Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Second Trial Countdown

Almost seven and a half years after her death, nearly four years after a Grand Jury handed down an indictment of Cameron John Brown in the murder of his biological daughter, Lauren Sarene Key-Marer, and almost two years after the first trial held in Torrance was declared a mistrial, Cameron Brown's second trial is about to begin this summer in Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor's courtroom in downtown Los Angeles.

The original jury all voted guilty; however they did not agree on the degree of guilt. To refresh: 2 jurors voted guilty on 1st degree murder; 8 jurors voted guilty on 2nd degree murder, and 2 jurors voted guilty on manslaughter.

Stay tuned...


Wayne Delia said...

So what's new lately?

Man awaiting retrial in RPV death hit with weapon charge

A man awaiting retrial on a murder charge in connection with his 4-year-old daughter's plunge off a cliff in Rancho Palos Verdes was ordered Wednesday to stand trial on a charge that he possessed a weapon in jail.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alex Ricciardulli rejected defense attorney Pat Harris' contention that there was insufficient evidence to require Cameron Brown, 46, to proceed to trial on a felony charge of custodial possession of a ``shank'' made from a razor blade.

``He handed a book (containing the shank) to the officer and said, `This was in my cell and I don't want it,''' Harris said after the hearing.

Harris noted that his client has a long beard, and said his client hasn't had a razor in two years.

``Of course it wasn't (his),'' Harris said.

Brown was ordered to return to the downtown Los Angeles courthouse May 13 for arraignment on the weapon case. He is also due back that day for a pretrial hearing in his murder case, in which he is accused of throwing his daughter, Lauren Sarene Key, off Inspiration Point on Nov. 8, 2000.

CountryGirl said...

Of course it wasn't his. He probably just got the wrong book from the library. Yep. Or, no. It was planted there by the bad, bad cops. Having a long beard proves it wasn't his, right?

ken said...

This one does sort-of bury the needle on my bullshitometer. It's easy to plant a shiv, and this sort of tactic is frequently used to put pressure on a defendant. As you all know, I'm not exactly a staunch defender of the Camster, but this charge doesn't pass the smell test.

Ken said...

Cross-posted from the KooKK Blog:

CI: The other case resulted in more shocking revelations (as though the destruction of the book were not enough). After actively seeking the video tapes which would show who entered Cam's cell and deposited the book (and when) and having been told the tapes would be turned over to the defense, we now learn that the recordings no longer exist. In spite of defense efforts to go to the site and download the information from a harddrive at the expense of the defense, and offers to replace the harddrive and do whatever else was necessary to obtain the video; after being assured there was no need because the prosecution would preserve and offer the video in discovery, it was revealed yesterday that it too was destroyed! The lame claim was made that the harddrive was erased and reused prior to preserving the contents because they didn't know how to save it.

Ken: Remember when I told you that when you guys actually had something, I'd listen?

At this point, I'm all ears. This completely and utterly offends my sensibilities.

If what you say is substantively true (based on your previous claims, you have very little 'cred' with me), I'd estimate a 95% chance of acquittal. Christ on a crutch! What a bone-headed, ham-handed play!!! One case of disappearing evidence is entirely believable and two is a stretch, but three is a conspiracy.

I have written Denise Nix asking for confirmation, and if I get sufficient documentation, I might even write a complaint to the California bar; that I am not associated (or, for that matter, even friendly) with the Brown family means that it might carry more weight. You are supposed to perform a certain amount of due diligence before you submit any paper to the Court, and one is hard-pressed to say that he did so here. Given the importance of a charging document, and the well-earned rep of Los Angeles cops (Rampart), there's just no excuse for this.

Have you taken this up with Glasser, Ted?
Guys, if this is even close to true, they've lost the judge -- and the murder case. Hum can try to keep this evidence out, but at this point, the judge is likely to let it in.

CountryGirl said...

Let what in? What does this have to do with him tossing Lauren off IP? And how would this make him any less guilty of that?

CountryGirl said...

I need a shower! I was reading all the BS on the CB apology blog and see that Ted thinks I was in the courthouse again and he gets me confused with Denise. Since we're about 30 years apart in age that's a real insult to Denise. Sorry D!

I was shocked (shocked I say!) to see that Patty could have refuted everything Hum presented to the jury yet Geragos never called her to the stand. Hmmmm. Poor Cam. His wife could have saved him from all this time in jail but his attorney never called her.

No, I haven't been downtown to his hearings. I'm not about to drive 120 or so miles for a prelim. I'll go down for the trial in July for a day or so if this trial doesn't break all the time like the first one.

Compuelf said...

Ted confuses just about everyone with everyone else.

If Patti could have countered/refuted the evidence presented, Geragos would have called her to the stand. Contrary to what Team Cam wants people to believe, Geragos is NOT that incompetent.

I'm going to need to visit the k00k blog and read up on the shiv case.

Ken said...

CG: Let what in? What does this have to do with him tossing Lauren off IP?

Unfortunately, a lot. Cops break the rules and even manufacture evidence all the time; you'll remember O.J. If Geragos can get it in -- and if we can trust the KooKs (a very big if!), this judge will probably let it in at trial. The bad cop defense is tried by just about everybody, but if they have something tangible to hang their hat on, it will be bought.

Remember, all they have to do is raise reasonable doubt; it doesn't make Cam any less innocent or guilty, but it will have a lot to do with whether he is acquitted or convicted.

CountryGirl said...

Ken, are you saying that because a jail deputy may have planted a book/shiv that it goes to his innocence in Lauren's murder because if a DS did this then of course Jeff Leslie and Danny Smith must be bad cops? Sorry. I'm not buying it.

Ken said...

I'm saying that there is likely to be a cumulative effect. Three incidents come to mind: the apparent failure of the cops to tape their interrogation of Cam, the non-existent rock, and the missing molds. The locals don't trust L.A. cops, and not without good reason (e.g., Rampart). The 'bad cop' defense will work if there are enough bad acts, and if it comes in, that fourth piece of evidence may turn the tide.

ken said...

Poof insurance (posted at the udder blog):

Ted: Ken, face it. You're WHACKED!

Go fuck your face with discount cookies, Ted! You do still buy them by the kilo, right?

