Saturday, September 19, 2009

Highlights and Analysis of Defense Closing Arguments in People v. Brown

From online accounts published about Pat Harris’s closing arguments in People v. Brown, ostensibly a summary of the case that Cameron Brown did not, nay, could not have intentionally caused the death of his then four-year old daughter Lauren Key, various important points, contradictory points and ridiculous points emerged.

Harris argues that Brown could not have done what the prosecution accuses him of doing because it failed to prove a motive. In reality (versus the imaginary world in which the defense and its apologists appear to reside), the prosecution does not have to demonstrate motive. Sure, we like to understand motive as people; we seek closure and explanations for things that defy our inherent values, but it’s an unnecessary element in proving guilt in a court of law. Besides, there were easily assumed motives in this case which were simple enough: spite, envy, financial freedom: the oldest motives in the book.

One of the more common defenses of people who have no previous history of violence is that they are not the kind of people who would do something like throw a child off a cliff (or poison a husband, or strangle a wife, or drown her children, etc.). Reams of spousal and filial murder cases belie this myth. Just because someone has not demonstrated violent tendencies before does not preclude a planned act of murder. See also: The People of California v. Scott Lee Peterson. Geragos and Harris used this same argument to refute that boy scout Peterson was capable of murdering his wife; they paraded a “This is Your Life” crew of Peterson’s friends, teachers and family members to testify to what a wonderful brother/son/uncle/golfer he was. Peterson didn’t have so much as a parking ticket to his name.

This doesn’t proves Brown murdered his child, but it certainly doesn’t prove he didn’t. I’m sure most of us could find five people in our past to condemn us as well as praise us. It’s irrelevant to demonstrating proof of guilt.

That Hum referred to Brown as “the defendant” is also irrelevant; in most of the murder trials I’ve witnessed or read, the prosecutors almost always refer to the defendant as “the defendant” and not by name. In the first trial, Mark Geragos rarely mentions the victim by name. Did that not dehumanize Lauren as well? Don’t be a hypocrite!

Harris claims that because Brown made a two-hour commute to see his daughter, he was a devoted father. If he was really a devoted father, he’d have moved closer to Lauren and worked on gaining additional visitation with her where she could maintain her daily routine with the least disruption. Instead, Brown played the martyr. He probably commuted farther when pursuing his dating career! It could be argued that Brown asked for more time with Lauren to lower his child support award, not because he was interested in actually spending more time with her. If he was committed to becoming a good father, why not take childrearing classes? Why not spend time with other parents and other children to learn more about what makes a 4-yr old girl tick? Why continue to show ignorance of what children are all about, what is safe and unsafe for them, what makes them comfortable? Why impose your own hobbies and sports onto a little girl who is not athletic or adventurous? He treated her as nothing more than an extension of self, a mirror for him, rather than as an individual. When she didn’t reflect him, he lost interest in her. She became a burden.

Harris claims that Patty Brown had no relationship with Lauren, she hardly even met her, thus could not be pressing for custody. This startling revelation contradicts Patty’s entire modus operandi and all the vehement, inchoate logorrhea spewed over at the Kaldis blog. That may explain why Patty was never called as a witness to defend her husband. She, as was the case with regard to custody, child support and visitation issues, had no standing.

The defense fails to refute the evidence in this case: it never explains why Brown took Lauren to Inspiration Point, why he took the long route down the hill to the beach to call 911, why he failed to inform Sarah about the “accident”, why he lied about the altercation with Sarah at work (that was recorded), why he tried to have her deported, why he refused to allow the adoption after allegedly agreeing to it at first, why he didn’t remove the child from impending danger once he got to the summit of the hike, why he refused to talk to Sarah in the months and years following the tragedy, why he seemed so upbeat and carefree after his child’s death, among a dozen other questions the defense avoids addressing. We can only assume that Harris didn’t put either Cam or Patty on the stand because he knew they had no good explanations for their behavior that would exonerate them.

Brown's fate is now in the hands of the jury. We expect a verdict on Tuesday or Wednesday. Let justice delayed be served once and for all.

155 Comments:

At 9/19/09, 4:04 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Let justice delayed be served once and for all.

~~~~

Yes!

If Cameron didn't believe the baby Sarah was carrying was his, why did he press her to get an abortion? Why did he try to get her deported? He knew.

And since he knew, he could have tried to see her when she was born, not wait until she was 3 years old, when he was finally ordered to pay child support.

 
At 9/19/09, 4:12 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

As to his seeing her as an extension of himself--I think that's true, but he did it without ever really looking at her. The physical resemblance between them is apparent in the photo atop the comments at the udder blog.

 
At 9/19/09, 5:41 PM , Blogger Compuelf said...

He most certainly suspected, if he didn't KNOW, Lauren was his before she was born.

There's no reason to suggest an abortion for a child that wasn't his. None.

If he even suspected Lauren was another man's child, he wouldn't have had any cause to suggest it. There's no way he could have been held legally responsible for Lauren's care if she weren't his.

His telling Sarah to get an abortion ruins any claim that he didn't somehow know, or strongly suspect.

As for threatening Sarah with deportation: That could have been nothing more than the lashing out of a man who was dumped for another.

If the claim that Cam caught Sarah in the passionate embrace of another man is true, it's clear Cameron wasn't "doing it" for Sarah. The relationship was over, and Cam wanted to cause Sarah harm.

Just the threat of deportation may have caused Sarah additional stress, which given Cameron's vindictive nature, would have been wonderful in the eyes of Cameron.

 
At 9/20/09, 8:03 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Whoa- Just noticed something rather interesting on the Udder Blog- in the midst of CI's usual railing against LE and Hum, and her defense of the Defense and rationalizing what their witnesses have come up with, she drops this: Cam was only concerned about the car and the surfboard that night (being out in the parking lot) because they were HIS FATHER'S car and surfboard. SAY WHAT!?! He didn't "own" his own board? I'm sorry, he's how freakin' old at the time? Now, I can see the car as a "gift" (I forget what make/model it was), but he regarded his board as his father's? And that is what he concerns himself with? Dude!

I do know people can go into shock- it happened to me once- it is a bizarre thing that does actually occur- so I've been willing to give more benefit of the doubt on that score to him than some have (I base my suspicion of his guilt on many, many other things).

Harris does make a point of saying, well, wouldn't he have purposefully "faked" emotion, in order to fool the cops- Well, no, not if he is a "morally depraved" Rat Bastard (trying to get Sarah arrested due to the LAX "incident" more than qualifies him, in my book- and does Team Cam ever address that one? Hah!), AND he fully expects to have pulled off the perfect crime in the absolutely best possible place to do it, bar none.

 
At 9/20/09, 9:37 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did anyone note that "I" Case Insider posted? I say that's the little missus using that handle now.

Allegedly, the car and boards were not his own? I see. That makes it all perfectly reasonable and understandable that the murderer was worrying about physical objects, the car and surf boards verses his DEAD CHILD because they belonged to someone else? Pretty hysterical if you ask me. How does the little missus explain Cam not wanting to photographed by the news cameras? Probably didn't want to be photographed with that stone cold indifferent expression on his face. You know, no tears, not crying or sobbing in hysterics like Sarah probably was FOR DAYS.

The LAX incident is explained by saying the recording is wrong and that alleged "I'll kill you" by Sarah is really in there but the DA's office is corrupt and transcribed it wrong because every person from the first responders to the detectives who were shocked by his lack of emotion, to every one of the DA's staff is trying to frame him. It's a vast conspiracy.

 
At 9/21/09, 12:31 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

It's entirely possible the board was his dad's. I can easily accept that, since the car was his dad's.

What I can't accept is how he showed more concern for them than his own daughter.

His daughter just died and his concern for tangible objects, that weren't even his, was of greater importance to him than Lauren.

Does anyone think it even possible that Daddy Brown would have cared if the board or car were stolen in light of the fact that his grandchild had just died? Of course not. Cameron made it very clear what was and was not important to him at the time.

 
At 9/21/09, 12:40 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Anonymous wrote:
The LAX incident is explained by saying the recording is wrong and that alleged "I'll kill you" by Sarah is really in there but the DA's office is corrupt and transcribed it wrong because every person from the first responders to the detectives who were shocked by his lack of emotion, to every one of the DA's staff is trying to frame him. It's a vast conspiracy.


