Monday, August 03, 2009

Summary Analysis of First Week - Retrial

Based on first-hand reports from blogs and news stories covering the Brown retrial so far, the first week included opening statements by The People and the defense and testimony from Lauren's mother, Sarah Key-Marer.

Denise Nix reports:

Through a series of anecdotes, Sarah Key-Marer, 40, told a new jury of 10 men and two women her version of events - beginning with meeting Brown at a bar in the fall of 1995.

Between meeting Brown and losing her daughter, Key-Marer described how an otherwise fun and normal dating relationship deteriorated after she accidentally became pregnant and Brown seemed to want nothing to do with the baby.

LINK: Daily Breeze Update

Some new information that wasn't revealed in the first trial emerged during direct and cross-examination. For example, Patty Brown, Lauren's step-mother, occasionally picked her up for visition (even though she had no legal standing to do so) and at one time held out her arms to the child and said, "Come to Mommy." Lauren reportedly responded to this by cringing. Another interesting anecdote revealed that Brown told Key-Marer that he and his new wife were moving "up north" and were going to start their own family. How that was to occur with a woman well beyond childbearing age was never explained.

In cross, the defense attempted to show Key-Marer was dishonest in filling out various legal forms including her tax returns, child-support calculation documents, and the journal in which she documented the visitation. As in the first trial, the defense brought up the insurance settlement Key-Marer accepted when she believed that Lauren's death was an accident. I'm not sure how the jury will react to the defense's attempt to impeach the victim's mother, but it appears to be the usual defense strategy: discredit as many witnesses as possible and portray Brown as a loving, caring father. We'll see how well this works when it comes to defending Brown's decision to take Lauren up to the top of Inspiration Point.


Wayne Delia said...

If Toad was dozing off in the courtroom because of a broken nose he claims he suffered "many years ago," then why wouldn't he have the same symptoms every day in court, or anywhere else for that matter?

Ronni said...

It does seem to speak to his feelings about the trial and his BIL, doesn't it?

loretta said...

Interesting new info from latest testimony:

Patty didn't come with Brown that day to pick up Lauren - when she had always come before. This reinforces my belief that Patty didn't know what Cam was up to. She probably, by that time, hoped to have a more substantive relationship with the child and I doubt she had any idea what was going to happen.

Cam put Lauren in the front seat (she's 4 yrs old) w/o a seat belt. Even though Harris tried to imply this was "new" testimony, it is still pretty damning that you put a 4-yr old in the front seat of a vehicle. And sure, anyone with kids or experience with kids or in law enforcement will notice something like that immediately, so I'm surprised it didn't come out in the first trial.

Harris's cross is confusing (as usual). I have no clue where he's going with anything.

Nude bather Jeremy Simmons found Brown's affect so odd, he thought he was trying to scam him (said he thought it was "a setup") by borrowing his cell phone instead of being in a real emergency. This I think is really important.

I'm not sure (and have to check my notes on the first trial), but is Omar the guy that Ted claims was a pervert?

loretta said...

Also, according to Omar, Lauren was never in front of Cam (contrary to Cam's statements and later the opening remarks in court) and there are never any kids hiking up to IP - this from someone who went there twice a month.

CountryGirl said...

Yes, Omar is the one Geragos tried to slime saying he wasn't there to read.

How did I miss this at the last trial? Omar heard a girl's scream.

He listened and didn't hear anything else, so he passed it off as a bird.

If the scream was Lauren, that means Cam didn't yell "Oh No (or other frantic words), Help" etc.

CountryGirl said...

Ted said this about Cam in 2004:

My interest is in protecting my sister. .....

But let me clue you in to something: me and my brother-in-law
aren't exactly the best of buds. We don't exactly see eye-to-eye on some
things, and there have been tensions between us.

ken said...

What on Earth was this all about? Denise Nix reporting:

While on the 9th Floor of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center downtown today for closing arguments in the Miguel Magallon death penalty trial, I popped into the Cameron Brown murder retrial to see what's been going on.

I had apparently just missed a bit of drama. According to Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum, proceedings were postponed for about an hour because Brown, 47, refused to come out of his jail cell. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor was set to sign an extraction order that would give deputies permission to physically extract him when Brown came out on his own.

Then, defense attorney Pat Harris asked that 4-year-old victim Lauren Sarene Key's mother, Sarah Key-Marer, who has watched the entire trial, be excluded from the courtroom because her presence was jeopardizing his client's right to a fair trial. Hum argued against it, and Key-Marer addressed the judge, asking that she be allowed to remain - as she's been looking for answers for nine years. In the end, Pastor allowed her to stay.

Good GRIEF!!! You wait three years to get the judge you want, and spend the next two weeks doing everything in your power to piss him off! Ted with his snoring, Patty with her vocalizations, and Cam with ... WTF?!

Harris has lost control of the Kook Kaldis Klan.

loretta said...

Incidentally, Ken, I noticed you mentioned my play on the KKK blob. It has opened Off-Broadway (One Off, not a bunch of Offs, as Ted snidely sneered), and it's running right now! I was in Manhattan for the opening last week and will be there again this weekend. Maybe some day it will play in Denver. I think it will be picked up by various people in the future for sure.

It was bad timing in regard to this trial, but I plan to obtain some transcripts of certain dates. So far, the trial has been mostly rehash except for the few things I noticed from Betsy's (Sprocket) notes, and I am mostly interested in what is new.

When we get to the science and the closing arguments, I intend to buy those if they are worthwhile.

You can find info on my play on the website (see my blogger profile and click on my "home page." I also have another blog, but it's not crime-related yet. Maybe when I'm not so busy I can start following something new.

CountryGirl said...

Unreal! Refused to come out of his cell? Harris wanted Sarah excluded? The POS! Even Geragos didn't pull that crap.

Ronni said...

How in the world could Harris think that Sarah shouldn't be there? It's not as if she was acting inappropriately, like the defendant's relatives. I should have thought that the victim's family would have a perfect right to be there, as long as they are not disruptive. I HATE that it has to be all about the defendant's right to a fair trial! Nobody gave Lauren a fair trial!

Ronni said...

Harris must be digging for everything he can get...which means he's at the bottom of the barrel. It's probably good news, really...

loretta said...

I agree. It's desperate and it's unreasonable. Clearly, if Cam could show some emotion or grief of any kind, as Sarah does and has, he might be more sympathetic. As it is, he's just a cypher.

Harris is pretty inept, so far.

CountryGirl said...

One can only hope that Cameron feels guilt every time he sees Sarah, but that would mean he's human. He's not!

Ronni said...

