Sunday, August 23, 2009

Newton's Law & The Baggage Handler

I don't claim to be an expert in Physics; in fact, I dropped out of 12th grade Honors Physics because it required hours of homework that entailed too much Math, which interfered with my after-school job. Years later, I would have a career that required my learning a great deal about mechanical principles, machines, motion control, torque and horsepower. Thus, I understand a little bit about motion and how forces must act for motion to occur, about vectors and acceleration and the relationship between action and reaction. Incidentally, my experience with Physics is much greater than Ted Kaldis's, although he feels no shame in presuming he knows more about Physics than anyone, lay or expert. To me, the case that Brown threw the object is simply common sense.

Nevertheless, I will defer to a real expert. I suffer no illusions that "expert witnesses" are not paid well to say whatever their client needs them to say, but unlike psychology or economics, Physics is a pretty damn exact science. Rarely, if ever, do objects defy the laws of Physics.

In his original report, submitted back during the Grand Jury days, Hayes wrote this:

From a careful review of the autopsy report and post-mortem photographs, we determined that Lauren’s massive, traumatic injuries were consistent with a single, high velocity impact to the cliff face. Her injuries could not be explained from her sliding and tumbling down the cliff face or with multiple impacts to the cliff face before landing in the water of the inlet. ...


Basically, Hayes believes (and this trial is his third appearance) that Lauren could not have slipped and fallen and rolled without suffering certain types of injuries. The defense witness of the first trial (not sure who Harris has this time) said that the side of the hill was composed of soft, dry grass and not rocks. I don't know how convincing he was, but apparently not very - since none of the jurors voted to acquit.

Denise Nix reports in The Breeze:

Hayes and an associate also conducted trajectory experiments to see how fast a reasonably healthy adult man could throw objects in the 40- to 45-pound range, like Lauren.

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.


At the last trial, Hayes showed a PowerPoint presentation including huge autopsy pictures, close ups of Lauren's injuries in her face, wrist, and chest. These pictures, combined with the upcoming field trip to Inspiration Point, are likely the most damaging evidence and will haunt the jurors for years.

Hayes probably showed the same topographical maps and land surveys and once again described that fundamental Physics will demonstrate how this object moved in space, what type of trajectory it had to have in order to land a certain way inflicting certain injuries. If the object had slipped and skidded down, it would have moved at a rate of 4.6ft/second. If thrown, the object falls at 15ft./second. It's very convincing, and it's hard to refute the laws of Physics.

The same team that brought us "The Incredible Running Leap Theory" is trying to claim that Brown would have fallen along with the child if he threw a 43-pound weight off the end of the cliff. A fit, athletic man who literally threw 43-pound objects hundreds of times daily for a living at the time, lacked the balance and skill to heft a 43-pound child 12 feet or so into the air over an edge? Really?

Sure, Hayes was paid, he was good, he has a good reputation. He's no different than any number of paid experts that testify at trials every day. That the Kaldis Twins want to impeach him is perfectly normal. However, unless the defense can better demonstrate how an object can move down a cliffside and has the video to prove it, they will be hard-pressed to outshine Hayes.

82 Comments:

At 8/23/09, 5:16 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Great entry Loretta. It's a wonder Cameron could have thrown baggage for so many years what with all those face injuries he must have suffered when he fell each time he tossed a bag.

It's funny. When we were kids, my sister and I used to throw bales of hay from the loft out the loft door to the ground for dad to feed the animals in winter, and somehow neither of us managed to follow the hay.

 
At 8/23/09, 7:17 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

Let's hope there is somebody on the jury who has tossed things around...

 
At 8/24/09, 4:43 AM , Anonymous ken said...

I've just had enough of the lies over at the Kook Kaldis Klan blob. I'm sure this one will be poofed.

CI: As for your case, I can't be more clear that I don't know enough about it to come to any determination.

Bullshit on fuckin' STEROIDS!!! Judges decided a case in which they were the fuckin' defendants in tort. Show me anywhere else in the civilized world where that has ever been allowed in a democratic republic. ANYWHERE!

This is what I DESPISE about Team Cam: Not one of you possesses even the slightest vestige of honor or integrity. Ted is an established sociopath and stalker, but the rest of you have no excuse. Take you, for example. You whine uncontrollably about due process, and how it was so manifestly unfair for Judge Arnold to hear the case because he allegedly leans toward the prosecution. Tell me: how fair would it be for Jeff Leslie to serve as Cam's judge? Sarah Key-Marer? Danny Smith?

Thomas Hobbes put it this way:

"And seeing every man is presumed to do all things in order to his own benefit, no man is a fit arbitrator in his own cause: and if he were never so fit, yet equity allowing to each party equal benefit, if one be admitted to be judge, the other is to be admitted also; and so the controversy, that is, the cause of war, remains, against the law of nature."

Unless you are as inclined as Ted to drink Sam Adams as opposed to read him, you shouldn't be ignorant of who he is. And he has a lot of company, including the current United States Supreme Court:

"[T]he Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule that a judge must recuse himself when he has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in a case. This rule reflects the maxim that “[n]o man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22 (U.S. Jun. 9, 2009), slip op. at 6.

What the merits of the case are quite beside the point. This is a Brobdignagian violation of my right to have my claims heard by a fair and independent tribunal -- the very first aspect of due process.

And still, you wonder why no one believes you when you complain about "fouls" in Cam's case? You three could not tell the truth with a compass and a road map! When you lie as often as you three do, the rest of us are going to assume at the outset that you are lying from the outset. And then, you have the gall to preach to me?!

In a nutshell, you three are emblematic of all that Christianity has represented to me over the years. It is a disgusting religion, with a psychopathic god.

 
At 8/24/09, 5:06 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

More, for the same reason:

CI: Ken, Spence is a colorful, engaging and wise old man, but he wasn't speaking to us

He was speaking to incorrigible hypocrites like you, CI.

Some of understand that the system is broken. But those of us who do also understand how it is supposed to work. Most of what you whine about is actually permissible: If the law authorizes a thing, and it is standard practice to do it, how can anyone say that it is an "injustice" when and only when it is applied to Cam? For instance, Craig Hum has put more than enough evidence on to enable the jury to convict on Murder One -- especially when you use the standards required for an indictment. My own personal view is that standard is too low, and the accused should be treated better than a convicted criminal while in pre-trial incarceration. But that is my own personal view, which is trumped by the considered judgment of the people of California -- a society of which I am not a member. The State had a right to hold Cam without bail pending a trial on the merits, and pretty much any court in the land is going to find that any errors in the indictment process are harmless.

I'm tired of your mendacity and hypocrisy, CI. Everyone else sees it, but you have no shame.

CI: All I have said is that this is not the forum where it should be discussed. That goes for both sides of the argument, imo.

