Thursday, August 13, 2009

Lifetime Movie Idea - Toad's Screenplay Outline

LIFETIME MOVIE - Working Title, "Death of Innocence By Envy"

Frumpy, barren, homely, middle-aged first generation American-Greek woman (with equally unattractive fraternal twin) living in Southern California meets and falls in love with an unlikely suitor – an All-American, blonde, freckled, muscular, surfer, outdoorsy mountain boy from Colorado ten years her junior.

To everyone’s shock, Surfer Dude proposes! Greek Frump and Surfer Dude jet off to Hawaii for romantic honeymoon and upon returning, Greek Frump discovers Surfer Dude has a child from a former lover. Greek Frump has mixed emotions about the child: jealousy, covetousness, fear, and when she meets Former Lover Babe, feels even more insecure. Former Lover Babe is a beauty: slim, fit, well bred, with a lovely English accent and refined features.

Surfer Dude protests that he hates Former Lover Babe and wishes he could have deported her when he had the chance, but Greek Frump is still uneasy and feels threatened by Former Lover Babe and the existence of Love Child. Greek Frump won’t let Surfer Dude out of her sight and insists on being present whenever Surfer Dude picks up Love Child for visitation, even though she has to miss work or change her plans or revolve her schedule around these visits. She is obsessed with fear that Surfer Dude still lusts after Former Lover Babe or may roam while taking the child on activities without here. She knows the little girl is a babe magnet and can’t risk leaving them alone.

Surfer Dude complains that he never wanted the child and that he resents having to pay almost a thousand a month in support. Greek Frump plots to take Love Child from Former Lover Babe by undermining the mommy, brainwashing the Love Child, and watching for injuries on the child during visits in order to report abuse to the authorities to build a case for Former Lover Babe’s unfitness. Greek Frump also talks Surfer Dude into filing for full custody even though he has little chance of success.

Greek Frump is barren and can never have a child, and is convinced that if she could take this child and raise her as her own, she would not only solve the financial problems of her adored husband and earn his love and gratitude forever, but punish Former Lover Babe for having the audacity to be more beautiful, more desirable, more popular, more pure, more fun, more admired and for having that child with her husband thus interconnecting their lives forever!

To hedge her bet, Greek Frump studies witchcraft and voodoo and assembles the paraphernalia for casting spells on someone to whom you wish harm or bad luck. Shortly after Greek Frump casts her spells, Surfer Dude picks up Love Child without Greek Frump present and instead of bringing her to Greek Frump’s home, as is customary, he takes Love Child on a hike to the top of a 120-foot cliff overlooking the ocean where the child falls to her death below. Surfer Dude calls Greek Frump with the bad news, insisting it was a terrible accident and Greek Frump pledges her undying support.

Surfer Dude goes on trial for murder, twice, and Greek Frump and her ugly twin go broke. At the second trial, Surfer Dude is convicted, Greek Frump shrieks after the verdict and her ugly twin has to help her walk out of the courtroom and away to face the rest of her lonely, desperate existence without Surfer Dude and without Love Child.



loretta said...

CG wrote:

We know that Patty is taking notes every day that she is there--why not post them like transcripts, especially if they are claiming that Sprocket is missing all the positive about Cameron?

It makes no sense to publish and update a blog dedicated to telling the defendant's side of the story and then not reveal what is going on in court that is already public record, already documented in transcript form available for purchase or review by anyone with the money or any attorney with the privilege.

Why not present the salient arguments and testimony that bolsters your cause?

There is no sense in having a public website and people who post under the moniker "Case Insider" (which sounds like Valerie "Jean" Paredes to me, aka "Just Amazed," aka "Misty" aka "Interested," but I digress...) without giving the readers something to prove your case.

So far, all that site has done is posit suspicion, defamation, accusations of perjury and misconduct, and banter back and forth about the law.

No testimony, no summaries, no analysis. Heck, I spent three hours a night from 9-12 or more reading the daily transcripts of the Peterson trial and then I excerpted them, summarized them and posted the important sections for my readers.

And I wasn't related to anyone, I had no dog in the fight, I had nothing to gain from it. Yet, I was willing to do more work for less than the Kaldis Klan or their dubious friend, Case Insider.

They are either lazy or liars. Or both!

The Acquaintance said...

Very dark. Coen brothers? There has to be something in it to make people want to spend money on it.

loretta said...

It's an age-old tale about envy and fear. The oldest crime in the book - murder motivated by jealousy. The interesting thing would be to have the movie in the POV of the new frumpy bride - her surprise and delight at her new husband, her disregarding any red flags he showed or any lies he told her, her supporting him no matter what, her coveting the child and despising the ex lover....

It could be a great Coen movie but also a good Lifetime movie! Who plays Ted Kaldis?

The Acquaintance said...

Ugly Twin could be played by Joseph Gannascoli (Vito from The Sopranos). Frump could be played by Aida Turturro. Ryan Phillipe could be Surf Dude.

loretta said...

Hmmm. Turturro is far to attractive. I think Frump needs to be played by John Goodman in drag.

Ronni said...


Now, Loretta, you know the actors are always more attractive than those they portray. It's a Hollywood rule.

Also, the movie will have brilliant cinematography, glorious music, and that bit of voodoo that you do so well...

Don't forget that, in the dastardly plot to acquire Lovely Child, Former Lover Babe might have to pay support to Frump (sorry...don't like the ethnic description, even if true) and Surfer Dude. Icing on the cake, babee, icing on the cake.

loretta said...

Yes, that is true, but greed as a motive is so....banal.

The Acquaintance said...

OK Bruce Vilanch could play both twins.

ken said...

Ugly Twin could be played by Mike Myers ... in the suit, of course.

Anonymous said...

That is, if Jabba the Hutt is still unavailable.

Summer's Mom said...

Thanks for a bit of levity given the acute horribleness of the case. BTW, that cliff is only 120 ft. high? Been on Ugly Twin's site and those pics seem to indicate something even higher. No one would take a kid up there, EXCEPT to kill said kid....

Wayne Delia said...

What about the Maybach? There was supposed to have been a Maybach automobile from the profits of the book and movie, according to Toad a few years back.

ken said...

The whine on the other side of cyberspace is kind of like that of an alternator bearing just before it goes out:

CI: Let's just all wait until they finish throwing shit against the wall before concluding what will stick. It's pretty much a crap shoot at this point. Jurors hate being lied to.

And what makes you think Cam's good friend Jon Hans lied? Jane Doe? The Montessori ladies? The babysitter? Even if the jury concludes that the cops did what cops do, there is more than enough there for a murder conviction. The claims regarding Patty's intention to wrest custody of Lauren from Sarah come from at least four sources corroborating one another.

I hate being lied to ... and I've been fed an incessant stream of lies from Team Cam for as long as I can recall. By stark contrast, a lot of this "shit" is going to "stick" BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE!

Is it enough to convict? Yes. Will the jurors convict? I don't have a clue, nor do I have a firm opinion at this time. Did Judge Pastor commit reversible error in not granting the motion for a mistrial? Based on what we know, it wasn't even close:

“We review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. [Citations.] ‘A motion for mistrial is directed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We have explained that “[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.”’ [Citations.]” (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953; accord, People v. Harris (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1575, 1581 [“Whether in a given case the erroneous admission of . . . evidence [of the defendant’s prior criminality] warrants granting a mistrial or whether the error can be cured by striking the testimony and admonishing the jury rests in the sound discretion of the trial court”].) “[A] witness’s volunteered statement can . . . provide the basis for a finding of incurable prejudice.” (People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 565.)

The standard is incurable prejudice, and appellate courts are even more deferential than usual. All of the evidence put on so far and reported on by Sprocket is logically relevant, even if it does paint Cam as a man of execrable personal character. Again, I'm not seeing any Ed Hoechuli-class bad calls, and you seem satisfied as to how Pastor is running his court. Stop whining about the "shit," because it is legal for Hum to throw it and a good portion of it is going to "stick."

ken said...

Jobeth: Seriously. If you're going to insist that the sky is pink with green polka dots, you're gonna have to show me the pictures if you want me to believe you. If you can't show me the pictures, then I'm going to go with the person who IS showing me the pictures, and your protestations to the contrary are that much noise. It is what it is.

"Put up or shut up" has never worked with Team Cam. You must not have been around for Ted's Preparation-H Bomb:

Ted: At a pre-trial hearing? Unfortunately, no. The "H-bomb" class evidence is still there, waiting to be set off. And it is DEVASTATING!

Wayne: If it's really H-bomb class and not Preparation-H class, why hasn't Cameron retracted the speedy trial waiver? Or has he learned to LIKE prison life too much and doesn't want to leave? Seems like retracting the waiver is in his interest if he wants to get out of prison sooner.

Of course, Kim Jong-Il's scientists devised it; naturally, it fell far short of expectations. 8)

Jobeth66 said...

Oh, I remember the H-bomb evidence, that he couldn't talk about EVEN AFTER Geragos failed his client completely in not introducing it. Saving it for exactly this appeal, I'm sure.

