Tuesday, July 28, 2009

KCAL TV Story on Retrial


Anonymous said...

My son went to school with lauren. i remember she was always reluctant to go see her dad.she became withdrawn right before her death.she was a beautiful girl and my son missed her when he went to school without her.

Ronni said...

There is coverage all over the place of the first day. Nothing for yesterday. What's up? I found articles in sources from England, Ireland, and Australia, as well as nationwide coverage, here.

ken said...

Nobody was home, except for Sprocket.

Denise Nix found something better to do than listen to cross, having sat through the first go. Sprocket may be the only reliable source of info we have this time.

loretta said...

We may have to buy the transcripts again, but I'll wait and see what new evidence or new witnesses show up and get the closing arguments.

ken said...

It's getting harder and harder for "anony" over at the KKK blog to deny that she is in fact Patricia Kaldis Brown:

anony: Than you haven't a clue what fair and impartial means. If Nix had showed up for cross examination she would have seen the vast majority of Sarah testimony was contradicted with legal documents. Sarah's testimony consisted of stories which could not be corroborated by witnesses or documentation or anything else. It was only a matter of her word alone. Then in cross examination document after document was produced that contradicted what she said. Ken you made it through law school, which do you give more credence?

It depends. I've seen an awful lot of documents -- even those filed under penalty of perjury -- which contained the baldest of demonstrable lies. When I pointed out instances of perjury by Bob Larson and subornation by his attorney, how far do you think I got? All too often, the contents of a legal document are more "politically correct" than factually accurate.

And as for cross-examination, I know how easy it is for an attorney to take a comment out of context on cross, and how often it happens. Suffice it to say that I am reluctant to accept the word of the wife and brother-in-law of the defendant unquestioningly and especially, when the brother-in-law has been demonstrated to be a compulsive sociopath, and his dutiful sister repeatedly refuses to call him on his lies and hypocrisy. Craig Hum asked those questions with full knowledge of what Harris would ask on cross, and made the professional judgment that Sarah's testimony would be helpful to his case. And who is responsible for the prosecution of acts of perjury? Don't think in a million years that Craig Hum (who has an ethical duty to not put on perjured evidence) is ever going to call Sarah on anything short of the most brazen act of perjury.

Speaking of media coverage, where in the hell is Greta sans Substance? If this case were nearly as bad as you claim, she'd be all over it like white on rice ... and it's not like she wouldn't learn of it from pillow talk.

As for Denise not being there, in case you hadn't noticed, your husband is not Michael Jackson. If this were the trial of someone of that level of prominence, you'd expect Stephen Colbert to be staked out in the freakin' toilet (a skit lampooning the coverage of John Mark Karr). He's just not going to get that kind of media attention; I'm surprised that it even earned AP coverage this time around. IIRC, Denise sat through the first trial, and knows what happened on the first go around. If she made the judgment call that Harris was going to do no more damage than Geragos did, it is hard for me to question that judgment without sufficient evidence to the contrary.

anony: There were many documents that she had previously filed under penalty of perjury, and many contained statements she had made that were contradicted by other official documents. What was displayed by these documents was that Sarah had no problem perjuring herself consistently. The overwhelming theme of the cross was "So your testimony yesterday wasn't really the truth, was it?" as Sarah squirmed.

That is the short definition of any decent cross-examination of a material witness, which is why so many potential witnesses run to ground. If Sarah lies like a Kaldis, the jury will discount her testimony appropriately. That having said, it isn't going to be a big factor in this case. The real questions the jury will wrestle with are the ones being raised by the peanut gallery -- the "why in Sam Hill did he take her there in the first place" questions. To the typical juror, too many unlikely things have to happen for the incident to be deemed an "accident."

ken said...

To follow up on the above, which was posted originally on the KKK Blog (for newbies, that's the "Kook Kaldis Klan" ... and if you know anything about Ted, you know why he is widely regarded as a nut-job of epic proportion), the only two who would know and care about the whereabouts of Denise Nix of the Breeze are the "Terrible Twins" (Ted and Patty are fraternal twins). Sprocket has her own blog, and wouldn't waste her time writing on the KKK Blog. Harris has other fish to fry, and anony has no legal knowledge to speak of. Ted usually posts under his own name, and the writing styles are substantially different. Thus by default (and Sprocket could probably confirm this in noting who was there and who was not), the poster known as "anony" pretty much has to be Patty.

loretta said...