Team Cameron has tried to present a massive conspiracy exists to get Cameron. They can't explain why, though Ted has claimed he knows.

A baggage handler isn't going to be privy to any damning information. If he had stumbled upon something, having him sent to prison wouldn't eliminate the possibility of his telling. With any rational person, the exact opposite would happen. They would tell all they know to anyone who would listen.

The simple truth is, there is more than enough evidence to warrant Cameron's arrest and trial. While I believe he should have been released on a sizable bail after the first trial (Hum's case for 1st degree murder isn't as strong as he thought), it's very clear the trial is warranted.

There is no conspiracy to get Cameron. He's on trial because the evidence warrants one. It really is that simple.

Sadly, Team Cam is unable or unwilling to accept the truth.

 
At 9/21/09, 7:25 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

Anonymous- Team Cam says the covering up in the car to avoid the news cameras was initiated by LE, that they provided a blanket and that is not his own shirt involved. This is somewhat plausible because it does happen, but to protect crime VICTIMS or witnesses, generally NOT the Suspect- so I'm thinking at that moment they (Law) are still viewing him as likely a Grieving Parent (unless Team Cam is lying, may it never be, and this WAS Cam's own idea!)

I tried to locate that footage last week to see for myself and was unable to (not familiar with the local TV news outlets there though and how they archive footage). Maybe if there's a conviction that footage might be available again. We know he had a plaid shirt on over the tee.

You can't take one word from them on face value though- I never bought the nonsense about Sarah being seen by Cam in any sort of a passionate embrace; wasn't she heavily pregnant at that time (not that it should even matter?) And since the only source is Cam why should anyone believe it?

 
At 9/22/09, 7:04 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

Hi, All- Denise Nix has the next 2 parts of "Cutting Room Floor" up, below takes you to Part 6:

http://www.insidesocal.com/crime&courts/2009/09/from-the-cutting-room-floor-ca-4.html

One thing that really got me- Harris says Why didn't he just use the boat (drown her)? Thoughts on that anyone? I say- he'd know that it would surely be impounded. He's already had to sell his truck to make support payments- he's not going to lose his boat, too, over Lauren. Also, it would seem to be more pre-meditated an act- she couldn't swim! So he has to nix that whole idea. He thought he'd be scot-free with this one.

 
At 9/22/09, 11:15 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Praying the jury brings in a swift GUILTY verdict for this bastard and that he rots in prison. Or, a fellow inmate gets to the child killer and sends him from this earth. No one deserves it more than Cam Brown. Thanks, CG, for all your hard work keeping us informed.
Jo Ann

 
At 9/22/09, 11:27 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Karen, I think he hoped for an accident (OMG-she fell overboard off my boat) but it didn't happen. Remember, Sarah repeatedly asked him NOT to take her on the boat. I believe she even had it put in the visitation orders and he disregarded them. So he made the "accident" happen on IP, IMHO!

This waiting on a verdict is so hard for me--imagine how hard it is for Sarah.

 
At 9/22/09, 12:52 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

CG, when I look at those pictures of IP and watch Sprocket's video of how quiet the place was, and you think of how much obviously better Portuguese Point was as a family outing destination- flat, wide, fenced, basically the same dramatic view, closer to the parking lot- there is no other reason to have brought her up there except to heave her off.

This wasn't a grown buddy of his hiking with him, this wasn't an adventurous girlfriend with active-lifestyle that could keep up with him. He brought no basic equipment, not even a walking stick, and surely he had checked it out prior regardless of what Team Cam says.

I would love to see it myself someday (it seems so familiar from various pictures, ads and tv footage) but now it would be difficult to enjoy the desolate beauty of the place without constantly imagining what her last few moments there were like. Was she turned towards the water, was she clinging to his leg, did he lift her up on the pretext of a better view of some landmark-or-other from his arms?

He gives us 3 versions of how it was, and in one he looked over and saw her body in the water and rocks, and in one, no, he couldn't see her from the top, didn't know exactly where to go- blah, blah. His story changed. But we all know she was not throwing rocks, little Miss Daredevil, anywhere near the edge of that place. And that is the one thing he is consistent about- that she was ahead of him, throwing rocks. But he was the reckless one there, not she. And if you can't believe she was happily throwing rocks that makes this Murder One.

 
At 9/22/09, 12:53 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

My guess is that this is not going to be an acquittal. Generally an acquittal is a quicker result - the longer the jury takes, the more likely it is that they're going to convict, IME, though of course no one can say what that conviction will be on.

I do like that CI has now declared that Denise Nix was just a mouthpiece for the prosecution all along. And while I'm sure she (CI) is as impartial as can be, the fact that she's a self-described 'nervous wreck' belies her alleged impartiality. She is not personally affected by this case, and for her to be anything other than an interested bystander, albeit an involved one, is...odd.

While I hope justice is served and I believe *based on evidence in both this and the prior proceedings* that Cam ain't the innocent angel he's being portrayed as by his defenders, I have no dog in this hunt and it's not going to change my life one iota if he's found guilty or acquitted.

That does not appear to be the case for her.

 
At 9/22/09, 1:21 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

I was just reading Denise's newest defense posts.

Did Harris really say this?

"Brown married Patti for money, but he had no access to her money."

Poor Cam.

"Look at the evidence, not the emotions, not the fact that a 4-year-old girl died."

How do you NOT look at the fact that Lauren was barely 4 years old?

 
At 9/22/09, 1:26 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Karen, I will probably go to IP someday and you're right, its beauty is marred forever by Lauren's death. To imagine the last face you see is someone who should be your biggest protector and is about to toss you like garbage to your death. I can only hope that Cameron sees her face each time he closes his eyes and someday grows a conscience so that it haunts him until his last breath.

Yes, Pat (Harris), some of us on the internet believe he committed murder and deserves to be held accountable.

 
At 9/22/09, 1:51 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Yeah, that was another little zing I didn't quite absorb when I first read it, but- Wow. I almost feel a teensy (really teensy) bit sorry for Patty. That is just humiliating. I'm curious to see how/if CI, the perennial champion of Harris can ever address a thing like that. And why would Harris do that? Didn't he just tell us that "you only marry for money if its in the seven figures"?!? Now, we're supposed to ignore that lil' ole bit of folk wisdom he so generously gave to us? So, essentially Harris is having to admit that, Yes, His Guy really is a Super Rat Bastard, who marries for money! He is character-assassinating his own client! Is this an appellate issue, later?

 
At 9/22/09, 2:54 PM , Blogger loretta said...

I'm thinking that we are missing the punctuation in that statement - Harris says, "He married her for money? He had no access to it."

Denise's notes are not edited.

 
At 9/22/09, 6:34 PM , Anonymous Ken said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9/22/09, 6:59 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Don't think so!

 
At 9/22/09, 7:33 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Wouldn't it have been in Camoron's best interests for Harris to have argued that he did indeed marry Patty for her money? That ought to knock down the more powerful motive that he killed Lauren because of the financial burden of the imposed child support payments, and if I remember correctly, that particular spin was already floated by vintage Usenet Toad Kaldis circa 2004.

 
At 9/22/09, 8:17 PM , Anonymous Omama said...

I find it so very interesting that throughout the proceedings Sarah breaks down at various moments, as any parent would, with one obvious exception. Is he still suffering from disassociation?

I truly wonder if Brown (like O.J., Peterson and so many others) are so deluded that they actually convince themselves of their innocence.

 
At 9/23/09, 5:03 AM , Anonymous Ken said...

Men don't cry as easily as women do and besides, his upbringing and the horrifying experience of an American prison may have had a lot to do with his reaction.

You spend six years in the stir, in what is in effect solitary confinement, and see what that does to you. Cam can never go home again.

 
At 9/23/09, 7:16 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

Ken- For me, it's not the current or more recent lack of emotion that's so troubling- it's how he was just after what should have been a tragic event but clearly wasn't, for him. One can be numb with shock for a time directly afterwards- say or do things that are inappropriate- but that wears off. He should have been shaking, howling, weeping, rocking, SOMETHING some short time later. Remember, they (police) had him with them a good long period of time. One of them (I think Leslie) testified to, was how he was putting the blame on Lauren, not on himself, that parents beat themselves up even though there may be no reasonable thing they could have done to prevent a tragedy. I really get that!