Explain this one to me, Ted. How is it that everyone else, from investigators to reporters to jurors (every last one of them voted for criminal liability) to John and Ken to everyone whom you corresponded with on USENET sees the murder case against St. Cam of the Toss the way I do? Are they all "whacked"? Are you saying that you are the only sane person in Lost Angeles?

The reasonable person can -- and many reasonable persons have! -- see that there is a credible basis for believing that Cam murdered Lauren: He maneuvered her up there (who knows what inducements were offered?), and by your own admission, all it took was a simple, subtle push. The LASD investigators were incompetent, and overplayed their hand (which will probably result in an acquittal at this point), but you really can't say that your baby-killin' brudder-in-law is "stone-cold innocent." Sure, Danny Smith was 'out to get him' ... but so were Van Atter and Fuhrman. Didn't make O.J. less guilty, now did it?

As I've said, most of what you are whining about on this 'gripe site' doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The reasonable juror can see Cam as "a man with a plan," and add up the improbabilities for himself. That you have willfully blinded yourself to this stark reality suggests that it is you who is whacked beyond comprehension, a theory strongly supported by your CV on USENET (one so deplorable, even CI won't permit it to be reposted here).

You always attack everyone personally who disagrees with you. It's called an abusive ad hominem, and considered inappropriate in logical discourse. I have yet to see even one example of the contrary in all the time I have known you; you even attack Wayne for being a mentor for his old fraternity, and Joe Marino for his having had to declare bankruptcy. And now, everyone knows your weakness; you've earned the Steve Winter treatment.

You guys need to get over your trial delusion and recognize that this case is still in doubt ... and, to the extent possible, to take care of business. Everyone howled at Shannon Farren's brutal description of Patty: "A LARGE woman...." (her emphasis). Everyone in LA is driving home and seeing Norbit. (At least, Cindy McCain was a sugar mama who had some serious sugar....) You need to behave yourselves in the courtroom, and dress to the nines; Patty still has six weeks to lose twenty pounds (do-able, but not easy). She really ought to get a makeover, and dye out the grey. If she comes in looking like an applicant for The Biggest Loser (Senior Edition) and looking and acting like trailer trash (no heavy breathing!), it's liable to hurt. Sure, it's superficial ... but why take the risk?

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for that video evidence....

ken said...

CG, do you have any idea what "Case Insider" looks like? I'm picturing a woman in her fifties who may be as large as Patty, which is why she is so sensitive to the sugar mama issue.

CountryGirl said...

No, I don't have a clue who this CI creature is but since she thinks Kaldis is such an honest wonderful person it tells me all I need to know. Ha!

I see Cam's next hearing on the shiv case is 5/28 in Dept 133. That's not Pastor's courtroom.

You certainly keep it interesting ==> Ken. If it weren't for your comments I would have nodded off.

ken said...

They may argue a motion to dismiss based on destroyed evidence. If it gets dropped, Judge Pastor may not even get wind of it.

For the most part, the kiddies don't seem to know what they have and don't have, and how to market what they do. The danger I see is that the cops have tried to stretch their evidence too far, instead of focusing on the bare essentials.

Without me, that site would be one relentless circle-jerk.

ken said...

X-post from the KooKK Blog:

Ted: On the other hand, you have indicated that you are an active participant. Perhaps you should be concerned about being subpoenaed and/or deposed -- if not even named in the action as a party.

I'm really shakin' in my boots, Ted.... NOT! First and foremost, Cam doesn't have much of a reputation to protect any more; John and Ken saw to that. Second, a jury of his peers has already found him criminally liable for the act in question. Third, I haven't done any more than express my opinion, based in large part on allegations of fact you have made (after making appropriate allowances for your pathological lying). Besides, as Cam is an involuntary public figure, you would bear the burden of proving via clear and convincing evidence that he didn't throw, push, or otherwise impel Lauren to fall off that cliff, and without independent witnesses, that is a logical impossibility. And finally, I have said repeatedly and consistently that I would change my opinion, provided that you gave me a compelling reason to do so.

Go back to fucking your face with discount cookies, Ted. It is bad enough that you be seen, to say nothing of being heard.

ken said...

This is certain to be poofed:

Stalker Ted: Sorry, that term's already been taken, applied to {you-know-who}.

CI: Omg, Ted. I needed that laugh!

Since we're assigning names in this saga, let's not forget CA-MORON (the Baby-Killin' Brudder-in-Law), Fat Alberta (for Patty a/k/a anony, given that she is the "LARGE" and slovenly heavy-breathing sugar mama with the grey hair who is the other half of the Terrible Twins), Judge Poofter (who may yet stick it up Ted's ass), The Incredible Hunk (a/k/a D.A. Craig Hum, who is reported by a reliable source to be a hottie), Sarah and the Baywatch Babe (reported by multiple sources as hotties), the Great Garbageos (a shameless self-promoter who, according to Ted's fantasy dominatrix Annthrax Coultergeist, sports one of the worst track records in California legal history, who invariably abandons his clients [as he did here], and who wouldn't use Stalker Ted's "H-bomb-class evidence" because he didn't want to get The Incredible Hunk into trouble with the Bar [Tuzla Ted actually suggested this]), Bobby Brown (who, like his richer namesake, has some serious impulse-control problems) and wife Whitney (who had to admit on the stand that she was a lousy mother, and that CaMORON was inherently irresponsible). Then, there is always Voodoo Kit, Yellow Toothbrush and Magic Razor, serving as narrators.

Lots of characters for Tuzla Ted's screenplay, "When CaMoron Met Bubba" -- a Maybach Production. Figure you'd need the laugh this morning, CI. :)

This site is not so much a china shop as it is a Goodwill store. The only glass is in your jaws.

Sprocket said...

"...I need a shower! I was reading all the BS on the CB apology blog and see that Ted thinks I was in the courthouse again and he gets me confused with Denise...."

If Ted was talking about the May 13th hearings (I don't know; I haven't read what he actually said), he may have you confused with me.

I had read the news story that Cameron Brown was going to be in two different courtrooms in the downtown courthouse on the same day, one of them being 107, Judge Pastor's court, and I thought that was interesting. Pastor's courtroom is right across the hall from Judge Fidler's court.