I just pontificated a bit:

The Acquaintance said...

Cam's behavior seems to raise the question of whether he is psychologically fit for trial. That shouldn't be surprising as the time he's already served would challenge just about anyone's mental health.

If I'm not mistaken, the fitness for trial argument could be used in a variety of ways both at trial, at sentencing and at appeal.

loretta said...

Brown obviously has always had a screw loose, I mean, look at his behavior in the past, even if you omit the alleged murder. He's not all there, never was.

But, he's competent to stand trial. He may becoming more anti-social and more paranoid, but that's never been an excuse to deter justice. He's certainly not so crazy as to be committed to an institution. He's just another garden-variety sociopath. He should fit right in when he goes to the Big House.

Not likely he'll be acquitted in any event.

loretta said...

This cracked me up from Sprocket's notes:

Out in the hallway, Harris approaches me and says that in regards to the Peterson case, I described him as "incoherent." I get this very puzzled expression on my face because I was not blogging during the Peterson case. He can see I'm totally confused by what he's saying because he adds, "You also said some very nice things." Harris goes onto say that he is kidded around the office and called "incoherent." I mention to Harris that I wasn't blogging about the Peterson case.
I have no idea what Harris is talking about and I'm certain that he has confused me with someone else...When I get home, this is the first thing I'm going to check.

Don't bother, Betsy. It was I who characterized his cross-examination tecniques as "incoherent" and...THEY ARE!!!!

The Acquaintance said...

I had thought the "kick out Sarah" argument was Cam's idea. If it's Harris' idea, then Harris could be the weirdest of all the characters in that courtroom.

Harris' handling of the Omar testimony was just bizarre. Were I a juror, I'd want to ask Omar if he'd ever heard a bird at that beach on another occasion that sounded like what he heard on 11/8/00. Since Harris didn't ask the question, the assumption is that he hadn't. A bit surprised Hum didn't take up this line of questioning on redirect.

loretta said...

We knew about this in the first trial and from reading the Grand Jury transcript (that's an incredible read, if anyone wants a copy, email me) - but it's still compelling to read Sprocket's impression about where the archery range is in reference to the beach - nearly 1/3 to 1/2 way up the cliff.

Why would Brown carry her up there? Why not try to perform CPR and AR on the spot? And when Harris tries to get one of the witnesses to say that Brown said, "Hurry UP! Hurry UP!" it's pretty silly. Hum should point out more clearly that the archery range is so far from the spot where Lauren landed and why would Brown ask someone to Hurry Up when he already wasted umpteen minutes carrying her all the way there.

Hum, what gives? Use the power of the photographs! A picture is worth a thousand words here, obviously.

Anonymous said...

I am enthralled by this case and only learned of it when I read information on the retrial. Since then I have read everything that I have been able to find on the internet. I wake up at night thinking about that poor, sweet little girl. I alternate between crying and wanting to throw up. Thank you all for posting. Please God if there is any justice let him be convicted. I can't imagine the pain this family has endured. I can't even handle it and I never met Lauren but I do have a little girl. His lack of emotion is absolutely mind boggling.
Does anyone have any insight on his parents? I read somewhere that they are wealthy. I wonder if they are in support of him or have realized that they sired a heartless monster.

CountryGirl said...

Wait until she hears that Brown took off his clothes so they didn't get wet before he went in the water to get Lauren.

CountryGirl said...

Sprocket's blog:

After the jury exits, counsel and the judge talk about the next witnesses that are up. Erickson then Leslie on the 8th and 9th. Then don't know if we will get to..... Something about LAX will be when he retakes the stand. Counsel states that the jury view could be at the conclusion of all the testimony. Not sure who says this, "We are moving at a faster rate."

The 8th and 9th are a Saturday and Sunday. WTH?

CountryGirl said...

FYI: Jeff Leslie just finished cross. Redirect after lunch.

loretta said...

Good call, CG. Here's her reaction:

When I hear this testimony, I'm shocked. I had no idea the defendant took the time to remove his clothes when he went into the water to retrieve Lauren.

Heh. No kidding, Sprocky. It's an eyeroller alright.

CountryGirl said...

I believe it's Hum who states that Detective Leslie is the athlete. I ask him what sports he played. He tells me he used to do Rodeo. Leslie has a very beefy, stocky type build.

Yes he is. I'm thinking steer wrestling.

ken said...

WOW! Upon reading Sprocket's reports, I'm thinking that the farm team is getting creamed. I thought this was going to be a close one, but the defense had an advantage. The advantage appears to have been squandered.

You see it so often with PDs -- the defense is outclassed.

CountryGirl said...

Well, there is NO excuse for THIS defense team, for obvious reasons. Why wasn't co-council prepared and organized? They have had three years to prepare for this trial.

FYI-I was close. Jeff was a bull rider.

CountryGirl said...

For those who want to hear part of the 911 call, the link is above.

CountryGirl said...

911 OPERATOR: 9-1-1 emergency, what are you reporting?

BROWN: Um, my daughter fell off a cliff in Palos Verdes

OPERATOR: Where, where at in Palos Verdes?

BROWN: Uh, Portuguese Bend.

OPERATOR: Sir, you down at San Pedro area?

BROWN: No, not San Pedro. It’s Palos Verdes area.

OPERATOR: O. Port – is there cross streets where they get across from?

BROWN: Uh, no cross streets, god. Wayfarer’s Chapel, in Inspiration Point. That area.

OPERATOR: Ok, um, ok.

BROWN: Uh, the sun bathing beach, uh…

MALE VOICE: Abalone Cove

BROWN: Abalone Cove. I parked at Abalone Cove parking lot and hiked. So, I hiked (inaudible).

OPERATOR: Ok, one second, one second please, alrighty?

BROWN: Ok. Oh, shit, oh, man, oh, thanks for letting me use your phone.

OPERATOR: How, how bad is she? Is she –

BROWN: I don’t know. I haven’t gone down and found her. I just found somebody with a phone and called you first. Now, I’m going to look.

OPERATOR: Ok. Be careful, be careful, be careful.

BROWN: I’ll have to backtrack to get down.

MALE VOICE: (inaudible)

BROWN: Yeah, well, no, you need shoes.

MALE VOICE: I got some.

BROWN: Mine?

MALE VOICE: (inaudible)

BROWN: Yeah. Yeah, I told him that. You guys, you guys might want to get dressed so, huh, they’re gonna be coming.

VOICE: What?

BROWN: I don’t know. I had to come back this way. I couldn’t see her.