And hey, if revealing that is going to prejudice Cam's case, then don't talk about it, I'm all in agreement with that.

(Feeling Judge Judy-ish again) Don't piss on my leg and call it rain. Revealing this amazing cross and re-cross that Sprocket missed which explains everything that Harris has done and all his outbursts and call for mistrial, etc wouldn't hurt Cam's case *because it's already allegedly happened*. So tell us what it is, because it's already out there. It's public information. It's not secret.

(And I'm in a pissy mood. I just found out my team signed Vick. Sigh. I live for football, which my husband *hates*, and now I may have to boycott the Iggles. :( )

CountryGirl said...

Ken, wasn't CI supposed to take apart my timeline? Did I miss it?


CountryGirl said...

Ted's BOMBSHELLS were all in his mind. Example: I remember this exchange in 2005 about the 9-1-1 call:

Ken: Although Brown told investigators he cried hysterically during
his 911 call, a tape of the call played before the grand jury showed therwise, Hum said. Brown spoke calmly, and WAS HEARD
APOLOGIZING TO BATHERS AT THE NUDE BEACH because they would have to get dressed, the prosecutor said.

Ted: Hum lied. This is what Hum told the press -- that's what's SICK about it. But the actual tape will prove otherwise.

I rest my case!

loretta said...

The poster known as "Case Insider" (whom I believe is Jean Paredes) claims the following:

Let's just say this. There will be a time when we speak openly, armed with PROOF of what happened. Until then, we are not going to be engaged in tit-for-tat arguments and accused of lying. Our point of view has always been that the whole truth and nothing but the truth be aired. We are not into making up stories or creating drama to satisfy the empty hole.

I remarked on the KKK Blob:

Well, ummm, if I'm not mistaken, there is a trial going on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a trial the place where this so-called "PROOF" is to be demonstrated? And, if I haven't been asleep for three years, wasn't there already a trial where this so-called "PROOF" could have been shown? What the heck are you talkiing about? Why did the defendant pay Mark Geragos $500 an hour or whatever outrageous amount he charged to NOT show this "PROOF"?

That's just crazy and nobody is going to buy that. If Geragos were that incompetent, he should be sued for malpractice. Or, at least, get your money back. This idea that Team Cam cannot speak openly after you have already been through one trial and now claim that there is PROOF of "what happened" and have spent the past 4 years now making this claim.

Well, sorry, but it's the boy who cried wolf all over again. We just don't believe you. I guess that means I think you are lying.

Ronni said...

It never made sense not to use something that would exonerate Cameron Brown. Who was it that said, "The truth makes sense. If it doesn't make sense, it's not the truth?"

ken said...

From the other blog:

CI: Quite frankly, I don't think anyone who matters cares what you think. This is about what the jurors think.

And the jurors have good reason to think that Cam murdered Lauren. That is clear from Sprocket's detailed and incisive observations.

Moreover, the jurors have no good reason to think that the parade of non-cop witnesses, including Jon Hans and Jane Doe, were lying to them. Everyone lies in family court, so they won't think too evil of Sarah. Cam lied when he filed the false police report, as established by the tape of Sarah's confrontation with him at LAX. If you're counting on Det. Leslie to do what Mark Fuhrmann did for O.J., think again.

The jurors have eyes. And we have them in the courtroom this time, courtesy of Sprocket.

ken said...


CI: Pat Harris isn't that stupid. [That last statement was directed to Ken.]

And neither am I. Whether you want to hear it or not, Pat Harris is telling us how the trial is going by his actions. The motion for a mistrial bordered on the ludicrous, and Drama Queen Cam did not endear himself to the judge with his antics.

Remember the Kaldis Rule: "Never ask the Court for anything that you aren't certain you won't get." (Of course, there is ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception" to EVERY Kaldis Rule.)

CI: Some of the main points last time around (that all of you hung your hats on) aren't even in play this time. You would have argued points to your death which turned out to be nothing more than bs.

While this comment was presumptively aimed at Loretta, it borders on the incoherent. The case is and always has been an Occam's Razor case, and Craig Hum has given the jury ample reason to conclude that Lauren was murdered by a "planner." Whether it is enough remains to be seen, but Harris' utterance of that one idle word has increased the chances of conviction by an order of magnitude.

Cam knew exactly where he was going. He knew the location of the archery range. He knew that it was a better place to stage an "accident" than Portuguese Point. And he was a "planner." Which is why he went so far out of his way. He didn't have to worry about Lauren's stamina, because he knew that she was never coming home. You can take that one right out of Hum's summation. That's what you're facing.

You have accused a number of witnesses of "lying," even though no meaningful quantum of credible evidence to this effect has been presented to the jury. But then again, this is not remarkable. This is and has been the M.O. of Team Cam for the past five-plus years: Throw enough shit against the wall (against everyone from RPV's city fathers to even Loretta) and hopefully, some of it will stick.

Jobeth66 said...

I'm still waiting for the invisible unicorn show. I just don't get it. If there was evidence *already presented in open court* that contradicts the picture we're seeing from Betsy, then there isn't any reason to hold back on summarizing it.

Unless it doesn't exist. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it does, but I need to see some evidence of it.

I'm sorry we missed Dr. Berkowitz' testimony.

CountryGirl said...

Dr Berkowitz did the pediatric consult and her report is page 18 & 19 of the autopsy.

CountryGirl said...

DrB hiked up to IP with Detective Danny Smith and a forensic artist. In her report she stated that it took them 50 minutes. She was in good shape (a runner, including the LA Marathon) and found the hike difficult.

She stated that in her opinion, Lauren would not have initiated the hike. Lauren had just returned from a trip to England and had been crying for 1 1/2 hours that morning, which is a fatiguing experience in itself. She felt the only way Lauren would have done the hike was under coercion/fear or with assistance, such as being carried.

Nigle140 said...

This is an interesting blog. I tried to follow the first trial and came here to do most of my reading. FINALLY, the retrial and I am praying for a better outcome than the last. I pray for justice - such a long wait - and do hope Brown is convicted of murder in 1st degree.

I would appreciate anyone's insight regarding the married frump and her imprisoned mate.

Why did surfer dude even marry the frump? What did they have in common? It has been proven that he was active, athletic and outdoorsy. Certainly, Mrs. Frump doesn't exhibit similar interests or characteristics.

Do you think surfer dude was looking for a sugar momma? Was frump wealthy? Does frump come from a family with money? Is it possible that surfer boy was looking for someone to pay his child support for him (and who better than a barren, old frump)?

I understand (from reading here) there was a another website during the 1st trial in which Jon Hans' letter was posted. Is anyone willing to share the link to that website? Does the site still exist?


The Acquaintance said...

Other website is

There has been much speculation about Cam's marriage. All I can say is that it happened pretty quickly. I spent some time with Cam and our mutual friend less than a year before Lauren's death. Cam made no mention of being involved with anyone but did seem quite interested in a woman (not his eventual wife) who was present where we were.

Nigle140 said...

Thanks for the link, The Acquaintance.

I hesitate to click on it - it feels disgustingly dirty.

Interesting about how quickly the relationship blossomed between the surfer & the frump.

Compuelf said...

It's nothing surprising. Frump had money and Surfer was looking for someone to supplement his expensive hobbies. Frump foolishly fell for Surfer's con game to a degree.

ken said...

TeddieBeer has had another acid flashback, or so it would seem....

Ted: It seems that Ken is the one who is hallucinating here, because that was NOT her testimony. She said that some crazy one-armed guy who rode a horse went into the cabin and threw BOTH her AND Cameron's stuff off a cliff. And that Cameron rappelled down the cliff and retrieved the stuff. Clearly NOT the answer that Hum expected. Other than that, she had some helpful things to say about Cameron.

Again, trial delusion on steroids. As you might expect when dealing with a sociopath like Ted Kaldis, Sprocket's transcript of the proceedings is remarkably different:

CH: Was there a time (that you) had some (of your things) in the cabin? [...] (What happened?)

JD: Cam told me a man named George, who had one arm... he rode a horse, was angry that we were staying in the cabin and threw belongings off the cliff.

The witness said the items were a radio, boom box and clothings.

JD: Cam had rode down and everything (was) brought back up.

CH: Did he have any explanation as to why only your belongings went over the cliff?

JD: No.

Ted: But I'm in the courtroom, and you're not.

Sprocket's in the courtroom, AND SHE IS HONEST.

Ken said...

Ted: Harris got MUCH more than Mark Geragos. Both Jessica Brothers and Jeff Leslie were VERY effectively discredited in cross-examination.

Unfortunately, Ted, when you aren't sleeping in the courtroom (you must have slept through Jane Doe's testimony, as evidenced by Sprocket's transcripts refuting your bizarre claims), you live in an alternate universe of invisible pink unicorns and psychotic gods who speak to you while you are having a difficult bowel movement and tell you exactly what you wanted to hear in the first place.

If things were going nearly as well as you proclaim, Harris wouldn't be asking for a mistrial.

ken said...

Ken: Talk about unintended consequences. The odds are overwhelming that the only reason Hans is testifying is because Ted is such a raging asshole, and that odds are good that a conviction may result from his testimony.