The Oafish One has made it the right place. You can't go complaining about phantom fouls and venial sins when they happen to you, while refusing to acknowledge obvious injustices when they happen to others. It's called "credibility," CI, and you three don't have it.

I take the consistent position that, when I see an actual foul by the State, I'll call it. And as far as I am concerned, I honestly don't care whether Cam is innocent or guilty -- even the guilty are entitled to the protections of the law. Clearly, Ted is not a Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

 
At 8/24/09, 5:15 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Ted: It is sad to see that Ken Smith's heart is filled with such hate.

Jews have a right to hate Nazis. I have earned the right to despise you, as you have done more than enough to deserve it.

Ted: Please pray for Ken.

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

Your god is evidently too busy sodomizing young boys on the golf course to be of any value as a god. After all, he wasn't even there for Cam, who has been rotting in jail for the past six years. And he certainly wasn't of much help to Lauren.

 
At 8/24/09, 7:36 AM , Blogger loretta said...

Just after you commented, Ted came in and said that even though the system was broken, it might not be broken in your case, Ken.

So, I had to say my goodbyes, which I doubt will stay:

Quote:

Game. Set. Match.

I knew it was a waste of time to bother trying to have a dialogue with you people. Maybe Ken gets some twisted entertainment value, but you all remind me of the worst kind of people I know. Not the outright criminals, not the ignorant trash, not the overt troublemakers, but the snakes in the grass, the sanctimonious hypocrites, the "smiling faces" that stab you in the back as soon as look at you. Clannish, myopic, ruthlessly judgmental, sickeningly fake.

Being around you is toxic for me. Thus, I must part. Farewell and good luck.

 
At 8/24/09, 8:42 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

CI: Thank you, Loretta, for sharing that [lyrics to "They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love"]. There is a time when each of us would do well to step back and give thought to the words we learned in sunday school or church. There is a very good reason, I believe, why a foundation based in Christianity is important. Honest reflection is good.

Is it just me, or did Case Insider completely miss the point? The lyrics were provided as a deep irony against the actions of Team Cam - one thing we can know by their actions is that they aren't Christians.

They can't be possibly so stupid as to miss a point as simple as that (except, of course, Ted), could they?

 
At 8/24/09, 8:45 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

TK: Ken apparently expects that we should side with him simply on hearing just his side of the story.

Toad apparently expects that we should side with him simply on the assumption he's got H-bomb class evidence which he can't even talk about in his side of the story.

 
At 8/24/09, 9:17 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Wayne, I think you've called it. I read CI's response to Loretta's post and sat there with my mouth open. I mean, I'm no Christian, but I sure as heck can spot a hypocrite a mile away.

And the fact that any of them refuse to respond to direct queries except to say 'it'll all be clear eventually' is frustrating, at best. We've all seen the best they have to offer, it came up short. WAY short. So what is it that they're going to throw on the table THIS time? And to not respond to direct questions about direct & cross which has *already happened* and then whine that we're not seeing the whole picture so we should refrain from commenting makes me want to scream.

 
At 8/24/09, 9:21 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Ted's reactions, pontifications, equivocations, and rectal extractions lately are not really anything new. I'm more convinced than ever of two things:

1) Ted and Patty were doing more damage in the first trial by blogging and posting on the Usenet newsgroups than Geragos could overcome. Early attempts by Geragos to get them to keep their mouths shut didn't work, so he offered a "pious lie" to Team Cam: a hint at the existence of some extremely powerful, but totally imaginary, evidence of "H-Bomb class" which would be good enough for the Caldis Cows to pin all their hopes on - evidence that was so super top-secret, it can't be discussed in public, even among Team Cam.

2) In the first trial, Hum most likely delivered an impassioned opening argument, and from my understanding, it can include the expression of intent to present evidence or witnesses that may or may not actually be presented later on, for whatever reasons. This could have been summarized to say that if the prosecution proves certain points, the jury would have to reach a certain verdict - not compelled by law, but rather compelled by the prosecution's argument to convict. That, too, may or may not happen, but I'm extremely confident Ted took that speculated opening statement way too literally, including the Geragos objection which Arnold overruled, as a paranoid delusion that his movie and book deal - oh, right, and also his brother-in-law - were screwed out of their expected justice.

Ted's got no credibility at all; even less than that, if possible, in that if Ted claims X, it's reasonable and accurate to believe not-X is actually the case, so at least he's of some use in that respect. The courts will go dark for a week or two, which usually causes the jury to get a little foggy on the specific details, particularly the financial forensics, but there are several aspects of this case which are unforgettable - terminal injury photos, the height of Inspiration Point, the psychological reluctance of the defendant one day to refuse to come out of his cell, the hystrionics of the Jackass family, the apparent lack of preparation on a few particular defense points. I don't agree with Ken that the chance of acquittal rises 30% as a result of the late summer vacation, unless the original chance of acquittal is, let's say, 2% rising to 2.6% (if the survey results on PYSIH are any indication).

 
At 8/24/09, 9:26 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

I agree. If the jury had gone to break with a large portion of defense testimony behind them, it might weigh differently.

but they didn't.

They went on break with having just spent long hours looking at pictures of that poor child's broken and battered body, and an expert testifying that her injuries are inconsistent with a slip & fall - and all logic agreed, there are no scrapes and bruises and burns consistent with having slid down gravel, but there are injuries consistent with a relatively high impact. THAT'S what they're thinking about on break.

And if they're paying attention, some of them are thinking about the fact that Lauren's 13th birthday would've occurred while they are on break, and that this poor girl never got a chance to live her life.

No, I think the timing of the break does more for the prosecution at this point, then the defense.

 
At 8/24/09, 9:32 AM , Blogger loretta said...

Toad uses the Christian crutch BS to try and show that he is somehow morally superior to us, while being completely oblivious to the fact that his message falls flat. He cannot judge anyone. He has no power to determine who is "saved" or not, or whether Ken will spend eternity in some fictional hell.

His self-loathing is only exceeded by his spectacular hypocrisy.

 
At 8/24/09, 11:28 AM , Anonymous ken said...

It probably won't last, but you know.

Ken: Some of understand that the system is broken.

Ted: But I don't know that it's broken in your case.

That is because logic and you have never gotten along very well to begin with, you got your "law degree" from the dregs of a bottle of Wild Turkey, and you are a proven stalker and sociopath who has no qualms about making up any "fact" you need to win an argument. And given your long history of lying and being caught for it, Electric Beer Boy, you wonder why no one believes your "get-up-a-running-start-to-take-a-flying-leap" theory? There's a reason why the pysih poll shows 433 guilty votes to none outside of Team Cam.