When my son broke his arm I went into an extended rant about how I should never have let him take his board while Hubby and I walked the dog, even though the roadway was level and untrafficked, he was certainly "big" enough (a tall 8 yo), we adults had control of the dog (not him- he wasn't being pulled), he had been taking lessons, etc. He just hit a little patch of dirt the wrong way and the board went out from under him. No one's fault there, bad things happen. But I blamed myself and was weepy.

No where, at no time, NEVER does Cam say anything like- "why the hell did I take her there", or "how could I have let her get away from me like that?" And that comes not just from the police and in one interview, but by others, his friends at the time, no less. Maybe he mopes around the abode for Patty's sake for a day or two, but since she doesn't testify we don't hear of it. I don't know what his mom says- we'll have to wait for transcripts for that. But if the Pro side has had time to sharpen their case so has the Defense side.

The dog didn't bark, and that's the problem.

 
At 9/23/09, 7:40 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

One of y'all who has my number, please call and leave a message if a verdict comes in today...

 
At 9/23/09, 8:49 AM , Anonymous The Acquaintance said...

Were I defense counsel, I'd have investigated the possibility that Cam has Asperger's Syndrome. (Not saying that they didn't look into it, as I'd have no way of knowing.) Asperger's could help to explain not only Cam's reaction after Lauren's death, but the decision to take her up to the point and many of his other dysfunctional social interactions. Too late now, though.

 
At 9/23/09, 10:04 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

Acquaintance- Asperger's I'm not personally familiar with. What's been in the back of my mind has been possible drug use (he's a Surfer Dude- when you hear hoofbeats think horses, not zebras). The dysfunctional family relationships, trying to isolate one set of friends/family members from other sets (no one gets the whole picture or can compare notes), trying to turn one against the other(s), lack of emotion, lack of judgment, lack of personal funds (all those overdraws on the account!), the self-centered, uncaring behavior, the vindictiveness, perhaps paranoia (was the LAX incident merely Cam being an SOB or could he really paranoid and not thinking right?), on and on. It might just explain all the variations in his stories (Dude!). Someone who "just" uses recreationally, and doesn't appear much physically affected at the time (he's surfing a lot, after all) can still be experiencing personality and behavioral changes. Long-term pot use, even if not particularly heavy, can appear a lot like early-onset Alzheimer's (I've seen this first-hand). Some pain meds and muscle relaxers have similar effects as heavy pot use. I've wondered about this quite often, but I figured the cops would have picked up on and then looked into it (they had warrants after all). We haven't heard anything that I've been able to find, but that could be a function of everyone's covering their own ass. But what specific thing or things make you think Asperger's? It's hard to not want to find some sort of explanation; but then a brief perusal of any daily paper disabuses us of the idea that parents don't kill their kids.

 
At 9/23/09, 10:12 AM , Anonymous The Acquaintance said...

Well Karen, some of the folks that Cam and I both know use and some don't. In that circle of folks, he's considered a non-user. If he had been a drug user, he hid it.

Aspergers - basically a milder form of autism - occurs to me because of Cam's difficulty in adapting to social situations. I remember one instance where a group of folks were planning a small get-together. Cam was quite resistant to various suggestions about where and when everyone might meet, but didn't offer any reason why he didn't want to go along. He had a very limited set of interests and became agitated when conversations veered away from them. Just a hunch on my part. Certainly could be wrong, but it seems worth considering.

 
At 9/23/09, 11:28 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

Blaming drugs is too easy.

 
At 9/23/09, 12:38 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

I quite agree, but as a possible explanation for bad behavior and tragic events always worth looking at, I find.

One thing that perhaps Acquaintance could possibly shed some light on- he didn't bring a cell phone with him that day. It was 2000- I know I was pretty much never without one by then- was he? He's not living on the boat anymore, he's with Patty, but prior to that he must've had some sort of mobile phone when on the boat. He's not an airhead so highly unlikely he just forgot it. I believe from various prior testimony he had at least one- so how likely would it have been for him to not have brought it that particular day?

 
At 9/23/09, 12:58 PM , Anonymous The Acquaintance said...

I'm not acquainted with Cam well enough to be sure why he didn't have a cell phone with him on 11/8/00. I know that various of his friends aren't exactly enamored of them and it wouldn't surprise me if that were true of him too. Sometimes some folks simply want to be left alone - for a variety of reasons.

 
At 9/23/09, 2:16 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

According to CI, Cam's dad had his cell phone for quite awhile.

I find that odd. Wouldn't his wealthy father have his own cell phone? I'm far from wealthy and I have two. Why borrow Cam's?

 
At 9/23/09, 2:59 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

CI: The original H-bomb has yet to be deployed.

What the hell? The whole idea that they couldn't talk about the "H-bomb" is so that it could be used DURING the second trial! It's a bit too late to light the fuse now.

 
At 9/23/09, 3:02 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Maybe it's with the other weapons of mass destruction.

 
At 9/23/09, 3:36 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

CI: Hi, Loretta. I'm not trying to be flip about this. All I can tell you is that the testimony of Dr. Ophoven came as a complete surprise to all of us. Ted simply had the cart in front of the horse. That is all I intend to say about this. I'm sorry, but it's not necessary that anyone else understands.

This is beyond ridiculous. "Please join us in pretending there is some piece of evidence or an undisclosed logical argument which would materially affect the outcome of the case, which hasn't been used yet, for reasons which we must also pretend are really good."

I cannot imagine this "H-bomb" class evidence being saved for an appeal, as it would be completely useless to argue for an appeal on evidence not presented during the trial.

It is no secret that Toad tends to float preposterous "trial balloons," or running ideas up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. Many have saluted, of course, with an extended and upraised middle finger. Could there have been some sort of political motivation, such as Craig Hum running for office? Let's float that idea and see if anyone bites, then let's look for facts that can be squinted at with tilted heads so that it appears they might support that theory. Nobody bought it, for very good reasons. So, let's claim the existence of very specific, very potentially damaging "H-bomb" class evidence, which Toad and Fat Patty could not disclose because it's super-secret double-secret-probation confidential and they're in the Team Cam inner circle, privy to information that we mere mortals have no access to, and no right to access. In all probability, though, Geragos got fed up with Toad's online antics and put a gag order on both Klowns, perhaps teaching Toad the full meaning of the acronym "STFU". Whatever it was that Toad thought was the H-bomb class evidence wasn't persuasive enough for Geragos, and evidently likewise for Harris. But Toad's still got that claim out there of explosive, controversial, game-changing H-bomb evidence which has never been ignited, with no reason not to ignite it. Poor CI, whoever the hell she is, is now forced into the role of very reluctant apologist, completely backed into a corner of Toad's painting that she's reduced to "Just take my word for it. We can't talk about it now, please just believe it's there and act as indignant over it as we are."

At this point, there's nothing gained by keeping it under wraps, apart from the snowball's chance in hell that people will forget Toad ever began bragging about it.

 
At 9/23/09, 3:57 PM , Anonymous The Acquaintance said...

Given what I've heard offline (admittedly via hearsay) and the hints dropped at the Kaldis blog, the "H-bomb" is more likely than not another variation on the tired conspiratorial theme.

No attorney with hopes of working again would spin Ted's conspiracy theories in open court. It doesn't appear that the Geragos firm does appellate work, so G&G can file for a restraining order against Ted as soon as the verdict is delivered.

 
At 9/23/09, 4:02 PM , Blogger loretta said...

Obviously, whatever this evidence was, it was not exonerating or the defense would have presented it at the first trial or at least in this trial.

Whatever it was, it didn't serve to exonerate the defendant or benefit any type of affirmative defense.

The affirmative defense used in this case was, of course, "accident" rather than murder. So, if the H-bomb class evidence was about Hayes or one of the other witnesses, it apparently did not serve the purpose of showing the event to be an accident.

 
At 9/23/09, 4:02 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

And when Ted, the originator of the "H-Bomb Class Evidence" claim came out and said it was the fact that Hayes had been fired for academic fraud (a charge which, btw, has YET to be proven) And apparently it's HAYES' responsibility to prove it's not true, the defense gets to smear him with hearsay and Team Cam gets to say that means something...but we can't say Patty had some voodoo going on because that hasn't been proven and it's not relevant and it's hearsay.

Huh??