TeddieBeer, having one of his classic acid flashbacks, wrote: Jon Hans's testimony -- taken in whole, INCLUDING the cross-examination -- was VERY helpful for Cameron. So much so, that I am inclined to think that Craig Hum wishes that he had never heard of Jon Hans.

Ted, why is it that, whenever we can check your work, you are always caught in a lie? Again, Sprocket caught you out:

CH: It sounds like you really (liked the defendant)?

JH: I loved him like a brother.

CH: Was it hard for you to talk to police?

JH: It was emotional and also a relief to get it off my chest.

CH: Was it hard for you to come into court and testify?

JH: Yes.

CH: You've obviously changed your mind?

JH: Yes.

Kind-of reminds me of that other Crazy Ted, who is currently holed up in Supermax. His own brother turned him in.

Having Harris use the word "planner" was more than worth the price of bringing him to town, from Hum's perspective. "Cam is a planner. And he planned to take Lauren there."

ken said...

Ken: You can sort-of tell who's winning the P.R. battle here.

Ted: The "P.R. battle" is just a sideshow. And I'm not interested in sideshows.

Which is, of course, why you put up your website -- the one that made Jon Hans a witness for the prosecution -- and continue to post your incontinent drivel everywhere from USENET to the Daily Breeze fora. If you didn't want or need to play, this blog wouldn't be up.

For you, the truth is still an undiscovered country. I would recommend an occasional visit, at least.

Ronni said...

If things were going nearly as well as you proclaim, Harris wouldn't be asking for a mistrial.


Jobeth66 said...

Exactly. I'm still waiting for the positive spin on Hans' testimony, because everything Sprocket has in her blog is not helpful for the defense. And Ted's retelling of the 'one armed guy named George' portion of JD's that a deliberate attempt at re-writing by Ted, or is he honestly misremembering what was said, because Sprocket *specifically* had the question asked about whether Cam had explained why ONLY her stuff went over the cliff, but Ted seems to remember her stating that both their things went over the cliff. Now, if Hum asked that question directly, you'd think Ted would remember it.
Then, too, he seemed to remember that JD said it was a one-armed guy named George, not that Cam *told* her it was a one-armed guy named George. And somehow, I'm betting that Sprocket's recollection of JD saying that Cam eventually told her HE did it is probably correct.

I'll ask here, too - how does one order the transcripts from the trial? Loretta, I know you got them last time, are you going to be doing so again? I'll be happy to contribute for that.

Ronni said...

The fact that Cam threw her things off a cliff seems significant to me.

CountryGirl said...

Jobeth, you have to contact the court reporters directly and order them.

If the court uses one reporter in the morning and a different one in the afternoon, you have to contact both of them.

They are very expensive because they have to go through and remove everything that is in camera, etc and I believe it's by the page.

The GJ transcripts weren't nearly as expensive as the trial transcripts as they weren't edited and it was only two files.

loretta said...

So far, thanks to Sprocket, I have not seen any need to buy the transcripts. I really doubt that there will be enough new information this trial to justify the expense. Nobody is paying us to do this, nobody is paying me to write a book (although, if I didn't think the Kaldis Kooks would do their voodoo against me if I came to SoCal to do research, I might consider writing a book about this case...), so I cannot at this time justify the expense.

Unless there's a really surprising verdict, then maybe.

CountryGirl said...

Ronnie said: "The fact that Cam threw her things off a cliff seems significant to me".

I agree. He seems to have a habit of throwing things off cliffs when he wants revenge.

Jobeth66 said...

Perfectly understandable. It sounds like LA runs a confusing system for obtaining transcripts. In most of the jurisdictions I deal with, it's a set price per page (generally .08 or .10) and you order them through the clerk's office.

It seems odd to go directly to a private court reporter for public records, with no fee schedule - how do you know which reporters/firms are working on any one day, to know how to order them? Weird.

loretta said...

Ok, I get it. The only reason I can think of as to why nobody here will post their own version of events as they occur in the courtroom is because you are hoarding the notes and impressions for your BOOK. My best guess is that you need to keep these notes secret, because most people won't ever know what happened in the courtroom and will take your word for it down the road.

Most people won't order transcripts to compare with your notes. Sprocket won't have the interest in refuting your information, should it be published in a little mass-market paperback some day.

But, I will. I'll still be around to be your fact-checker. Just remember that when you are ready to send your manuscript to your agent. And, considering how slow and disorganized you are, Ted, I think I can beat you to press. So, your book will follow mine and I will have already prepared the reading public for your "interpretations."

Ready. Set. Go

loretta said...

Oh, that was something I posted at the KKK blob and that I expect Toad to delete.

Jobeth66 said...

Loretta, you're awesome. :)

CountryGirl said...

In Torrance where the last trial was held I think I just called the court reporter's office and asked for the information and was transferred to her extension.

Central District
Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
210 West Temple St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

I would start here and they should be able to point in the right direction.
Transcript Auditing
(213) 974-5250

ken said...

This won't last long: It can't get any funnier than this, CI! Coming to a reality TV show near you -- a Craig Hum Production, directed by M. Night Shylaman:

[Excerpt from Loretta's screen treatment]

"I have seen you there in jail. They won't let me throw your bail! Do you love me, do you, Surfer Dude?"

As for L.A. juries, they couldn't convict Robert Blake ... not to mention O.J. I'm not sure that an acquittal is going to be seen as an exoneration.

loretta said...

I see that the KKK blob still does not address the bail issue.

Why not? Is it so embarrassing to admit that Brown is a flight risk?

Why else hold him w/o bail or refuse bail (if a bail hearing ever occurred, and to my knowledge, did not)?

I know the law in Collyforny after having researched it back during Peterson, and unless it's a capital crime, a defendant is entitled to a bail hearing. So, the hearing took place and bail was denied because Brown was a flight risk, or bail was not met because the KKK didn't have the cash.

Or -- Geragos didn't ask for a bail hearing.

Either way, there's an explanation for it that they are denying.

loretta said...

So, let me try to distill this into some simple Yes or No answers from CI:

In the beginning you must know that this case was filed as a capital crime with two special circumstances (lying in wait and financial gain). There was no bail.

Ok. No Bail. Got it. That's what we figured back in 2005.

Even when those circs were not supported and bail might have become an option, it became a matter of making choices. It would have required filing an appeal which in itself was expensive. Then, in the event it was won, the potential for a multi-million dollar bail in Arnold's court was more than a little bit likely. So add it up.

So, when bail was an option, it was deemed too expensive to motion for a bail hearing (requiring an appeal, why?), or the bail was expected to be too high to meet, so no motion for bail.

Got it.

Do you spend the available funds on a defense, experts, and all the other things that the upcoming trial (or two) would cost, or do you go for the bail option?

I don't know. I'm not the one spending over 6 years in a filthy, horrific, demoralizing hellhole like LA County Jail. To me, it would be worth getting the heck out and taking my chances with a public defender and spending the time awaiting trial in the comfort of my home, in the arms of my new bride. But, that's just me. I guess Cam and Patty preferred he rot in jail rather than spend the cash or raise the cash.

Now, in regard to Patty's role as step-mother:

Some of us enjoy spending time with the kids of friends but are just as anxious when it's time for them to go home. And some of us feel compelled to support the things that make our man/woman happy because we find pleasure in doing so.

Then why undermine the mother? Why insist the child call you "Mommy"? Why badmouth the mom in front of the little child and her brother? Why have the voodoo kit under the bed? Why say things like "Sarah got what she deserved"? Why file for full custody with no chance of gaining such?

Patty's choices, based on trial testimony and documentation, belie your characterization of her.

Jobeth66 said...

Betsy's got a new entry up, but she's not feeling well so she's going to continue later. I don't see anything in the witness testimony from 8/11 AM that helps or hurts either side.

loretta said...

All people we have heard from before at the first trial. Nothing new. Cam had a temper. Cam didn't mention his daughter. No pictures of her. Nobody ever saw her. Claimed he had his ex girlfriend deported. Asked about how to lower his child support.

All things that Case Insider says didn't happen. An awful lot of people have to be liars for Team Cam to be right.

ken said...

Ken: The jury has heard the testimony of independent witnesses with nothing to gain -- and in Jon Hans' case, a lot to lose.

Case Insider [quite possibly, a member of Cam's family]: Reflecting on that, I have to agree, but probably not for the same reasons.

Jon is going to end up losing a life-long friend, presuming that he beats the rap. Not something you do lightly. This lends added credence to his testimony.

Ken: Really, Patty? The evidence speaks for itself, and it is not insubstantial.

CI: What evidence? You mean the testimony? In that case, yes, it does, but your interpretation might be a bit weak.

Why of course, I mean the testimony! What the jury hears is all that matters, and all the jury will hear on this question is that Patty wanted to snatch Lauren for her own. It makes her the penultimate villain in this saga, whether you like it or not.

As I have told you repeatedly, the jury brings its collective life experience into the courtroom. Personally, I've seen so many divorce wars over the years that I would almost be surprised if Patty didn't have designs on Lauren. Just how it is, CI.