Ted lied: Ken apparently expects that we should side with him simply on hearing just his side of the story. Accordingly, we should be obliged to conclude that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board, the Denver Federal District Court, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Colorado District Court for the 2nd Judicial District (Denver), the Colorado State Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court are all wrong in his case, and that Ken is right.

I do nothing of the sort, but lying comes to you as easily as breathing. I merely ask people to examine the judicially noticeable (which, incidentally, translates to "indisputable") facts of the case.

If federal and state judges were (wo)men of honor, who could be counted on to apply the law of the land to the true facts of every case no matter how much they despised the outcome, this dispute would have been over a long time ago. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of judges placing their fingers on the scales of justice for dishonorable ends, and the problem is most pronounced when fellow judges are in the dock. The Breyer Commission described this disturbing phenomenon as “undue ‘guild favoritism.’” Stephen Breyer, et al., Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980: A Report to the Chief Justice (Sept. 2006) at 1.

How is it logically possible for me to prove that judges have placed their fingers on the scales of justice to protect their fellows, if you are entitled to a conclusive presumption that they are not? It would be like saying that the mere fact that Cam Brown took his daughter up to Inspiration Point is conclusive proof that he intended to and did murder her in cold blood. If that is "unfair" when it comes to your baby-killin' brudder-in-law, how is it fair when the rule is applied to me?

Differing weights and measures: Doesn't your LORD detest them both?

Ted: As for this nonsense about "judges deciding a case in which they were defendants in tort", well, that's just Ken's "cleverness" catching up with him. Ken thought that if he could name the court as defendants, he would paint them into a box. Alas for Ken, it didn't turn out that way.

Again, if you understood the law you wouldn't say that, but you are living proof of the fact that while ignorance is curable, stupid is most certainly forever. Evidently, "stupid" is a bottomless well in your family, according to your baby-killin' brudder-in-law.

Ted: Ken apparently hasn't learned LBJ's dictum that "you don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk".

Then all means, let us hope that the "skunks" at the LASD get their man; innocence or guilt has no bearing on it, under your rule of decision. Cameron Brown is a low-life who married your fat, ugly, and stupid sister for money (his honest admission, testified to by his close friend under oath; I've never seen Patty/anony, but can only imagine what http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/TED_AUS.jpg looks like with shoulder-length dishwater-grey hair), and therefore deserves everything the authorities can dish out to him, based on LBJ's dictum and your rule of decision.

 
At 8/24/09, 11:34 AM , Anonymous ken said...

I'm sure Wayne and Kent understand, even if you don't, Loretta.

Ted: And everyone DOES see it, except for a few whack-jobs that Ken has defending him.

Who do you have defending you? Your sister Patty (a.k.a., "anony")? Marrying that low-life piece of trailer trash (funny, but Cam does seem to think of her as his sugar mama, according to testimony given under oath by one of his friends) casts serious aspersions on her judgment. Without Cam's for-profit proposal, she'd be well on to old-maidhood by now. And as for you, the Darling of Darlinghurst will always remain single, mostly because even though gay marriage is now legal in California, you'll always have to satisfy your urges at the glory hole. You're too ugly to turn on anything but a female walrus.

In the history of USENET, no one has ever defended you except for that crank Gilligan. That's quite a record, Legendary Net-KooooooooooK.

 
At 8/24/09, 11:39 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Hypocrisy aside, there generally comes a point where the hypocrite realizes he's not fooling anyone; that even if he repeats his mantra, the situation won't magically get better; that the inescapable reality of the situation literally becomes self-evident. And that's the point to which Ted is rapidly converging. The Geragos legal bill from the first trial cost in the six figure range, with the first figure probably not a 1. His credibility is shot to hell. His fantasies of a Maybach luxury auto on the tails of an imagined book and movie deal just aren't going to happen - there's no market for the sour grapes whining of someone who partially footed the bill for either a future convicted murderer who is protesting his innocence despite a literal mountain of evidence against him, or a future six-year jail-dweller who got off on some sort of a technicality.

I've withheld belief in gods of any kind for many years, and I can rip his theological arguments to shreds. I'm also trained in mathematics, physics, and engineering, and it's relatively easy to point out exactly where his analysis goes wrong, especially with the force needed to effect the injuries that occurred, and the launch vectors required to generate that amount of force.

But for now, I'm content to let the process play itself out, and am particularly looking forward to Ted's reactions, apologetics, and absurd rationalizations after the outcome - whatever the outcome may be.

 
At 8/24/09, 11:42 AM , Blogger loretta said...

Oh, I understand it. I was stalked, threatened, defamed, libeled, reported to police, CPS, my employer; pure fiction was written and published about me online, some of which still remains today; and your friends Patty and Ted were involved for awhile.

I understand it. I just don't care anymore. I don't waste my time arguing with them or trying to get any kind of satisfaction from this business. I expect them to be miserable no matter the outcome of this trial. This is their Karma.

I have no worries that they will ever be happy, content or generous. They are miserable and evil. Period. As far as "Case Insider" I'll bet my next royalty check that she is none other than Valerie "Jean" Paredes, aka, "Just Amazed" and she is the lowest form of person imaginable. Someone like her is the only person I can think of who would support Cam Brown like this. Someone as depraved, amoral, vindictive, and pathetically ill.

I suppose one day I'll pity her. I'm not quite ready to do that, yet. But, I am not interested enough in engaging them to get upset anymore. They are like "birthers" and "teabaggers" with the same impossible stupidity, bigotry, fear and loathing.

 
At 8/25/09, 5:20 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Wow. Harris' cross of the coroner does NOT look good. He got belligerant and wouldn't let the guy answer a question so he could try to spin it his own way. Did he think the jury was going to overlook that the doctor called him on it?

And Cam flat out lied when he said he wasn't getting his full pay, his pay stubs show otherwise (talk about a generous policy - you essentially get 3 months of continuing full salary every time you were injured!)

None of the day 13 testimony went in the favor of the defense. Not good.

 
At 8/25/09, 5:33 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Sprocket's account of Day 13 is now up, and it wasn't particularly lucky for Cam.

While Sprocket's account of it is admittedly somewhat disjointed, Jane Ngo's testimony doesn't sound anywhere near as professionally negligent as had been represented to me by Team Cam -- that Team Cam would lie to me is hardly a surprise any more. Sprocket's observations are in blockquote (italics for Loretta's blog):

In March, 2004 the DA's office provided her with the finances for Cameron Brown and Patty Kaldis Brown. The witness states what bank records she received.

She received bank account records from May, 2000 to June, 2001. She also received payroll info from January 2000 to May, 2001. She also received credit card reports for Cameron Brown and Patty Brown from reporting agencies. Several agencies generated reports for as of May, 2000. She analyzed all this material and presented her findings to Hum.