There isn't a trial going on right now that I'm interested in following, ~at least, not until Pellicano round deux in July, and Miura may not even happen~ I knew a tiny bit about the case and I thought I might drop in on a hearing or two to see if I might want to attend some of this trial. I still haven't decided yet. I have a friend who has watched many of Judge Pastor's cases so I thought it would be nice to drop in and see my friend, too, and get the scoop from them on who's who in Pastor's courtroom.

I still have not written up my notes on the two hearings, but hope to get to them soon.

loretta said...

Yeah, I had a feeling it was you, Betsy.

I'm not interested in your notes, or your opinion, or your participation here, or really anything else you have to say. Thanks just the same and have a nice day, mkay?

Ken said...

Ken: How about publishing the entire, unfiltered autopsy?

Ted: Where have you been? It IS published, on:

So, you don't have the photos reportedly accompanying it. My mistake -- admittedly, a poor choice of words on my part. The issue here is the extent and location of her injuries, and without all the photos, those of us in the peanut gallery have no way of auditing the completeness of the autopsy report.

Let me pose this question: Do you accept the autopsy report as presenting an accurate description of Lauren's injuries? If not, why not?

Reading the autopsy, I see the kind of injuries I would expect if Lauren hit a ledge on a parabolic descent, with rocks jutting out just above the ledge itself. The head hits, the skull fractures, the neck breaks, and substantial chest wounds are inflicted by the rocks just above. What I have a hard time seeing is how multiple impacts would have (a) left the back completely untouched and have (b) fractured the skull and (c) caused the chest injuries as described without shattering a rib or two.

Ted, you spoke of vectors of force, and one of you spoke of the fact that no ribs were broken. For the same reason that Cam would not have fallen forward in the putative toss -- the opposing force would have radiated downward at a negative 22 degree angle or in essence, into the hill -- it would seem that in the postulated downward fall, any stresses from the impact should have been absorbed by the spine, and the rib cage would not have been materially impacted. What from an engineering perspective makes it not only likely but substantially certain that Lauren's rib cage would have been broken?

Conversely, if the first impact in your alternative scenario shattered Lauren's wrist (about what we would expect, as she appears to have been killed on cerebral impact, and would have had no subsequent control of her wrist), we would expect that her body would have tumbled on its axis as a result (As I said, ever see a diver hit the board? I've done it once or twice, unfortunately, and can speak from direct experience). You would expect the second injury to be pretty much anywhere but her head, on account of the tumbling effect. Moreover, if Lauren's head hit on the second pass, the odds against her upper chest being the site of third impact seem enormous.

(As this seems to be mainly an engineering problem, I'm enlisting the aid of Wayne Delia on the other blog.)

Wayne Delia said...

Delia's here, but will be busy for the next few days - elderly parents are both having eye operations for cataracts, nothing major, expected to be uneventful but they'll need some help for a couple of days.

Not sure if I mentioned it (I usually don't) but I was given the professional title of IBM Master Inventor a few months ago, not just for patents, but for mentoring, reviewing, and general patent evangelism within Big Blue. In about two weeks I am lecturing at the IBM Watson Research Center in Yorktown, NY, so I'll need to throw that dog and pony show together.

Remind me again - if Camoron had originally pleaded to some sort of a bargained manslaughter charge, and managed to get out on parole for good behavior, how much time could he have been expected to spend behind bars? There's going to be a point in time when this strategy reaches seriously diminished returns.

CountryGirl said...

a) Voluntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in
the state prison for 3, 6, or 11 years.
(b) Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for two, three, or four years.

Compuelf said...

Congratulations Wayne.

Had Cam plead out to manslaughter, he'd certainly be a free man now. I doubt he'd still be on probation/parole.

Wayne Delia said...

Sprocket's blog about Camoron's May 13 court appearance is up at this link: which extremely causal cameo appearances were made by the Kaldis Kook Klan.

Anonymous said...

Finally, Cameron Brown is brought into the courtroom wearing an orange suit. He doesn't look anything like the photos I've seen on some support blogs. He's rail thin and his beard is quite long, at least eight to ten inches long. His hair is not grown out, it's trimmed short along the back of his neck, and I see that the beard appears to be evenly trimmed around his cheekbones. Cameron turns and nods to the two people in the courtroom who were in the hall earlier. I'm shocked. At first I thought the woman might be a relative, like his mother but it dawns on me this must be "Patty," his wife. The man who was with her I didn't pay much attention to, but later I come to realize that this must be Patty's brother, Theodore (aka "Ted") who is very vocal on Usenet and several blogs in support of his brother-in-law. Maybe it's just me, maybe I've totally abandoned my 70's hippie teens, but if my husband was on trial for murder, I wouldn't be showing up to court so casually dressed wearing flip flops (and we are NOT talking high end, gemstone adorned footwear like what you would find on Rachelle Short's feet but standard black flip flops) or forgotten to put a brush through my hair.

Patty and Ted and I are all in the same elevator. Patty has what appears to be a letter in her hand and she starts to read the letter to him, "...all he's concerned about..." and then Ted goes, "Sussh!" at Patty and that's all of their conversation I overhear. On the 13th floor we see a sign that states Department 133 is on the fifteenth floor, and we all head back to the elevators to go up two floors. Department 133 is Judge Sterling's courtroom and there are several people in the gallery and another case is being adjudicated. Patty and Ted sit in different rows, far from each other. Since there is another case being heard, I sit in the nearest row available, but it means I can't hear what's going on as well. People are coming and going and the courtroom is quite noisy.

Ken said...

Good morning, and congrats to Wayne.

Let's do the math. She's "large" (Shannon Farren), slovenly and unkempt (two witnesses), throws tantrums in the Court (SF), and looks "like his mother" (Sprocket)?!

CountryGirl said...

Flip flops and hasn't combed her hair. Way to make an impression on the court.

Ken said...

from da udder blog:

CI: Yep, Kent is a resident of Arkansas -- Rogers, to be exact. And, yes, his posts come from Rogers. And, yes, his probation was transferred to Arkansas. Beyond that, I'm not going to get into any of the details with you. If you want to stay ignorant, be my guest. It's like many other things, I really don't care what you think on this issue. I've far more than sufficient reason to believe we have made the right choice. Kent knows the truth and Kent should be more than a little bit embarrassed.

