior after the incident. Given that Cam knew that it was high tide -- and there was at least a chance that Lauren survived the fall, and was unconscious in the water -- you would have expected this man, who dated a lifeguard and was a veteran surfer, to know enough to rush immediately to her aid. Every second counts, and 8-10 minutes is a recipe for brain death. Yet, Cam wasted five minutes on a friggin' CELL PHONE!!!

The only logical conclusion is that Cam waited intentionally, to make CERTAIN that Lauren was dead.

If you are a rational detective, you don't need to see the forensics. You KNOW that this was a murder. Whether it is instinct, or just plain old common sense, you know ... and pretty much everyone else who doesn't have a horse in this race (the family and close friends) can see it just as plainly. And you're going to investigate it as though it was a murder, because that is what your training tells you to do.

Was Cam leading? Was Lauren? It's all window dressing. So are the forensics, insofar as a hard shove would probably be as good as a toss. Geragos' "Playbook for Grief?" A carnival sideshow. At the end of the day, everything else is just nibbling at the corners. If Cam gets out of this in one piece, he will be one of the luckiest men on the planet.

Arguably, Geragos' best defense is that Cam is a complete, blithering idiot, who didn't know what to do and hadn't developed the instincts any parent should have. It would help if he were emotionally immature, and in some way mentally unstable; if his relationship with Patty was not as good as one would hope for, it would be a definite plus. (IIRC, Geragos apparently tried to play these cards at trial.)

Next, we turn to the forensics, and a little good old fashioned common sense. For Lauren to suffer the horrific injuries she endured, she had to hit the cliff face at a considerable rate of speed. This unavoidable fact of physics is what makes the defense expert less credible; while it may be possible that she tumbled down the slope, it's impossible for her to have done so at any appreciable rate of speed. If the F doesn't have enough ma to do the damage, the "tumble" theory is proven false.

This is why I maintain that Craig Hum has such an incredible advantage in the second trial. All he has to do is simplify it. He knows what is coming (the defense has a tactical advantage in any first trial, because they don't have to show their hand), and he can focus on what matters. [tbc]

ken said...

Barbequed Crow
The procedural carping by Team Cam here ranges from the insubstantial to the truly absurd. For example, Ted whines that Cam's 995 motion was not decided on the merits (true), and that Geragos' failure to file it on a timely basis was somehow excusable. It isn't, and Geragos clearly committed professional malpractice. Every lawyer knows that if you are unable to meet a hard statutory deadline, in most cases, you can file a motion for an enlargement of time in which to respond, and it is almost always granted. Here, there was certainly good cause for granting such an extension (a change of counsel), and no judge would have turned him down.

The assertion that Geragos has some kind of "H-bomb-class evidence" in his arsenal is equally farcical. Cam came perilously close to getting convicted on second-degree murder charges -- which is basically as good as a conviction on murder one, given his age -- the last time, and from what we know about Team Cam's baseless complaint about the autopsy, the conviction would have been upheld upon appeal. And while the procedures in general leave much to be desired (e.g., I'd like to see every suspect get a prelim, irrespective of whether s/he is charged or indicted), they are as they are and as Ted says, it is their sandbox.

As for the prosecution itself being an egregious abuse of the criminal process, I am forced to remind those who would say so that manslaughter is a lesser included offense and that, based on the credible evidence we do have (that Cam was not acquitted on all charges), convicting him for that offense appears relatively easy. I strongly question the veracity of the anonymous poster who claims that a juror said that no one on the panel believed that Cam threw Lauren off that cliff, given how everyone who isn't virulently partisan has reacted to the evidence.

My assessment of Cam's case -- from more than two years ago -- still stands. It should have and would have gone to trial in any major city in this land. A conviction for manslaughter is a veritable certainty, and he would have done approximately this much time if he'd been tried on those charges. I think you can raise reasonable doubt, but the best you are going to do is slip under that bar. I can't tell what the next jury will do with this case, although I think that Hum has an enormous advantage in the second go-round.

Should Cam testify? Ultimately, that is his call -- although Geragos can't let him testify to things that he knows are not true. It seems to me that the Kaldis clan is paying good money for his expertise, and they should follow his recommendation. As for me, I would not let him get on that stand in the absence of the greatest of need.

And now, without further adieu, on to a few amusing Tedisms:

[Ted wrote:

The whole case makes no sense. There has got to be more here than meets the eye.

As for this grand Bilderberg-class conspiracy that is supposed to be behind Cam's alleged persecution, I note for the record that there has been no meaningful discussion of this point since I brought it up, and on the face of it, it appears totally illusory. If you have something solid, then bring it forth, as it isn't and wasn't a part of the trial. Ted, if you don't have a smoking gun, there probably isn't one, as it's clear on the face of it that this case would be prosecuted pretty much everywhere.]

Scuttlebutt around the courthouse is that [Hum] STILL has [political] ambitions.

Committing character assassination by spreading more baseless gossip, eh, Ted? In the real world, Ted, people with political ambitions (and I know a few from my being active in the Party) tend to play things *VERY* safe. They don't take undue risks. See, e.g., Both-ways-Bob Beauprez.

This is in fact a bald-faced LIE I certainly have no evidence [that the Palos Verdes Conservancy wanted Cam prosecuted for murder to protect their fundraising efforts], and I have NEVER used the word "conspiracy." But nevertheless, the circumstances certainly raise questions about this.

Translated, "I don't want to SAY it, but I sure as hell want to IMPLY it!!!!! This is the textbook definition of duplicity, and example of how Ted has been libelling others via innuendo.

[Someone] "had good reason to fear a lawsuit."

Unfortunately for you, at the time of the arrest, they had no reason to fear a lawsuit from Cam, and even if they did, it was presumptively the insurance carrier's problem. Public officials are largely immune from negligence suits.]

My position is what it was back then: I'm trying to look at this with a clinical and trained eye, and don't care overmuch as to its outcome. As long as Cam gets a fair trial -- and with experienced counsel in his corner, he has a much better chance than most -- I'm delighted with the outcome. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any fouls with any more import than your routine 'hand-checks,' which technically qualify as fouls but are rarely if ever called.

As there is another forum for discussion of this incident, and I don't think the 'officials' here are capable of calling a fair game, I'll move on over to Loretta's/CG's board, where this message will also be posted. Hopefully, they will organize another forum, where a fair discussion can be had without the kind of pettiness prevalent here.

And if no one cares to discuss any of this with me, fine. I can wait until the trial. Trust me: My life won't end on account of it. :-)

ken said...

Loretta, you've gotten it exactly right. In appellate advocacy, you are taught to "simplify, simplify, simplify." And Johnnie Cochrane will go down in history for his seven-word soliloquy. At trial, perception is everything.

Both sides could learn a lot from the first debacle. Patty Brown should probably hit the gym, start eating a steady diet of rabbit food, and even do a little liposuction. The laundry should be done well beforehand, and she needs to pretend she's in the World Series of Poker; Ted needs to hit 48-Hour Fitness (it takes more intense effort than the usual gym).

Craig Hum has to simplify his case a little. You don't need forensics to win the case; he should strive to downplay it a little. And if Geragos tries the "they didn't believe you in Utah" gambit, Hum should talk about the 400-plus cases in which the jury did believe him. That patently unethical trick shouldn't have worked once, and God forbid that Geragos would ever be foolish enough to try it twice.

If I were the defense expert, I wouldn't dare to try the "I'd love to take my kids there" gambit again. If he does, Hum should ask him how much he made for testifying, and ask him whether he used that money to bring them down there to walk around. (Of course, if Geragos were really clever, he'd have the fellow actually DO that.)

On balance, Hum has a distinct advantage in the second go, because he knows most of what Geragos can throw at him. But the winner in this case will be the side more willing to put in the legwork, reviewing the transcripts to look for useful avenues of attack. Clarence Darrow was an obsessive-compulsive, but that's why he won so many cases: He simply flat-out out-worked his opponents.

I would never put a defendant's mother on the stand except at desperate need, because it is so easy to impeach her. The great Irving Younger impeached one with this simple question: "Mrs. Jones, you're X's mother, aren't you?" No further questions were needed, because everyone knows that a mother will say anything to save her son's sorry ass. Problem is, I just don't know what they can do to improve their lie.

Geragos seems to have chosen the correct approach [credit to Wayne Delia]: "If the guy's a 'twit, you must acquit!" If you can show Cam to be an emotionally arrested ne'er-do-well who didn't have enough time to bond with Lauren and isn't going to react like a normal parent should, you're probably going to get through some of the most problematic evidence without a lot of damage. Get out in front of all the really bad evidence both early and often, so that the prosecution doesn't run you over with it. Besides, it helps you create the sympathy you'll need to counter the kind of character assassination that Cam's life choices made so incredibly easy....

Ronni said...

Go, Ken!

Ronni said...

What has happened to the KKK trial blog? It's gone all dark blue, and the comments have disappeared, as well.

loretta said...

I think it's still there. Ken is there.

Ronni said...

Then, my link is messed up. I'm seeing the same entries--a new one I saw earlier has gone now--but without any comments. The haloscan comments are gone.

Kent Wills said...

They're back now. The front page is still messed up, but the comment section is working at this point.

loretta said...

Ok, that's more like it. Instead of discussing who was walking in front, who called, who didn't call, who cried, who didn't cry....let's look at the lawyers and -- the law.

Now, I'm not going to go over all the laws involved with the trying of this case, because that would be boring to most people. I find the whole process pretty interesting, but that's just me.

Suffice it to say, there are some laws involved, and until we are shown that they are being violated or ignored (as can happen), we will have to presume that they are being followed.

If you don't agree with that premise, you will not care what Geragos does or doesn't do, you have already made up your minds that the cards are stacked against CB, that this should have never reached a courtroom, and that the judge, DA, sheriffs, ME, dishwasher, janitor and parking attendant are all in on it.

If you think well....maybe they are following the law to the best of their interpretation/abilities and CB has Mark Geragos, after all, who is like an Armenian version of Johnny Cochnra -- then, we know his rights will be protected.

You really do have to pick a lane. Either everyone on the People's side of the aisle is corrupt, crooked, mendacious, vindictive and motivated by whatever evil notion they have, and that poor Mark Geragos can't stop this bulldozer of bull....

or...

Everyone is just doing his job to the best of his ability, there are laws in place that are responsible for who takes the witness stand, what evidence can be presented or not, where CB spends his time awaiting a new trial, why he's not out on bail, why he did or didn't take the witness stand, and what the jurors were instructed to do.

In which case, if you presume that the laws are being followed here, you have to realize that the things that "Case Insider" and others are purporting in this blog may be their reality, may be how they think that things should go down, but if they were even in the ballpark, Brown would not be on trial.

Or Geragos would have/should have been booted.

Simple as that.
loretta

ken said...

The Cam Brown Paradox:

Their response to Loretta'as "Simple as that"] What universe do you live in? Nothing is ever as simple as that! There are ulterior motives here that have not yet been revealed.

With respect, this is where you and your colleagues [Team Cam] end up beyond the orbit of Xena. Every conspiracy has to have an object, and you haven't come close to suggesting one that everyone involved in this case this side of Vladimir Putin would have to be a part of in order to achieve the outcome we see today. And Ted has floated some beauts.

Who in the LASD, if anyone, has a vested interest in seeing an innocent man fry? Brothers? Falicon? Leslie? While I presume that every one of us would like to see a child-killer get his just due, I can't even fathom a reason why a line cop would have a need to frame an obviously innocent man for the murder of his daughter. And it is not like Ted hasn't tried:

On the other hand, the lawyer tells me that the L.A. County Sheriff's Dept. has a bonus system for its investigators when they solve crimes -- and the biggest bonus is paid for getting a child-killer. And, in the lawyer's words, these detectives had a "hard-on" for Cameron. [Theodore A. Kaldis, 2/22/04]

Tell me you have something more than wild, unsubstantiated gossip to go on....

The same question goes right on up the line, from Craig Hum (and his superiors, who make the call as to whether to prosecute) to Shannon Farren and Denise Nix, whom you vaguely accuse of being prosecution mouthpieces. We've laughed our way through Ted's infamous Palos Verdes Conservancy Conspiracy-that-isn't-a-Conspiracy, and are forced to simply shake our heads. Cui bono?

And where are the patent violations of Cam's constitutional rights? I'm as sensitive to them as anyone, but what I've heard from Team Cam on this point is mostly a hodge-podge of amalgamated ignorance. By way of example, here's one of Ted's classic rants:

But there ISN'T enough evidence to bind him over for trial -- and anyway, that question really hasn't yet been addressed by the court. He has been ARRESTED on information (and bogus information at that), and this for a capital crime. And he has been in jail for almost 6 months now, and the preliminary hearing, which is supposed to stand in place of a grand jury indictment, has yet to take place. Because of Hurtado v California -- which did NOT address the "immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment, but only the "due process" clause -- his 5th Amendment rights are being violated. [Theodore A. Kaldis, 4/22/04]

That's just sheer ignorance. While I am not sanguine about the outcome of Hurtado, it is the law of the land and has been for longer than any of us have been alive. You don't have a constitutional right to a preliminary hearing or to be indicted on a charge brought under state law, and Craig Hum's "midnight indictment" was in fact perfectly legal. How can I begin to complain when the State is playing entirely within the rules?

Although some matters might not be amenable to open discussion at this point, and should be tabled on that account, your conspiracy charges (or Ted's conspiracy-that-ain't-really!) should be fair game.

[Loretta:] Suffice it to say, there are some laws involved, and until we are shown that they are being violated or ignored (as can happen), we will have to presume that they are being followed.
[Anon:] You do that. It makes life easier not to have to admit certain things to yourself.

So here, we have the Cam Brown Paradox: It is patently unethical to make charges without evidence, but you want us to accept your charges without evidence. Come again?!

Before we can start jawing about civil rights violations, we have to have some. The State cannot deprive someone of a liberty interest (and yes, Ted, that includes a license to practice law) without due process of law. Thus, what you would need to show is a patent violation of Cam's due process rights.

What we do know is that the State charged him on information -- the decision was reviewed by a judge -- and indicted him in a grand jury proceeding. And while we might be in full agreement that there needs to be more protection for the accused in such matters, that is all that the State needs to do. It is a pass-fail exam, and all they need to show is that they had probable cause, if you examine the assembled facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Even Ted admits that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. And whether you want to hear it or not, the fact that the first jury hung is pretty much conclusive proof that the indictment and charge were proper. So, where is the foul?

Those were the only events of legal consequence occurring before trial. If a constitutional foul didn't occur there, there wasn't a foul.

Next, there was the aborted 995 motion. Geragos blew the deadline, which constitutes a prima facie case of malpractice. Extensions of time are always granted for good cause -- and the attorney being too busy is generally good cause -- so there was
no excuse for his failure that can be fairly placed on the State's shoulder.

You further complain of multiple fouls occurring during trial. Problem is, procedural errors at trial are almost never overturned, and any that did occur were mooted by the mistrial. Bottom line, we're back to square one.

