Lauren would have turned 13 years old today. Our thoughts are with Sarah and her family and friends.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Lauren's Birthday
Lauren would have turned 13 years old today. Our thoughts are with Sarah and her family and friends.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Newton's Law & The Baggage Handler
I don't claim to be an expert in Physics; in fact, I dropped out of 12th grade Honors Physics because it required hours of homework that entailed too much Math, which interfered with my after-school job. Years later, I would have a career that required my learning a great deal about mechanical principles, machines, motion control, torque and horsepower. Thus, I understand a little bit about motion and how forces must act for motion to occur, about vectors and acceleration and the relationship between action and reaction. Incidentally, my experience with Physics is much greater than Ted Kaldis's, although he feels no shame in presuming he knows more about Physics than anyone, lay or expert. To me, the case that Brown threw the object is simply common sense.
Nevertheless, I will defer to a real expert. I suffer no illusions that "expert witnesses" are not paid well to say whatever their client needs them to say, but unlike psychology or economics, Physics is a pretty damn exact science. Rarely, if ever, do objects defy the laws of Physics.
In his original report, submitted back during the Grand Jury days, Hayes wrote this:
Basically, Hayes believes (and this trial is his third appearance) that Lauren could not have slipped and fallen and rolled without suffering certain types of injuries. The defense witness of the first trial (not sure who Harris has this time) said that the side of the hill was composed of soft, dry grass and not rocks. I don't know how convincing he was, but apparently not very - since none of the jurors voted to acquit.
Denise Nix reports in The Breeze:
At the last trial, Hayes showed a PowerPoint presentation including huge autopsy pictures, close ups of Lauren's injuries in her face, wrist, and chest. These pictures, combined with the upcoming field trip to Inspiration Point, are likely the most damaging evidence and will haunt the jurors for years.
Hayes probably showed the same topographical maps and land surveys and once again described that fundamental Physics will demonstrate how this object moved in space, what type of trajectory it had to have in order to land a certain way inflicting certain injuries. If the object had slipped and skidded down, it would have moved at a rate of 4.6ft/second. If thrown, the object falls at 15ft./second. It's very convincing, and it's hard to refute the laws of Physics.
The same team that brought us "The Incredible Running Leap Theory" is trying to claim that Brown would have fallen along with the child if he threw a 43-pound weight off the end of the cliff. A fit, athletic man who literally threw 43-pound objects hundreds of times daily for a living at the time, lacked the balance and skill to heft a 43-pound child 12 feet or so into the air over an edge? Really?
Sure, Hayes was paid, he was good, he has a good reputation. He's no different than any number of paid experts that testify at trials every day. That the Kaldis Twins want to impeach him is perfectly normal. However, unless the defense can better demonstrate how an object can move down a cliffside and has the video to prove it, they will be hard-pressed to outshine Hayes.
Nevertheless, I will defer to a real expert. I suffer no illusions that "expert witnesses" are not paid well to say whatever their client needs them to say, but unlike psychology or economics, Physics is a pretty damn exact science. Rarely, if ever, do objects defy the laws of Physics.
In his original report, submitted back during the Grand Jury days, Hayes wrote this:
From a careful review of the autopsy report and post-mortem photographs, we determined that Lauren’s massive, traumatic injuries were consistent with a single, high velocity impact to the cliff face. Her injuries could not be explained from her sliding and tumbling down the cliff face or with multiple impacts to the cliff face before landing in the water of the inlet. ...
Basically, Hayes believes (and this trial is his third appearance) that Lauren could not have slipped and fallen and rolled without suffering certain types of injuries. The defense witness of the first trial (not sure who Harris has this time) said that the side of the hill was composed of soft, dry grass and not rocks. I don't know how convincing he was, but apparently not very - since none of the jurors voted to acquit.
Denise Nix reports in The Breeze:
Hayes and an associate also conducted trajectory experiments to see how fast a reasonably healthy adult man could throw objects in the 40- to 45-pound range, like Lauren.
Based on Lauren's injuries, the path the weights took over the cliff and the topography of the rock face, Hayes concluded that she was launched head first, hit her face and upper body on an outcropping before bouncing into the ocean 120 feet or so below.
At the last trial, Hayes showed a PowerPoint presentation including huge autopsy pictures, close ups of Lauren's injuries in her face, wrist, and chest. These pictures, combined with the upcoming field trip to Inspiration Point, are likely the most damaging evidence and will haunt the jurors for years.
Hayes probably showed the same topographical maps and land surveys and once again described that fundamental Physics will demonstrate how this object moved in space, what type of trajectory it had to have in order to land a certain way inflicting certain injuries. If the object had slipped and skidded down, it would have moved at a rate of 4.6ft/second. If thrown, the object falls at 15ft./second. It's very convincing, and it's hard to refute the laws of Physics.
The same team that brought us "The Incredible Running Leap Theory" is trying to claim that Brown would have fallen along with the child if he threw a 43-pound weight off the end of the cliff. A fit, athletic man who literally threw 43-pound objects hundreds of times daily for a living at the time, lacked the balance and skill to heft a 43-pound child 12 feet or so into the air over an edge? Really?
Sure, Hayes was paid, he was good, he has a good reputation. He's no different than any number of paid experts that testify at trials every day. That the Kaldis Twins want to impeach him is perfectly normal. However, unless the defense can better demonstrate how an object can move down a cliffside and has the video to prove it, they will be hard-pressed to outshine Hayes.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Lifetime Movie Idea - Toad's Screenplay Outline
LIFETIME MOVIE - Working Title, "Death of Innocence By Envy"
Frumpy, barren, homely, middle-aged first generation American-Greek woman (with equally unattractive fraternal twin) living in Southern California meets and falls in love with an unlikely suitor – an All-American, blonde, freckled, muscular, surfer, outdoorsy mountain boy from Colorado ten years her junior.
To everyone’s shock, Surfer Dude proposes! Greek Frump and Surfer Dude jet off to Hawaii for romantic honeymoon and upon returning, Greek Frump discovers Surfer Dude has a child from a former lover. Greek Frump has mixed emotions about the child: jealousy, covetousness, fear, and when she meets Former Lover Babe, feels even more insecure. Former Lover Babe is a beauty: slim, fit, well bred, with a lovely English accent and refined features.
Surfer Dude protests that he hates Former Lover Babe and wishes he could have deported her when he had the chance, but Greek Frump is still uneasy and feels threatened by Former Lover Babe and the existence of Love Child. Greek Frump won’t let Surfer Dude out of her sight and insists on being present whenever Surfer Dude picks up Love Child for visitation, even though she has to miss work or change her plans or revolve her schedule around these visits. She is obsessed with fear that Surfer Dude still lusts after Former Lover Babe or may roam while taking the child on activities without here. She knows the little girl is a babe magnet and can’t risk leaving them alone.
Surfer Dude complains that he never wanted the child and that he resents having to pay almost a thousand a month in support. Greek Frump plots to take Love Child from Former Lover Babe by undermining the mommy, brainwashing the Love Child, and watching for injuries on the child during visits in order to report abuse to the authorities to build a case for Former Lover Babe’s unfitness. Greek Frump also talks Surfer Dude into filing for full custody even though he has little chance of success.
Greek Frump is barren and can never have a child, and is convinced that if she could take this child and raise her as her own, she would not only solve the financial problems of her adored husband and earn his love and gratitude forever, but punish Former Lover Babe for having the audacity to be more beautiful, more desirable, more popular, more pure, more fun, more admired and for having that child with her husband thus interconnecting their lives forever!
To hedge her bet, Greek Frump studies witchcraft and voodoo and assembles the paraphernalia for casting spells on someone to whom you wish harm or bad luck. Shortly after Greek Frump casts her spells, Surfer Dude picks up Love Child without Greek Frump present and instead of bringing her to Greek Frump’s home, as is customary, he takes Love Child on a hike to the top of a 120-foot cliff overlooking the ocean where the child falls to her death below. Surfer Dude calls Greek Frump with the bad news, insisting it was a terrible accident and Greek Frump pledges her undying support.
Surfer Dude goes on trial for murder, twice, and Greek Frump and her ugly twin go broke. At the second trial, Surfer Dude is convicted, Greek Frump shrieks after the verdict and her ugly twin has to help her walk out of the courtroom and away to face the rest of her lonely, desperate existence without Surfer Dude and without Love Child.
THE END
Frumpy, barren, homely, middle-aged first generation American-Greek woman (with equally unattractive fraternal twin) living in Southern California meets and falls in love with an unlikely suitor – an All-American, blonde, freckled, muscular, surfer, outdoorsy mountain boy from Colorado ten years her junior.
To everyone’s shock, Surfer Dude proposes! Greek Frump and Surfer Dude jet off to Hawaii for romantic honeymoon and upon returning, Greek Frump discovers Surfer Dude has a child from a former lover. Greek Frump has mixed emotions about the child: jealousy, covetousness, fear, and when she meets Former Lover Babe, feels even more insecure. Former Lover Babe is a beauty: slim, fit, well bred, with a lovely English accent and refined features.