Ken: The testimony makes intrinsic sense, and furnishes them with a motive. There will be no testimony to the contrary, unless I miss my guess. The jury will take it to the bank.

CI: Are you sure?

I'm never 100% certain as to what a jury will do, but your side's attempt to discredit Jon Hans is imho beyond weak. Sure, he was persuaded to change sides by Ted's contumacious refusal to remove his letter, but he's turning state's evidence on a life-long friend. Have you ever seen an interview with the other Crazy Ted's brother, where he speaks about having to turn him in to the Feds? What Jon did wasn't easy, on many levels.

CI: I can't help wonder why Sprocket is missing some of the testimony, especially during cross. She simply addresses it as being more questions and answers that she missed or didn't bother to jot down. I wonder if she doesn't think the questions and answers are significant?

Evidently, she wasn't nearly as impressed with the cross as you are. If you think that Jon Hans was totally destroyed on the stand, it may have been your own personal blinders. She who lives in a glass house should not be in the habit of throwing stones.

CI: If Jon Hans or anyone else hung their hat on that testimony they are fools. It's a sad reality that he simply couldn't stand his ground because he was afraid of being wrong or ridiculed on the internet. It's funny that it took so many years for some people to recall some of what they testified to.

My guess is that Jon Hans didn't want to come forward, out of a seemingly justified fear that his testimony might be what puts Cam behind bars for the rest of his life. And as for "Jane Doe," investigators may not have found her until after the first trial. The story didn't even make it into the local papers, 'tho it was weird enough to blanket Australia.

CI [regarding Sprocket]: What has become very clear to me is that she is a very strong supporter of the prosecutor and law enforcement, to the extent of being googly-eyed in their presence.

And you think that everyone with Team Cam walks on water, whilst anyone who even questions your view of the case dances with the Devil. Check your own biases at the door, CI.

Jobeth66 said...

So, Loretta, let me get this straight. If you provide someone who asks for it with copies of transcripts, and they then decide that they don't really know the guy as well as they thought they did, remove their support, ask for a positive letter to be removed, and when it isn't, make themselves available to the prosecution as a witness to tell what they remember (which they have re-evaluated after a review of everything that came out) that means YOU are "tampering" with a witness? Even though he was never CALLED as a witness, he knows the defendant so he MIGHT have been called as a witness so you tampered. Bad you. I wonder if Ted blocked Hans from his website (and all the rest of Cam's friends) to keep them from possibly being influenced by what he wrote...I mean, wouldn't want to tamper, now, right?

And why WASN'T he called as a witness at the first trial? If he was "going" to be flown to LA to testify at the preliminary, why not fly him out as a character witness for the trial? Was he on the witness list as a potential?

loretta said...

To my knowledge, Hans was not on the witness list for the first trial and had not been conctacted by Hum. According to info I got, Hans was contacted by Hum & Leslie to be a witness in the second trial and Hum & Leslie went to Colorado to meet with him in person.

Hans was reluctant to get involved at all, but was ticked off when Ted wouldn't remove his letter.

Jobeth66 said...

Oh, it's clear that Ted is responsible for Hans' appearance, nobody's refuting that. All he had to do was pull the letter when he was asked to, but he absolutely refused, because Hans apparently was being brainwashed and nobody is ever allowed to change their minds UNLESS they change it to agree with Team Cam. Then it's ok.

I'm pretty sure that's the "logic" [sic] that's being used.

loretta said...

Yeah, I'm waiting with bated breath for a call from Pat Harris.

I'd love a trip to LA.

Wayne Delia said...

On the Kooky Kaldis Klan blob, Toad "T-Money" wrote: "Jon Hans impeached himself. He had written an impassioned letter in support of Cameron which illustrated how deep his supposed friendship went. That he should cast away such a long-time friendship on the basis of the nonsense written by you and your chums only serves to thoroughly discredit him as a reliable witness."

I'm really not following this line of reasoning - not that I held out any hope of the shit on that blog ever making any sense.

Jon Hans testified to supporting Cam Brown originally, writing a letter of support to that effect which was included on Toad's pathetic "Free Cam Brown" website.

Subsequently, Hans acquired information on the Internet, specifically including the Grand Jury testimony which brought up some significant issues questioning exactly what happened. Further, according to his testimony, Hans had spoken to Camoron shortly after the incident, asking him what happened. Instead of fully describing what should have been a total accident, Cam clammed up, as if he was "taking the Fifth" outside of a court environment. Instead of using that opportunity to express righteous outrage and genuine grief, Camoron gave his close friend the silent treatment. Along comes the Grand Jury testimony, which IIRC reveals Cam's indifference and nonchalance during the 911 call, and describes actions and circumstances more suited to a dimwitted murderer than a father of a genuine accident victim daughter. Along comes Loretta's and Ken Smith's analysis, based only on the available facts, leading to reasonable conclusions not at all favorable to Cam's defense case. Along comes the Fat Fuck, who puts up a genuinely pathetic "Free Cam Brown" website - not just in web design, but also in its tortured logic and reasoning (how could a man giving his daughter a little flower be guilty of murdering her?, etc.) Hans re-evaluates his position in light of the allegations, facts, Grand Jury testimony, and analysis he read on the web, and compares that with his "life-long friend" refusing to discuss any details of the incident with him. The Fat Fuck refuses to take down the original letter of support at Hans' request, prompting Hans to turn state's witness against his former friend.

What Jon Hans did took a lot of balls, and demonstrates a depth of incredible character - a willingness to place truth and justice over the obligation to protect a friend who has not been completely forthright and forthcoming over details of a fatal accident, essentially "pleading the Fifth" in a personal conversation, where the Fifth Amendment isn't even applicable.

Ken's and Loretta's analysis appears to be exactly correct, as usual - Jon Hans has much to lose, and nothing to gain, by coming forward with his testimony against Camoron. Toad, having alienated Hans by refusing to take down Jon's letter of former support, which no longer reflects his actual position given the doubts raised by Grand Jury testimony and analysis read on the various blogs, is now in the significantly embarrassing position of quite possibly indirectly being a big factor in an eventual guilty verdict for the brother-in-law he worked so hard to defend.

Toad's protestations on the KKK Blob are entirely predictable: People should not change their minds based on opinions they read on the Internet, but the express, solitary purpose of his own "Free Cam Brown" pity-party is to get people to change their minds after reading an opinion on the Internet. It's not exactly a breaking news flash that Toad is such a flaming hypocrite.

Two words: Schaden. Freude.

Jobeth66 said...

Bated breath is ok. Just don't HOLD your breath, because I'm betting you just don't get that call... :)

Wayne Delia said...

An acquittal has always been a possibility, but what we've seen so far indicates that the chance of acquittal has gone down dramatically. Even if acquitted, Camoron would most likely have spent more time in jail than any prison sentence he would have received if he had plea-bargained to a much lesser charge. And based on the courtroom actions described by Sprocket when the Camster refused to come out of his cage, it's perfectly clear that Camoron, not the brightest bulb in the knife drawer to begin with, will be irrevocably damaged goods for the rest of his life. Patty's future will be a temporary hell up to and including the eventual reprieve via divorce. Hers would ordinarily be a story deserving of sympathy, but the recent revelations of her psychological involvement in the struggle for custody of Lauren, backfiring by inspiring her husband to make the decisions and take the actions leading to the fatal accident, also placing Patty and Toad under an extremely heavy burden of financial support, time and effort required to assist his defense.

On the more likely outcome of conviction, perhaps, on a count of Murder Two, Cam's life is effectively over. So is Patty's, unless she dumps both bums (Cam and Toad). Toad, however, may use this unfortunate outcome to continue a career of public whinging, broadcasting conspiracy theories, paranoid delusion, theological bullshit, and general delusions of grandeur all over the place. That's probably not going to happen, as I have learned from the Tawana Brawley / Reverend Al Sharpton fiasco of made-up racial charges against Dutchess County law enforcement officials 22 years ago (the FBI swooped in and refuted every one of the charges brought by Brawley) - even the biggest jerks reach a point where they realize enough is enough. We might even look forward to the pleasant reprieve of several years while Toad tries to forget his extended public embarrassment.

Jobeth66 said...

No matter what happens to Cam, Ted will spin it as a vindication of himself. He'll somehow twist things to show that he was on the "winning" side the whole time (like he did with the electric beer incident.)

Jobeth66 said...

I don't know why I bother at the KKK blog. They appear delusional. Loretta, you're spot on. If someone was anti-Cam and changed their minds based on what they'd read on that blog and/or contacts with the site owners, Ted, Patty, etc...they'd be crowing about it.

Jon was 'manipulated'. Sure he was. By Cam.

ken said...

The first version of this post mysteriously disappeared from the KKK Blog:

anony (Patty): He testified about a conversation that never happened. His memory is skewed. I believe his memory is playing tricks on him, causing him to remember things in such a way to make him feel okay about his position; and that is skewing his memory. I don't believe he is making things up; he believes he is testifying truthfully. Nevertheless, his testimony is not true.