Our system has melted down here, insofar as no one should ever have to wait three years for a trial without bail. But unfortunately, the remedy for that was in Cam's hands from the beginning; he could have insisted upon a speedy trial and/or revoked his waiver of same.

I'm still searching for something that isn't just an inherent feature of our decrepit legal system.

CountryGirl said...

25 From: Theodore A. Kaldis - view profile
Date: Thurs, Apr 6 2006 5:17 pm
Email: "Theodore A. Kaldis" kal...@worldnet.att.net
Groups: misc.legal

Kent Wills wrote:
> The Conservancy Conspiracy you proposed went away before the trial
> was to have started. [...]


Did it? Heh heh heh. How little you really know.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net

Yeah, he didn't use the term "conspiracy" but his comment certainly affirms that is what he meant.

Just as he left out the fact that Sarah paid for Lauren's monument at IP and questioned that it was a payoff to avoid a lawsuit (when CB had filed one himself!) is typical of Ted.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Ken wrote,
Next, there was the aborted 995 motion. Geragos blew the deadline, which constitutes a prima facie case of malpractice. Extensions of time are always granted for good cause -- and the attorney being too busy is generally good cause...

It wasn't Geragos being too busy (though he may well have been). It's that he was hired two weeks before the dead line. That would have been more than just "good cause" for an extension. It would have basically ensured an extension. A change in counsel is grounds for one.

Either Geragos is far more incompetent than I am willing to accept, or he knew the 995 motion was a lost cause from the beginning and saw no reason to seek an extension. I don't see a *valid* third option.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, CG wrote:
Yeah, he didn't use the term "conspiracy" but his comment certainly affirms that is what he meant.

I've stated, more than once, that while Ted has never used the word conspiracy, that is the concept he was proposing. He wanted everyone to think conspiracy, but wanted an out when it blew up in his face, as it did.

Just as he left out the fact that Sarah paid for Lauren's monument at IP and questioned that it was a payoff to avoid a lawsuit (when CB had filed one himself!) is typical of Ted.

Ted often leaves out very important details. Like the conspiracy theories he posts, he can claim he didn't actually post anything deceptive, since what he wrote is technically true. However, the context of what he writes is so far removed from the truth that what he writes and what is truth are almost polar oposites.

loretta said...

Speaking of sales presentations, I'm not buying anything that the Kaldis Kook Konspiracist are trying to sell over at the Apologists' Blob.

You are doing a great job, Kent.

We didn't just fall off a turnip truck. Considering that the trial took place and none of this "H-bomb" class evidence was delivered, why would they risk a second trial?

Preposterous.

ken said...

Looks like I got banned again over at the KKK Blog -- seems they don't want to be reminded by all the cockeyed claims by their bulbous USENET barrister that got shot down in flames. As such, I'll pick out a few of the more spectacular absurdities fired off yesterday. The first one absolutely buried my industrial-strength bullshitometer:


[Me:]So, you can understand why I'm not on board. It is not that I am hostile to your claims but rather, that at this point, you have fallen so far short of establishing wrongs of constitutional magnitude that I don't quite see how you are going to get there.

We will get there by telling the whole story. We aren't perpared to do that right now, in part because peoples lives are being theatened. What would you do?

First, I would detonate the supposed H-bomb in Diane Sawyer's office. Second, I would have a chat with John Elvig of the Federal Bureau of Investigation here in Denver. Of course, this presumes that you actually have something of substance establishing that lives have actually been or are currently being threatened, and that this H-bomb isn't the Preparation-H-bomb you claim to have isn't a figment of your imagination. (Based on everything I've read to this point, I am forced to presume that it is, because Geragos has the kind of star power to walk into virtually any major network or F.B.I. office and get ten minutes of someone important's time.)

=======================================

I don’t know about that. But what I do know is this. On the same day that Sarah filed her lawsuit against Cam the RPV City Attorney suggested that “a potential litigation matter” be added to the City Council’s closed session which was “based upon a significant exposure to litigation against the City which is not yet known to the potential plaintiffs” and that the matter “posed two litigations”. [...]

Except for the fact that the City hadn't been served, and the City Attorney would presumptively have no knowledge of the lawsuit in question.

And let’s not forget the fact that Inspiration Point is part of an active landslide which is subject to constant land movement. This land movement causes treacherous ground surface conditions – even when the ground isn’t sliding - which could cause someone to lose their footing, fall and go over the cliff. But these conditions which make Inspiration Point more dangerous than the other (fenced) cliffs are not apparent. Therefore, it is questionable if the unsuspecting public should even be allowed onto Inspiration Point at all. At the very least didn’t the City have a responsibility to warn the public that this portion of their park is more dangerous than normal? This was not the case when Lauren fell.

Yeah, that could be considered a potential significant exposure to litigation against the City, don't you think?


Not on the face of it, I don't. If they don't own the land, it ain't their problem. If they are insured, it's more the insurance company's problem. Finally, as the putative harm (landslides) is not the one which allegedly caused Lauren's death, there's no cause of action.

The suspicious thing about Sarah’s action is why didn’t she include the city in her suit. That makes one wonder.

Do you have a copy of the complaint? A yes or no answer will do; it is by definition a matter of public record. If all you are doing is throwing up the usual Kaldis-class vague libel via innuendo, please don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

================================================

Cam Lawyer can only do as much as the judge will allow. If the judge refused what should he have done?

File a habeas corpus motion and/or civil rights action in federal court, just for starters. Plenty of bullets in that gun.

================================================

[Cat:]I don't understand how there could be a rationale for leaving 20 pages of the 32 page autopsy report?

It's called "editing." Happens all the time, Cat. It's not like the other 20 pages can't be used by the defense at trial -- remember that the State HAS to turn it over. If the State refused to turn those pages over, there would be a reason for you to howl.

This is, as I see it, the sum and substance of most of the complaints lodged by Team Cam to this point: Allusions to acts they consider unethical (some are, some aren't), but unfortunately, nothing which rises to the level of a civil rights violation.

[More fun from Comedy West to come]

ken said...

[More fun from Comedy West (the KKK Blog) forum:]

You misunderstood. Nobody wants to defame Sarah. That was never Ted's or anyones elses intention.

Guess you missed the last two years, Dude. :-)

==============================================

[Me:] It is patently unethical to make charges without evidence,

The evidence is there. This is a preview.

[What I actually said in context:] So here, we have the Cam Brown Paradox: It is patently unethical to make charges without evidence, but you want us to accept your charges without evidence. Come again?!

We don't have any evidence we can show you, but we really do have it. It is established beyond doubt that Saddam has weaponized WMD, and that he can launch an attack within an hour. Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger, and he has mobile chemical weapons manufacturing plants traveling the country. Haven't we heard jive like that before?

Two trillion dollars' worth of expenditures and commitments later, the American people (most of whom weren't paying attention, as I was) finally figured out that we had been 'had'. Team Cam will need to do a lot better than that to warrant our rapt attention....

=============================================

[Me:] I'm still searching for something that isn't just an inherent feature of our decrepit legal system.

Does modifying the evidence fit?

In my best Clara Peller voice: "Where's the beef?" Having heard that bulbous pig squeal about the Hayes report for almost two years -- and for no good reason! -- I am not sanguine about this claim. As I understand it, Hayes asked prosecutors to come up with a current topo map, presumably on account of the fact that erosion happens, and the best you can do is estimate what the cliff would have looked like in November, 2000. The autopsy was edited, but nothing was hidden or tampered with -- the only definition of "modified" that would matter. Everything else is more-or-less what you'd expect to see: Witnesses not remembering things that clearly after nearly six years, and not getting it quite the same way as written recollections closer to the time of trial. Where has anyone actually fabricated evidence? I've yet to see any credible evidence of this, and don't expect to see it any time soon.

===========================================

Yeah, well if you are told that if you don't waive your right for a speedy trial you can be guaranteed a conviction, because the prosecution has been working on the case against you for three years, but no one has started a defense case. So the choice is certain (wrongful) conviction, or waive your right to a speedy trial and give someone time to prepare your case, what would you do?

False dilemma. If the law firm of Geragos & Geragos, with all their resources and Bobby Brown's unlimited well of cash in hand, can't prepare a defense in six months, they should close their doors. In America, you get roughly as much justice as you can afford, and Cam got an upgrade to first-class.

============================================

But what was much more noticeable and significant was the change in [Shannon Farren's] reports. They no longer resembled what had happened during that days proceeding.

Given that the other blog had its own independent reporter on-scene, and she couldn't find anything wrong with her reports, I am forced to conclude that in reality, your real whine is that SF just didn't see things the way that you did. Tough noogies; that's what you get sometimes when dealing with the press. To insinuate that she was part of Vlad Putin's Grand Conspiracy borders on the ludicrous, and you destroy what credibility you have by even going there.

===========================================

[Kent:] Don't forget the conservancy. Sure, the funding was secured BEFORE the first trial date was to occur

But at risk when the case was made, and very much at risk when the arrest was made. But there are deeper issues there.

Another reference to Vlad Putin's Grand Conspiracy! At the time the arrest occurred, the statute of limitations on Cam's civil suit had run (that the California Supreme Court found otherwise some time later was not predictable at the time), and the risk of exposure regarding the Conservancy was roughly zero. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story, eh, Team Cam?

=============================================

[Team Cam:]The prosecutor and Dr. Ophoven sat down on a bench while detective, Jeff Leslie stood over them. Detective Leslie postured above Dr. Ophoven in an intimidating manner, as if he were interrogating a criminal. Why would the detective treat Dr. Ophoven in such a manner? Defense attorneys were not present.

[Kent:]I have a difficult time believing this occured. Why wasn't Geragos there? It got to be unethical, maybe illegal to talk with opposing counsel's witness without the opposing counsel present. Why did Geragos permit this to occur?

For all we know, they were talking about the weather, or Hum was soliciting her regarding other cases. All we know is that Geragos didn't make an issue of it at trial; if anything untoward had happened, both of them were experienced enough to howl about it on the stand. It would have been reversible error, and Geragos has an obligation to preserve it on the record for appeal. Hum knows it as well, and he'd have to be pretty damn stupid to try anything like that in public view.

This is why "Team Cam" has so consistently buried the needle on my industrial-strength bullshitometer (it's set for Tony Snow-Job). In their eyes, EVERYTHING is a part of Vlad Putin's Grand Conspiracy! They're throwing everything they possibly can at the wall, in hope that something finally sticks.

====================================================

Thank you [Kent] for your offer. But, can you do anything useful with the information? Do you know a federal judge, a special prosecutor who would stand up to something like this? Who polices the police?

If anyone knows the kind of people who could make this happen, it's Mark Geragos. That he hasn't done anything of substance speaks volumes. While attorneys are justifiably scared to death of judges, they rarely fear the police.

ken said...

And lest I forget:

We do not intend to try to win a dismissal by impugning the members of the prosecution.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, 2/22/04

loretta said...

Yes, it's remarkably idiotic. They have taken to poofing my comments that merely suggest the ludicrousness of their claims.

Oh well. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

Anonymous said...

Hi Loretta - I know this is not the right spot but I wanted to say that I just downloaded your book: "Stone Cold Guilty" and I'm on page 32. I've read most of the other books about the Peterson case and I find yours by far the most enjoyable, comprehensive and enlightening. Your thoughts are filled with insight and color, which are absent in so many works of non-fiction. It’s obvious that you spent a great deal of time researching and assembling this into what I find so far to be one of the more memorable and enjoyable works I’ve read in a long time. I’ll post a complete review at Amazon when I finish, I just wanted to thank you right away for presenting such a brilliant manuscript.

This is one of my favorites quotes so far – even though it’s one of the few pieces not specifically related to the Peterson case:

High fidelity is a term to describe the quality of sound reproduction of an
audio recording. The higher the fidelity, the more it imitates live music, with its
dynamics, resonance, vibration and dimension. As audio systems became more
sophisticated, listeners preferred distorting the original sound with subwoofers,
buffers, loudspeakers, and equalizers. Eventually, the reproduced tracks scarcely
resembled the original recording. I find myself adjusting the bass on other people's
car stereos to restore the midrange; I believe the bass should be the
accompaniment, not the lead; however, our dance clubs, rock concerts, and stereo
salesmen have trained generations of ears to crave the bass line, like rancid oil in
fried food.

Kind Regards,

- Joe

loretta said...

Thanks, Joe. I got an email from someone in Hawaii about that very same analogy regaring "fidelty" and its application to people.

Funny how that came up again. Thanks for your kind remarks!

Skye said...

Ted, the fact that IP is "so" dangerous, looks even worse for Cameron Brown. If this was really a favourite spot for him to visit, then he would definitely know the dangers.

Probably, hoping it would be taken for granted that Lauren slipped, huh, or, what was it? Took a running jump?! Oh yeah, they couldn't make up their mind on that one!

A pity he was more concerned about who won the election!

Remorse, Ted...ever heard of it? If he had just been able to fake it, he may have got away with this.

ken said...

From over at the KKK Blog:

The only thing I have heard Ted say in the last two years about
Sarah is that Sarah has suffered a horrible tragedy.

It sounds like someone is putting words in his mouth.


Errrrr, that "someone" would be Google. Here's a few sample clips:

[Ted:] Who said this? Sarah? She's less reliable than even Ken Smith, if you ask me.

[Ted:] Cameron told Sarah she could get an abortion when she asserted to Cameron that she was pregnant -- LONG before Lauren was born. And, given Sarah's track record, he suspected that she was lying about it.

[In reference to Sarah] Ken you've been married long enough to know that women aren't always the
most logical creatures around.

[Me:] If Sarah is a problematic witness
[Ted:]And she will be -- for the prosecution.

Ted has been defaming Sarah by calling her a compulsive liar, and note in particular the misogynistic comment. If anyone over at the KKK Blog is female, you'd expect that they would take offense.

ken said...

Loretta wrote:
Yes, it's remarkably idiotic. They have taken to poofing my comments that merely suggest the ludicrousness of their claims.

From the top of the HaloScan page: Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added

It's only a matter of time before we are all excluded from their blog, as dissenting voices cannot be tolerated.

ken said...

Just for grins, I took a quick look into the legal merits of the claim at the KKK Blog that the judge improperly excluded autopsy photos. As a general rule, the photos are like any other piece of evidence: Judges have enormous discretion as to what is or is not to be admitted, and Judge Arnold's ruling would only be overturned if it can be shown that it was (a) an abuse of discretion and (b) constituted prejudicial error. Here is some of the pertinent commentary from California case law:

"After viewing the videotape and the photographs, and hearing counsel's arguments, the trial court denied the motion as to the videotape and as to some photographs, but it granted the motion as to other photographs that it found to be cumulative or unduly prejudicial. More specifically, the trial court excluded six of the 16 autopsy photographs of Earl Garcia's body; two of the 10 autopsy photographs of Doris Garcia's body; and 24 of the 39 crime scene photographs. Defendant argues that the trial court should have excluded the crime scene videotape and all photographs of the victims' bodies. We find no abuse of discretion.