What say you, Kent?

Ken said...

CG: Flip flops and hasn't combed her hair. Way to make an impression on the court.

Even despite the unbridled contempt in which I hold our courts, I still show up in a suit.

Anonymous said...

You all need to get a grip on life. Go chase another case. It gets old reading your one sided trash

Compuelf said...

From the k00k blog:

CI: If Kent had a sincere bone in his body and was able to demonstrate that here, he would be welcomed.
I have been very sincere in my comments and questions.

CI: As it is, Kent flips in and out of lies as quickly as he breathes. Thanks to someone named "Doc" we have determined that Kent's obnoxious and know-it-all behavior is the result of his own propensity to be dishonest.
Is this the same Doc who claimed if I were to write about him I'd end up in prison? I've written about him a few times since he made that claim. Note that I've not even stepped one foot inside a prison, except for missionary work. Is this the same Doc who claimed to own a massive farm, but was shown to be one of the workers on the farm? Is this the same Doc who claims to be a Rabbi, but was shown to not have ever been one (he is Jewish, in case that matters)? Is this the same Doc who claimed his name is Daniel Goldblum then was forced, by Jonezie of all people, to admitted it is not?
Quite the source you're using.

CI: He is banned because we do not have the time to sort through his bullshit to find whatever little bits of truth he might try to advance in this forum.Kent claims that Ted suffers from mental problems based on the online analysis of his wife.
Do be honest. I ask the questions you can't honestly answer without admitting that nothing illegal is being done with Cameron.
His having to wait so long, even though it's ultimately been by his own choice, does bother me a great deal. There should be some limit to how long one has to wait, even if they waive their right to a speedy trial.
Lin has only been willing to state his posts are consistent with OCD and that he displays characteristics consistent with a stalker's mind. For a more complete diagnosis, she would need to meet with him in person, and given that he's been caught stalking her, this isn't going to happen.
The evidence is clear. Ted posted a picture of the front of Kym's home. The message, "I know exactly where you live and can stop by anytime."
Then there's the picture of the interstate and directions from the exit to Ken's home. Then same message was being sent.
Rational people don't do this.

CI: In fact, Kent has no wife and his claims are being advanced in a malicious attempt to belittle Ted.
Please prove I've been lying about Lindsay. And explain our children. Oh yeah, you simply claim they don't exist as well. Given that The Princess has entered the terrible twos early, there are times when I wish she were fictional

CI: Kent claims to be a mortician and therefore he is able to support the validity of the autopsy report, however, Kent is not now or never was a mortician.
I do NOT claim to be a mortician. I did attend and graduate from Worsham College of Mortuary Science. I was in the business (a mortician) for a while. I left in 1993. May 1993, if it matters. My license has long since expired. I've not looked into it, but I expect I'd have to go back to mortuary college if I wished to go back. At the very least I would need to take the exams again.
I realize my having been in the funeral business frightens you, since it means I have the knowledge to understand what is in the autopsy report. Further, you worry that my education in this area means others will be willing to accept my learned, but NOT expert, opinion on the matter.
The injuries detailed in the report I was sent and the one Ted made available do NOT show injuries consistent with a slip and fall.

CI: Kent claims to know how a 4-yr old child behaves based on the actions of his own children. However, Kent has no children.
Please prove I've lied about my son and daughter. If I've done so, you should be able.
In two years I'll be in a better position to state how a four-year-old girl would behave in similar situations. Hopefully this situation will be resolved by then.

CI: We do not intend to spend any time disputing Kent's claims in this forum, nor will we spend any time playing his games.
You can't dispute my claims, since they are valid. And I'm not playing any games, no matter how much you wish to believe it.

CI: Therefore Kent has been banned and will continue to be banned unless and until he stops trying to refute our claims by lying and divisively creating "stories" to support his bullshit claims.
What stories? My most recent post pointed out that Cameron has had that power to start the speedy trial clock any time he wished. I forget the reason Ted cited for waiting, though I do recall I stated it made sense at the time.
Since Team Cam has Dr. Jan, the search for an expert witness, the reason cited on the front page, is no longer a valid explanation.

CI: I will not deal with someone who is dishonest at their core, and particularly when he attempts to use his "stories" to discredit anyone here.
Yet you deal with Ted, who is quite guilty of that which you charge me.

CI: You have made claims that Kent has the prosecutor on speed dial
I don't recall reading anyone making that claim. I can assure you that I don't. In fact, I've only called the DA's office to ensure the faxes I sent made it. I had to look up the number.

CI: and Kent has made repeated claims about his attempts to interject himself into this case by contacting the BAR regarding Mark Geragos (attempting to remove him from this case), etc.
I've never tried to have Geragos removed from the case. Nor have I even implied that I would.
According to Ted, Mark withheld the H-Bomb class evidence because he didn't think it was needed. Since Ted never claimed he posted that in error, it's clear Ted believes Mark did this. Ted claimed that Geragos committed a breach of ethics, which needed to be investigated.
I presume that it was found that Ted simply lied about the matter. I haven't bothered to find out.

CI: How well did that work, btw?
Since I never tried to have him removed, it worked about as well as any fictional account of my actions could be expected.

CI: He has no credibility in spite or your efforts to cover for him. Get this through your thick skull --- we don't care. When you stack the truth next to a malicious and proficient liar, the truth stands.
Is that why you've never answered my questions about the case? Because you can't do so honestly and don't want to see your lies fall? Serious questions.

Kent Wills | 06.07.08 - 8:45 am | #

Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:

CI: Yep, Kent is a resident of Arkansas -- Rogers, to be exact. And, yes, his posts come from Rogers. And, yes, his probation was transferred to Arkansas. Beyond that, I'm not going to get into any of the details with you. If you want to stay ignorant, be my guest. It's like many other things, I really don't care what you think on this issue. I've far more than sufficient reason to believe we have made the right choice. Kent knows the truth and Kent should be more than a little bit embarrassed.

What say you, Kent?

The Arkansas home isn't even in Benton County (where Rogers is located). Also, you may recall Ted, Patty, et al, bitching about my use of proxies when I post to their blog. It's how they were and are unable to block me. Each time I visit, it's with a new IP.

