...who may well have dabbled in black magick. If you believe in what a Christian believes in, you are more likely to believe that magick works. Now, if you were to accuse me of it, that would be an exercise in lunacy.
anony: Patty's only concern was Lauren's well being. The court record supports that she had reason to be concerned for the child's well being,
["The child?" Curious choice of words, don't you think?]
Bullshit on steroids! You wanted the freakin' kid. While I don't believe the cops for a New York minute, and discount virtually anything that happens in family court, I do believe Jon Hans.
"anony" (Patty): Sprocket missed some pivotal moments, which affected the jury. So your point of view of what the jury is seeing is way off.
Again, Patty, what you believe affected the jury and what actually affected them is almost certainly two different things. And when you make statements such as these, you blow your cover quite spectacularly. Remember, we know who is in the courtroom.
Seriously, I would urge you in the strongest of terms to have a conversation with Harris about what you should and should not be saying in public about the case.
Patty: The 'voodoo kit' never existed; and the jury was lied to by Jeff Leslie numerous times. It is much more likely they will take the "witchcraft" BS with a grain of salt, rather than swallow it, hook, line and sinker like you fools.
Patty: the court record is clear.
Patty, Jeff Leslie is a cop; I've discounted his testimony appropriately on account of the fact that he is a cop. That having been said, I am acutely aware of language and acts which demonstrate detachment on your port. I note, for instance, that Loretta's blog -- run by two mothers -- took notice of what would have been Lauren's thirteenth birthday. Your blog -- run by a misanthrope -- did not. Nor can I help but notice the words you use. I'm getting a larger picture here, and it has little to do with whether or not you kept a voodoo kit (the cut-out photos of Sarah, affirmed in cross and therefore, constituting an admission by Team Cam, prove it for me). It is about your intentions toward Lauren, which appear as less-than-honorable.
I have two issues here regarding the alleged abuse and Patty's determination for Cam to seek "full custody" of Lauren even though she was aware it was nearly impossible at the time.
Regarding the alleged abuse, anony claims: The court record supports that she had reason to be concerned for the child's well being."
I know for a fact that dismissed allegations of abuse (from CPS or whatever organization investigated) do not appear in court records. There was never a hearing about this. You cannot use dismissed abuse allegations in court. It's not possible. They are debunked issues. You cannot use alleged anything in court! I don't know what you are referring to, but there is no way anything involving Lauren's bruises on her shins (a ubiquitous injury for all children), or marks on her face that were investigated and dismissed will appear in court. Patty had NO LEGAL STANDING to go after custody of this child. Only her father had that, and he was obviously ambivalent about it at best. If you continue to make these claims, I would ask you to cite documents that indicate a hearing in court took place over specious abuse allegations. TIA.
Secondly,
"Patty's only concern was Lauren's well being."
If this is true, Patty would never have pursued (or asked Cam to pursue) full custody of a 4-yr old little girl, taking her from the only parent she knew 3/4 of her life, and her step-brother who loved her, and her step-dad who loved her, and her home and her school/daycare and her routine. No way is this in her best interest. Unless you can show me where Sarah had an axe in her hand and a heroin needle in her arm and a meth pipe in her mouth and her house was riddled with bullet holes and her husband was pimping out the neighborhood teenagers, then you are completely out to lunch. Cuz, that's what it would have taken for Patty and Cam to get custody.
No matter how much you hate someone's biological and custodial mother, you are not getting that child away from her unless you can show the child is in DANGER. The system does not take children of tender years from their mothers over minor financial differences or desire to lower child support. The idea was borne of desperation, spite, complete and utter ignorance, bad advice, or a combination of all. I am an unintentional expert on these things. I could cite chapter and verse.
Instead, Patty and Cam could have gone to a mediator, developed a shared parenting plan, enumerated all the ways the child could live partly with both parents, moved to near where Sarah and Lauren lived, kept her in the same school with the same routine, decorated a room for her in your new home, and gradually increased visitation to become about 50% of the time and voila! No child support obligation. You just share the medical expenses, alternate the tax exemption year to year, have a nice life.
THAT would have been in the best interest of the child AND solved the financial issues.
But, no. That's not what Patty did. And because she encouraged Cam to pursue FULL CUSTODY this belies her claim that she was only thinking of the best interest of the child. Malarky. Make that claim to someone who doesn't know better. Believe me, it's likely that at least half the current sitting jury has experience with child support, visitation and custody and will find it quite alarming that little note to Cam. Even more so than the stupid voodoo kit.
CI/Anony/Patty/Ted don't and never did give a rip about Lauren.
The tribute blog they put up in September 2006 has never been updated (except to correct the spelling of her middle name!!)--it was a total sham used to try and make Cameron look human.
Team Cam has no defense. They have to claim there is a conspiracy to frame a baggage handler for murder. Epic fail doesn't really get to the root of it, IMO.
I'm the mother of a 17 month old girl. I've been following this retrial closely. I've been thinking about Lauren all day. Wishing Sarah and her family peace and fortitude.
Every time a question is asked that can't be answered honestly without admitting Cameron is guilty, or, at the very least that nothing wrong has been done regarding his pre-trial detention, said question vanishes.
They can't permit anything that would shake the foundation of their trial delusion.
The question is still there. It hasn't been answered. I don't think anything about actual abuse could be entered into the record - there may have been questions in cross to someone in an agency who appeared who was asked about Lauren's injuries, etc., and Sprocket has that testimony.
Apparently, whoever is making this claim did not read Sprocket's blog for that day.
My statement stands - there is no court record of abuse. There may be some allegations that were made and investigated that later were not purused, and that does not make it into family court.
There is testimony from social workers at the trial who discussed the alleged abuse and indicated it was dismissed for lack of evidence.
I don't see what else could possibly enter this trial without objection from Hum and sustained by the Judge. No way. If there is, I'd like to see it. I think the Kaldis Kooks are parsing words again.
Abuse comes up because Patti wants "the child", er, Lauren; they have to say something- how could custody even come up otherwise? And it does appear that Patti was pushing him in that direction. It seems from Sprocket's work that the "issue" was decidedly dismissed. What strikes me is that if Cam had shown even the smallest smidge of a "normal" parental response, EVER, to anything, we might not be posting away here. There may not have been a roadblock, or witnesses coming forward later, or examinations of financial records, or this recitation of his often announced desire not to be saddled with responsibilities of any kind. What if he had gone down the trail after her, yelling "Dial 9-1-1! Dial 9-1-1!"), instead of going the other way, not yelling anything. Just a minimal amount of expression or appropriate activity on his part would've altered the whole perception of him, and we might have had the perfect crime here... everything....
Ooops! "Patti"- of course I meant "Patty"- just every time I Google for her image (since as she's constantly being described in various thoroughly negative ways I thought I'd check for myself)- and all I ever get is the musician! Any reference as to how Cam and Patty met- I've missed it...
Case Insider: We are the people fighting for Cam's freedom
I am not persuaded that Cam deserves to be free. You certainly have not proven his innocence; it is established beyond cavil that his pre-trial incarceration was lawful, although my attitude toward the quantum of evidence you need to prevent flight is that it should be a higher one.
As I have said over and over again, I am content to leave Cam's fate to the jury. As long as he receives a constitutionally adequate trial -- I am not aware of any credible evidence presented to show that he did not receive one three years ago -- I have no reason to complain.
CI: yet you are the one who appears frazzled and desperate.
I am? The prosecution's circumstantial case is a powerful one. It is certainly sufficient for a jury to convict ... but this is California, where O.J. and Robert Blake walked and Phil Spector nearly did. I have always maintained that this case would be close, and I have seen nothing that would dissuade me from that assessment.
CI:Do you even realize how disjointed your theories are? Give it a rest.
When it comes to "disjointed theories," everyone else pales in comparison to The Oafish One. Are there even any Angelinos left whom Team Cam hasn't accused of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself?
The State has amassed a coherent case: Patty the Fat, Stupid and Barren Baby-Stealer, Cam's sugar mama, wanted Lauren for herself. We know the voodoo she do, and that it had nothing to do with scrapbooking: You scrapbook Lauren, but certainly not Sarah. Cam had about three nickels to rub together, and Patty basically owned him. Cam had to turn in his life of Baywatch Babes and bohemian freedom for a dowdy mother-figure, and it was all because of Lauren: the kid he didn't want. As he told his friends, he had a low opinion of Patty, and would have thrown her away in a heartbeat if he could have. They've sold motive, method, and opportunity. The State has carried its burden with gracious plenty to spare.
Pat Harris' job is a lot easier: All he has to do is sell doubt. Can he do it? Personally, I think so, although he has made several egregious blunders that would make a Trial Tactics prof cringe. As much as Ann Coulter dumped on Geragos, there is definitely a fall-off between the star pitcher and the farmhand.
It's hard to tell. We haven't seen the defense case yet.
It would be difficult to explain his going there in the first place without assuming some sort of intent, but who knows with California juries. It could go either way.
I don't know who this "ken" is, but it certainly isn't yours truly (the one who usually posts here). Is it another Kook Kaldis Klone?
As far as I can see, the State has made a powerful circumstantial case against Cam: one that would be more than enough to justify a conviction on Murder One.
As far as Cam's recklessness is concerned, it is entirely possible that the jury could convict on a depraved heart theory, which still gives him Murder Two.
Third, he could be convicted on manslaughter charges due to his recklessness, which would result in his walking, as he has spent some six years in the can.
My views haven't changed. I still think this is going to be a very close case, and if Cam is acquitted, it will be due to the standard of reasonable doubt.
So CI actually posted some trial notes on her blog - the defense's biomechanics expert testified, and of course attempted to refute Hayes' testimony. CI feels she did, unquestionably. We'll see.
She did also mention that their expert spoke to Hayes' being fired from Harvard for 'academic fraud'. Now, whether that's relevant or not, Ted seems to think so (he advised that THIS is the 'H Bomb class evidence', Ken). According to them, all the jurors made notes about it.
Sadly, Sprocket was not at the court yesterday, so we don't have an unbiased view to look at.
We'll see if it makes a difference, at the end of the day. There's still a lot of testimony to go.
If they at least give us some idea of testimony moving forward like they did with this (assuming that what was posted was accurate), at least we'll get SOME idea of what's going on in the courtroom.
Ted: the jury (along with the court) learned that the star prosecution witness, Prof. Wilson C. Hayes, had served as a professor of biomechanics at Harvard University, but that he had been dismissed from that post because it was found that he had engaged in academic fraud.
Okay, explain this one to me slowly. Precisely why wasn't this introduced in the first trial? And how is this failure to disclose in the '06 trial not malpractice on Mark Geragos' part? If this is true, why didn't Harris confront Dr. Hayes about it when he had him on the stand? Or Geragos, for that matter? TED, YOU LIED TO ME AGAIN!!! And if this is so important, why didn't Geragos and Co. insist upon a speedy trial earlier?
Sure, it detracts from his credibility if true (unless you have something more than Ophoven's testimony, it should have been brought out in the cross of Hayes) ... but remember Park Elliot Dietz? He got exposed for lying on the stand (in the Andrea Yates trial, iirc), but the bastard is still ginning. Besides -- and I know you don't want to hear this -- Hayes isn't all that important to the State's case.
From the KKK Blog:Craig Hum tried to discredit Dr. Ophoven during the cross examination. He did not attack her on the basis of her testimony about the injuries, but rather about her personally. For instance, Dr. Ophoven is considered to be a pioneer in the area of pediatric forensics. She was considered an expert in the area many years before it was recognized and offered as a board certified specialty. Although she has been clearly looked up to in the field for many years, he attacked her on the basis that she did not bother to test for the pediatric certification which she had actually pioneered. He then went over the qualifications of Wilson Hayes, including the fact that he held a prestigious position at Harvard. In re-direct by Pat Harris, Dr. Ophoven reluctantly stated that Dr. Hayes had in fact lost his position at Harvard because of academic fraud.
I'm missing something here, because I know what should happen. "Objection, hearsay!" "SUSTAINED!!!" [Ophoven can't testify to this from personal knowledge, as clearly evidenced by her curriculum vitae ( http://www.savecathyhenderson.org/Ophoven_Report.pdf ), which doesn't put her within a thousand miles of Harvard when it mattered.] And why in the hell would she state it "reluctantly," if she could testify to it at all?
Something just ain't adding up here.
Tell me that Craig Hum did not absolutely eat her alive on re-cross. If what you say is true and he didn't, he deserves to lose this case.
Ken's questions this morning are really getting to the heart of the matter. THIS was the H-bomb? Why was it not brought up by Geragos at the first trial? That Hayes was fired from Harvard most certainly should have been brought up on cross examination of Hayes, and the "reluctant admission" by Ophoven to that effect is obvious to my untrained legal eye as hearsay and irrelevant, unless she witnessed it or had something to do with it, and that the claimed fraud was in any way relevant to the current proceedings.
Here's what most likely happened: Geragos either completely misplayed this bit of information in the first trial, or did net see any utility at all in bringing it up. In the second trial defense yesterday, Harris pulled one of those "can't unring a bell" intentional fouls, knowing it would be objected to and sustained. It may have gone essentially like this:
Harris: Why don't you support Professor Hayes' findings? Ophoven: Because I heard he was fired from Harvard for academic fraud. Hum: Objection! Relevance! Hearsay! Pastor: Sustained!
In Toad's trial delusion, this would count as "H-bomb class evidence" that will free his baby-killin' brudder-in-law after spending three years in jail unnecessarily after Geragos didn't think enough of the "H-bomb class" evidence to include it in the first trial.
If it happened this way, wouldn't this scenario be pretty much equivalent to Fat Patty being established as a witch, even though the question was objected to, sustained, and stricken from the record? Who would have guessed that Toad could possibly use a double standard?
Since Sprocket did not attend the September 2 session, all we can determine to be reliable is that events did not occur the way Toad is describing them.
Toad has historically been bound to attempts to convey impressions that are not actually true, in language which contains loopholes which he can use to escape his own falsehoods when the truth comes out. A clear example of that is the "Jethro Tull Electric Beer" episode - he phrased his claim in words he could backpedal from, but the initial impression he was trying to convey depended on him actually partaking of the drugs and alcohol. The only thing we can reliably count on is that he's doing the exact same thing here, especially facilitated because Sprocket was not in attendance. He can now claim "it was revealed in Dr. Ophoven's testimony" without mentioning it was objected to, sustained, and stricken from the record. All he wants us to believe is that "it was revealed." Equivalently, the jury may have had a similar aghast moment when "it was revealed" that Patty was a witch, targeting Sarah with spells, in the prosecution's case.
Let's recap, first he attacks my (correct, I might add) grammar, then he mentions I should be working. I'm a corporate officer. I don't punch a clock (which is why I'm in the office at 6am. Sometimes I'm in the office at 10pm, too.)
My upbringing was fairly unique - my paternal grandmother was Amish, and we lived in an environment where creature comforts were eschewed and luxuries were few. My paternal grandfather was Dutch, and my maternal grandparents were from Scotland and Austria, respectively.
I'm one of 9 children who grew up in a very austere farming community with little in the way of creature comfort or modern technology, though we were introduced to indoor plumbing and television upon my grandmother's death in the early 70's, my grandfather saw no need to continue living in the 1800's absent her influence and demands. :)
So yes, I'm atypical of my generation, but I am a product of my environment.
I can harness and plow a field with a matched pair of 18-hand Percherons, and I can program a database and research in Lexis-Nexis. I can raise and butcher livestock with no compunctions, I'm a fairly proficient shot with a rifle, I have no problem getting dirty but I also look damn good in a Tahari suit and a pair of Jimmy Choos. :)
Ted is a fat slob who can't seem to understand the world around him, so he demands that what he wants to be IS reality, no matter how far removed from reality he really is.
The stalking thing is funny, though. How desperate must one be that their only response to a legitimate query is to criticize grammar and try to see if they can spook someone by telling them where they are. I know where I am, Ted.
And of what relevence is the fraud to the proceedings? That's kind of important, too.
I'd like to hear context, and if it was objected to - CI is indicating it wasn't, but unless she's Patty and/or was also in the courtroom, all she's going on is 2nd hand information from one of the Twints.
I'm sure it was brought up, otherwise they wouldn't mention it. The hows, whys and context are sorely lacking however, so it's difficult to say what, if anything, it actually means.
However, comparing Hayes' CV with that of the defense expert, it's a world apart. It's akin to asking a Sunday school teacher to clarify a point of doctrinal interpretation made by the Pope.
I bet the target of the fraud issue is that the defense hopes the credibility of the witness is impeached. Since Hayes committed academic fraud at Harvard, the jury is supposedly entitled to believe he's lying when he says the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s^2 or something like that. And if Hayes doesn't necessarily have to be believed on standard physical constants, then by a strange leap of faith, none of the circumstantial evidence from the other witnesses needs to be believed, for some reason.
I just don't know. I can't make up comedy like real life.
My point is, did this academic fraud come out on cross of the defense expert that she didn't believe Dr. Hayes....or did it come out in cross of Dr. Hayes when he was on the stand. The cam fan club is silent.
The type of fraud is important, but it won't change the laws of physics.
If it did not come out on the stand under cross of Dr. Hayes, then the "fraud" is not meaningful to anything having to do with his testimony on the stand.
It means that Harris did not impeach Dr. Hayes directly on cross. Why didn't Pat do this? Makes you wonder.
I'm tempted to call Toad's bluff, because I believe that Hum already knew about Hayes's history and was prepared for it to come out in the first trial. That it didn't come out until now leads me to believe we are missing part of the story. The part where Hum defuses any harm done by the issue.
It may be worth the money just to be able to show what really happened and likely refute the Kooks' Klaims.
Then again, Denise Nix might have something about it in an update. Stay tuned.
Fraud or not, what do you think about the statements about bruising vs lividity? And the bruises on the other side of her body that the other doctor said was brushed off too easily?
Yeah, her CV is not glowing, IMO. My guess is that lividity vs. bruising is something a pathologist can determine, and his experience and education far outweighs hers. Maybe Hum will put him back on the stand to rebut her testimony. I'd sure like to see that.
She WAS laid flat, I have gotten that from the LE reports. Why would lividity only show in one place? Or the other bruises that were put up to that?
Dont get me wrong, I think Cam is an asshole, but I wouldnt want an asshole put in prison for the rest of his life just because.
What I would like to know is why you are going off on this when this has been brought in. I know I am a newbie, but the first trials have seemed to me at this point proven useless.
I do not want a man put in jail for the rest of his life for being a flake. And yes, I do believe he is a flake.
So the H-Bomb class evidence, the evidence Ted presented would PROVE Cameron innocent (not just raise reasonable doubt, but actually PROVE innocence) is nothing more than Hayes was fired for fraud?
While not a matter to be ignored, I don't see how this proves Cameron is innocent.
She WAS laid flat, I have gotten that from the LE reports. Why would lividity only show in one place? Or the other bruises that were put up to that?
Post mortem lividity occurs in the most dependent parts where there is no pressure. If Lauren was laid flat, her shoulders, buttocks and heels wouldn't be as likely to show signs, since the force against each area would prevent blood from settling.
Depending on the position of the body, lividity can be displayed in only one spot. However, the times I've removed a body that was laid flat, I didn't see it in one place. It was most notable in the small of the back, and posterior to the shoulders.
A good picture of it can be seen at http://www.codoh.com/graphics4/nrtkcoill5.jpg
WARNING! The picture is of a dead person. Those who find such images disturbing would do well not to C&P the URL into their browser.
"Ken" [another Kook Kaldis Klone]: Right on Melissa- There is reasonable doubt in this one and the facts are starting to be clearer to us all. Cameron Brown did not plan this as an intentional act. Reckless yes, intentional no way. Strange company with the Twins, yes but that seems to be another story. Cameron has served his time, and everyone, except Loretta and the Funky Bunch will be happy to move on.
Yes, Ted....
Here's the bottom line: A push is as good as a throw, to a dead girl.
This is an Occam's Razor case. There are and can only be two and only two causes of Lauren's death: either she took a running start to take a flying leap, or Cam helped her over the edge. If you don't believe the first is sufficiently likely, then you must conclude the second. Or, to put it another way, is the doubt you have reasonable?
I'm saying that Team Cam could win "the battle of the experts" and still lose the war. That is why I have consistently downplayed the significance of Hayes' opinion.
It seems to me that, if she had fallen, her body would have been much more beaten up than it was.
I fell/slid down an embankment once, and I was a mess, with bruises, scrapes, cuts, torn fingernails, etc, etc. I still have scars from it, and it couldn't have been more than 10 or 12 feet.
Welcome back "Real" Ken (and would the other one please use initials instead? because you are not The Ken, and you're just confusing things. Unless of course that is the intention.) Me, I think he likely just heaved her, like he'd heave a 40+lb piece of luggage, up and over. A repetitive movement he performed all the time. I've slid down an embankment too, and my legs and arms were all lacerated and bleeding. IMO she was launched.