"The admissibility of victim and crime scene photographs and videotapes is governed by the same rules of evidence used to determine the admissibility of evidence generally: Only relevant evidence is admissible. [Citations.] The trial court has broad discretion in deciding the relevancy of such evidence. [Citations.]" (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 641.)"
-- People v. Pollock, 89 P.3d 353 (Cal. 2004)

Furthermore, we have reviewed the excluded autopsy photographs in the context of the evidence and testimony adduced at trial. The error (if any) was harmless because it is not reasonably probable a jury that maintained its objectivity would have reached a different result had the photographs been admitted. (Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, 516; Evid. Code, § 354; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)
-- Akers v. Miller, 68 Cal.App.4th 1143 (Cal.App. Dist.4 1998)

As I see it, if the conspiracy they allege (but none dare call it conspiracy!) is as robust as they allege, you can rest assured that Judge Arnold's decision (a) will be upheld (b) in an unpublished opinion, which will read something like this:

Even if the autopsy photographs should have been excluded as more prejudicial than probative, they were still relevant insofar as they helped illustrate relevant medical testimony concerning Pena's wound and treatment. On the other hand, photographs of the type of scars that developed over defendant's wounds long after the incident lacked similar value and relevance. On the record before us, we fail to see asymmetrical evidentiary rulings, let alone unconstitutional asymmetry.
-- People v. Gebrezgiabher, No. H024195 (Cal.App. Dist.6 04/08/2004)

(Of course, as Ted has ridiculed me for my opposition to unpublished opinions in the past, it will be just desserts if Cam is directly victimized by the practice. You can't change horses in midstream....)

That having been said, the better view in my mind (of course, Ted says he thinks I'm as crazy as a sh*thouse rat, so what do I know?) is that the photos should come in, as these cases suggest:

"Whether the trial judge in the instant case properly exercised his discretion in admitting the photograph depends upon whether the photo had probative value which was not substantially outweighed by any possible prejudicial effect. We find that the photo tended to prove that the victim's wounds were caused by a shotgun blast, and that it corroborated the medical examiner's testimony. In addition, the photo showed that the wounds were inflicted on the left side of the victim's body, corroborating Norman Jones's testimony that the shots came from the victim's left. (Tr. 83)

We have held that "[t]he right of the state to prove its case cannot be taken away, or the force of the evidence weakened, by an admission or stipulation of the facts sought to be proven any more than the right of a defendant to present evidence tending to prove an affirmative defense can be taken away by stipulation." Thus, appellant could not have deprived the photo of its probative value by his offer to stipulate to the facts which the photo was offered to prove."
-- Guy v. State, 778 P.2d 470 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989)

Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 151-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that autopsy photographs showing internal organs removed from victim's body were probative because they showed that internal injuries to victim did not support appellant's version of incident).

If what they are saying at the KKK Blog is correct, and the excluded autopsy photos have material probative value -- a big "if," given their credibility at this point! -- then their exclusion could be problematic. The next hurdle is in getting over the question of harmless error, and the only time that would even come to the fore is if there is a conviction on the merits.

As I've said before, the State doesn't need to prove that Lauren was thrown to convict Cam of murder, to say nothing of manslaughter. If an appellate panel sees this appeal, they are almost certain to hand it to a wet-behind-the-ears kid straight out of law school, who will be instructed to write a perfunctory opinion upholding the trial court.

ken said...

We do not intend to try to win a dismissal by impugning the members of the prosecution.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, 2/22/04

Can someone help me translate this from the Kaldis? Does it mean that they intend to SUCCEED in winning a dismissal by impugning "the members of the prosecution" -- or that they intend to try to win a dismissal by impugning everyone else who could have had (or potentially could have) any conceivable association with the case?

From the KKK Blog:
That is not the reputation Hum has in the LA County legal community. Do you know something those who work with him don't?

[And what part of that isn't impugning the character of "the members of the prosecution?"]

More perjury from detective Leslie.

Nope, what I can claim is his case was based on lies, misprespresntations, character assassination and pulling at the jury's heart strings. The jury voted the way they did because they voted on emotion (which is illegal, btw). But Hum has a reputation for being very good at eliciting emotion from. The bigger problem with that in this case is he did it with a fictional story!

I want to point out that even with all the stops pulled out and the prosecution essentially running amuck....

The prosecutor and Dr. Ophoven sat down on a bench while detective, Jeff Leslie stood over them. Detective Leslie postured above Dr. Ophoven in an intimidating manner, as if he were interrogating a criminal. Why would the detective treat Dr. Ophoven in such a manner? Defense attorneys were not present.

How about intimidating witnesses so they would be afraid to testify?

And threatening poeples lives, or worse....

Except that peoples lives are being threatened, and it may be prudent to be someplace outside the reach of those making the threats before something substantive is revealed.

But there are deeper issues there.

[Like, impugning the character of "the members of the prosecution"? Unnamed RPV city fathers? The janitor at RPV City Hall?]

The prosecution and the defense were not held to the same standard. And when the judge had to rule with Geragos because it was just to blatant if he did otherwise, you should have seen the disgusted look on his face.

[While judges often do admittedly deserve it, isn't this impugning Judge Arnold's integrity?]

Good answer in theory. The problem is if you look at [CA Attorney General] Bill Lockyers history you'll see he defends cops if someone speaks up against them, but turns a blind eye, when they are the ones not doing things by the book.

[Now, Bill Lockyear is in on it. Whatr about Vlad Putin?]

Thank you for your offer. But, can you do anything useful with the information? Do you know a federal judge, a special prosecutor who would stand up to something like this? Who polices the police?

[It's utterly hopeless to even try to fight, because Alberto Gonzales is even in on it. Anyone know what happened to the Rothschilds?]

But what was much more noticeable and significant was the change in [KFI reporter Shannon Farren's] reports. They no longer resembled what had happened during that days proceeding.

Her reports became as skewed as [those of Denise Nix of] the Daily Breeze.

Not for the first few days. There was a vast difference between her reports and the Daily Breeze at the beginning. The Daily Breeze never got what there was to get. They have always been one sided. KFI started out fair, but not for long. After a short while Shannon was getting her material from the prosecutor, not the court proceedings.

And, yes, she compared notes with the reporters from the Daily Breeze. They made sure they were both reporting the same thing. But they were by NO means reporting what was happening in court.

[Let's smear the reporters, while we're at it!]

John and Ken had their minds made up about this case a good year ago or more. Didn't how she reported the case affect her air time?

[Let's go after radio talk show hosts, to make sure we've covered all the bases.]

The suspicious thing about Sarah’s action is why didn’t she include the city in her suit. That makes one wonder.

[Let's go after Sarah and her attorney, even though "Nobody wants to defame Sarah. That was never Ted's or anyones elses intention."]

"Visitor" just got banned.

[GoogleID, Visitor, me, Loretta ... sense a pattern here? Anyone who puts them to the task must have been sent here by Vlad Putin in aid of the KORNspiracy!]

Know them by their actions. Which is all encompassing; actions, words, attitude.

You can know "Team Cam" by their actions, words, and attitude. They are compulsive liars and/or flaming hypocrites, who will say and do just about anything to get their man off. While there may well be grounds for alarm as to what is going on, legitimate problems get lost in the SFO-class fog of carping and whining about phantom fouls.

loretta said...

From the top of the HaloScan page: Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added

Yes, I got that one yesterday after I challenged someone to give me a $1 for every post I found written by Ted on Usenet that was disparaging toward Sarah.

Nobody took me up on it, and then I got banned.

Very telling.

ken said...

More chits and giggles from the KKK Blog:

[Cam] has also had to pay attorney fees that are extraordinary

How conveniently they have forgotten that had been was assigned a public defender, and that he wouldn't have had to pay a plugged nickel for his defense. He paid for the upgrade to first class on Aeroflot, and if that flight crashes and burns, it is his fault and his fault alone.

ken said...

We do not intend to try to win a dismissal by impugning the members of the prosecution.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, 2/22/04

Can someone help me translate this from the Kaldis? Does it mean that they intend to SUCCEED in winning a dismissal by impugning "the members of the prosecution" -- or that they intend to try to win a dismissal by impugning everyone else who could have had any conceivable association with the case?

From the KKK Blog:
That is not the reputation Hum has in the LA County legal community. Do you know something those who work with him don't?

[And what part of that isn't impugning the character of "the members of the prosecution?"]

More perjury from detective Leslie.

Nope, what I can claim is his case was based on lies, misprespresntations, character assassination and pulling at the jury's heart strings. The jury voted the way they did because they voted on emotion (which is illegal, btw). But Hum has a reputation for being very good at eliciting emotion from. The bigger problem with that in this case is he did it with a fictional story!

I want to point out that even with all the stops pulled out and the prosecution essentially running amuck....

The prosecutor and Dr. Ophoven sat down on a bench while detective, Jeff Leslie stood over them. Detective Leslie postured above Dr. Ophoven in an intimidating manner, as if he were interrogating a criminal. Why would the detective treat Dr. Ophoven in such a manner? Defense attorneys were not present.

How about intimidating witnesses so they would be afraid to testify?

And threatening poeples lives, or worse....

Except that peoples lives are being threatened, and it may be prudent to be someplace outside the reach of those making the threats before something substantive is revealed.

But there are deeper issues there.

[Like, impugning the character of "the members of the prosecution"?]

The prosecution and the defense were not held to the same standard. And when the judge had to rule with Geragos because it was just to blatant if he did otherwise, you should have seen the disgusted look on his face.

[While judges often do admittedly deserve it, isn't this impugning Judge Arnold's integrity?]

Good answer in theory. The problem is if you look at [CA Attorney General] Bill Lockyers history you'll see he defends cops if someone speaks up against them, but turns a blind eye, when they are the ones not doing things by the book.

[Now, Bill Lockyear is in on it. Whatr about Vlad Putin?]

Thank you for your offer. But, can you do anything useful with the information? Do you know a federal judge, a special prosecutor who would stand up to something like this? Who polices the police?

[It's utterly hopeless to even try to fight, because Alberto Gonzales is even in on it. Anyone know what happened to the Rothschilds?]

But what was much more noticeable and significant was the change in [KFI reporter Shannon Farren's] reports. They no longer resembled what had happened during that days proceeding.

Her reports became as skewed as [those of Denise Nix of] the Daily Breeze.

Not for the first few days. There was a vast difference between her reports and the Daily Breeze at the beginning. The Daily Breeze never got what there was to get. They have always been one sided. KFI started out fair, but not for long. After a short while Shannon was getting her material from the prosecutor, not the court proceedings.

And, yes, she compared notes with the reporters from the Daily Breeze. They made sure they were both reporting the same thing. But they were by NO means reporting what was happening in court.


[Let's smear the reporters, while we're at it!]

John and Ken had their minds made up about this case a good year ago or more. Didn't how she reported the case affect her air time?

[Let's go after radio talk show hosts, to make sure we've covered all the bases.]

The suspicious thing about Sarah’s action is why didn’t she include the city in her suit. That makes one wonder.

[Let's go after Sarah and her attorney, even though "Nobody wants to defame Sarah. That was never Ted's or anyones elses intention."]

"Visitor" just got banned.

[GoogleID, Visitor, me, Loretta ... sense a pattern here? Anyone who puts them to the task must have been sent here by Vlad Putin in aid of the KORNspiracy!]

Know them by their actions. Which is all encompassing; actions, words, attitude.

You can know "Team Cam" by their actions, words, and attitude. They are compulsive liars and/or flaming hypocrites, who will say and do just about anything to get their man off. While there may well be grounds for alarm as to what is going on, legitimate problems get lost in the SFO-class fog of carping and whining about phantom fouls.

ken said...

On a more substantive note:

Just for grins, I took a quick look into the legal merits of the claim at the KKK Blog that the judge improperly excluded autopsy photos. As a general rule, the photos are like any other piece of evidence: Judges have enormous discretion as to what is or is not to be admitted, and Judge Arnold's ruling would only be overturned if it can be shown that it was (a) an abuse of discretion and (b) constituted prejudicial error. Here is some of the pertinent commentary from California case law:

"After viewing the videotape and the photographs, and hearing counsel's arguments, the trial court denied the motion as to the videotape and as to some photographs, but it granted the motion as to other photographs that it found to be cumulative or unduly prejudicial. More specifically, the trial court excluded six of the 16 autopsy photographs of Earl Garcia's body; two of the 10 autopsy photographs of Doris Garcia's body; and 24 of the 39 crime scene photographs. Defendant argues that the trial court should have excluded the crime scene videotape and all photographs of the victims' bodies. We find no abuse of discretion.

"The admissibility of victim and crime scene photographs and videotapes is governed by the same rules of evidence used to determine the admissibility of evidence generally: Only relevant evidence is admissible. [Citations.] The trial court has broad discretion in deciding the relevancy of such evidence. [Citations.]" (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 641.)"
-- People v. Pollock, 89 P.3d 353 (Cal. 2004)

Furthermore, we have reviewed the excluded autopsy photographs in the context of the evidence and testimony adduced at trial. The error (if any) was harmless because it is not reasonably probable a jury that maintained its objectivity would have reached a different result had the photographs been admitted. (Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, 516; Evid. Code, § 354; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)
-- Akers v. Miller, 68 Cal.App.4th 1143 (Cal.App. Dist.4 1998)

As I see it, if the conspiracy they allege (but none dare call it conspiracy!) is as robust as they allege, you can rest assured that Judge Arnold's decision (a) will be upheld (b) in an unpublished opinion, which will read something like this:

Even if the autopsy photographs should have been excluded as more prejudicial than probative, they were still relevant insofar as they helped illustrate relevant medical testimony concerning Pena's wound and treatment. On the other hand, photographs of the type of scars that developed over defendant's wounds long after the incident lacked similar value and relevance. On the record before us, we fail to see asymmetrical evidentiary rulings, let alone unconstitutional asymmetry.
-- People v. Gebrezgiabher, No. H024195 (Cal.App. Dist.6 04/08/2004)

(Of course, as Ted has ridiculed me for my opposition to unpublished opinions in the past, it will be just desserts if Cam is directly victimized by the practice. You can't change horses in midstream....)

That having been said, the better view in my mind (of course, Ted says he thinks I'm as crazy as a sh*thouse rat, so what do I know?) is that the photos should come in, as these cases suggest:

"Whether the trial judge in the instant case properly exercised his discretion in admitting the photograph depends upon whether the photo had probative value which was not substantially outweighed by any possible prejudicial effect. We find that the photo tended to prove that the victim's wounds were caused by a shotgun blast, and that it corroborated the medical examiner's testimony. In addition, the photo showed that the wounds were inflicted on the left side of the victim's body, corroborating Norman Jones's testimony that the shots came from the victim's left. (Tr. 83)

We have held that "[t]he right of the state to prove its case cannot be taken away, or the force of the evidence weakened, by an admission or stipulation of the facts sought to be proven any more than the right of a defendant to present evidence tending to prove an affirmative defense can be taken away by stipulation." Thus, appellant could not have deprived the photo of its probative value by his offer to stipulate to the facts which the photo was offered to prove."
-- Guy v. State, 778 P.2d 470 (Okla.Crim.App. 1989)

Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 151-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (holding that autopsy photographs showing internal organs removed from victim's body were probative because they showed that internal injuries to victim did not support appellant's version of incident).