Surfer Dude protests that he hates Former Lover Babe and wishes he could have deported her when he had the chance, but Greek Frump is still uneasy and feels threatened by Former Lover Babe and the existence of Love Child. Greek Frump won’t let Surfer Dude out of her sight and insists on being present whenever Surfer Dude picks up Love Child for visitation, even though she has to miss work or change her plans or revolve her schedule around these visits. She is obsessed with fear that Surfer Dude still lusts after Former Lover Babe or may roam while taking the child on activities without here. She knows the little girl is a babe magnet and can’t risk leaving them alone.
Surfer Dude complains that he never wanted the child and that he resents having to pay almost a thousand a month in support. Greek Frump plots to take Love Child from Former Lover Babe by undermining the mommy, brainwashing the Love Child, and watching for injuries on the child during visits in order to report abuse to the authorities to build a case for Former Lover Babe’s unfitness. Greek Frump also talks Surfer Dude into filing for full custody even though he has little chance of success.
Greek Frump is barren and can never have a child, and is convinced that if she could take this child and raise her as her own, she would not only solve the financial problems of her adored husband and earn his love and gratitude forever, but punish Former Lover Babe for having the audacity to be more beautiful, more desirable, more popular, more pure, more fun, more admired and for having that child with her husband thus interconnecting their lives forever!
To hedge her bet, Greek Frump studies witchcraft and voodoo and assembles the paraphernalia for casting spells on someone to whom you wish harm or bad luck. Shortly after Greek Frump casts her spells, Surfer Dude picks up Love Child without Greek Frump present and instead of bringing her to Greek Frump’s home, as is customary, he takes Love Child on a hike to the top of a 120-foot cliff overlooking the ocean where the child falls to her death below. Surfer Dude calls Greek Frump with the bad news, insisting it was a terrible accident and Greek Frump pledges her undying support.
Surfer Dude goes on trial for murder, twice, and Greek Frump and her ugly twin go broke. At the second trial, Surfer Dude is convicted, Greek Frump shrieks after the verdict and her ugly twin has to help her walk out of the courtroom and away to face the rest of her lonely, desperate existence without Surfer Dude and without Love Child.
THE END
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Backstory on Jon Hans
Based on the rough transcript posted by "Sprocket" of testimony in the Brown retrial, a new witness that did not appear in the first trial was introduced, an old friend of Brown's, Jon Hans. I'm still not clear of the real probative value of using Hans in this trial, especially when the cross-examination opened a can of worms regarding the case information available on the internet. For whatever reason, Hum chose not to go down that path, although it could have been pretty damaging to Patty Brown.
Allow me to present the backstory on Jon Hans.
Back in the summer of 2006, before the first trial began, Country Girl and I had been following some of the conversation about the case on Usenet that was taking place between Ted Kaldis and members of various newsgroups, as I chronicled in this blog in a series entitled "Once Upon A Newsgroup". At the time, I was writing about the case on another blog, the same blog on which I documented the Peterson case back in 2002-2004. Country Girl had obtained the transcripts of the Grand Jury that I noted on my site were available to anyone who was interested in reading them. Needless to say, I received dozens of requests for this transcript and I don't recall turning down any requests. This was a public document, but we did not post the transcript anywhere on the Internet, and I don't think anyone else posted anything but excerpts.
Jon Hans was one of the many people who requested a copy of the Grand Jury transcript. He also informed me via email that he was one of the people who wrote a letter of support for Cam Brown and it was published on Ted Kaldis's site "Free Cam Brown". (www.freecambrown.org)
Hans and I exchanged emails regarding Ted's refusal to remove his support letter from the Free Cam Brown site, and he asked me about some things he was reading online. I responded with answers to his questions and he described some things he felt about his history with Cam that he now has testified to at the new trial.
According to Hans, after reading the Grand Jury transcript and contemplating some of the conversations he had with the defendant over the years, he had a change of heart and decided that Brown could be guilty of murder. The fact that this case was discussed for several years online, in newsgroups and on several blogs, was common knowledge. That the defense would expect, after 8 years now, that nobody would discuss this case online or have any opinions about it is ridiculous. However, this case didn't draw anywhere near the attention that the Peterson case drew, and it's very likely that most of the potential jury pool had never heard of Brown or this case and could be objective. It's not as if Hans was a potential juror.
I suppose Hum brought Hans on to show that even a very close friend, someone who originally supported Brown unconditionally, could change his mind about Brown's potential guilt after reading a PUBLIC DOCUMENT (the Grand Jury transcript) that we had no part in creating. I seriously doubt I or anyone here had any influence on Hans's opinion about Brown. Yes, I have written disparaging things about the defendant and that is my humble opinion, nothing more. I expect people to draw their own conclusions about this case based on the evidence presented and common sense.
What I find more interesting about Hans's testimony is his impression of Patty Brown. Hans believes that Patty was the instigator of this tragedy and that if Brown had never met and married Patty, that Lauren would be alive today.
Hans reiterated a conversation he had with Patty and Cam where she claimed that the couple were going to gain full custody of Lauren because of alleged abuse Lauren suffered at the hands of Sarah. This was, of course, complete nonsense, and I have written extensively about how impossible this scenario was in the real world. In brief, there was no way the court would remove a child at the tender age of four from her custodial parent and turn her over to her biological father and his new wife over specious allegations (later disproved) of abuse. It was also unrealistic for Cam and Patty to seek even joint custody at this stage, considering the relatively short time Cam had spent with Lauren, and the fact that they'd have to move closer to Sarah to ensure that Lauren's transition would be as seamless as possible. Hans also mentions that the couple were planning to move to Utah, a fact that also belies the "full custody" plans. There is no way a court would let Cam move Lauren out of state.
Perhaps Hans read that opinion at Usenet or on my blog or in this blog, but this was information readily available with a simple Google search. It's not as if we were publishing state secrets, folks.
Once again, Pat Harris demonstrates his wildly incoherent cross-examination techniques as he attempts to impeach anyone who changes his or her mind, anyone who forgets what they wrote or said 8 years ago (and if I hadn't saved the documents and emails from then, I'd be hard pressed to remember much of what happened!), and anyone who might have been influenced by what they read on the Internet. If Harris wants to go down that road, he should bear in mind that his client's wife and brother-in-law have been waging a campaign online to defame Hum, Leslie, virtually everyone involved in the prosecution of Brown, and of course - me.
Caveat Surfer: I warn Harris and the Brown supporters - if you live by the Google, you die by the Google, and I should know!
Allow me to present the backstory on Jon Hans.
Back in the summer of 2006, before the first trial began, Country Girl and I had been following some of the conversation about the case on Usenet that was taking place between Ted Kaldis and members of various newsgroups, as I chronicled in this blog in a series entitled "Once Upon A Newsgroup". At the time, I was writing about the case on another blog, the same blog on which I documented the Peterson case back in 2002-2004. Country Girl had obtained the transcripts of the Grand Jury that I noted on my site were available to anyone who was interested in reading them. Needless to say, I received dozens of requests for this transcript and I don't recall turning down any requests. This was a public document, but we did not post the transcript anywhere on the Internet, and I don't think anyone else posted anything but excerpts.
Jon Hans was one of the many people who requested a copy of the Grand Jury transcript. He also informed me via email that he was one of the people who wrote a letter of support for Cam Brown and it was published on Ted Kaldis's site "Free Cam Brown". (www.freecambrown.org)
Hans and I exchanged emails regarding Ted's refusal to remove his support letter from the Free Cam Brown site, and he asked me about some things he was reading online. I responded with answers to his questions and he described some things he felt about his history with Cam that he now has testified to at the new trial.
According to Hans, after reading the Grand Jury transcript and contemplating some of the conversations he had with the defendant over the years, he had a change of heart and decided that Brown could be guilty of murder. The fact that this case was discussed for several years online, in newsgroups and on several blogs, was common knowledge. That the defense would expect, after 8 years now, that nobody would discuss this case online or have any opinions about it is ridiculous. However, this case didn't draw anywhere near the attention that the Peterson case drew, and it's very likely that most of the potential jury pool had never heard of Brown or this case and could be objective. It's not as if Hans was a potential juror.
I suppose Hum brought Hans on to show that even a very close friend, someone who originally supported Brown unconditionally, could change his mind about Brown's potential guilt after reading a PUBLIC DOCUMENT (the Grand Jury transcript) that we had no part in creating. I seriously doubt I or anyone here had any influence on Hans's opinion about Brown. Yes, I have written disparaging things about the defendant and that is my humble opinion, nothing more. I expect people to draw their own conclusions about this case based on the evidence presented and common sense.