The censor's knife strikes again! Looks like my last post on this point was too close to the mark. I will present the argument again, and copy it to Loretta's blog so that everyone can see what you feel the need to hide.

First and foremost, you can't make the above claim without admitting that you are Patty Kaldis Brown. There are only three people who would know whether such a conversation took place; Jon Hans has testified to his recollection, and Cam is still languishing in the Joey Buttafuoco Suite at the Hotel California. You might as well just drop the pretense of anonymity, as it serves no useful purpose. If it is obvious to me, it is even more obvious to Craig Hum.

If it wasn't for the fact that Jon's testimony was corroborated by that of the babysitter, the searches and the voodoo kit, I might be inclined to dismiss it, and I doubt strenuously that Hum would have even elicited it. But as it stands, five strands of independent testimony point to the apparent fact that you had designs of making Lauren your own. I forgot Sarah's testimony that you were planning to move to NoCal to "start a family," as related by Mark Geragos in the 995 motion; being Ted's twin, it would have taken nothing short of a medical miracle for you to have a child of your own. Given that the only evidence you can offer in rebuttal is that you claim that the conversation didn't happen and that Jon must have been confused and that unlike him, you have an obvious motive to lie, the reasonable person is going to believe him.

ken said...

continued from previous post:

Frankly, it doesn't matter overmuch; all that matters is what the jury believes. All they are going to hear is the inherently plausible testimony of two independent witnesses who have absolutely nothing to gain by lying, buttressed by Sarah. Unless I miss my guess, you will not be testifying in his defense, mostly on the grounds that the jury will almost certainly discount your testimony because you have a motive to lie, and Harris knows it. If Cam goes on the stand, it is tantamount to a confession that Harris believes that the case is lost, and that he needs to throw a Hail Mary pass. And again, I don't think Harris wants to open either of you up to cross-examination.

What Jon may have read on the 'Net has no logical bearing on the question of what he recalled of the alleged conversation, apart from the fact that it helped him to understand its significance. That so much was placed on the 'Net about this case is entirely the fault of your out-of-control brother; that Jon was persuaded at all was almost certainly due to the laughable quality of his arguments. There is a reason why the Ramsays hired a P.R. firm to do their talking for them, and why most criminal defense attorneys have the common sense to insist that the client's family STFU. And that brain-dead oaf has the temerity to lecture others on the virtue of "common sense?"

I respectfully disagree with Loretta; Jon was huge. Craig Hum put Jon Hans on the stand for a reason, and given the short duration of his testimony on direct (iirc, Ted put it at less than ten minutes), this is the only reason he testified. The law does not require that the prosecution show a motive, but Jon gave it to them in spades. That he was a close friend who wrote a passionate testimonial made it that much more credible. Jon was like Ted Kaczynski's brother, turning state's evidence. It took an abundance of character and probably, more than a little prompting by everyone's asshole-of-the-century, acting like an asshole.

And wouldn't that be the ultimate irony? Ted, providing the prosecution with the key to locking up Cam for the rest of his life? I won't say it will happen, but it sure could.

Ken said...

anony: For Pete's sake, he is remembering a conversation about a child that never existed. Loretta speculated about a supposed child, Jon read the speculation and thought it was real, and then had a memory of a conversation about that non-existent child. It is crazy!

You have to make allowances for Patty's desperation, Loretta. She is looking for anything to hang onto, and the thought that her actions and desires might have been the catalyst for this must be mortifying.

You have to be the villain .... because she can't be.

loretta said...

I'm still trying to figure out why if Jon Hans found some conversation on USENET referring to speculation that Cam Brown had a son (and it had to be an adult son, since the court records were of adults, not juveniles, obviously), would have any bearing whatsoever on the case. In fact, it would have helped Cam to have a son, the defense would track down the mom and show that Cam could just walk away from a kid and not support it, but not resort to murder!

It would have helped his case, not hurt it.

Wayne Delia said...

Pat Harris will be continuing his cross-examination but he has to take this important call right now.


(From Sprocket's latest, "Right before cross is to begin, Harris's phone goes off and Harris says, "That's embarassing." Either Judge Pastor or Ms. Benson jokingly says, "Hand it over." Judge Pastor asks, "Is it an expensive phone?"

PH: No, it isn't.

JP: (Joking) Then we'll take it.

I've seen this happen during the first Spector trial. If a cell phone went off by anyone in the gallery they had to leave the courtroom and their cell phone was confiscated by the bailiff's until the end of the day. I'll never forget one woman was fuming that she had to wait outside for hours to get her phone back.")

loretta said...

Conversation preceeding witness (from Sprocket):

CH: The relationship of the defendant with his wife. [...] The people's position that it was the wife who wanted to get custody. Because this was the motivating factor, for him to murder Lauren. [...] IT goes to the nature of their relationship. [...] They had money (issues?). Patty Brown had the money; all the assets. All the real estate. All the money. [...] The nature of their relationship. At the time of the murder, the defendant had nine dollars in his (checking?) account. [...] She controlled everything. She controlled the money. [...] And one of our (conclusions?) was he married her for her money. [...] So the nature of their relationship, it's a very important (motive?) of this case.


Ding, ding, ding, ding!! Shoot, that could be verbatim from this blog, unlike the accusation that Patty made that I had something to do with Jon Hans's belief that Cam had another kid. Anyhoo, this is very interesting, finally.

CountryGirl said...

Harris also brings out from the witness that Cameron likes to run from his problems. Way to go Pat! He's a planner and he runs from his problems.

Jobeth66 said...

And as CI reminds us on her blog, Cam was so upset over the loss of a *fetus* with a prior GF that they "cried together"...yet no one has seen him muster so much as a single tear over the loss of an actual child. He couldn't even be moved enough to call her MOTHER to tell her she had died, he left that to the police.

But he sure as heck made sure he wasn't going to have wet clothes, and he apologized to the nude sunbathers that they were going to have to get dressed. That really speaks to a caring, loving individual who was devastated over the loss of his child just moments before.

Ken said...

Poof insurance:

Sprocket: PH: Well, this is the second time he's done this. [...] (Regarding the relationship with his wife.) Cameron Brown supposedly called his wife fat. Cameron Brown supposedly told him Patty wasn't very smart. [...] It's (obvious?) it has no bearing on what happened at Inspiration Point.

(I think my notes are Harris continuing...)

PH: The purpose of the testimony of this witness was his emotion. [...] That he wasn't going to get into, "Oh, he was bipolar, or he said she was fat and not very smart."

(Bipolar? Interesting.) ...

JP: The financial (aspect) you are certainly available to explore. I'm not going to allow evidence use of prejorative words, (Cal. Evidence Code) 352. [...] Finances, that can be established on it's own. [...] No one is required to discover every single words. Discovery is not meant to discover every single word by a witness. [...] Mark of a good attorney is to inquire, follow up. (I find) no violation; no bad faith.

Another correct ruling, and another brutal witness admission:

The witness is asked if he ever met the defendant's wife, about ten times. He knew the defendant and Patty Brown got married.

CH: Did they get married pretty quickly after (they) met?

DB: I think so. I don't know (exactly when they met?).

CH: Did the defendant ever say why he married Patty Brown?

DB: For a lot of money. [...] She had a lot of money.

Again, I cringe, and recall my urgent recommendation that Patty get her ass in decent shape prior to trial.

Yeah, they know who Patty is. And yeah, they are going to do the math on their own. Cam was able to bed a procession of Baywatch Babes younger than him, and then he married some fat, frumpy, stupid woman almost ten years his senior. And he admitted that he married her for her money.

That she's not particularly bright identifies her as a Kaldis.

Ken said...

Usual motives:

Ken: Again, I cringe, and recall my urgent recommendation that Patty get her ass in decent shape prior to trial.

Yeah, they know who Patty is. And yeah, they are going to do the math on their own. Cam was able to bed a procession of Baywatch Babes younger than him, and then he married some fat, frumpy, stupid woman almost ten years his senior. And he admitted that he married her for her money.

That she's not particularly bright identifies her as a Kaldis.

Case Insider: You sure are gullible. And please note that the witness got the story mixed up and said Cam wanted to have Sarah deported because of the child support issue.

Got any more of those rose-colored glasses, CI? Afraid I'll have to pass on the "electric beer" that goes with 'em.

Taken together, the witnesses are telling a coherent and plausible story. By comparison, the claims Cam has made strain credulity well past the normal breaking point. If this were anyone other than Cam, you'd be believing the other side, and we both know it.

For over thirty years, my angel has walked on water. You would never hear me saying what Cam is reported as saying -- ever. Cam's personal website doesn't even have a picture of his wife, which suggests that she looks like Ted with dishwater-grey shoulder-length hair -- thereby corroborating the witness' claim: For Cam, it was a marriage of convenience.

Anonymous said...

Bunch of Judge Judy's! Did you fail law school and this is all you have to show for your life...blogging about something you really have no idea of what happend. Is this why we have a judge and jury for this trial? Let both sides be heard, and quit being so one sided in your opinions. All parties have paid their time, money and most of all their family. 7 years in Jail already for the defendent, tons of tax payers money and emotions for the families. Poor decision to be up on the cliff with a little girl of course, but there is not enough motive for the defendent, and I think you all know that deep inside this could have been as much of a careless act instead of intentional act. In closing, please look at all the facts, and do not try to convict a man via blogging. Show both sides of the story for the public and let the jury and judge do their jobs.