So much for the claims by Team Cam that Ngo only considered Cam's income, which would have presumptively constituted professional negligence (I can't think of any exceptions, but there may be some that I haven't thought about). Ted, caught lying? Wattashock!

How do you live in SoCal on less than $1500/month take-home?

It seems that Harris is a bit of a sociopath, as well:

Harris and Hum are still shuffling around in the well area during the break. As I get up from my seat to go get a snack, Harris has an impish grin on his face and says (I believe) in Hum's direction, "I don't know hat you're making such a big deal about. That's ($96.21) not much more than what I have." As I walk past that area of the well on my way out of the courtroom, I say to Harris, "Oh I doubt that."

Geragoesthemoney must not be paying minimum wage.

Again, Team Cam lied to me:

The witness now testifies about several items that have been charged off that appear on the defendant's credit report. Some of the items don't have dates beside them as to when they became bad debts. These items appeared on a May 2001 credit report.

12/1995 $61.00 (B of A?)
08/2000 $148.00 (American Agency?)
04/2001 $161.00 (American Agency?)
07/1997 $52.00 (CWLTH)
?????? $167.00 (Metro Adjustment Bureau?)
04/30/2000 $561.00 (Area? Finance?)
2/1999 $53.00 (AFNI, Inc.?)
1/1999 $1,358 (? Agency) ...

There was a repossession from Nissan Motors in August, 1996 for $12,974.00


La repo! The repossession.

 
At 8/25/09, 5:35 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Let's play FreeCreditReport.com:

The witness also reviewed a credit report for Patty Brown. There appeared to be two charge-offs by creditors.

$911. Macys
MBNA $13,676.

The debt for this individual reflects a mortgage with Countrywide on 3/20/2001 of $176,518.

There is some kind of past due debt with ABCO (?), a date of 2/99 of $5,000.

There is some kind of payment/charge off (?) in ?/2000 of $67.00 with NACC (?).

She reviewed the balances on (I believe?) credit cards.

AA (?) $24.00
Citibank $2,049.00
Union Bk $5,737.00
Discover $6,975.00
Robinsons-May $209.00

There is a document the witness reviewed that showed Mrs. Brown was fired from her Hermosa Beach job on February 22, 2000. When she was fired, she had already taken advance vacation days. She owed the city more than she had earned when fired.

Patty Brown's W2 forms:

1999 gross: $37,657.83
1999 net: $29,313.48

2000 gross: $7,926.45
2000 net: $6,2363.23


In a way, this is actually good: You'd think that if Cam married someone for her money, he could do better than Patty. On the downside, it lends credence to Jon Hans' testimony that they planned to leave SoCal. And here, I thought Patty was a successful engineer!

This makes some of the oddities clearer:

She was given documents and she generated a report. Mr. Hum allegedly requested a review to determine if financial gain was a motive, in March, 2004. She was requested to look at the finances of both Brown's because they were married.

Harris goes over with the witness what documents she was provided by Hum. ...

Harris asks her why didn't she obtain the Federal tax returns.

JN: It's very difficult to get IRS records. I have not personally been able to get one for work (in the scope of doing her job).

Harris asks the witness if Mrs. Brown had three properties, and if she sold one on April 21, 2001. He asks her if Patty brown walked away with a profit of $73,000 from that sale.


It is beside the point at that point, apart from showing that Patty was living on money she didn't have. Assuming that Sprocket's account is reasonably accurate, child support was a burden, even to the couple.

 
At 8/25/09, 6:07 AM , Anonymous ken said...

The very definition of pointless (Sprocket's comments in blockquote [italics]):

It's stated that on the morning of Lauren's death, someone was on the Internet looking up surf reports.

Cross is finished and redirect begins.

Hum gets the witness to verify that on the morning of November 10th, someone was on the Dell Tower computer looking up surf reports.

Harris recrosses.

PH: Were you aware that Mr. Brown was actually home that morning?

TF: No.


Uh, not like the fat old hag in the second row is going to be out surfing that afternoon, Pat. Again, you don't think it matters ... but it does.

Let's do the math. Cam was looking up surf reports. Cam was picking up Lauren. Cam is a planner.... Nice.

 
At 8/25/09, 6:08 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Chinwah v. Harris: An unqualified knockout. No useful admissions helping the defense. Another Kook Kaldis Klan conspiracy theory (the five-month delay in issuing the autopsy) debunked rather brutally (Sprocket's remarks in blockquote/italics):

PH: And based on that, based on your looking at those injuries and and (?) on the back of the arm, they were still consistent with someone being thrown?

I believe Dr. Chinwah states "Yes." And that's the end of cross. Hum gets up to redirect.

CH: Was it important to you in making the determination as to MOD, to actually seeing the place where Lauren died?

Dr. C: Yes.

CH: Just based on the injuries and no knowledge of the scene, would you have been able to make a determination, based on just that?

Dr. C: No.


To come to a conclusion of homicide (as opposed to "indeterminate"), one has to be able to rule out the alternative ("accident"), and Dr. Chinwah's little field trip did exactly that. Almost Quincy-esque in his diligence. The very picture of prudence and responsibility.

I have to keep impressing on you the definition of probable cause, as it pertains to pre-trial incarceration: If you believe the government's witnesses, is there enough evidence for a reasonable person (most emphatically, not members of Team Cam) to believe that the accused had committed the crime he was charged with. There is gracious plenty here for Murder One and accordingly, the State has the legal right to hold Cam without bail.

Any misstatements by Hum before the GJ would be regarded as harmless error.

As I have said over and over again, I don't approve of the process, but that is my personal view and moral assessment, which scarcely carries the weight of a feather. Again, I don't care how this case turns out, but it is clear that the incarceration itself was not a DP violation.

 
At 8/25/09, 6:38 AM , Anonymous KC said...

Look at the number of times Cam was overdrawn on his ATM card. Wow- does someone have a little problem? Wonder how often AA random drug-tests... And, yeah, he wasn't planning to surf that day, "playing" with dearest Lauren and all, but there he is, checking out the reports anyway... Oh I do so hope the jury's awake...

 
At 8/25/09, 7:10 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

I don't think checking the surf reports is that big a deal, though - I'm not quite sure why it was focused on. I mean, it's summer. I live about 45 minutes from the shore. I check the water temps and the shore weather every day when I get to work, but odds are I'm not going to get down there. Cam was an avid surfer, that may have just been a routine check for him, even if he didn't *intend* to go surfing, he might want to check and see what the conditions are like anyway. What struck me harder about the Day 13 testimony was the forensic accountant testimony, Cam's paychecks (clear lies from him coming forward) and the coroner's testimony. The fact that there were no defensive marks on her hands, no scrapes or scratches where she tried to stop herself as she rolled, and that ALL her injuries seemed to come from a single impact as opposed to a slide down a slope are weighty.