Melissa: If yesterday's testimony COULD be true though, she didnt necessarly FLY off, she could have actually fallen.
Absolutely. Lauren could have been pushed, as well. Ultimately, it is a case of whether the jury can find that there is some reason for Lauren to have put herself in that perilous position on her own volition. That is a tough 'ask', given the circumstantial case the State has laid down.
I think this case is going to be a very close one. I have no idea how the jury will rule. Anyone who is of the opinion that this case is a done deal is deluding him- or herself.
If we were dealing with the death of an adult woman, this would be a case where doubt about how she fell would be a major issue, even if there were a generic financial motive.
However, this was a 4-yr old girl, and unless Cam can explain why he took her up there, and the jury believe him, he's toast, IMO.
Lauren could have been pushed, or fell accidentally, but her trajectory would be a very, very short arc resulting in quick contact with the side, and friction would have slowed her descent down to a speed at which her injuries could not have happened upon impact (and, as many have noticed, would have caused other, more superficial injuries which were not present). A certain upward launch angle (I can't be arsed to calculate it, but it is certainly calculatable) is necessary in order to achieve a sufficient airborne time subject to the gravitational acceleration to develop the minimum terminal velocity required to generate the force necessary to cause the observed injuries.
The prosecution's case falls apart, of course, since we don't know the exact point of departure, because the acceleration due to gravity is so variable in that area and at that altitude... oh, man, I can't even keep a straight face when trying to sell this alibi. For all intents and purposes, at all locations on the earth, "g" (in the formula a = 1/2gt^2) is obviously pretty much constant; any claim that it isn't would need some serious evidence.
Lacking any sufficient rebuttal or refutation of conclusions based on stipulated facts, and since the "H-bomb class evidence" fizzled, the defense team and the inner circle of close relatives has resorted to impersonating the identities of the most prominent detractors. At least that's a hell of a lot less expensive than the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Geragoesthemoney for a mistrial three years ago. I'm sure Cam is perfectly satisfied with this new defense strategy.
Agreed, Loretta, there is no reason on earth to bring a small child up there unless you want to "do in" small child. He must've mulled over the boat scenario and figured that would be too obvious and also inconvenient for him (LE would impound the boat) so this is pretty simple- pick the most isolated spot on the point on a weekday with few others around, look around a bit to make sure no one is watching from the trails or the beach, say reassuring things to her, pick her up and heave. So simple, really- except, yeah, you have to yell for help and act sad afterwards, or people might just see right through it.
Loretta hit the nail on the head. I'm not aware of an innocent reason for their presence at Inspiration Point. Cam has boasted about how he knows every inch of the coast from Ventura to the Mexican border. He's a planner. He's vindictive. It adds up.
As to the prosecution expert, if he's really that damaged by the allegations about Harvard, then lots of folks have been taken in subsequently, like MIT, Oregon State, Nike and a variety of litigants. Possible, but not probable.
...Perhaps we will think more about the witches of Salem and the klansmen who strung people up for crimes they never committed. It's a personal decision whether we allow ourselves to behave in that manner, or try to do better.
I thought I was in a Monty Python skit or something. Then, I wrote the following at the KKK:
I can't help but continue to be amazed at the comparison of Cam (Spoiled Surfer Brat) Brown and young women burned at the stake or black men lynched. Let's just step back a minute and look at the privileged, indulgent existence of one Cameron J. Brown: born to wealthy parents in a beautiful city in good health and with every luxury a child could want. Raised in a nice house with plenty of good food and able to attend a safe, convenient and 99% white school without ever having to dodge a bullet or go hungry. He wasn't even eligible for the draft! Too young for Viet Nam, too old to enlist for the Gulf War (not that he would have), so he dodged those bullets, too.
Knocks up a couple of women, that we know of, at least one of whom conveniently terminates the pregnancy. Moves to California, lives on a boat, surfs, hikes, parties, screws "Bay Watch Babes" at will. Guy has the life o' Reilly.
Even his job - a brainless workout throwing suitcases for 8 hour shifts protected by a strong Union that gives him great health insurance, retirement, benefits, and full pay when he's got so much as a splinter in his thumb. That's not really exaggerating.
So, are we expected to really feel sorry for this guy because he's a defendant in a murder trial of a little girl that he had reason to kill (according to the evidence) and should have known better than to take her up to that cliff?
We're supposed to take seriously the comparison to witch trials and lynchings? I mean, seriously? Even if Cam Brown had to spend the rest of his life in prison, he still had a BETTER LIFE than 90% of the freaking world.
You hit that on the head, Loretta. They're still going with the 'she fell' theory, and I can't see it. Every time I've ever slipped & fallen, I've grabbed at things. She has no defensive wounds to her hands, no scrape marks on her legs, elbows, palms. No dirt or vegetation under her nails. No little pieces of gravel embedded in her skin.
My thoughts on censorship are being censored at the KKK Blog -- wattashock!
Winston Chur chill’s observations regarding Adolf Hitler applies with equal force to Ted:
You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. On all sides they are guarded by masses of armed men, cannons, aeroplanes, fortifications, and the like -- they boast and vaunt themselves before the world, but in their hearts there is unspoken fear: They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stir ring at home -- all the more powerful because forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the might iest potentates are thrown into panic.
Winston S. Churchill (BBC Radio broadcast to London and America, Oct. 16, 1938 ), reprinted at Randolph S. Churchill, Into Battle 58-59 (Hesperides Press 2006) (emphasis added).
Censorship is the opening argument of the tyrant. Joseph Goebbels claimed that it is "the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion," Foreign News: Consecrated Press, Time, Oct. 16, 1933, and Lenin thought that to give the weapon of freedom of the press to one’s opponent is to "ease the enemy’s cause." Vladimir I. Lenin, Pravda (1912). “The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the free dom of thinking, speaking, and writing.” John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765). From Tienanmen Square to this blog, the fangs of power are perpetually bared.
Novelist Samuel Butler quipped, “Authority intoxicates, And makes mere sots of magistrates; The fumes of it invade the brain, And make men giddy, proud and vain.” Samuel Butler, Miscel laneous Thoughts, as reprinted in, The Poetical Works of Samuel Butler 285 (ed. R. B. Johnson) (Geo. Bell & Sons 1893). These fumes powered the Chinese tanks and the ‘showers’ of Bergen-Belsen and now, have seemingly driven Ted to the point of madness.
Justice William O. Douglas made the following observations:
Fear of ideas makes us impotent and ineffective.
Thus if the First Amendment means anything in this field, it must allow protests even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets for the community. In other words, literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.
The great and invigorating influences in American life have been the unorthodox: the people who challenge an existing institution of way of life, or say and so things that make people think.
The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.
That Ted's impotence should be a function of his girth is not surprising, but those who must wield the censor's hand are ashamed of themselves. Voltaire explains:
"[Fire's] real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences. A problem gets too burdensome, then into the furnace with it. Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, p. 115 (Random House 1996)." Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people's faces. They beat me with sticks. By the time I was forty my blunt instrument had been honed to a fine cutting point for me. If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you'll never learn. Bradbury, id. at 105
"The censor's sword pierces deeply into the heart of free expression." Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43, 75 (1961) (Warren, C.J., dissenting). And in time, it invariably ends up vanquishing the censor.
CI: Ken, are your own words so inadequate that you feel compelled to quote Wayne Delia here? Repeatedly?
The most compelling evidence of Wayne Delia's intelligence is Wayne Delia's own statements. Try to keep in mind what is being alleged here.
Ken: Wayne Delia is one of the brightest guys I know on-line
Ted: And who manages to hide that fact VERY well
Ted's act of censoring my posts presenting the evidence proving Wayne's formidable -- far superior to that of Ted -- intelligence, constitute a confession that even he knows that he is lying. Justice Stewart observes:
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authori tarian regime. Long ago those who wrote our First Amendment charted a different course. They believed a society can be truly strong only when it is truly free. In the realm of expression they put their faith, for better or for worse, in the enlightened choice of the people, free from the interference of a policeman's intrusive thumb or a judge's heavy hand.
Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 498 (1966) (Stewart, J., dissenting).
Wayne Delia said...
"Ah, Mr. Kaldis. You have a nasty habit of... surviving." (paraphrasing a line from a James Bond movie)
There's a simple and common theme running through most of his posting history, which I pointed out several months ago. The bottom line is that he has an urgent need to create certain impressions, usually not true, but necessary to support whatever agenda he's pushing at the time. It stung him badly when I brought that up in the alt.fan.bob-larson newsgroup, and he took to overusing his '[...]' icon to indicate material he snipped without responding to. He also claimed to have killfiled me, but he accidentally directly responded to a post of mine 36 hours later - his excuse was that he did it from a different computer, but the IP addresses were... well, you can probably guess the result. [cont.]
In any case, as I said, Ted needs to create impressions which are usually not true, to support whatever agenda he's pushing at the time. There are many examples, but just a few will do for illustration. When the need arose for Ted to appear as a hard-core Jethro Tull fan, living the drug-culture lifestyle of someone who was intimately familiar with the 1970's progressive rock band, he wrote his famous smoking-gun post:
What do you know of Tull? I saw the Brick Tour concert from just about perfect seats, about 7 rows back from the stage and just slightly right of center, at Bayfront Center in St. Petersburg FL, on 3 November, 1972. (The opening act was Gentle Giant, before anyone had ever heard of them.) The night was quite magical, passing around doobs, and then a little electric beer to wash it all down.
That rhetoric was very useful to create an impression of a tough, swaggering, ultra-cool, plugged-in, streetwise dude who had a level of experience deeper than someone he was trying to put down at the time. Enter Ken Smith, who correctly pointed out that the effects of LSD (the active hallucinogenic in "electric beer") were virtually permanent in terms of acid flashbacks later on in life, which pretty much impeached any arbitrary post made by Ted. At that time, Ted was knee-deep in trying to create an impression of himself as a pious Christian, so the prior impression of the drug culture hippie was no longer useful. He backpedalled harder than Lance Armstrong by denying he ever took any LSD, that he was just "having us on," that he only observed and described the concert, but did not partake of any drugs or alcohol - which made the context of his first post absolutely ludicrous, as if he was a total square completely out of place at a Jethro Tull concert, wearing a white varsity letterman's sweater and nervously avoiding all drugs and beer. In his own words: "_I_REPORTED_ON_WHAT_I_SAW_!!! Nowhere here do I say that I partook in any of this."
There are many more examples, especially his attempts to create the impression that he is Australian (he obviously isn't) through his use of tiresome and overused Australian jargon, and that he is knowledgable enough to trace anyone to a reasonable proximity to create the impression that he is a psychotic stalker without actually doing any stalking.
These efforts are clearly the manifestation of some really deep-seated insecurity on Ted's part. Of course I'm not a trained mental health professional, but Kent Wills's wife is, and she's given a preliminary diagnosis that hit so close to the mark, Ted was forced to pretend she doesn't exist, so that the diagnosis could go away. That only served to cement his own already well-deserved reputation as a Usenet kook. [cont. ]
All of this ties together quite well in the Camoron Brown case. Ted has a clear agenda to pursue(*) in that he is protecting his sister by initially appealing for help and support in a forum where he has clearly alienated many others. Not finding that support, he needed to create the impression that he was a critical part of the inner circle of "Team Camoron", that he knew all sorts of things in his planet-sized brain that none of us knew about, that there was some "H-bomb-class evidence" which would completely exonerate Cam, and that all who were judging the case solely on the evidence and testimony available instead of taking him at his word were making fools out of themselves. This was particularly aimed at Ken Smith, who had taken several years worth of abuse from Ted about Ken's problems with the Colorado Board of Examiners, and now Ted was getting a huge heapin' helpin' of his own brand of hospitality right back in his manhole-cover-sized face.
(*) Although I am persuaded by analysis written by Loretta that Ted stands to gain if Camoron is found guilty of murdering Lauren. Ted can then crash with sister Patty for however long it takes the two of them to pull themselves out of financial insolvency and indentured servitude to Geragoesthemoney.
It was about two and a half months ago, maybe, that Ted stopped posting on Usenet. For many years, no matter how huge a jerk he made of himself, he generally fully identified himself, rarely disguising his name or email address. In the first few days of June of this year, facts, evidence, and testimony in the Brown trial came out so rapidly and so soundly refuting so many of his claims (detailed in the current blog entry) that he is much too embarrassed to post publically and non-anonymously any more. Clearly, either Ted was telling "de facto" lies, or else he was entirely misled by his brother-in-law. The embarrassment of being publically proven so wrong (or dishonest), so many times, on so many different things, now prevents him from posting anywhere using his own name. As I've told him several times, if I were him, I'd be ashamed of my own name too.
Aqualung, my friend, don't you start away uneasy.... 8)
CI: Ken, are your own words so inadequate that you feel compelled to quote Wayne Delia here? Repeatedly?
Now, we can see why you think that Cam is stone-cold innocent -- you don't have the first freakin' clue as to what evidence is and how it is used. The best evidence of Wayne's considerable intelligence is his posts, and Ted's censorship of representative posts establishing that fact is a tacit confession of the point. Now, the neutrals can see what Ted has censored on Loretta's blog, so you will have a difficult time denying that Ted lost that argument hands'-down.
Still, mere facts have never gotten in the way of Team Cam's immaculate deceptions; why should they start now?
Sorry to temporarily continue the "Ted and Idiots Show" - evidently Ted needs to improve to get to the level of "idiot" - but I need to use the Poof-Proof to make sure this does not go bye-bye.
Part 1...
Actually, I'm probably not banned on this blog, it's just that I've chosen never to post here (apart from this one post, of course). The primary reason is mainly the censorship on this blog, and the need for Loretta to maintain a separate blog in order to preserve the information from the posts censored here. I suppose I'll have to post this over on her blog as well. A secondary reason I don't post here certainly has to be Ted's penchant for stalking. Frankly, when this case is over with, no matter the outcome, Ted's gonna "need a new hobby." Nobody believes his nonchalant excuses for his history of classic stalking behavior, and the more rationalizations that are invented to excuse his Internet stalking, the more likely he will be to project those excuses onto real life stalking, i.e. the claim he's only interested in seeing if he can find out exactly where someone lives is not a legitimate excuse for menacing someone whom he perceives has damaged his brother-in-law's case or has refuted his theological arguments. Apparently, he's actually physically stalked one of his Usenet detractors in the past. I've studied karate, but earned my black belt almost eight years ago, and at age 52 I am probably capable of defending myself and my family, but I simply don't want the drama. Thus, alternate precautions need to be taken, and have been taken. The part I can tell you about involves cataloging Ted's many implications of stalking behavior, which may be necessary to support an affirmative answer to the question of whether I had sufficient reason to believe Ted is a stalker. I can probably make that case based on Ted's questions to JoBeth66 this week alone, much less his history of other documented implications.
I do appreciate the compliments on my perceived intelligence, but it's not really relevant at all. Regardless how many patents I've authored on behalf of IBM, regardless how much physics and engineering I studied at what used to be called Clarkson College of Technology in the late 1970's (now Clarkson University), and regardless of any academic fraud Dr. Hayes may or may not have committed at Harvard, the inescapable conclusion is the physics of the situation is what it is. In order for Lauren to have sustained certain injuries (depicted in a photograph entered into evidence), a certain force must have been generated via terminal velocity on impact. The necessary force could not have been attained in a slip-and-fall scenario, which in itself would have produced other injuries not found to be present. In order for a certain terminal velocity to be achieved, the projectile must be subject to the acceleration due to gravity for a minimum amount of time. In order to be airborne for a certain minimum amount of time, there are minimum launch angles and initial velocities that must have been satisfied. The defense case, I imagine, will attempt to raise doubt by pointing out that the exact location of the launch point, and perhaps also the impact point, are unknown or unknowable unless Cameron testifies, which seems highly unlikely. But that uncertainty is irrelevant, unless the constant acceleration due to gravity is somehow significantly variable in Southern California. The point is, the dry objective physics of the situation does not depend on whether I'm an engineering expert, or whether I have been issued a minimum of X patents, or whether I'm Albert Freakin' Einstein, simply doesn't matter. This is why the so-called "H-bomb class evidence" attempting to impeach the testimony of Dr. Hayes is so curious. The acceleration due to gravity is not dependent on whether Dr. Hayes did or did not commit academic fraud at Harvard. It is what it is, and it can't be impeached by a claim such as "Here's a guy who asserts it, and he committed academic fraud years ago, so the jury is entitled to believe the opposite." This alleged academic fraud was certainly known during the first trial, so the question is begged as to why Mark Geragos did not see fit to detonate it three years ago. What I do not know for certain, but am reasonably confident of, is that Geragos successfully milked a cash cow for all he could get out of it, before bailing out after the mistrial was declared.
It is true that Ted's escapades on Usenet and on the Cameron Brown case blog have portrayed him as a high-order hypocrite, very transparently veiled in claims from which he can backtrack, if necessary. All I've done is point it out. On several different occasions, he's attempted to create an impression which he does not (or later claims not to) actually fulfill. The most familiar is the Jethro Tull Electric Beer incident, in which Ted strongly implied partaking of LSD-laced beer at the concert, to create the impression he was much more "plugged in" to the understanding of the environment at the time. Ted later backpedaled from this claim when Ken pointed out that the effects of LSD are pretty much permanent. This was possible because the need to maintain the false impression Ted originally created had long passed. What I did (in a Usenet post which seems to have been dug up and recently reposted here) is plugged Ted's later backpedaling into his original story, which would have more accurately portrayed him as a "narc", or someone entirely out of place in an environment in which he was trying to create the impression he was intimately familiar with.
Ted's hypocrisy extends to his religious beliefs, which are easily refuted, and which tend to surface whenever he is faced with an unusually difficult or uncomfortable situation. Those who would disagree with him, or oppose his outlandish theories, need to "get right with the Lord." An obvious hypocritical situation recently arose in the current retrial. The jury learned about academic fraud of Dr. Hayes at Harvard in pretty much the same way that the jury learned about the witchcraft of Patty Kaldis Brown. Ted triumphantly proclaims the fraud of Dr. Hayes as being established as the "H-Bomb class evidence," yet if he was more consistent than hypocritical, he'd be Biblically required to kill his own sister according to Exodus 22:12, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (KJV). In attempting to create the impression that he's pious and God-fearing, he simply reinforces already negative stereotypes about actual Christians who excuse their own sins on the basis that Jesus will forgive them because they believe in Him. As a specific example, Ted often attempts to create the impression of being a tough, swaggering, street-hardened roughneck who swears a blue streak, but who is nevertheless too timid to spell out the whole curse words, choosing to abbreviate them, or mask the vowels with asterisks. But his Jesus, if He exists as the Son of God, would certainly know Ted's intentions. Either Ted doesn't live up to the impression he's trying to create, or Ted feels that Jesus will not be able to decipher phrases like "shut the f*ck up." Anyone who would point this out, as I did on Usenet, is told to "get right with the Lord" or other such prattle.
I doubt if anyone actually takes Ted's arguments and protestations here seriously at all. He simply made several big mistakes along the way. One mistake, unforeseeable at the time, was to make such a big fuss over the problems Ken Smith was facing with the Colorado Bar Examiners board. Had that not happened, Ken Smith probably never would have produced many volumes of legitimate counter-arguments against the defense strategy in the Cameron Brown case - some which may very well have found their way into the prosecution's case, or onto the John & Ken radio show, but these could also simply be common sense points evident to the casual observer. A second big mistake was to clutch so desperately to any indication of support, to the extent of keeping Jon Hans' letter of support on the pathetic "Free Cam Brown" website beyond the point when Hans requested it be taken down due to his change of opinion. Ted was unable or unwilling to comply, as that might be taken as an admission that the support for Cameron was decreasing. Had that not happened, Jon Hans most likely would not have testified, and his testimony reported by Sprocket certainly seemed damaging to the defense. Trial delusion easily produces the predictable result "his letter said one thing, he said something different in court, he's a liar, so apply "he's a liar" to his court testimony, and yay defense." When reality does a beat-down on the trial delusion, or the cognitive dissonance is too much to overcome, out come the inevitable ad hominems. "Ken Smith, whoa boy, Colorado Bar Examiners, whack-job." "Wayne Delia, drunk frat boy." Actually, I'm responsible for setting an example for the boys to contain problems with underage drinking, which is what I do in my role as a chapter adviser. Ted makes an ad hominem attack based on connecting "fraternity" with the "drinking" stereotype. These logical fallacies only serve to inflame those who are effectively criticizing Ted's position, and make the schadenfraude so much sweeter when it's brought out that Ted was constantly lying or that his "H-bomb evidence" wasn't even good enough to bring out in the expensive first trial. In my case, it makes no difference; it's just "Ted being Ted." But with Jon Hans, it may have been the difference between him testifying and not testifying, and that testimony may be the difference between a guilty verdict on Murder 2 or any other outcome, guilty or not guilty.