It's possible the same IP has appeared more than once, but it would be rare. New proxies come up almost every day (visit for updated lists), so it's more probable that they see a new one each visit.

I checked with with my real IP. I checked the results with other IP tracers (DNS Stuff, Geektools, etc.) to confirm. Each one claims I'm in Kansas City, MO. Not even Ted and Patty are trying to present the claim I'm there.

A check of various databases does have a Kent Wills in Rogers Arkansas, but these same databases list him as being married to Kelly. As you may recall, Lin's real name isn't Kelly. One has Kent living in two different houses in Rogers. While this is *possible* I tend to suspect the data collection isn't what it could be.

I can't comment on who this Kent Wills is, but it's clear he and I are not the same person.

I'm a bit shocked I dropped from parole to probation. I wasn't aware it was allowed. But then, I've not had cause to check into such matters.

Patty (we all know Patty is CI) is correct on one account. I do know the truth that nothing illegal has been done in regards to Cameron. Certainly no evidence of anything illegal has been presented.

So she's not correct in the way she's presenting the claim, but technically, she's right.

This is another example of Ted and Patty looking for any excuse NOT to answer the questions I raise.

Since I don't ask with any hint of malice, quite the opposite, they can't claim I'm attacking anyone. They're stuck with lying about where I'm located.

Oh well. C'est la vie, n'est pas?

Compuelf said...

Anonymous wrote:

You all need to get a grip on life. Go chase another case. It gets old reading your one sided trash

Then visit the k00k blog and read their side.

You're free to read both sides and make up your own mind.

Ken said...

Kent, you know that I have respected your wishes for more than a decade, and have never attempted to contact you outside of cyberspace.

Perhaps it is time that you let me put this to bed for good. I've sent you an e-mail asking for your contact info.

Ken said...

Unintentional humor from da KOOOOOOOK Blog:

CI: To you this is some sort of divine justice. To me you have taken an unjust position that can not possibly help your case.

Using Ted's rules of decision, this is some sort of divine justice. God would never punish an innocent man, right, Ted? Wellllll, by Ted's reasoning, Cam murdered Lauren! How is it "unjust" to hold his shit up to his nose?

CI: That investigator who was looking into your background (if he is still looking) is certainly salivating over much of what "you" have said here. Don't you get it, Ken? Men are not judged by what others say about them. The measure of a man is what HE himself says and how HE conducts himself. [emphasis added]

[quotes from Ted]

I've never posted anything disparaging of other races.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I've never posted anything disparaging of other races.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I've never posted anything disparaging of other races.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Raghead women are too ugly to become flight attendants.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I've never posted anything disparaging of other races.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

Ragheads, towel heads, camel jockeys, and other swarthy types not allowed.
--Theodore A. Kaldis

I've never posted anything disparaging of other races.
--Theodore A. Kaldis [end quotes]

And yet, you worship the guy. Care to explain this one?

ken said...

I finally got banned from the KOOOOOOOKK blog ... for innocuous comments like these:

Ted: but you're responsible for yourself, and NOT for Cameron.

K: I am responsible for myself, and not for the man you claim murdered his illegitimate four-year-old daughter by throwing (or pushing) her off a California seacliff. Character is what you do when your actions might cost you something, and following Bobby Knight's advice to the prospective rape victim is not emblematic of character.

Ted: What are you doing to correct your own situation, besides pissing into the wind (which is essentially what all your court actions have amounted to)?

K: What "situation," Ted? That I have been falsely accused of something by people with malicious intent? And what remedy would you recommend? Smith and Wesson?!?

With CI, I believe that victims of injustice should fight like hell, and never give up. If you believe that we should all acquiesce meekly to the depredations of our betters in government, that is your choice ... but it begs the question of why you are even lifting a finger in Cam's defense.

Ted, I thank you for finally admitting that you believe that Cam is sitting in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite because he deserves to be there for murdering Lauren. He may ultimately avoid human justice, but it is nice to know that your god was able to take a serious bite out of his sorry arse.
Ken | 06.16.08 - 4:03 am | #

Ken: If it is an absolute certainty that I am reaping what I have sown, then it is an absolute certainty that Cam is reaping what he has sown.

Ted: Fine,

K: So, Cam DID murder Lauren! Thank you for clearing that up, Ted.
Ken | 06.16.08 - 3:47 am | #

Ted: What law? Whatever kind of relationship that a pair of queers who perform buggery and/or fellatio upon each other might have -- or even a pair of dykes who engage in cunnilingus -- it AIN'T a "marriage".

K: What is a "marriage," Ted? Under the law, it is nothing more than a legal relationship. Technically speaking, sexual relations are not even required.

Ted: So where is all this "binding precedent" for homosexual marriage for the past, oh, say, 218 years?

K: You elided it. I'll repeat it. As the right to marry has been deemed a fundamental right -- and I'd like to hear you argue otherwise! -- the government is required to show that any restrictions they place upon it are in furtherance of a compelling state interest. The government has failed to do so, and not for lack of trying. Read the decisions. This is, in essence, what every court has said.

You're not just ignorant, Ted ... you're stuck on beyond-stupid. You can't explain why it would be bad to extend the benefits of a legal relationship that can largely be duplicated by agreement anyway -- marriage and probate are, essentially, default contracts -- and neither can James Dobson. You can't identify the kind of harm accruing from gay marriage that would justify its prohibition -- and neither can Jay Sekulow. But as you can't win your arguments in this arena on the merits (and quite frankly, never have been able to do so), you invariably become abusive.

The legal debate over gay marriage is essentially over. California allows it, and both New York and New Jersey have both said they are legally obligated to respect California gay marriages. And they are right. It's that pesky Good Faith and Credit Clause, which trumps state constitutional provisions to the contrary. Think common-law marriage.

Debate involving constitutional law is beyond your capacity, Ted. You can't engage in it without a working understanding of basic concepts like precedent, and it is obvious that you don't have it. (I stay away from controversies regarding your bailiwick of telephone repair, as I know and respect my limitations.) Either learn legal theory, or take the advice of the Proverbs and shut up.