Well, it wouldn't surprise me. What is still puzzling is that they have continued to harm the case. They are no different from the Peterson family, making the defendant look worse by presenting absurd fiction, revising history, vilifying the mother, impugning the cops, and presenting a most inappropriate and unprofessional demeanor throughout.

They are doing Cam *no* favors.

Ronni said...

I wish somebody besides anonymous Klansters would post some updates.

CountryGirl said...

Same old, same old. Hum had no problem on re-direct with Sarah during the first trial. His re-direct showed the jury how Geragos used only part of Sarah's notes and left out what she wrote that damaged Cameron.

The jury will hear Cameron's snickering during the 911 call and testimony about how he took the time to take off his clothes so he wouldn't get them wet before he pulled Lauren from the water. Won't be a stretch for them to believe Sarah's testimony about leaving Lauren in front of the house and driving off.

Speaking of the 911 call, here's a blogger who says he was the other voice on the phone.


Ken said...

Ted: There are many things to be said here, and alas I don't have the time to say them right now. Ken Smith is just blathering and has NO idea what he is talking about. Perhaps on the weekend I might have time to post a few entries that should knock your socks off.

Are we finally going to see ... Ted Jong-Il's PREPARATION-H BOMB?!? You know, the dud that didn't explode during the last trial?

Ted: So then what? Sarah was lying then, but is telling the truth now? Why should we believe her?

But you ask a good question, Ted -- one that is certainly relevant to this blog. First you drink, and then you don't drink, and then you drink, and then you don't drink ... just listening to you could drive a man to drink! 8) Which is it these days? And what is the story with regard to that magical night with Tull, when you became thick as a brick? First, you implied that you had partaken of the electric beer, as you thought it made you "cool" and part of the "in crowd" who understood their music (the implication was that we did not) and then, when I pointed out that LSD is forever, you backpedaled like Ronnie Lott on an Elway bomb. And then, there is the Mark Fuhrman Moment where you claimed that you never used the words "nigger" or "coon," and John Hattan pointed out on cross that you used them both with some frequency (evidence of this always gets censored at this blog).

Why should ANYONE believe you, Ted? Were you lying then, or ARE YOU LYING NOW?

It would take considerably more than the unsubstantiated word of the compulsive sociopath and self-confessed LSD abuser and violent felon Theodore A. Kaldis to persuade me that Sarah was lying. Memories from ten years back tend to be fuzzy, which is why defense attorneys generally press for delays when they believe it likely that their clients will be found guilty (which appears to be the case with Cam). Also, when a statement is taken out of context, it may sound as though it is a lie when it is in fact entirely consistent with other statements the witness made. One should always withhold judgment on the veracity of a witness' testimony until after redirect.

As CG points out: "Same old, same old. Hum had no problem on re-direct with Sarah during the first trial. His re-direct showed the jury how Geragos used only part of Sarah's notes and left out what she wrote that damaged Cameron." And, as the Wyoming Supreme Court reminds us, “half the truth is often a lie in effect.” Twing v. Schott, 338 P.2d 839, 841 (Wyo. 1959). You will understand if I defer judgment on Sarah's credibility to the people who have to hear the whole story -- the jury.

ken said...

Ronni: I wish somebody besides anonymous Klansters would post some updates.

Don't tell me that you're censoring the Terrible Twins! You're better off giving Ted enough rope to hang himself, letting him look like the drooling nut-cases he is.

Ronni said...

Ken, I even posted a link to the comments over there, on my blog (ronni's rants). I just want to hear a more objective source...

ken said...

Glad to hear it, Ronni. Methinks the Terrible Twins don't think they can compete on an even playing field, so it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't bother.

Unfortunately, the only qualifying source we can count on is probably Sprocket. Denise isn't covering the trial full-time.

Ken said...

Not likely to survive over at the KKK blog:
Ted: "Sheesh" is a dupe of the prosecution.