We have evidence that Patty was going something - the scrap booking just AIN'T cutting it. I don't know about anyone else, but anything *I* might use in scrap booking is kept together. So, if Sarah's pics were in this box under the bed and we're to believe it was for scrap booking, then there would've been other scrap booking material in the box. Glue. Scissors. Stamps. Ink pads, maybe. Scalloped paper. ANYTHING. But, no. And anyway, it's irrelevant so we shouldn't talk about it.

And because Hum didn't bother bringing Hayes back on the stand to refute this "evidence" that wasn't evidence, somehow that's a smoking gun and even though it's irrelevant we should FOCUS on it. And besides, the prosecution lied while the defense told the absolute truth, except where THEY lied so don't look at that. And especially don't look at CAM'S lies, that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

SO yeah. It was the H-Bomb, but it's not the H-Bomb, Ted was wrong when he said it was, even though Ted invented the H-Bomb. Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain.

 
At 9/23/09, 4:08 PM , Anonymous The Acquaintance said...

Of course there is the delicious prospect of Patty (ok, really Ted hiding behind her skirts) suing G&G, Geragos, and Harris for inadequate representation during which the super evidence and the even more super reasons for keeping it secret all come out into the open. Bwahaha.

 
At 9/23/09, 4:22 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

I just don't understand keeping *anything* secret at this point. Unless the jury deadlocks again and there is a 3rd trial, nothing new can be introduced on appeal - they would have to appeal from something already on the record.

So why not provide us with all the information to refute the lies that the prosecution has been feeding us?

 
At 9/23/09, 4:26 PM , Anonymous ken said...

In this vein, these comments are worth reposting here:

Case Insider: What did you want him to say? The I-bomb went off? Trust me. The original H-bomb has yet to be deployed. There simply wasn't a door to send it through.

That is absolutely, categorically, mind-numbingly RIDICULOUS!!! If it is relevant, it comes in. You don't have to ask permission. You might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of an untrained layman like kadr, but I know better.

This is why I hold Team Cam in such low regard.
---------------
CI: To save the resources of Homeland Security et al, no more discussion about Ted's H-bomb, okay?

Sorry, CI, but you don't get off that easy. At this point, you have no reason not to tell us what it is, as the only way it can ever be used at this point is in a post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. My guess is that it is yet another Kook Kaldis Klan KORNspiracy™ -- implicating Vladimir Putin, the Bilderbergers, the Queen of England, and Felix the Cat. 8)
--------------
Still, you have to hand it to CI: Baghdad Bob didn't have a job as tough as hers.

 
At 9/23/09, 5:21 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Deliberations begin anew in Cameron Brown murder retrial after juor bails out: http://tinyurl.com/leqycl

 
At 9/23/09, 5:24 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

City News has learned that a juror had to stop deliberating today because he is scheduled for surgery, and he was replaced by a male alternate. That means deliberations, which began Thursday but has only been hit-and-miss due to schedules, will have to begin anew.

Denise Nix link via Twitter (my last post above)

 
At 9/23/09, 8:35 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

The H-Bomb I'm thinking had to have been what Ophoven said about Hayes, regardless of what CI, et al had to say about that. Unless it was supposed to be their witness who flung forth with a "jaw-dropper" on the stand that we never got to hear much about, when Sprocket was sick. Were they ever thinking they'd put Patty up there, and then had to backpedal?

They go on and on about the voodoo stuff as "character assassination"; personally I'd like to think that most So. Cal. jurors would keep a more open mind about that. Here in South Carolina, believe me, it would be grounds for appeal! But not I sense there. It does go towards strengthening the Pro position that Patty, because of Cam, hated Sarah so much she would wish her ill and seek to influence outcomes in a very specific way. A person who would invest that much energy into such an effort might be seen as disturbed, and not credible witness material- maybe that's where the pro side feels it's legit to get in.

 
At 9/23/09, 8:54 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Do I take it, then, that in CA the Alternates don't quietly sit in on early deliberations? I believe I've read that in some places they do, saving heaps of time if one of the regulars does have to be replaced. That would save the State some $ right there.

 
At 9/24/09, 8:52 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

So am I alone in thinking that Patty & CI are angling for an appeal of any conviction based on alleged subornation? They've both used it now against Hum.

 
At 9/24/09, 8:56 AM , Blogger loretta said...

They must expect a conviction.

Good luck proving perjury or subornation of false testimony.

These people (The People of the Lie, like Patty, Cam, Jeanne (CI), Peterson and Brown apologists) are something else. Lucky for the world, their numbers are still small.

They accuse others of the most outrageous things while living their own lives in utter mendacity, hypocrisy, destruction of others and misery.

 
At 9/24/09, 9:25 AM , Anonymous Omama said...

I hope the alternate male is the one Sprocket thought she saw wiping tears from his eyes.

 
At 9/24/09, 9:31 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

No, Jobeth, I've been thinking the same thing. True, I lived in that Lawyer's Lair Boston a long time so I'm predisposed to thinking- "Grounds for appeal? Grounds for dismissal?" The problem with their side is they keep stating things that haven't been supported by any testimony- just stuff they've seemingly gotten from Patty/Cam. There are always going to be essentially trivial gaps, inconsistencies and problems within reports, statements, etc.

Here's a good example no one has mentioned thus far (that I'm aware of): In the actual autopsy report by Dr. Chinwah, Lauren's hair color is mentioned at some point as black. Now, does this mean he "mixed up" bodies in there? Of course not- he likely transcribed "bl." (for blond) in his handwriting (and how legible could that be, may I ask) as "black". Just file that under "Human Error", obviously. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't noticed that one yet and tried to make something of it! 'Cuz that's the level they seem to be playing on...

 
At 9/24/09, 1:52 PM , Blogger Sprocket said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 9/24/09, 2:21 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Omama- It WAS Alt. Juror #2- who wiped his eyes! This can only be to the good...
Oh, and why was the latest "Sprocket" comment taken down? Was it perhaps a faux Sprocket? Like all the other faux Foes!

 
At 9/24/09, 3:06 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Removed by author. No clue.

 
At 9/24/09, 7:23 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Thanks, CG. BTW, does anyone know who the poor soul was that Cam was looking daggers at in that one older photo? He's in the peacock blue prison jumpsuit, and still has his beard. He's glaring at someone (who we can't see)- he looks for all the world like Lucifer himself. This would've been back before the first trial. I keep forgetting to ask you Old-Timers!

 
At 9/24/09, 8:43 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

Often wondered that, myself...

 
At 9/25/09, 4:45 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

Tweet from Denise Nix:

(thanks, Grangum)

http://twitter.com/dbreezeCourts/statuses/4380181667

"Getting word of a possible hung jury in Cameron Brown murder retrial. Will update soon.

 
At 9/25/09, 5:04 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

dbreezeCourtsJurors in Cameron Brown murder retrial told to keep deliberating despite deadlock, coming back Tuesday. http://tinyurl.com/yeaxzz3

 
At 9/25/09, 7:12 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

It seems to me when I've been following a case closely and the jury seems dead-locked, that it often occurs on Fridays, and resolves itself on the next working day. Wonder if anyone else has noticed this- I'm sure there's been some sort of study on days of the week this is likely to happen! Anyone?

 
At 9/25/09, 8:37 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

CI: We are going into a self-imposed blackout until further notice. Thanks for the cooperation.

What's up wit' dat? What possible difference could it make? Where's Toad's bluster? Was this some sort of STFU order from Pat Harris? It's not like everyone's run out of things to say, or sockpuppet account comments to make.

 
At 9/25/09, 8:55 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

They smell the hung jury, and are afraid to jinx it.

 
At 9/25/09, 9:08 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Wayne- But you forgot the dumb smiley-face! And, aren't they a tad LATE for a "self-imposed blackout"!?!

 
At 9/26/09, 7:55 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

CI: We are going into a self-imposed blackout until further notice. Thanks for the cooperation.

Patty: I'd like to add that this is because Pat Harris instructed us that we are to say nothing in public or to the press for the next few days about the case. We should be back up and running in a few days.

Ah. OK. So, it's Pat Harris-imposed, instead of "self-imposed" (that is, unless Pat Harris is Case Insider, which seems unlikely, as CI was posting while Pat was often in court).

That certainly explains the radio silence from Fat Toad lately, though.