Ted: You're only fooling yourself -- and it is obvious to EVERYONE.

K: Who is "EVERYONE"? You ... and the voices in your head? A lot of people understand that our judges have usurped power far beyond that given to them under our Constitution. A lot of people want to do something about it.

Ted: Where is the consistency in your "logic"?

K: To you, logic is an undiscovered country. Justice Hugo Black described your jurisprudence with precision: "The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional."
Ken | 06.16.08 - 3:44 am | #

CountryGirl said...

Cameron Brown shank case dismissed
By Denise Nix on June 18, 2008 3:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Prosecutors dropped a weapon posession charge today for a man jailed while waiting trial in connection to his 4-year-old daughter's Rancho Palos Verdes cliff death.

Cameron Brown, 46, was charged with one felony count of custodial posession of a weapon after a jailer found a razor blade in a book Brown borrowed from the jail library, according to Deputy District Attorney Dennis Lockfield.

Lockfield said the case was dismissed because he did not believe it could be proved that Brown knew about the razor.

(Link for whole article)

Pretrial for retrial on Lauren's murder is set for June 30th.

Ken said...

I hate being right, but I told you so.

This is a "get out of jail free" card for Cam Brown. While you can perhaps hold your nose and swallow the notion that they didn't tape the interview, or that they "lost" the cast molds of alleged footprints they took at the scene, charging someone when you have no evidence whatsoever with which to charge him is beyond the pale.

If the judge lets it in, the case is over. Cam walks.

loretta said...

He should have pled out a long time ago to involuntary. Stupid.

His life is pretty much a bust even if he walks.

Anonymous said...

If you have a felony conviction on your record, life really tends to suck. You can't even vote in some states, and good luck in finding a job that actually pays the bills.

After five years in a cage, he won't be the same man who went in. I give the marriage about two years.

CountryGirl said...


A pretrial was held yesterday in Brown's case in its new home before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor. However, Brown wasn't there. Sheriff's deputies told Pastor that Brown refused to leave the jail to come to court, according to Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum. There was no explanation given for Brown's boycott of the proceeding, during which another pretrial was scheduled for July 15.

CountryGirl said...

Maybe he couldn't stand to see those flip flops again, ya think?

Anonymous said...

Report the news, all of it even though it does go against your evil ways. From what I have been told, the Shank prosectution was thrown out. Yes, bogus charge.

One down one to go

ken said...

anonymous: Report the news, all of it even though it does go against your evil ways.

Hi, Patty. In case you missed it, it was reported by countrygirl. Don't think anyone cares about it here; I dismissed it as squirrelly when it was first reported.

FWIW, lead investigator Danny Smith is now a PI in Idaho:

Wonder what kind of dirt he might be willing to dish on the Kook Kaldis Klan? Is Patty really as ugly as KFI reported? Was Cam really a gay porn star in his former life? Ted alluded to some pretty sordid secrets that they were digging up on members of the family, which naturally begs the question as to what they are. :)

Ken said...

Bit of a screw-up there: Danny Smith's website is at In case anyone cares, the Kook Kaldis Klan's blog is at

CountryGirl said...

Name: Brown, Cameron John
Next Court Date: 8/1/2008

Action: Trial
Courthouse: Criminal Justice Center, Los Angeles
Department 107

Description: Cameron Brown is accused of killing his 4-year-old daughter, Lauren Sarene Key, who died after plunging off a Rancho Palos Verdes cliff on Nov. 8, 2000. A jury deadlocked on the different degrees of murder in the summer of 2006.

Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:
Hi, Patty. In case you missed it, it was reported by countrygirl. Don't think anyone cares about it here; I dismissed it as squirrelly when it was first reported.

I questioned it as well, though it was certainly possible. After all, Ted presents that Cam's life was and is in danger at the jail.

Even so, with the evidence made known to us, there was no realistic way to expect a guilty verdict on the weapon.

FWIW, lead investigator Danny Smith is now a PI in Idaho:

Wonder what kind of dirt he might be willing to dish on the Kook Kaldis Klan? Is Patty really as ugly as KFI reported?

Others have said she looks like Ted without the facial hair and bad comb over.

Was Cam really a gay porn star in his former life?

It's said that anything is possible.

Ted alluded to some pretty sordid secrets that they were digging up on members of the family, which naturally begs the question as to what they are. :)

Curiosity makes me want to know, but unless the secrets have any bearing on the case, I don't expect we'll ever be told.

Of course, it's possible "Burnout Bill" will tell us more about Cameron's less than honorable actions. Presuming Bill's claims about Cameron going through baggage and stealing cameras and such are true (no evidence has been presented one way or the other), then there are bound to be more secrets.

mocha said...

Hi Everybody!!!

Ken said...

From the KOOOOOOK Blog -- chances are that it probably won't last all that long over there:

CI: Yep. That seems about right, Ken. You were offended by Ted's basic opinion and his choice of words (Chiefs and indians). And from this you have drawn the ammunition needed to call Cameron Brown a baby-killer and conclude that each of us are nothing more than liars who lie because we care about Cam and know Ted Kaldis. Your response seems overblown and inappropriate, particularly when one considers that Ted Kaldis has done NOTHING more than express an opinion that has absolutely no rational way of causing you any kind of harm in the real world. IT'S A FRIGGEN OPINION!

Ted deliberately set out to malign my reputation. If it happens on USENET, it actually does spill over to the real world. And if you would so slavishly defend Ted for expressing his "friggen opinion," you have no right to whine when OTHERS express the "FRIGGEN OPINION" that CAMERON JOHN BROWN IS A COLD-BLOODED BABY-KILLER! Can't have it both ways, CI.

As for you, I have taken you to task for your blind and irrational devotion to that brain-dead oaf, and what it has done to compromise your otherwise sound principles. I faced this dilemma when it came to my attention that Hank Hanegraaff was a fraud. He had a powerful forum from and no love for Bob Larson; if I were to defend Hanegraff while knowing that he was a fraud, I would have lost all moral standing to criticize Larson for his fraud. I chose the road of principle, even though it was by far the tougher slog. Sadly, you and Ted have chosen the lower road.