OPERATOR: Ok, I’m gonna put you at, um, I see where Portuguese Bend is. I’m gonna put it on Palos Verdes, um, south, um, you’re gonna be west off Cherry Hilll, so hold on one second.

BROWN: Ok. (Inaudible) somebody’s gonna be coming so, huh (laughing), sorry.

OPERATOR: What is your name, sir?

BROWN: Cameron Brown.

911 OPERATOR: How old is your daughter?


(Later in the call after the fire department has been informed) –

VOICE: Ok, now, uh, what seems to be the problem?

BROWN: My daughter fell off a cliff in Palos Verdes.

VOICE: Ok, how far down did she go, approximately?

BROWN: Oh, I don’t know. That’s really far. A hundred yards.

FEMALE VOICE: Uh, yards?

BROWN: Yeah, looks like.

VOICE: Ok, sir, let me confirm this. Palos Verdes Drive, cross is Cherry Hill Lane…

911 OPERATOR: Actually, he said he’s at the, um, at the Portuguese Bend area which is Portuguese Point.

MALE VOICE: Right, I got Portuguese Point. I have Inspiration Point. All of that…

911 OPERATOR: Yeah.

BROWN: The sunbathing beach.

MALE VOICE: Sun bathing beach?

BROWN: Yeah, you know, where the nude bathers go. I don’t know.

OPERATOR: He accessed from Abalone Cove, is where he parked.


OPERATOR: Are you closer to Inspiration Point or Portuguese Point?

MALE VOICE: Do you know which one you’re closer to?

BROWN: (Inaudible) points are. I, you know, I don’t know. I’m in between, right now, the sun bathing beach and I’m on the east point. She fell of the east point from there… by the firing range. Yeah, by the archery range. I borrowed this phone and every time I move, it cuts off. I’m standing here and he’s, he, the guy I borrowed the phone from, he went down to look.


MALE VOICE: We’re gonna have units on their way.

BROWN: Thank you.

loretta said...

The entire sequence of events makes no sense at all. Either Brown is lying about the details (that is, what really happened and why he went where he went) or he was in some sort of shutdown mode.

If he can explain his behavior and the logic behind his movements, I'd like to hear it. If he doesn't take the stand to explain, he's going to be at the mercy of "reasonable doubt" which is quite tenuous right now.

CountryGirl said...

Where's the logic for taking Lauren to IP instead of home because she "wasn't feeling well...she was upset"?

I would think it would be the other way around. If I had plans to take my grandchild to a park or playground, and she was upset I'd take her home.

loretta said...

Besides the fact that there were dozens closer, better playgrounds or places he could take her. Heck, he could have taken her to McDonalds and let her play inside one of their playgrounds rather than this ridiculous "hike".

It's so ludicrous. How can anyone defend that decision?

Ken said...

From da udder blog:

Acquaintance: From the portions of cross-examination that I've read, it's not clear that Harris' questioning is going to persuade many people that haven't already thrown in their lot with the defense.

anony: That is because Sprocket doesn't show up when Hum gets his butt kicked.

It is intereseting that she only shows up when Hum expects a good day (or afternoon) and misses when things don't go so well for Hum.

Why don't you just admit that you are Patty Kaldis Brown, and be done with it? Let's face it: No one else is in the freakin' courtroom on a consistent basis and besides, it has been reported by Sprocket that even you have missed a few sessions.

I concur with Acquaintance, based in no small part on Sprocket's observations: Harris and Tonto are boring the jury to tears. In cross, the attorney is testifying. The questions should be phrased in such a way that the only answer a witness can give is yes or no, and you should never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. Based on that standard, what we do know about Harris' performance is that it has been a disaster heretofore.

You two have the worst case of trial delusion I have ever seen, and your paranoia rivals that of Kim Jong-ILL. Nothing personal, but you're like South Stands Fans: Your beloved Broncos never hold, while da Raiders commit multiple personal fouls on every play. You've accused everyone in the freakin' city of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself. Sprocket is a veteran trial watcher who doesn't have a dog in this hunt and thanks to her, we have better coverage of the proceedings than we could have reasonably hoped for.

There is a solution, of course: Put up your own website, publishing every single document filed with the Court. Publish the portions of the record where you believe that Harris has scored key points. Of course, everyone is going to discount what you say because of who you are, but that can't be helped. It makes one hell of a lot more sense than what you are doing now. If you are going to fight your battle in the media, then by all means fight it.

ken said...

From da udder blog:

Ted: but Shannon Farren is Craig Hum's girlfriend.

She may be now, but by your own admission, she wasn't his main squeeze when she first walked into the courtroom. Pretty much everyone who has considered this case has found it far more likely than not that Cam murdered Lauren, and many believe it to be true beyond a reasonable doubt -- like ten of the twelve jurors in the original trial. Whether Denise Nix was persuaded by her hearing of the evidence (probable but not certain), only she can answer.

Besides, what Farren thinks is irrelevant, as John and Ken have already extracted their kilograms of flesh and in all likelihood, won't comment until a verdict is rendered.

All you can do is hurl feces from your own pig-sty at everyone ... from witnesses to reporters to the city fathers of Rancho Palos Verdes. I'm not even sure any Angelinos are left who haven't been accused of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself.

You just can't deal with the fact that, when faced with the bare facts of this case, 99% of the public is going to conclude that it was a murder.

Kalling the Kook Kaldis Klan KRAZY is a colossal feat of understatement.

ken said...

Again, I don't expect these comments to last long at da udder blog:

Acquaintance: We are not getting an absolutely comprehensive picture of this trial due to Sprocket's occasional absences, but I know of very few trials anywhere that have so much of the testimony so readily available to persons not physically present. It's refreshing to read in-depth accounts that aren't colored by either vitriol toward the defendant's associates on the one hand or accusations of conspiratorial misconduct by the police and the prosecution on the other. Assuming that defense counsel is fully informed and is competent, most evidentiary issues should have been addressed by now and, if any have been addressed unsatisfactorily, appellate relief remains available. This trial should be decided on nothing other than the evidence introduced.

I concur. We are getting great coverage. Unfortunately, nothing but a slavish regurgitation of their electric-beer-inspired paranoid delusions will please the Kook Kaldis Klan.

From what I'm seeing, we're getting a pretty good trial. Pastor is running a tight ship, and has laid down the law regarding the comical outbursts of the Klan. It's a faster trial, as everyone knows what's coming. Craig Hum has been scoring at will, leaving Harris without a lot to work with. Right now, my main concern is that Harris' apparent ineptitude may lose what is a fairly winnable case.

loretta said...