The only situation in which this would make sense to me is that if Harris has very good reason to think that this trial will end in a hung jury, and also that he has similar good reason to expect that Hum will continue to pursue this case after the 2nd mistrial. In any other case, it's too late for any comments to have any effect at all on this trial - also unless, I suppose, they've already conceded a guilty verdict of some sort and they plan to appeal.

 
At 9/26/09, 8:04 AM , Blogger loretta said...

This is another good example of the old cliche about closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

That Klan has already done so much damage to Brown's case, it's more likely that Harris is worried the jurors will surf the Net over the weekend and find that blob.

If they were smart (which they aren't), they'd delete the entire thing and pray no juror finds it.

I think the jury may have a couple of hold-outs, at most, similar to when another juror in a coastal California jury refused to render a verdict in the Bullwinkle murder trial of Damien Guerrero.

In the first trial, the jury foreperson and I had a long talk after the mistrial about the "lying in wait" issue that hung that panel. The defense claimed the murder was an accident; a joke gone wrong.

After Guerrero's first trial, he was held in jail until he finally copped a plea instead of facing a second trial. He's serving 15 years.

Since this is the second trial for Brown, I really doubt the judge is going to let the jury hang. There's way too much taxpayer dollars at stake and he will insist it do its duty.

So, I predict the jury will render a verdict by Tuesday, latest. And I doubt it will acquit. The one or two jurors unwilling to convict will be convinced otherwise. This is what I think is most likely.

 
At 9/26/09, 8:18 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Cross-posted, just in case it gets poofed:

Case Insider: We are going into a self-imposed blackout until further notice. Thanks for the cooperation.

"anony" (Patty): I'd like to add that this is because Pat Harris instructed us that we are to say nothing in public or to the press for the next few days about the case.

It's about frackin' time!!! If another jury hangs, your promise to rip Hum a whole 'nuther asshole may weigh heavily in his determination as to whether to take a third bite of the apple. Had I been representing Cam, I would have insisted upon bridling the Toxic Twins as an absolute condition of representation, but the damage is done....

 
At 9/26/09, 8:25 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

Whoa, Wayne- "radio silence" from Ted, Say What? He has a radio program, or does he just call up the local stations there and harass everyone? There's a lot of the backstory to all this I'm blissfully unaware of (although I've gotten the gist); I knew internet hooliganism was involved but I didn't know radio was too.

 
At 9/26/09, 8:47 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Naah, "radio silence" is just a phrase from WWII meaning to keep quiet under direct orders, so that the enemy can't detect or intercept any messages. As Ken pointed out, it's a very basic strategy that should have been followed from Day 1 of Case 1. Toad's need to create an impression of himself being an expert on all matters, privileged to know highly confidential material related to the case, has backfired on him and the defense attorneys several times. Harris wouldn't be the first to have told him to STFU, as there's a very noticeable point in the first trial where Geragos put the gag order on the Kaldis twins in the same way.

 
At 9/26/09, 8:58 AM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Loretta: Since this is the second trial for Brown, I really doubt the judge is going to let the jury hang. There's way too much taxpayer dollars at stake and he will insist it do its duty.

Wouldn't this possibility just fuel the paranoid conspiracy fears of the Twin Cows, believing that a potential hung jury (and a possible resulting reluctance of the prosecution to pursue a third trial) was thwarted by the judge's insistence on throwing good money after bad, so to speak? And that the state is willing to dip into its so-called "unlimited budget" to attempt to coerce a decision where none can be made, a decision much more likely to be Guilty than Not Guilty? If I had trial delusion anywhere near as big as Toad's, I'd be clinging on to any possible glimmer of hope, which this may seem to be.

Again, my training is in mathematics, physics, and (chemical) engineering, and my profession is in Information Technology, so I know comparatively very little about the law, so I'm not sure about which way this is headed or why Harris has suddenly put the muzzle on the Kaldis twins at this time.

 
At 9/26/09, 9:04 AM , Blogger loretta said...

It's a practical matter, really. Something the KKK never appreciates. They have been positing conspiracies from the beginning, which doesn't align with the reality of running a justice department in a county like Los Angeles.

As if the DAs have nothing better to do; as if California isn't already broke enough!

They can wring their hands, beat their breasts and cry 'Conspiracy!' all they like, the reality is there cannot be a third trial at this time.

The jury will have to decide one way or the other, I think. If there is a hung jury, the judge will insist on an acquittal because the result is the same - freeing Brown. I cannot see Hum or the LA County DA's office funding a third trial. Maybe in 2004, but not in 2010. NFW.

That's why I think there will be more likely a conviction, because I suspect there is a 10-2 or 11-1 situation here and the guilties will rule the day. But, you never know.

 
At 9/26/09, 9:12 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

Thanks for the clarification. I'm mildly mortified as I actually do "know" this- I'm just so much of a literalist lately (from parsing changes in witness statements in the wee hours, no doubt). The more I learn of the history of this case and the deep, personal animosities involved- well, shucks, anything seems possible from Team Cam! I do think that in not removing the Jon Hans "support" letter from their site was a huge tactical error, as it gave the Pro side a credible witness who was able to bolster a lot of what they were contending.

 
At 9/26/09, 11:19 PM , Blogger Compuelf said...

One thing you can be certain of regarding Ted is that he NEVER thinks ahead. Leaving the letter for anyone to see was dumb. Especially since Ted had to have known before the second trial that Hans would be testifying for the prosecution.

 
At 9/27/09, 8:55 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

I must be better than I thought. According to CI, I posted to the udder blog. I didn't, but what's a little matter of truth when the k00ks are involved?

And interesting point regarding the post. What CI quotes has no question, yet the question will be addressed. Can anyone here explain how CI can address a question when no question has been presented (according to what is quoted)?

 
At 9/27/09, 9:48 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Usual caveats:

CI: You may resume comments but the current status of this case will not be discussed as requested by Pat Harris.

Kent's point is that your statement that it was "self-imposed" is just another lie, something we have become accustomed to from Team Cam. There is no profit in telling a lie when the truth will serve every bit as well.

Truth be told, this is why Kent has been banned from this blog. He calls you out early and often.

 
At 9/27/09, 5:49 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

CI: We are going into a self-imposed blackout until further notice. Thanks for the cooperation.

Anony: I'd like to add that this is because Pat Harris instructed us that we are to say nothing in public or to the press for the next few days about the case. We should be back up and running in a few days.

Ken: Kent's point is that your statement that it was "self-imposed" is just another lie

Anony: No it wasn't. Pat Harris' instruction was for Ted and Patty. He said nothing about CI or you clowns. CI took it a step further, however, and issued a self-imposed blackout for the blog, as a result of Pat Harris' instruction, reasoning that it would be better to err on the side of caution...This self imposed blackout was influenced by Pat Harris' instruction to Ted and Patty to say nothing about the case;

As if any further evidence was necessary, this exchange of dialog proves that "anony" on the Kook Kaldis Blob is actually Patty Kaldis.

So why should she even pretend to be anonymous anymore?

 
At 9/27/09, 5:51 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

Fat Toad: Only a WHACK-JOB would stand up for a garage burglar.

Only a WHACK-JOB would be posting on an Internet blog a few scant hours after his baby-killing brother-in-law's defense attorney told him not to do so.

What the holy heck is wrong with him?

 
At 9/28/09, 3:10 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Ken wrote:

Kent's point is that your statement that it was "self-imposed" is just another lie, something we have become accustomed to from Team Cam. There is no profit in telling a lie when the truth will serve every bit as well.

The problem is that it wasn't me. If the post ever appeared, CI added my name to it.

 
At 9/28/09, 4:02 AM , Anonymous ken said...

"anony" (Patty Kaldis Brown): No it wasn't. Pat Harris' instruction was for Ted and Patty. He said nothing about CI or you clowns. CI took it a step further, however, and issued a self-imposed blackout for the blog, as a result of Pat Harris' instruction, reasoning that it would be better to err on the side of caution.

Enough with the lies! This is Ted's blog, as he is identified as the administrator. I have seen it too many times in his dishonest edits of my posts: "edited by siteowner."

 
At 9/28/09, 5:54 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Wow.

I was away for the weekend (left early Friday morning & got home late last night) and hadn't checked anything since about 1 on Thursday.