If what they are saying at the KKK Blog is correct, and the excluded autopsy photos have material probative value -- a big "if," given their credibility at this point! -- then their exclusion could be problematic. The next hurdle is in getting over the question of harmless error, and the only time that would even come to the fore is if there is a conviction on the merits.

As I've said before, the State doesn't need to prove that Lauren was thrown to convict Cam of murder, to say nothing of manslaughter. If an appellate panel sees this appeal, they are almost certain to hand it to a wet-behind-the-ears kid straight out of law school, who will be instructed to write a perfunctory opinion upholding the trial court.

CountryGirl said...

You've been banned? I thought they wanted 'fair and balanced' and that's why they opened their own blog.

googleid said...

They seem to want F and B only until someone points out their contridictions.

ken said...

I was able to get around the ban by removing my cookie long enough to post this:

Visitor. GoogleID. Ken. Loretta.

Ahhhh, censorship! The eternally seductive flower.

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises.
(Oliver Wendell Homes)

Do you fear your opponents so?


Who knows how long it will last?

ken said...

Banned by webmaster. Your comments will not be added

Not very long, or so it would seem. :-)

ken said...

It's actually pretty easy to get around the ban -- I just did it to show Team Cam that I could. I put most of our recent stuff over there; hopefully, a few of them will actually read it before Ted gets out his poofing machine. :)

Kent Wills said...

One thing I find of interest is that I'm making much the same claims as others. The only difference is the way I word them. Odd that I don't get banned.

Skye said...

Best wishes to Sarah and her family. Thinking of you all while you await the next Trial - an extremely difficult time, I'm sure!

I sincerely hope there is Justice for Lauren.

Thanks to our Hostesses, who have made this possible... Loretta and CG!

Anonymous said...

Ken, I don't think he believes half of his own statements. I mean, how could he?!

He is just bored out of his tree and is convinced that he can sway puplic opinion, snort!

One thing for sure, Geragos is storing the ammunition. I just hope nothing is useful to the Defence of an "alleged" (cough) child-killer!

ken said...

"Case Insider" wrote over at the KKK Blog:

Yes Ken, censorship. You are no longer welcome to post here. The contributors to this blog, some of whom had been deleted from CG's blog, came here to speak the truth.

"That is not the reputation Hum has in the LA County legal community" is what I call malicious gossip. You call it the truth?

I don't need to disprove it, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!! You made the claim.
That's how things work in an enlightened society. Otherwise, we're back to
the Dark Ages.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, 29 Dec. 2004

CG, have you ever deleted posters on account of any content other than off-topic ad hominem attacks on Loretta (I have seen a sample of those, and have to agree with her decision; people can read my posts at the other blog, and decide for themselves whether they are off-topic.)

You have repeatedly called them liars and challenged not just their story but their integrity.

While it is perfectly acceptable for you to question the integrity of Sarah, Craig Hum, Judge Arnold, Shannon Farren, Denise Nix, Jeff Leslie, and pretty much everyone this side of Vlad Putin for things they are alleged to have done, it is somehow not appropriate for me to question your integrity on the basis of the many things you have said and done?!?

CG, did you ever delete anyone from this blog on the basis of content logically related to the topic at hand, as opposed to those launching clearly off-topic personal attacks on Loretta?

You have not attended the trial nor have you seen what some here have seen, yet you believe you have some knowledge that makes your challenges to their integrity worthy of being on this blog.

I'm just throwing your often-ridiculous comments back in your face. I mean, REALLY! "[Cam] has also had to pay attorney fees that are extraordinary?!?" That is a bald-faced LIE!!!!! He was appointed a public defender, and wouldn't have had to have spent a dime. And you don't expect to be called on those lies?

Of course not. This is the People's Daily. [The old] Pravda. FAUX News. Dissenting voices -- those who candidly challenge the powers-that-be -- are not tolerated. If this is how you play when you own the ball, how can you justly complain when Judge Arnold and Craig Hum do the same?

YOU DO NOT! Please do not post here anymore. You have a blog where you can post whatever you like. It isn't this one.

I don't have any interest in doing so, apart from making this salient point about the heavy-handed, viewpoint-based censorship you are engaging in, which I abhor. So nice that you would cooperate in this manner -- it doesn't make you look honest, fair, or mentally balanced.

I can only lead you to knowledge; I can't make you think.

ken said...

From over at the KKK Blog:

Why was the original autopsy report put under lock and key and why was so much of it redacted for the grand jury and the trial? Why did the judge preclude the defense expert from discussing important parts of that evidence?

Because he wanted to. As I explained (with appropriate citation), judges have a lot of latitude as to what can and can't be brought into evidence, and their decisions at trial are almost never overturned. If you have the autopsy (Ted claimed that he has, but he has made so many accusations without proof or evidence with regard to this case -- and has been proven wrong so many times -- that I am dubious as to whether this latest claim is true) in your possession, now would be the time to make it as public as possible.

I don't need to disprove it, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT!! You made the claim.
That's how things work in an enlightened society. Otherwise, we're back to
the Dark Ages.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, 29 Dec. 2004

It's not that I don't or won't believe you but rather, that I am disinclined to believe you absent an adequate offer of proof.

ken said...

KKK Bloggers Caught In ANOTHER Lie!!!!!

From the main body of the KKK Blog:

In addition, there were pictures taken during the course of the autopsy, which were not included in the original autopsy report. What were the pictures of? Lauren’s body showing scrapes and scratches along the length of her body and on her extremities. The prosecution’s case has hinged on the lack of scratches and scrapes on Lauren’s body. Yet, pictures of these very wounds were omitted from the autopsy report making this a most unscrupulous omission! The prosecution has said that Lauren’s fall could not have been an accident because if she had fallen accidentally she would have had more injuries in the form of scrapes and scratches on her body and extremities. However, autopsy photographs showing precisely the injuries the prosecution claims are missing ARE ACTUALLY BEING WITHHELD FROM EVIDENCE.

The way these were brought into evidence is of particular interest as well. The medical examiner was brought in to testify on a day he wasn’t scheduled to do so. The prosecutor requested that he be allowed to testify that day and the judge agreed. He said it was the only day he had available. Mark Geragos was not prepared for the ME that day. He called his office and asked to have a courier deliver those pictures to the courthouse immediately. At nearly the end of the day, with only minutes left before the court day ended the courier arrived. Mark Geragos showed the pictures to the medical examiner and asked him to tell the court what the marks in question were. The medical examiner conceded they were scrapes and scratches found on Lauren’s body. He admitted they were along the entire length of her body and on her extremities.


Looks like the KKK'ers have been caught in yet another lie!!!

The autopsy photos -- every last one of them -- came in, even though the defense had to do the presenting (the way it normally works). Nothing was withheld from the jury. It is as I originally suspected: There is no reversible error. Judge Arnold is calling a clean game.

Ronni said...

They are clutching at straws, the way Lauren would have if she had actually fallen.

loretta said...

What did you expect? Integrity?

These are the same people who posted in Muttville, for crying out loud.

The only posts I deleted were either malicious attacks on someone in here (any poster, not just me) or revolting attacks on Sarah from probably some moron named Sommer. There's always a few morons.

I think the KK blob is going to lose what little audience it had now that it has banned me and Ken and probably Kent. We were the only interesting things in there.

Self-sabotage is the hallmark of a dysfunctional personality.

Skye said...

5:17 AM was me. Sorry, I didn't mean to sneak in as Anonysmutt.

ken said...

Anonymous wrote:

Ken, I don't think he believes half of his own statements. I mean, how could he?!

Trial delusion. Every good attorney can get it and use it. It's just that Ted can't discern reality any more.

He is just bored out of his tree and is convinced that he can sway puplic opinion, snort!

I'm convinced that Ted is "Case Insider." He hasn't posted overtly except in rare circumstances, which is weird for him. That he would go underground is hardly surprising.

All he's done so far is heave around a veritable orgy of innuendo. I'm driving them nuts with the posts, though. Every one of them have been removed. :)

One thing for sure, Geragos is storing the ammunition. I just hope nothing is useful to the Defence of an "alleged" (cough) child-killer!

I don't know whether Cam will be convicted or not, but it is looking more and more as though Judge Arnold has called a 'clean' game -- which was MY only substantive concern. Most of their complaints are birthed in sheer ignorance of the way a trial works, as is evidenced by the flap over the autposy photos. If they had been precluded from having the photos introduced under any circumstances, I would have had a MAJOR problem with it, but as they have now admitted, this was clearly not the case. What they don't seem to understand is that the State isn't obliged to make the defense's case for them -- and their abject ignorance on this point drives the bulk of their substantive gripes.

If there is something seriously wrong with the trial and it can be shown, I will say it. It is just that I am not inclined to get caught in the same treacherous tree limb as they are, only to have it cut off like that.

ken said...

Loretta wrote: What did you expect? Integrity?

Of course not! However, I did want to catch them at their game, and I did so spectacularly. Their lame defense of their viewpoint-based censorship was priceless. "You weren't at the trial!" No, but one of us here was. And the notion that Hum and Leslie were somehow "intimidating" Dr. Ophoven, as opposed to merely complying with the judge's instructions (with Leslie as an interested spectator) is absurd, now that we know the story in context.

Everything they have complained about to this point appears to be kosher, to the extent that this can be determined.

ken said...

Kent wrote:

One thing I find of interest is that I'm making much the same claims as others. The only difference is the way I word them. Odd that I don't get banned.

Get any closer to the edge, and you will be. "Fair and balanced" seems to be a concept they stole from FAUX News.

Skye said...

Loretta, described the lack of ingenuousness so well. Ted's behavious does nothing to instill doubt in my mind.

There is a certain "tone" to his writing that smacks of juvenility. The overriding essence of spite, is almost tangible.

Skye said...

That s/b behaviour

CountryGirl said...

Ken said:
CG, have you ever deleted posters on account of any content other than off-topic ad hominem attacks on Loretta (I have seen a sample of those, and have to agree with her decision; people can read my posts at the other blog, and decide for themselves whether they are off-topic.)

No I have not!

When Cam supporters posted here defending him, their posts were not deleted--but many had to throw in nasty comments about Sarah or others, so they were deleted.

Neither Loretta nor I will allow that here.

ken said...

In response to a poster at the other blog:

Ken, it appears that you are more committed to making Ted wrong than hearing the truth about this case. That is your choice. But those of us who are not a part of your dispute aren't interested. This blog isn't a vehicle for that.

And, be aware that you are compromising your own fight for justice so you can fight against Ted. Again, your choice.


No, no, no, no, NO!!!!!!! This is NOT "about Ted." It's about winnowing away bad arguments, because bad arguments detract from your good ones. Justice Frankfurter famously spoke about "the clock that struck thirteen," and how a ridiculous argument destroys an advocate's credibility. There may be reason to howl, but if you continually advance bad reasons to howl, any good reasons you might have had will be lost in the noise.

Of course, I will have to respond over at the other blog (which I've done), as Soviet-sytle censorship is in vogue here (at the KKK Blog).

Anonymous said...

CG wrote:

When Cam supporters posted here defending him, their posts were not deleted--but many had to throw in nasty comments about Sarah or others, so they were deleted.

Neither Loretta nor I will allow that here.


You're walking a fine line when you do that. While Sarah is blameless in this affair, comments about others should be fair game if documented malfeasance can be shown. For instance, when Ted claims as a spokesman for Team Cam that they are not going to impugn the [character and/or integrity of the] members of the prosecution," and they end up doing it with gusto, it is fair to call him a liar. Similarly, if they claim that the judge withheld autopsy and/or crime scene photos from the jury, when Geragos was permitted to introduce them into evidence in cross-examination of the coroner, they have been caught in another lie -- and more importantly, nothing material and untoward happened in the coroner's testimony. This state of affairs is fair game for discussion.

If Jeff Leslie did "x," and it can be documented that he did "x," if x is illegal or otherwise improper, they should be able to say that (and, make appropriately snide comments) without falling under the censor's knife. Do you agree in principle with this?

Any fair discussion of this topic requires that kind of candor -- and that kind of restraiolic
spell by sounding cheery - the
audience now realizes he has the
same voice as NARRATOR]
How 'bout a nice hotdog then?

WOMAN
[beat] No.

MAN
Suit yourself. I'll be out back.

[EXIT MAN. EXT. CLOSE on WOMAN. She slowly mouthes the words "hotdog", over and ove

ken said...

There appears to have been some kind of technical glitch. sorry for the duplication.

loretta said...

I think I got all the duplicates.

Regarding the bashing of Sarah, it was not in reference to anything that was said in court. They were insults and spurious allegations that pointed to lifestyle or character that was not relevant.

Plus, the idiot can't spell, so his stupid remarks were poofed.

That's just the standard here. If he cries "foul" and "censorship," I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

If he (Mr. Sommer, I presume) has anything intelligent or insightful to add to the discussion about Brown or Ms. Marer's relationship with Brown from first-hand experience, I'm willing to have it.

Kent Wills said...

I think the KK blob is going to lose what little audience it had now that it has banned me and Ken and probably Kent.

I probably shouldn't have pointed out that I make the same observations, but word them differently. I see all the posts I made this morning are gone.

Ronni said...

It figures.

They ban because of stubborn disagreement, and we ban for gratuitous insults.

Skye said...

Are we getting near the time for the new Trial?

Excuse my ignorance.

Skye said...

Ted disrespects everything and everyone, so, I never expect to read anything sensible in his comments.

I sincerely believe the man is totally ignorant and juvenile. He is getting the attention he so desperately desires, therefore, he will never admit to having the slightest doubt about Cam's innocence.

Patty, on the other hand, is just blinded by whatever it is she thinks she feels for Cam.

Ronni said...

The new trial date is still over a month off, Skye. Oct. 11th, I believe.

Skye said...

Thanks Ronni. For some reason I thought it was September. Mabe it is something else to do with the Trial that is happening in September.

Can't come soon enough for me...!

ken said...

[Here's a duplicate of a post I posted on the KKK Board (I'm tired of doing end runs around their juvenile ban, so I probably won't bother any more). It has gotten so bad that anyone who says anything bad about Saint Cam of the Surf is purged in a fit of pique. It is unfortunate but probably inevitable, with human nature being what it is.]

Cat wrote:

There has been some grumbling about this being a blog that will ONLY hear one side. I believe this is NOT true. People are quite welcome to question and present objective information from either side.

While it is certainly possible for this to take place, it will never be possible as long as "Case Insider" runs this blog. His/her/their latest fit of pique shows that a semblance of rational debate is no longer possible here, as even the remarkably inoffensive Kent has been purged, and lines you'd expect to come from Ted ("Stupidity should be painful" -- one sentiment I most emphatically do not share, btw) are relegated to purgatory.

