Happy Birthday Sweet Lauren

Never forgotten.

Second Trial: Hung Jury #2

The second trial of The People of California v. Cameron John Brown ended with another hung jury that reportedly voted 6-6 for second degree murder or involuntary manslaughter. It remains to be seen whether Craig Hum will try the case a third (and final) time or if the People will offer Brown a plea - a common action taken at this stage. If Brown refuses to plead to involuntary manslaughter (a felony where his six years in L.A. County jail would be considered time served), he will likely be released on bail and retried for the higher of the two charges.

See HERE for last Daily Breeze report.

Details from the jury deliberations and notes from the courtroom are yet to be posted at Denise Nix's blog or elsewhere. It would be interesting if someone got an interview with the jury foreman.

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

PARENTS ON TRIAL ~ Editorial

Much of the discussion surrounding the Brown case had to do with Brown's intent - did he plan or hope for Lauren to fall off the cliff or was he simply reckless? Was it really Brown's parenting skills on trial? Would any of us survive the merciless scrutiny under which Brown's fathering was measured? Perhaps not, but while no parent is perfect, Brown showed a pattern of disregard for Lauren's safety throughout their short time together and both he and his wife acted with spite and cruelty toward Lauren's mother without considering the effect of that behavior on a small child.

Yet, being a spiteful non-custodial father or a jealous new wife isn't a crime; otherwise, our jails would not be full of small-time drug dealers, but middle-class working parents that swear at each other in court, threatent violence, file false abuse charges against their exes, publish blogs and "tweets" and Facebook entries defaming their children's mother (or father), and behave in the most incivilized and harmful manner.

Clearly, domestic issues bring out the very worst in some otherwise good people. If nothing else positive comes of this case, maybe it can bring attention to the damage that can be done to children by this kind of behavior. A beautiful little girl died as a direct result of the adversarial relationship between her biological parents. Some of us believe it was murder, some are convinced it was a "terrible accident"; either way, she is gone because of choices that were made outside her control, because people she depended on to guard her safety (in this case, her father), failed to protect her, and in his willing disregard for her and her mother, caused this tragedy.

We have yet to hear any remorse expressed by Brown or his supporters for their responsibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jury visits Inspiration Point

Inspiration Point

Denise Nix, The Daily Breeze:

"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 Cove 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."

She plans to attend tomorrow's closing arguments.

Lauren's Birthday

Lauren would have turned 13 years old today. Our thoughts are with Sarah and her family and friends.

Newton's Law & The Baggage Handler

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

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

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

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

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

Denise Nix reports in The Breeze:

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

Based on Lauren's injuries, the path the weights took over the cliff and the topography of the rock face, Hayes concluded that she was launched head first, hit her face and upper body on an outcropping before bouncing into the ocean 120 feet or so below.

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

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

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

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

Lifetime Movie Idea - Toad's Screenplay Outline

LIFETIME MOVIE - Working Title, "Death of Innocence By Envy"

Frumpy, barren, homely, middle-aged first generation American-Greek woman (with equally unattractive fraternal twin) living in Southern California meets and falls in love with an unlikely suitor – an All-American, blonde, freckled, muscular, surfer, outdoorsy mountain boy from Colorado ten years her junior.

To everyone’s shock, Surfer Dude proposes! Greek Frump and Surfer Dude jet off to Hawaii for romantic honeymoon and upon returning, Greek Frump discovers Surfer Dude has a child from a former lover. Greek Frump has mixed emotions about the child: jealousy, covetousness, fear, and when she meets Former Lover Babe, feels even more insecure. Former Lover Babe is a beauty: slim, fit, well bred, with a lovely English accent and refined features.

Surfer Dude protests that he hates Former Lover Babe and wishes he could have deported her when he had the chance, but Greek Frump is still uneasy and feels threatened by Former Lover Babe and the existence of Love Child. Greek Frump won’t let Surfer Dude out of her sight and insists on being present whenever Surfer Dude picks up Love Child for visitation, even though she has to miss work or change her plans or revolve her schedule around these visits. She is obsessed with fear that Surfer Dude still lusts after Former Lover Babe or may roam while taking the child on activities without here. She knows the little girl is a babe magnet and can’t risk leaving them alone.