What I find more interesting about Hans's testimony is his impression of Patty Brown. Hans believes that Patty was the instigator of this tragedy and that if Brown had never met and married Patty, that Lauren would be alive today.
Hans reiterated a conversation he had with Patty and Cam where she claimed that the couple were going to gain full custody of Lauren because of alleged abuse Lauren suffered at the hands of Sarah. This was, of course, complete nonsense, and I have written extensively about how impossible this scenario was in the real world. In brief, there was no way the court would remove a child at the tender age of four from her custodial parent and turn her over to her biological father and his new wife over specious allegations (later disproved) of abuse. It was also unrealistic for Cam and Patty to seek even joint custody at this stage, considering the relatively short time Cam had spent with Lauren, and the fact that they'd have to move closer to Sarah to ensure that Lauren's transition would be as seamless as possible. Hans also mentions that the couple were planning to move to Utah, a fact that also belies the "full custody" plans. There is no way a court would let Cam move Lauren out of state.
Perhaps Hans read that opinion at Usenet or on my blog or in this blog, but this was information readily available with a simple Google search. It's not as if we were publishing state secrets, folks.
Once again, Pat Harris demonstrates his wildly incoherent cross-examination techniques as he attempts to impeach anyone who changes his or her mind, anyone who forgets what they wrote or said 8 years ago (and if I hadn't saved the documents and emails from then, I'd be hard pressed to remember much of what happened!), and anyone who might have been influenced by what they read on the Internet. If Harris wants to go down that road, he should bear in mind that his client's wife and brother-in-law have been waging a campaign online to defame Hum, Leslie, virtually everyone involved in the prosecution of Brown, and of course - me.
Caveat Surfer: I warn Harris and the Brown supporters - if you live by the Google, you die by the Google, and I should know!
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Opening Statements Started Today
According to an AP story today, Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum said during his opening statement that Brown killed Lauren because he didn't want to pay about $1,000 a month in child support.
Defense attorney Pat Harris countered that it was an accident when the girl fell from Inspiration Point in Rancho Palos Verdes.
(snipped)
Hum portrayed Brown as an uncaring father who tried to shirk his parental responsibility at nearly ever turn. After Brown learned the girl's mother, Sarah Key-Marer, was pregnant with Lauren, he sought a paternity test that eventually proved he was the father, Hum said.
(snipped)
Harris gave a different account of his client's relationship with his daughter, insisting the case was nothing more than "character assassination." He dismissed the prosecution's contention that it was a "good-versus-evil" struggle between Brown and Key-Marer.
~~~
Pretty much staying with the first trial. We'll see if any other articles give more details.
Defense attorney Pat Harris countered that it was an accident when the girl fell from Inspiration Point in Rancho Palos Verdes.
(snipped)
Hum portrayed Brown as an uncaring father who tried to shirk his parental responsibility at nearly ever turn. After Brown learned the girl's mother, Sarah Key-Marer, was pregnant with Lauren, he sought a paternity test that eventually proved he was the father, Hum said.
(snipped)
Harris gave a different account of his client's relationship with his daughter, insisting the case was nothing more than "character assassination." He dismissed the prosecution's contention that it was a "good-versus-evil" struggle between Brown and Key-Marer.
~~~
Pretty much staying with the first trial. We'll see if any other articles give more details.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Retrial: Jury Selection Begins - Geragos Bows Out
Yesterday's Daily Breeze reported that the biggest change from Brown's first trial, other than the change of venue to Los Angeles County Superior Court, is that Brown will no longer be represented by Mark Geragos.
Torrance Judge Mark Arnold appointed an associate of Geragos, Pat Harris to represent Brown. Pat Harris, you may recall, was co-counsel and the only Geragos & Geragos attorney present during the jury verdict reading at the Scott Peterson trial.
Eugene Patrick (Pat) Harris is a mellow country boy from Arkansas who has never chased the spotlight like his boss, Mark Geragos. During the Peterson trial, he seemed genuinely concerned about the defendant. He refrained from grandstanding and positing bizarre scenarios as an affirmative defense. However, his cross-examination tactics were somewhat incoherent. Perhaps because Harris is a nice guy, he may elicit more sympathy for Brown from the jurors than Geragos was able to muster. He may be less likely to alienate the jury (or the press).
Jury selection began Friday, July 10. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor presides.
Our thoughts are with Sarah and Lauren's family.
Torrance Judge Mark Arnold appointed an associate of Geragos, Pat Harris to represent Brown. Pat Harris, you may recall, was co-counsel and the only Geragos & Geragos attorney present during the jury verdict reading at the Scott Peterson trial.
Eugene Patrick (Pat) Harris is a mellow country boy from Arkansas who has never chased the spotlight like his boss, Mark Geragos. During the Peterson trial, he seemed genuinely concerned about the defendant. He refrained from grandstanding and positing bizarre scenarios as an affirmative defense. However, his cross-examination tactics were somewhat incoherent. Perhaps because Harris is a nice guy, he may elicit more sympathy for Brown from the jurors than Geragos was able to muster. He may be less likely to alienate the jury (or the press).
Jury selection began Friday, July 10. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor presides.
Our thoughts are with Sarah and Lauren's family.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer
Today would have been Lauren's 12th birthday. Please take a moment to think about Sarah and Lauren today.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Second Trial Countdown
Almost seven and a half years after her death, nearly four years after a Grand Jury handed down an indictment of Cameron John Brown in the murder of his biological daughter, Lauren Sarene Key-Marer, and almost two years after the first trial held in Torrance was declared a mistrial, Cameron Brown's second trial is about to begin this summer in Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor's courtroom in downtown Los Angeles.
The original jury all voted guilty; however they did not agree on the degree of guilt. To refresh: 2 jurors voted guilty on 1st degree murder; 8 jurors voted guilty on 2nd degree murder, and 2 jurors voted guilty on manslaughter.
Stay tuned...
The original jury all voted guilty; however they did not agree on the degree of guilt. To refresh: 2 jurors voted guilty on 1st degree murder; 8 jurors voted guilty on 2nd degree murder, and 2 jurors voted guilty on manslaughter.
Stay tuned...
Friday, April 20, 2007
Recklessly Risking Absurdity
People in the throes of blind rage or emotional overload risk absurdity without thought. We have all been in the position where we say ridiculous, unsupported things in the heat of an argument. Afterwards, when we regroup, we may apologize or feel a sense of shame for having made such reckless comments. If we are somewhat mentally stable and emotionally grounded, we may reconstruct our arguments and accept the fact that our reality is not necessarily shared by others.
In the case of Lauren Key's untimely death (that was likely murder, in my opinion and that of the prosecutors, law enforcement and the members of the jury of the first trial), the Kaldis Kooks - Ted and his sister, Patty (the star-struck twins as it were), persist in recklessly risking absurdity long after the passion of any given conflict has passed. Months after threads on Usenet have become buried in newer topics; years after the sting of Cam's paternity suit and rejection by his lover; years after the shock of his arrest for murder and the subsequent humiliation of his prosecution; and now almost a year since the first murder trial where twelve people could not agree to the degree of murder - Ted and Patty (and their sock puppets) continue to eschew the facts, peddle myth, impugn the reputations of everyone involved in the prosecution, insult the only remaining people in Cyberspace who bother to debate with them, and defame (with ad hom attacks) anyone who dares disagree with their version of events that includes more than an alarming measure of paranoia.
Yes, that was a very long sentence. Sue me.
Among a plethora of examples of the Kaldis Reckless Absurdity, let's go back in time to the early days of my involvement in this case in July 2005. I was fresh from the Peterson case with more than a passing acquaintance with Mark Geragos's modus operandi. Admittedly, my interest in the Brown case was originally sparked by Geragos's involvement. I never pretended otherwise.
However, after learning more about the case, my sympathy for the victim and her mother became much more personal. After all, I had a daughter the same age as Lauren Key, and her name is even Lauren. I was in Sarah Key's position where I had a baby without marrying the father; I've had to chase child support. I've had to negotiate visitation and custody issues; I've had to deal with a pathologically jealous replacement female who is obsessed with me and my daughter and has made a bizarre career out of defaming me and attempting to harm me or take my daughter from me.
Needless to say, the parallels were eerily significant.
Meanwhile, knowing my way around the custody and child support block, so to speak, many of Ted's (and later Patty's) claims about this case smacked of total absurdity. When I presented the problems I saw with the alleged custody suit, Ted aligned himself with a group of nutcase detractors and conspired with them to publicly defame me rather than argue the merits of his sister's alleged maternal superiority to Sarah Key. Needless to say, this proved to be their strategy to this day.
Similarly, their claims of love and devotion to this child were belied by their actions, the reality of their involvement in Lauren's life (certainly Ted's involvement was peripheral at best), and their obvious, collossal ignorance of all things related to a 4-year old girl.