The root of the problem is explained by what I presume is a scholarly quote right here on your own blog:

My research demonstrates - more than anything - that people (police, prosecutors, judges and juries) can conclude that someone is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" without enough evidence. We know this now, because we can look at these cases with the advantage of the exonerating evidence.

How does this happen? Well, psychiatrists know that people tend to reach conclusions in the wrong way. An individual makes an assessment ("he's the one") then searches for evidence to support their conclusion. Instead, we should search for evidence that proves our conclusion wrong.


It is an ironic indictment of Team Cam. They "know" he's innocent, and are searching desperately for every shred of evidence, innuendo, and form of fanciful speculation they can come up with to somehow support that conclusion. Even the thought that their conclusion could be wrong is anathema to them, and anyone who upsets their immaculate preconception is evil, corrupt, or just plum crazy.

If you can't find the character and perspective to divorce yourself from this human trait, how can you ask it of a Danny Smith or Craig Hum?

I don't have a dog in this hunt, and can care less about the outcome of the trial itself. However, I DO care that the system works, and my sole interest is in ensuring that Cam gets a fair trial (it will never be a perfect one!) and that his rights guaranteed by the Constitution are adequately protected. To do that, I have to pluck facts from this endless sea of innuendo, speculation, paranoia, and sheer ignorance of how the process works. As one writer put it:

Many of us are here to talk about our experiences. We don't all have the talent to weave compelling arguments, but we can say what we saw and heard.

I accept that and the fact of your layman's perspective, and have to read between the lines. A lot of what you are complaining about is legally and practically insubstantial, such as the pow-wow between Dr. Ophoven and Craig Hum. It was just after a sidebar, and was thus presumptively done pursuant to it; both are pros, and Mark Geragos is enough of a pro to know that he didn't need to be there. But you see it as a foul, because (a) you want to see it as a foul and (b) you are laboring under the same "home town" mentality you are complaining about on the other side of the fence.

As I see it, there's no real incentive for me to try to break through this fog of yours any more. I tried, in good faith, but I abhor the kind of viewpoint-based censorship you are engaging in on this board.

ken said...

From the KKK Blog:

It is unbelievable to me that more than half of the autopsy report was left out. I am curious as to how scratches along the entire length of the body could be considered insignificant especially in light of the fact that the child was wearing clothes.

Note if you will the ongoing attempt to dehumanize Lauren.

Thankfully, the blog-owners have finally put this canard about the autopsy to rest, insofar as they admitted that Geragos was able to use the redacted photos to cross-examine the State's expert. That the prosecution wanted to simplify what the jury was handed as much as possible is understandable; even if the judge made an obvious error in his ruling, it appears to have had no particular impact on the trial.

ken said...

From the KKK Blog [Irony Alert!!!]:

Thank you Cat for your thoughtful post. It is refreshing to hear from someone who is willing to look openly at the information we are presenting and see it for what it is.

Translated, "Someone who sees it as we do." Discordant views are not tolerated.

When peoples minds are made up before they know anything, well you know...

Yes, we do, "Case Insider's Assistant." They invariably shout down all opposition and discordant voices, because they KNOW the truth and are absolutely certain of it. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PxJN7XUQVQ for one of the few great commentaries of our time on this pernicious phenomenon.

ken said...

Cat meuwsed (on the other blog):

I wonder what would be left of the information that has been presented on Loretta's blog if the slandering of Cameron were removed?

100% of my posts, if the current forum is any indication. My criticism is not aimed at Cam but rather, at the tsunami of hypocrisy I see from the owners of this blog. I'm calling them on it, and it makes them mad. So, stop the nonsense, Cat! You know better or at least, you would if you visited the forum.

I cordially invite you to visit the other blog forum, so that we can at least try to have an intelligent conversation re this topic without the Soviet-style censorship Ted engages in.

loretta said...

What would be left? Considering I have yet to "slander" (actually, "libel") Mr. Brown in anything I have published, including my opinions, it stands to reason that ALL of this blog would remain.

In order for Mr. Brown to claim "libel," he would have to demonstrate that what I have said is untrue.

He won't even take the stand in his own murder trial; I'm not too concerned about his reaction to my little blog.

ken said...

From the other blog:

Ted wrote:

Ken has been "unbanned". (At least for now.)

My, how gracious of you! Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I've figured out a way around the ban, and have been ignoring it for some time now, does it?

Thanks, but no thanks. Either you are committed to having a free and fair discussion of the issues, or you are not. As the value of a sword of Damocles "is that it hangs -- not that it drops,” Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 231 (1974) (Marshall, J., dissenting), I will not accept that noose. I neither need to nor want to.

Kent Wills said...

Since there seems to be a glitch at the other blog (my posts seem to just vanish for some reason), I'm going to copy and paste them here. It's exactly as it appears (or appeared) there. I even left the typos.


I think Ken knows there are problems with this case and perhaps he wants to test our issues by playing the devil's advocate.

No case is ever perfect. The question is whether any of the problems are enough to give rise to the belief that reversable error(s) occured. Currently, there is no evidence to suggest this has happened.

However, at this point we really don't need any more devils. What we need is to counter the lies with truth. Since the news only reported a small part of what happened in the Courtroom, it seems reasonable to react to it by telling the rest of the story.


So tell it. I'm more than willing to examin any and all evidence you have. I presume others are as well. The problem is, all you've given are anonymous claims. Few will accept those.

At least Ted is willing to put his name to his claims. Why can't you do the same?

And spare me the "people's lives are being threatened" line. Ted's not been harmed, as evidenced by his posting here, so you aren't going to suddenly have brake problems with your car.
Kent Wills | 09.06.06 - 2:03 pm | #

Kent Wills said...

We know he is innocent because we know FACTS that you are not privy to.



So make everyone privy to them. Hum already knows them, so it's not like you're going to let him know anything knew.

And I would like to see facts. Opinions are all well and good, but they are only opinions, and don't typically PROVE anything except that the stater has that opinion.
Kent Wills | 09.06.06 - 1:55 pm | #

Kent Wills said...

There has been some grumbling about this being a blog that will ONLY hear one side. I believe this is NOT true. People are quite welcome to question and present objective information from either side.

This is simply not true. Note that all of the questions I raised yesterday VANISHED. Th points I raised (like the fact that Cameron hasn't spent any money on his defense -- He first had a PD then Bob and Patty paid for Geragos) have likewise gone into the mist.

If one doesn't instantly accept that Cameron is 100% innocent, one doesn't need to post. That is the mentality of those who are in charge here.
Kent Wills | 09.06.06 - 1:52 pm | #

Wayne Delia said...

Just checking in after a long week of an emergency installation at IBM. I am on vacation this week, which means I've only worked about 52 hours up to this point.

Ted's got nothing. Bupkis. Zilch. And all those other popular buzzwords that mean "nothing". He can no longer post on usenet, because it's entirely too easy to demonstrate why he's wrong (or dishonest, disingenuous, or just plain stupid). On usenet, he cannot remove anyone else's post which is justifiably critical of him. The Camoron Brown Trial Part I is over with a mistrial, as if it never happened in the first place. The problem is, there are other facets of the trial that don't get wiped off the books: Patty's "wardrobe malfunction," Geragos's six-figure legal services bill, and Ted's blatant misrepresentations of what's going on in the trial, for starters.

I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to the question of why Geragos, charging so much money for his expert legal services, intentionally withheld the so-called "H-Bomb" evidence in the first trial. If I were a paying customer, that kind of strategy would be unacceptable. All I can conclude is that at one time Geragos got sick of listening to Ted and Patty, so he built up some random piece of evidence and called it the "H-Bomb" to get Ted out of his hair. It never amounted to anything of substance, of course, and that's why it was never presented at the trial. But it gave Ted and Patty something to pin their porcine hopes to, something to string them along especially now that there's been a mistrial declared. It also plays very well into Ted's delusions of grandeur: Geragos intentionally withheld the "H-bomb" from the first trial, so that Ted could believe the defense case was stronger than it actually was. Even though it put Camoron's ass at risk of some sort of conviction, it enables Ted to continue his pretense that he knows something that none of us knows, which he's not at liberty to disclose because the defense doesn't want to tip off the prosecution (actually, the defense only wants Ted to STFU) since he's such an integral part of the defensive team, a true "case insider," with a planet-sized brain.

Nobody's buying it. Many people are laughing at him. Geragos, I imagine, is laughing all the way to the bank. But the spectre of the second trial looms, along with the additional legal expenses, more opportunities for Ted and Patty to be publically embarrassed, and nothing changes status until the start of the next attempt. Whatever shall they do? The two-watt bulb flickers over Ted's head: create a blog to retaliate against this one. Virtually all pro-Cam posters are strictly anonymous; virtually all anti-Cam posters are identified (I am aware of the exceptions). Ted's drunk with administrative power, as opposed to drunk with electric beer, now that he can "poof" and censor any dissenting opinions at his whim. But that's what will eventually do him in: His trial delusion, a very real thing, will be strengthened by the KKK Blog. Here he has a public notebook of real but insignificant, as well as imagined, prosecutorial misbehavior and offenses in the first trial (which Geragos wasn't concerned enough to raise as issues or objections), a virtual love-fest among all the anonymous posters (although most of the anonymous posters are Ted and Patty Sock Puppets), with extremely few dissenting opinions at all (after Ted gets done removing all the posts that hurt his feelings). Nothing but blind optimism to tide him over for a few weeks until reality, once again, hits him hard in his large surface-area ass.

It's inevitable.

WMD

loretta said...

I guess you could sort of call this a "victory" for GerEgo:

LINK

Scroll down to the end of the column.

Village Person ExCop whatever got probation. Whoopee.

Now, why isn't Cam Brown out on bail?

Anyone? Anyone? Case Insider?

Kent Wills said...

Interesting. Ted has tried to ban me as well. Of course, what Ted's ignorance of how the Internet works is vast. Getting around the ban was (and is) very easy.


Here's my latest post (which will vanish within seconds of Ted seeing it);

Then I hear he was offered an adoption plan that would have immediately settled all of his issues. Why didn't he take that plan if money was his only concern?


Because Patty wanted to adopt Lauren. Angering Patty might not have been an option Cam wanted to explore.
Kent Wills | 09.06.06 - 7:50 pm | #

Kent Wills said...

Interesting. Ted has tried to ban me as well. Of course, what Ted's ignorance of how the Internet works is vast. Getting around the ban was (and is) very easy.


Here's my latest post (which will vanish within seconds of Ted seeing it);

Then I hear he was offered an adoption plan that would have immediately settled all of his issues. Why didn't he take that plan if money was his only concern?


Because Patty wanted to adopt Lauren. Angering Patty might not have been an option Cam wanted to explore.
Kent Wills | 09.06.06 - 7:50 pm | #

Kent Wills said...

If the policemen were interested in the truth, why did the witnesses who saw Cameron and Lauren not make it to the stand? What about the witness who saw Lauren that day at a playground say that she appeared happy to be with her father? A person reported seeing Lauren picking up grass and rocks and throwing them at the edge of the cliff? What about the witness who stated he heard Cameron proclaim “please don’t die” when he retrieved her body from the water?


You'll need to ask Geragos. He could have called any of these witnesses to testify.

Why didn't he compell these witnesses to testify? Few people will disregard a subpeona ordering them to testify in a trial.
Kent Wills | 09.06.06 - 8:00 pm | #

loretta said...

That's the same thought I had, Kent. Why didn't GerEgo call those witnesses?

Because they were not real. If they had been real, if what they claim to have seen (presumably in the discovery that the defense obtained), then where are they?

Kent Wills said...

loretta wrote:
That's the same thought I had, Kent. Why didn't GerEgo call those witnesses?

It is difficult to call fictional characters to testify.

Because they were not real. If they had been real, if what they claim to have seen (presumably in the discovery that the defense obtained), then where are they?

In the imaginations of Ted, Patty, Cameron and Mark Geragos. Beyond that, they don't exist (and never have).

loretta said...

Patty showed up using her real name in the KK blob, shouting:

THAT IS A BIG FAT LIE FABRICATED IN THE SICK MIND OF AN UNPRINCIPLED AND CORRUPT PROSECUTOR! HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SUPPORT HIS LIE BUT THE HOT AIR SPEWING FROM HIS DECEITFUL MOUTH!
Patty


Probably "adoption" was not an option, but she was doing plenty of research on how to gain custody of Lauren. And not just "shared parenting," but full custody.

Why would she want that? That's the question. Why would she want to take a 3 or 4-yr old girl from the only parent she knew all her life? From her hearth and home? From the familiar surroundings and her school?

There is no reasonable explanation for that save spite and envy.

CountryGirl said...

Jealousy and revenge. Patty and Cameron had plenty of both.

Skye said...

Heh, sounds like they were well suited!

Neither of them suffers from feelings of compassion or conscience, but they certainly know how to make others suffer.

Cameron and Patty, that is...

The person who made the comment about "spite and revenge", is spot-on!

Ted is just basically, stupid!

ken said...

More fun from the KKK Blog. It started off on a serious note:

====================================
Ok, Ken. Let's look at civil rights violations for a moment. What is more a violation of civil liberties than to be put in jail for all of this time, held without bail, even though the evidence does not stand up to charge?

SCOTUS has already been over that one (as have Ted and I). It is not a civil rights violation as the law defines it.

You have a constitutional right to a speedy trial -- but you also have the right to waive that right, as Cam did. Also, you have a right to rescind that waiver, which Cam didn't. Thus, the fact that Cam has spent three years in the Hotel California awaiting trial is, ultimately, his own damn fault. The Supreme Court has said as much.

Second, it is lawful to incarcerate a suspect on a first-degree murder charge, if for no other reason than the ground that as a class, they are obvious flight risks. This is what you, the good people of CA, have decided in your infinite wisdom. The Constution doesn't guarantee your liberty but rather, that it cannot be taken away without due process of law, and in California's substantive law, you have defined the process which is the suspect's due.

Finally, the law allows a suspect to be arrested upon a finding of probable cause. The State may either indict or charge on information; SCOTUS decided long ago that a grand jury indictment was not required. While I may have personal misgivings about the process, and maintain that the State should have to make a greater showing before a citizen can be held in jail -- and in particular, when bail is not available -- my objections don't amount to a hill of beans.

At the end of the day, even if you think that the evidence holds up, and even if the jury doesn't think it does, as long as probable cause has been shown -- and it IS a low standard! -- a suspect's constitutional rights have not been violated on account of said incarceration. As such, Cam's rights have not been violated -- which is all that matters here.

Would I prefer the Continental civil law system here? As far as charging decisions go, yes. But does it really matter what I think? No.

===========================================

But of course, Ted started getting silly. Whenever he loses an argument, he always goes back to the Colorado Bar card:
===========================================

Ted Hum [I think Hum's done a capable job from where I sit, but it is the ultimate insulte at the KKK Blog] wrote (in clear violation of the rule against taunts, but Judge Case Insider Arnold won't ban him for it, as s/he is pro-prosecution):

I still haven't seen credible evidence that your rights were somehow violated by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board.