Most people are going to look at this through the lens of common sense -- something you have never had even a passing acquaintance with. For every one Natalie Yeargan, there are a dozen incidents like the ones in Louisiana and Melbourne. Like it not, the average Joe Plumber is going to presume, and not without reason, that it is more likely than not that Cam murdered Lauren. The circumstances are such that you have to postulate a staggering array of coincidences for it to not be a species of murder, and it doesn't help that ten out of twelve jurors were not willing to do so in the last trial. That the jury hung on the level of criminal liability -- as opposed to guilt -- is not lost on those who have read the AP and Breeze articles. In their minds, he was pronounced guilty, and can you really argue with them? After all, you would do the same thing, as you have done so in the past.

As for the jury, they have a more difficult assignment. It is not enough for them to come to the conclusion that it is considerably more likely than not that Cam murdered Lauren. They have to be convinced beyond a reasonable (and not the Kaldis bar, which changes radically depending on the outcome Ted wants) doubt that Cam was legally responsible for Lauren's death (whether it is manslaughter, depraved heart murder, or premeditated murder). I won't go there because I'm not privy to the evidence ... but I am the exception, not the rule.

Ted: If Cameron Brown actually were the inhumane ogre that he has been portrayed to be, he CERTAINLY had more than enough opportunity to show that side of his personality to me. And yet he never did. Because that sort of character is possessed NOT by Cameron, but rather by the man who tries to portray him as such.

Most people who know serial killers are shocked when they find out. From what I understand, those who claim to know Cam who are not part of the Kook Kaldis Klan describe him as being capable of the requisite level of anger and/or malice. Others say that he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. His ex-girlfriends would probably know a side of him you have never seen, and it is this Cameron Brown that Craig Hum intends to show at trial.

That you have never witnessed it doesn't mean that he isn't capable of it.
Intriguing insights into the Kook Kaldis Klan.

ken said...

Ted Kaldis' Preparation-H-bomb may have gone off, and no one noticed:

Case Insider: It just occurred to me that at least a few of the jurors will probably wonder why any man was ordered to pay 40% of his wages toward child support. No one pays that much child support for one child. Curious, don't you think?

Ted: They've already found out. Sarah LIED on the form used to fill in the data for the "Disometer", the computer program used in California to determine the appropriate amount of child support that one should pay. She used the joint expenses for both her and her husband, but she put down that she was single. Moreover, her weekly salary had been cut in half on the day before she filled out the form. And it just so happened that the company for which she was working was owned by her husband and his brother. (All this information was brought out in cross-examination.)

This form was filled out under penalty of perjury, btw.

EVERYBODY lies on those goddamned things, if they can. Now, I'm not saying that it is right; I'm merely saying that it is true. It's the most consistent source of forensic work that an accountant gets. And do you know how often it gets prosecuted? That's right.

(As an amusing historical sidebar, when Bob Larson told the Westword that "everybody lies" in defense of the exorbitant compensation package he revealed during his divorce proceeding, his attorneys had to backpedal like Champ Bailey. 8) )

That having been said, it is a fact that cuts both ways. On the one hand, Sarah did what pretty much everybody does, when given half a chance. On the other, it tends to prove that there was acrimony between Sarah and Cam, which tends to establish that he had a motive for murder.

The old golfer's axiom applies here: You have to play the ball as it lies. Sarah probably did fudge the numbers, and probably had help from her now-hubby. The statute of limitations for perjury is passed. Sarah told the truth on the stand, but if I'm Hum, I'm not feeling too queasy about the cross, because it arguably strengthens his case. If anyone has cause to be even slightly nervous, it is Sarah's lawyer in the custody case (subornation of perjury warrants disbarment, but it is never prosecuted by the bar, as I found out the hard way in the Larson case).

If this is the "H-bomb-class" evidence you claim to have, you will excuse me if I yawn. It's going to look bad to laymen on a jury, provided that they (1) haven't been through a nasty divorce, or (2) aren't CPAs or divorce lawyers.

As for a non-custodial parent being asked to pay 40% of his wages in child support, iirc, Cam was being asked to "catch up" for the years that he hadn't been paying. I'm not going to tell you that "the system" is fair and holy, but the figure was determined by a judge, and that kind of bite into one's exchequer is certainly a valid motive for murder. We are told that Cam is somewhat of a simpleton, and murder is a simpleton's solution to the problem.

If I'm a prosecuting attorney, I'm not seeing anything here that keeps me up at night.