Surfer Dude complains that he never wanted the child and that he resents having to pay almost a thousand a month in support. Greek Frump plots to take Love Child from Former Lover Babe by undermining the mommy, brainwashing the Love Child, and watching for injuries on the child during visits in order to report abuse to the authorities to build a case for Former Lover Babe’s unfitness. Greek Frump also talks Surfer Dude into filing for full custody even though he has little chance of success.

Greek Frump is barren and can never have a child, and is convinced that if she could take this child and raise her as her own, she would not only solve the financial problems of her adored husband and earn his love and gratitude forever, but punish Former Lover Babe for having the audacity to be more beautiful, more desirable, more popular, more pure, more fun, more admired and for having that child with her husband thus interconnecting their lives forever!

To hedge her bet, Greek Frump studies witchcraft and voodoo and assembles the paraphernalia for casting spells on someone to whom you wish harm or bad luck. Shortly after Greek Frump casts her spells, Surfer Dude picks up Love Child without Greek Frump present and instead of bringing her to Greek Frump’s home, as is customary, he takes Love Child on a hike to the top of a 120-foot cliff overlooking the ocean where the child falls to her death below. Surfer Dude calls Greek Frump with the bad news, insisting it was a terrible accident and Greek Frump pledges her undying support.

Surfer Dude goes on trial for murder, twice, and Greek Frump and her ugly twin go broke. At the second trial, Surfer Dude is convicted, Greek Frump shrieks after the verdict and her ugly twin has to help her walk out of the courtroom and away to face the rest of her lonely, desperate existence without Surfer Dude and without Love Child.

THE END

The Backstory on Jon Hans

Based on the rough transcript posted by "Sprocket" of testimony in the Brown retrial, a new witness that did not appear in the first trial was introduced, an old friend of Brown's, Jon Hans. I'm still not clear of the real probative value of using Hans in this trial, especially when the cross-examination opened a can of worms regarding the case information available on the internet. For whatever reason, Hum chose not to go down that path, although it could have been pretty damaging to Patty Brown.

Allow me to present the backstory on Jon Hans.

Back in the summer of 2006, before the first trial began, Country Girl and I had been following some of the conversation about the case on Usenet that was taking place between Ted Kaldis and members of various newsgroups, as I chronicled in this blog in a series entitled "Once Upon A Newsgroup". At the time, I was writing about the case on another blog, the same blog on which I documented the Peterson case back in 2002-2004. Country Girl had obtained the transcripts of the Grand Jury that I noted on my site were available to anyone who was interested in reading them. Needless to say, I received dozens of requests for this transcript and I don't recall turning down any requests. This was a public document, but we did not post the transcript anywhere on the Internet, and I don't think anyone else posted anything but excerpts.

Jon Hans was one of the many people who requested a copy of the Grand Jury transcript. He also informed me via email that he was one of the people who wrote a letter of support for Cam Brown and it was published on Ted Kaldis's site "Free Cam Brown". (www.freecambrown.org)

Hans and I exchanged emails regarding Ted's refusal to remove his support letter from the Free Cam Brown site, and he asked me about some things he was reading online. I responded with answers to his questions and he described some things he felt about his history with Cam that he now has testified to at the new trial.

According to Hans, after reading the Grand Jury transcript and contemplating some of the conversations he had with the defendant over the years, he had a change of heart and decided that Brown could be guilty of murder. The fact that this case was discussed for several years online, in newsgroups and on several blogs, was common knowledge. That the defense would expect, after 8 years now, that nobody would discuss this case online or have any opinions about it is ridiculous. However, this case didn't draw anywhere near the attention that the Peterson case drew, and it's very likely that most of the potential jury pool had never heard of Brown or this case and could be objective. It's not as if Hans was a potential juror.