It's quite alright, Anon. Ted is so pig-ignorant of the law -- and most of what he does "know" is blindingly wrong -- that he couldn't explain my rights in the situation on a bet. As he doesn't know what to look for -- given that he got his "law degree" from the bottom of a bottle of Jack Daniels -- and can't reasonably be expected to know credible evidence when he sees it. Justice Black said it well:

"The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional."

If you argue with Ted long enough, you will learn what many veterans of USENET have -- he's prone to argue matters he has no concept of, thus proving the biblical axiom regarding the fool. It's hard to argue the law and how it works if you've never studied it.

(Have I been banned again? I'm getting the same error message. Talk about arbitrary and capricious!!!)

============================================

It was at this point that I started getting bad header requests, meaning that Ted started to block my posts. I did manage to slip these ones in before he shut the whole operation down:

============================================

"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is the landmark of an authoritarian regime..."
-- Potter Stewart

Ken pummels Ted with logic and reason. Ted gets mad, then makes post disappear and bans Ken from posting. Rinse and repeat.
------------------------------------------
Ted Hum [again, the ultimate insult, to the KKK Krowd] wrote:

Nope. I'm simply observing that stupidity often is painful.

Okay, so Cam's stupidity was painful. No big deal, right? No reason to whine about it, right? Your position.

[Ted did manage to block this one:

If Ted told you that stupidity should be painful, I think you probably took it in a way he was not meaning. Knowing Ted, he was throwing a jab

In an insult-free zone, why isn't this behaviour banned? Could it be that Judge Case Insider Arnold isn't acting in a manner consistent with fair and balanced jurisprudence?

We all know the answer, don't we?

[Note to Ted Hum: There are only about 3,000 nodes to go.... :)]

===================================================

Ted has also made a number of my replies disappear, to make it appear as if I don't have a credible response. I so detest this kind of petty, viewpoint-based censorship.

loretta said...

Eff 'em, Ken.

I'm not wasting any more time on them. They are as bad as the excerebrose Dibbles - - a gang of Peterson apologists who debated the trial before, during and after Peterson's conviction.

They have no lives. This is it.

When this is over they'll have nothing.

So, why give them a reason to get out of bed in the morning? IGNORE THEM!!

Skye said...

Ken, you shouldn't waste so much time on that fool. There is something inherently wrong with the man.

Your pointless perseverance will bear no fruit. He even denied saying his sister got the cute genes! The rest of us got loads of mileage out of that one. He is either an Alzheimer candidate, or, just plain stupid.

if you really want to annoy him, take Loretta's advice. Ignore them!

ken said...

Skye wrote:

Ken, you shouldn't waste so much time on that fool.

I won't say the recent foray was completely unproductive, Skye. Now, we have conclusive proof that Ted has been the source of many if not most of the "anonymous" posts supporting Cam on the KKK blog, and that he lied again regarding his never posting anonymously. I see that as having more than a little rhetorical value.

=======================================================
Did you fail reading comprehension? When I read the word "evidence," it has a certain discrete meaning. For your edification: "Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

Taken together with an UNMARKED dangerous cliff and a loving father, "accident" is by far the most likely scenario (and a most tragic accident at that) that it evokes in my mind.
Theodore A. Kaldis | Homepage | 09.06.06 - 10:28 pm | #



Ted wrote:

Taken together with an UNMARKED dangerous cliff and a loving father, "accident" is by far the most likely scenario (and a most tragic accident at that) that it evokes in my mind.

And if the defendant was Ken Smith or Kym Horsell, you would conclude that it was more likely that it was a murder. I have learned over long association with you that where you stand invariably depends on where you sit.
ken | 09.07.06 - 7:01 am | #

And if the defendant was Ken Smith or Kym Horsell, you would conclude that it was more likely that it was a murder. I have learned over long association with you that where you stand invariably depends on where you sit.
Anonymous [me]

Excuse me, but I have had no long association with you and you don't know me, so please stop trying to suggest that I am someone who I am not. Thank you!

Please note that your long association with Ted has not made you any more intuitive about which posts might be his. You don't need to be real smart to figure it out because his have his name on them.

Anonymous | 09.07.06 - 8:19 am | #

[Posts copied from HaloScan page, which has been retained; internal blockquote italics and blockquotes not duplicated. Ted's comments are in italics; boldtype not in original]
========================================================

Note carefully the daisy chain. Ted busts off the remark about the unmarked cliff, which appears in posts 1 and 2; my references to Horsell appear in posts 2 & 3, and Ted's claim that it wasn't him who made the post appears in post 3.

Wow. It doesn't get any clearer than that. It completely discredits the Kaldis blog, as it is obvious that the vast groundswell of "anonymous" support for Cam is presumptively Ted. :-) I'd call that a major win.

As for your statement that There is something inherently wrong with [Ted Kaldis], I will stipulate. Perhaps Loretta's next blog entry should be entitled, "Once Upon A Fraud...."

ken said...

As panic sets in over at the KKK Blog:

TWO responses within THREE minutes? And you say it isn't just Ted, posting once under his anonymous nic, and again under his own? What are the odds of such a rapid and coordinated response?

Face it, Ted: You've been outed as a liar; the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies. Take your band of obvious sockpuppets and go home.
===================
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 | 09.07.06 - 11:24 am | #

I don't know what you're on about, I NEVER post anonymously. ALL my comments have my name at the bottom. Anyone who thinks otherwise is WRONG!
Theodore A. Kaldis | Homepage | 09.07.06 - 11:27 am | #
====================
No one with any sense believes you, and no one should. As you will recall, you accused me of posting from the Boulder Public Library on far, far less evidence. [Funny how your sock didn't call you on that, but calls me a nutball.] Your coordinated response tends to prove that you are lying, as opposed to the obverse.

In short, you have discredited your entire blog, insofar as the wellspring of popular support for Cam in cyberspace is revealed as entirely ersatz. Indeed, if there is anyone who isn't Ted on this frequency, they have to be pretty upset with you for giving Loretta a propaganda coup. Your efforts are for nought, or worse.

Nice going, Ted. You make Craig Hum and Mark Geragos look like noble knights by comparison. :-)

Wayne Delia said...

What's the date for the retrial to begin?

WMD

Kent Wills said...

At one time, skye wrote:

There is something inherently wrong with the man.

Ted has proved that he has a few issues that need to be addressed. Unfortauntely, until he's willing to admit he has these problems, he'll NEVER get better.

Kent Wills said...

I think the trail starts Oct. 11th.

Kent Wills said...

Has anyone else noticed how all of the anonymous posters have the same writting style? How they all capitalize letters to show emphasis (just like Ted)? How the sentence structure is the same (they all resemble Ted's style)? And so on...

While this doesn't prove everyone is Ted, it's very plausible. Personaly, I think it's Ted and Patty doing all the anonymous posting. Sadly, there is little to no chance that we'll ever know one way or the other.

loretta said...

I got bored with the sock puppets a long time ago. ((((YAWN))))

They are tedious and insufferable.

Kent Wills said...

I'll make one more post to the KKK blog (in part to ask a valid question, in part to confuse Ted "The Internet Guru" Kaldis) then I'll probably stop bothering with posting. I may even stop reading. How often does one need to read an anonymous claim of some wrong doing without one iota of evidence to support it?

Skye said...

I'm with you, Kent. I think it's dem damn twins!

Apparently, they got the "same" genes...kooky ones!

ken said...

My last comment over at the KKK blog for quite a while:

Ted wrote:

Has it ever happened to Ken Smith? If so, when?

When you can explain how it is and should be that a judge can decide a matter in which s/he has a material and personal financial interest where eighteen other independent judges are authorized by statute to hear it, and that an American citizen doesn't have a basic human right to have his valid grievances heard by a fair and independent tribunal, try to get back to me. We've had this discussion ad nauseum -- and if you had used the precise same standards of evidence and proof in Cam's case that you've used to judge mine, your pathetic baby-killin' brudder-in-law would have been executed a long time ago -- and even you know it.

Even Dennis Prager agrees that it is a good thing for bad people like you to suffer a taste of the harm you choose to inflict upon others, and in that sense, I hope you're happy with the state of affairs in the LASD, as YOU deserve it (even if others like Parry don't).

As I've told Kent, I'm going to stop reading this travesty of a blog, as it is self-evident that you are incapable of acting like a mature, grown adult (a consistent failing of the Kaldis tribe, given the KFI reports of those meltdowns in the courtroom). You have serious mental health issues -- and should seek professional help as soon as possible.

Really, Ted. Straight-up. You do need help.

Kent Wills said...

Until Ted is able to admit that he has mental problems, he'll never seek help. If he were somehow forced to get it, the help wouldn't work, since he can't admit he has problems.

I see rather than actually address the question I raised, Ted POOFED the question. Sadly, I expected this. I was asking questions that they couldn't honestly answer without admiting that Cameron is NOT the victim of any wrongs. And the Kooky Kaldis Klan is unable to do this.

With none of us posting over there, the blog will fade away in short order.

Expect a lot of copy and pastes from here to show up there. It's the only way they'll be able to keep it going.

ken said...

I know what you mean, Kent. Ted edited my farewell comments, as well. Whatta shock!

His denial that the "anonymi" were him was priceless.

There's really nothing TO be said until the trial, and everything that needed to have been said should have come out at the first trial, in any event.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Ken wrote:

I know what you mean, Kent. Ted edited my farewell comments, as well. Whatta shock!

It was to be expected. Ted is permited to write whatever he wishes, be as insulting as he wants, and make basless accusations without worry. If anyone who doesn't buy the lie that Cameron is "obviously innocent" is poofed.

His denial that the "anonymi" were him was priceless.

Especially when one realizes an anonymous poster got all upset about your comments about Ted's posts.

I firmly believe Ted and Patty are the only people posting for Team Cameron. Could I be wrong? Sure. Am I? I don't expect we'll ever really know.

There's really nothing TO be said until the trial, and everything that needed to have been said should have come out at the first trial, in any event.

Exactly. This is why we can say with 100% certainty there is not now, nor ever was, and H-Bomb class evidence.

And what a shock! Just as I predicted, when it wasn't used, Ted claimed that Geragos commited this SERIOUS ethical violation (witholding exculpitory evidence from the jury that shows his client to be innocent) because he (Mark) didn't think it would be needed. What utter bullshot!

ken said...

I figure it's better to respond to this one publicly:

> [Original Message]
> From: Wayne Delia (wmd@**********.net)
> To: Ed Davis (mr_glenarm@yahoo.com)
> Date: 9/9/2006 11:25:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Cam Brown case
>
> Ed Davis wrote:
>
> >You think you know Cam Brown is guilty because of
> >something you heard on the radio.
> >
> Actually, I think I know Cam Brown is guilty because of the physics of
> the situation. In order for Lauren to have suffered the injuries she
> actually had, a certain amount of force was required, which necessitated
> a certain terminal velocity, which would be attainable by Camoron
> throwing her at a particular angle, but would not be attainable from an
> accidental slip and tumble.

I would add that I believe that he is guilty because, in addition to what Wayne has said, I have visited the crime scene,
reviewed key documents including the 995 motion and the 911 call, and find Camoron's explanation for what happened to be so
ludicrous as to invite scorn. Moreover, I find the family's claims that he is the victim of a conspiracy so vast that it would
require a cast of hundreds if not thousands to be the stuff of paranoid fantasy, insofar as there appears to be no object to
the purported conspiracy. And though I remain amenable to persuasion by a persuasive argument, the shrill bleating and
half-baked hypocrisy I have heard out of Team Cam and its' bloated Usenet ambassador causes me to believe that none
will be forthcoming.
>
> All that aside, how is it that you claim to know what other people think?
>
> > They also thought
> >the McMartin family was guilty because of what they
> >saw on TV.
> >
> Who's "they"? And what does the McMartin case possibly have anything to
> do with the Brown defense? Would Geragos seriously propose "My client is
> not guilty, because other clients have been suspected of being guilty
> who turned out to be innocent?" That's just stupid.

I concur. I didn't follow the McMartin case, and didn't have an opinion on it.

> >We trust you are a tough guy who would exact harsh
> >vengance on anyone you suspected hurt a child.
> >
> Who's "we"? Are you speaking in the royal "we" sense, like when the
> Queen of England says "We are not amused?" Or is there actually somebody
> else there with you? Yes, I do have a black belt in Tae Kwon-do, but I
> do not describe myself as a "tough guy," nor have I ever actually used
> my skills apart from taking a defensive posture. I also don't plan on
> using those skills in the future, unless it is to protect myself and my
> family from harm when all other options have been exhausted. I am not
> authorized to "exact harsh vengeance," but I would certainly assist
> where required in determining the facts of a particular situation.
>
> >But if
> >you accidentally exacted that vengance on the wrong
> >guy, would your response be "oops, sorry about the boo
> >boo."
> >
> I would certainly be responsible for the consequences of my hypothetical
> actions, as Camoron is now discovering about his own actual actions. I'm
> really not sure where this line of reasoning is going, though - "If you
> made a mistake, you'd feel bad. So let's let Camoron walk free, because
> people make mistakes?" It hasn't been established that anyone
> prosecuting this case actually made any mistakes.

While I disagree on the "mistake" part -- the LASD investigation was certainly of poor quality, and they failed on
numerous occasions to obtain and/or preserve valuable evidence due to sloth and/or gross incompetence -- I can only say
that at this juncture, I can find no evidence whatever that Cam's constitutional rights have been violated, either by the
pre-trial incarceration or the trial itself.

> It's basically up to a
> jury of which I am not a part, since I am not a citizen of California,
> to determine whether the prosecution's case justifies a guilty or not
> guilty verdict. The first trial determined he's guilty of something, and
> I am told the prosecution now has a strategic advantage going in to the
> second trial.

My view is that Cam is certainly guilty of manslaughter, and that he would have spent about three years in the slam
even if authorities only chose to prosecute that offense. (As you may or may not know, gross negligence of the kind
Cam engaged in on Inspiration Point is sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict.) That having been said, it doesn't matter
what I think, as I am not charged with determining whether he will or will not be convicted.
>
> >Cam Brown has been rotting away in the LA County Jail
> >for the last 3 years in solitary confinement.
> >
> I don't think it's "rotting," probably nothing more than a personal
> fungus of some sorts; in any case, Judge Arnold has seen to it that
> Camoron gets his showers while in jail. American citizens have a right
> to a speedy trial; why has this basic right been completely ignored or
> condoned? Why would Geragos allow that to happen? From what I've read,
> though, Camoron rescinded his right to a speedy trial, so he's got
> nobody to blame but himself for "rotting" in jail.

While I grant that the Camoron Brown who comes out of that jail -- if he ever does, which is in doubt --
will not be the same one that went in there, his extended stay in the Hotel California is almost exclusively his
own fault. He could have hired any competent attorney almost immediately, and simply not waived his right
to a speedy trial. Under law, the matter would have had to have gone to trial within 180 days, and as such,
his extended stay is his own responsibility. Compare that to the state of affairs suffered by most inmates --
who are represented by public defenders -- and you see that Cam is comparatively lucky.