Well, Ken, you know it's a waste of time to argue with them, so apparently this is merely amusement for you. If Harris (or Geragos) thought that they had a chance to impeach the cops in this trial or demonstrate some kind of prejudice against the defendant, they blew it.

I think there have been some "points" scored against the various cops, but not enough to make it seem as if they framed the defendant or had the worn-out "tunnel vision." With a better team, the defense may have been able to cast doubt on the cops.

But without new laws of physics being invented in the last 8 years or the defendant taking the stand to explain WHY he took the child up there, it doesn't matter what the cops say.

The current defense team appears really inept, based on Sprocket's notes, and I'm surprised. Talk about 2nd string, Veretsian is absolutely dismal. I could do a better job and I'm just a little hausfrau blogger.

ken said...

I'm in complete agreement with you. It's fun to make a fool of those fools, but I need to preserve some of the comments because they have a nasty habit of disappearing from the Kook Kaldis Klan's blog.

Melissa said...

Ok, sorry. I am finding this case facsinating and knew nothing about it until I read about it on Ronni's blog.

I have no opinion as of yet, because basically Brown just seems like a strange bird. Though I see no history of violence. I am leaning towards an opinion as I read Sprockets accounts however.

BUT - Ken is distracting in the supposedly adult conversation. He is like a teenaged spurned lover and I find it annoying. I am reading at the "Udder Blog" as well and all it is is Ken trying to throw monkey poop at Ted.

Maybe you can just e-mail him Ted and stick to the case? Because seriously, I know I cant speak for anyone because nobody really knows me and I dont know anyone but Ronni (through her blog), but I cant imagine that anyone else finds your juvenile arguments with Ted even remotely relevant or interesting.

Compuelf said...

Seeing Ken, et al., expose the MASSIVE holes in the Kaldis Klan's conspiracy rants it's a pleasure to read. When anyone is able to expose the kooks too much, the posts vanish.

As a means to ensure the posts are read, they are occasionally archived here. I've done the same.

Compuelf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Melissa said...

Sorry, I find it annoying. In fact that you use the same words makes me thin you ARE Ken.

ken said...

"Compuelf" (a.k.a., Kent Wills) has been around for a long time and no, we are not one and the same.

If you knew Toad Kaldis like we know him, you'd understand.

CountryGirl said...

Right Ken! Remember when Ted accused me of hitting a dog and driving off while stalking Patty's house? I've never been near there, let alone hit a dog, but facts never interfere with Ted's conspiracy theories.

Melissa said...

Ok then, I will just scroll through the irelavent comments by Ken, that do not add to the commentary of the case.

Because I dont care what Ken thinks of Ted's legs when he backs off of accusing him of wearing shorts to court et al.

Obviously I am new to the conversation, but I will learn to ignore certain posters as irrevelent.

Now my posts are obviously, so I shall stop unless it involves the case.

Compuelf said...

Melissa wrote:
"Sorry, I find it annoying. In fact that you use the same words makes me thin you ARE Ken."

You are free to think whatever you wish. A quick review of past comments will show that we are not the same person.
Ken is able to expose the legal problems in the Kaldis Klan's claims. I have taken a more subtle approach in that I point out how to the "common man" their claims of a massive conspiracy to imprison a baggage handler makes no logical sense.
If you wish to ignore Ken's posts, that's fine. I doubt his self esteem will take a blow because of it.

Ken said...

This won't last:

Acquaintance: Ted - you would benefit from learning how to converse with people in ways that are less antagonistic. That will probably be very difficult, especially as the testimony about the 1986 incident will be so emotionally overheated.

That's just not possible for Ted. He has been a raging asshole for decades, earning the distinction of "Legendary Net-Kook" along with other deserving notables such as Pastor Steve Winter. The guy is a mental basket case and documented stalker, and Cam's case seems to have driven him over the edge.

Ted: F*** you and the horse you rode in on. I don't believe a word you say.

The feeling is mutual, Ted. Most of us don't believe a word you say, either -- mostly, because you have been caught in so many lies over the years that it has been difficult to keep count.

Ted: In any event, the 1986 incident has already been testified about, and turned out to be a fizzle.

Through Ted's eyes, which are about as trustworthy as Pravda used to be in the old Soviet Union. Acquaintance, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the particulars of the 1986 incident; I might know of it by the substance, but I'm not certain what you are referring to.

I can't wait for the procession of Baywatch Babes who will testify to Cam's anger management deficit. One wag wrote me saying that the mere sight of Patty made Cam want to stay in his cell like a groundhog; I haven't seen her and cannot comment authoritatively, but this ( ) with shoulder-length dishwater-grey hair would frighten any sane creature -- unless that creature was a walrus.

Ken said...

Elf: Ken is able to expose the legal problems in the Kaldis Klan's claims. ... If you wish to ignore Ken's posts, that's fine. I doubt his self esteem will take a blow because of it.

Here's another beauty:

anony: Cam's case landed in the Torrance court because at a hearing on 1/10/05, when Mark Geragos was Cam's attorney, Hum requested it be moved to Torrance, to Judge Arnold. The judge assigning the case was reluctant to do so because the LA County rules require trials that last longer than three weeks to be heard Downtown; and Mark Geragos objected vigorously. ...

Mark Geragos did challenge Judge Arnold. He was told that if he did not accept him they would bring this other judge (his name escapes me right now) back to criminal cases and that judge would hear the case. This other judge's rulings were so bad that he was no longer allowed to do criminal cases. He had been moved to civil court, and not by choice. Yet, this other judge was the only other choice Mark Geragos had if he continued with his peremptory challenge to Judge Arnold. He was given the choice of worse or worser.

If the judge had been barred from hearing criminal cases, there were remedies; under C.C.P. 170.3, recusal of the substitute judge would seem like a no-brainer. If that judge was deemed unfit to hear criminal cases for good cause, a decision to assign him to a murder case would be overturned in a heartbeat in the CoA. Geragos had enough "star power" to get something like that noticed.

Bottom line, Geragos allowed himself to get punk'd.

anony: Once he got the case Judge Arnold was committed to hearing it.

Which is precisely what he is supposed to do. Once a case is assigned to a judge, he has a duty to hear it, unless there are compelling reasons why he should be recused.

anony: He would not let it go even though there were several valid reasons for a change of venue. In spite of these issues Judge Arnold rejected all bids for a change of venue.

And the appeal of this decision was heard in which court?