This post will either be censored, or left alone on this blog. This post represents my honest opinion, which for all anyone knows could be shared by other regular average-Joe people on the jury of the Cameron Brown trial. If it's censored, the facts and begged questions will still be in effect, and the trial outcome won't be affected one way or the other if these posted opinions suddenly go missing on this blog. Ken Smith is quite wise to reserve speculation on the actual outcome, with good reasons for doing so, as it removes any suspicion that he's actively rooting for a guilty verdict out of nothing more than spite for Ted, who would be getting what he deserved. I am tempted to express the opinion that from what we've heard of the trial from the only available honest and unbiased source, Sprocket, it does not go well for the defense, up to and including the latest defense witness who apparently contradicted his prior statements to detectives. I do not see much hope for acquittal, but I am persuaded by Ken's advice that the best course of action is to hope for a fair verdict based on the merits of the arguments.
So, in an effort to avoid future real life stalking attempts, I am... over and out.
This is weird, I see someone else is posting under my initials now! And I'm just a lil' ole Newbie, instead of one of these distinguished Senior Posters (hah!). So instead of being "KC" I'll just go ahead and post as "KMC"- GOD KNOWS there's enough confusion and craziness over here as to identities, and so on....
Knowing the liars they are over there, I might as well preserve this one:
CI: However, I want you to stay on topic here and the topic of discussion is not Usenet posts from years ago nor Ken's case or Ted Kaldis. This is about Cam Brown and anything you would like to add to that is fine with me.
The only relevance of my case is that it shows The Oafish One to be a liar and hypocrite. If it is fair to discount Dr. Hayes' testimony on account of alleged academic fraud, it is equally fair to discount The Tedyear Blimp's claims on the same account.
As I am new to the site, could someone please tell me what is going on here? I see a very interesting site and ask a simple question and post are deleted. Is there a line up of what name or appreviation I need to use here. My name is Kevin and last name begins with a "C" do I have to find some other name to not have my post deleted? I just used my intitials and then some war starts out over some other guy named KC (Sorry KC but I must have made a mistake, so please accept my apology, I am a newbie myself) This site should be getting to the point of the case, but seems to be full of misconceptions and lies, simply one sided and biased against the case at hand. Simply just tried to post something saying that you should all focus on the case, not some charcter named Ted and his battle with the gangsters on this site. Take that battle elsewhere and focus on the impact on these families, and most of all the little girl who lost her life in a tragic accident. Thanks for the nice welcome to your site. Loretta, I hope you treat your guest better than this when they walk into your home. Go ahead and delete this too to continue to show your biased views.
Kevin, this is the second trial of this murder case and we are commenting on new material, where evident, in the new trial.
If you are curious about the facts of the case, I laid them out quite thoroughly in 2005 and 2006. Feel free to peruse the archives. There is much, much more to this than this comment section.
Thank you and I have read up on the past post and also the news from the previous case. Still I see you have been very biased in your blog. There are a few folks like Wayne, Ken and Melissa who seem to have a more open mind on the case. I think speculation is a good thing, and with my background you would find that I am more than qualified to have an opinion here. The second side of the story was not portrayed in a non-biased fashion here on the first or second trial. Other sites like Sprocket, are better but still lead to a bunch of folks who focus on how to convict someone before the jury does. They seem one sided and I am sorry but that is the problem with media in the first place. As a newbie, I would appreciate that you focus on the case and not the strange focus on the defendents extended family. They seem odd enough, so why even give them credit here?
The balance thing works out between the two sites. We are happy to discuss the case, including opposing thoughts, if expressed intelligently, but many of the people here have been posting here and other places since before the first trial.
Dialogue (argument) has developed, which gets discussed at times when there is no new information, which we are anxiously awaiting from Sprocket, as Team Cam is very chary with same.
If you have something to add, Kevin, we are willing to discuss. We are not, however, willing to spend a lot of time discussing our own shortcomings, as perceived by you.
As CG said, we are not FAUX, here, and are under no obligation to present the other side. There is another blog that takes care of that. Have you been telling them they are being one-sided?
One sided, so much that you have to delete post? Sounds like you should run for political office. You delete any post that does not agree with your view. Let the people know that you deleted this, so they can all see what kind of crap you are pulling.
CI: However, I want you to stay on topic here and the topic of discussion is not Usenet posts from years ago nor Ken's case or Ted Kaldis.
Just as Dr. Hayes' alleged (mere hearsay that proves nothing, and was almost certainly thrown as an unethical smear because of where it came out and how) academic fraud is logically relevant to his testimony, Ted Kaldis' proven and persistent dishonesty and hypocrisy is relevant to the Cam Brown case and this blog, as he is one of the persons reporting on this case. But that little nicety would get in the way of CI's agenda, so it can't be discussed here. Nice.
One sided, so much that you have to delete post? Sounds like you should run for political office. You delete any post that does not agree with your view. Let the people know that you deleted this, so they can all see what kind of crap you are pulling.
If you want to be heard, post on both blogs. Here, the ladies have had a problem with Kaldis Klones pretending to be posters they are not (using the existing posters' handles and thereby, fraudulently passing themselves off as us). A Ted Kaldis scam if I ever smelled one.
You have to understand just how dishonest (and mentally ill) Ted is.
CI: Please stop, Ken. We are not going to get involved in a blog war. anyone who wants to post here can as long as they are respectful.
Kent Wills. You guys can't tell the truth with a compass and a road map.
CI: We will answer whatever questions we can answer and opposing views give us the opportunity to do so. Anything we have to say will be said here. Period.
Potty-train your walrus, and we'll all get along just fine.
Ken: The topic logically includes the credibility of the blog's reporters, as we need to be able to ascertain the verity of claims made here.
CI:Oh, stop with the bs. You said repeatedly that you don't believe anything we say, so why persist? I really don't care, Ken. The only one who is responsible for the claims made here are those who post them.
Oh, stop with the obfuscation, already! Not everyone knows that Ted is a full-blown sociopath, but everyone needs to know it so they can fairly evaluate the credibility of claims made on this blog by its owners. You know, the Wilson Hayes argument, applied to Ted.
CI: And, I've made no bones about the fact that Kent Wills is not welcome here.
Understandable. After all, he asks too many incisive questions. There's a reason that Curious George and Queen Sarah would never consent to being interviewed by Olbermann.
Jobeth feels Ted is stalking her and I agree. CI's excuse for Ted that he's just trying to have conversation is laughable, except it isn't funny.
As to "Openminded's" comment, it wasn't deleted, now was it?
To me, it's trollish to come here and lecture about how this blog is one-sided and demand we defend Cameron. Anyone who reads this blog sees that we believe Lauren's death was no accident.
How many would think I was behaving like a troll if I posted on Sprocket's blog that I didn't appreciate her posting on (fill in the blank) instead of writing her entry on the Brown case yesterday? I would, because it's HER BLOG.
As Ken said, using someone else's identity that has been posting here is the reason they were deleted. The only other comments that have been deleted here in the past were negative comments about Sarah. That will not be tolerated.
Ken: Not everyone knows that Ted is a full-blown sociopath,
Ted: Says Ken Smith. On the other hand, not everyone knows that Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination when he applied to become a lawyer in that state (after having earned a law degree and passing the bar exam). Ken refused, and accordingly, his application was denied.
This is further proof of Ted's persistent sociopathy, for as the Wyoming Supreme Court duly reminds us, “half the truth is often a lie in effect,” Twing v. Schott, 338 P.2d 839, 841 (Wyo. 1959).
Imagine how you would feel if Cameron Brown were convicted of murder on the strength of the grand jury transcript alone. Would you consider the verdict reached to be fair?
What Ted knows -- and because he neglects to tell you this, he obviously intends to deceive his readers -- is that I had a number of legally valid reasons for refusing, including reliance on federal statutory law. But of course, if Ted had to concede those points, he wouldn't be able to smear me.
Ted: Ken's modus operandi appears to be a relentless campaign of attack and abuse against anyone who has the temerity to point this out, in an effort to silence them. This sort of thing may have worked on others, but it has not and will not work on me.
You're projecting again, Ted. You have been unfairly smearing me with this for the better part of a decade. Moreover, you have been caught STALKING your opponents on Usenet for than a decade, even showing up at one opponent's doorstep in a country half-way around the world!
Repeat after me, Ted: "Cameron Brown is a COLD-BLOODED CHILD MURDERER, because the State says so, and they have no reason to lie."
My modus operandi is shoving your moronic and juvenile arguments back in your face.
Ted: BTW, on the basis of such behaviour on the part of Ken, I am inclined to conclude that there was quite likely merit to the Bar Examiners' concerns regarding Ken.
BTW, on the basis of such behaviour on the part of Cam Brown, just about everyone on the freakin' planet is inclined to conclude that there was quite likely merit to the Los Angeles Sheriff Department's concerns regarding Cam.
PYSIH: "Behold Cameron Brown, possibly the biggest piece o’ shit you will ever meet." Four hundred and ninety-four votes for conviction, and Team Cam (almost certainly Ted, and Ted alone) for it was all just a "terrible accident."
You're the one saying this argument is fair ... and it might be the one that convicts Cam. I can make a powerful argument for conviction based solely on the evidence on record right now, and I am sure that Craig Hum can make an even better one.
CI: This is pathetic, Ken. You bring the most intelligent person you know, Wayne Delia, over here to pose his theory and reasons why Cam should be found guilty, and we dispute it quite effectively because Wayne has not taken important facts into account, and EVER SINCE WE DID THAT, you have posted one post after the other to distract anyone from the real issues!
That is pathetic, CI! I never said Wayne was the most intelligent person I know on the Net -- there are more than a few candidates, including John Hattan and Jason Steiner, who routinely sliced, diced, and fricasseed The Oafish One on USENET -- who are deserving of consideration. That having been said, a valid issue here is whether Ted is a sociopath. It is certainly relevant, if Dr. Hayes' alleged (but as clearly, unproven) academic fraud at Harvard would impact a rational jury's deliberations, as readers must in some way rely on Ted's veracity (an Inspiration Point-class leap of faith, given his track record) to accept many of the conclusions you present.
CI: You speak of stalking behavior, but it is you who have stalked and pursued Ted Kaldis to deflect attention from the facts of this case. It is you who have been abusive toward anyone who might show support to Cam Brown because of your immature inability to just GET OVER IT! You have no reason to be here other than a desire to cause direct or vicarious harm to others because of your deep hatred for Ted Kaldis. The last many posts are evidence of that. Just do us all a big favor and go exercise your right to free speech elsewhere.
Again, you are trying your level best to prove that everyone with Team Cam is a pathological liar, from the baby-stealing old maid to the Maybach-coveting oaf. One of the nicest things about a competing blog is that everyone can see what the terrified censors at Team Cam fears. And as an added bonus, it is clear that you are the only other person who has a copy of Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-FUCKED Dictionary, where words mean whatever you need them to mean at any given time.
Some obvious questions remain. First and foremost, why didn't Harris confront Dr. Hayes with the allegations regarding the alleged academic fraud? As far as I can see, this was merely an unethical ploy by Harris to smear his opponent with baseless innuendo. And I ask you, how is it fair for The Oafish One to only present one side of an issue and in the same breath, complain that others have presented only one side of an issue to his detriment?
As for attacking members of Team Cam, I only attack them for their lack of honor and integrity, shortcomings which you have displayed in prodigious over-abundance. You got rid of Kent Wills because he asked too many good questions embarrassing to Team Cam. Funny how that happens....
Why are post here deleted when they are written to simply ask that you show two sides of the trial? I have been censored, deleted and I have done nothing to show that I am biased either way. Never said anything bad about Lauren or her Mom. Let the people know that I am not part of the Ted show, and just posted my first and only blog on their site, as all of my post here are deleted. Be factual and show my post. Are you scared of the truth, and having someone have a different view as yours?
Your posts were not deleted for your point of view; they were deleted because of your rude and derogatory references to CG, Ronni and I, and for your unecessary insults to this site.
If you want to be civil, you are welcome to post. If not, you are going to be POOFED.
Can you tell me where the insults were to you and the rest of your gang? There is no reason to delete them. Simply saying there is a case for Recklessness instead of intentional guilt. Show the post or at least tell the people why you deleted them. Once again, you seem worried that someone is here posting with a different view than yours. Again, no relation to the kaladis group.
I am gettin confused. Ken and such post stuff that they have posted on the other board which they fear will be deleted, and now you guys are deleting posts? With our trust that you arent deleting relevant arguments?
How are we to know? I think that we are relatively intelligent enough to know when there is a snipe and to ignore it. Why delete when all that causes is confusion?
Melissa (and others that are new to the trial & these issues), I've never known Loretta or CG to be anything other than honorable. If they say there are non-opinion related reasons for deleting posts, I absolutely trust them. They've never given me a reason to do otherwise.
Melissa is right, the post are being deleted and there is no record of them. In the past, some of the post at least say deleted. Now, they just disappear. It does seem a little suspicious. The last post put them in a tough position and they cannot even let that one in? No vulgar comments or language, just a simple couple of facts, and then poof!
Melissa, the deleted posts were nothing but insulting. I saw them. there has been nothing cogent deleted.
These trolls are left over from the situation at the time of the first trial. Loretta and CG will deal with them on that basis. To take them in good faith is to give them too much credit.
Why don't you edit the posting, and strike the "insulting" comments. I would be interested to see what they have to say, and with no profanity, let the people on the site be the judge of the post.
Why don't you start your own blog and stop telling others how to run theirs?
Apologies for rudeness, but I really don't understand.
This blog belongs to Country Girl and Loretta, and it is up to them how it is run.
You would get short shrift at my blog if you tried to tell me what I should or should not publish. It would never occur to me to tell any other blogger how to manage their comments, or any administrative task.
Melissa: How are we to know? I think that we are relatively intelligent enough to know when there is a snipe and to ignore it. Why delete when all that causes is confusion?
I am regrettably forced to concur with Melissa, although I know that there are more than a few people who attack Loretta on grounds that have nothing to do with this trial and I have nothing but respect for both her and CG. Sprocket insists that posts be approved before they are posted, but this has always struck me as less-than-optimal. Better to let the mutts have their say, with appropriate deletions if this is technically possible.
Given the fact that there are conflicting reports, and as someone who has not played the games, I agree with Melissa. This blog has been very good and has shown post from Kent and others that detail the other aide. Why play the games that is seen elsewhere? Ronni, if you have another blog that is unbiased and can report the facts we would love it. For a blog that has nobody at the trial and does not have copies of the transcripts of the case, this one does seem pretty pointed toward guilt before proven by the jury. I would like to hear more about the case, but thia seems to be a cat fight.
The jury in the first trial disagreed only on degree. Nobody voted "not guilty." So, while he has not been convicted by a jury (yet), the last jury was convinced of his guilt.
It is Loretta's and Country Girl's opinion that Cameron Brown killed Lauren Sarene Key-Marer. I think that has been made quite clear.
I fail to see why they should have to leave standing posts that insult them, their names, and their ideas.
My blog is a personal one, and this case is only mentioned occasionally, with references to this blog, Sprocket's, Denise Nix and one link to the comments on the Kaldis blog.
STP: I also am frustrated by the Cameron Brown Trial Blog. As I just left a post there, it was not shown at all. It was censored by the administrator.
That is why I post any number of posts at both blogs. The censor's knife is wielded liberally on this site, as they have a stilted and outcome-based view of what relevant posting is. I'd have to know what it was you posted to judge the verity of your claims and the propriety of their actions, but I've learned from experience that the ladies are generally disinclined to censor on the basis of content.
ok, I had a WHOLE post before. My Internet is sucking though.
Please dont think that my questioning is a form of disrespect. I was kind of put off by Ken in the beginning because of the copy and paste thing. And the ultra mad thing too. But I have come to have a liking to him as well, as most passionate people.
I apologize if I have insulted anyone here. But if I am allowed to continue to comment I hope that I can say what I am feeling.
My other post were not shown here. They were also censured. I would appreciate if you would stop editing my post. They are not vulgar and I am a newbie here without a side to choose. Sorry if you do not agree with my neutral stance.
Melissa: I apologize if I have insulted anyone here. But if I am allowed to continue to comment I hope that I can say what I am feeling.
I love Loretta and CG. They will give you the freedom to say what you feel, unlike the owners of da udder blog. Where I think they draw the line is in personal abuse, and I'm not averse to that as justification for action (I'd like to see the offending posts archived for evidence's sake).
STP: My other post were not shown here. They were also censured. I would appreciate if you would stop editing my post. They are not vulgar and I am a newbie here without a side to choose. Sorry if you do not agree with my neutral stance.
I'm actually very neutral in this case, not giving a tinker's damn about whether Cam is convicted or acquitted. I've never been slapped by these two, although so many of my posts on the other blog have been made to disappear that I have taken to archiving them on this blog. If you want viewpoint-based censorship, see the KKK blog.
Um, Loretta shouldn't have to prove anything - she's not the one whose actions are questionable. When someone comes into a new place for them, it's best to be respectful and tactful and get the lay of the land. My guess would be that anyone whose posts have been 'poofed' have not done so, because everyone who HAS done so has had no problems. That's why many of us are still here.
Oh, and Melissa - I'm in NJ too. I manage to post without cursing or using bad language, even when I want to. (Heck, I don't think I've even ever cursed at Stalker Ted.) If people can't conduct themselves like reasonable human beings, they certainly can't expect to be treated as such, can they?
If they think their posts are being censored, they have 2 options. They can leave the blog and not post here, or they can re-post and think carefully about what they are saying, use language they would use if they were talking about something with someone they respect (like, a priest, or their boss, or their grandmother), and watch what happens.
Insulting someone who has opened their home to you (and make no mistake, that's what a blog is - someone letting you into their life) is uncalled for, at every turn. No one says you have to agree with everything everyone says, but if you cannot disagree respectfully, then I would submit that you may be out of your league, or above your head.
No commenter can be expected to stay standing if he or she insults the hostess or other guests.
Differences of opinion about the case are always tolerated, as long as they are expressed civilly.
The blog owner or admin has the absolute right to remove, delete or ban anyone.
Just as you would not allow a person into your home to abuse and insult you, Loretta and CG do not allow that behaviour here.
Comments cannot be edited. The only options are DELETE and DELETE FOREVER. DELETE leaves a mark that says, "Comment has been removed by blog administrator." DELETE FOREVER leaves nothing.
If you want your comments to stand, make them civil. Don't curse your hostess, and don't tell her how to run her own blog.
Ken: Cam Brown wasn't the most sympathetic of suspects. He acted weird. This had the appearance of the kind of case that ends up in the tabs, and if they had gone for the death penalty, it might have ended up there. It did garner the attention of John and Ken. Yes, the checkbooks were open wide, but that is as predictable as the morning sunrise.
CI: Once again you fall flat. There was NO QUESTION that JonBenet, Caylee, Natalee and Chandra were murdered. Although without a body, Natalee's case hinged on a lot of other evidence (lies told by the suspects and the fact she is still missing). In this case there were no signs of foul play from the evidence. Weird behavior depends who you were talking to because it has come out in testimony that what is in the reports is very different from what was used as evidence of weird behavior. Once again, you are taking a big leap of faith without the benefit of all the information.
Once again, you are being obtuse. Look at this from the standpoint of the police supervisor, who is getting his information from the detectives who are on-scene. His people tell him that they think it is a murder, and it's a freakin' four-year-old. The checkbook is open. Besides, they didn't have time to contact Vladimir Putin. 8)
CI: Once again, I take issue with your statement because I can prove to you otherwise. Reputable courts do take issue when the court and a the jury are deliberately misled. That Judge Arnold did not appear to preside over such a court should surprise no one. It is an offense to the court and the jurors to be lied to, and especially by those who represent law enforcement.
You're preaching to the choir here, CI: There is no one more receptive to documented charges of official misconduct. The problem is that I've been promised steak, sold sizzle, and have been handed rancid horsemeat.
Very, very, very confused, now. Ted stated flat out in his first post on the current entry in the other blog that Dr. Hayes' 'academic fraud' was THE H-Bomb class evidence. In fact, the first comment on the post is that the 'H-Bomb had exploded'.
But when Loretta pressed both he & CI and asked flat out today if Hayes' dismissal was the H-Bomb, they both said no.
Could it be that it really didn't get much of a reaction and that's going to come out here, so they can't continue to maintain that it is a HUGE blow to the prosecution?
And now CI is saying that, no, it may have only lit the fuse. Or not. Because things change. Her response to me made NO sense, but I'm not sure she can clarify it without making it worse.