So, we have a potentially hung jury? My guess is they're hung between 1 & 2, and not on 'innocent/guilty'. I wonder how much Harris knows, and what he's said to Ted & Patty, in advising them to silence.

I'm hopeful we don't end with another hung jury. I can't imagine having to go through this again, if Hum would even try. I guess that decision would depend on what they're hung on.

What a mess.

 
At 9/28/09, 5:59 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

And I just checked the Breeze. The last line of Denise's article on the deadlock sounds a little bad for Cam, which is why Harris might have told Patty & Ted to can it. "Jurors in this trial have sent notes to the judge regarding the law about malice".

That does NOT sound like a deadlock for acquittal. That sounds like they're stuck on trying to decide if it's life in prison or time served.

 
At 9/28/09, 9:35 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

I don't think the jury gets to decide the punishment, or do they? I'm Iowa, it's up to a sentencing judge alone. Cali may have the jury make the call.

The possible hung jury is actually good for Cam. Hum may elect to forgo a third trial rather than invest more time and money, if the jury can't reach a verdict.

 
At 9/28/09, 9:37 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Ken Wrote:

Enough with the lies! This is Ted's blog, as he is identified as the administrator. I have seen it too many times in his dishonest edits of my posts: "edited by siteowner."

Let's not forget the time Ted signed his name to a post while logged on as CI.

Even though that proved Ted signs on as CI, I'm of the opinion he's not the only one. I think Patty has access to the account as well.

 
At 9/28/09, 10:11 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

The jury doesn't get to decide the punishment, but that was more my shorthand than anything else - they're deciding between Murder 1 (which could mean life in prison) and Negligent Homicide (which would be time served). Not that they get to make the choice.

If they were deadlocked on acquittal, they wouldn't care about a clarification on "malice".

 
At 9/28/09, 10:17 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

So, Compuelf, you think CI is actually Ted? 'Cuz I've always assumed it was a she though I couldn't tell you why, per se. Maybe CI is a shared identity, which might explain the extreme verbosity of some of the posts, and one-liners of others. I think CI is female, though... but let's not get into gender issues here- or, Lord, we'll never hear the end of it!

 
At 9/28/09, 10:46 AM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Yes, I think the jury is stuck on degree of guilt just like the first jury.

I can't believe they are so ready to give up after only a short deliberation.

Let's hope tomorrow brings a verdict.

 
At 9/28/09, 9:17 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

Fingers and toes crossed...

 
At 9/29/09, 10:25 AM , Anonymous Omama said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9/29/09, 10:29 AM , Anonymous Omama said...

Everyone:

NOT THE REAL OMAMA!!!!!!!!!!!

 
At 9/29/09, 11:23 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

Whoever is on here playing the name game needs to know that most middle schoolers have more sense.

 
At 9/29/09, 2:06 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Sprocket's going to try to get more later. Last anyone knew they're still just deliberating. There is, of course, nothing on AP. Are his supporters just going around the bend with anxiety, or what?

 
At 9/29/09, 2:55 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

What the hell is going on there? An "indifferent juror," a note to the judge asking if personal feelings from the IP visit can be included in deliberations, another medical issue for tomorrow.

http://www.insidesocal.com/crime&courts/2009/09/-the-downtown-los-angeles.html

 
At 9/29/09, 2:58 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

"Indifferent Juror #4" on Daily Breeze "Courts, etc."- Denise Nix:

http://www.insidesocal.com/crime&courts/2009/09/-the-downtown-los-angeles.html#more

Good grief.

 
At 9/29/09, 3:04 PM , Blogger loretta said...

If he was "indifferent", he'd not be angry, he wouldn't care. Me thinks he's a holdout.

 
At 9/29/09, 3:16 PM , Anonymous The Acquaintance said...

The juror did say "I guess the point is when you've made up your mind, it's just made up". Sounds to me like he is a holdout, one way or the other, but "I have a no care attitude at this point". Strange combination.

Normally people aren't espeically indifferent to either letting a murderer walk or to sending an innocent man to prison when they've gotten to the person to the extent the jurors have gotten to know this defendant. At the same time, the juror is apparently angry that there isn't a resolution readily in sight.

 
At 9/29/09, 3:22 PM , Anonymous Omama said...

Anyone remember Sprocket's description of juror #4?

 
At 9/29/09, 3:30 PM , Anonymous The Acquaintaince said...

Just looked at the old posts. Juror #4 is an older black man with "a bit of a belly". He apparently heard part of a TV account about the trial, but was partially asleep.

Also: "Veretsian is challenging him [prosecution witness Richard Barber, who, while driving, had seen Lauren and Cam walking] on where he exactly saw the man and child.

LV: And it's a pretty approximate location as to where you saw them?

RB: I think it's pretty finite as to where I saw them. [...] I think it's pretty close.

Veretsian and Harris confer. Veretsian asks Judge Pastor for a sidebar. I see the older black man in the back row, #4 shake his head from side to side. Jurors whisper in the back row."

 
At 9/29/09, 3:51 PM , Anonymous Omama said...

I agree Acquaintance. It's strange that one would be indifferent while at the same time unable to be persuaded as to an alternate point of view. If he doesn't care anymore, why does he care?

My guess is that he's the lone holdout for acquittal or involuntary. It sounds like he just wants to get out of there while at the same time obstinate. He's probably catching a lot of heat from the other members of the jury.

 
At 9/29/09, 4:24 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Good grief is right!

On his way out of the jury box to go back to the deliberation room, he slammed a couple chairs.

Juror with an anger problem. WTH!!

 
At 9/29/09, 4:27 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Omama, I deleted the faux post. They aren't very clever are they?

 
At 9/29/09, 4:44 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

What the hell is wrong with these people?

"FEELINGS???"

Jesus H Christ on a raft!

And, as stated above, how can a person be angry and indifferent at the same time?

I could chew nails and spit rust!

 
At 9/29/09, 9:22 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9/30/09, 1:57 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Karen wrote:
So, Compuelf,

Feel free to refer to me as Kent. Compuelf is the default nym used since I sign on with my Gmail ID.

you think CI is actually Ted?

I don't think he's the only one. It was proved he posted as CI once. he foolishly signed his name to a post while logged on as CI.

'Cuz I've always assumed it was a she though I couldn't tell you why, per se. Maybe CI is a shared identity, which might explain the extreme verbosity of some of the posts, and one-liners of others.

I suspect Patty posts as CI as well. I just don't have anything I can point to as evidence.

 
At 9/30/09, 2:01 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Clearly they have a juror with maturity problems, or anger management issues.

What did he think would be gained by slamming some chairs? Did he think the judge would say, "Oh, well now. Since you slammed the chairs, I'll declare a mistrial."?

 
At 9/30/09, 4:03 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Anonymous wrote (won't repeat it):

Some anger management issues over at Team Cam?

 
At 9/30/09, 5:23 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

Well, Hi, Kent! I used to inadvert. post as Summer's Mom because my rescue dog had a blog I inherited, that was put together by her foster mom; I know how these identities can accrue. With G-Mail especially.

Wasn't #4 the one who had a hard time staying awake (Ted wasn't the only one)? Trying to remember that, but I think so, in which case he didn't care enough to begin with. Judge should release him if given another opportunity, just on the basis of that statement, IMO.

 
At 9/30/09, 6:50 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

CG and Loretta: Cleanup needed at 9:22...

Tsk, tsk. Such unpleasantness...

 
At 9/30/09, 9:02 AM , Anonymous Omama said...

Does anyone know if the jurors are deliberating today?

 
At 9/30/09, 11:43 AM , Anonymous Omama said...

From the Daily Breeze:

Because a juror has some minor surgery this afternoon, the jury in the Cameron Brown trial only deliberated for two hours Wednesday morning. No notes, no peeps.


They'll be back Thursday morning.

 
At 9/30/09, 12:57 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Thank you Omama.

I'm still getting over the "feelings" bit. I keep flashing back to that @#*& Eric Carmen song. AARRGGHH!

 
At 9/30/09, 3:25 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

It's kind of striking to me that there's been nothing *at all* on the Team Cam blog in more than 24 hours.

 
At 9/30/09, 3:52 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

Somebody tied a knot it Ted's keyboard.