 
At 8/25/09, 7:18 AM , Blogger loretta said...

Not having heard this first hand, and from reading the transcripts of previous trials, my impression of the value of the computer history testimony is two-fold:

1. That Hum is trying to demonstrate that Brown looked at the surf conditions (on a chilly, November day, a day where he knew he had visitation so when, exactly, was he going to surf? Why would he check the conditions? Was he checking for high tide or what?) because he was looking at them to see when would be a good time to take Lauren to the cliff to ensure high tide. This harkens back to the Peterson trial when the prosecutor showed that Peterson had done a number of searches in deep water areas within 2 hours of Modesto, supposedly for fishing sites, but possibly because of where he planned to sink his wife's body.

2. That Brown was checking surf conditions on the 10th, two days after Lauren's death, Cam is looking up surf conditions. This is straight from "The Narcissist's Playbook of Grief" when someone normal might be sick in bed, or despondent, or drunk or passed out or something because of grief over the loss of their 4-yr old daughter, but nooooo....Cam is lookin' at the surf report. Yee haw. Life goes on, buddy.

 
At 8/25/09, 7:26 AM , Blogger loretta said...

No shock value to us veterans of this case in the forensic accouting. We had the dirt on that years ago.

However, this jury is hearing it for the first time, and no doubt it has a huge impact. Brown was broke, horrible with money, up to his eyeballs in debt, had a good job with great benefits and he could not hold on to money even before he was hit with the CS judgment.

Establishing financial motive was a walk in the park.

 
At 8/25/09, 8:00 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

I didn't remember the information on the fact that his pay was NOT less than normal when he asked for the reduction in child support, though it's possible that minutae was simply lost in the mists of time. :)

 
At 8/25/09, 9:32 AM , Blogger Summer's Mom said...

Bingo- can't help but think he was figuring she would drown if the actual fall didn't kill her, there's where the tide's important. Looking over the pics of the scenes I'm really struck by his going down the "wrong" way from IP to reach her body, heading right instead of left, where she would have been. Clearly, to buy time to make sure... Also, he didn't bring a cell phone??? No one goes to a place like that without one...

 
At 8/25/09, 9:41 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Again, to be fair, cell phones weren't quite as ubiquitous in 2000 as they are now. He may not have had a cell, I don't know that this has ever been testified to.

 
At 8/25/09, 9:42 AM , Blogger loretta said...

Pretty sure he had one and didn't bring it that day. I could scrounge up the evidence if I have to.

 
At 8/25/09, 9:48 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Didn't we hear he had given his cell phone to his father to use?

 
At 8/25/09, 9:50 AM , Blogger loretta said...

The witness verifies that the defendant had already left C dock and he's asked to explain what/where he moved.

CH: How many times did the defendant call you and tell you he had a new phone number.

SS: About three or four times.

CH: Were these cell phones?

SS: Yes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PH: (The) cell phone changes. You thought he got better cell phone plans?

SS: That's what he told me.