A quick final word on deleted messages. Ronni, thank you for telling me the difference between "delete" & "delete forever". I have had a few, for the record deleted forever, and that is why I somewhat doubt the content here. And I also notice Ken used profanity in his post on Ted's site today, and that was not deleted. Just showing the facts. Regardinng the case, there is still doubt to me that this was not a case of Reckless behavior. Mr. Brown could have taken his daughter for a hike, which is very likely, to a place where he felt would give his child the feeling that he had when he lived in the mountains. A logical display of love for a child, using familiar places to help the child learn about the outdoors since Cam was an outdoorsman himself, per the testamony. One question that seems I may have missed somewhere is about the history. Is there any other times he had taken his child to the area, or places similar to the Point? I would doubt this was there first time hiking together, and perhaps they had been there before? I am not sure if either side has mentioned this in the trial. As I was driving today, I noticed some kids with parents at a place that that could have put them both in danger, but for the scenic value, they put themselves in a position that could have been deaths doorstep in a second. If you have a logical response, and not a personal attack on me this time, I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Ken, I appreciate that you are not taking sides, and actually like your post. But with the deleted messages on the other site, as I am a newbie, I noticed your anger toward the other site. However, when you use profanity, it is not deleted, where it is here. Just trying to keep the story straight on the posted messages. Really, no other need to respond as this is not the subject of interest here.
This has nothing to do with the Cameron Brown case, so no offence will be taken if my post is removed.
From the KKK blog:
CI: Once again you fall flat. There was NO QUESTION that JonBenet, Caylee, Natalee and Chandra were murdered.
The evidence for Natalee Holloway having been murdered is weaker than the evidence for Cameron having murdered Lauren.
As many here know, Lin and I take the kids to Aruba every year. I know the area of Oranjestad where Natalee and her class mates hung out. Carlos ' Charlie's, the last place she was seen alive, is a very short walk from the condo.
Walk across the street and you're practically at a beach.
That a drunk girl might chose to go for a late night swim, alone or with the the man she met in the bar, is easy to believe.
The tides are such that a drunk girl could easily be dragged miles out to sea, where alcohol and clothing would combine to ensure she would drown.
I once, and only once, made the foolish mistake of swimming outside of the condo's lagoon area. Within seconds I found myself adjacent to the helicopter landing pad. It's not a great distance, but one wouldn't expect to travel to it so quickly.
If I recall correctly, the post card I sent Ken a few years ago shows the lagoon area and, maybe, the landing pad.
Anyway, I wasn't under the influence of alcohol, and was dressed for swimming. Further, I'm a fairly strong swimmer.
Someone who had been drinking and dressed for a night on the town wouldn't stand much of a chance.
Natalee may have been murdered, but there is more than enough reason to question it.
The same can't be said of the actions of Cameron John Brown.
anonymous: But with the deleted messages on the other site, as I am a newbie, I noticed your anger toward the other site. However, when you use profanity, it is not deleted, where it is here.
Their censorship is content- and viewpoint-based. Kent's posts are uniformly inoffensive, and they complain that attacking one's credibility is "pretty desperate" when CRAIG HUM does it, but they routinely pull stunts that would make Hum blush. My posts disappear without rhyme or reason, and with sufficient frequency to annoy.
The reason I was and am banned is because they couldn't answer my questions honestly without admitting nothing illegal has been done in regards to Cameron and his case. I gave them no reason to attack me, since I didn't attack them.
Another funny thing is how, according to them, they can't block me because I keep rotating my IP. At the same time, they claim I have a static IP. I'm reminded of Ted's claim on Usenet that one can and can not fake an IP.
The Kooky Kaldis Klan simply can't maintain a lie for long.
The Klan are pathological liars. Jeanne (Valerie Jean) Paredes, aka "Just Amazed, Misty, MistyBlue, JeanneCA, et al., Ted Kaldis, and his hapless twin, Patty.
That's the whole Krew.
They are evil. Cam Brown is evil. They will not prevail.
I went back and dug up some of Jeanne's greatest hits from Freeper and from Muttville, and I now must go take a long, hot shower.
However, I am absolutely convinced that "Case Insider" is JA and she has not denied it.
I'm glad to see she's cleaned up her language for the KKK blob, but she can go straight to Hell.
It doesn't matter if he walks, which I don't think he will, because his life has been ruined by this. He was never much of a person to begin with and now he's a shell of a shell. About as substantive and relevant as a stale potato chip. His marriage is wrecked, he's broke, he'll be unemployable and his reputation is ruined forever.
So what kind of life is that?
This event has lifelong (if not longer) consequences.
Well you talk like you have are really close to him. For those that have known him before all of this, I tend to disagree about his past. Cam is a good person. I know you do not want to hear this, but for those of us who know him, he is a good hearted person, easy going kind of guy and that does have good qualities. It is nice of you to judge someone's past when you really have never met them. Kind of like talking about this case without even being at the trial or having transcripts. I do agree that his world is ruined by this and it will be tough to recover. There are people like him getting out everyday.
Well, I've met him on multiple occasions. We have a mutual friend. My first impression of Cam was that he was an immature, but generally good-hearted guy. That changed over time as I learned more of his temper.
In the early 1990s, my impression of him lowered a bit due to an outburst of petulance on his part. (This was also the occasion he boasted about knowing every inch of the coast from Ventura to the Mexican border.)
When I met Sarah, I was appalled at Cam's viciousness toward her - quite unprovoked as far as I could tell. She was clearly very upset and he not only had no interest in helping her to feel better, he clearly took pleasure in making her feel worse.
When I last saw Cam, during the last year of Lauren's life, he seemed consumed with bitterness and anger - again most of it directed to Sarah.
I'd like very much to believe that Cam Brown isn't guilty, but I can't.
CI: You, Ken, are a liar if you do not acknowledge that posts which have been deleted were commonly disgusting posts regarding Patty, Cam or Ted. Things about black people's sexual organs,
CI: I don't suppose you have considered that Cam was, in fact, trying to do what was best.
The only issue I care about is whether the State had probable cause to suspect Cam of murder, as this is the threshold question which justifies six years of incarceration.
As I was driving today, I noticed some kids with parents at a place that that could have put them both in danger, but for the scenic value, they put themselves in a position that could have been deaths doorstep in a second.
I took my grandchildren to the Grand Canyon over Memorial Day. None of them were allowed even near the canyon without holding an adult's hand. Even the 11 year old.
I would never dream of letting any of them play on a cliff while I sat 4 feet from the edge. Would you?
Cg I agree with you, but think everyday how many parents are not as bright as you and do stupid things with their kids. I was just making an observation. The fact is that there are times as a parent everyone makes a mistake. Some are worse than others, and to me this looks like an accident and not an intentional act. Seems like Melissa agrees so I am not the lone person who is not convinced it was murder? Will the jury feel the same way?
CG- on your trip to the Grand Canyon, or other times, have you seen people have there kids in a place where you thought- "wow, I would not have my kids there" and no that this tragedy has happend with Lauren, are there times, like when you were at the Grand Canyon, that you thought about the incident with Cam and Lauren? I know I have, and thinking of all the things I did as a kid, and all the places I have been in the mountains and cliffs, or even checking the surf, and somehow I am still alive. All I am trying to say, is that this could have been endangerment or reckless behavior as a parent. I think about this case everytime I see parents not doing there job and being good role models.
We will know soon whether the jury believes it was carelessness or murder. The defense should be wrapped up this week sometime and the jury will be taken to IP and then closing arguments will begin.
The jury will also be taking in all the evidence. In isolation one or two things may be written off as reckless actions: throwing Lauren in his pool, for example.
He also took her on his boat against Sarah's wishes and her fears for her daughter's safety. He brought her home and drove off, leaving her outside. He put her suitcase in the street and ordered her to go get it. He ordered her to sit in the front seat of the car, not the back seat where children are supposed to sit for safety.
He took her to an isolated 120 foot cliff and sat within 4 feet of the edge and let a barely 4 year old child "play" while he pointed out landmarks (according to his story).
He didn't take her to Portuguese Point, where it's flat and fenced off (and to me, would still be dangerous). Oh no, he went beyond there to Inspiration Point. She was barely 4. He was the adult.
And Doug Simonson's testimony from the first trial, when he learned about Lauren's death and called Cameron, he testified:
"Hey dude, what's up?" was how Brown greeted him, Simonson said.
Simonson said he offered his condolences, and Brown replied: "Yeah, it was an awful accident, but you can't dwell on it forever. If you do, it will ruin your life."
Well, as someone who knows him, I would say his greeting of "whats up" is pretty accurate. He wanted to put this tragedy behind him. Who would not, and the fact is you think about it forever, but you may try to move forward. You think he did it on purpose, while others think it was reckless. You are right, the jury will make its decision. You still did not answer my questions, but perhaps you have never been to the site, or to the mountains, and everyday, parents put there children in places that in hindsight, would be a bad choice. Not saying you are wrong to have your opinon, but you have to agree somewhat. If you cannot think of a time when your parents did something to put you in danger in your lifetime, you must be a sheltered individual.
And anudder thing (as Rose used to say), don't forget the forensics. If she had fallen, she would have slid a good bit of the way, and would have been scraped raw. That didn't happen.
BTW, last night I looked at what I paid for transcripts from the GJ and the 1st trial.
The GJ transcripts were around $150 ($151.20 to be exact). The first trial came to $752.00 for three days.
The court reporters from the first trial explained that they cannot include certain things in the transcripts and must go through each line and edit. The money goes to the individual court reporter--not the government.
I don't have the complete witness list yet so I haven't contacted the court reporters on this trial to see about buying transcripts.
Just looked up the 911 call transcript, per Sprocket. On that, he doesn't even say "hurry". If memory serves, he may have said it face-to-face with someone there, but not on the call transcript.
And I, for one, am grateful to anyone who spends their own $ so that all of the rest of us can go through this case and judge for ourselves. $752.00 buckaroos is not chump change, not these days, and anyone who makes light of it and is insulting to the Administrators to boot is a wretch.
Thanks Karen. Loretta took PP donations to help with the costs, but I had hoped the Daily Breeze would buy and post the transcripts like the SD paper did during Westerfield's trial. In today's economy though it was not to be. I was just glad Denise Nix (then Nick Green when Denise went out on maternity leave)covered the first trial.
CG - thanks for looking into the purchase of the transcripts. I find it very surprising that the money goes to the court reporter rather than the county.
The more I read the more I am convinced that the primary motivation for the murder was the vindictiveness of a spiteful, nacissist; with the financial relief tipping the scale. The Acquaintance brings this home in a very real way. He took from Sarah the most important thing in her life and in turn he will have the most important thing in his life taken from him, his freedom. Those who wish will continue on with their delusions. He is going down.
Omama, the transcripts are work product and as such, when they sell transcripts they keep the money. I have no problem with that but they are very expensive. :)
One thing about this forced hiatus from Sprocket's hard work, you get a chance to look back and re-evaluate testimony. This from the first few days of the prosecution side, after Sarah, on the event itself: Fred Curcio (first responder)- "(He ((Cam)) said)... He looked and looked over the cliff and saw her down in the water." From the 9-1-1 transcript: "(Male Caller ((Cam)) to the dispatcher)- "I had to come this way (the nude beach). I couldn't see her."
Here, he was kinda, sorta trying to explain to the 9-1-1 folks just why he had gone way over to the other side of the Point, to the nude beach, which was the wrong side of where Lauren was, lying face down in the water.
He has not yet gotten back up the hill, to the inlet area she actually is at, to try to "save" her (by taking off his clothes first, then putting his shorts back on- like he's seen on "Baywatch", remember- then swimming out to her, picking her up, bringing her to shore, then putting his shirt back on, gotta get those gee-I-did-everything-I-could bloodstains on, then picking her up again, climbing up the trail some more to the picnic area, which is of course a good ways from where she had been, putting her on the bench, and, finally, allegedly trying to do CPR, which no one else had seen him trying to do, somehow without getting anything on his face or beard.) The only way he could have delayed all this anymore would be if he had taken a potty break; I'm surprised he missed that.
Re-reading J. Leslie's testimony- he says that Cam tells him during the interview at the station that night, that he didn't have time to do CPR between getting to the table area and when the paramedics arrived. But, didn't Cam make another statement prior, that he performed CPR down on the rocks, before bringing her all the way up to the table? You know, when he was putting his shirt back on, so he wouldn't catch cold later...
I'm likely to get bounced for this one, as I've called out Case Insider as a Geragos employee. She knows too much about the inner workings of Team Cam to be Valerie Paredes.
CI: Knock it off, Ken.
I'm expecting Hum to give a very dramatic closing argument. He will prance around and talk about all of the things he has proven in this case. He will claim to have proven everything, of course. He will attempt to wow the jurors with words, and hope they didn't pay that much attention. He will go for the emotional plea, hoping that the jurors didn't get the fact that everyone in this case has suffered a traumatic and tragic loss of Lauren. It's going to be interesting.
Knock it off, CI. About the only thing you haven't done here is put on the florescent red lipstick, fishnet stockings, and six-inch stilettos.
Both advocates are going to do their level best to plead their cases. Both can be expected to stay well within the rules because, by your own admission, Judge Pastor has been calling a fair game -- the one thing he won't let happen at this late date is a mistrial.
Sounds to me like you are already planning for a conviction, by desperately trying to lower expectations. I agree that this is going to be a close case; I'd respect you more in the morning if you wouldn't keep giving us your Baghdad Bob impression.
She's a manipulative liar and you can take everything she says with a big, fat block of salt.
Never mind she has terrible karma and will be seeing even more tragedy in her life than she already has. She'll never learn.
The only reason I've continued to engage her is out of boredom. She's probably not even in California. She's a stenographer for Patty.
While I have never been star-struck by celebrities like Sprocekt, I think her upcoming reporting of the last of the defense testimony will be accurate and telling.
JA is just trying to set the table. She's full of chit as usual.
While defense attorneys may have clerks in their employ assigned to read sites such as these, I doubt that they would be encouraged to actually post anything...just a hunch.
You know what, CG? Going over Geragos' opening statement from Cam 1- he says that Cam HAD attempted CPR on Lauren, at the picnic table, for a while before paramedics showed up. Reading what he said, he seems to have really oversold their "take", big-time. Are defense attorneys ever held accountable, after-the-fact, on assertions they make during opening that don't get followed through AT ALL during actual testimony, or is it all just allowed to slink quietly away, so they save face? The judge then more-or-less told the jurors they only needed to take notes, if necessary, during testimony, NOT on opening statements as they are not evidence- is that the judge discreetly saying "don't make much of this stuff, at opening"? There do seem to be specific changes from Cam 1 to Cam 2...
Karen, yes--opening statements are not evidence. Geragos has a habit of testifying when he questions people on the stand (Loretta is well versed in how he did it during Peterson), and he promised the jury witnesses during the first trial that he never called, IIRC.
I only attended closing arguments the first trial and unfortunately I won't be able to attend tomorrow because I have a medical test I have to take as it has already been rescheduled once.
Today (per Sprocket) the jury has been taken to IP. Evidently Cameron chose not to go this time. Last time all the LA TV stations covered it so I hope they will have a story tonight.
Today, jurors in the Cameron Brown murder re-trial visited five spots along the Rancho Palos Verdes cliff that figured prominently in the case. Basically, as they did during Brown's first trial three years ago, they retraced the purported path Brown and his daughter, Lauren Sarene Key, took before her fatal plunge on Nov. 8, 2000. They went to the Abalone Cover parking lot, the nursery school on the beach, up to Portugese Point, to Inspiration Point and ended at the archery range where Brown said he laid little Lauren's body after he fished her out of the surf.
Brown, wearing jeans, a blue button-down shirt and handcuffs hidden by a sweater, accompanied the jury to the first three locations, but not the last two. I don't know why.
Jurors were then scheduled to be instructed on the law back in Judge Michael Pastor's downtown Los Angeles courtroom. Tomorrow are closing arguments, which I plan to attend and report on. -------------
So we'll see what her impressions are of closing, as well.
Im not sure who it is that insists that the prosecution does not have to prove motive !!!! If this person reads the elements that MUST be satisfied in a murder trial "motive" is clearly one of them. The statements I have read are perfect examples of someones fallacious reasoning without prior logical investigation of the statements chosen for representation of an invalid argument. Shame on you
188 comments:
Hopefully, this is the year that justice will come.
Ken: SHE'S A WITCH!!!
"anony" (Patty): Actually, Patty is a Christian
...who may well have dabbled in black magick. If you believe in what a Christian believes in, you are more likely to believe that magick works. Now, if you were to accuse me of it, that would be an exercise in lunacy.
anony: Patty's only concern was Lauren's well being. The court record supports that she had reason to be concerned for the child's well being,
["The child?" Curious choice of words, don't you think?]
Bullshit on steroids! You wanted the freakin' kid. While I don't believe the cops for a New York minute, and discount virtually anything that happens in family court, I do believe Jon Hans.
"anony" (Patty): Sprocket missed some pivotal moments, which affected the jury. So your point of view of what the jury is seeing is way off.
Again, Patty, what you believe affected the jury and what actually affected them is almost certainly two different things. And when you make statements such as these, you blow your cover quite spectacularly. Remember, we know who is in the courtroom.
Seriously, I would urge you in the strongest of terms to have a conversation with Harris about what you should and should not be saying in public about the case.
Patty: The 'voodoo kit' never existed; and the jury was lied to by Jeff Leslie numerous times. It is much more likely they will take the "witchcraft" BS with a grain of salt, rather than swallow it, hook, line and sinker like you fools.
Patty: the court record is clear.
Patty, Jeff Leslie is a cop; I've discounted his testimony appropriately on account of the fact that he is a cop. That having been said, I am acutely aware of language and acts which demonstrate detachment on your port. I note, for instance, that Loretta's blog -- run by two mothers -- took notice of what would have been Lauren's thirteenth birthday. Your blog -- run by a misanthrope -- did not. Nor can I help but notice the words you use. I'm getting a larger picture here, and it has little to do with whether or not you kept a voodoo kit (the cut-out photos of Sarah, affirmed in cross and therefore, constituting an admission by Team Cam, prove it for me). It is about your intentions toward Lauren, which appear as less-than-honorable.
I have two issues here regarding the alleged abuse and Patty's determination for Cam to seek "full custody" of Lauren even though she was aware it was nearly impossible at the time.
Regarding the alleged abuse, anony claims: The court record supports that she had reason to be concerned for the child's well being."
I know for a fact that dismissed allegations of abuse (from CPS or whatever organization investigated) do not appear in court records. There was never a hearing about this. You cannot use dismissed abuse allegations in court. It's not possible. They are debunked issues. You cannot use alleged anything in court! I don't know what you are referring to, but there is no way anything involving Lauren's bruises on her shins (a ubiquitous injury for all children), or marks on her face that were investigated and dismissed will appear in court. Patty had NO LEGAL STANDING to go after custody of this child. Only her father had that, and he was obviously ambivalent about it at best. If you continue to make these claims, I would ask you to cite documents that indicate a hearing in court took place over specious abuse allegations. TIA.
Secondly,
"Patty's only concern was Lauren's well being."
If this is true, Patty would never have pursued (or asked Cam to pursue) full custody of a 4-yr old little girl, taking her from the only parent she knew 3/4 of her life, and her step-brother who loved her, and her step-dad who loved her, and her home and her school/daycare and her routine. No way is this in her best interest. Unless you can show me where Sarah had an axe in her hand and a heroin needle in her arm and a meth pipe in her mouth and her house was riddled with bullet holes and her husband was pimping out the neighborhood teenagers, then you are completely out to lunch. Cuz, that's what it would have taken for Patty and Cam to get custody.
No matter how much you hate someone's biological and custodial mother, you are not getting that child away from her unless you can show the child is in DANGER. The system does not take children of tender years from their mothers over minor financial differences or desire to lower child support. The idea was borne of desperation, spite, complete and utter ignorance, bad advice, or a combination of all. I am an unintentional expert on these things. I could cite chapter and verse.
Instead, Patty and Cam could have gone to a mediator, developed a shared parenting plan, enumerated all the ways the child could live partly with both parents, moved to near where Sarah and Lauren lived, kept her in the same school with the same routine, decorated a room for her in your new home, and gradually increased visitation to become about 50% of the time and voila! No child support obligation. You just share the medical expenses, alternate the tax exemption year to year, have a nice life.
THAT would have been in the best interest of the child AND solved the financial issues.
But, no. That's not what Patty did. And because she encouraged Cam to pursue FULL CUSTODY this belies her claim that she was only thinking of the best interest of the child. Malarky. Make that claim to someone who doesn't know better. Believe me, it's likely that at least half the current sitting jury has experience with child support, visitation and custody and will find it quite alarming that little note to Cam. Even more so than the stupid voodoo kit.
CI/Anony/Patty/Ted don't and never did give a rip about Lauren.
The tribute blog they put up in September 2006 has never been updated (except to correct the spelling of her middle name!!)--it was a total sham used to try and make Cameron look human.
FAIL!!
I think the expression is EPIC FAIL. (I am aware of all Internet traditions.)
Their entire defense qualifies as an epic fail, imo.
Team Cam has no defense. They have to claim there is a conspiracy to frame a baggage handler for murder. Epic fail doesn't really get to the root of it, IMO.
Team Cam states that Sprocket missed a witness that documented abuse.
I say, name the witness and detail the testimony.