Once again, it helps to know the law. Just because an attorney asks for a change of venue does not mean that he is entitled to it. "Reasons for changes of venue include pretrial publicity, bias, political atmosphere, and any other circumstance that the parties believe would prevent them from obtaining a fair trial in the county in which the case was originally filed." chgofven.pdf. A case involving the murder trial of a nobody stevedore is not going to be politically charged in Los Angeles, given that you pretty much have to gun down a busload of nuns for it to be carried on the nightly news. The pretrial publicity threshold is relatively high, and disqualifying bias would be extremely difficult to prove. Unless there is dispositive evidence that I don't know about, I would have to say that Judge Arnold made a legally correct call; that Geragos didn't appeal is compelling evidence that it was correct.

A criminal case is about the last place where you'll see shenanigans supported upstairs, because judges of the Court of Appeals really don't have a dog in the hunt. Tax cases are usually clean, because no one in the government gives a rip. This is pretty close.
They are always complaining about what Mark Geragos should have been doing something about, were their claims to have merit.

The Acquaintance said...

The 1986 incident is alluded to in Sprocket's post about August 6 testimony. Cam had a nasty and somewhat violent breakup with a pregnant girlfriend. She's going to testify as Jane Doe. I'm not completely sure why, but she has had some problems recently and I know the defense team has been snooping about her. Of course if the defense is too aggressive toward her, it could color jurors' perceptions of Cam and Sarah's post-breakup interactions.

Jane Doe is a charming and beautiful woman (at least she was about a year ago when I last saw her), if not as charming and beautiful as Sarah was when we met in 1996.

Ken said...

Acquaintance: Ken, I understand at least some of your frustration with Ted, but insulting Patty doesn't reflect well on you. I posted a bit about the 1986 incident at the other place.

Unfortunately, Patty's appearance will be an issue in this case -- albeit sub rosa -- and you made it more of one in your post:

Acquaintance: Jane Doe is a charming and beautiful woman (at least she was about a year ago when I last saw her), if not as charming and beautiful as Sarah was when we met in 1996.

The jury is going to sense a pattern here: Cam was able to land a steady procession of border-line starlets younger than he was, but then, he married a woman substantially older than him who has been described to me as "large," "slovenly," and "looking like his mother," who just happened to have a good-paying job and decent exchequer. Patty reportedly wanted to move to NoCal and have a family (how that was going to happen was not altogether clear), whereas Cam is a confirmed surfer-dude. Those facts alone will create a presumption in the minds of the jurors that he married Patty for her money. To make matters worse, Patty keeps a voodoo kit beneath their bed, suggesting that she has designs on Lauren. Cam can't live with her (or at least, her plans), and can't live without her (due to the crushing child support burden). Getting rid of Lauren in an "accident" solves his problem.

This is the card the prosecution is playing. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

I suggested from the close of the last trial that Patty do whatever she could to take that angle away from them. Upgrading her appearance would help Cam immensely, as it would take that implicit insinuation away.

CountryGirl said...

Anybody remember Cam's father's name?

The Acquaintance said...

CG - seems to me Cam's dad's name is Robert and that he goes by Bob.

Ken - even if your speculation about Cam's motivation for marrying Patty were true to any degree, that would only make Patty another victim. I'd be surprised if the prosecution posed your theory to the jury. I wouldn't be surprised if your theory is just meant as another provocation to Ted. Even if Ted deserves it, I can't see how Patty does.

Ken said...

Acquaintance: I'd be surprised if the prosecution posed your theory to the jury.

They won't. However, that doesn't stop the jury from getting there on their own, which I consider to be a danger.

CountryGirl said...

I don't feel one bit sorry for Patty Kaldis Brown. She did her best to make Sarah's life hell!!

The Acquaintance said...

CG - I don't know anything about how Patty has treated Sarah, so we're coming at this from different directions.

Jobeth66 said...

For those of you that weren't around for the first trial, you've missed quite a bit of the history between Ken & Ted. While that was underway, Ted was posting quite often, loudly, and belligerantly on Usenet ( about many things, including things he shouldn't have been. He also made several statements that were clearly untrue, about 'H-Bomb level evidence that would clear Cam completely' that never materialized. When Ken showed him up on points of law, Ted got very upset, and started the personal attacks, with his Aussie pretense and use of Queen's english as if he were some sort of sophisticated world traveler. (And while I've seen him screaming "right bollacks" a lot this time again, I haven't seen him pull 'mendacious prevaricator' yet.) When he was pilloried on the electric beer and Jethro Tull issues, he went into a frothy frenzy from which he's yet to recover. I am loving that we have such a detailed, clear picture of what's happening in the courtroom from an unbiased source this time around. Harris' motion for a mistrial seemed like a desperation ploy, at *best*. Of COURSE this is about Cam's character, it's ALWAYS been about his character - showing that he has the character to throw a child off a cliff. Whether he did it or not, if the prosecution can show that he IS the kind of heartless bastard who would even consider such a thing, they're doing their job and raising doubt in the jury. I hope the defense has some fantastic rebuttal for the testimony heard so far. I wonder if Cam's going to take the stand this time? His antics in refusing to enter the court aren't going to be looked on favorably. And why is Patty trying to get herself thrown out of the courtroom?

Ronni said...

Pity factor?

ken said...

Friday was not a good day for Team Cam, and that's before "Jane Doe" testified:

Sprocket: There's a sidebar. Juror #6 has their arms crossed. I watch the jurors watch the judge and counsel.

Lost one juror. Eleven to go.

Sprocket: Harris hands the witness a document and tells him to focus on the highlighted material. As we are all waiting, I note that long delays in getting a case to trial always helps the defendant. People forget and their memories of events change.

Sprocket: The witness states that she and he husband taught bible school for about ten years

There goes that witness's credibility.

Sprocket: LR: Very timid and clingy to her mother. She was a girly type girl, not interested in getting dirty.

She states she would not describe her as adventurous. At the campground area, there was a hill that the kids could climb up. She organized a hiking trip for the kids, because she likes to hike and play with kids. She walked around to all the camp sites to ask who wanted to go. And she made an effort to get the kids excited about going on this hike.

CH: Did all the kids go on the hike?

LR: No. [...] Lauren didn't want to go at all.

CH: Why do you specifically remember that?

LR: Because she was the only child who didn't want to go.

Again, they are painting Lauren as a girl who wasn't inclined to do what she would have had to have done in order to have suffered an accident. She's a born-again Christian, Ted ... she must be a sociopath, right?

Sprocket: The black-haired spectator speaks to me for a moment. She tells me she is retired and is really interested in criminal trials. She asks me who the mother of the child is and I describe Ms. Key-Marer. I had to inform her that the woman she was speaking to is the defendant's wife. She gets this surprised expression on her face.