Sure, I can trot out the fact that I have first-hand experience with three 4-year old daughters, and that I was once a 4-year old girl (which only half of the Kaldis Klan can claim, albeit a half century ago), and that I know quite a bit about "shared parenting" laws and how visitation works and that Patty Kaldis had no legal standing when it came to Lauren. I also know a little bit about voodoo and witchcraft and recognize the paraphernalia when I see it. I also know more than I need to about Christianity and the Bible, one of Ted's most absurd references among a cornucopia of hypocrisy.
Rather than bullet point the countless incidents of absurdity demonstrated by the Kaldis Kooks, long after such argument would be excusable by passion, outrage, ignorance or temporary insanity, I believe it's safe to conclude that most (if not all) of the arguments, theories, accusations and incredible presumptions postied by the Kooks over the past 2 years (and I'm sure prior, but I wasn't around for that) could be categorized as Reckless Absurdity.
In other words, not only are most (if not all) of their statements absurd on their face - they are recklessly absurd: easily proven false, totally without any substantive proof, unrealistic to the point of ludicrousness, blatant lies, or just plain stupid.
Thus, not worth much of anyone's time or trouble to debate. Organizing my spice cabinet is a better use of my time.
In the case of Lauren Key's untimely death (that was likely murder, in my opinion and that of the prosecutors, law enforcement and the members of the jury of the first trial), the Kaldis Kooks - Ted and his sister, Patty (the star-struck twins as it were), persist in recklessly risking absurdity long after the passion of any given conflict has passed. Months after threads on Usenet have become buried in newer topics; years after the sting of Cam's paternity suit and rejection by his lover; years after the shock of his arrest for murder and the subsequent humiliation of his prosecution; and now almost a year since the first murder trial where twelve people could not agree to the degree of murder - Ted and Patty (and their sock puppets) continue to eschew the facts, peddle myth, impugn the reputations of everyone involved in the prosecution, insult the only remaining people in Cyberspace who bother to debate with them, and defame (with ad hom attacks) anyone who dares disagree with their version of events that includes more than an alarming measure of paranoia.
Yes, that was a very long sentence. Sue me.
Among a plethora of examples of the Kaldis Reckless Absurdity, let's go back in time to the early days of my involvement in this case in July 2005. I was fresh from the Peterson case with more than a passing acquaintance with Mark Geragos's modus operandi. Admittedly, my interest in the Brown case was originally sparked by Geragos's involvement. I never pretended otherwise.
However, after learning more about the case, my sympathy for the victim and her mother became much more personal. After all, I had a daughter the same age as Lauren Key, and her name is even Lauren. I was in Sarah Key's position where I had a baby without marrying the father; I've had to chase child support. I've had to negotiate visitation and custody issues; I've had to deal with a pathologically jealous replacement female who is obsessed with me and my daughter and has made a bizarre career out of defaming me and attempting to harm me or take my daughter from me.
Needless to say, the parallels were eerily significant.
Meanwhile, knowing my way around the custody and child support block, so to speak, many of Ted's (and later Patty's) claims about this case smacked of total absurdity. When I presented the problems I saw with the alleged custody suit, Ted aligned himself with a group of nutcase detractors and conspired with them to publicly defame me rather than argue the merits of his sister's alleged maternal superiority to Sarah Key. Needless to say, this proved to be their strategy to this day.
Similarly, their claims of love and devotion to this child were belied by their actions, the reality of their involvement in Lauren's life (certainly Ted's involvement was peripheral at best), and their obvious, collossal ignorance of all things related to a 4-year old girl.
Sure, I can trot out the fact that I have first-hand experience with three 4-year old daughters, and that I was once a 4-year old girl (which only half of the Kaldis Klan can claim, albeit a half century ago), and that I know quite a bit about "shared parenting" laws and how visitation works and that Patty Kaldis had no legal standing when it came to Lauren. I also know a little bit about voodoo and witchcraft and recognize the paraphernalia when I see it. I also know more than I need to about Christianity and the Bible, one of Ted's most absurd references among a cornucopia of hypocrisy.
Rather than bullet point the countless incidents of absurdity demonstrated by the Kaldis Kooks, long after such argument would be excusable by passion, outrage, ignorance or temporary insanity, I believe it's safe to conclude that most (if not all) of the arguments, theories, accusations and incredible presumptions postied by the Kooks over the past 2 years (and I'm sure prior, but I wasn't around for that) could be categorized as Reckless Absurdity.
In other words, not only are most (if not all) of their statements absurd on their face - they are recklessly absurd: easily proven false, totally without any substantive proof, unrealistic to the point of ludicrousness, blatant lies, or just plain stupid.
Thus, not worth much of anyone's time or trouble to debate. Organizing my spice cabinet is a better use of my time.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Timeline
August 29, 1996
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer born
April, 1997
Sarah Key-Marer files for child support in Orange County, California
May, 1998
Cameron John Brown requests paternity test
February 11, 1999
Cameron John Brown ordered to pay child support
July 22, 1999
Cameron John Brown files for a reduction in child support and requests 32% (approx 117 days) visitation and joint legal custody of Lauren.
Cameron John Brown has still never met Lauren Key-Marer
November 1999-May 2000:
November, 1999
Supervised visitation begins. One hour, then one and a half hours, then two hours, etc.
Lauren is 3 years, 3 months old.
December, 1999
Cameron throws Lauren in the swimming pool at his apartment building during a supervised visitation. Sarah tells him Lauren cannot swim.
February, 2000
Sarah discusses adoption by husband Greg with Cameron and, according to her testimony, he immediately agrees. She tells him to discuss with Patty (his fiance, then wife) and let her know in a week.
Unsupervised visits begin; not overnight.
March, 2000
Judge denies CB’s reduction of child support and joint legal custody.
Sometime after March, 2000, Cameron files another request for reduction of child support and claims he has 50% custody. He actually has her less than 2 ½ days per month.
June 2000-November 8, 2000:
(5 months, 8 days)
June, 2000
Unsupervised overnight visits begin.
Every other week Tuesday 4:30pm to Wednesday 4:30pm in addition to every other Wednesday 12:30pm to 7pm. (48 + 15=63 Hrs/Mo)
October 31-November 01, 2000
Halloween overnight visit.
Cameron picks Lauren up and tells her to get in the front seat of the car. She doesn’t want to ride in the front and eventually gets in the back seat. As they are pulling away in the car, Cameron’s wife, Patty, leaned out the window and shouted to Sarah, “What else is it you do when you’re not smacking your kid around” and chuckled and drove away.
The next day when Cameron returned Lauren, he put her suitcase on the side of the car in the road and told her to come back and get it. He said he wasn’t going to do it for her. He told her twice.
He wasn’t parked next to the curb so it was almost in the middle of the road. Lauren bolted towards the road and Sarah screamed for her to stop and she ran back crying. Cameron drove away laughing.
Seven days later Lauren Sarene Key-Marer was dead.
November 8, 2000
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer dies
Lauren was 4 years, 3 months old.
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer born
April, 1997
Sarah Key-Marer files for child support in Orange County, California
May, 1998
Cameron John Brown requests paternity test
February 11, 1999
Cameron John Brown ordered to pay child support
July 22, 1999
Cameron John Brown files for a reduction in child support and requests 32% (approx 117 days) visitation and joint legal custody of Lauren.
Cameron John Brown has still never met Lauren Key-Marer
November 1999-May 2000:
November, 1999
Supervised visitation begins. One hour, then one and a half hours, then two hours, etc.
Lauren is 3 years, 3 months old.
December, 1999
Cameron throws Lauren in the swimming pool at his apartment building during a supervised visitation. Sarah tells him Lauren cannot swim.
February, 2000
Sarah discusses adoption by husband Greg with Cameron and, according to her testimony, he immediately agrees. She tells him to discuss with Patty (his fiance, then wife) and let her know in a week.
Unsupervised visits begin; not overnight.
March, 2000
Judge denies CB’s reduction of child support and joint legal custody.
Sometime after March, 2000, Cameron files another request for reduction of child support and claims he has 50% custody. He actually has her less than 2 ½ days per month.
June 2000-November 8, 2000:
(5 months, 8 days)
June, 2000
Unsupervised overnight visits begin.
Every other week Tuesday 4:30pm to Wednesday 4:30pm in addition to every other Wednesday 12:30pm to 7pm. (48 + 15=63 Hrs/Mo)
October 31-November 01, 2000
Halloween overnight visit.
Cameron picks Lauren up and tells her to get in the front seat of the car. She doesn’t want to ride in the front and eventually gets in the back seat. As they are pulling away in the car, Cameron’s wife, Patty, leaned out the window and shouted to Sarah, “What else is it you do when you’re not smacking your kid around” and chuckled and drove away.
The next day when Cameron returned Lauren, he put her suitcase on the side of the car in the road and told her to come back and get it. He said he wasn’t going to do it for her. He told her twice.