I suppose Hum brought Hans on to show that even a very close friend, someone who originally supported Brown unconditionally, could change his mind about Brown's potential guilt after reading a PUBLIC DOCUMENT (the Grand Jury transcript) that we had no part in creating. I seriously doubt I or anyone here had any influence on Hans's opinion about Brown. Yes, I have written disparaging things about the defendant and that is my humble opinion, nothing more. I expect people to draw their own conclusions about this case based on the evidence presented and common sense.

What I find more interesting about Hans's testimony is his impression of Patty Brown. Hans believes that Patty was the instigator of this tragedy and that if Brown had never met and married Patty, that Lauren would be alive today.

Hans reiterated a conversation he had with Patty and Cam where she claimed that the couple were going to gain full custody of Lauren because of alleged abuse Lauren suffered at the hands of Sarah. This was, of course, complete nonsense, and I have written extensively about how impossible this scenario was in the real world. In brief, there was no way the court would remove a child at the tender age of four from her custodial parent and turn her over to her biological father and his new wife over specious allegations (later disproved) of abuse. It was also unrealistic for Cam and Patty to seek even joint custody at this stage, considering the relatively short time Cam had spent with Lauren, and the fact that they'd have to move closer to Sarah to ensure that Lauren's transition would be as seamless as possible. Hans also mentions that the couple were planning to move to Utah, a fact that also belies the "full custody" plans. There is no way a court would let Cam move Lauren out of state.

Perhaps Hans read that opinion at Usenet or on my blog or in this blog, but this was information readily available with a simple Google search. It's not as if we were publishing state secrets, folks.

Once again, Pat Harris demonstrates his wildly incoherent cross-examination techniques as he attempts to impeach anyone who changes his or her mind, anyone who forgets what they wrote or said 8 years ago (and if I hadn't saved the documents and emails from then, I'd be hard pressed to remember much of what happened!), and anyone who might have been influenced by what they read on the Internet. If Harris wants to go down that road, he should bear in mind that his client's wife and brother-in-law have been waging a campaign online to defame Hum, Leslie, virtually everyone involved in the prosecution of Brown, and of course - me.

Caveat Surfer: I warn Harris and the Brown supporters - if you live by the Google, you die by the Google, and I should know!

Summary Analysis of First Week - Retrial

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

Denise Nix reports:

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

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

LINK: Daily Breeze Update

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

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

KCAL TV Story on Retrial

Opening Statements Started Today

According to an AP story today, Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum said during his opening statement that Brown killed Lauren because he didn't want to pay about $1,000 a month in child support.

Defense attorney Pat Harris countered that it was an accident when the girl fell from Inspiration Point in Rancho Palos Verdes.

(snipped)

Hum portrayed Brown as an uncaring father who tried to shirk his parental responsibility at nearly ever turn. After Brown learned the girl's mother, Sarah Key-Marer, was pregnant with Lauren, he sought a paternity test that eventually proved he was the father, Hum said.

(snipped)