I'm the mother of a 17 month old girl. I've been following this retrial closely. I've been thinking about Lauren all day. Wishing Sarah and her family peace and fortitude.
My question to Team Cam about which witness testified to abuse that Sprocket missed....disappeared.
Not surprising.
Every time a question is asked that can't be answered honestly without admitting Cameron is guilty, or, at the very least that nothing wrong has been done regarding his pre-trial detention, said question vanishes.
They can't permit anything that would shake the foundation of their trial delusion.
The question is still there. It hasn't been answered. I don't think anything about actual abuse could be entered into the record - there may have been questions in cross to someone in an agency who appeared who was asked about Lauren's injuries, etc., and Sprocket has that testimony.
Apparently, whoever is making this claim did not read Sprocket's blog for that day.
My statement stands - there is no court record of abuse. There may be some allegations that were made and investigated that later were not purused, and that does not make it into family court.
There is testimony from social workers at the trial who discussed the alleged abuse and indicated it was dismissed for lack of evidence.
I don't see what else could possibly enter this trial without objection from Hum and sustained by the Judge. No way. If there is, I'd like to see it. I think the Kaldis Kooks are parsing words again.
That's a nice way of putting it!
Abuse comes up because Patti wants "the child", er, Lauren; they have to say something- how could custody even come up otherwise? And it does appear that Patti was pushing him in that direction. It seems from Sprocket's work that the "issue" was decidedly dismissed. What strikes me is that if Cam had shown even the smallest smidge of a "normal" parental response, EVER, to anything, we might not be posting away here. There may not have been a roadblock, or witnesses coming forward later, or examinations of financial records, or this recitation of his often announced desire not to be saddled with responsibilities of any kind. What if he had gone down the trail after her, yelling "Dial 9-1-1! Dial 9-1-1!"), instead of going the other way, not yelling anything. Just a minimal amount of expression or appropriate activity on his part would've altered the whole perception of him, and we might have had the perfect crime here... everything....
Ooops! "Patti"- of course I meant "Patty"- just every time I Google for her image (since as she's constantly being described in various thoroughly negative ways I thought I'd check for myself)- and all I ever get is the musician! Any reference as to how Cam and Patty met- I've missed it...
This might disappear, so the usuals:
Case Insider: We are the people fighting for Cam's freedom
I am not persuaded that Cam deserves to be free. You certainly have not proven his innocence; it is established beyond cavil that his pre-trial incarceration was lawful, although my attitude toward the quantum of evidence you need to prevent flight is that it should be a higher one.
As I have said over and over again, I am content to leave Cam's fate to the jury. As long as he receives a constitutionally adequate trial -- I am not aware of any credible evidence presented to show that he did not receive one three years ago -- I have no reason to complain.
CI: yet you are the one who appears frazzled and desperate.
I am? The prosecution's circumstantial case is a powerful one. It is certainly sufficient for a jury to convict ... but this is California, where O.J. and Robert Blake walked and Phil Spector nearly did. I have always maintained that this case would be close, and I have seen nothing that would dissuade me from that assessment.
CI:Do you even realize how disjointed your theories are? Give it a rest.
When it comes to "disjointed theories," everyone else pales in comparison to The Oafish One. Are there even any Angelinos left whom Team Cam hasn't accused of being part of The Grand Nefarious Conspiracy To Frame A Nobody Stevedore Named Cameron Brown™, ostensibly orchestrated by Vladimir Putin himself?
The State has amassed a coherent case: Patty the Fat, Stupid and Barren Baby-Stealer, Cam's sugar mama, wanted Lauren for herself. We know the voodoo she do, and that it had nothing to do with scrapbooking: You scrapbook Lauren, but certainly not Sarah. Cam had about three nickels to rub together, and Patty basically owned him. Cam had to turn in his life of Baywatch Babes and bohemian freedom for a dowdy mother-figure, and it was all because of Lauren: the kid he didn't want. As he told his friends, he had a low opinion of Patty, and would have thrown her away in a heartbeat if he could have. They've sold motive, method, and opportunity. The State has carried its burden with gracious plenty to spare.
Pat Harris' job is a lot easier: All he has to do is sell doubt. Can he do it? Personally, I think so, although he has made several egregious blunders that would make a Trial Tactics prof cringe. As much as Ann Coulter dumped on Geragos, there is definitely a fall-off between the star pitcher and the farmhand.
It's hard to tell. We haven't seen the defense case yet.
It would be difficult to explain his going there in the first place without assuming some sort of intent, but who knows with California juries. It could go either way.
I don't know who this "ken" is, but it certainly isn't yours truly (the one who usually posts here). Is it another Kook Kaldis Klone?
As far as I can see, the State has made a powerful circumstantial case against Cam: one that would be more than enough to justify a conviction on Murder One.
As far as Cam's recklessness is concerned, it is entirely possible that the jury could convict on a depraved heart theory, which still gives him Murder Two.
Third, he could be convicted on manslaughter charges due to his recklessness, which would result in his walking, as he has spent some six years in the can.
My views haven't changed. I still think this is going to be a very close case, and if Cam is acquitted, it will be due to the standard of reasonable doubt.
What would a typical sentence be for Murder One and Murder Two in California?
First degree murder carries a sentence of 25 years to life.
Second degree murder in this case (no firearm, victim not a police officer) would be 15 years to life.
So CI actually posted some trial notes on her blog - the defense's biomechanics expert testified, and of course attempted to refute Hayes' testimony. CI feels she did, unquestionably. We'll see.
She did also mention that their expert spoke to Hayes' being fired from Harvard for 'academic fraud'. Now, whether that's relevant or not, Ted seems to think so (he advised that THIS is the 'H Bomb class evidence', Ken). According to them, all the jurors made notes about it.
Sadly, Sprocket was not at the court yesterday, so we don't have an unbiased view to look at.
We'll see if it makes a difference, at the end of the day. There's still a lot of testimony to go.
If they at least give us some idea of testimony moving forward like they did with this (assuming that what was posted was accurate), at least we'll get SOME idea of what's going on in the courtroom.
Ted: the jury (along with the court) learned that the star prosecution witness, Prof. Wilson C. Hayes, had served as a professor of biomechanics at Harvard University, but that he had been dismissed from that post because it was found that he had engaged in academic fraud.
Okay, explain this one to me slowly. Precisely why wasn't this introduced in the first trial? And how is this failure to disclose in the '06 trial not malpractice on Mark Geragos' part? If this is true, why didn't Harris confront Dr. Hayes about it when he had him on the stand? Or Geragos, for that matter? TED, YOU LIED TO ME AGAIN!!! And if this is so important, why didn't Geragos and Co. insist upon a speedy trial earlier?
Sure, it detracts from his credibility if true (unless you have something more than Ophoven's testimony, it should have been brought out in the cross of Hayes) ... but remember Park Elliot Dietz? He got exposed for lying on the stand (in the Andrea Yates trial, iirc), but the bastard is still ginning. Besides -- and I know you don't want to hear this -- Hayes isn't all that important to the State's case.
From the KKK Blog:Craig Hum tried to discredit Dr. Ophoven during the cross examination. He did not attack her on the basis of her testimony about the injuries, but rather about her personally. For instance, Dr. Ophoven is considered to be a pioneer in the area of pediatric forensics. She was considered an expert in the area many years before it was recognized and offered as a board certified specialty. Although she has been clearly looked up to in the field for many years, he attacked her on the basis that she did not bother to test for the pediatric certification which she had actually pioneered. He then went over the qualifications of Wilson Hayes, including the fact that he held a prestigious position at Harvard. In re-direct by Pat Harris, Dr. Ophoven reluctantly stated that Dr. Hayes had in fact lost his position at Harvard because of academic fraud.
I'm missing something here, because I know what should happen. "Objection, hearsay!" "SUSTAINED!!!" [Ophoven can't testify to this from personal knowledge, as clearly evidenced by her curriculum vitae ( http://www.savecathyhenderson.org/Ophoven_Report.pdf ), which doesn't put her within a thousand miles of Harvard when it mattered.] And why in the hell would she state it "reluctantly," if she could testify to it at all?
Something just ain't adding up here.
Tell me that Craig Hum did not absolutely eat her alive on re-cross. If what you say is true and he didn't, he deserves to lose this case.
Laughing out loud over this one:
Ted: "Whilst"? Are you English then? Or perhaps Kiwi or Aussie? "Whilst" is not in common use in the U.S.:
"Right bollocks?" Are you Australian, Toad? "Right bollocks" is not in common use in the U.S.
What a hypocrite. "Right bollocks" is a major part of Toad's 30-word vocabulary, many of which are spelled with asterisks.
Ken's questions this morning are really getting to the heart of the matter. THIS was the H-bomb? Why was it not brought up by Geragos at the first trial? That Hayes was fired from Harvard most certainly should have been brought up on cross examination of Hayes, and the "reluctant admission" by Ophoven to that effect is obvious to my untrained legal eye as hearsay and irrelevant, unless she witnessed it or had something to do with it, and that the claimed fraud was in any way relevant to the current proceedings.
Here's what most likely happened: Geragos either completely misplayed this bit of information in the first trial, or did net see any utility at all in bringing it up. In the second trial defense yesterday, Harris pulled one of those "can't unring a bell" intentional fouls, knowing it would be objected to and sustained. It may have gone essentially like this:
Harris: Why don't you support Professor Hayes' findings?
Ophoven: Because I heard he was fired from Harvard for academic fraud.
Hum: Objection! Relevance! Hearsay!
Pastor: Sustained!
In Toad's trial delusion, this would count as "H-bomb class evidence" that will free his baby-killin' brudder-in-law after spending three years in jail unnecessarily after Geragos didn't think enough of the "H-bomb class" evidence to include it in the first trial.
If it happened this way, wouldn't this scenario be pretty much equivalent to Fat Patty being established as a witch, even though the question was objected to, sustained, and stricken from the record? Who would have guessed that Toad could possibly use a double standard?
Since Sprocket did not attend the September 2 session, all we can determine to be reliable is that events did not occur the way Toad is describing them.
Toad has historically been bound to attempts to convey impressions that are not actually true, in language which contains loopholes which he can use to escape his own falsehoods when the truth comes out. A clear example of that is the "Jethro Tull Electric Beer" episode - he phrased his claim in words he could backpedal from, but the initial impression he was trying to convey depended on him actually partaking of the drugs and alcohol. The only thing we can reliably count on is that he's doing the exact same thing here, especially facilitated because Sprocket was not in attendance. He can now claim "it was revealed in Dr. Ophoven's testimony" without mentioning it was objected to, sustained, and stricken from the record. All he wants us to believe is that "it was revealed." Equivalently, the jury may have had a similar aghast moment when "it was revealed" that Patty was a witch, targeting Sarah with spells, in the prosecution's case.
Let's recap, first he attacks my (correct, I might add) grammar, then he mentions I should be working. I'm a corporate officer. I don't punch a clock (which is why I'm in the office at 6am. Sometimes I'm in the office at 10pm, too.)
My upbringing was fairly unique - my paternal grandmother was Amish, and we lived in an environment where creature comforts were eschewed and luxuries were few. My paternal grandfather was Dutch, and my maternal grandparents were from Scotland and Austria, respectively.
I'm one of 9 children who grew up in a very austere farming community with little in the way of creature comfort or modern technology, though we were introduced to indoor plumbing and television upon my grandmother's death in the early 70's, my grandfather saw no need to continue living in the 1800's absent her influence and demands. :)
So yes, I'm atypical of my generation, but I am a product of my environment.
I can harness and plow a field with a matched pair of 18-hand Percherons, and I can program a database and research in Lexis-Nexis. I can raise and butcher livestock with no compunctions, I'm a fairly proficient shot with a rifle, I have no problem getting dirty but I also look damn good in a Tahari suit and a pair of Jimmy Choos. :)
Ted is a fat slob who can't seem to understand the world around him, so he demands that what he wants to be IS reality, no matter how far removed from reality he really is.
The stalking thing is funny, though. How desperate must one be that their only response to a legitimate query is to criticize grammar and try to see if they can spook someone by telling them where they are. I know where I am, Ted.
Do you?
Supposing Dr. Hayes was let go from Harvard for fraud, why didn't Harris bring this up during the cross of Dr. Hayes?
That's the $60,000 question, isn't it.
And of what relevence is the fraud to the proceedings? That's kind of important, too.
I'd like to hear context, and if it was objected to - CI is indicating it wasn't, but unless she's Patty and/or was also in the courtroom, all she's going on is 2nd hand information from one of the Twints.
I'm sure it was brought up, otherwise they wouldn't mention it. The hows, whys and context are sorely lacking however, so it's difficult to say what, if anything, it actually means.
However, comparing Hayes' CV with that of the defense expert, it's a world apart. It's akin to asking a Sunday school teacher to clarify a point of doctrinal interpretation made by the Pope.
I bet the target of the fraud issue is that the defense hopes the credibility of the witness is impeached. Since Hayes committed academic fraud at Harvard, the jury is supposedly entitled to believe he's lying when he says the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m/s^2 or something like that. And if Hayes doesn't necessarily have to be believed on standard physical constants, then by a strange leap of faith, none of the circumstantial evidence from the other witnesses needs to be believed, for some reason.
I just don't know. I can't make up comedy like real life.
My point is, did this academic fraud come out on cross of the defense expert that she didn't believe Dr. Hayes....or did it come out in cross of Dr. Hayes when he was on the stand. The cam fan club is silent.
The type of fraud is important, but it won't change the laws of physics.
It did not come out when Dr. Hayes was on the stand, as far as I know - Ted would've crowed about it then.
If it did not come out on the stand under cross of Dr. Hayes, then the "fraud" is not meaningful to anything having to do with his testimony on the stand.
It means that Harris did not impeach Dr. Hayes directly on cross. Why didn't Pat do this? Makes you wonder.
I'm tempted to call Toad's bluff, because I believe that Hum already knew about Hayes's history and was prepared for it to come out in the first trial. That it didn't come out until now leads me to believe we are missing part of the story. The part where Hum defuses any harm done by the issue.
It may be worth the money just to be able to show what really happened and likely refute the Kooks' Klaims.
Then again, Denise Nix might have something about it in an update. Stay tuned.
If Nix doesn't have anything, I'll chip in for transcripts, Loretta.
Fraud or not, what do you think about the statements about bruising vs lividity? And the bruises on the other side of her body that the other doctor said was brushed off too easily?
I dunno. Anyone who defends people who shake their babies to death doesn't get much confidence from me.
Yeah, her CV is not glowing, IMO. My guess is that lividity vs. bruising is something a pathologist can determine, and his experience and education far outweighs hers. Maybe Hum will put him back on the stand to rebut her testimony. I'd sure like to see that.
Any ME worth their license should be able to distinguish between lividity and bruising.
She WAS laid flat, I have gotten that from the LE reports. Why would lividity only show in one place? Or the other bruises that were put up to that?
Dont get me wrong, I think Cam is an asshole, but I wouldnt want an asshole put in prison for the rest of his life just because.
What I would like to know is why you are going off on this when this has been brought in. I know I am a newbie, but the first trials have seemed to me at this point proven useless.
I do not want a man put in jail for the rest of his life for being a flake. And yes, I do believe he is a flake.
The Preliminary Examination Report-Field (done at the scene with injury diagrams) by Allen Moses does not show any injury to her back.
He must be in on the conspiracy.
So the H-Bomb class evidence, the evidence Ted presented would PROVE Cameron innocent (not just raise reasonable doubt, but actually PROVE innocence) is nothing more than Hayes was fired for fraud?
While not a matter to be ignored, I don't see how this proves Cameron is innocent.
To the person posting as Ken: Rich Little you are not.
Melissa wrote:
She WAS laid flat, I have gotten that from the LE reports. Why would lividity only show in one place? Or the other bruises that were put up to that?
Post mortem lividity occurs in the most dependent parts where there is no pressure. If Lauren was laid flat, her shoulders, buttocks and heels wouldn't be as likely to show signs, since the force against each area would prevent blood from settling.
Depending on the position of the body, lividity can be displayed in only one spot. However, the times I've removed a body that was laid flat, I didn't see it in one place. It was most notable in the small of the back, and posterior to the shoulders.
A good picture of it can be seen at http://www.codoh.com/graphics4/nrtkcoill5.jpg
WARNING! The picture is of a dead person. Those who find such images disturbing would do well not to C&P the URL into their browser.
"Ken" [another Kook Kaldis Klone]: Right on Melissa- There is reasonable doubt in this one and the facts are starting to be clearer to us all. Cameron Brown did not plan this as an intentional act. Reckless yes, intentional no way. Strange company with the Twins, yes but that seems to be another story. Cameron has served his time, and everyone, except Loretta and the Funky Bunch will be happy to move on.
Yes, Ted....
Here's the bottom line: A push is as good as a throw, to a dead girl.
This is an Occam's Razor case. There are and can only be two and only two causes of Lauren's death: either she took a running start to take a flying leap, or Cam helped her over the edge. If you don't believe the first is sufficiently likely, then you must conclude the second. Or, to put it another way, is the doubt you have reasonable?
I'm saying that Team Cam could win "the battle of the experts" and still lose the war. That is why I have consistently downplayed the significance of Hayes' opinion.
If yesterday's testimony COULD be true though, she didnt necessarly FLY off, she could have actually fallen.
It seems to me that, if she had fallen, her body would have been much more beaten up than it was.
I fell/slid down an embankment once, and I was a mess, with bruises, scrapes, cuts, torn fingernails, etc, etc. I still have scars from it, and it couldn't have been more than 10 or 12 feet.
Welcome back "Real" Ken (and would the other one please use initials instead? because you are not The Ken, and you're just confusing things. Unless of course that is the intention.) Me, I think he likely just heaved her, like he'd heave a 40+lb piece of luggage, up and over. A repetitive movement he performed all the time. I've slid down an embankment too, and my legs and arms were all lacerated and bleeding. IMO she was launched.
Melissa: If yesterday's testimony COULD be true though, she didnt necessarly FLY off, she could have actually fallen.
Absolutely. Lauren could have been pushed, as well. Ultimately, it is a case of whether the jury can find that there is some reason for Lauren to have put herself in that perilous position on her own volition. That is a tough 'ask', given the circumstantial case the State has laid down.
I think this case is going to be a very close one. I have no idea how the jury will rule. Anyone who is of the opinion that this case is a done deal is deluding him- or herself.
If we were dealing with the death of an adult woman, this would be a case where doubt about how she fell would be a major issue, even if there were a generic financial motive.
However, this was a 4-yr old girl, and unless Cam can explain why he took her up there, and the jury believe him, he's toast, IMO.
You cannot get past that.
Lauren could have been pushed, or fell accidentally, but her trajectory would be a very, very short arc resulting in quick contact with the side, and friction would have slowed her descent down to a speed at which her injuries could not have happened upon impact (and, as many have noticed, would have caused other, more superficial injuries which were not present). A certain upward launch angle (I can't be arsed to calculate it, but it is certainly calculatable) is necessary in order to achieve a sufficient airborne time subject to the gravitational acceleration to develop the minimum terminal velocity required to generate the force necessary to cause the observed injuries.
The prosecution's case falls apart, of course, since we don't know the exact point of departure, because the acceleration due to gravity is so variable in that area and at that altitude... oh, man, I can't even keep a straight face when trying to sell this alibi. For all intents and purposes, at all locations on the earth, "g" (in the formula a = 1/2gt^2) is obviously pretty much constant; any claim that it isn't would need some serious evidence.
Lacking any sufficient rebuttal or refutation of conclusions based on stipulated facts, and since the "H-bomb class evidence" fizzled, the defense team and the inner circle of close relatives has resorted to impersonating the identities of the most prominent detractors. At least that's a hell of a lot less expensive than the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to Geragoesthemoney for a mistrial three years ago. I'm sure Cam is perfectly satisfied with this new defense strategy.
Agreed, Loretta, there is no reason on earth to bring a small child up there unless you want to "do in" small child. He must've mulled over the boat scenario and figured that would be too obvious and also inconvenient for him (LE would impound the boat) so this is pretty simple- pick the most isolated spot on the point on a weekday with few others around, look around a bit to make sure no one is watching from the trails or the beach, say reassuring things to her, pick her up and heave. So simple, really- except, yeah, you have to yell for help and act sad afterwards, or people might just see right through it.
Loretta hit the nail on the head. I'm not aware of an innocent reason for their presence at Inspiration Point. Cam has boasted about how he knows every inch of the coast from Ventura to the Mexican border. He's a planner. He's vindictive. It adds up.
As to the prosecution expert, if he's really that damaged by the allegations about Harvard, then lots of folks have been taken in subsequently, like MIT, Oregon State, Nike and a variety of litigants. Possible, but not probable.
CI actually wrote this with a straight face:
...Perhaps we will think more about the witches of Salem and the klansmen who strung people up for crimes they never committed. It's a personal decision whether we allow ourselves to behave in that manner, or try to do better.