The prior witness comes into the courtroom to sit with another woman. They sit in the front row. When Ted comes in, he asks them to move from his front row seat spot.

That's our Ted. Always the asshole.

ken said...

Continued from last post:

Sprocket: She left for Chille at the beginning of the new year, in 1996.

Hum asks if there was anything that happened the month prior, in December. The defendant called her about a week before she was to leave.

CH: Describe his demeanor.

JB: He was upset.

CH: What did he tell you?

JB: He said that he had gotten someone pregnant. [...] He said that he wasn't ready to be a father. [...] He said that he had been dating her; that she was English. [...] He said that she wasn't going to be staying here legally because she didn't have a visa.

This witness is a little more interesting than I thought: Cam knocked Sarah up while he was dating the Baywatch Babe. Aaaaaahhhhh! Born-again Christian morals on display.

Sprocket: Harris asks for a sidebar again. He appears very irritated. Harris and Judge Pastor appear to be in somewhat of a heated discussion. Harris is shaking his head. It looks like Harris is not happy with Judge Pastor's rulings. I hear Judge Pastor say, "Motion for mistrial is denied!" Judge Pastor's tone doesn't sound happy with Harris.

It seems like Harris and V are losing about 90% of these exchanges. Has there even been an objection (except for really obvious ones like "JH: He sounded like he had gotten caught.") that was overruled?

Sprocket: Patty and the woman with black hair continue to talk. Brown quickly comes back inside the courtroom. His shirt is unbuttoned and he doesn't have his tie on.

PH: A character assissination! He (the witness) was specifically referring to an internet blabber interview that he read about, where he said the child would be 22 years old!

Harris is really upset. It's obvious in his facial expressions and his tone of voice that this information is now before the jury.

PH: I don't know how I'm even going to address it! [...] And that somehow that clears it because when he called the defendant during a phone call, where Mr. Brown thought he was being recorded, Mr. Brown stated he didn't have a child. [...] AND NOW I HAVE TO DEAL WITH ANOTHER CHILD, that doesn't actually exist!!!!!

Harris talks about that Mr. Hum knew that this was not about the pregnancy with the other woman. THIS WAS A THIRD CHILD!

PH: Now this statement that Patty supposedly said abou that she's glad that Lauren is dead!

Harris is quite upset.

JP: Mrs. Brown! You [m]ake one other facial expression or shake your head and you're out!

Harris argues on.

PH: But this witness has acutally said in writing and siad that, and he gets involved with this Internet nut; [...] And that doesn't involve our current blogger here.

Let's see, now ... Internet blogs run by certifiable nut-jobs like Ted Kaldis good, blogs run by others, bad. Er, blogs aren't supposed to be read by jurors, you unprintable idiot! What happens in cyberspace is irrelevant, and Judge Pastor knows that. Just piss off the judge for no reason at all, Harris! Good move.

Ken said...


Sprocket: (Harris turns around and gestures back at me. When he does that, I'm going, oh no! I'm cringing inside. The last thing I want is to be dragged into another case. I had my fill of drama and harassment from Phil Spector and his wife. I try to sink a little lower in my seat.)

PH: I don't know hhow I can combat this! It's getting out of control. He's (Hum) going to put on anyone that's ever said anything bad about Mr. Brown! This is just character assissination! I don't think it's relevant. It's gone way beyond the evidence.

Hum argues and defends his witness.

CH: All of this evidence is very relevant, because of the defendant's attitude and hatred of Ms. Key-Marer.

Hum continues. I believe he's restating all his arguments he just presented at the sidebar. Unfortunately, my next note is not clear as to who said it.

Friday was not a good day for Team Cam, and that is before Jane Doe showed up. Harris has lost the judge and more importantly, one of the jurors. Those witnesses' testimony is going to be received in any murder trial in the country, and Hum is doing a nice job of painting Cam as a Ted Kaldis-class cad. The testimony is all legally relevant, and the grounds for the California equivalent of exclusion under Rule 403 are thin at best.

I'm waiting for the "baby-killin' brudder-in-law" exception to "don't get into a fight with the judge" (you know there is one; it wouldn't be Ted without it).

From what I'm seeing, Judge Pastor is doing a good job with this case. Hum has definitely got game, and Harris doesn't seem to be up to the challenge. I really didn't want to see a blow-up like that.

Jobeth66 said...

@Ronni - I don't think that's going to be a pity factor. If she can't control herself, it's going to reflect poorly on Cameron.

Why is none of his other family at the trial?

Ronni said...

Jobeth, I was being facetious. Please forgive. I am in a snarky mood this morning...

Jobeth66 said...

@Ronni - :) No forgiveness necessary, we all have those kinds of days!

CountryGirl said...

It amuses me that the defense keeps pounding on "monkey bars" as if that equates with hiking up and on IP.

Ronni said...

I do not understand it, either. Most kids feel relatively safe on playground equipment.

Anonymous said...

They keep bringing up the monkey bars but so far no one has even said she liked to play on them. They're grasping at straws. The jury won't fall for it.

CountryGirl said...

Hmmmm, when you Google "Cable Investments America" only Sprocket's blog comes up. Did this company even exist? Sleuths??

CountryGirl said...

I'm so glad Jon came forward!

Jobeth66 said...

If the company would have been in Colorado, nope, doesn't exist at any time since at least 1986. You can search the Secretary of State's business filings and I searched for Cable Investments America - no record. So I just searched for 'Cable Investments', and this is what returned:;jsessionid=0000jxrH9gsFtH384xieBSxgDC8:11nm0gcsc

The oldest record on that list is from 1986, so it's not like it would've been purged.

Jobeth66 said...

Oops - that just takes you to the main search page - but if you put 'Cable Investments' in the first search box, you'll get the 16 records that exist.

Jobeth66 said...

I also did an advanced search on that page and checked any trade names registered to Robert Brown (I think that was his dad's name) and nothing that even comes close.

I wonder if Hum will research that and use it somehow.

CountryGirl said...

Thanks Jobeth!

Jobeth66 said...

De nada, CG - I'm an insurance claims adjuster & I handle litigation for a living, that kind of research is right up my alley. :)

The Acquaintance said...

There is a Delaware corp dating back to 1964 called Cable Investments Inc. Could be it.

Jobeth66 said...

Could be, but that wouldn't work for the initials "CIA". And if he was in Colorado, why would he incorporate in DE unless it was a national firm?

The Acquaintance said...

I'm not saying that's definitely the company, just that it could be. Cable Investments of America could be a tradename. Years ago it was more common to incorporate in DE, and we don't know for certain that the business was strictly local. I also checked WY as they became a favored incorporation spot for Coloradans from the late 80s on, but found nothing. We're at some disadvantage since we really don't know the age or jurisdiction of this company. IIRC Bob Brown should be nearly 80 years old.