 
At 9/30/09, 5:09 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Sorry guys. I've been up to my eyeballs in Disney for 4Q and covering vacation for another partner. I'll try and keep better watch. Jerks!

 
At 9/30/09, 6:39 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

We know you're busy, CG. It's all good!

 
At 10/1/09, 2:20 PM , Anonymous Wayne Delia said...

More delays. Hearing on Friday morning to determine the facts surrounding a Camoron Brown trial juror using a dictionary to look up a word (explicitly against the instructions to the jury).

http://www.insidesocal.com/crime&courts/2009/10/cameron-brown-trial-update-jur.html

 
At 10/1/09, 2:21 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

denise nix reports juror misconduct

 
At 10/1/09, 2:29 PM , Anonymous Anne said...

The juror used a dictionary to look up the word MALICE - as per Sprocket.

 
At 10/1/09, 2:51 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

If juries don't know what malice means....Yoicks!

 
At 10/1/09, 2:58 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

The scariest thing to me is that even if they DO convict, they may have just gift-wrapped grounds for appeal.

 
At 10/1/09, 3:00 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Notice that at 9:33 am Pacific (I imagine) time on Tuesday 9/29, CI on the Udder Blog was engaging in back-and-forth regarding "Malice". There really hadn't been a lot about it prior to that. I was wondering where all that was coming from; Lo and behold...

 
At 10/1/09, 3:03 PM , Anonymous Omama said...

Does anyone know whether jury misconduct is grounds for a mistrial? I certainly hope not!

 
At 10/1/09, 3:20 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

This is bizarre! I wonder which juror it was? #4 wanted off, now this.

 
At 10/1/09, 4:37 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Grounds For Mistrial
The first thing you have to do is to focus on a
theory on appeal. The most likely theories—and
the ones you can begin to build during trial—are:
Prejudicial misconduct of counsel;
Juror misconduct; and
Judicial misconduct.

 
At 10/1/09, 6:56 PM , Blogger loretta said...

Or, they could replace the juror and start over again. They kicked off 3 jurors from Peterson.

 
At 10/1/09, 7:10 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

The Juror could've just been arguing a point and does know what malice is, but if its #4 he oughta go. It's crazy they would have to start all over again though. I'm not sure I understand why they can't look up a word in the dictionary, though- don't we want a better educated jury? Heck, we should be putting dictionaries in all the rooms.

 
At 10/1/09, 8:46 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

Because the legal definition can be more specific than the dictionary one, and jurors are not allowed to conduct their own research.

What a mess!

 
At 10/2/09, 4:41 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Constitutionally speaking, that is not juror misconduct. Jurors used to have the prerogative to decide both the facts AND the law -- and in a sense, they still do. It's just that judges and prosecutors don't want them to know that, because it takes power away from them. As John Adams put it, it is "not only [the juror's] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, even though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." 2 Life of John Adams 255 (C. Adams ed. 1850). "The English law obliges no man to decide a cause upon oath against his own judgment, nor does it oblige any man to take any opinion upon trust." Id. If you want to know why this is so important, look up the trial of Peter Zenger.

The Framers would be appalled, as the independent jury was one of the critical bulwarks against tyranny embedded in the common law. If the representatives of the people (who don't always represent the people) enact a law oppressive to liberty, the people not only have the right but a duty to oppose it in the courts by subversion. See, Paul Butler, By Any Means Necessary: Using Violence and Subversion to Change Unjust Law, 50 UCLA L. Rev. 721 (2003). (As for Professor Butler's use of the V-word, don't get turned off by that, as the right to commit tyrannicide was the legal basis for the American Revolution; you can't get it on line, but it is a first-rate article.)

I would submit that a mistrial occurred if a juror were removed for doing his or her own research.

 
At 10/2/09, 8:54 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

Thank you, Ken- I knew I understood from somewhere that juries ARE NOT expected to chuck all life experience, common sense, etc. at the door of the deliberations room! But does looking up a term in the dictionary (perhaps a legal dictionary, at that) qualify as "own research"? Why would it even be in the room, then? Unless there's a lot more to "own research" than the presence of a dictionary would suggest.

 
At 10/2/09, 12:23 PM , Blogger Melissa said...

If they arent allowed to use a dictionary why was there one in the room?

Or did he just admit to everyone in the room that he looked it up at home? That would indicate deliberation outside of a courtroom which indeed would be mis-conduct. IMO of course, am not a lawyer. But I know discussing a case outside of the courtroom is taboo, reading about it is taboo etc.

 
At 10/2/09, 1:18 PM , Blogger CountryGirl said...

Denise Nix/Twitter:

Brown case on another break until Monday. No decisions yet on possible jury misconduct.

 
At 10/2/09, 1:32 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Hey, Y'All- Denise Nix has a succinct and helpful definition of "Malice"- both the "expressed" and "implied" varieties on her blog:

http://www.insidesocal.com/crime&courts/2009/10/cameron-brown-retrials-fate-st.html#more

It was Juror #9 now- the replacement! It IS a Big Ole Mess!

 
At 10/2/09, 2:59 PM , Anonymous Omama said...

Does the judge provide the jury with the legal definitions of expressed and implied malice as they relate to the various degrees of the felony or are they left to determine the meaning of malice on their own?

 
At 10/2/09, 9:17 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Smells like a mistrial or at least grounds for a strong appeal.

 
At 10/3/09, 3:00 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Omama: Does the judge provide the jury with the legal definitions of expressed and implied malice as they relate to the various degrees of the felony or are they left to determine the meaning of malice on their own?

Absolutely, although the technical legal definition is not presented with clarity. "Malice" is not an easy concept for laymen to grasp.

Whether the "juror misconduct" is reversible error depends on the quality of the information gleaned through the juror's search; it is probably not prejudicial. Cf., People v. Karis, 758 P.2d 1189 (Cal. 1988). See my longer posts on the other blogs looking at this case for why.

 
At 10/3/09, 10:32 AM , Anonymous Omama said...

Thanks Ken.

Out of curiosity, I went to AOL any typed in "malice" as reported the juror had done. This was the first entry. Since it was mentioned that is was from the Columbia dictionary there's a good chance that this may be what they read.

Columbia Encyclopedia entry: malice
Malice, in law, an intentional violation of the law of crimes or torts that injures another person. Malice need not involve a malignant spirit or the definite intent to do harm. To prove malice, it is sufficient to show the willful doing of an injurious act without what is considered a lawful excuse. A malicious state of mind may be inferred from reckless and wanton acts that a normal person should know might produce or threaten injury to others. Malice aforethought is a technical element of murder. In libel and slander cases, malice consists of publishing material out of spite or with evil intent, with a reckless disregard for its truth or falsity (see New York Times Company v. Sullivan).
The Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 2001-09 Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

 
At 10/3/09, 11:42 AM , Blogger Ronni said...

It's not so much the definition they got, it's the fact that a juror did independent research.

 
At 10/3/09, 6:04 PM , Anonymous Omama said...

Thanks Ronni. Understood. Just trying to get into the minds of the jurors to try and determine what they are considering. I would love to be a fly on the wall during deliberations especially give that it appears so obvious to me.

 
At 10/4/09, 12:46 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Another Kook Kaldis Klan KORNspiracy Theory™:

Anonymous: The verbage "omission or failure to act where you have a legal duty to act" is found in NEGLIGENCE. It has nothing to do with MALICE.

In the case of depraved heart murder, the two concepts merge, as an act can be so recklessly negligent that it is construed as implied malice. This is why it is such a subtle concept, as there is and can be no bright line as to where that line is crossed. Denise's definition was competent, but one does not have to wonder overmuch as to whether you are Harris' mouthpiece.

CI: I am more than a little bit curious as to where this (Denise's) definition comes from.

Anonymous (probably Patty): She is Hum's mouthpiece, so it must have come from Hum. The question is what is Hum trying to accomplish in the court of public opinion by having Denise confuse implied malice with negligence?

As Ronald Reagan used to say, "There you go again!" Another conspiracy theory, advanced without even the slightest shred of evidence. Everyone who has participated in this case has been accused of being a part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself. It never ends.