> There should be no
> reason he couldn't get out of solitary confinement, though - except that
> suspected child murderers aren't too popular in the general population
> among other prisoners, so it's really to his advantage to be in
> solitary, and may actually have been at his own request, his attorney's
> request, or a standard jail policy to protect his life.

If he's convicted, I predict that he will serve a three-year sentence....
>
> >I sure hope they had the right guy. If not that is seriously messed up.

It's not like there was a carpet-munchin' swarthy-haired, dot-headed fat chick [a compendium of Kaldis' racial,
ethnic, and other slurs] hidden behind the grassy knoll. The fact that you'd even say this suggests to me that you have
no comprehension of the facts of the case, Ed.
> >
> But one could say that about any murder trial, couldn't one? I have read
> on the KKK Blog (stands for "Kooky Kaldis Klan") that there are all
> sorts of secret evidence that we don't know about, which wasn't even
> mentioned at the first trial. What's actually seriously messed up is why
> this evidence, which Ted Kaldis characterized as "H-bomb" caliber
> evidence, wasn't presented at all. Why would Geragos not present
> evidence which would exonerate his client, instead risking a very close
> brush with Murder II? Now that's "seriously messed up."

It's malpractice, in spades.

Jim said...

Loretta and Ken,

You should really find another hobby. What was once a nice site to gain information on the case is now a bunch of blabber. Ken, I think you are the bus driver for the Summit Stage in Brekenridge. It is much too beautiful place for you to be hanging out surfing the web, trying to be a public figure in this case. You were Cam's buddy for so long and even wrote him several times I understand. Now that you have teamed up with lovely Loreetta from Ohio, that has nothing to do with her time but to try to be Perry Mason while sitting on her big fat A... Trying to do her public good, due to the fact she is worthless in so many ways. Please try to do a little better on this site folks. It seems that Ted's site is even better than this as you have all seemed to reach the point of insanity yourselves. Doing the same thing over and over again with the same result.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, jim wrote:

It seems that Ted's site is even better than this as you have all seemed to reach the point of insanity yourselves. Doing the same thing over and over again with the same result.

This is a joke, right? You're having us on, right?

Ted and all of his anonymous socks are doing nothing at the moment. They have no one to bounce off of, since we aren't posting there anymore. And I happen to know my ban has been lifted, so I could post if I wanted.

Since there is nothing new to talk about regarding Cameron's case, we almost have to re-hash the old stuff. We've already done the "Ted lied about the H-Bomb evidence, or Geragos commited a serious foul" bit. And how often can one point out that Ted's anonymous claims are worthless? There really isn't anything left until the next trial starts.

Kent Wills said...

Hey folks! The comment section for the KKK blog is GONE. At least there's no link from the front page.

I can only guess as to why this has occured. Maybe, just maybe, Geragos found out about how Ted claimed, indirrectly, that he (Mark) commited a serious ethics violation (failing to use evidence that PROVES Cam is innocent) and told him (Ted) to cut it out.

Someone *might* have reported Geragos, and used a link to Ted's comments as evidence. Just a guess on my part. Since I knew there was no H-Bomb class evidence early on, I knew none could be presented, and as such, I knew and know Mark didn't commit any violation. No point in turning him in because Ted told everyone a lie.

Kent Wills said...

Well, my guess has been proved wrong. The link is back.

loretta said...

What are you smoking, Kent? It's all still there. In living color.

jim said...

Kent,

Perhaps some anger management medicine for you? Are you this angry in person or just behind your keyboard? Perhaps you and Ted should have a little blog between the two of you to see who can put there foot in their mouth deeper? We are all getting a little sick of the same old garbage on this site, and the constant accussers such as yourself. Do you or have you ever done something that you are not carrying a chip on your shoulder. Is it true you are a convicted Domestic Violence offender yourself. Let the truth be known Kent. Come out from behind the keyboard Kent, and let the others on this blog know the real you. We have been told you are not an angel by many> Leave the Browns alone, or go to another site to gab about Ted. Basically I am not interested in hearing your jabber as we have learned you have a dark side that should be as public as what you are saying hear about others.

Kent Wills said...

Perhaps some anger management medicine for you?

What medication would that be?

Are you this angry in person or just behind your keyboard?

Where have I expressed anger? Please be specific as you are the only one who sees it.

Perhaps you and Ted should have a little blog between the two of you to see who can put there foot in their mouth deeper? We are all getting a little sick of the same old garbage on this site, and the constant accussers such as yourself.

And yet you keep reading. Odd that.


Do you or have you ever done something that you are not carrying a chip on your shoulder.

Huh?

Is it true you are a convicted Domestic Violence offender yourself.

No. If you knew anything, you'd know Lin would be able to kick my rear up one side and down the other if I were to even try.

Let the truth be known Kent. Come out from behind the keyboard Kent, and let the others on this blog know the real you. We have been told you are not an angel by many

I've never claimed to be an angel.


Leave the Browns alone,

I've been very kind to the Browns. I've been the only one to state I view Patty as a victim in this, though not to the degree that Lauren is. Further, I'm the only one not on Team Cameron to state that Cam should be released on bail.

Yeah, I'm sure being mean there, huh?


or go to another site to gab about Ted. Basically I am not interested in hearing your jabber as we have learned you have a dark side that should be as public as what you are saying hear about others

Such as? And I'd like something VALID.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:
What are you smoking, Kent? It's all still there. In living color.

Maybe it was a glitch that worked itself out. For a few minutes, I couldn't get the link to appear. Then, right after I posted that it's gone, it shows up.

It's probably one of those mysteries of the universe I'll never understand.

loretta said...

Yep, now it's all gone. Their comment section is separate from their blog, so that service must be down.

Oh well. It was so scintillating, so riveting, so mesmerizing, so astonishingly important, I don't know what I'm going to do without it.

Kent Wills said...

at one time, loretta wrote:
Yep, now it's all gone. Their comment section is separate from their blog, so that service must be down.

One less mystery for me to worry about then :)

Oh well. It was so scintillating, so riveting, so mesmerizing, so astonishingly important, I don't know what I'm going to do without it.

We could sit around a camp fire and sing fokl songs.

Ronni said...

"This Train Don't Carry No Murderers"
"If I Had a Hammer..."
"You're My Freedom and High Inspiration"
"He Loved Her (Yeah, Yeah, Yeah)"

Skye said...

Just one more month to go, Sarah. This time you will get the justice you deserve - I'm sure of it. Second Degree is good enough to send him away, indefinitely. First Degree, is what he deserves.

Thinking positive thoughts for truth and justice.

Rest in peace, Lauren.

ken said...

In response to Jim, you are wrong: I don't know Cam from Adam, and don't have a horse in this race. (I will admit to having corresponded with Patty, but I am honor-bound not to reveal the substance of those conversations.) As for your personal attacks on Kent, on what basis do you make them? I have seen most of Kent's posts, and can find no basis for your assault upon his character. And as for your implicit attack on me, I daresay that I am considerably more erudite than your average bus driver. Now that Ted has given you your hummer, you are free to go.

As for the forum on the KKK Blog, it still appears to be there. I didn't bother to see if there was anything worth reading there, however.

To Ronni, might I suggest a chorus of "Dead Man's Cliff?"

ken said...

Jim wrote (to Kent):

Basically I am not interested in hearing your jabber

Fine. Go back to those kinky gay porno sites, where you belong. You don't have to be here -- or anywhere, for that matter. If you want to discuss the alleged murder of Lauren Key, certain things have to be discussed, and they are not always nice.

Mgt said...

If even one of you guys was serious about protecting Lauren's memory from Ted and Patty, why don't you send a copy of Ted's ramblings to Geragos & Geragos?

He is displaying the website for you all to see.

Wouldn't that end all this nonsense?

jim said...

I agree with mgt, the banter of Ted must be something that will come out at this trial. Then perhaps we can get back to the real reason this site is up, to talk about both sides of the case, and remember the death of Lauren, accident or on purpose, it is a sad thing. Lets see if the folks on this site can not attack Ted, and vice versa, for a week, and see if we can get this back on track with the intent.

jim said...

Hey Loretta,

Why did you take down my reply to Ken? It had nothing wrong with it, and was not as harsh as the one Ken wrote. How about a fair blog? Seems like you are in kahoots with the prosecution. Is it all slanted? Sure seems to be. I cannot even mention Jon, the Summit Stage Bus Driver in Breckenridge who is doing a Cato Kalen publicity stunt.

Mgt said...

Don't get me wrong, please! My intent is not to be antagonistic, but this is not showing Sarah much respect.

That is only my humble opinion, of course.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, Jim wrote:

I agree with mgt, the banter of Ted must be something that will come out at this trial.

We already learned much of what Ted claimed is, being kind, bunk.

Then perhaps we can get back to the real reason this site is up, to talk about both sides of the case,

Unlike Ted's blog, no one has given the pretense that this site is supposed to be balanced. We have reviewed the available evidence and conclude that Cameron is most probably guilty. And we're smart enought to NOT give much weight to anonymous claims of judical/prosecutorial misconduct when no evidence is included.

and remember the death of Lauren, accident or on purpose, it is a sad thing.

We can all agree that her death was and is a terible thing.


Lets see if the folks on this site can not attack Ted, and vice versa, for a week, and see if we can get this back on track with the intent.

At this point, there is little to talk about. We've examined the available evidence several times. Until the trial starts up, the discussion of Cameron's trial will be minimal.

Ronni said...

So let's get back to tearing up Ted. It can be mildly amusing at times!

Ronni said...

Try watching FOX--there's your "fair and balanced." We have no trial news right now, so we are amusing ourselves while we wait for something concrete and relevant.

We are under no obligation to listen to the blathering of the apologists. Show us the proof of any of their allegations, and we'll take a look. We are a cynical lot when it comes to those who say something is true without any substantiation.

Skye said...

>(So let's get back to tearing up Ted. It can be mildly amusing at times!)<

LOL! Trust you, Ronni.

I have to admit, the same childish tone seems to blend all the apologist into one person. Or, perhaps, twins?

ken said...

Jim wrote:

Why did you take down my reply to Ken? It had nothing wrong with it, and was not as harsh as the one Ken wrote.

I abhor viewpoint-based censorship, even when it works to my benefit. That having been said, what is your logical purpose in your leveling personal attacks against Loretta, Kent, Jon, and myself? How does it aid the discussion? And where, pray tell, are your substantive points? I don't see even a single comment discussing the case or the underlying facts.

How about a fair blog?

Why you don't have a problem with Ted Kaldis' "Official Cameron Brown Trial Blog?" You can see some of the posts he has elided, because I took the liberty of posting them on this forum. All of them addressed matters significant to the case.

You can't have a successful forum without dissenting views, but if the only thing you have to bring to the table is a relentless stream of personal attacks, you provide more heat than light. I have to ask what your purpose is in doing this, insofar as your only apparent objective is to personally attack those who disagree with you.

Seems like you are in kahoots with the prosecution.

As for me, I don't give a rat's ass who wins, as long as Cam gets a fair trial. Based on my review of the evidence I have at my disposal, I would say without hesitation that Cam committed manslaughter, and I am of the opinion that he probably murdered Lauren, but (a) what I say doesn't matter and (b) it appears that the State will be hard-pressed to gain a conviction on the murder charge. Philosophically, I don't have any problem with letting a guilty man go free, as long as the State cannot prove its case to appropriate tolerances.

I have had a particular interest in Ted's allegations of constitutional rights violations by the prosecution in this case, which I have found to be for the most part insubstantial. To say that Ted has even a layman's grasp of how the law works is unduly charitable; most of what he "knows" is wrong and quite obviously so. But that doesn't mean that there might not be a kernel of truth in his claims, and legitimate cause for alarm.

I hope for justice, but in my mind, justice is in the process.

Is it all slanted? Sure seems to be. I cannot even mention Jon, the Summit Stage Bus Driver in Breckenridge who is doing a Cato Kalen publicity stunt.

What did Jon do, specifically? On Usenet, we've had people who claim to know Cam claim that he is capable of murder and further, that he has committed other criminal acts. That Jon has been swayed by the evidence means that he has been swayed by the evidence, and the fact that his request to have his letter removed from the list of testimonials on Ted's site has been assiduously ignored is nothing short of shocking.

For most of us, there are far more important things going on in the world than the Cam Brown trial. However, the decrepit state of our nation's justice system ought to concern everyone, as there is some chance that all of us may run afoul of it at one time or another, even inadvertently.

loretta said...

I think "jim" is just Sam Bam, or whatever name he's using on Usenet now.

From now on all his posts are going POOF.

ken said...

Loretta wrote:
I think "jim" is just Sam Bam, or whatever name he's using on Usenet now.

From now on all his posts are going POOF.


I would propose that every post bearing obvious relevance to the subject at hand should be permitted on this forum, while those posts primarily intended to attack others should be removed. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with disagreement, but there is no need for posters to be unduly disagreeable.

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

That 7:32 post was not made by me. I have no idea what that "ronni" is talking about.

Ronni said...

Do you who complain about getting poofed not realize the difference between arguing the case and making personal attacks? Why should Loretta or CG leave up posts attacking people?

You want to attack people, there are plenty of forums available for that. This is not one of them.

ken said...

It is really too bad that some bad apples have to spoil the fun for the rest of us.

CountryGirl said...

Nice try, now go away!

Ronni said...

Thank you, CG.

Hi, Ken. Are we having fun yet?

Skye said...

Good morning to CG and Loretta.

LOL. I see you have been poop-scooping! Thanks for being such good housekeepers.

Seems as though "they" are everywhere...I'm blaming it on that 1 digit, thing!

Skye said...

Sarah, I hope you and your family are bearing up.

Thinking of you all!

ken said...

FWIW, I didn't post that last message by "Ken."

Mgt said...

Ken, it is the need to see their name in lights. Plus a childish delight in thinking they have fooled Loretta.

Idiots!

ken said...

As predicted, the KKK Blog has basically died. No new posts to speak of, judging by the numbers (unless TeddiBeer poofed a vast number of them). You can't have a meaningful forum without dissent or debate.

loretta said...

You can't have a meaningful forum without real people behind the nicks. Even if you use a nickname consistently, at least readers will be able to follow the dialogue, sympathize with the poster and know who's opinion that is.

When you post anonymously, especially when multiple posters post anonymously, you lose the interest of the readers. You lose any sympathy or empathy you could earn by being a real human being.

But, KKK didn't listen to me. Even though my blog had nearly 1 million visitors in 3 years. Why? Not because of me, but because of the real people who posted at my blog using real names or consistent nicknames. It became a sort of reality blog-show. Thousands of people read it because they could relate to the posters, or to me, or just wanted to see what we had to say about a certain news story.