Jobeth66 said...

But if doing business in CO, even if the trademark was registered in another state, he'd still have to register a fictitious business name/DBA in the state he's doing business in, and provide his service and incorporation information. I think it was a stretch, and it doesn't seem to be a very good one, if it's something that Hum jumps on. How likely that is to happen, I don't know. But based on what Sprocket is reporting about the demeanor of the jury, it doesn't seem that they're necessarily defense-oriented at this point, and Patty's actions, Cam's actions, and Harris' actions aren't going to endear him to anyone on the panel. Obviously, that could change once things shift to the defense side of the table, but it's going to take a lot to undo what's been done.

CountryGirl said...

I'm anxious to hear Jon's whole testimony.

loretta said...

Finally catching up on the latest retrial info from Betsy's blob and I can tell you after re-reading that transcript from the incident recorded when Sarah confronts Brown, I would have sworn at him. She didn't. I would have kicked his azz. But, that's just me.

Ken said...

Jobeth: Could be, but that wouldn't work for the initials "CIA". And if he was in Colorado, why would he incorporate in DE unless it was a national firm?

Tax, privacy, rules of corporate governance -- lots of reasons. I'd be looking first in Nevada.

Ken said...

Jobeth: But if doing business in CO, even if the trademark was registered in another state, he'd still have to register a fictitious business name/DBA in the state he's doing business in, and provide his service and incorporation information.

If it was an investment company, it may not have been doing business in Colorado. They may have been lazy about registering. Still, if I were Hum, I'd be tracking that little beastie down.

Jobeth66 said...

Unfortunately, I don't have Lexis-Nexis access right now or I could search countrywide, I'm limited to free searches on the net, which means state by state and limited info.

CountryGirl said...

No results for search on "Cable Investments of America" in Nevada.

Ken said...

Sprocket: PH: You were talking to someone, real country girl at [...] Do you remember someone named Loretta, and coresponding with Loretta? [...] She used expletives to describe Mr. Brown. [...] In fact, you gave testimony about another child that you read about on the Internet.

JH: I was trying to find that child that he told me about.

Harris is confronting the witness that the conversation with Brown about a child on the trip to California was a complete fabrication after he read about this story he found on the Internet.

PH: That whole thing was an entire Internet creation. [...] You saw that on the Internet!

Now, Loretta is part of the story! Harris is digging like Misty May on a spike.

Sprocket: (I have a note here that I just remembered. In Harris's argument about the testimony of this witness and the character assassination, Harris stated that he is now going to add thirty plus names to the defense witness list.)

Guys, we're ALL on the defense witness' list! Fancy a trip to SoCal in September? ROTFLMAO!

Anyone fancy a trip to SoCal, courtesy of Cameron and Patty Brown? I will insist upon being put up at the Sheraton, and accept nothing less than a first-class ticket.

Imagine putting me on that stand. I do a lot of hiking. I see a lot of kids on hikes, running and laughing for the first 500 meters ... and being carried by Dad a mile later. I'd basically verify the testimony of Dr. Berkowitz. Not good for Cam.

Imagine my having to testify that this is an Occam's Razor case, where there are two and only two possible explanations for the facts at issue. Imagine me asserting that the expert testimony doesn't mean a thing, as long as the jury is convinced that the hike was more Cam's idea than Lauren's.

And I can hardly wait to testify on cross about all of Kook Kaldis' Kornspiracy Theories. The RPV Conservatory theory. The "RPV city fathers wanted to go after him to avoid liability" theory, and how it was disproven by RPV being in a Lloyd's-like insurance pool. The "Craig Hum is taking this dog of a case so he can run for D.A. theory," and how it was disproven by a two-minute google.

I'd be there for a freakin' week! 8)

I can't think of anything more hare-brained than Harris' latest move, if Sprocket has it right.

ken said...

This trait does seem to run in the Kaldis Klan (again, from Sprocket):The witness states that there was something else he did, that started to bother her. He would follow her to places when she went out with friends. (From the testimony, I get the impression of stalking.)

I hate to tell you this, Ted, but Friday was NOT a good day for Team Cam. And no, Jane Doe did not "fizzle" ... except in the LSD-induced perception of The Oafsome One. He threw her freakin' possessions off a cliff?! Broke into her apartment?! Bashed up her freakin' car? Okay, so "Daddy Warbucks" bailed this galaxy-class loser out again. Cam Brown has a serious anger-management problem -- one that would make you believe that he murdered Lauren.

Jobeth66 said...

Yeah, I'd love to hear Ted's explanation as to how Friday's testimony "fizzled". Because if I'm on the jury hearing about how a guy was distraught and crying over an abortion, but how he could NEVER muster a tear for a daughter that went over a cliff and whose dead body he held in his arms...even if he was in shock at the scene, eventually you'd think it would have hit him, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Every time you hear about Sara in conjunction with Lauren, Sara tears up. She cries. She can't help it. Haven't heard that *once* about Cameron.

The Acquaintance said...

Defense's 30 new witnesses likely include some attempts to impeach Jane Doe's credibility. Of course attacks on Jane Doe could easily end up looking like more vindictiveness toward an ex on Cam's part. One issue could hurt an intended character witness for the defense too - and not just in terms of credibility at this trial. The timing of Jane Doe's testimony has to bother the defense as the jury had a 3-day weekend to consider it.

ken said...

Jobeth: Yeah, I'd love to hear Ted's explanation as to how Friday's testimony "fizzled". Because if I'm on the jury hearing about how a guy was distraught and crying over an abortion, but how he could NEVER muster a tear for a daughter that went over a cliff and whose dead body he held in his arms...even if he was in shock at the scene, eventually you'd think it would have hit him, and that doesn't seem to be the case. Every time you hear about Sara in conjunction with Lauren, Sara tears up. She cries. She can't help it. Haven't heard that *once* about Cameron.

You have to see the world through Ted's eyes, which apparently requires that you drop bad acid and have periodic flashbacks, have some of your brain cells perish on account of your purported death, and have others eradicated through heavy abuse of Wild Turkey and amyl nitrate. None of us can even begin to do it; he is an enigma to us all.

But hey, it can't hurt to ask.

Ken said...

I would generally concur with your analysis as it pertains to Jane Doe, Acquaintance. However, it appeared like Harris was whining about the proceedings on this and other blogs which have -- fairly or not, but for the most part, with some foundation -- portrayed Cam as a monster.