For all we know, Denise might have gotten it from Black's: "Extremely negligent conduct, which creates what a reasonable man would realize to be not only an unjustifiable but also a very high risk of death or serious bodily injury [to others] -- though unaccompanied by any intent to kill or do serious bodily injury -- which actually causes the death of another." Black's Law Dictionary 1019 (6th ed. 1990). Examples include leaving a loaded gun in a room of five-year-olds dressed up as cowboys and Indians, or letting a little girl throw rocks on the edge of a dangerous ledge.

 
At 10/4/09, 1:23 AM , Anonymous ken said...

Posted at the udder blog:

Gotta love this self-imposed "moratorium." I'd hate to see what you guys would be doing if you were free to talk about the case. At this point, in the off chance that a juror does decide to do a little bit of unauthorized surfing, Baghdad Betty has probably hurt the cause.

 
At 10/4/09, 2:48 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Omama wrote:
Columbia Encyclopedia entry: malice


Malice, in law, an intentional violation of the law of crimes or...

The definition presented may actually benefit Cameron, since it's not the legal definition.

 
At 10/4/09, 2:49 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Sorry, that should be the standard legal definition.

Ken posted Black's, which is, as I understand it, spot on.

 
At 10/4/09, 7:02 AM , Anonymous ken said...

CI: You are so predictable. Your efforts to defend the indefensible are becoming legendary. Denise's definition is WRONG, and nothing you can do to spin that is going to change the facts. But I am not at all surprised that you try.

For someone who claims to have been a student of the law, it's amusing to see how willing you are to bastardize it when it suits you. It's quite obvious that Denise Nix is once again trying to poison the well for one reason or another.


Is there ANYONE you AREN'T accusing of being a part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™?

Everybody's in on it! EVERYBODY, I TELL YOU!!!

You fault me for citing the Sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, published in 1990. Yeah, they are obviously omniscient, having written that dictionary entry six years before Lauren was even born!

Speaking of which, you have to add the Tent Circus to the list of conspirators. This is taken from its list of pattern jury instructions:

The defendant is charged in count with a violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1111.

This law makes it a crime to unlawfully kill a human being with malice aforethought.

To find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: the defendant caused the death of the victim named in the indictment;

Second: the defendant killed the victim with malice aforethought; and

Third: the killing took place within the [territorial] [special maritime] jurisdiction of the United States.

To kill ‘‘with malice aforethought’’ means either to kill another person deliberately and intentionally, or to act with callous and wanton disregard for human life. To find malice aforethought, you need not be convinced that the defendant hated the person killed, or felt ill will toward the victim at the time.

The commentary states, in pertinent part:

‘[S]econd-degree murder’s malice aforethought element is satisfied by: (1) intent-to-kill without the added ingredients of premeditation and deliberation; (2) intent to do serious bodily injury; (3) a depraved-heart; or (4) commission of a felony when the crime does not fall under the first-degree murder paragraph of § 1111(a).’’ United States v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243, 1271 (10th Cir. 2000). Second degree murder is considered to be ‘‘a general intent crime’’ that requires only malice aforethought. United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2000).

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/downloads/pji10-cir-crim.pdf

They're ALL in on it, I tell you! While our black-robed Ba'athists admittedly fancy themselves as demigods, they decided both cases long before Lauren was (allegedly) murdered.

Now, what did I tell you? "In the case of depraved heart murder, the two concepts merge, as an act can be so recklessly negligent that it is construed as implied malice. This is why it is such a subtle concept, as there is and can be no bright line as to where that line is crossed. Denise's definition was competent." Exactly how does my summation misstate the position of the Tent Circus, or the one espoused in Black's?

 
At 10/5/09, 9:41 AM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Sprocket is reporting that Harris asked for a mistrial, and it was denied - the jurors have all been admonished to ignore the definition brought in by another juror, because it was wrong as relates to this case. They all agreed they could do so.

Hopefully they return a result quickly.

 
At 10/5/09, 11:45 AM , Blogger Sprocket said...

A verdict has been reached. It will be read at 1:30 pm.

 
At 10/5/09, 2:25 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

KTLA still reporting this as possible verdict reached- that was at the top of the hour.... And I have to go to work now! AARRGGHH!

 
At 10/5/09, 2:35 PM , Blogger Jobeth66 said...

Hung jury. 6 for Murder 2. 6 for Involuntary Manslaughter. Denise Nix & Sprocket both have updates.

I wonder if Hum will try a 3rd time.

 
At 10/5/09, 3:09 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Loretta and CG, you must feel like crap. Told you.

 
At 10/5/09, 3:56 PM , Blogger Ronni said...

Ummm...he wasn't acquitted...I, for one, am disappointed that there isn't a clear-cut verdict--one way or the other.

I still think he did it, though.

 
At 10/5/09, 3:58 PM , Blogger loretta said...

I don't feel badly one way or the other. It's not my tax dollars wasted, since I'm not in California.

Obviously, both sides did a bad job and/or the jury did not do their duty. If I were the judge, I'd have made them deliberate longer.

Oh well. We'll see what happens next.

 
At 10/5/09, 3:59 PM , Blogger loretta said...

At this rate, Cam could sit and stew in LA County jail for another two years before the DA decides to try this case again or drop it. I think they might give him a plea bargain at this point.

 
At 10/5/09, 4:44 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope Hum goes at it again and spends more time on jury selection. Shame on the 6 who seem to lack all common sense, among other things. The guilt is stunningly obvious and the case was presented with enough evidence for first degree. I do not believe in the death penalty, but this man surely deserved it if anyone does. So depraved.

 
At 10/5/09, 5:18 PM , Anonymous ken said...

AP: Harris called Lauren's death "a tragic accident" and said involuntary manslaughter was probably a reasonable punishment in this case.

Huh? His own freakin' attorney, saying he should be a convicted felon? Whatever happened to "stone-cold innocent?"

ROTFLMAO!!! Can we refer to Cam as a felon now, Ted?

 
At 10/5/09, 5:30 PM , Blogger loretta said...

http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA_Cliff_Death_447563C.shtml

Latest news update.

 
At 10/5/09, 7:37 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

Three things I'm wondering about:

Does this mean there could not possibly be a 1st degree choice in a third trial, were one to be put on (that they could only charge 2nd or lesser)? Or is the proverbial slate wiped clean and the Pro side starts from scratch with whatever charges they feel are correct to bring, regardless?

And: I wonder how long before we see another "accident" there at IP, since it's obviously a perfect place to arrange one...

Also: I wonder just how the jury interpreted the chuckle on the 9-1-1 tape. I know what I hear...

 
At 10/6/09, 12:59 AM , Blogger Compuelf said...

Karen wrote:

Does this mean there could not possibly be a 1st degree choice in a third trial, were one to be put on (that they could only charge 2nd or lesser)?

IMO, Hum would be wise to remove 1st degree as an option if he goes for it a third time. Two juries have shown him the evidence doesn't support such a charge.

 
At 10/6/09, 2:17 PM , Blogger Nigle140 said...

So is Brown, The Killer, going to be released from jail now? Has anyone heard whether or not Hum of the Dist. Atty's office going to refile charges against him?

 
At 10/6/09, 3:38 PM , Anonymous Karen said...

They can announce whether they are going to be re-filing charges, changing the charges, dropping it, or agreeing to a plea anytime between now and 10/29 per KTLA.

 
At 10/7/09, 7:28 AM , Anonymous Karen said...

On whether or not First Degree is viable- anyone else here thoroughly PO-d Leslie, et al didn't at least audiotape his interview at the station, first time? I get not being able, maybe, to set up a proper video-recording (although I can manage to work these things at my church in a pinch- why couldn't they?), but given that all LAPD and area PD have less-than-stellar reputations (read the recent entry on the Altman/Nix blog!), IMO, LAPD really does have to go the extra mile every time. I'm not saying that there was anything "wrong" with this particular interview, as such. He set off their hinky-meter and they started sniffing around, which is what we pay these guys to do. If there was nothing there they would have let it go, offered condolences and had much less paperwork to deal with later. But LAPD has a bigger responsibility than most to be as transparent as possible.

 
At 10/7/09, 10:19 AM , Anonymous Omama said...

Today on Inside Edition

http://www.insideedition.com/

 
At 10/7/09, 1:59 PM , Blogger loretta said...

NEW ENTRY to keep updated above ^^^.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home