(Knowing what I know about changing from service to service, and the penalties from canceling a contract early, I personally have a problem with that explanation.)

~~~~~~~~~

and a bunch of other references to Brown having multiple cell phone numbers.

 
At 8/25/09, 10:19 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Oh, man. I'm losing it. I should've remembered that testimony! Thanks, Loretta!

 
At 8/25/09, 12:21 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Loretta: That Hum is trying to demonstrate that Brown looked at the surf conditions (on a chilly, November day, a day where he knew he had visitation so when, exactly, was he going to surf? Why would he check the conditions? Was he checking for high tide or what?) because he was looking at them to see when would be a good time to take Lauren to the cliff to ensure high tide.

Having lived there, I know better -- the general rule was that you even wore your wetsuit in August, and the water wasn't that much colder in November (the warmest water was found right around Labor Day). It's not quite as hokey as Peterson.

 
At 8/25/09, 1:00 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

To me, the 11/10 web search shows he wasn't grieving at all (but we all knew that)!

What's with Juror #6? Not taking any notes, not paying attention to testimony, arms crossed, didn't look at pictures. Anyone else find that odd?

 
At 8/25/09, 2:09 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

I find that odd, CG - It sounds like either they're ticked they ended up on the jury and aren't going to try, or they've already made up their mind one way or the other. Either way, not good for a juror.

 
At 8/25/09, 3:23 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Correction! It was Juror #3 that Sprocket has not seen taking any notes.

Juror #6 didn't look at the autopsy photos during the ME testimony, crossed arms, etc.

Juror #6 is the woman who works for Amtrak and is being asked to work week-ends.

She is also the juror whose doctor wrote her a note that she needed to rest.

 
At 8/25/09, 4:16 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

So she's pissed at the judge. She's pissed at work. She's pissed in general. That could go either way.

 
At 8/26/09, 2:13 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:
There was a repossession from Nissan Motors in August, 1996 for $12,974.00

Would that be the repo Ted swore up and down never occurred?

If memory serves, it was reported a motorcycle was repossessed. I don't think Nissan makes motorcycles. If I am remembering correctly, it's the semantics Ted would have been arguing.

 
At 8/26/09, 2:16 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:

I'm sure Wayne and Kent understand, even if you don't, Loretta.

Ted: And everyone DOES see it, except for a few whack-jobs that Ken has defending him.

Isn't it interesting how everyone, save Ted and anyone who agrees with him 100% of the time, is in some way mentally unbalanced?

If one has spent the time to review the available evidence and reached a conclusion that doesn't match Ted's, well, that person must be suffering some sort of mental defect.

If it's one person, well, maybe. When there are so many, Ted should really consider that he's the one with the problem.

 
At 8/26/09, 7:35 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Usual caveats:

Ted: Ken doesn't like to be told that he is wrong. Whenever someone calls Ken out and tries to correct him, Ken lets loose with an incessant stream of abuse until his opponent relents or withdraws and Ken is the only one left standing. Alas for Ken, that game doesn't work on me. And Ken has had no remedy except to ratchet up the abuse against me until it is now (and has been for some whille) at an extreme level.

You are projecting again, Ted.

Unlike Ted, I am comfortable in the world of logic, reason, and evidence. I have no problem with people showing me that I am wrong, but I do have a certain aversion to people declaring that I am wrong because "I said so." When it comes to public servants, they are servants of the law, and not its master; unlike Ted, who believes that some men are our betters, I take the Framers' proclamation that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights seriously. This is the essential difference between the Christian mindset (When Jesus fucks you in the ass, you are supposed to say, "Please, Sir, may I have another thrust?") and the deistic one ("You are no better than me, and have no right to lord power over me.").

That Ted is a sociopath and self-loathing closet homosexual is an integral part of what he is, and why he takes such pleasure in being reamed on the 'Net. People are telling him what he believes about himself: that he is ugly both inside and out and just as fat and stupid as his brother-in-law thinks his twin sister is, and that his behavior is compulsive. It is, and not incidentally, the main attraction of the Madison Avenue religion known as Christianity, which holds that everyone is a sinner who needs a savior (sell the disease and make it sound awful ["Halitosis"], and then, sell the cure ["Listerine"]).

Ted is impervious to logic and reason, and equally incapable of presenting a logical argument. He is best off as a glorified telephone repairman, who only has to tinker with things and therefore, is able to avoid having to develop any people skills. It would be one thing if I were the only one saying that Ted is a mental basket case who belongs in Atascadero, but it is the consensus of everyone he encounters here on the 'Net. When everyone else who doesn't agree with you 100% is to be tarred and feathered as "whack-jobs," it is far more likely that you are the whack-job.

 
At 8/26/09, 7:58 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Usual caveats:

Case Insider: I will never understand your obsession, Ken.

Ted: You need to understand what Ken is at his core: a spoiled brat who was most likely overindulged as a child and has never learned the meaning of the word "No".

More abusive rhetoric from the Oafish One, who insists that he never throws it. Speaking of which, Ted has always been a stranger to the truth. For instance, consider this colloquy from Mar. 20, 2005 between him and Kent Wills:
___________

Kent: Sort of like claiming Cameron had no problem paying the $982 a month in support for Lauren?

Ted: In fact, he didn't. Anyone who tells you different is LYING.

Kent: If it wasn't a problem for him, why did Cameron have a repossession [on] his credit report?

Ted: The repossession was in 2004, on his pickup truck, after he had been in jail for a number of months. And it has all been straightened out, and payments made. The truck has NOT been repossessed.

Kent: Also, his bank account was overdrawn *numerous* times, Ted.

Ted: Whatever problems he has had with that -- and I don't know that he has -- the Grand Jury testimony is FULL of lies -- has been the result of his being jailed.

Kent: Someone who has plenty of money, as you implied Cameron did, shouldn't have such problems.

Ted: And in November of 2000 (when the accident took place), he DIDN'T.
_______________

Thanks to Sprocket, we now know that Cam had had a repossession by Nissan Motors (unlike Honda, Nissan doesn't make motorcycles) in 1996, and that all of the really bad things on his credit history were on there when he allegedly threw Lauren off a cliff.

Why can't Ted EVER tell the truth?

 
At 8/26/09, 9:42 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Yes, just like Hum was lying about the 9-1-1 tape that Ted said would show Cameron was sobbing.

 
At 8/26/09, 10:28 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Usuals:

Case Insider: If you attempt to alter people's behavior through intimidation and ridicule (as Alinsky suggests) you will only achieve the desired goal by attacking those who are weak and uncertain about themselves.

Shame can only affect those who possess a moral compass -- a state of affairs foreign to you.

 
At 8/26/09, 5:52 PM , Anonymous ken said...

Usuals:
-----------
Ted: Whenever someone calls Ken out and tries to correct him

Ken: Precisely where am I wrong,

Ted: Trying to sue the judicial establishment.

Ken: and why?

Ted: They have the guns. You don't.
----------
Fine, Ted. Let's apply that rule to everyone's favorite low-life cold-blooded BABY-KILLER, Cameron John Brown.

He has no right to resist, because Craig Hum has the guns and Cam doesn't. Forget about the niceties of due process and equal protection -- they don't exist. Forget about those God-given inalienable rights -- whereas God giveth, the men God put into office have the right to take away. Not much left to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, for that matter, because some men are above the law and others are beyond its protection.

Evidently, this is what your god intended, Ted. Your god is an agent of injustice, and when he wants to fuck you in the ass, you have to take it.

Come on and admit it, Ted: CAMERON DESERVES THIS! And so does your fat, ugly, and stupid deserves-to-be-an-old-maid sister. Your rules, consistently applied. Now, shut the fuck up about your baby-killin' brudder-in-law, wouldya?

 
At 8/27/09, 4:13 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Welcome to another installment of Founding Fathers Theatre:

TheOdor: Whenever someone calls John Adams out and tries to correct him

John A.: Precisely where am I wrong,

TheOdor: Trying to sue the King.

John A.: and why?

TheOdor: They have the guns. You don't.

Of course, TheOdor would never have given that advice to John Adams, because Adams sucks Odor's Jesus' cock. Patrick Henry, otoh....

 
At 8/27/09, 6:17 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

CH: Detective, did you seize a suitcase under the bed?

JL: The suitcase was not seized, but noted it's contents. [...] Wooden, small cigar box, black ceramic (figurines?), black candles. [...] Inside the cigar box were two small portions of a photographs that appeared to be cut out of a larger photograph.

Hum enters People's #49, foam board with two photos on it. These are evidence photos of what they found. Photo A is a picture of suitcase with the contents. Photo B is of the cigar box with the (head cut-out) photos of Ms. Key-Marer.

(When I see this evidence entered, my jaw almost dropped. I mean literally dropped open during testimony. I had read something about this on other web sites, but at the time I didn't believe it. I thought it was all gossip. Now come to find out it's all true and part of the trial record. I'm sitting in my seat and I'm just dumbfounded by what I'm seeing and hearing.)

Believe it now Sprocket?

 
At 8/27/09, 6:24 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

PH: Do you know what scrap booking is? [...] Cut out pictures and put them together?

(I can't believe it. I can't believe that Harris is trying to pass off the cut out photos under the Brown's bed as "scrap booking.")

Will the jury believe that Patty was "scrap booking"? Is Harris nuts?

 
At 8/27/09, 6:37 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Hum goes back to the search of the Brown's home and finding the pictures of Ms. Key-Marer in the suitcase and the black candles and black porcelain figures under the Brown's bed.

CH: Did you find a number of books on witchcraft?

PH: Objection!

JP: Sustained!

~~~
I think I know the answer.

 
At 8/27/09, 6:47 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

Somebody will have to explain to me the significance of black candles in scrapbooking. I know their significance in the Craft.

If there is a scrapbooker on the jury (and by the amount of space at hobby shops devoted to the materials used for this particular craft leads me to believe the odds are good), Harris just lost that person. Nobody likes to hear their particular hobby used as an excuse for bad behaviour.

 
At 8/27/09, 6:48 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Anyone still consider Patty Brown a victim?

 
At 8/27/09, 6:49 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

I never did.

 
At 8/27/09, 6:53 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Harris would have been better off not touching that subject at all if he had nothing better than that hair-brained question.

 
At 8/27/09, 6:55 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

I'm surprised it came up at all. It is so far out there...