I thought I was in a Monty Python skit or something. Then, I wrote the following at the KKK:
I can't help but continue to be amazed at the comparison of Cam (Spoiled Surfer Brat) Brown and young women burned at the stake or black men lynched. Let's just step back a minute and look at the privileged, indulgent existence of one Cameron J. Brown: born to wealthy parents in a beautiful city in good health and with every luxury a child could want. Raised in a nice house with plenty of good food and able to attend a safe, convenient and 99% white school without ever having to dodge a bullet or go hungry. He wasn't even eligible for the draft! Too young for Viet Nam, too old to enlist for the Gulf War (not that he would have), so he dodged those bullets, too.
Knocks up a couple of women, that we know of, at least one of whom conveniently terminates the pregnancy. Moves to California, lives on a boat, surfs, hikes, parties, screws "Bay Watch Babes" at will. Guy has the life o' Reilly.
Even his job - a brainless workout throwing suitcases for 8 hour shifts protected by a strong Union that gives him great health insurance, retirement, benefits, and full pay when he's got so much as a splinter in his thumb. That's not really exaggerating.
So, are we expected to really feel sorry for this guy because he's a defendant in a murder trial of a little girl that he had reason to kill (according to the evidence) and should have known better than to take her up to that cliff?
We're supposed to take seriously the comparison to witch trials and lynchings? I mean, seriously? Even if Cam Brown had to spend the rest of his life in prison, he still had a BETTER LIFE than 90% of the freaking world.
Keyrist.
You hit that on the head, Loretta. They're still going with the 'she fell' theory, and I can't see it. Every time I've ever slipped & fallen, I've grabbed at things. She has no defensive wounds to her hands, no scrape marks on her legs, elbows, palms. No dirt or vegetation under her nails. No little pieces of gravel embedded in her skin.
It doesn't add up.
Now I can't wait to see Sprocket's write up on yesterday's testimony - she said one of the witnesses *completely* changed their story.
Huh. I wonder if Ted will pillory that witness for now changing their minds about Cam, if it goes in Cam's favor.
Anyone want to put bets on it?
My thoughts on censorship are being censored at the KKK Blog -- wattashock!
Winston Chur chill’s observations regarding Adolf Hitler applies with equal force to Ted:
You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. On all sides they are guarded by masses of armed men, cannons, aeroplanes, fortifications, and the like -- they boast and vaunt themselves before the world, but in their hearts there is unspoken fear: They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stir ring at home -- all the more powerful because forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the might iest potentates are thrown into panic.
Winston S. Churchill (BBC Radio broadcast to London and America, Oct. 16, 1938 ), reprinted at Randolph S. Churchill, Into Battle 58-59 (Hesperides Press 2006) (emphasis added).
Censorship is the opening argument of the tyrant. Joseph Goebbels claimed that it is "the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion," Foreign News: Consecrated Press, Time, Oct. 16, 1933, and Lenin thought that to give the weapon of freedom of the press to one’s opponent is to "ease the enemy’s cause." Vladimir I. Lenin, Pravda (1912). “The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the free dom of thinking, speaking, and writing.” John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1765). From Tienanmen Square to this blog, the fangs of power are perpetually bared.
Novelist Samuel Butler quipped, “Authority intoxicates, And makes mere sots of magistrates; The fumes of it invade the brain, And make men giddy, proud and vain.” Samuel Butler, Miscel laneous Thoughts, as reprinted in, The Poetical Works of Samuel Butler 285 (ed. R. B. Johnson) (Geo. Bell & Sons 1893). These fumes powered the Chinese tanks and the ‘showers’ of Bergen-Belsen and now, have seemingly driven Ted to the point of madness.
Justice William O. Douglas made the following observations:
Fear of ideas makes us impotent and ineffective.
Thus if the First Amendment means anything in this field, it must allow protests even against the moral code that the standard of the day sets for the community. In other words, literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.
The great and invigorating influences in American life have been the unorthodox: the people who challenge an existing institution of way of life, or say and so things that make people think.
The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.
That Ted's impotence should be a function of his girth is not surprising, but those who must wield the censor's hand are ashamed of themselves. Voltaire explains:
C’est le propre des censures violentes d’accréditer les opinions qu’elles attaquent. [It is characteristic of vicious censorship to give credence to the very opinions it seeks to annihilate.
—Voltaire, “Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne”
"[Fire's] real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences. A problem gets too burdensome, then into the furnace with it. Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, p. 115 (Random House 1996)." Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people's faces. They beat me with sticks. By the time I was forty my blunt instrument had been honed to a fine cutting point for me. If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you'll never learn. Bradbury, id. at 105
"The censor's sword pierces deeply into the heart of free expression." Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, 365 U.S. 43, 75 (1961) (Warren, C.J., dissenting). And in time, it invariably ends up vanquishing the censor.
More censorship from The Oafish One:
CI: Ken, are your own words so inadequate that you feel compelled to quote Wayne Delia here? Repeatedly?
The most compelling evidence of Wayne Delia's intelligence is Wayne Delia's own statements. Try to keep in mind what is being alleged here.
Ken: Wayne Delia is one of the brightest guys I know on-line
Ted: And who manages to hide that fact VERY well
Ted's act of censoring my posts presenting the evidence proving Wayne's formidable -- far superior to that of Ted -- intelligence, constitute a confession that even he knows that he is lying. Justice Stewart observes:
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authori tarian regime. Long ago those who wrote our First Amendment charted a different course. They believed a society can be truly strong only when it is truly free. In the realm of expression they put their faith, for better or for worse, in the enlightened choice of the people, free from the interference of a policeman's intrusive thumb or a judge's heavy hand.
Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 498 (1966) (Stewart, J., dissenting).
Wayne Delia said...
"Ah, Mr. Kaldis. You have a nasty habit of... surviving." (paraphrasing a line from a James Bond movie)
There's a simple and common theme running through most of his posting history, which I pointed out several months ago. The bottom line is that he has an urgent need to create certain impressions, usually not true, but necessary to support whatever agenda he's pushing at the time. It stung him badly when I brought that up in the alt.fan.bob-larson newsgroup, and he took to overusing his '[...]' icon to indicate material he snipped without responding to. He also claimed to have killfiled me, but he accidentally directly responded to a post of mine 36 hours later - his excuse was that he did it from a different computer, but the IP addresses were... well, you can probably guess the result. [cont.]
continued from previous post (Wayne is speaking):
In any case, as I said, Ted needs to create impressions which are usually not true, to support whatever agenda he's pushing at the time. There are many examples, but just a few will do for illustration. When the need arose for Ted to appear as a hard-core Jethro Tull fan, living the drug-culture lifestyle of someone who was intimately familiar with the 1970's progressive rock band, he wrote his famous smoking-gun post:
What do you know of Tull? I saw the Brick Tour concert from just about perfect seats, about 7 rows back from the stage and just slightly right of center, at Bayfront Center in St. Petersburg FL, on 3 November, 1972. (The opening act was Gentle Giant, before anyone had ever heard of them.) The night was quite magical, passing around doobs, and then a little electric beer to wash it all down.
That rhetoric was very useful to create an impression of a tough, swaggering, ultra-cool, plugged-in, streetwise dude who had a level of experience deeper than someone he was trying to put down at the time. Enter Ken Smith, who correctly pointed out that the effects of LSD (the active hallucinogenic in "electric beer") were virtually permanent in terms of acid flashbacks later on in life, which pretty much impeached any arbitrary post made by Ted. At that time, Ted was knee-deep in trying to create an impression of himself as a pious Christian, so the prior impression of the drug culture hippie was no longer useful. He backpedalled harder than Lance Armstrong by denying he ever took any LSD, that he was just "having us on," that he only observed and described the concert, but did not partake of any drugs or alcohol - which made the context of his first post absolutely ludicrous, as if he was a total square completely out of place at a Jethro Tull concert, wearing a white varsity letterman's sweater and nervously avoiding all drugs and beer. In his own words: "_I_REPORTED_ON_WHAT_I_SAW_!!! Nowhere here do I say that I partook in any of this."
There are many more examples, especially his attempts to create the impression that he is Australian (he obviously isn't) through his use of tiresome and overused Australian jargon, and that he is knowledgable enough to trace anyone to a reasonable proximity to create the impression that he is a psychotic stalker without actually doing any stalking.
These efforts are clearly the manifestation of some really deep-seated insecurity on Ted's part. Of course I'm not a trained mental health professional, but Kent Wills's wife is, and she's given a preliminary diagnosis that hit so close to the mark, Ted was forced to pretend she doesn't exist, so that the diagnosis could go away. That only served to cement his own already well-deserved reputation as a Usenet kook. [cont. ]
See above (Wayne is speaking):
All of this ties together quite well in the Camoron Brown case. Ted has a clear agenda to pursue(*) in that he is protecting his sister by initially appealing for help and support in a forum where he has clearly alienated many others. Not finding that support, he needed to create the impression that he was a critical part of the inner circle of "Team Camoron", that he knew all sorts of things in his planet-sized brain that none of us knew about, that there was some "H-bomb-class evidence" which would completely exonerate Cam, and that all who were judging the case solely on the evidence and testimony available instead of taking him at his word were making fools out of themselves. This was particularly aimed at Ken Smith, who had taken several years worth of abuse from Ted about Ken's problems with the Colorado Board of Examiners, and now Ted was getting a huge heapin' helpin' of his own brand of hospitality right back in his manhole-cover-sized face.
(*) Although I am persuaded by analysis written by Loretta that Ted stands to gain if Camoron is found guilty of murdering Lauren. Ted can then crash with sister Patty for however long it takes the two of them to pull themselves out of financial insolvency and indentured servitude to Geragoesthemoney.
It was about two and a half months ago, maybe, that Ted stopped posting on Usenet. For many years, no matter how huge a jerk he made of himself, he generally fully identified himself, rarely disguising his name or email address. In the first few days of June of this year, facts, evidence, and testimony in the Brown trial came out so rapidly and so soundly refuting so many of his claims (detailed in the current blog entry) that he is much too embarrassed to post publically and non-anonymously any more. Clearly, either Ted was telling "de facto" lies, or else he was entirely misled by his brother-in-law. The embarrassment of being publically proven so wrong (or dishonest), so many times, on so many different things, now prevents him from posting anywhere using his own name. As I've told him several times, if I were him, I'd be ashamed of my own name too.
Aqualung, my friend, don't you start away uneasy.... 8)
CI: Ken, are your own words so inadequate that you feel compelled to quote Wayne Delia here? Repeatedly?
Now, we can see why you think that Cam is stone-cold innocent -- you don't have the first freakin' clue as to what evidence is and how it is used. The best evidence of Wayne's considerable intelligence is his posts, and Ted's censorship of representative posts establishing that fact is a tacit confession of the point. Now, the neutrals can see what Ted has censored on Loretta's blog, so you will have a difficult time denying that Ted lost that argument hands'-down.
Still, mere facts have never gotten in the way of Team Cam's immaculate deceptions; why should they start now?
Sorry to temporarily continue the "Ted and Idiots Show" - evidently Ted needs to improve to get to the level of "idiot" - but I need to use the Poof-Proof to make sure this does not go bye-bye.
Part 1...
Actually, I'm probably not banned on this blog, it's just that I've chosen never to post here (apart from this one post, of course). The primary reason is mainly the censorship on this blog, and the need for Loretta to maintain a separate blog in order to preserve the information from the posts censored here. I suppose I'll have to post this over on her blog as well. A secondary reason I don't post here certainly has to be Ted's penchant for stalking. Frankly, when this case is over with, no matter the outcome, Ted's gonna "need a new hobby." Nobody believes his nonchalant excuses for his history of classic stalking behavior, and the more rationalizations that are invented to excuse his Internet stalking, the more likely he will be to project those excuses onto real life stalking, i.e. the claim he's only interested in seeing if he can find out exactly where someone lives is not a legitimate excuse for menacing someone whom he perceives has damaged his brother-in-law's case or has refuted his theological arguments. Apparently, he's actually physically stalked one of his Usenet detractors in the past. I've studied karate, but earned my black belt almost eight years ago, and at age 52 I am probably capable of defending myself and my family, but I simply don't want the drama. Thus, alternate precautions need to be taken, and have been taken. The part I can tell you about involves cataloging Ted's many implications of stalking behavior, which may be necessary to support an affirmative answer to the question of whether I had sufficient reason to believe Ted is a stalker. I can probably make that case based on Ted's questions to JoBeth66 this week alone, much less his history of other documented implications.
Part 2 of 6...
I do appreciate the compliments on my perceived intelligence, but it's not really relevant at all. Regardless how many patents I've authored on behalf of IBM, regardless how much physics and engineering I studied at what used to be called Clarkson College of Technology in the late 1970's (now Clarkson University), and regardless of any academic fraud Dr. Hayes may or may not have committed at Harvard, the inescapable conclusion is the physics of the situation is what it is. In order for Lauren to have sustained certain injuries (depicted in a photograph entered into evidence), a certain force must have been generated via terminal velocity on impact. The necessary force could not have been attained in a slip-and-fall scenario, which in itself would have produced other injuries not found to be present. In order for a certain terminal velocity to be achieved, the projectile must be subject to the acceleration due to gravity for a minimum amount of time. In order to be airborne for a certain minimum amount of time, there are minimum launch angles and initial velocities that must have been satisfied. The defense case, I imagine, will attempt to raise doubt by pointing out that the exact location of the launch point, and perhaps also the impact point, are unknown or unknowable unless Cameron testifies, which seems highly unlikely. But that uncertainty is irrelevant, unless the constant acceleration due to gravity is somehow significantly variable in Southern California. The point is, the dry objective physics of the situation does not depend on whether I'm an engineering expert, or whether I have been issued a minimum of X patents, or whether I'm Albert Freakin' Einstein, simply doesn't matter. This is why the so-called "H-bomb class evidence" attempting to impeach the testimony of Dr. Hayes is so curious. The acceleration due to gravity is not dependent on whether Dr. Hayes did or did not commit academic fraud at Harvard. It is what it is, and it can't be impeached by a claim such as "Here's a guy who asserts it, and he committed academic fraud years ago, so the jury is entitled to believe the opposite." This alleged academic fraud was certainly known during the first trial, so the question is begged as to why Mark Geragos did not see fit to detonate it three years ago. What I do not know for certain, but am reasonably confident of, is that Geragos successfully milked a cash cow for all he could get out of it, before bailing out after the mistrial was declared.
Part 3 of 6...
It is true that Ted's escapades on Usenet and on the Cameron Brown case blog have portrayed him as a high-order hypocrite, very transparently veiled in claims from which he can backtrack, if necessary. All I've done is point it out. On several different occasions, he's attempted to create an impression which he does not (or later claims not to) actually fulfill. The most familiar is the Jethro Tull Electric Beer incident, in which Ted strongly implied partaking of LSD-laced beer at the concert, to create the impression he was much more "plugged in" to the understanding of the environment at the time. Ted later backpedaled from this claim when Ken pointed out that the effects of LSD are pretty much permanent. This was possible because the need to maintain the false impression Ted originally created had long passed. What I did (in a Usenet post which seems to have been dug up and recently reposted here) is plugged Ted's later backpedaling into his original story, which would have more accurately portrayed him as a "narc", or someone entirely out of place in an environment in which he was trying to create the impression he was intimately familiar with.
Part 4 of 6...
Ted's hypocrisy extends to his religious beliefs, which are easily refuted, and which tend to surface whenever he is faced with an unusually difficult or uncomfortable situation. Those who would disagree with him, or oppose his outlandish theories, need to "get right with the Lord." An obvious hypocritical situation recently arose in the current retrial. The jury learned about academic fraud of Dr. Hayes at Harvard in pretty much the same way that the jury learned about the witchcraft of Patty Kaldis Brown. Ted triumphantly proclaims the fraud of Dr. Hayes as being established as the "H-Bomb class evidence," yet if he was more consistent than hypocritical, he'd be Biblically required to kill his own sister according to Exodus 22:12, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (KJV). In attempting to create the impression that he's pious and God-fearing, he simply reinforces already negative stereotypes about actual Christians who excuse their own sins on the basis that Jesus will forgive them because they believe in Him. As a specific example, Ted often attempts to create the impression of being a tough, swaggering, street-hardened roughneck who swears a blue streak, but who is nevertheless too timid to spell out the whole curse words, choosing to abbreviate them, or mask the vowels with asterisks. But his Jesus, if He exists as the Son of God, would certainly know Ted's intentions. Either Ted doesn't live up to the impression he's trying to create, or Ted feels that Jesus will not be able to decipher phrases like "shut the f*ck up." Anyone who would point this out, as I did on Usenet, is told to "get right with the Lord" or other such prattle.
Part 5 of 6...
I doubt if anyone actually takes Ted's arguments and protestations here seriously at all. He simply made several big mistakes along the way. One mistake, unforeseeable at the time, was to make such a big fuss over the problems Ken Smith was facing with the Colorado Bar Examiners board. Had that not happened, Ken Smith probably never would have produced many volumes of legitimate counter-arguments against the defense strategy in the Cameron Brown case - some which may very well have found their way into the prosecution's case, or onto the John & Ken radio show, but these could also simply be common sense points evident to the casual observer. A second big mistake was to clutch so desperately to any indication of support, to the extent of keeping Jon Hans' letter of support on the pathetic "Free Cam Brown" website beyond the point when Hans requested it be taken down due to his change of opinion. Ted was unable or unwilling to comply, as that might be taken as an admission that the support for Cameron was decreasing. Had that not happened, Jon Hans most likely would not have testified, and his testimony reported by Sprocket certainly seemed damaging to the defense. Trial delusion easily produces the predictable result "his letter said one thing, he said something different in court, he's a liar, so apply "he's a liar" to his court testimony, and yay defense." When reality does a beat-down on the trial delusion, or the cognitive dissonance is too much to overcome, out come the inevitable ad hominems. "Ken Smith, whoa boy, Colorado Bar Examiners, whack-job." "Wayne Delia, drunk frat boy." Actually, I'm responsible for setting an example for the boys to contain problems with underage drinking, which is what I do in my role as a chapter adviser. Ted makes an ad hominem attack based on connecting "fraternity" with the "drinking" stereotype. These logical fallacies only serve to inflame those who are effectively criticizing Ted's position, and make the schadenfraude so much sweeter when it's brought out that Ted was constantly lying or that his "H-bomb evidence" wasn't even good enough to bring out in the expensive first trial. In my case, it makes no difference; it's just "Ted being Ted." But with Jon Hans, it may have been the difference between him testifying and not testifying, and that testimony may be the difference between a guilty verdict on Murder 2 or any other outcome, guilty or not guilty.
Part 6 of 6...
This post will either be censored, or left alone on this blog. This post represents my honest opinion, which for all anyone knows could be shared by other regular average-Joe people on the jury of the Cameron Brown trial. If it's censored, the facts and begged questions will still be in effect, and the trial outcome won't be affected one way or the other if these posted opinions suddenly go missing on this blog. Ken Smith is quite wise to reserve speculation on the actual outcome, with good reasons for doing so, as it removes any suspicion that he's actively rooting for a guilty verdict out of nothing more than spite for Ted, who would be getting what he deserved. I am tempted to express the opinion that from what we've heard of the trial from the only available honest and unbiased source, Sprocket, it does not go well for the defense, up to and including the latest defense witness who apparently contradicted his prior statements to detectives. I do not see much hope for acquittal, but I am persuaded by Ken's advice that the best course of action is to hope for a fair verdict based on the merits of the arguments.
So, in an effort to avoid future real life stalking attempts, I am... over and out.
This is weird, I see someone else is posting under my initials now! And I'm just a lil' ole Newbie, instead of one of these distinguished Senior Posters (hah!). So instead of being "KC" I'll just go ahead and post as "KMC"- GOD KNOWS there's enough confusion and craziness over here as to identities, and so on....
It's obvious to me what the "alt Ken" & "alt KC" are doing. Junior High school stuff.
Any "spoof" comments using posters here will be deleted.
Pick a new name or buzz off.
Knowing the liars they are over there, I might as well preserve this one:
CI: However, I want you to stay on topic here and the topic of discussion is not Usenet posts from years ago nor Ken's case or Ted Kaldis. This is about Cam Brown and anything you would like to add to that is fine with me.
The only relevance of my case is that it shows The Oafish One to be a liar and hypocrite. If it is fair to discount Dr. Hayes' testimony on account of alleged academic fraud, it is equally fair to discount The Tedyear Blimp's claims on the same account.
As I am new to the site, could someone please tell me what is going on here? I see a very interesting site and ask a simple question and post are deleted. Is there a line up of what name or appreviation I need to use here. My name is Kevin and last name begins with a "C" do I have to find some other name to not have my post deleted? I just used my intitials and then some war starts out over some other guy named KC (Sorry KC but I must have made a mistake, so please accept my apology, I am a newbie myself) This site should be getting to the point of the case, but seems to be full of misconceptions and lies, simply one sided and biased against the case at hand. Simply just tried to post something saying that you should all focus on the case, not some charcter named Ted and his battle with the gangsters on this site. Take that battle elsewhere and focus on the impact on these families, and most of all the little girl who lost her life in a tragic accident. Thanks for the nice welcome to your site. Loretta, I hope you treat your guest better than this when they walk into your home. Go ahead and delete this too to continue to show your biased views.