He wasn’t parked next to the curb so it was almost in the middle of the road. Lauren bolted towards the road and Sarah screamed for her to stop and she ran back crying. Cameron drove away laughing.
Seven days later Lauren Sarene Key-Marer was dead.
November 8, 2000
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer dies
Lauren was 4 years, 3 months old.
Friday, September 01, 2006
A Trial is a Sales Presentation
Having been in some form of sales or sales support most of my career, I can see the parallels between presenting a case in court and a sales presentation. Think about it: it’s an adversarial competition that plays on all the same things that selling to you does: your heart, your pain, and your common sense. Each side attempts to make you feel good about deciding (“buying”) that their “product” is better.
The People want to sell you the story that the defendant is guilty. They may try to dazzle you with science, baffle you with psychology, bore you with detritus and sway you with emotion. The defense tries to “sell” you that its client should walk free because either the People’s case ("product") is weak, or because its client is (ahem) “factually innocent”, whatever that means.
So it is with the case of California v. Brown. Craig Hum and his team did its best to portray Brown in the most unflattering way possible. They vilified him. They treated him like ersatz coffee. It was as if they posted a picture of him with a bandito mustache and “Wanted: Dead or Alive!” in town square. We know that perception is everything. Even if the allegations were false, based on the “sales presentation” we perceive this man as being capable of murdering his child because we can now perceive him as being a very bad man.
This is how it works.
So, what did the defense do to erase or modify this perception? Put his mother on the stand! Put his brother on the stand! Seriously, that’s like getting a product endorsement from the salesman's mom – “Buy this from my little Johnny. He’s a good boy.” Would you insult your potential customers that way? I hope not, because you would starve as a salesperson.
If the defense wants to change the jurors’ (and public) perception of Cam Brown, they had better come up with something convincing. Their current sales presentation stinks.
The People want to sell you the story that the defendant is guilty. They may try to dazzle you with science, baffle you with psychology, bore you with detritus and sway you with emotion. The defense tries to “sell” you that its client should walk free because either the People’s case ("product") is weak, or because its client is (ahem) “factually innocent”, whatever that means.
So it is with the case of California v. Brown. Craig Hum and his team did its best to portray Brown in the most unflattering way possible. They vilified him. They treated him like ersatz coffee. It was as if they posted a picture of him with a bandito mustache and “Wanted: Dead or Alive!” in town square. We know that perception is everything. Even if the allegations were false, based on the “sales presentation” we perceive this man as being capable of murdering his child because we can now perceive him as being a very bad man.
This is how it works.
So, what did the defense do to erase or modify this perception? Put his mother on the stand! Put his brother on the stand! Seriously, that’s like getting a product endorsement from the salesman's mom – “Buy this from my little Johnny. He’s a good boy.” Would you insult your potential customers that way? I hope not, because you would starve as a salesperson.
If the defense wants to change the jurors’ (and public) perception of Cam Brown, they had better come up with something convincing. Their current sales presentation stinks.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
In Memory of Lauren - on her Birthday
You were loved, little girl, even before you were born. You are loved now, even though you are gone. In the words of e. e. cummings:
somewhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond
any experience,your eyes have their silence:
in your most frail gesture are things which enclose me,
or which i cannot touch because they are too near
[...]
nothing which we are to perceive in this world equals
the power of your intense fragility: whose texture
compels me with the colour of its countries,
rendering death and forever with each breathing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Lauren's famiy and friends, our sincerest wishes for peace.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Once Upon a News Group - Ted Kaldis's Preposterous Pomposity
It would be difficult to list all the allegations, predictions and theories Ted Kaldis posted on Usenet the past two years that proved to be erroneous or simply fiction, but here are a few of the most memorable – mainly because they were repeated ad nauseum ad infititum and resembled an endless loop of insipid muzak:
• The case was a “turkey” and would never go to trial.
• The case would be dismissed and Geragos’s 995 motion would be accepted.
• The preliminary hearing would exonerate Brown; then when the prosecutors called a grand jury, Kaldis predicted that the grand jury would not hand down an indictment.
• That Cameron Brown was railroaded by an aggressive DDA who had ambitions to run for public office.
• That the Palos Verdes Conservancy had organized a conspiracy to charge Brown with murder to protect their fundraising efforts and/or liability issues.
• That the county was liable for Lauren’s death, even though the statute of limitations for a lawsuit had run out.
• That Sarah Marer’s acceptance of an insurance settlement for Lauren’s wrongful death would disqualify the matter for criminal prosecution.
• That Brown’s trial was a violation of his Constitutional rights and that his civil rights were ignored because he was refused bail or that this was some sort of “double jeopardy.”
• That main players in the trial: Sarah Marer, Jeff Leslie, and other law enforcement officers had perjured themselves on the witness stand.
• That Sarah Marer was somehow able to enlist the LA Sheriffs, the DA, and subsequently a reputable jurist in her vendetta against Brown.
• That the DA has nothing better to do than try innocent people for murder; even ordinary, unglamorous baggage handlers.
• That his twin sister Patty got all the “cute genes.”
• That Hayes was a hack and would be disredited at trial. Also, that Hayes had some unseemly events in his history that would embarass him on the stand.
• That the defense never delayed the trial; all the delays were due to the prosecution.
• That Brown would be acquitted at the trial.
• That Mark Geragos was a great lawyer. (ROFL...sorry.)
• That the prosecution shopped for an expert and found a "paid wh*re." (His words, not mine.)
• That there would be “H-bomb-class” revelations at the trial.
• That we who were participating in the discussion didn’t know anything about anything and that he knew everything and it would all be clear once the trial took place; if the trial ever took place, of course.
• That Brown was a “loving father” who “doted” on his daughter and was “overly permissive” because of his affection.
• That the defense would have a "Perry Mason" moment with a surprise witness whose testimony would exonerate Brown.
• That the Browns were fit to take custody of Lauren from her mother, since Sarah was unfit, an illegal immigrant, and that the Browns lived in a tony neighborhood and had more money.
• That the Browns were in excellent financial shape and could buy and sell us all into slavery tomorrow.
Feel free to add those you recall that I missed.
• The case was a “turkey” and would never go to trial.
• The case would be dismissed and Geragos’s 995 motion would be accepted.
• The preliminary hearing would exonerate Brown; then when the prosecutors called a grand jury, Kaldis predicted that the grand jury would not hand down an indictment.
• That Cameron Brown was railroaded by an aggressive DDA who had ambitions to run for public office.
• That the Palos Verdes Conservancy had organized a conspiracy to charge Brown with murder to protect their fundraising efforts and/or liability issues.
• That the county was liable for Lauren’s death, even though the statute of limitations for a lawsuit had run out.
• That Sarah Marer’s acceptance of an insurance settlement for Lauren’s wrongful death would disqualify the matter for criminal prosecution.
• That Brown’s trial was a violation of his Constitutional rights and that his civil rights were ignored because he was refused bail or that this was some sort of “double jeopardy.”
• That main players in the trial: Sarah Marer, Jeff Leslie, and other law enforcement officers had perjured themselves on the witness stand.
• That Sarah Marer was somehow able to enlist the LA Sheriffs, the DA, and subsequently a reputable jurist in her vendetta against Brown.
• That the DA has nothing better to do than try innocent people for murder; even ordinary, unglamorous baggage handlers.
• That his twin sister Patty got all the “cute genes.”
• That Hayes was a hack and would be disredited at trial. Also, that Hayes had some unseemly events in his history that would embarass him on the stand.
• That the defense never delayed the trial; all the delays were due to the prosecution.
• That Brown would be acquitted at the trial.
• That Mark Geragos was a great lawyer. (ROFL...sorry.)
• That the prosecution shopped for an expert and found a "paid wh*re." (His words, not mine.)
• That there would be “H-bomb-class” revelations at the trial.
• That we who were participating in the discussion didn’t know anything about anything and that he knew everything and it would all be clear once the trial took place; if the trial ever took place, of course.
• That Brown was a “loving father” who “doted” on his daughter and was “overly permissive” because of his affection.
• That the defense would have a "Perry Mason" moment with a surprise witness whose testimony would exonerate Brown.
• That the Browns were fit to take custody of Lauren from her mother, since Sarah was unfit, an illegal immigrant, and that the Browns lived in a tony neighborhood and had more money.
• That the Browns were in excellent financial shape and could buy and sell us all into slavery tomorrow.
Feel free to add those you recall that I missed.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Once Upon a News Group - Part III
Patty Brown first began posting using her real name on my blog last summer after I published an analysis of the case as I knew it at the time (republished in this blog). At first, I thought it was Ted or someone else posting as Patty, since I found it hard to believe that the wife of a defendant charged with first-degree murder would be so indiscrete; especially in a venue where most (if not all) of the participants were clearly in the "guilty" camp. It was a hostile environment where she was either viewed with skepticism at best, or believed to be a “troll” at worst.