Jobeth66 said...

Anonymous - We're looking at both sides, and have been for the past few years. Remember, there's already BEEN a trial. We've SEEN the evidence that this jury hasn't seen yet. The last jury saw it, and agreed that he killed his daughter. They just couldn't agree on a the degree - murder 1 or murder 2. But they all agreed he did it.

If this were the first trial, 3 years ago before all the evidence was presented and a jury had already ruled, I would be right there with you. But it's not. We know what's coming. Unless Ted's h-bomb class, Perry Mason-style exculpatory evidence comes to light THIS time around, I can't see this jury going any differently than the last.

We're not "Judge Judys", we're serious people who have followed this case for years, who have read trial transcripts and GJ transcripts and reviewed expert reports and photos and listened to the 911 call and come to *informed decisions and conclusions based on the evidence*. None of us has anything against Cameron Brown personally, other than the fact that all evidence points to him having unceremoniously tossed his child off a cliff. That's not an opinion pulled out of thin air, as much as you and yours would LOVE it to be. It's based on an informed, reasoned evaluation of the facts, evidence and testimony. And I do trial work for a living, no "Judge Judying" required.

Sorry to disappoint you, but despite your protestations, we do think there is enough motive for the defendant to have done what he is accused of having done. So did the first jury. Both sides HAVE BEEN SHOWN to the public. Most of the public hasn't spent the time reviewing the evidence that we have. And the evidence does not point to Cameron Brown's innocence.

Oh - are you going to go on over to the KKK blog and tell them to stop being so one-sided in favor of Cameron?

Thought not.

ken said...

Personally, I have no opinion as to whether Cameron Brown will be found guilty or innocent, and that is by design. I care more about the process, and in seeing that he gets a fair trial -- not a perfect one, but a fair one. What I have seen so far is heartening: Judge Pastor has not made a single bad call.

The State's case-in-chief is much stronger than in the first trial. We know more because Sprocket has made this a project. The two new witnesses dropped some heavy-duty ordnance, and Pat Harris made two significant blunders which should come back to haunt him.

As for our following the case, how many people watched the O.J. trial? Frankly, if more people watched what our judges and courts were doing, we'd have better ones.

Wayne Delia said...

Laughing Boy wrote on the KKK Blob: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! And the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board had no basis for making the sort of request from Ken Smith that they did. Right.

There's something to be said for sitting in the courtroom and seeing and hearing the testimony for yourself. Ken Smith hasn't done so, therefore the value of his [ahem] "observations" is what it usually is. That and a buck & a quarter will get you a ride on the L.A. Metro."

I'm just struck with a deja-vu impression that, upon the jury reading the guilty verdict, Toad will immediately rise and bellow out an objection based on Ken Smith's difficulties with the Colorado Bar Association, and his own claim that he knows things about the now-concluded trial that he is not at liberty to discuss. Won't people please just take him at his word that there's more than meets the eye to this case? Meanwhile, Camoron will be handcuffed, dragged off to prison, screaming "You Fat Bastard!" towards the defense table, but it will be uncertain whether he's directing it at his brother-in-law or his wife.

I agree with Ken that it's not prudent to speculate on a particular outcome for this trial, and there are good reasons why it really shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things, considering how much time the Camster has been in his cage. Also, the remarks about Patty's size, appearance, level of dishevelment, body odor, wardrobe, etc. are a bit out of line - at least before those characteristics became potential material evidence in the trial. I'm not predicting an outcome, just predicting Toad's reaction.

Ken said...

Wayne: Also, the remarks about Patty's size, appearance, level of dishevelment, body odor, wardrobe, etc. are a bit out of line - at least before those characteristics became potential material evidence in the trial.

They ARE relevant at this point. The jury has seen a procession of Baywatch Babes Cam had relations with -- all younger, and hotties. Now, compare that to Patty, who is noticeably older and astonishingly plain (remember that she is Ted's fraternal twin, and you can bet on a family resemblance unless there were two separate fathers), but a good candidate for sugar mama.

I would have liked it if Patty had done what she could have to upgrade her appearance, so that it wasn't as obvious as I fear it is.

loretta said...

God knows she had plenty of time. In the time between trials, roughly 3 years, she could have dropped 40 pounds, easily, started working out either at a cheap gym or at home (it's not expensive to exercise), enlisted the skills of a decent hairdresser, upgraded her wardrobe. Easy peasy.

Heck, I dropped over 20 pounds in 3 months (and I wasn't even considered fat) in preparation to go to NYC as more svelte and glamorous at my opening off-Broadway, and I didn't have to do much except work out a little bit, play tennis, restrict my calorie intake to about 1200 a day, and get my haircut, a manicure & pedicure right before the event.

Cost? Less than $200 and a little self-discipline.

Ronni said...

And, don't forget: caring about your appearance.

Ken said...

Again, you know why ... from the other blog:

CI: Your ad homs, Ken, sound pretty desperate.

Cam is the one telling his friends that Patty is fat and stupid, and unless you posit the theory that they had different fathers (entirely possible), the best first approximation of Patty's appearance is this ( ) with dishwater-grey shoulder-length hair. Do you honestly think that the jury won't think of that -- comparing the old maid with his three young hotties -- when Craig Hum claims that Cam married her for her income?

What planet are you living on?

It matters to the case, even more than it did during the last trial. Jon Hans delivered a crushing blow ... well, Pat Harris did, in his cross.

As for Ted being galactically stupid, everyone knows that you think his ass smells of rose petals.

ken said...

Let's be honest, Loretta: Diets suck.

One of the greatest quotes of all time came from Jack LaLanne, who said that he hated going to the gym. On average, I go once a day -- not because I want to, but because I hate how I would look and feel if I didn't.

I knew this issue would come up in the trial.

Melissa said...

Actually didnt Sprocket comment that Patty had straightened and styled her hair since the last trial and that she thinks she looks much better?

loretta said...

If I didn't have a lot of clothing that I could not afford to replace, I would be less motivated to stay slim; also, if I did not play a competitive sport where you need to be in pretty good shape to be any good at, I would not be that interested in working out.

So, all Patty had to do was limit her calories by 3500 a week (500 a day) and she would have lost 40 lbs in 6 months and then just maintained that. If it was important enough, you'd do it.

As Ted's bible would tell you, where your treasure is, there is your heart. If either of them spent 1/4 the time doing some exercise or playing a sport that would be considered a cardio workout that they spend writing on that blog, they'd both be in great shape. No excuse.

CountryGirl said...

Since Sprocket didn't attend the last trial I don't know how she could know how Patty looked three years ago.

Patty didn't attend closing arguments the day I did, so I haven't seen her either.

Looks aside, her actions haven't seemed to improve much since the first trial. She was admonished by both judges for behavior.

CountryGirl said...

CI said:
I don't think this is part of Cam's lifestye as testified to in the trial. In fact, Cam was known to have long-term relationships that mattered to him a great deal. The one child we do know about caused him great pain when contemplating the loss. JD testified that they cried together and Cam DID NOT want to have the abortion. We also know that Cam did not treat his relationships casually, nor did he go around impregnating people without caring about consequence. He used precaution as a habit, and never walked away from his obligations. This is the kind of person Cam was known to be and what was testified to during the prosecutor's case. He apparently never forgot about the first child, and cared enough about Sarah and her pregnancy to seek counseling so that they could make a good decision and deal with it responsibly. That's a far sight more than we see from others who are far more unwilling to take responsibility or attempt to do the right thing. Cam was known for these traits because it was consistent in his life. That is one reason he had so many long-term and meaningful friendships.

It's unfortunate that some might try to belittle Cam because they can't imagine someone who actually cared. He cried over the loss of a fetus. Can you imagine the torment he felt over the loss of his living, breathing, beautiful child, Lauren? If you can only imagine what your reaction would be, you can't judge anyone else. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Case Insider | 08.18.09 - 10:21 am | #

I think I'm going to be sick.

CountryGirl said...

As Barney Frank would say, "What planet do you spend your time on?"

loretta said...

Well, you saw what I wrote - the only sentences missing from that story were "once upon a time" and "they all lived happily ever after."

Melissa said...

Look over Sprockets comments. She did mention that Patty looks a lot better. Maybe she saw pictures of the last trial?

She does mention how people look often.

Not that its relavent in any way. But the backbiting on how someone looks is absurd.

Yeah, maybe Cam married for money. Yeah, he seems like a dick of the first order.

(I am keeping an open mind here still, and didnt go through the first trial(s) with all of you.

To me it still is murky. Is he an asshole/dimwit or a murderer?

ken said...

This won't stay long on the other blog:

Ted: I've seen Ken Smith's "math". It's not pretty. If Ken Smith knew how to do math properly, he would a lawyer by now.