 
At 8/27/09, 7:01 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

So, during Jeff Leslie's testimony that resumed on Friday, August 14th, the computer searches came in.

All of Patty's searches the day Lauren died had to do with custody issues (53 pages).

(Even Sprocket thinks that Patty discussed her research with Cameron on the phone that day when he got ahold of her.)

Patty wanted Cameron to get full legal and physical custody of Lauren. Her internet searches ended about 2pm.

An hour later Lauren was dead.

 
At 8/27/09, 7:06 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Ronni, here's Denise Nix's take on it:

While probably not a key piece of evidence in the overall case, my guess is the value of the information goes toward the animous Brown (and his wife) allegedly had toward Key-Marer during the heated custody and child support over Lauren. It's eyebrow raising, nonetheless.

 
At 8/27/09, 7:26 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

True enough!

 
At 8/27/09, 8:13 AM , Anonymous The Acquaintance said...

"Anyone still consider Patty Brown a victim?"

I haven't since reading (summaries of) sworn testimony to "come to Mommy", "smack your kid around", etc.

The last time I saw Cam - less than a year before Lauren died - I repeated something I've often said to folks who have been involved in acrimonious situations with exes: "Remember that you love your kid more than you hate your ex". Some people find the phrasing trite, but Cam is the only person who seemed to dismiss the substance of the statement.

 
At 8/27/09, 9:07 AM , Anonymous ken said...

My reaction (on the other blog, which may disappear):

SHE'S A WITCH!!! THEY'LL BURN YA!

OMG! They DID put this into evidence. And yes, anyone even vaguely familiar with the Craft will recognize it as a spell kit. Sprocket's reaction was priceless: [elided here]

You guys are some kind of Christians! What kind of Christianity do you practice down there in SoCal -- SANTERIA?

Patty wanted a child of her own, and wasn't too subtle about it:

Cam,
Ask for sole legal and physical custody of Lauren. If they tell you that you don't have a good chance of getting it, tell them you want to go for it anyway.

I love you,
Patty


I got a Black Magic Woman.
I got a Black Magic Woman.
Yes, I got a Black Magic Woman,
She's got me so blind I can't see;
But she's a Black Magic Woman and
she's trying to make a devil out of me.


Maybe Ted can tell us how the electric beer helped him to better understand Carlos Santana.

 
At 8/27/09, 9:08 AM , Anonymous ken said...

usuals:

Sprocket: PH: Do you know what scrap booking is? [...] Cut out pictures and put them together?

(I can't believe it. I can't believe that Harris is trying to pass off the cut out photos under the Brown's bed as "scrap booking.")


OMFG, Harris! Leave this one alone!!!

Lest you suggest that Pat Harris is on the side of the angels, consider this exchange:

Sprocket: Harris asks the detective who else was at the scene during the rappel down the cliff face. And that there was a discussion about the case? And you said, "Don't worry about the cost, spare no expense on this case?)

CH: Objection! (several grounds)

JP: Sustained!

(Even if this statement is true, it's totally understandable that the Sheriff's office decided to investigate this death to the fullest extent.)


It's unethical as hell, but they actually teach this in law school: Harris knew full well that he was not going to get that comment into evidence, and that it shouldn't have been there in the first place, but he wanted to make damn sure that the jury heard it. So, he brought it up, knowing that Hum's objection would be sustained on several grounds.

Evidently, there is an exception for advocates for baby-killin' brudder-in-laws to the proscription against unethical behavior.

 
At 8/27/09, 9:12 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Sprocket: Hum goes back to the search of the Brown's home and finding the pictures of Ms. Key-Marer in the suitcase and the black candles and black porcelain figures under the Brown's bed.

CH: Did you find a number of books on witchcraft?

PH: Objection!

JP: Sustained!

And that's it for this witness. I believe his testimony is finally complete.


ROTFLMAO!!!!! Ted, don't you think you should start with saving your own witch of a sister first?

 
At 8/27/09, 10:20 AM , Blogger loretta said...

This goes back to the conversation I had with Ted in the summer of 2005 when I asked him where was this alleged custody motion filed and when and how?

His response was to attack me, join the mutts, stalk me and start posting what he thought was information about me (which wasn't) but he never responded to the question of HOW his sister qualified to get custody of that child?

Then he went on to say how they were better off financially than Sarah and that she was unfit, blah blah. Talk about drinking the Kool Aid (or should I say Kook Aid).

I pointed out all the statutory reasons why this was impossible and also how to arrange for joint custody (shared custody) that would allow Brown and Patty to have Lauren about half the time and not pay any child support.

All they had to do was move to a place near Sarah and Lauren's everyday life, write up a shared parenting agreement, get Sarah to agree, get a judge to sign off, and Voila!

But, noooooo. Patty Brown was megalomaniacal about TAKING LAUREN FROM HER MOTHER.

Full stop.

 
At 8/27/09, 10:30 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

I am speechless. Utterly speechless.

I am rarely speechless.

 
At 8/27/09, 11:27 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

In case anyone wonders where I am, I'm burning my smudge stick. LOL!

 
At 8/27/09, 11:42 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

I'm burning green candles for prosperity.

 
At 8/27/09, 11:44 AM , Blogger loretta said...

I only burns me some candles when I wanna score.

 
At 8/27/09, 1:01 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

I'm burning my candles at both ends.

 
At 8/27/09, 2:07 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Wait, did I read that right? Did Harris REALLY try to insinuate that the box with the cut-out pictures of Sarah and candles and figurines was from *scrapbooking*??? He would've been SO much better off to simply not address that.

I didn't remember Patty's note about getting custody from the last trial, either. So. 2 hours before Lauren's death she's researching how to take custody away from Sarah, we know she talks to Cam, and probably tells him all the great stuff she's finding at the sites..l.and then Lauren ends up at the bottom of a cliff.

Wow.

 
At 8/27/09, 2:29 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

That about sums it up Jobeth.

 
At 8/27/09, 2:57 PM , Anonymous KC said...

Sage is what's needed here, I believe. And maybe an exorcist! BTW, anyone know just what the black ceramic figurines were supposed to be figures of?

Having once testified myself, as a "witness for the prosecution" (i.e. victim, in lay language) defense attorneys actually do blurt completely fabricated stuff out in an accusatory tone, KNOWING that it'll be struck down, just to leave the jury with a negative impression of whoever the poor soul is, stuck on the witness stand. And if it hasn't been indisputably established that you are an Eagle Scout/Mother Theresa rolled up in one by that point, your side might not be prepared to counter whatever false impression has been made. Thoroughly unfair, especially since the prosecutorial side isn't allowed to bring in all the defendant's various priors.