Kevin, this is the second trial of this murder case and we are commenting on new material, where evident, in the new trial.
If you are curious about the facts of the case, I laid them out quite thoroughly in 2005 and 2006. Feel free to peruse the archives. There is much, much more to this than this comment section.
Have at it.
Thank you and I have read up on the past post and also the news from the previous case. Still I see you have been very biased in your blog. There are a few folks like Wayne, Ken and Melissa who seem to have a more open mind on the case. I think speculation is a good thing, and with my background you would find that I am more than qualified to have an opinion here. The second side of the story was not portrayed in a non-biased fashion here on the first or second trial. Other sites like Sprocket, are better but still lead to a bunch of folks who focus on how to convict someone before the jury does. They seem one sided and I am sorry but that is the problem with media in the first place. As a newbie, I would appreciate that you focus on the case and not the strange focus on the defendents extended family. They seem odd enough, so why even give them credit here?
I personally don't give a rip what you would appreciate.
I happen to believe Cameron Brown is a baby killer. Those who want to support him can do so at his blog.
This isn't FAUX so we don't have to be fair and balanced.
The balance thing works out between the two sites. We are happy to discuss the case, including opposing thoughts, if expressed intelligently, but many of the people here have been posting here and other places since before the first trial.
Dialogue (argument) has developed, which gets discussed at times when there is no new information, which we are anxiously awaiting from Sprocket, as Team Cam is very chary with same.
If you have something to add, Kevin, we are willing to discuss. We are not, however, willing to spend a lot of time discussing our own shortcomings, as perceived by you.
As CG said, we are not FAUX, here, and are under no obligation to present the other side. There is another blog that takes care of that. Have you been telling them they are being one-sided?
Buh Bye, Kevin.
One sided, so much that you have to delete post? Sounds like you should run for political office. You delete any post that does not agree with your view. Let the people know that you deleted this, so they can all see what kind of crap you are pulling.
What don't you understand? I support Sarah and Lauren, not the POS that tossed her from IP.
usuals:
CI: However, I want you to stay on topic here and the topic of discussion is not Usenet posts from years ago nor Ken's case or Ted Kaldis.
Just as Dr. Hayes' alleged (mere hearsay that proves nothing, and was almost certainly thrown as an unethical smear because of where it came out and how) academic fraud is logically relevant to his testimony, Ted Kaldis' proven and persistent dishonesty and hypocrisy is relevant to the Cam Brown case and this blog, as he is one of the persons reporting on this case. But that little nicety would get in the way of CI's agenda, so it can't be discussed here. Nice.
Kook Kaldis Klone "Openminded":
One sided, so much that you have to delete post? Sounds like you should run for political office. You delete any post that does not agree with your view. Let the people know that you deleted this, so they can all see what kind of crap you are pulling.
If you want to be heard, post on both blogs. Here, the ladies have had a problem with Kaldis Klones pretending to be posters they are not (using the existing posters' handles and thereby, fraudulently passing themselves off as us). A Ted Kaldis scam if I ever smelled one.
You have to understand just how dishonest (and mentally ill) Ted is.
Usuals
CI: Please stop, Ken. We are not going to get involved in a blog war. anyone who wants to post here can as long as they are respectful.
Kent Wills. You guys can't tell the truth with a compass and a road map.
CI: We will answer whatever questions we can answer and opposing views give us the opportunity to do so. Anything we have to say will be said here. Period.
Potty-train your walrus, and we'll all get along just fine.
Usuals:
Ken: The topic logically includes the credibility of the blog's reporters, as we need to be able to ascertain the verity of claims made here.
CI:Oh, stop with the bs. You said repeatedly that you don't believe anything we say, so why persist? I really don't care, Ken. The only one who is responsible for the claims made here are those who post them.
Oh, stop with the obfuscation, already! Not everyone knows that Ted is a full-blown sociopath, but everyone needs to know it so they can fairly evaluate the credibility of claims made on this blog by its owners. You know, the Wilson Hayes argument, applied to Ted.
CI: And, I've made no bones about the fact that Kent Wills is not welcome here.
Understandable. After all, he asks too many incisive questions. There's a reason that Curious George and Queen Sarah would never consent to being interviewed by Olbermann.
Jobeth feels Ted is stalking her and I agree. CI's excuse for Ted that he's just trying to have conversation is laughable, except it isn't funny.
As to "Openminded's" comment, it wasn't deleted, now was it?
To me, it's trollish to come here and lecture about how this blog is one-sided and demand we defend Cameron. Anyone who reads this blog sees that we believe Lauren's death was no accident.
How many would think I was behaving like a troll if I posted on Sprocket's blog that I didn't appreciate her posting on (fill in the blank) instead of writing her entry on the Brown case yesterday? I would, because it's HER BLOG.
As Ken said, using someone else's identity that has been posting here is the reason they were deleted. The only other comments that have been deleted here in the past were negative comments about Sarah. That will not be tolerated.
You KNOW this won't last:
Ken: Not everyone knows that Ted is a full-blown sociopath,
Ted: Says Ken Smith. On the other hand, not everyone knows that Ken Smith was asked by the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board to submit to a psychological examination when he applied to become a lawyer in that state (after having earned a law degree and passing the bar exam). Ken refused, and accordingly, his application was denied.
This is further proof of Ted's persistent sociopathy, for as the Wyoming Supreme Court duly reminds us, “half the truth is often a lie in effect,” Twing v. Schott, 338 P.2d 839, 841 (Wyo. 1959).
Imagine how you would feel if Cameron Brown were convicted of murder on the strength of the grand jury transcript alone. Would you consider the verdict reached to be fair?
What Ted knows -- and because he neglects to tell you this, he obviously intends to deceive his readers -- is that I had a number of legally valid reasons for refusing, including reliance on federal statutory law. But of course, if Ted had to concede those points, he wouldn't be able to smear me.
Ted: Ken's modus operandi appears to be a relentless campaign of attack and abuse against anyone who has the temerity to point this out, in an effort to silence them. This sort of thing may have worked on others, but it has not and will not work on me.
You're projecting again, Ted. You have been unfairly smearing me with this for the better part of a decade. Moreover, you have been caught STALKING your opponents on Usenet for than a decade, even showing up at one opponent's doorstep in a country half-way around the world!
Repeat after me, Ted: "Cameron Brown is a COLD-BLOODED CHILD MURDERER, because the State says so, and they have no reason to lie."
My modus operandi is shoving your moronic and juvenile arguments back in your face.
Usuals:
Ted: BTW, on the basis of such behaviour on the part of Ken, I am inclined to conclude that there was quite likely merit to the Bar Examiners' concerns regarding Ken.
BTW, on the basis of such behaviour on the part of Cam Brown, just about everyone on the freakin' planet is inclined to conclude that there was quite likely merit to the Los Angeles Sheriff Department's concerns regarding Cam.
PYSIH: "Behold Cameron Brown, possibly the biggest piece o’ shit you will ever meet." Four hundred and ninety-four votes for conviction, and Team Cam (almost certainly Ted, and Ted alone) for it was all just a "terrible accident."
You're the one saying this argument is fair ... and it might be the one that convicts Cam. I can make a powerful argument for conviction based solely on the evidence on record right now, and I am sure that Craig Hum can make an even better one.
Usuals:
CI: This is pathetic, Ken. You bring the most intelligent person you know, Wayne Delia, over here to pose his theory and reasons why Cam should be found guilty, and we dispute it quite effectively because Wayne has not taken important facts into account, and EVER SINCE WE DID THAT, you have posted one post after the other to distract anyone from the real issues!
That is pathetic, CI! I never said Wayne was the most intelligent person I know on the Net -- there are more than a few candidates, including John Hattan and Jason Steiner, who routinely sliced, diced, and fricasseed The Oafish One on USENET -- who are deserving of consideration. That having been said, a valid issue here is whether Ted is a sociopath. It is certainly relevant, if Dr. Hayes' alleged (but as clearly, unproven) academic fraud at Harvard would impact a rational jury's deliberations, as readers must in some way rely on Ted's veracity (an Inspiration Point-class leap of faith, given his track record) to accept many of the conclusions you present.
CI: You speak of stalking behavior, but it is you who have stalked and pursued Ted Kaldis to deflect attention from the facts of this case. It is you who have been abusive toward anyone who might show support to Cam Brown because of your immature inability to just GET OVER IT! You have no reason to be here other than a desire to cause direct or vicarious harm to others because of your deep hatred for Ted Kaldis. The last many posts are evidence of that. Just do us all a big favor and go exercise your right to free speech elsewhere.
Again, you are trying your level best to prove that everyone with Team Cam is a pathological liar, from the baby-stealing old maid to the Maybach-coveting oaf. One of the nicest things about a competing blog is that everyone can see what the terrified censors at Team Cam fears. And as an added bonus, it is clear that you are the only other person who has a copy of Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-FUCKED Dictionary, where words mean whatever you need them to mean at any given time.
Some obvious questions remain. First and foremost, why didn't Harris confront Dr. Hayes with the allegations regarding the alleged academic fraud? As far as I can see, this was merely an unethical ploy by Harris to smear his opponent with baseless innuendo. And I ask you, how is it fair for The Oafish One to only present one side of an issue and in the same breath, complain that others have presented only one side of an issue to his detriment?
As for attacking members of Team Cam, I only attack them for their lack of honor and integrity, shortcomings which you have displayed in prodigious over-abundance. You got rid of Kent Wills because he asked too many good questions embarrassing to Team Cam. Funny how that happens....
Why are post here deleted when they are written to simply ask that you show two sides of the trial? I have been censored, deleted and I have done nothing to show that I am biased either way. Never said anything bad about Lauren or her Mom. Let the people know that I am not part of the Ted show, and just posted my first and only blog on their site, as all of my post here are deleted. Be factual and show my post. Are you scared of the truth, and having someone have a different view as yours?
Your posts were not deleted for your point of view; they were deleted because of your rude and derogatory references to CG, Ronni and I, and for your unecessary insults to this site.
If you want to be civil, you are welcome to post. If not, you are going to be POOFED.
Can you tell me where the insults were to you and the rest of your gang? There is no reason to delete them. Simply saying there is a case for Recklessness instead of intentional guilt. Show the post or at least tell the people why you deleted them. Once again, you seem worried that someone is here posting with a different view than yours. Again, no relation to the kaladis group.
Based on your terrible spelling and grammar, either English is not your native language or you are simply a poor communicator.
Please go away.
A simple post- See angry Loretta's attack on a unbiased person above. If you cannot allow someone with a different view post here what is the point?
Someone has a problem with reading retention. This blog has no intention of defending Cameron Brown.
If you want to read both sides of the trial, buy the transcripts (but I seriously doubt you will).
He used vulgar language to describe us, CG, never mind his mutt bastardization of your name.
He is a persona non grata here.
I am gettin confused. Ken and such post stuff that they have posted on the other board which they fear will be deleted, and now you guys are deleting posts? With our trust that you arent deleting relevant arguments?
How are we to know? I think that we are relatively intelligent enough to know when there is a snipe and to ignore it. Why delete when all that causes is confusion?
Melissa (and others that are new to the trial & these issues), I've never known Loretta or CG to be anything other than honorable. If they say there are non-opinion related reasons for deleting posts, I absolutely trust them. They've never given me a reason to do otherwise.
Melissa is right, the post are being deleted and there is no record of them. In the past, some of the post at least say deleted. Now, they just disappear. It does seem a little suspicious. The last post put them in a tough position and they cannot even let that one in? No vulgar comments or language, just a simple couple of facts, and then poof!
Melissa, the deleted posts were nothing but insulting. I saw them. there has been nothing cogent deleted.
These trolls are left over from the situation at the time of the first trial. Loretta and CG will deal with them on that basis. To take them in good faith is to give them too much credit.
Why don't you edit the posting, and strike the "insulting" comments. I would be interested to see what they have to say, and with no profanity, let the people on the site be the judge of the post.
Why don't you start your own blog and stop telling others how to run theirs?
Apologies for rudeness, but I really don't understand.
This blog belongs to Country Girl and Loretta, and it is up to them how it is run.
You would get short shrift at my blog if you tried to tell me what I should or should not publish. It would never occur to me to tell any other blogger how to manage their comments, or any administrative task.
Melissa: How are we to know? I think that we are relatively intelligent enough to know when there is a snipe and to ignore it. Why delete when all that causes is confusion?
I am regrettably forced to concur with Melissa, although I know that there are more than a few people who attack Loretta on grounds that have nothing to do with this trial and I have nothing but respect for both her and CG. Sprocket insists that posts be approved before they are posted, but this has always struck me as less-than-optimal. Better to let the mutts have their say, with appropriate deletions if this is technically possible.
Given the fact that there are conflicting reports, and as someone who has not played the games, I agree with Melissa. This blog has been very good and has shown post from Kent and others that detail the other aide. Why play the games that is seen elsewhere? Ronni, if you have another blog that is unbiased and can report the facts we would love it. For a blog that has nobody at the trial and does not have copies of the transcripts of the case, this one does seem pretty pointed toward guilt before proven by the jury. I would like to hear more about the case, but thia seems to be a cat fight.
Thanks Ronni. This is getting tiring.
The jury in the first trial disagreed only on degree. Nobody voted "not guilty." So, while he has not been convicted by a jury (yet), the last jury was convinced of his guilt.
It is Loretta's and Country Girl's opinion that Cameron Brown killed Lauren Sarene Key-Marer. I think that has been made quite clear.
I fail to see why they should have to leave standing posts that insult them, their names, and their ideas.
My blog is a personal one, and this case is only mentioned occasionally, with references to this blog, Sprocket's, Denise Nix and one link to the comments on the Kaldis blog.
Posts cannot be edited here.
Melissa, if you don't trust why posts are deleted, why would you trust our editing of posts if it were possible to edit?
Would you like being called the C-Word on your blog?
I dont have a blog. I hate the C word being used FWIW. I just made a point.
I am a big enough girl to see through the snipes, and coming from Jersey swear words dont offend me. I use then often.
I just hate to see another side of the argument being deleted. As fact of the other blog.
I want to hear the whole story. Not just one side.
Melissa, CG and Loretta will always publish facts and civilized discussion. It's the mindless insults that have to go.
I go way back to Scott Peterson with these ladies. They are the real McCoy.
The idiot that called CG the C-word knows who I was berating.
Melissa, I have a lot of respect for you, over the time you have been posting at Ronni's Rants.
I saw the C-word comment.
Yeah. Real classy, eh?
Kevin also described CG, Ronni and I as "angry ho bags"...
So, he can go somewhere else as far as I'm concerned. You don't get second chances here to make a first impression.
From the other blog:
STP: I also am frustrated by the Cameron Brown Trial Blog. As I just left a post there, it was not shown at all. It was censored by the administrator.
That is why I post any number of posts at both blogs. The censor's knife is wielded liberally on this site, as they have a stilted and outcome-based view of what relevant posting is. I'd have to know what it was you posted to judge the verity of your claims and the propriety of their actions, but I've learned from experience that the ladies are generally disinclined to censor on the basis of content.
ok, I had a WHOLE post before. My Internet is sucking though.
Please dont think that my questioning is a form of disrespect. I was kind of put off by Ken in the beginning because of the copy and paste thing. And the ultra mad thing too. But I have come to have a liking to him as well, as most passionate people.
I apologize if I have insulted anyone here. But if I am allowed to continue to comment I hope that I can say what I am feeling.
STP has a post ^^^^
My other post were not shown here. They were also censured. I would appreciate if you would stop editing my post. They are not vulgar and I am a newbie here without a side to choose. Sorry if you do not agree with my neutral stance.
Melissa: I apologize if I have insulted anyone here. But if I am allowed to continue to comment I hope that I can say what I am feeling.
I love Loretta and CG. They will give you the freedom to say what you feel, unlike the owners of da udder blog. Where I think they draw the line is in personal abuse, and I'm not averse to that as justification for action (I'd like to see the offending posts archived for evidence's sake).
I have the offending posts. One of them says:
"Wow, is it that time of the month Loretta? You must be so smart that you have no other life than this?"
And I just happen to be watching movies, so I get a chance to poof silly insults like this.
STP: My other post were not shown here. They were also censured. I would appreciate if you would stop editing my post. They are not vulgar and I am a newbie here without a side to choose. Sorry if you do not agree with my neutral stance.
I'm actually very neutral in this case, not giving a tinker's damn about whether Cam is convicted or acquitted. I've never been slapped by these two, although so many of my posts on the other blog have been made to disappear that I have taken to archiving them on this blog. If you want viewpoint-based censorship, see the KKK blog.
Melissa, Loretta and CG know you are not a troll.
I do not take credit for that post Loretta. Enjoy the movie. I bet it is a old version of The Practice.
Well, you're lying.
Go away.
Full moon?
If you say I am not telling the truth then prove it.
Um, Loretta shouldn't have to prove anything - she's not the one whose actions are questionable. When someone comes into a new place for them, it's best to be respectful and tactful and get the lay of the land. My guess would be that anyone whose posts have been 'poofed' have not done so, because everyone who HAS done so has had no problems. That's why many of us are still here.
Oh, and Melissa - I'm in NJ too. I manage to post without cursing or using bad language, even when I want to. (Heck, I don't think I've even ever cursed at Stalker Ted.) If people can't conduct themselves like reasonable human beings, they certainly can't expect to be treated as such, can they?
If they think their posts are being censored, they have 2 options. They can leave the blog and not post here, or they can re-post and think carefully about what they are saying, use language they would use if they were talking about something with someone they respect (like, a priest, or their boss, or their grandmother), and watch what happens.
Insulting someone who has opened their home to you (and make no mistake, that's what a blog is - someone letting you into their life) is uncalled for, at every turn. No one says you have to agree with everything everyone says, but if you cannot disagree respectfully, then I would submit that you may be out of your league, or above your head.
No commenter can be expected to stay standing if he or she insults the hostess or other guests.
Differences of opinion about the case are always tolerated, as long as they are expressed civilly.
The blog owner or admin has the absolute right to remove, delete or ban anyone.
Just as you would not allow a person into your home to abuse and insult you, Loretta and CG do not allow that behaviour here.
Comments cannot be edited. The only options are DELETE and DELETE FOREVER. DELETE leaves a mark that says, "Comment has been removed by blog administrator." DELETE FOREVER leaves nothing.
If you want your comments to stand, make them civil. Don't curse your hostess, and don't tell her how to run her own blog.
Most bloggers get testy about such things.
Usuals:
Ken: Cam Brown wasn't the most sympathetic of suspects. He acted weird. This had the appearance of the kind of case that ends up in the tabs, and if they had gone for the death penalty, it might have ended up there. It did garner the attention of John and Ken. Yes, the checkbooks were open wide, but that is as predictable as the morning sunrise.
CI: Once again you fall flat. There was NO QUESTION that JonBenet, Caylee, Natalee and Chandra were murdered. Although without a body, Natalee's case hinged on a lot of other evidence (lies told by the suspects and the fact she is still missing). In this case there were no signs of foul play from the evidence. Weird behavior depends who you were talking to because it has come out in testimony that what is in the reports is very different from what was used as evidence of weird behavior. Once again, you are taking a big leap of faith without the benefit of all the information.
Once again, you are being obtuse. Look at this from the standpoint of the police supervisor, who is getting his information from the detectives who are on-scene. His people tell him that they think it is a murder, and it's a freakin' four-year-old. The checkbook is open. Besides, they didn't have time to contact Vladimir Putin. 8)
CI: Once again, I take issue with your statement because I can prove to you otherwise. Reputable courts do take issue when the court and a the jury are deliberately misled. That Judge Arnold did not appear to preside over such a court should surprise no one. It is an offense to the court and the jurors to be lied to, and especially by those who represent law enforcement.
You're preaching to the choir here, CI: There is no one more receptive to documented charges of official misconduct. The problem is that I've been promised steak, sold sizzle, and have been handed rancid horsemeat.
Very, very, very confused, now. Ted stated flat out in his first post on the current entry in the other blog that Dr. Hayes' 'academic fraud' was THE H-Bomb class evidence. In fact, the first comment on the post is that the 'H-Bomb had exploded'.
But when Loretta pressed both he & CI and asked flat out today if Hayes' dismissal was the H-Bomb, they both said no.
Could it be that it really didn't get much of a reaction and that's going to come out here, so they can't continue to maintain that it is a HUGE blow to the prosecution?
How strange is that?
And now CI is saying that, no, it may have only lit the fuse. Or not. Because things change. Her response to me made NO sense, but I'm not sure she can clarify it without making it worse.