Harris gave a different account of his client's relationship with his daughter, insisting the case was nothing more than "character assassination." He dismissed the prosecution's contention that it was a "good-versus-evil" struggle between Brown and Key-Marer.

~~~
Pretty much staying with the first trial. We'll see if any other articles give more details.

Retrial: Jury Selection Begins - Geragos Bows Out

Yesterday's Daily Breeze reported that the biggest change from Brown's first trial, other than the change of venue to Los Angeles County Superior Court, is that Brown will no longer be represented by Mark Geragos.

Torrance Judge Mark Arnold appointed an associate of Geragos, Pat Harris to represent Brown. Pat Harris, you may recall, was co-counsel and the only Geragos & Geragos attorney present during the jury verdict reading at the Scott Peterson trial.

Eugene Patrick (Pat) Harris is a mellow country boy from Arkansas who has never chased the spotlight like his boss, Mark Geragos. During the Peterson trial, he seemed genuinely concerned about the defendant. He refrained from grandstanding and positing bizarre scenarios as an affirmative defense. However, his cross-examination tactics were somewhat incoherent. Perhaps because Harris is a nice guy, he may elicit more sympathy for Brown from the jurors than Geragos was able to muster. He may be less likely to alienate the jury (or the press).

Jury selection began Friday, July 10. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor presides.

Our thoughts are with Sarah and Lauren's family.

Lauren Sarene Key-Marer

Today would have been Lauren's 12th birthday. Please take a moment to think about Sarah and Lauren today.

Second Trial Countdown

Almost seven and a half years after her death, nearly four years after a Grand Jury handed down an indictment of Cameron John Brown in the murder of his biological daughter, Lauren Sarene Key-Marer, and almost two years after the first trial held in Torrance was declared a mistrial, Cameron Brown's second trial is about to begin this summer in Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor's courtroom in downtown Los Angeles.

The original jury all voted guilty; however they did not agree on the degree of guilt. To refresh: 2 jurors voted guilty on 1st degree murder; 8 jurors voted guilty on 2nd degree murder, and 2 jurors voted guilty on manslaughter.

Stay tuned...

Recklessly Risking Absurdity

People in the throes of blind rage or emotional overload risk absurdity without thought. We have all been in the position where we say ridiculous, unsupported things in the heat of an argument. Afterwards, when we regroup, we may apologize or feel a sense of shame for having made such reckless comments. If we are somewhat mentally stable and emotionally grounded, we may reconstruct our arguments and accept the fact that our reality is not necessarily shared by others.

In the case of Lauren Key's untimely death (that was likely murder, in my opinion and that of the prosecutors, law enforcement and the members of the jury of the first trial), the Kaldis Kooks - Ted and his sister, Patty (the star-struck twins as it were), persist in recklessly risking absurdity long after the passion of any given conflict has passed. Months after threads on Usenet have become buried in newer topics; years after the sting of Cam's paternity suit and rejection by his lover; years after the shock of his arrest for murder and the subsequent humiliation of his prosecution; and now almost a year since the first murder trial where twelve people could not agree to the degree of murder - Ted and Patty (and their sock puppets) continue to eschew the facts, peddle myth, impugn the reputations of everyone involved in the prosecution, insult the only remaining people in Cyberspace who bother to debate with them, and defame (with ad hom attacks) anyone who dares disagree with their version of events that includes more than an alarming measure of paranoia.

Yes, that was a very long sentence. Sue me.

Among a plethora of examples of the Kaldis Reckless Absurdity, let's go back in time to the early days of my involvement in this case in July 2005. I was fresh from the Peterson case with more than a passing acquaintance with Mark Geragos's modus operandi. Admittedly, my interest in the Brown case was originally sparked by Geragos's involvement. I never pretended otherwise.

However, after learning more about the case, my sympathy for the victim and her mother became much more personal. After all, I had a daughter the same age as Lauren Key, and her name is even Lauren. I was in Sarah Key's position where I had a baby without marrying the father; I've had to chase child support. I've had to negotiate visitation and custody issues; I've had to deal with a pathologically jealous replacement female who is obsessed with me and my daughter and has made a bizarre career out of defaming me and attempting to harm me or take my daughter from me.

Needless to say, the parallels were eerily significant.

Meanwhile, knowing my way around the custody and child support block, so to speak, many of Ted's (and later Patty's) claims about this case smacked of total absurdity. When I presented the problems I saw with the alleged custody suit, Ted aligned himself with a group of nutcase detractors and conspired with them to publicly defame me rather than argue the merits of his sister's alleged maternal superiority to Sarah Key. Needless to say, this proved to be their strategy to this day.