KKK lost any hope of having a readership when they chose to post using anonymous nicknames, and when "Case Insider" refused to prove her allegations and refused to identify who she was or what relationship she had with the players in the case.

So, when you have no identity you have no constiuency.

Skye said...

And very little credibility! Nobody wants to respond to someone who is taking the 'p'.

Skye said...

Monday morning I walked past a guy who looked like our blob neighbour, The Pot-bellied Pig!

The resemblance was so astonishing that I almost laughed in the poor man's face.

Wayne Delia said...

The KKK Blob has been inactive for a few days, just as predicted on this blog. A few years ago, I had an unintentionally "famous" debate with David Sears on alt.fan.bob-larson and alt.atheism, where he developed two sock-puppet accounts to support his primary account. In a similar fashion, he gave away his hidden identity when he got temporarily confused about which identity he was using. Anyway, I had wondered what would happen if, in the course of posting under his hidden alternative personalities, an argument would break out between two of his sock puppet accounts. It might be similar to the thought experiment of two psychiatrists having a discussion, after each of them has been told that the other one is a mental patient who thinks he's a psychiatrist.

The KKK Blob seems to have run its course - a chance for Patty to vent angst over the lack of closure in the first trial, a chance for Ted to wield poofta power over any posts he dislikes (which he can't do on Usenet), a chance for everyone else to publically and anonymously declare their support for... aaah, who am I kidding, there isn't anyone else.

WMD

CountryGirl said...

Ken, are you talking about the 9:40p post last night or did it already get poofed? I have my poofing digit poised if you wish.

Wayne Delia said...

Ted's broadcasting live on Usenet again. This is from just a few minutes ago, in which he attempts to defend evidence found under sister Patty's bed, which he earlier let slip describing it as "voodoo":

FER CRYIN' OUT LOUD! It was TOTALLY innocuous. She was putting together a photo album of Lauren. It was the kind of album that has, like, oval cutouts that you slide a small photo behind into, like a portrait. And she was cutting the part of a bigger photo that showed Lauren so that she could slide it into the smaller space. And what was found under the bed was what was left over. Some "voodoo".

The concern, of course, was that Ted had described his sister in a way that would mandate him being commanded by God to kill her ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") at a time when he was masquerading as a pious Christian.

WMD

Wayne Delia said...

In this Usenet post within the past hour, Ted explains why Geragos didn't deploy the H-bomb evidence in the first trial. (Note the explanation is nothing more than "The H-bomb was not deployed.")

(WMD, replying to Ted's comment that something blew up in Ken Smith's face regarding Bob Larson:)
Apparently, it blew up with the same ferocity that Ted's "H-Bomb" evidence exploded in the Camoron Brown trial [...]

(Ted:)
The H-Bomb was never deployed.

(Wayne:)
Precisely. Thus, it blew up with exactly no ferocity at all, which is the same ferocity that anything blew up in Ken Smith's face according to Bob Larson.

But since you're in such a talkative mood lately, would you care to explain exactly why Geragos never deployed the "H-bomb"? Why risk a guilty verdict, sending Camoron to prison probably for several decades? Why withhold the explosive exonerating evidence in hopes of a mistrial, which had the best-case result of Camoron sitting in jail for a few more weeks and a fresh round of lawyer bills for you and Patty to fund Round Two? Why would you pay a lawyer as much as you and your sister paid Geragos, and accept that kind of negligence and malpractice? Hindsight is always an exact science, and we now know what the jury's votes were: two for guilty of Murder I, eight for guilty of Murder II, and two for guilty of Manslaughter. Nowhere found among that list are any votes of not guilty. You came perilously close to losing your beloved baby-killing brudder-in-law for an extended stint in the Crossbar Hotel, because your high-profile lawyer decided to withhold critical evidence which would demonstrate Camoron's innocence.

The so-called "KKK Blog" which you and Patty are writing is an opportunity for both of you to vent your frustration and whip up a bunch of anonymous support with your sock puppet accounts. The problem is, you're asking rhetorical questions intended to "create the impression" (a typical strategy of yours) that there's been a gross miscarriage of justice, an extended conspiracy of law enforcement officials and forensic scientists, procedural anomalies, perjury, and so on. Yet the lawyer you hired to defend Camoron - very high profile, very knowledgable (if not very successful) - evidently did not seem to think any of it was significant enough to bring to the judge's attention. The rhetorical questions you're asking yourselves need to include the one I'm asking right here: why would you accept such negligence and malpractice from Geragos? He has, according to you, exonerating evidence of "H-bomb" magnitude which he failed to present during the first trial.

The inescapable conclusion is that Mark Geragos is taking you and Patty for a long, expensive ride - or else you're either intentionally dishonest or unwittingly deluded about the quality of the "H-bomb" evidence.

Which is it?

WMD

CountryGirl said...

That's interesting. My notes from Hum's closing argument say:

In a cigar box found under CB/PB's bed during the search warrant, they found a cigar box with 2 cut out photos of Sarah. (NOT Lauren)

So was PB doing a photo album of Sarah? You decide.

CountryGirl said...

Oh yeah, Hum also mentions the note they found from PB to CB:

Seek full legal and physical custody.

Yet another PB/TK myth that she didn't want full (100%) physical custody of Laren.

CountryGirl said...

NOTE TO HAWAII MOMS:

I will be in Waikiki the first week in October and would love to meet you for coffee, margis, whatever and say hello in person.

RealCountryGirl@hotmail.com

Kent Wills said...

At one time, countrygal wrote:
In a cigar box found under CB/PB's bed during the search warrant, they found a cigar box with 2 cut out photos of Sarah. (NOT Lauren)

So was PB doing a photo album of Sarah? You decide.

Interesting. You'd think he would have stated something like, "That's a lie. There were NO photos of Lauren." He would have left out that the pictures were of Sarah, which would enable him to be accurate. Deceptive, but accurate.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, countrygal wrote:
Oh yeah, Hum also mentions the note they found from PB to CB:

Seek full legal and physical custody.

Yet another PB/TK myth that she didn't want full (100%) physical custody of Laren.


To be fair, one of the Kaldis socks stated Patty wasn't seeking to adopt Lauren. The sock failed to mention Patty wanted full custody of Lauren. Interesting ommision.

Presuming they were able to get it (laugh), this would have had a similar end effect for Cameron, who never wanted anything to do with Lauren. She would have been around most of the time. He wouldn't be able to just take off and go surfing, or mud bogging, or whatever, since he would have to deal with Lauren.

As it was, he only needed to tell Patty something like, "I'm off to go surfing. Be back later." With Lauren in the house, it would be like, "I want to go surfing. Can you watch Lauren?" If Patty doesn't have anything going on, no problem. If she needs to go somewhere for something, well, Cameron may not be able to go play.

Skye said...

Wayne, I think you are bang-on with your suspicions about Ted and his sock puppets.

Friend or foe, Ted attacks every single person who comments (anywhere), except the sock puppets.

Hmmmm!

Skye said...

My opinion of Patty, is, unattractive, past-it and desperate!

Oh, and over-weight!

Kent Wills said...

Uh oh! Ted made another boo-boo at the KKK blog.

Note that "Anonymous" is listed as Siteowner in yesterday's post.


What a blindingly bloring blog!

[This message was posted from the Boulder Public Library. We have a pretty good idea about who posted it.] --siteowner


Edited By Siteowner
Anonymous | 09.13.06 - 6:01 pm | #



Here's where Ted is the Siteowner:

Ted wrote:

Has it ever happened to Ken Smith? If so, when?

[Ken's blather elided --tak]

As I've told Kent, I'm going to stop reading this travesty of a blog, [more blather elided --tak]

[Don't let the door slap yer backside on the way out. --tak]

Edited By Siteowner
ken | 09.08.06 - 8:29 am | #


How many site owners can there be? Duh Ted.

Skye said...

Geez! No surprises there. Stupid is as stupid does!

loretta said...

Besides the fact that they don't "own" anything and therefore cannot be "site owners."

It's a free blog service on "blogspot" for crying out loud.

Toad's "Free Cam Brown" site is only one rung higher than that.

Get a REAL blog with a domain name that you own and server space that you lease and or have a server and own your piece of real estate and then call yourself a "siteowner."

Otherwise, it's delusions of grandeur. And rather ridiculous.

A valid title would be "blog watchdog."

Skye said...

Or, "blog slothdog(s)"?

Eww, those crusty clothes...!

ken said...

LOL! Don'cha know ... everybody who posts from anywhere within a hundred miles of Denver must be Ken, even though Cam Brown used to live here and has family here. (FWIW, Boulder is thirty miles away.)

First, there was Randy and the Rainbows. Then, Paul Revere and the Raiders ... and Bennie and the Jets. Now, it's Teddi and the Sockpuppets! Ted can't keep his lies straight. He "never posts anonymously," but he is the siteowner, and was caught posting anonymously as the siteowner. He was also caught replying to me anonymously and then, tried to cover his tracks by claiming that the anonymous poster didn't recognize that he didn't write the post in question. Finally, it should be noted for the record that the "anonymi" all support Ted in absolute lockstep.

Gee, Ted! We have a pretty good idea as to who is posting all those "anonymous" pro-Cam posts.... ;-)

Michael said...

If all of you would think for one minute that there is still another trial, and there is a chance that Cam will be set free. Count that there are several folks who believe in the justice system and do not judge before someone is rightly convicited.

Guilty or not, why don't you slueths give it a break until the trial.

Skye said...

Aww! Ronni said we could tear a few strips off Ted for a bit of fun.

You spoil sport, Michael!

Wayne Delia said...

Not for nothing, but over the past three days, there have only been the two posts from yesterday evening on the KKK Blob - the first post which Ted "poofed" and the throwaway one-liner post following it. There may be a market for Kent Wills's Cricket Chirping Sound Effects machine over there.

I think Ted's dealing with some serious issues lately... yesterday, on alt.travel.canada, completely unprovoked, he posted the following:

Carl Rogers wrote:
> Hi All, Salut Francophones,

Mangez merde, francophones.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net


That's a cry for help if I ever heard one. (Roland's Rule: "Mangez merde, francophones" is roughly equivalent to "Eat shit, people who speak French.") The obvious irony, of course, is that Ted is telling French-speakers to eat shit, while speaking French himself, in order to give the impression that he knows the language well enough to say it in French. I've done it myself on occasion, while on business and later on my honeymoon in Paris many years ago. My French is not very good, and I know it. When I struggle to communicate in French and am not understood, I explain "Je parle francais comme une vache espagnol," which is translated as "I speak French like a Spanish cow." But that is an expression commonly known among people who are very fluent in French, and is meant to disparage people who cannot speak French as a primary language.

Ted's unintentionally amusing, in a very Zen-like way: in his attempt to tar with a very wide prejudicial brush, he got some of the tar on himself without even realizing it.

WMD

Kent Wills said...

At one time, WMD wrote:
yesterday, on alt.travel.canada, completely unprovoked, he posted the following:
Carl Rogers wrote:
> Hi All, Salut Francophones,

Mangez merde, francophones.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net


Ted's stupid jesus must only know English. If he was well versed in French, Ted would have written, "Mangez m*rde, francophones."

BTW, I happen to speak French pretty well. I wouldn't say I'm fluent (I have a real mental block on conjugations), but I'm more than able to get my ideas across.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, loretta wrote:

Besides the fact that they don't "own" anything and therefore cannot be "site owners."

I always presumed the term site owner means the admin.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, michael wrote:
If all of you would think for one minute that there is still another trial, and there is a chance that Cam will be set free.

It's certainly possible. It's not realy likly, but you can never predict a jury.

Count that there are several folks who believe in the justice system and do not judge before someone is rightly convicited.

And..?

Guilty or not, why don't you slueths give it a break until the trial.

We have. We're not talking about the case so much as pointing out what a phony Ted is.

michael said...

From what I can tell Kent, you have no time on your hands if you can rule the world and keep harping on Ted. Is he on trial here or is this the Cam Brown trial blog? After Cam is out will there be a bolg about Ted? Wow, that will be really exciting. Have fun thinking of interesting ways to pass the time between now and the October. Perhaps you should pick up a hobby like that John Carr guy. Go ahead and say you committed a crime and they will put you in the spotlight too. Sounds like you have the same profile as him anyway.

Kent Wills said...

At one time, michael wrote:

From what I can tell Kent, you have no time on your hands if you can rule the world and keep harping on Ted.

Rule the world? Are you on any medication that if we knew about it would cause your posts to make sense?

Is he on trial here or is this the Cam Brown trial blog?

Gee, let's see... The blog is titled Cameron Brown Trial, so I'm going to go on a limb and say it's Cameron who will be on trial next month.

After Cam is out will there be a bolg about Ted?

I see you've already judged Cameron not guilty. Interesting, given that you berated us for daring to judge him guilty (based on the available evidence).

Is hypocrisy a requirement to be a member of Team Cam?

Wow, that will be really exciting. Have fun thinking of interesting ways to pass the time between now and the October.

So long as trolls like you are around, we'll have entertainment.

Perhaps you should pick up a hobby like that John Carr guy. Go ahead and say you committed a crime and they will put you in the spotlight too.

I have no desire to be in the spotlight. I'm not insecure.

Sounds like you have the same profile as him anyway.

I have tried my hand at writting, but it didn't go anywhere. Of course, I didn't try to claim my fiction was fact.

CountryGirl said...

Michael, who died and appointed you the net nanny? If you don't like the conversation here, find another blog to read, pick up bottles along the road and donate them to a domestic violence shelter, wash your car, or go pound sand.

Skye said...

All these hecklers have shades of Ted about them. Strange that!

When I thought of Cameron Brown's actions on the day of Lauren's death, I was convinced he was guilty! When I think of his lack of emotion immediately after the tragedy and his lack of emotion during the trial, I know he is guilty!

Go suck eggs, Ted!

ken said...

michael [a.k.a. "jim?") said...

From what I can tell Kent, you have no time on your hands if you can rule the world and keep harping on Ted. Is he on trial here or is this the Cam Brown trial blog? After Cam is out will there be a bolg about Ted? Wow, that will be really exciting. Have fun thinking of interesting ways to pass the time between now and the October. Perhaps you should pick up a hobby like that John Carr guy. Go ahead and say you committed a crime and they will put you in the spotlight too. Sounds like you have the same profile as him anyway.

I wouldn't say that the only word for your last post is "juvenile," but I would say that the best word for it is.

Trust me ... if Ted slithered back under that rock from whence he crawled, no one would miss him in the slightest. And as for Cam, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with honestly believing in his guilt; frankly, given the facts we do know, it is difficult to believe in his innocence. That having been said, it is imperative that he receives another fair trial, and that if his guilt is not proven to the tolerances set by society, that he be freed and let alone to live the rest of his life. Should he be acquitted or even convicted pursuant to a fair trial, that should be that, as far as I am concerned.

For me, that is the only interest, as I don't know Cam from Adam and don't reasonably expect that that shall ever change. We are either a nation governed by law, or we are not. And that is everyone's interest.

CountryGirl said...

Timeline entry is ^^^^