A couple of months later, Patty began to participate on one of the bashing blogs and was warmly embraced by the mutts; one of them, not surprisingly, was “Just Amazed” from Usenet (formerly “Mistyblue" from Free Republic; and if you know anything about that message board, you know what kind of politics are expressed there). Eventually, many of the mutts kicked Patty to the curb once they had more information about the case during the trial. (As it is with thieves, there is no honor among psychos). The “moderators” of the bashing blog forbade anyone from discussing the Brown case; how ironic, since all of the posters from that group originated from discussions about the Peterson case or other murder cases that I reviewed on my blog. When taking a position on the Brown case was verboten in Muttville, it was obvious that the mutts were welcoming Patty simply because she shared their contempt of me. Their commonality was a tenuous thread and ultimately snapped when the facts of the case and Ted Kadis’s lies were revealed on Usenet and other forums to which the mutts were privy.
Meanwhile, a strange satellite blog appeared where the author promised to share his observations about various “blog wars” around cyberspace; however, he only managed to post three entries, two of which were devoted to yours truly. He linked his blog to the kennel, and all the eager mutts clicked on this link to read yet more absurd blather about how I had acquired a little army of brain-dead minions who were mesmerized by my sociopathic charms, or other such nonsense. The blog author embedded a site meter to the main page but forgot to make it private, so anyone could click on the meter and see the IP addresses of the people reading his site, including those originating from Muttville. This careless error proved to be the mother lode of information, and I and others noticed that an IP from the Ventura, California area had visited this site several times a day. This IP matched exactly one of Ted Kaldis’s IPs from his posts at Usenet, and the IP of the poster named “Patty Brown” at my blog. Curiouser and curiouser.
Was Ted posting as Patty on my blog and at the kennel? That was our first guess. He vehemently denied this and insisted that they shared a router. I concluded that this could only be the case if he used her computer or lived with her. At that point, Ted had to admit that he was living with his sister who, as it turns out, was his fraternal twin as well. Kaldis had posted on a high school reunion site where his and Patty’s graduation year were the same. Ribald and rambunctious ridicule resulted. Ted’s fellow posters on Usenet found this peculiar revelation to be irresistibly whacky and tormented him for weeks with amusing speculation as to why he would be a stow-away on the ill-fated Brown boxcar destined to derail in short order.
I couldn’t make this stuff up.
Once Ted and Patty’s IP were exposed as the same, Patty challenged Ken Smith from the safety (and censorship) of the kennel to view the information she had gathered that she believed would exonerate her husband. Apparently, she hoped to persuade Ken that Cam had been railroaded by a corrupt and single-minded district attorney and that Lauren’s death was an accident. I’m not sure what she sent Ken, but based on the lack of his subsequent defense of Brown, I assume it wasn’t very convincing. Patty and Ted continued to post disparaging comments about me with their little pals, and they basked in the mutt sympathy. I believe this just served to make them look like bigger fools.
In Usenet and on my blog, I speculated that Patty had something to do with Lauren’s death. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but my intuition told me that she was involved in some way. As it turns out, she was, even if it was just because she nagged Cam to death about getting custody of Lauren (although, that would have been virtually impossible under the circumstances), or because she complained about the money it was costing them in child support. I never believed the Browns were all that well off, especially since we knew that Ted had been living with Patty for several years. Hers and Brown’s credit profile and all the judgments against them and the lien on her house were proof enough.
When Ted posted on Usenet that Patty and Cam had filed for “joint custody” I asked to see the court documents, because I knew it had to be based on bogus information or had never been formally filed. I knew that there was no way that Patty and Cam could demonstrate that taking that child at the tender age of 4 from the only home and parent she knew would ever be in her best interests. Based on the law, the Browns would have had to design a shared parenting agreement that mapped out all the arrangements for where Lauren lived and how she got to school. I knew that the Browns would have had to relocate near Sarah in order for this to be considered by the court. When none of those things ever occurred, I knew that either Ted was lying or that Patty and Cam were lying. The custody issue had never seen the light of a courtroom, and would not even if Lauren were still alive, despite Patty’s diligent research or the Brown’s spurious allegations that Sarah was physically abusing Lauren.
It was outrageous that Patty would consider taking that child (re: “full custody”) from her mother just to spite her husband’s ex-lover or to further solidify her newlywed bliss. Later, the prosecution would posit that this was a way for Patty to have her cake and eat it too. Perhaps her experiments with voodoo or witchcraft were designed to harm Sarah, never imagining that Cam would ultimately kill Lauren. One could argue that Patty Brown indirectly caused Lauren’s murder, and the guilt of that has compelled her to make reckless decisions and expose herself to unnecessary scrutiny. Meanwhile, her twin brother’s frantic theories and protestations on Usenet were becoming equally implausible and desperate.
To be continued.
A couple of months later, Patty began to participate on one of the bashing blogs and was warmly embraced by the mutts; one of them, not surprisingly, was “Just Amazed” from Usenet (formerly “Mistyblue" from Free Republic; and if you know anything about that message board, you know what kind of politics are expressed there). Eventually, many of the mutts kicked Patty to the curb once they had more information about the case during the trial. (As it is with thieves, there is no honor among psychos). The “moderators” of the bashing blog forbade anyone from discussing the Brown case; how ironic, since all of the posters from that group originated from discussions about the Peterson case or other murder cases that I reviewed on my blog. When taking a position on the Brown case was verboten in Muttville, it was obvious that the mutts were welcoming Patty simply because she shared their contempt of me. Their commonality was a tenuous thread and ultimately snapped when the facts of the case and Ted Kadis’s lies were revealed on Usenet and other forums to which the mutts were privy.
Meanwhile, a strange satellite blog appeared where the author promised to share his observations about various “blog wars” around cyberspace; however, he only managed to post three entries, two of which were devoted to yours truly. He linked his blog to the kennel, and all the eager mutts clicked on this link to read yet more absurd blather about how I had acquired a little army of brain-dead minions who were mesmerized by my sociopathic charms, or other such nonsense. The blog author embedded a site meter to the main page but forgot to make it private, so anyone could click on the meter and see the IP addresses of the people reading his site, including those originating from Muttville. This careless error proved to be the mother lode of information, and I and others noticed that an IP from the Ventura, California area had visited this site several times a day. This IP matched exactly one of Ted Kaldis’s IPs from his posts at Usenet, and the IP of the poster named “Patty Brown” at my blog. Curiouser and curiouser.
Was Ted posting as Patty on my blog and at the kennel? That was our first guess. He vehemently denied this and insisted that they shared a router. I concluded that this could only be the case if he used her computer or lived with her. At that point, Ted had to admit that he was living with his sister who, as it turns out, was his fraternal twin as well. Kaldis had posted on a high school reunion site where his and Patty’s graduation year were the same. Ribald and rambunctious ridicule resulted. Ted’s fellow posters on Usenet found this peculiar revelation to be irresistibly whacky and tormented him for weeks with amusing speculation as to why he would be a stow-away on the ill-fated Brown boxcar destined to derail in short order.
I couldn’t make this stuff up.
Once Ted and Patty’s IP were exposed as the same, Patty challenged Ken Smith from the safety (and censorship) of the kennel to view the information she had gathered that she believed would exonerate her husband. Apparently, she hoped to persuade Ken that Cam had been railroaded by a corrupt and single-minded district attorney and that Lauren’s death was an accident. I’m not sure what she sent Ken, but based on the lack of his subsequent defense of Brown, I assume it wasn’t very convincing. Patty and Ted continued to post disparaging comments about me with their little pals, and they basked in the mutt sympathy. I believe this just served to make them look like bigger fools.
In Usenet and on my blog, I speculated that Patty had something to do with Lauren’s death. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but my intuition told me that she was involved in some way. As it turns out, she was, even if it was just because she nagged Cam to death about getting custody of Lauren (although, that would have been virtually impossible under the circumstances), or because she complained about the money it was costing them in child support. I never believed the Browns were all that well off, especially since we knew that Ted had been living with Patty for several years. Hers and Brown’s credit profile and all the judgments against them and the lien on her house were proof enough.
When Ted posted on Usenet that Patty and Cam had filed for “joint custody” I asked to see the court documents, because I knew it had to be based on bogus information or had never been formally filed. I knew that there was no way that Patty and Cam could demonstrate that taking that child at the tender age of 4 from the only home and parent she knew would ever be in her best interests. Based on the law, the Browns would have had to design a shared parenting agreement that mapped out all the arrangements for where Lauren lived and how she got to school. I knew that the Browns would have had to relocate near Sarah in order for this to be considered by the court. When none of those things ever occurred, I knew that either Ted was lying or that Patty and Cam were lying. The custody issue had never seen the light of a courtroom, and would not even if Lauren were still alive, despite Patty’s diligent research or the Brown’s spurious allegations that Sarah was physically abusing Lauren.