Hum set things up beautifully, with two new (and devastating) witnesses closing out the week. Harris has to go after Jane Doe, heedless of the risks.

Ronni said...

I am gobsmacked that the internet stuff would even come up! Does Harris really want to open that can of worms? Or does he have any idea how badly that could backfire?

Attacking Jane Doe could be bad, too, if the jury is sympathetic to her...

loretta said...

To anonymous commenters - Brown's parents don't need to have their address and contact info on this blog, so don't involve them. Check out the testimony from the last trial - Brown treated his mother horribly. He's a POS and was obviously a bad seed.


loretta said...

Interesting that Harris mentioned Jon reading about the case on the Internet as though what I wrote or what was in the Grand Jury transcripts was fiction or something.

Jon was one of the guys who asked Ted to kindly remove the letter he sent in support of Cam from his "Free Cam" website and got into a big kerfluffle with Ted.

Is this really relevant? Why are they even using this witness?

loretta said...

I sent him the Grand Jury transcripts, FWIW. He was reading my blog, he was reading Usenet.

That's the extent of my involvement.

CountryGirl said...

Harris asks Jon if Cam is a planner? Snap! Yes, Pat, he planned that trip to IP, thanks for reminding the jury.

Ronni said...

Well, now, know that some people have always had trouble separating your factual writing from your fiction. Even when you have actually stated that a certain piece is fiction, some have always chosen to see it as fact. And vice versa, I'm sure.

Jobeth66 said...

Ken said: You have to see the world through Ted's eyes, which apparently requires that you drop bad acid and have periodic flashbacks, have some of your brain cells perish on account of your purported death, and have others eradicated through heavy abuse of Wild Turkey and amyl nitrate. None of us can even begin to do it; he is an enigma to us all.

Now, Ken, let's be fair - after you called him on all the electric beer/Jethro Tull nonsense, he backtracked and stated that HE had never "dropped acid", but that people *at the concert* were drinking electric beer, however much he seemed to be implying he was among that group. Don't be a mendacious prevaricator!

Loretta - I agree that bringing in the Usenet & blog information seems to be a strange tactic on the part of Harris. I remember when Jon asked to have his letter removed from Ted's website and Ted flat out REFUSED, even after he said he'd consider it. He didn't want to take down anything that was the least bit positive towards his brother-in-law, no matter what. I think Jon came across in his testimony as a thoughful person who considered this thoroughly before coming to his conclusion, and his testimony is pretty strong from my POV. This is a guy who was one of Cam's best friends. (and the fact that he only talked to Cam a few times a year somehow discounts that, in Harris' mind. I have someone I consider a sister who I haven't spoken with in probably 18 months or so. But if she called tomorrow, we'd be on the phone for hours like no time had passed, that's just how some people work.) This guy changed his opinion based on the grand jury testimony, logical consideration of the facts, and the fact that his friend wouldn't tell him what had happened. Which sounds to me like "his friend" never even said "dude, there's no WAY I could've done what the crazy bitch said I did!" Never once have I heard anyone say that Cam expressed love, devotion, or caring for Lauren. Yeah, he took her for visitation, but it doesn't sound like something he looked forward to as spending some time with his daughter to get to know her, but more like a chore he HAD to do if he wanted to cut his child support burden and 'stick it' to the kid's mother. I just don't get any projection of warmth or caring from him. And while I'm not on the jury, I've sat enough trials in my life to know that Harris has an uphill battle to win this jury over to his side, just based on Sprocket's description of their demeanor. And from Harris' actions and motions, it's clear he knows he's not being effective in jury management, so he's looking for a way to deflect. It's going to be interesting to see who's on his new witness list (assuming that wasn't a bluff).

Ken said...

Jobeth: Now, Ken, let's be fair - after you called him on all the electric beer/Jethro Tull nonsense, he backtracked and stated that HE had never "dropped acid", but that people *at the concert* were drinking electric beer, however much he seemed to be implying he was among that group. Don't be a mendacious prevaricator!

Who do we believe -- Ted Kaldis ... or Ted Kaldis?

That's the problem, Jobeth! I don't know WHAT the truth is with that guy! It's a recurring pattern: He makes a statement, offering it as true, and when I point out the inexorable consequences of it, he backtracks like Champ Bailey in response to a Tom Brady bomb. He may have lied at the outset, but it is more likely that he partook; I've been to many concerts, and have pretty much always shared the herring (the last was at an Elton John concert in Vegas, for which we were comped primo ducats). If you are eighteen, you'll take the drink. I mean, how could he have known that the beer was laced with acid if he didn't drink it? Who is this guy: Bill "I never inhaled" Clinton? ROTFLMAO!!!

If Ted could tell the truth with a compass and a road map, I might be more inclined to believe him, but over more than a decade of USENET encounters, he has established himself as an incorrigible sociopath.

Given two contradictory statements, you have to take the one that appears more plausible, and the "electric beer was passed to me, and I drank it, because I was about 18-20" statement is by far the most plausible. Ted was a stoner back then, as you could see from photos that have long since disappeared from the 'net. And what "insight" would he have had regarding Tull's music which could only be gleaned from an altered state of perception?

Ronni said...

The statement that he was going to bring in 30 witnesses sounded like a threat, to me. As in: "OK, if you let this stuff in, I'll have to lengthen the trial and add to the expense by bringing in 30 people to counteract this witness. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!"

loretta said...

GerEGO threatened to bring a parade of witnesses in to the Peterson trial to demonstrate the defendant's boy scout values as well.


He also threatened to bring a bunch of people in that would testify to seeing Laci walk the dog that morning.

Crickets again.

Ken said...

Jobeth, I agree with your assessment -- this is like My Cousin Vinny is representing him, as opposed to Lt. Caffey representing Dawson and Downey. I can't imagine why anyone would want to open that can of worms too wide, and can't imagine this judge letting Harris go that far afield.

Jobeth: And from Harris' actions and motions, it's clear he knows he's not being effective in jury management, so he's looking for a way to deflect. It's going to be interesting to see who's on his new witness list (assuming that wasn't a bluff).

CG: Harris asks Jon if Cam is a planner? Snap! Yes, Pat, he planned that trip to IP, thanks for reminding the jury.

If the reports are accurate, he's in near-panic mode. I was aghast at that one.

The Acquaintance said...

Minor point: while it's possible that Patty's treatment of Sarah as described by Hans was done in good faith at her husband's request, it's still enough to end my habit of giving Patty the benefit of the doubt.

loretta said...

NEW ENTRY ^^^ - a little bit of the backstory on Jon Hans.