Was this your Preparation-H-bomb, Ted? Depending on the composition of the jury, a grizzled veteran like Geragos might not have wanted to "go there" last time. I would argue that it was relevant and therefore admissible, but I could see how a judge might rule the other way. If this is what you have on Sarah, it ain't much.

Ronni said...

The Kaldis klan seems to have a strange idea of how the system works. I can see Ted on Judge Judy for something, still arguing with her after she has said "Case dismissed!"

"But, Judge! I've told you and told you that the defendant lied on his admissions form to Vacation Bible School, back in 1985! That PROVES he owes me this money!"

...and she's all, "Bert! Throw him outta here!"

Do they think that, if they pile up enough grains of sand, they will build their own Inspiration Point?

ken said...

This won't last long over there:

[Case Insider]: If Sprocket gives a blow by blow of everything that happens during this trial, she deserves the respect of all of us. It's the ones who only tell their selected side of the events that I take issue with. The fact that so many are wrongly accused and incarcerated is a fact of life.

You mean, like Theodore A. Kaldis, Asshole-at-Law? ROTFLMAO!!!

Ted has never met an exculpatory fact or binding Supreme Court precedent he hasn't been willing to ignore. In Ted's World, public officials can abuse their offices not merely with impunity, but with his vocal approval, unless their target just happens to be his (alleged) baby-killin' brudder-in-law. He even considers it perfectly acceptable for a judge be able to decide his own case -- something every civilized society has abjured for over 400 years -- when it serves his purposes ... but you know that if Sarah Key-Marer were empowered to rule on Cam's innocence or guilt, he would howl so loud that it would shatter windows in Seattle.

Does the word "hypocrisy" ever come to your mind, CI?

The one thing you guys can't accuse me of being is "unfair." I have held you to a high standard of proof, and you have freely stated that you have withheld material evidence (which necessarily precludes my coming to a firm conclusion regarding guilt). I have also told you that I'm leaving the determination of legal guilt of innocence to the jury, though it is beyond reasonable dispute that Cam's negligence resulted in Lauren's death -- even if we assume your story to be true. Where fouls are worthy of calling (e.g., the shiv incident), I don't hesitate to call them. Most of what you are complaining about, however, is not particularly egregious or adequately proven.

Ken said...

The Kook Kaldis Klanners are doing what they have to, Ronni. Problem is, if this is all that they have on Sarah, they lose -- people lie in divorce court so often that it is almost remarkable when they do tell the truth.

You know the old saying: "If you want to know the truth about a man, ask his ex-mistress." I can't wait to hear what his parade of Baywatch Babes have to say about his anger issues.

ken said...

I'm pretty sure this one won't stay around long:

CI: There is little of that nonsense this time around. There is no animousity toward the defense being displayed from the bench. We don't see a judge who is hell-bent on throwing his weight around in a biased manner. So far, so good. A huge step in the right direction.

I don't know what a fair judge looks like. I had to recuse the first one I appeared before because my opponent insinuated that he bribed him, and it has been downhill from there.

This trial is going to move more smoothly because everybody knows what's going to happen. The only wild card is the effect that Hum's procession of Baywatch Babes denigrating Cam's character and self-control is going to have on the jury. Remember that the prosecution's main theme is that Cam was doing anything and everything he could think of to get out of his child support obligation, but that his anger at Sarah and vindictive character were what kept him from relinquishing his parental rights. If Cam's ex-girlfriends all look like starlets and are younger than him, and Patty looks more like his mother -- Ted, with dishwater-grey hair -- that is not going to go well for him.

It may sound crass as all hell, but there was a reason why I suggested in the strongest of terms that Patty spend a lot of time at the gym. I don't ever expect to meet her and could care less as to what she looks like -- in stark contrast to Ted, she seems like a real nice person -- but the stark reality is that juries have this annoying tendency to gloss over the evidence and use their common sense. Common sense will tell people that when parents kill their kids, it's usually in the kind of situation we see here. They are going to see Cam as a gigolo who was hard-up for cash -- Harris dolled him up for the trial -- and unless I miss my guess, neither Cam nor Patty will take the stand.

ken said...

Chick-a-Boom, Chick-a-Boom, don'tcha just love it....