And wow has the backtracking begun in earnest.
A quick final word on deleted messages. Ronni, thank you for telling me the difference between "delete" & "delete forever". I have had a few, for the record deleted forever, and that is why I somewhat doubt the content here. And I also notice Ken used profanity in his post on Ted's site today, and that was not deleted. Just showing the facts. Regardinng the case, there is still doubt to me that this was not a case of Reckless behavior. Mr. Brown could have taken his daughter for a hike, which is very likely, to a place where he felt would give his child the feeling that he had when he lived in the mountains. A logical display of love for a child, using familiar places to help the child learn about the outdoors since Cam was an outdoorsman himself, per the testamony. One question that seems I may have missed somewhere is about the history. Is there any other times he had taken his child to the area, or places similar to the Point? I would doubt this was there first time hiking together, and perhaps they had been there before? I am not sure if either side has mentioned this in the trial. As I was driving today, I noticed some kids with parents at a place that that could have put them both in danger, but for the scenic value, they put themselves in a position that could have been deaths doorstep in a second. If you have a logical response, and not a personal attack on me this time, I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Ken, I appreciate that you are not taking sides, and actually like your post. But with the deleted messages on the other site, as I am a newbie, I noticed your anger toward the other site. However, when you use profanity, it is not deleted, where it is here. Just trying to keep the story straight on the posted messages. Really, no other need to respond as this is not the subject of interest here.
This has nothing to do with the Cameron Brown case, so no offence will be taken if my post is removed.
From the KKK blog:
CI: Once again you fall flat. There was NO QUESTION that JonBenet, Caylee, Natalee and Chandra were murdered.
The evidence for Natalee Holloway having been murdered is weaker than the evidence for Cameron having murdered Lauren.
As many here know, Lin and I take the kids to Aruba every year. I know the area of Oranjestad where Natalee and her class mates hung out. Carlos ' Charlie's, the last place she was seen alive, is a very short walk from the condo.
Walk across the street and you're practically at a beach.
That a drunk girl might chose to go for a late night swim, alone or with the the man she met in the bar, is easy to believe.
The tides are such that a drunk girl could easily be dragged miles out to sea, where alcohol and clothing would combine to ensure she would drown.
I once, and only once, made the foolish mistake of swimming outside of the condo's lagoon area. Within seconds I found myself adjacent to the helicopter landing pad. It's not a great distance, but one wouldn't expect to travel to it so quickly.
If I recall correctly, the post card I sent Ken a few years ago shows the lagoon area and, maybe, the landing pad.
Anyway, I wasn't under the influence of alcohol, and was dressed for swimming. Further, I'm a fairly strong swimmer.
Someone who had been drinking and dressed for a night on the town wouldn't stand much of a chance.
Natalee may have been murdered, but there is more than enough reason to question it.
The same can't be said of the actions of Cameron John Brown.
Does anyone know how soon the transcripts are made available? Are they released each day or at the end of the trial? Thanks.
anonymous: But with the deleted messages on the other site, as I am a newbie, I noticed your anger toward the other site. However, when you use profanity, it is not deleted, where it is here.
Their censorship is content- and viewpoint-based. Kent's posts are uniformly inoffensive, and they complain that attacking one's credibility is "pretty desperate" when CRAIG HUM does it, but they routinely pull stunts that would make Hum blush. My posts disappear without rhyme or reason, and with sufficient frequency to annoy.
The reason I was and am banned is because they couldn't answer my questions honestly without admitting nothing illegal has been done in regards to Cameron and his case. I gave them no reason to attack me, since I didn't attack them.
Another funny thing is how, according to them, they can't block me because I keep rotating my IP. At the same time, they claim I have a static IP. I'm reminded of Ted's claim on Usenet that one can and can not fake an IP.
The Kooky Kaldis Klan simply can't maintain a lie for long.
The Klan are pathological liars. Jeanne (Valerie Jean) Paredes, aka "Just Amazed, Misty, MistyBlue, JeanneCA, et al., Ted Kaldis, and his hapless twin, Patty.
That's the whole Krew.
They are evil. Cam Brown is evil. They will not prevail.
I went back and dug up some of Jeanne's greatest hits from Freeper and from Muttville, and I now must go take a long, hot shower.
However, I am absolutely convinced that "Case Insider" is JA and she has not denied it.
I'm glad to see she's cleaned up her language for the KKK blob, but she can go straight to Hell.
If Cameron walks out after this trial, serving his prior 7 years, and they give him no further time, can you remember this post?
It doesn't matter if he walks, which I don't think he will, because his life has been ruined by this. He was never much of a person to begin with and now he's a shell of a shell. About as substantive and relevant as a stale potato chip. His marriage is wrecked, he's broke, he'll be unemployable and his reputation is ruined forever.
So what kind of life is that?
This event has lifelong (if not longer) consequences.
Well you talk like you have are really close to him. For those that have known him before all of this, I tend to disagree about his past. Cam is a good person. I know you do not want to hear this, but for those of us who know him, he is a good hearted person, easy going kind of guy and that does have good qualities. It is nice of you to judge someone's past when you really have never met them. Kind of like talking about this case without even being at the trial or having transcripts.
I do agree that his world is ruined by this and it will be tough to recover. There are people like him getting out everyday.
Well, I've met him on multiple occasions. We have a mutual friend. My first impression of Cam was that he was an immature, but generally good-hearted guy. That changed over time as I learned more of his temper.
In the early 1990s, my impression of him lowered a bit due to an outburst of petulance on his part. (This was also the occasion he boasted about knowing every inch of the coast from Ventura to the Mexican border.)
When I met Sarah, I was appalled at Cam's viciousness toward her - quite unprovoked as far as I could tell. She was clearly very upset and he not only had no interest in helping her to feel better, he clearly took pleasure in making her feel worse.
When I last saw Cam, during the last year of Lauren's life, he seemed consumed with bitterness and anger - again most of it directed to Sarah.
I'd like very much to believe that Cam Brown isn't guilty, but I can't.
This is America, where we are allowed to use our own best judgment to form an opinion based on the facts that are out there.
We are, all of us, all the time, making judgments about people we meet, whether we are conscious of it or not.
To say that Cam is exempt from that is to deny humanity; his and ours.
Usuals:
CI: You, Ken, are a liar if you do not acknowledge that posts which have been deleted were commonly disgusting posts regarding Patty, Cam or Ted. Things about black people's sexual organs,
A dildo is a sexual organ? Who knew?
CI: I don't suppose you have considered that Cam was, in fact, trying to do what was best.
The only issue I care about is whether the State had probable cause to suspect Cam of murder, as this is the threshold question which justifies six years of incarceration.
I'll let the jury pass judgment on Cam's actions.
Omama said...
Does anyone know how soon the transcripts are made available? Are they released each day or at the end of the trial? Thanks.
Not sure. There are two separate court reporters working this trial. I'll see if I can find out.
I do agree that his world is ruined by this and it will be tough to recover.
He's still alive.
As I was driving today, I noticed some kids with parents at a place that that could have put them both in danger, but for the scenic value, they put themselves in a position that could have been deaths doorstep in a second.
I took my grandchildren to the Grand Canyon over Memorial Day. None of them were allowed even near the canyon without holding an adult's hand. Even the 11 year old.
I would never dream of letting any of them play on a cliff while I sat 4 feet from the edge. Would you?
CountryGirl, you are a smart woman.
On the other hand, Cam doesnt seem that bright or engaged.
I dont know, but I am feeling more towards endangerment than murder.
Cg I agree with you, but think everyday how many parents are not as bright as you and do stupid things with their kids. I was just making an observation. The fact is that there are times as a parent everyone makes a mistake. Some are worse than others, and to me this looks like an accident and not an intentional act. Seems like Melissa agrees so I am not the lone person who is not convinced it was murder? Will the jury feel the same way?
CG- on your trip to the Grand Canyon, or other times, have you seen people have there kids in a place where you thought- "wow, I would not have my kids there" and no that this tragedy has happend with Lauren, are there times, like when you were at the Grand Canyon, that you thought about the incident with Cam and Lauren? I know I have, and thinking of all the things I did as a kid, and all the places I have been in the mountains and cliffs, or even checking the surf, and somehow I am still alive. All I am trying to say, is that this could have been endangerment or reckless behavior as a parent. I think about this case everytime I see parents not doing there job and being good role models.
We will know soon whether the jury believes it was carelessness or murder. The defense should be wrapped up this week sometime and the jury will be taken to IP and then closing arguments will begin.
The jury will also be taking in all the evidence. In isolation one or two things may be written off as reckless actions: throwing Lauren in his pool, for example.
He also took her on his boat against Sarah's wishes and her fears for her daughter's safety. He brought her home and drove off, leaving her outside. He put her suitcase in the street and ordered her to go get it. He ordered her to sit in the front seat of the car, not the back seat where children are supposed to sit for safety.
He took her to an isolated 120 foot cliff and sat within 4 feet of the edge and let a barely 4 year old child "play" while he pointed out landmarks (according to his story).
He didn't take her to Portuguese Point, where it's flat and fenced off (and to me, would still be dangerous). Oh no, he went beyond there to Inspiration Point. She was barely 4. He was the adult.
And Doug Simonson's testimony from the first trial, when he learned about Lauren's death and called Cameron, he testified:
"Hey dude, what's up?" was how Brown greeted him, Simonson said.
Simonson said he offered his condolences, and Brown replied: "Yeah, it was an awful accident, but you can't dwell on it forever. If you do, it will ruin your life."
Sorry. I believe he threw her off that cliff.
Well, as someone who knows him, I would say his greeting of "whats up" is pretty accurate. He wanted to put this tragedy behind him. Who would not, and the fact is you think about it forever, but you may try to move forward. You think he did it on purpose, while others think it was reckless. You are right, the jury will make its decision. You still did not answer my questions, but perhaps you have never been to the site, or to the mountains, and everyday, parents put there children in places that in hindsight, would be a bad choice. Not saying you are wrong to have your opinon, but you have to agree somewhat. If you cannot think of a time when your parents did something to put you in danger in your lifetime, you must be a sheltered individual.
Guess I must be sheltered because my parents never "put me in danger" like Cameron. Thank God.
What word is missing from the 911 call?
"Help?"
I haven't listened to it in a long time.
And anudder thing (as Rose used to say), don't forget the forensics. If she had fallen, she would have slid a good bit of the way, and would have been scraped raw. That didn't happen.
"Hurry!", but "Help" is also missing.
BTW, last night I looked at what I paid for transcripts from the GJ and the 1st trial.
The GJ transcripts were around $150 ($151.20 to be exact). The first trial came to $752.00 for three days.
The court reporters from the first trial explained that they cannot include certain things in the transcripts and must go through each line and edit. The money goes to the individual court reporter--not the government.
I don't have the complete witness list yet so I haven't contacted the court reporters on this trial to see about buying transcripts.
Oh ouch. I'm crushed at your witty insults.
Just looked up the 911 call transcript, per Sprocket. On that, he doesn't even say "hurry". If memory serves, he may have said it face-to-face with someone there, but not on the call transcript.
And I, for one, am grateful to anyone who spends their own $ so that all of the rest of us can go through this case and judge for ourselves. $752.00 buckaroos is not chump change, not these days, and anyone who makes light of it and is insulting to the Administrators to boot is a wretch.
Thanks Karen. Loretta took PP donations to help with the costs, but I had hoped the Daily Breeze would buy and post the transcripts like the SD paper did during Westerfield's trial. In today's economy though it was not to be. I was just glad Denise Nix (then Nick Green when Denise went out on maternity leave)covered the first trial.
CG - thanks for looking into the purchase of the transcripts. I find it very surprising that the money goes to the court reporter rather than the county.
The more I read the more I am convinced that the primary motivation for the murder was the vindictiveness of a spiteful, nacissist; with the financial relief tipping the scale. The Acquaintance brings this home in a very real way.
He took from Sarah the most important thing in her life and in turn he will have the most important thing in his life taken from him, his freedom.
Those who wish will continue on with their delusions. He is going down.
I'm sure your boy will be very popular in the joint.
Omama, the transcripts are work product and as such, when they sell transcripts they keep the money. I have no problem with that but they are very expensive. :)
Sounds like I've convinced you that prison is where he'll be. I'd love to pay him a visit. I'll have ample time to do so, 25 years to life.
How childish to post under my name Anony. Surely you could come up with something more intelligent.
Poofed!
Thanks CG!
Is there any news on the trial this week anywhere? Where is the coverage?
One thing about this forced hiatus from Sprocket's hard work, you get a chance to look back and re-evaluate testimony. This from the first few days of the prosecution side, after Sarah, on the event itself: Fred Curcio (first responder)- "(He ((Cam)) said)... He looked and looked over the cliff and saw her down in the water." From the 9-1-1 transcript: "(Male Caller ((Cam)) to the dispatcher)- "I had to come this way (the nude beach). I couldn't see her."
Here, he was kinda, sorta trying to explain to the 9-1-1 folks just why he had gone way over to the other side of the Point, to the nude beach, which was the wrong side of where Lauren was, lying face down in the water.
He has not yet gotten back up the hill, to the inlet area she actually is at, to try to "save" her (by taking off his clothes first, then putting his shorts back on- like he's seen on "Baywatch", remember- then swimming out to her, picking her up, bringing her to shore, then putting his shirt back on, gotta get those gee-I-did-everything-I-could bloodstains on, then picking her up again, climbing up the trail some more to the picnic area, which is of course a good ways from where she had been, putting her on the bench, and, finally, allegedly trying to do CPR, which no one else had seen him trying to do, somehow without getting anything on his face or beard.) The only way he could have delayed all this anymore would be if he had taken a potty break; I'm surprised he missed that.
And no effort to call Sarah at all. Telling.
Re-reading J. Leslie's testimony- he says that Cam tells him during the interview at the station that night, that he didn't have time to do CPR between getting to the table area and when the paramedics arrived. But, didn't Cam make another statement prior, that he performed CPR down on the rocks, before bringing her all the way up to the table? You know, when he was putting his shirt back on, so he wouldn't catch cold later...
Yes, he said when he pulled her out of the water, he put her on a (flat?) rock and performed CPR for about a minute.
17 Q WHAT DID MR. BROWN INDICATE THAT HE DID
18 AFTER HE TOOK OFF MOST OF HIS CLOTHES WHEN HE SAW LAUREN
19 FLOATING IN THE WATER?
20 A HE SAID THAT HE WAS DRESSED IN ONLY HIS
21 BOXER SHORTS AND HIS SHOES, THEN ENTERED THE WATER, SWAM
22 OUT TO WHERE LAUREN'S BODY WAS, PULLED HER TOWARDS THE
23 EAST ROCK LINE AT THE INLET, SET HER ON TOP OF A FLAT
24 ROCK AND THEN CLIMBED OUT OF THE WATER.
25 Q AND WHAT DID HE INDICATE HE DID THEN?
26 A HE THEN SAID THAT HE PERFORMED C.P.R.,
27 CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION, ON THE CHILD, AND HE
28 ESTIMATED THAT IT WAS ABOUT ONE MINUTE.
1 Q AND THEN WHAT DID HE SAY HE DID?
2 A HE THEN TOLD US THAT HE REMOVED HIS WET
3 BOXER SHORTS, FLUNG THEM WITH HIS FOOT, TELLING US THAT
4 WE WOULD STILL FIND THEM THERE -- AND THE BLUE BOXER
5 SHORTS DID, IN FACT, BELONG TO HIM -- HE PUT HIS SHORTS
6 BACK ON, HE PLACED HIS T-SHIRT BACK ON AND TIED HIS
7 FLANNEL SHIRT AROUND HIS WAIST.
8 Q AND THIS IS WHILE LAUREN IS ON THE ROCKS?
9 A THIS IS WHILE LAUREN IS LAYING ON THE ROCKS
10 ADJACENT TO THE INLET, YES.
11 Q AND THEN WHAT DID MR. BROWN SAY HE DID?
12 A HE SAID HE PICKED HER UP, PUT HER OVER HIS
13 LEFT SHOULDER AND BEGAN RUNNING TO WHERE THE PARAMEDICS
14 WOULD BE COMING.
15 Q AND WHAT DID HE SAY OCCURRED AS HE WAS
16 RUNNING BACK TOWARDS WHERE THE PARAMEDICS WERE GOING TO
17 BE COMING?
18 A HE TOLD US THAT HE FELT WETNESS ON HIS BACK
19 AND THAT HE WAS BECOMING BLOOD SOAKED ON THE BACK OF HIS
20 SHIRT, SO HE PUT THE CHILD IN FRONT OF HIM AND CARRIED
21 HER BASICALLY IN A CRADLE POSITION FOR THE REMAINDER OF
22 THE DISTANCE THAT HE TRAVELED TO THE ARCHERY RANGE.
I'm likely to get bounced for this one, as I've called out Case Insider as a Geragos employee. She knows too much about the inner workings of Team Cam to be Valerie Paredes.
CI: Knock it off, Ken.
I'm expecting Hum to give a very dramatic closing argument. He will prance around and talk about all of the things he has proven in this case. He will claim to have proven everything, of course. He will attempt to wow the jurors with words, and hope they didn't pay that much attention. He will go for the emotional plea, hoping that the jurors didn't get the fact that everyone in this case has suffered a traumatic and tragic loss of Lauren. It's going to be interesting.
Knock it off, CI. About the only thing you haven't done here is put on the florescent red lipstick, fishnet stockings, and six-inch stilettos.
Both advocates are going to do their level best to plead their cases. Both can be expected to stay well within the rules because, by your own admission, Judge Pastor has been calling a fair game -- the one thing he won't let happen at this late date is a mistrial.
Sounds to me like you are already planning for a conviction, by desperately trying to lower expectations. I agree that this is going to be a close case; I'd respect you more in the morning if you wouldn't keep giving us your Baghdad Bob impression.
I disagree. She's not paid, she's a volunteer.
And it is JA, I'm absolutely certain of it.
She's a manipulative liar and you can take everything she says with a big, fat block of salt.
Never mind she has terrible karma and will be seeing even more tragedy in her life than she already has. She'll never learn.
The only reason I've continued to engage her is out of boredom. She's probably not even in California. She's a stenographer for Patty.
While I have never been star-struck by celebrities like Sprocekt, I think her upcoming reporting of the last of the defense testimony will be accurate and telling.
JA is just trying to set the table. She's full of chit as usual.
While defense attorneys may have clerks in their employ assigned to read sites such as these, I doubt that they would be encouraged to actually post anything...just a hunch.
You know what, CG? Going over Geragos' opening statement from Cam 1- he says that Cam HAD attempted CPR on Lauren, at the picnic table, for a while before paramedics showed up. Reading what he said, he seems to have really oversold their "take", big-time. Are defense attorneys ever held accountable, after-the-fact, on assertions they make during opening that don't get followed through AT ALL during actual testimony, or is it all just allowed to slink quietly away, so they save face? The judge then more-or-less told the jurors they only needed to take notes, if necessary, during testimony, NOT on opening statements as they are not evidence- is that the judge discreetly saying "don't make much of this stuff, at opening"? There do seem to be specific changes from Cam 1 to Cam 2...
Karen, yes--opening statements are not evidence. Geragos has a habit of testifying when he questions people on the stand (Loretta is well versed in how he did it during Peterson), and he promised the jury witnesses during the first trial that he never called, IIRC.
I only attended closing arguments the first trial and unfortunately I won't be able to attend tomorrow because I have a medical test I have to take as it has already been rescheduled once.
Today (per Sprocket) the jury has been taken to IP. Evidently Cameron chose not to go this time. Last time all the LA TV stations covered it so I hope they will have a story tonight.
This was posted by Denise Nix a little while ago:
Today, jurors in the Cameron Brown murder re-trial visited five spots along the Rancho Palos Verdes cliff that figured prominently in the case. Basically, as they did during Brown's first trial three years ago, they retraced the purported path Brown and his daughter, Lauren Sarene Key, took before her fatal plunge on Nov. 8, 2000. They went to the Abalone Cover parking lot, the nursery school on the beach, up to Portugese Point, to Inspiration Point and ended at the archery range where Brown said he laid little Lauren's body after he fished her out of the surf.
Brown, wearing jeans, a blue button-down shirt and handcuffs hidden by a sweater, accompanied the jury to the first three locations, but not the last two. I don't know why.
Jurors were then scheduled to be instructed on the law back in Judge Michael Pastor's downtown Los Angeles courtroom. Tomorrow are closing arguments, which I plan to attend and report on.
-------------
So we'll see what her impressions are of closing, as well.
Thanks Jobeth. I posted it on a new entry ^^^^ last night.
Im not sure who it is that insists that the prosecution does not have to prove motive !!!! If this person reads the elements that MUST be satisfied in a murder trial "motive" is clearly one of them. The statements I have read are perfect examples of someones fallacious reasoning without prior logical investigation of the statements chosen for representation of an invalid argument. Shame on you
Post a Comment