I have been consistently using the Cam Brown incident as a "teaching moment" for Ted. If the facts are as you contend, the parallels between Cam's travails and mine are both numerous and close. Ted cannot credibly take the positions he takes in my case without their being applied to Cam's to his obvious detriment. Think about it for a second: If it is somehow "my fault" that I had lawfully expressed my opinion on matters of public importance in a manner angering certain public officials and thereby evoking a reaction, is it not Cam Brown's fault that he knowingly placed little Lauren in mortal danger, thereby angering certain public officials (e.g., Danny Smith) and thereby evoking a reaction (causing LA authorities to charge him with first-degree murder)? You can't ride both horses at the same time. Here's a classic example:

[Ken:] Let's do the math according to Kaldis Rules: First and foremost, we know that Cameron Brown is a cold-blooded baby-killer, because it is an immutable law that you reap what you sow and therefore, he has earned his long-term apartment in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California. Also, as Cam could have cut a deal for involuntary manslaughter and been out on the street a long time ago, he made an obvious mistake in fighting the system. And you are making the same mistake you accuse me of by whingeing about it on USENET and in a cheesy gripe site.

Let's face it, Ted: Even if you get a complete acquittal (which is far more likely in the face of the LASD's last blunder, and the fact that Cam has lost enough weight to achieve "cocaine chic"), I wouldn't call five years in the can without recourse a win.

If you are going to counsel that others should sacrifice their principles on the altar of expediency, shouldn't you also counsel your baby-killin' brudder-in-law to do the same? After all, isn't good advice always good advice? Just listen to your whine:

[CI:] Do you understand that we are talking about a man who has virtually been deprived of sunlight for 5 years? Cam Brown loved Lauren more than life and he is depending on our justice system and the honesty of men to expose the truth, nothing but the truth and the entire friggen truth in a court of law.

Exactly why should the rest of us even give a flying fuck? After all, Ted has asserted the proposition -- and you have slavishly defended him for it -- that when the ravening wolf of government tyranny comes to the other guy's door (remember Gerry Spence's parable?), that the rest of us should turn a blind eye and thank our lucky stars that we are not him. Well, the wolf has come to Cam's door. Why shouldn't the rest of us take Ted's advice now?

Ken said...

From da KoooooK Blog:

Re: My reference to Ted as "St. Ted of the Buffet"

CI: Ted, btw, has a great sense of humor. He loves good food and is an excellent chef. He reminds me of the fabulous chef from Spain, Jose Andres.

Do you live in the real world, or an extended episode of "Shallow Hal?" Unless Ted has lost about about half a battleship (a photo from the last trial establishes that he had not as of then), he ( ) would never be mistaken for Chef Andres ( ). You have a remarkable capacity for self-delusion, CI.

Andres is known for bringing the "small plates" concept to America. Ted obviously needs a forklift for his.

As for Ted's love of "good food," all that we have heard (from him, I might add!) is that he buys his cookies in bulk. Bulk cookies may be many things, but good food they are not.

As for Ted's "sense of humor," he is at his most hilarious when he isn't intending to be funny. I loved the bit about the only time that he can stay faithful to the teachings of the Bible is when he is stone drunk. (Based on my long observation of him, this appears to be true.)

Doot Doot Do said...

I find it all very confusing...

BTW, shut it Mocha.

Compuelf said...

I wonder how they will justify deleting this one:

From the front page:

Sixteen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.

This is why I'm against the death penalty. Imagine if the executions had gone ahead. 16 people would have been put to death for a crime they didn't commit.

I wish I could pretend 100% of those who have been executed were guilty, but the statistics simply don't make it possible.
Kent Wills | 08.11.08 - 6:00 pm | #

Compuelf said...

Who is Mocha?

Anonymous said...

Welllll, I finally got banned over at the KooooooK Blog.

This is what appears to have set them off:

Ted: Admit what? I know that this is YOUR version of events, but so far you don't seem to have adequately convinced anyone of it.

I've convinced a lot of people. Convincing a corrupt judge is, as you have suggested with respect to Judge Arnold, is not an easy task.

Ted: In order to do so, you choose to ignore and deny some patently obvious FACTS.

You mean, like the fact that a judge decided a case in which she was a defendant, despite the fact that there were other non-conflicted judges available and authorized by statute to hear the case? The Supreme Court has held that that is a violation of a litigant's Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that any decision uttered as a result is void ab initio. The facts in question are not just "patently obvious," but judicially noticeable. But you continue to ignore them, because it serves your purposes to do so.

And yet, you have the temerity to ask me to accept your "facts"?

I don't know if Cam is innocent or guilty. Cam's marathon incarceration is strictly his fault, as he invoked his speedy trial right for strategic advantage, to select a judge who may be hostile to law enforcement. If the attorneys believe that the case is still so close (ignoring trial delusion, and their lies to you to keep up your spirits) that they have to pay such a heavy price for that marginal advantage, maybe it isn't the slam-dunk you claim it is. Why hasn't Geragos filed in federal court for relief in the nature of habeas corpus, if Cam is so indisputably innocent?

You are telling me one thing with your words, and your attorneys are telling me another by their actions. I am naturally inclined to believe them over you.

All I know is that, under a straightforward application of the law as it now is -- which I freely acknowledge as being profoundly unjust -- the State has the legal authority to detain Cam pending a trial on the merits. All I have been concerned about in Cameron's case is due process; I don't care overmuch whether he is guilty or not (although I sincerely hope that he is not).

I understand that Maggot Loaf with Watery Potatoes is on today's menu at the Hotel California. Bon appetit!

Ted: But you prefer to pretend that there is some sort of equivalence here, so that you can equivocte.

In both cases, due process violations are alleged. In my case, the facts are judicially noticeable; in a civil case, judicial notice constitutes conclusive proof. In my case, the law is clearly established by hidebound United States Supreme Court precedent, which is supposed to be dispositive.

We honestly don't know what happened on Inspiration Point on that fateful day; it is possible that Cam could have used Lauren as a makeshift medicine ball. By stark contrast, it is established beyond reasonable dispute that the judges in my case employed the Bill of Rights as a makeshift tampon.

Unfortunately for you, Ted, I can beat you relentlessly for your hypocrisy, as you can't make an argument for Cam that doesn't invalidate your arguments against me.

Ken said...