We can surmise from the reaction of the Kook Kaldis Klan that the first week of trial did not go well. Gone is the boast as to how justice will somehow prevail, now that they have the (liberal gay Democrat) judge they wanted, as opposed to the (evil conservative, pro-prosecution Republican) Judge Arnold. In this episode of How Their Stomachs Churn, Ted Kaldis is flirting with insanity:

Ted: Ken, you know SQUAT about what's really going on here.

As if YOUR invincible ignorance has EVER stopped you from commenting on ANYTHING....

Ted: You know squat about Cameron's financial sitiation, or his relationship to "Daddy Warbucks".

Either he testified during the first trial, or he didn't; there is no third option. And if Geragos didn't put him on the stand to attest to his largesse, he obviously didn't think much of your argument, or (more likely) the supporting facts simply weren't there. If Geragos thinks your argument is a cold-ass loser, why should I think any more of it?

Ted: Like everything else about Cameron, it has been COMPLETELY misrepresented by Craig Hum.

News flash for Ted: Opposing counsel spins facts their way, often as badly as you spin them the other way. You don't seem to have any problems with the flagrant dishonesty of the Mullarkey Court; why should anyone else be discomfited unduly by what Hum is allegedly doing?

Ted: As for Shannon Farren -- Craig Hum's GIRLFRIEND -- all you're gonna get from her is the same thing you got from Craig Hum: LIES!

If Daddy Warbucks had testified, she would have made some wry comment, much as she did when he battled Judge Arnold in his courtroom. Much of what Shannon Farren said during the first trial was corroborated by Denise Nix, who is more honest than you have ever been and doesn't have a dog in the fight.

The Kook Kaldis Klan doesn't know how to behave in the presence of a judge, proving it again during motions in limine (per Sprocket, who everyone is convinced is a credible free agent); reports have also reached me that you were harassing and even stalking jurors in the first trial, which would surprise me not at all, in light of the glaring character defects you have displayed on-line. Loretta Serrano hit the nail on the head in observing that you are like the Peterson clan -- doing more harm than good with your absurd outbursts.

I'm listening to your mentally-unhinged paranoid rants, and surmising that things are not going well for your side in the trial. You have, in your own words, let your emotion "overpower [your] reason," to the point where you are not capable of "listening to reason." Craig Hum is scoring some direct hits amidships, which is to be expected. You had to wait almost three years for this judge and still, you appear unsatisfied. This is a close case, whether you can bring yourself to acknowledge it or not.

You were always a few ailerons short of being mentally stable before, but this has driven you to the point of full-blown insanity.

Again, I cross-post here because certain posts tend to disappear over at the KKK Blog.

ken said...

Ted shrieked: This witness is LYING THROUGH HER TEETH!

According to "Sprocket," this juicy little tidbit, if true, never came out during cross-examination. Is Sprocket -- a veteran blogger who was observed taking copious notes, who has been praised here for her fairness (and not just by me), and who doesn't have a dog in the hunt -- lying about this, did Harris fuck up royally (which means that it doesn't matter, because the jury was never apprised of it), or is that proven and incorrigible sociopath (the proof always seems to be stricken by "Hanging Judge" Kaldis, who always has a separate procedural rule for baby-killin' brudder-in-laws) Ted Kaldis lying again?

Ted seems to have some SERIOUS impulse-control problems. Dey be stealing his bukkit? http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/funny-pictures-lolrus.jpg It is a face only a female walrus could love ( http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg ).

The Acquaintance said...

Didya notice at Sprocket's a mention of Ted chatting with the bailiff then leaving the room. Anyone have details?

loretta said...

See new entry above for updates.

Anonymous said...

has any one really been paying attention to this trial???? REALLY...... he had a chance to walk away. let the new hubby adopt her...no child support.... done, if it was all about money...he had a out
so what is the motive here....
u read all the papers and made up ur mind he guilty....period.
no i think theres a lot more to this story that we dont even know.... the guy wanting to put him in jail..... motive...he hates to lose....and a lost in his book.might be motive e-nuff....just to keep his job....
i was thinking ...ur not guilty untill u r proven otherwise.... guess im wrong..... cuz all of u reading it..... made ur mind up from the very start.....guess its GUILTY...untill proven otherwise... sad......do u even know this guy? or just what u read in the papers...w/some sort of agenda....again ...SAD