It was outrageous that Patty would consider taking that child (re: “full custody”) from her mother just to spite her husband’s ex-lover or to further solidify her newlywed bliss. Later, the prosecution would posit that this was a way for Patty to have her cake and eat it too. Perhaps her experiments with voodoo or witchcraft were designed to harm Sarah, never imagining that Cam would ultimately kill Lauren. One could argue that Patty Brown indirectly caused Lauren’s murder, and the guilt of that has compelled her to make reckless decisions and expose herself to unnecessary scrutiny. Meanwhile, her twin brother’s frantic theories and protestations on Usenet were becoming equally implausible and desperate.
To be continued.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Once Upon a News Group - Part II
Let’s digress a little and consider the impact that crime forums, news groups, and web logs (blogs) have had on the criminal justice system in general, and murder trials in particular. Before the Internet became a source of instant news and vast information (some credible, some not so credible), we relied on local news sources for updates on criminal cases or current trials. While the Simpson trial was televised, most trials are not, and those of us with jobs and commitments don’t have the luxury of watching trials on Court TV.
Over the past 10 years (and exponentially in the last three years), numerous crime forums, message boards and blogs created the opportunity to follow a criminal case live from the earliest news reports through the verdict and aftermath. The age of instant communication changed the course of crime reporting forever. When I opened my blog in January 2003, I never predicted the kind of following it would attract because of my interest in the Peterson case. My blog was never specifically designed to be a “true-crime” blog, but the Peterson case took on a life of its own. I received leads, inside scoop, emails from people in Modesto and Fresno, tips from people in San Diego, and rather startling information from a person directly involved in the investigation. All because I had a blog that hosted a highly popular discussion section that was well monitored (no small task) and that weeded out the idiots, of which there were many.
Back in the early part of 2003, there weren’t many blogs that covered crime stories, and none that covered the Peterson case in any depth, so I was an unwitting pioneer in that regard. Because of my ability over the subsequent three years to attract a thoughtful and intelligent group of posters, and my ability to construct a well organized and researched summary of a case, I was contacted by parents and friends of victims, law enforcement, lawyers, district attorneys, and of course the random crackpot that threatened me.
In the past three years, blogs have become a reliable source of news, political discussion, inside information, and investigative reporting, and often scoop mainstream media because of their real-time, spontaneous format. Nearly everybody and his uncle has heard of blogs by now, most people with Internet service have read one, and all the news media have a stable of “bloggers” specializing in a specific subject.
By the time I began writing about the Brown case, I had been around for three blog years, which on the Internet is like dog years. I had attracted a wonderful community of posters that became friends in “real life”, as well as a slew of detractors that made a mini-career out of creating bashing threads in crime forums like Court TV and Websleuths to discredit and criticize me for everything from my eyebrows to my modifier-laden prose. Yes, cyber celebrity certainly has its downside.
This is the backdrop for the extraordinary events that occurred when I began to post at Usenet and report about the Brown case on my blog. Imagine all the nameless, faceless individuals reading the entries on my blog or following the various discussions on Usenet; people who know Sarah, knew Lauren, know Ted Kaldis, are coworkers of the defendant, are paralegals working for the defense or prosecution, grew up with the Brown family; countless lurkers who have one or two degrees of separation from the case. Imagine the scrutiny with which everything I and others wrote was under. Imagine how useful the debates among the posters at the news groups and my blog were for the people involved in this case. They must have sprung out of bed every morning with glee, rushing to see how we had helped them do their jobs. Did we realize that? Perhaps; but, blogging is essentially an exercise in vainglory, so the positive and negative impact one’s blog has on a particular case is secondary to its function as self-aggrandizing performance art.
Thus, it should have come as no surprise when we discovered that our conversations were being closely monitored; it was no surprise to me to see the IP addresses of law enforcement, media, government agencies, and an assortment of curious people on my blog daily. I was used to it. However, little did I know that a cadre of my detractors would eventually organize (thanks to my lack of foresight, but who can predict these things?) and produce a number of bashing sites dedicated to defaming me. I probably hold the dubious distinction of having more hate blogs devoted to me than any non-celebrity blogger in the blogosphere. Fortunately, because of Newton’s Laws, the universe has balanced this negative energy with positive energy, and I have attracted the most wonderful friends and supporters that any blogger could ask for.
I wouldn’t have bothered giving you the background of this if it were not essential to understanding the events that followed. Now that you have the big picture, we can continue our story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. once said in a commencement speech, “Life is full of good guesses and bad guesses.” So it is with discussing murder cases on the Internet. Unlike in the Peterson case where dozens of media groups reported every speck of bellybutton lint, the Brown case received scant news coverage. Where the court documents in Peterson became available within days after being filed by the defense or prosecution, we had no ready access to the motions or decisions in Brown. The autopsy report was sealed indefinitely, there was nothing forthcoming from the prosecution, and the normally publicity-grubbing Mark Geragos was uncharacteristically silent.
With this dearth of official documentation, we were left with our speculation and reading between the lines of Ted Kaldis’s strange and cryptic posts on Usenet. Many of us had valid theories regarding the incident on November 8, 2000. I predicted that Brown was in debt, that he had poor communication skills, that he had probably run through a series of shallow, physical relationships that resulted in ill will, and that he married a woman ten years his elder for her financial security and geographic location. Some of my guesses were proven to be accurate, others will always remain presumption. This is not rocket science; most people accused of murdering their spouse or child share many personality and lifestyle traits. Like amateur profilers, we look for patterns and statistics; however, we bring our prejudices and projection into the discussion and sometimes this taints our point of view. In the news groups, the fact that Ted Kaldis was Brown’s brother-in-law, and that he had made so many enemies in Usenet over the years because of his obnoxious behavior, his support of Brown was instantly suspect and summarily rejected. In retrospect, it would have been far better for Kaldis not to have introduced the Brown case to his associates in Usenet at all. I believe he did far more harm than good to his twin sister’s husband’s case.
Unfortunately (but predictably) for Team Cam, Kaldis was incapable of stifling himself. What we didn’t anticipate was that his sister Patty, the defendant’s wife, would eventually post in my blog and on one of the hate blogs using her own name. Whether she did this out of a reckless desire to refute some of my speculation about Brown, or because Ted’s participation had spiraled out of control, we may never know. What we do know is that because she chose to participate in bashing me for having my opinions, theories and the audacity to publish them, she made herself vulnerable. Although I didn’t have the time or resources to investigate Mrs. Brown, several loyal friends and supporters did. What they discovered about the Brown’s financial profile was even more dire than we had speculated. This unflattering reality was substantiated recently at the first trial. But, this wasn't the only thing we found out because of Patty Brown's participation in "Muttville" (my pet name for the bashing blog)...
To be continued.
Over the past 10 years (and exponentially in the last three years), numerous crime forums, message boards and blogs created the opportunity to follow a criminal case live from the earliest news reports through the verdict and aftermath. The age of instant communication changed the course of crime reporting forever. When I opened my blog in January 2003, I never predicted the kind of following it would attract because of my interest in the Peterson case. My blog was never specifically designed to be a “true-crime” blog, but the Peterson case took on a life of its own. I received leads, inside scoop, emails from people in Modesto and Fresno, tips from people in San Diego, and rather startling information from a person directly involved in the investigation. All because I had a blog that hosted a highly popular discussion section that was well monitored (no small task) and that weeded out the idiots, of which there were many.
Back in the early part of 2003, there weren’t many blogs that covered crime stories, and none that covered the Peterson case in any depth, so I was an unwitting pioneer in that regard. Because of my ability over the subsequent three years to attract a thoughtful and intelligent group of posters, and my ability to construct a well organized and researched summary of a case, I was contacted by parents and friends of victims, law enforcement, lawyers, district attorneys, and of course the random crackpot that threatened me.
In the past three years, blogs have become a reliable source of news, political discussion, inside information, and investigative reporting, and often scoop mainstream media because of their real-time, spontaneous format. Nearly everybody and his uncle has heard of blogs by now, most people with Internet service have read one, and all the news media have a stable of “bloggers” specializing in a specific subject.
By the time I began writing about the Brown case, I had been around for three blog years, which on the Internet is like dog years. I had attracted a wonderful community of posters that became friends in “real life”, as well as a slew of detractors that made a mini-career out of creating bashing threads in crime forums like Court TV and Websleuths to discredit and criticize me for everything from my eyebrows to my modifier-laden prose. Yes, cyber celebrity certainly has its downside.
This is the backdrop for the extraordinary events that occurred when I began to post at Usenet and report about the Brown case on my blog. Imagine all the nameless, faceless individuals reading the entries on my blog or following the various discussions on Usenet; people who know Sarah, knew Lauren, know Ted Kaldis, are coworkers of the defendant, are paralegals working for the defense or prosecution, grew up with the Brown family; countless lurkers who have one or two degrees of separation from the case. Imagine the scrutiny with which everything I and others wrote was under. Imagine how useful the debates among the posters at the news groups and my blog were for the people involved in this case. They must have sprung out of bed every morning with glee, rushing to see how we had helped them do their jobs. Did we realize that? Perhaps; but, blogging is essentially an exercise in vainglory, so the positive and negative impact one’s blog has on a particular case is secondary to its function as self-aggrandizing performance art.