Ted's "math": One must genuflect before tyrants. Of course, there is ALWAYS a baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception. And when it comes to sucking cock, Ted is reportedly a legend in Los Angeles' gay bookstores. I was as amazed as I was amused when an employee of one of those establishments ID'd our Ted as a regular customer.

Ted: And even if not, he wouldn't be filing all sorts of crazy actions, suing judges and the like.

IOW, Cam won't be suing Judge Arnold, Craig Hum, or anyone else because it is flat-out crazy to stand up to your betters? If Ted didn't spend so much time drinking Sam Adams and a little more reading him, he might find the courage and nobility of our Founding Fathers:

“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

You would make a fine Soviet citizen, Comrade Ted! Once again, you prove that stupidity is the signal feature of the KooooooooK Kaldis Klan.

ken said...

What triggered Ted's outburst:

CI: It's nothing more than desperation when all else fails. When you start adding things up, I think it will be pretty clear.

Ken: Let's do the math. Based on Sprocket's representations, Craig Hum has placed enough evidence on the record to permit this jury to convict Cam of first-degree murder. As such, the State had a legal right to incarcerate and hold him without bail prior to trial, and his rights were not violated.

Second, Cam waived his constitutional right to a speedy trial, for what even Team Cam admits was a tactical advantage. While the delay was detestable, it was indisputably constitutional.

Six years in the Hotel California: absque damnum injuria. Ted's whine that this was the greatest injustice inflicted by the police since Sacco and Vanzetti: refuted conclusively. The law might be an ass, but it appears to have been followed.

As for what happens next, I haven't a clue and don't particularly care. If the jury acquits, Cam gets to go home to the same old woman he called ugly, fat, and stupid -- that can't be good for their marriage. And six years in the hole has a certain effect on people....

What's left to add? If he beats the rap, it is because he was able to get better representation than the untold thousands who had to make do with an overworked public defender. I can see nothing to celebrate in this affair. Nobody wins.

ken said...

CI: Your ad homs, Ken, sound pretty desperate.

So, where is your denunciation of Ted? His are true ad hominem attacks, as they do not address a single statement made, and bear no relevance to The People v. Cameron John Brown. That Patty is fat, ugly, and stupid was Cam's assessment, and it is relevant to that case.

[cross-posted to Loretta's blog to demonstrate your hypocrisy]

ken said...

They don't like dissenting voices over at the KKK Blog:

Ted: I've seen Ken Smith's "math". It's not pretty.

Cam Brown's "math" is downright hilarious: Ugly, fat, and stupid -- Patty Kaldis Brown is the ultimate CASH COW! To say that he married her solely for the money is a colossal understatement, or so it would seem. Bad things tend to come out in court, but this one is enough to send Patty straight to Reno, if she has any sense at all.


Of course, we all know that you two are fraternal twins ... "ugly, fat, and stupid" seems to run in the family.

Like Wilberforce before me, I am fighting a battle that you don't possess the wit to understand. "[I]t is the unjust judge that is the capital remover of landmarks, when he defineth amiss of lands and property. One soul sentence doth more hurt than many foul examples. For these do but corrupt the stream, the other corrupteth the fountain. So saith Solomon, Fons turbatus, et vena corrupta, est justus cadens in causa sua coram adversario [A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain or a corrupt spring]." Bacon, Essays LVI (On Judicature). "[T]yranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion." Locke, Second Treatise, Sec. 199. The inherent human freedoms with which mankind is endowed are, according to the Framers, "antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." To cede them without a fight is to disgrace ourselves and enslave our posterity.

CountryGirl said...

Is he an asshole/dimwit or a murderer?


ken said...

Poof insurance:

CI: Ken, step back and take another deep breath. Do you remember the things you have hung your hat on over the years and said very forcefully that "that" is the thing that would seal Cam's fate? I don't have the time to recount the various things, but most of them (if not all) no longer stand up under scrutiny and weren't worth a hill of beans to begin with. Now here you are again professing that "that" is the thing that is going to seal Cam's fate - something entirely different.

Again, can you send me some of those rose-colored glasses? I happen to need a stiff dose of trial delusion this morning.

To the best of my recollection, I haven't said that anything would "seal Cam's fate." In fact, I'm on record saying that acquittal was more likely than not on this go-around, though the prosecution's case appears stronger than anticipated. That having been said, "the jury is in" on the question of whether Cam's civil rights were violated by his protracted pre-trial incarceration. I don't have time to revisit the analysis I provided at the time, but according to Sprocket's most excellent chronicles, Craig Hum has put more than enough factual matter into evidence for the reasonable jury to enable them to convict on first-degree murder (i.o.w., the judge would be in error if he granted j.n.o.v.). Ergo, under California law as it now stands (I have also said that I oppose it on philosophical grounds, as it is insufficient to protect the accused), the indictment was lawful and proper.

It is the sole province of the jury to decide whether to convict; I've made it a point not to take a position regarding Cam's legal guilt or innocence. I wasn't even in the venire; they won't hear what we hear and, despite Sprocket's heroic efforts, I won't hear what they hear. I have no interest in the outcome, apart from curiosity.

CI: Do you remember saying, the cops have no reason to lie only to find out they lied over and over again?

Do you recall the context? Invariably, it was part of a teachable moment, when I was pointing out Ted's hypocrisy. But of course, you are a hypocrite as well, refusing to denounce Ted for his ad hominem attacks on me.

CI: Do you remember the rock?

What you haven't established is whether that was a lie or a faulty recollection on Brothers' part. Cops are human. They make mistakes, and act venally. Patty Brown is as susceptible to faulty recollection as Jon Hans or the AA guy, which is why delay always benefits the defense. It is simply more likely that Jon is telling the truth than Patty is.

CI: It ain't over until it's over.

No one said it was. That having been said, some of the horses have already left the barn. Cam Brown's "math" is downright hilarious: Ugly, fat, and stupid -- Patty Kaldis Brown is the ultimate CASH COW! To say that he married her solely for the money is a colossal understatement, or so it would seem. Bad things tend to come out in court, but this one is enough to send Patty straight to Reno, if she has any sense at all.

ken said...

The Oafish One bellows again:

Ted: You're no Wilberforce. Wilberforce was a servant of God. Nor are you with Locke. If you were, you would be SUPPORTING Cameron through this outrageous injustice. Instead, you are with those whom Locke wrote against.

Ted, you're hilarious! Didn't your god use Pharoah? What do you study at Bible study -- the sexual practices of homosexuals? With field trips?

Do you know anything about Locke? Have you even read his Second Treatise? Really, Ted! Take a few moments to read this excerpt: . The tyrant usurps powers which were not granted to him, such as the power to sit in judgment of one's own case, and uses it for personal advantage. But of course, in your world of outcome-based jurisprudence, you don't have any problem with the Mullarkey Court sitting in judgment of their own case. He who agrees with Ted walks on the side of the angels, no matter how execrable his character or conduct might be.

As near as can be determined, Cam has not suffered an outrageous injustice. Craig Hum has, in apparent good faith, placed facts into evidence sufficient to justify an indictment on first-degree murder charges. That was all he was required to do under law to justify a finding that Cam was to be denied bail. The standard is low and certainly, lower than I would like it to be, but I haven't been a Californian for nearly twenty years, and don't have anything to say about it. The law itself may be an ass, but this was the power given to him under law, and to the grand jury who handed down the indictment and the judge who issued the order denying bail. If the law has been followed -- any errors in the indictment process are legally deemed as "harmless error," as the required facts have been placed into evidence at trial -- how can it ever be said that your precious Camster has suffered an "outrageous injustice?"

As I've said over and over again, there is ALWAYS a "baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception" to Ted's Law.

"But I say he's innocent! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!" Really, Ted! Whether he is to be convicted or acquitted is beside the point. The question is whether the State has legal authority to hold him pending a trial on the merits, to prevent him from running off to South America, living as a surf bum under an assumed name using Daddy's money. And whether you want to hear it or not, the answer is yes.

loretta said...

If Patty had any sense, she would have kicked Cam to the curb back in 2002. But, she and her twin have no self-respect; in fact, the more they carry on and the less they change, the more obvious it is that they are self-loathing, misanthropic liars.

I have no use for either of them, I have no pity for either of them anymore, and as far as I'm concerned, no matter what the outcome of this trial, they are doomed to bad Karma.

Even if Cam is acquitted, all of their lives are doomed.

I was the lucky recipient of the backlash Karma of Ted Kaldis's rage and defamation campaign, and ever since 2006 when Patty and Ted were at their most virulent and insane, my life has just gotten better and better.

So, I guess I should thank them. The backlash from their malice has been so sweet. I can't tell you!

loretta said...

Update on today's testimony (Hayes) at Daily Breeze:


As he has twice before, a biomechanics expert said in court Thursday that 4-year-old Lauren Sarene Key was thrown over a Rancho Palos Verdes cliff to her death nearly nine years ago.

Wilson Hayes told a Los Angeles Superior Court jury that the laws of physics, coroner reports and statements to police helped form his "inescapable conclusion" about Lauren's fatal plunge on Nov. 8, 2000.