Patty/CI's response:

Ken, how can you continue blaming Ted for your problems when it is clear that the reason you are not an attorney right now is because you failed to abide by the policy, procedure and process established by the entity you wanted to become a part of? Your attacks on Ted and his family do more to damage your credibility than help it. But then, considering that you sued everyone but God rather than go through the hoops and appeals process established by the Colorado Bar Association it only goes to show that you employ a scorched earth policy rather than acknowledge the process and procedures that has been in place for decades. The sooner you realize that Ted is not your problem and stop this crazy behavior, the better. Every time you attack Ted or anyone else, you bring to mind the likelihood that the Bar had good reason to question your stability and judgment.

You are hereby banned until further notice.

My reply:

CI: Ken, how can you continue blaming Ted for your problems

A lie is a terrible way to say good-bye. I'm not blaming Ted for anything that he is not personally accountable for.

CI: when it is clear that the reason you are not an attorney right now is because you failed to abide by the policy, procedure and process established by the entity you wanted to become a part of?

What part of "'A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law. Obviously an applicant could not be excluded merely because he was a Republican or a Negro or a member of a particular church. Even in applying permissible standards, officers of a State cannot exclude an applicant when there is no basis for their finding that he fails to meet these standards, or when their action is invidiously discriminatory.' Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 239 (1957)." do you not understand?

CI: But then, considering that you sued everyone but God rather than go through the hoops and appeals process established by the Colorado Bar Association it only goes to show that you employ a scorched earth policy rather than acknowledge the process and procedures that has been in place for decades.

As Barry Goldwater put it, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice ... and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." And in closing, I would cordially recommend that you take down the Brandeis quote, as you obviously do not subscribe to it. Government officials must act within the confines of the law, or there is no law.

And if you don't believe that, stop your infernal whining and hand Cam his shit sandwich.

Ken said...

As I can't respond at the Kook Kaldis Klan's blog

CI: You had the choice of following the process and procedure available to you through the Bar Association. You chose not to do so because you believed they were "out to get you!"

The KooK Kaldis Kredo: When all else fails, LIE HARD!!! The legal problem was that (a) they didn't follow their process and procedure, and (b) several of the procedures they had were in conflict with superior federal law. You can't really complain about Craig Hum taking liberties when you have no problem when other officials do the same.

CI: They questioned your stability due to the fact that you have left an undeniable trail of attack on one Bob Larson and brought what was believed to be frivolous suits against him -- if I understand it right.

The Kook Kaldis Kredo: When even that fails, LIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE!!! Two courts with jurisdiction over the matter found that the lawsuits in question were not frivolous, which for First Amendment purposes is dispositive. And since when is it improper to attack a televangelist who is defrauding little old ladies out of their Social Security checks? You don't have a problem with the government punishing indirectly what they could not punish directly: constitutionally protected speech? And as for the "if I understand it right" part, you've read enough to know that you are lying.

CI: They questioned you about it and you refused to provide the answers. Instead, you began suing the daylights out of the system.

Again, you make Craig Hum (allegedly) look like a rank amateur. You can't sue the daylights out of the system unless the individuals in question have violated the law. By way of example, even you have admitted that it was a clear violation of Colo. R. Civ. P. 201 for Carlos Samour to be on the Inquiry Panel (the investigative body) and the Hearing Panel (the adjudicatory body). This is violative of federal civil rights law, and precipitates a cause of action.

Which rights am I supposed to give up without a fight? And why should we be concerned about Cam Brown, if the rest of us are obliged to give up our rights without a fight?

CI: You were not, imo, discriminated against or singled out without just cause. They questioned your actions and it was up to you to provide them with adequate reason to believe you were justified.

Depends on the questions. For the right to self-expression to have any practical meaning, government cannot restrain it in an indirect manner. By way of example, in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, you were at liberty to say whatever you wanted to, but if you ever said something the government didn’t like, Uday Hussein was reportedly at liberty to cut your tongue out. However, there are far more subtle ways for government to control speech and/or conduct, equally impermissible under American law. As the Colorado Supreme Court, with defendant Mary Mullarkey voting in the majority, observed:

The government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest . . . For if the government could deny a benefit to a person
because of his [exercise of] constitutionally protected [rights], his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to produce a result which it could not command directly. Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible.

University of Colorado v. Derdeyn, 863 P.2d 929, 947 (Colo. 1993) (citing Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 583, 597 (1972)).

CI: As an officer of the Court you would be expected to uphold certain standards, and instead you chose to attack those who attempt to question and enforce those standards.

The government can only act lawfully within the bounds of their charter. If not, then there is no rule of law -- and no one has standing or reason to question Cam's treatment. You can't have this both ways, kiddies.


Actually, it has everything to do with Cam Brown. If the rest of us are not free to fight abuses of governmental authority with vigor, then neither is Cam. That you choose willfully to not acknowledge this fact destroys your argument utterly. A grand jury heard evidence and decided that there was enough evidence to detain Cam pending a trial on the merits; so what if Craig Hum took some liberties with the evidence? You have declared that our masters in government are free to abuse their authority, and it would be impertinent for us to fight it. A trial was held on the matter, and all twelve jurors found that Cam had incurred some level of criminal liability in the death of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter; so what if Judge Arnold took some liberties with the evidence he would permit the jury to hear? You have declared here that our masters in government are free to abuse their authority, and it would be impertinent for us to fight it. Cam has been held in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California for nearly five years and has had no choice but to accept this state of affairs because the State has been slow in turning over discovery, and "that's how it's done in Los Angeles!"; so what if that is how things are done in Los Angeles? You have declared here that our masters in government are free to abuse their authority, and it would be impertinent for us to fight it.

CI: It also isn't Ted's fault! And, it certainly isn't MY FAULT! I have had nothing to do with it and want nothing to do with it! You continue to bring it here and cast aspersions on everyone here because you have so-called been discriminated against!

What is your fault is that you and Ted are incorrigible hypocrites. You really can't whine about the horrible treatment your precious baby-killing brudder-in-law has received at the remorseless hands of the leviathan of the State when you cheerfully acquiesce when others suffer a similar fate.

NaCl said...

What's the latest? Has he been tried yet? Is he still in jail?