 
At 8/27/09, 4:43 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

KC, my smudge stick is sage. I got it covered! :)

 
At 8/28/09, 8:18 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Can't stand sage, it's too strong - I tend to go more towards florals. :)

Ted's latest posts on the KKK blog are hilarious. Now Sprocket is an abject idiot who doesn't have a clue what she's seeing.

He's trying to join in the 'scrapbooking' line of defense on the pictures, too. Because I know when *I* am scrapbooking, and run into pictures of people I hate and whose life I'm trying to ruin, I would certainly cut them out and put them in a box under my bed with some candles and figurines and stuff, I wouldn't throw them away.

And he insists there were no books on witchcraft. So why would Harris object to the question? Let the witness answer - because right now, the jury (for all the objection was sustained) thinks there were.

 
At 8/28/09, 9:08 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

To those of you who've been around for awhile, who is Case Insider?

 
At 8/28/09, 9:57 AM , Anonymous KC said...

Yeah, that's my newbie question, too. Some of these other characters (and this site has 'em, but not as many as KKK site!)- you can kinda figure out, but CI clearly has a dog in the fight...

 
At 8/28/09, 10:40 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Scratching my head over CI's comment that Jeff Leslie would pay Sprocket to stay home. What have I missed?

Again I ask why the blog of record (cough cough) defending Cameron hasn't been putting up their notes of the trial? Why?

 
At 8/28/09, 11:50 AM , Anonymous KC said...

You know, Countrygirl, when I first heard of this case, way when, I thought, well, it's going to be a toughie to prove. East Coast, so didn't follow Cam 1. Bringing myself up to speed. Turns out, this is NOT a toughie! I state this with no small amount of satisfaction, and TG for Sprocket, who makes all of this (what she can do) so very clear. Other side CANNOT address the evidence! How the heck could they?!? Thinking of Poe, "The Mystery of Marie Roget"- the overall accumulation, if you take out one or two items, weak case, but the effect of all of it, piling on, and being essentially, UNaddressed! Hope I'm making some sense here...

 
At 8/29/09, 2:11 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

CountryGirl wrote:
Anyone still consider Patty Brown a victim?

I used to. I can no longer hold that "trial" delusion.

 
At 8/29/09, 2:18 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

...who is Case Insider?

I was able to prove that Ted posts under the nym Case Insider. Ted signed his name while Case Insider was the nym being used.

I don't believe he is the only one. The occasional rips, gentle as they are, against Ted for his behavior lead me to believe Patty is also posting under the CI title.

 
At 8/29/09, 2:22 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

CG wrote:
Scratching my head over CI's comment that Jeff Leslie would pay Sprocket to stay home. What have I missed?

We've all missed something there.

Again I ask why the blog of record (cough cough) defending Cameron hasn't been putting up their notes of the trial? Why?

Are they taking notes? I would doubt it. If they did, they would have documentation that directly contradicts what they present on the site.

Without anything else, each can claim they recall the matter differently. They may even be able to convince themselves and each other that what they "remember" is what actually occurred.

Truth rarely plays a part in anything the Kaldis Klan deals with.

 
At 8/29/09, 6:15 AM , Anonymous KC said...

He didn't bother to change his writing style much either. If they could figure out how to work 20 aliases each, if only to make it seem that there is actually a small army of Cam supporters, they'd do it. Thankfully that's beyond their evident abilities. Can't figure the Leslie comment either. Just reading the Sprocket's trans., he comes across as a great witness for the prosecution.

 
At 8/29/09, 7:46 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Usuals:

Ken: SHE'S A WITCH!!! THEY'LL BURN YA!

Ted: The little snippet you posted from Sprocket, I'm sorry, just reveals her to be an ABJECT IDIOT where this trial is concerned. She doesn't get it AT ALL!

Let's see, now. Sprocket is (a) a veteran trial-watcher who (b) doesn't have a dog in the hunt and (c) writes down her present-sense impression (which are admissible in court as an exception to the rule against hearsay, btw). Ted Kaldis is (a) a proven sociopath who (b) has a Maybach-sized interest in the outcome of this case, and (c) is blissfully ignorant of the law and basic physics (who has alleged that there is a baby-killin' brudder-in-law exception to Newton's Laws). Who would any rational observer believe first?

If Patty had in fact been scrapbooking, there would have been a scrapbook. The absence of a scrapbook is therefore proof to the contrary. Anyone familiar with the occult would recognize the tell-tales, whereas Christian cops might not grasp their significance.

Ted: Then, upon "re-direct" testimony of Leslie, Hum asked him if he had found black candles and figurines in the suitcase -- of which there were NO photos presented (as there were of the suitcase, the cigar box, and the cut-up pictures of Sarah). "Yes", Leslie replied. "And did you find books on witchcraft in the house?", Hum then asked (to which the truthful answer would have been "No"). Pat Harris then forcefully objected, with the sound of exasperated annoyance in his voice. The judge sustained just as forcefully and with an equal amount of annoyance. And Hum had no more questions.

On re-cross, Pat Harris noted that it was obvious that the cut-up portions of the photos with Sarah's image had been saved, and had NOT been thrown away -- which Leslie was forced to acknowledge was true. And that was that for the day.


You say that "nobody can read a jury" but somehow, that you can read this jury. Ditto, the judge. I don't claim to have that sort of prescience, but if I am Pat Harris, and I know that the answer will be favorable to my client, I am not about to object. It's like that damn fool stunt where Harris got the notion that Cam is a "planner" before the jury.

The cut-up photos of Sarah pretty much ice it, as a scrapbooker saves what she wants to save and tosses what she wants to toss. It's beginning to look a lot like witchcraft....

 
At 8/29/09, 7:52 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Compuelf...who is Case Insider?

I was able to prove that Ted posts under the nym Case Insider. Ted signed his name while Case Insider was the nym being used.

I don't believe he is the only one. The occasional rips, gentle as they are, against Ted for his behavior lead me to believe Patty is also posting under the CI title.


Since we know that the only two members of Team Cam in the courtroom on a regular basis are Ted and Patty, only they could speak authoritatively about what is going on there. Problem is, CI has posted at times where the Terrible Twins should have been in court.

That is not an absolute bar, as it is entirely possible that Ted has 3G wireless capacity, and posts from the courtroom. The evidence is therefore inconclusive.

 
At 8/29/09, 8:29 AM , Blogger loretta said...

It's possible that all three people post under CI sometimes, but solid guess is that CI is Jean Paredes. I would bet real money on it. She has cleaned up her profanity to appear saintly, but her core evil, sanctimonious hypocrisy, blatant lying and misrepresenting, and overall malice lead me to believe it is she.

Also, she clinched it with the non sequitur Obamma bash the other day. Jean is a platinum-card carrying member of Free Republic.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home