Based on Lauren's injuries, the path the weights took over the cliff and the topography of the rock face, Hayes concluded that she was launched head first, hit her face and upper body on an outcropping before bouncing into the ocean 120 feet or so below.

Jobeth66 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jobeth66 said...

Just gives me the chills thinking about it. :(

CountryGirl said...

August 29th coming up would have been her 13th birthday. Instead of celebrating Lauren's birthday, her mother will be waiting for a trial to end and hopefully, finally, justice.

loretta said...

I know, she is the same age as my Lauren.

Anonymous said...

I noticed one of your post was deleted, thus again showing me that this is a one sided post, where you are trying to prove guilt, not reckless behavior like I see it. As an outsider, this site once again looks like a one sided trash site. Show both sides, but I do enjoy reading Ken's post as he is the most realistic. The rest seem like angry women who hate men. Just my honest go ahead and delete this one too.

Ronni said...

Look. There are two blogs discussing this case. You are obviously visiting the wrong one. over here, most of us think Cameron Brown is lower than pond scum and threw his daughter off the cliff. At (or whatever it is these days) you can have a nice visit with like-minded people, who think that Cam Brown is a grieving father. Between the two, we have the balance you so crave.

loretta said...

It's rare to have any comments deleted on this blog, and I have not deleted any, so I don't know what you refer to. As far as being angry at men, not likely.

Ronni said...

BTW, did you notice that the post was deleted by the AUTHOR?

The blog owner can delete without leaving anything to show a post was ever there.

Anonymous said...

I hope that all respectful folks will look at Ronni's rant, and no that this blog is one sided. Case in point. Not really interested in the other site, but this is a hissy witch hunt here. Blame it on the author? Geeze!

ken said...

Anonymous: I noticed one of your post was deleted, thus again showing me that this is a one sided post, where you are trying to prove guilt, not reckless behavior like I see it. As an outsider, this site once again looks like a one sided trash site. Show both sides, but I do enjoy reading Ken's post as he is the most realistic. The rest seem like angry women who hate men. Just my honest go ahead and delete this one too.

With all respect, you are missing something important here: If you have a Google account (I don't), you can delete your own posts. IIRC, the same thing is true at Daily Kos, but not at Townhall.

You will find that the public discourse on this topic is, for the most part, exceptionally one-sided. Over at People You'll See in Hell (, the vote is 416-8, with most if not all of the eight "no" votes coming from Team Cam. Comments like these are representative of the discourse at the Daily Breeze (the only newspaper covering this trial): "Did you see the picture of the cliffs in the article? How could any parent allow their child to even go near the cliff? This guy threw her off."

The best place to get detailed and relatively unbiased information on this trial is Sprocket's Trials and Tribulations blog. Sprocket is a veteran trial-watcher, who is familiar enough with what goes on in these proceedings to offer good insights.

Loretta and CG don't censor, as long as the discussion is close to being on-topic and not personally abusive. That can't be said of the Kaldis blog (where my posts are often censored because the authors don't like the content).

Ronni said...

Anonymous, if you LOOK at the DELETED POST, it SAYS "Comment removed by AUTHOR." If the blog owner had deleted it, it could say, "Comment deleted by a blog administrator," or it could be gone entirely, with nothing left to show it was ever there. Do you see the difference? Noting that the time of the post is the same as the post beneath it, I will theorize that one poster hit "publish" twice in rapid succession, and both posts posted. Hence, rather than leave two identical posts there, she deleted one of HER OWN posts.

That being said, this blog is owned by people who believe Cameron Brown to be guilty. While they are willing to enter into discussion with people who think he is innocent, they are under no obligation to present both sides of the story. As I said before, there is another blog that presents the opposing view. Between the two, the balance is achieved. Have you been over to the blog at to tell them that they are not telling the opposing side? I'm sure their response will be less than polite. This blog has never claimed to present both sides of the argument.

ken said...

CI: Of course that is why Hayes was testifying! He is still spouting the party line, which is what we expected.

As if your guy doesn't.

I'm disappointed that Sprocket missed the day's testimony, as I think it would have been among the most enlightening days of the trial. But clearly, her absence is understandable:

Sprocket: I'm sorry my notes are so far behind on this case. I was down for several days with a fever of 102. As I'm slowly getting better, I've been swamped with real life responsibilities at home. I missed testimony on August 20th (Wilson Hayes, biomechanical expert) and August 21st.

Fortunately, if she catches your expert, we'll get almost the same thing: the cross of an expert is, in essence, the other expert's testimony.

CI: My question is, so what? You have to be able to prove a lot more than the physics of throwing a square box over a cliff!

Not as much as you think. In fact, the jury could get to Murder Two if the accepted the view of your expert without really straining. There's also enough evidence for Murder One -- based on public comments -- but imho, the jury will not go that far without the conclusion that Hayes wins that battle.

Here's the scenario you dread: Cam was a planner. Lauren was frightened of him. He wanted to sign the papers and be done with her; Patty wanted her as her own, and held all the purse strings (and therefore, all the cards). "Did you see the picture of the cliffs in the article? How could any parent allow their child to even go near the cliff?" The expert couldn't PROVE to a CERTAINTY that she slipped (they didn't know for certain where she went off the hill, and couldn't know) ... but it ain't very damned likely. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction on Murder One. I suspect that this is what happened in the jury box on the first go-round, but Murder Two was eventually offered as a compromise, because not enough people would go along.

I don't think they will go there, but they could.

ken said...

I'll post a nonsense post following this one; I ask one of the admins to remove it. I can't do it myself, as I don't have a Google account.

ken said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
loretta said...

There ya go. See the difference?

Ronni, your comment reminds me of how sheeple have been trained to believe that every issue has "two sides" and that news organizations are obliged to show "both sides" even if there aren't two sides to a story.

In this case, there are three sides to the story - what has been shown in evidence in documentation and in trials, what the KKK says happened, and what really happened.

If Brown doesn't testify, the jury is left with the two sides they have in front of them. Not that Brown would tell the truth, but if he were innocent of murder, I doubt he'd even still be in jail.

CountryGirl said...

Yes, and evidently it's ok for ===> to be 100% pro Cameron, but WE have to tell both sides. Notice how the anonymous trolls only come here to call names and act like net nannies.

If they want to cheerlead for a baby killer, let them join in the discussions there.

KC said...

Thanks, Loretta, for the comment on "both sides"- there is no "other side" for Auschwitz, say. Blogging IS NOT journalism (although one should be able to defend/support one's position(s), and be called out if unable to)- it's great to have this distinction made so succinctly. I'm a complete newbie to this heart-breaking case, knowing no more about it than most East-Coasters do (but doing my best to catch up, thanks to Sprocket, etc.)- please, anyone, where do I find that Grand Jury transcript from Brown One- I've been searching about for it, for naught. Thanks!

loretta said...

You won't find them online. We have a copy of the GJ transcript and three days of the first trial.

If you email me, I'll send them to you.

lorettas2 at Cox dot net

loretta said...

I guess the prosecution rested this time without bringing up the cigar box and the cut-out pictures with the candles. Hmmm.

Guess they decided not to go down that road.

Compuelf said...

So, I guess I should thank them. The backlash from their malice has been so sweet. I can't tell you!

The story of Ted's life, kind of.

He once implied he would pray for God to have "divine retribution" befall me. Shortly after that, Ames National, a corporation in which Lin and I own A LOT of stock, did a three for one split while the dividends remained the same.

Seems Ted's god doesn't quite have the concept of retribution down.

Compuelf said...

I guess the prosecution rested this time without bringing up the cigar box and the cut-out pictures with the candles. Hmmm.

Guess they decided not to go down that road.

It probably wouldn't make much difference. That Patty was/is into voodoo probably wouldn't factor into whether Cam killed Lauren or not. Other that on-line fodder to show Ted's dishonesty, it's kind of a non-issue.

Jobeth66 said...

Um, wow. Sorry for deleting a duplicate post, it apparently made Anonymous angry. (Yep, that was MY post, and as was posited, I hit "post" twice by accident, so I deleted one.

Wow, talk about paranoid!

I'm also sorry that Sprocket missed Hayes' testimony, but I hope she's feeling better.

Ronni said...

don't worry, was one of the less intelligent anonymice. Couldn't figure out the difference between "author" and "blog administrator." It seemed to think we should be "fair and balanced" like FAUX news.

loretta said...

We might have Hayes' testimony from the last trial, and I doubt it differed much this time.

I'll rustle it up if you want it.

Wayne Delia said...

"It is sad to see that Ken Smith's heart is filled with such hate. Please pray for Ken." (Theodore A. Kaldis, on the KKK Blob)

"Prayer - the last refuge of a scoundrel." (Lisa Simpson, on "The Simpsons")

Ronni said...

I'd like it, please. I saved a bunch of that, but this is a different computer...

Ronni said...

Patty might be able to raise some funds for Cam's appeal by setting up a dunking booth with Ted in it. Of course, it would have to be refilled frequently, put I'd shell out a buck or two for the delightful possibility of smacking the target and dropping him into a tub of water.

loretta said...

NEW ENTRY above reviewing Hayes' previous two appearances.