Thus, it should have come as no surprise when we discovered that our conversations were being closely monitored; it was no surprise to me to see the IP addresses of law enforcement, media, government agencies, and an assortment of curious people on my blog daily. I was used to it. However, little did I know that a cadre of my detractors would eventually organize (thanks to my lack of foresight, but who can predict these things?) and produce a number of bashing sites dedicated to defaming me. I probably hold the dubious distinction of having more hate blogs devoted to me than any non-celebrity blogger in the blogosphere. Fortunately, because of Newton’s Laws, the universe has balanced this negative energy with positive energy, and I have attracted the most wonderful friends and supporters that any blogger could ask for.
I wouldn’t have bothered giving you the background of this if it were not essential to understanding the events that followed. Now that you have the big picture, we can continue our story.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. once said in a commencement speech, “Life is full of good guesses and bad guesses.” So it is with discussing murder cases on the Internet. Unlike in the Peterson case where dozens of media groups reported every speck of bellybutton lint, the Brown case received scant news coverage. Where the court documents in Peterson became available within days after being filed by the defense or prosecution, we had no ready access to the motions or decisions in Brown. The autopsy report was sealed indefinitely, there was nothing forthcoming from the prosecution, and the normally publicity-grubbing Mark Geragos was uncharacteristically silent.
With this dearth of official documentation, we were left with our speculation and reading between the lines of Ted Kaldis’s strange and cryptic posts on Usenet. Many of us had valid theories regarding the incident on November 8, 2000. I predicted that Brown was in debt, that he had poor communication skills, that he had probably run through a series of shallow, physical relationships that resulted in ill will, and that he married a woman ten years his elder for her financial security and geographic location. Some of my guesses were proven to be accurate, others will always remain presumption. This is not rocket science; most people accused of murdering their spouse or child share many personality and lifestyle traits. Like amateur profilers, we look for patterns and statistics; however, we bring our prejudices and projection into the discussion and sometimes this taints our point of view. In the news groups, the fact that Ted Kaldis was Brown’s brother-in-law, and that he had made so many enemies in Usenet over the years because of his obnoxious behavior, his support of Brown was instantly suspect and summarily rejected. In retrospect, it would have been far better for Kaldis not to have introduced the Brown case to his associates in Usenet at all. I believe he did far more harm than good to his twin sister’s husband’s case.
Unfortunately (but predictably) for Team Cam, Kaldis was incapable of stifling himself. What we didn’t anticipate was that his sister Patty, the defendant’s wife, would eventually post in my blog and on one of the hate blogs using her own name. Whether she did this out of a reckless desire to refute some of my speculation about Brown, or because Ted’s participation had spiraled out of control, we may never know. What we do know is that because she chose to participate in bashing me for having my opinions, theories and the audacity to publish them, she made herself vulnerable. Although I didn’t have the time or resources to investigate Mrs. Brown, several loyal friends and supporters did. What they discovered about the Brown’s financial profile was even more dire than we had speculated. This unflattering reality was substantiated recently at the first trial. But, this wasn't the only thing we found out because of Patty Brown's participation in "Muttville" (my pet name for the bashing blog)...
To be continued.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Once Upon a News Group...
Beneath the surface details of the People v. Brown lies a subculture of sorts; a back story about the participants in the online dialogue of the case that dates back many years.
Before any of us had ever heard of Cameron Brown or Lauren Key there was a group of posters from the newsgroups (now called “Usenet”: a conglomeration of mostly uncensored discussion groups that sprout like mushrooms on manure) who had been posting together on various topics including law, politics, elections, religion and pop culture. One of the ubiquitous posters was Ted Kaldis, a thoroughly repulsive individual whose racism, bigotry, religious fanatacism, misogyny and hypocrisy rival the most boorish character in a Charles Dickens novel.
My introduction to Usenet was through CountryGirl, who sent me a link to an interesting discussion on the “alt.fan.bob-larson” group last July regarding the Brown case she had come across. I was vaguely familiar with Usenet and had occasionally viewed threads in there to read about true crime stories I was following at one time or another, but I had never posted there. I had my own blog where I had followed the Peterson case and a few other murder trials in California and made no secret of my disdain for Mark Geragos. My interest in the Brown case stemmed almost exclusively, at first, from the fact that Geragos had signed on as Brown’s attorney. As I became more familiar with the facts, I found the case to be extremely compelling for me on a deeper level than merely chronicling another potential Geragos catastrophe.
I joined the news group and began posting some of my opinions and research about the Brown case, and was welcomed by a number of “regulars” there – kind of like the bar, “Cheers”, including Ken, Kent, Wayne, and Dane. I learned that their mutual nemesis, Ted Kaldis, was related by marriage to the defendant, which was an interesting twist. Needless to say, because I was obviously in the camp that believed Brown was guilty as sin, Kaldis was rude and aggressive to me from the outset. That didn’t faze me too much, since running a blog for three years had inured me to trolls and ad hominem attacks. You have to have a pretty thick skin to run a blog with 400 comments a day from so many virtual strangers, including all manner of idiots, nutcases and apologists for the defendant.
Within a week or so, a new poster joined the group calling herself “Interested”, who, it seemed, was a lot more interested in attacking me than she was in the case. “Interested” was rebuffed by some others in the group after her comments became more bizarre and insulting. Some of us believed she was working for Team Cam because of her tendency to argue rather obscure and sometimes obtuse issues. Suddenly, she left, only to reincarnate a few weeks later as “Just Amazed”; and I was certainly quite amazed at what happened next.
To be continued.
Before any of us had ever heard of Cameron Brown or Lauren Key there was a group of posters from the newsgroups (now called “Usenet”: a conglomeration of mostly uncensored discussion groups that sprout like mushrooms on manure) who had been posting together on various topics including law, politics, elections, religion and pop culture. One of the ubiquitous posters was Ted Kaldis, a thoroughly repulsive individual whose racism, bigotry, religious fanatacism, misogyny and hypocrisy rival the most boorish character in a Charles Dickens novel.
My introduction to Usenet was through CountryGirl, who sent me a link to an interesting discussion on the “alt.fan.bob-larson” group last July regarding the Brown case she had come across. I was vaguely familiar with Usenet and had occasionally viewed threads in there to read about true crime stories I was following at one time or another, but I had never posted there. I had my own blog where I had followed the Peterson case and a few other murder trials in California and made no secret of my disdain for Mark Geragos. My interest in the Brown case stemmed almost exclusively, at first, from the fact that Geragos had signed on as Brown’s attorney. As I became more familiar with the facts, I found the case to be extremely compelling for me on a deeper level than merely chronicling another potential Geragos catastrophe.
I joined the news group and began posting some of my opinions and research about the Brown case, and was welcomed by a number of “regulars” there – kind of like the bar, “Cheers”, including Ken, Kent, Wayne, and Dane. I learned that their mutual nemesis, Ted Kaldis, was related by marriage to the defendant, which was an interesting twist. Needless to say, because I was obviously in the camp that believed Brown was guilty as sin, Kaldis was rude and aggressive to me from the outset. That didn’t faze me too much, since running a blog for three years had inured me to trolls and ad hominem attacks. You have to have a pretty thick skin to run a blog with 400 comments a day from so many virtual strangers, including all manner of idiots, nutcases and apologists for the defendant.
Within a week or so, a new poster joined the group calling herself “Interested”, who, it seemed, was a lot more interested in attacking me than she was in the case. “Interested” was rebuffed by some others in the group after her comments became more bizarre and insulting. Some of us believed she was working for Team Cam because of her tendency to argue rather obscure and sometimes obtuse issues. Suddenly, she left, only to reincarnate a few weeks later as “Just Amazed”; and I was certainly quite amazed at what happened next.
To be continued.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Mistrial
Judge Arnold has declared a mistrial. 2 jurors were not going to change their mind. It was 9-2 1 abstaining on Friday. 9 guilty. They said it wouldn't help to have the attorneys argue.
Jury Update Monday August 14th
KFI just reported the jury was still deadlocked today. The vote on Thursday was 9-3; Friday was 10-2 (SF said 9-2 but that is only 11). The issue reportedly is the element of murder: malice aforethought.
Craig Hum and Mark Geragos will each have a half hour to argue to the jury on that issue this afternoon. Evidently this is more common than reported; no jurors will be allowed to ask questions.
More later as it becomes known....
Craig Hum and Mark Geragos will each have a half hour to argue to the jury on that issue this afternoon. Evidently this is more common than reported; no jurors will be allowed to ask questions.
More later as it becomes known....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)