Similarly, their claims of love and devotion to this child were belied by their actions, the reality of their involvement in Lauren's life (certainly Ted's involvement was peripheral at best), and their obvious, collossal ignorance of all things related to a 4-year old girl.

Sure, I can trot out the fact that I have first-hand experience with three 4-year old daughters, and that I was once a 4-year old girl (which only half of the Kaldis Klan can claim, albeit a half century ago), and that I know quite a bit about "shared parenting" laws and how visitation works and that Patty Kaldis had no legal standing when it came to Lauren. I also know a little bit about voodoo and witchcraft and recognize the paraphernalia when I see it. I also know more than I need to about Christianity and the Bible, one of Ted's most absurd references among a cornucopia of hypocrisy.

Rather than bullet point the countless incidents of absurdity demonstrated by the Kaldis Kooks, long after such argument would be excusable by passion, outrage, ignorance or temporary insanity, I believe it's safe to conclude that most (if not all) of the arguments, theories, accusations and incredible presumptions postied by the Kooks over the past 2 years (and I'm sure prior, but I wasn't around for that) could be categorized as Reckless Absurdity.

In other words, not only are most (if not all) of their statements absurd on their face - they are recklessly absurd: easily proven false, totally without any substantive proof, unrealistic to the point of ludicrousness, blatant lies, or just plain stupid.

Thus, not worth much of anyone's time or trouble to debate. Organizing my spice cabinet is a better use of my time.

Timeline

August 29, 1996
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer born

April, 1997
Sarah Key-Marer files for child support in Orange County, California

May, 1998
Cameron John Brown requests paternity test

February 11, 1999
Cameron John Brown ordered to pay child support

July 22, 1999
Cameron John Brown files for a reduction in child support and requests 32% (approx 117 days) visitation and joint legal custody of Lauren.

Cameron John Brown has still never met Lauren Key-Marer

November 1999-May 2000:

November, 1999
Supervised visitation begins. One hour, then one and a half hours, then two hours, etc.

Lauren is 3 years, 3 months old.

December, 1999
Cameron throws Lauren in the swimming pool at his apartment building during a supervised visitation. Sarah tells him Lauren cannot swim.

February, 2000
Sarah discusses adoption by husband Greg with Cameron and, according to her testimony, he immediately agrees. She tells him to discuss with Patty (his fiance, then wife) and let her know in a week.

Unsupervised visits begin; not overnight.

March, 2000
Judge denies CB’s reduction of child support and joint legal custody.

Sometime after March, 2000, Cameron files another request for reduction of child support and claims he has 50% custody. He actually has her less than 2 ½ days per month.

June 2000-November 8, 2000:
(5 months, 8 days)

June, 2000
Unsupervised overnight visits begin.

Every other week Tuesday 4:30pm to Wednesday 4:30pm in addition to every other Wednesday 12:30pm to 7pm. (48 + 15=63 Hrs/Mo)

October 31-November 01, 2000
Halloween overnight visit.

Cameron picks Lauren up and tells her to get in the front seat of the car. She doesn’t want to ride in the front and eventually gets in the back seat. As they are pulling away in the car, Cameron’s wife, Patty, leaned out the window and shouted to Sarah, “What else is it you do when you’re not smacking your kid around” and chuckled and drove away.

The next day when Cameron returned Lauren, he put her suitcase on the side of the car in the road and told her to come back and get it. He said he wasn’t going to do it for her. He told her twice.

He wasn’t parked next to the curb so it was almost in the middle of the road. Lauren bolted towards the road and Sarah screamed for her to stop and she ran back crying. Cameron drove away laughing.

Seven days later Lauren Sarene Key-Marer was dead.

November 8, 2000
Lauren Sarene Key-Marer dies

Lauren was 4 years, 3 months old.

A Trial is a Sales Presentation

Having been in some form of sales or sales support most of my career, I can see the parallels between presenting a case in court and a sales presentation. Think about it: it’s an adversarial competition that plays on all the same things that selling to you does: your heart, your pain, and your common sense. Each side attempts to make you feel good about deciding (“buying”) that their “product” is better.

The People want to sell you the story that the defendant is guilty. They may try to dazzle you with science, baffle you with psychology, bore you with detritus and sway you with emotion. The defense tries to “sell” you that its client should walk free because either the People’s case ("product") is weak, or because its client is (ahem) “factually innocent”, whatever that means.

So it is with the case of California v. Brown. Craig Hum and his team did its best to portray Brown in the most unflattering way possible. They vilified him. They treated him like ersatz coffee. It was as if they posted a picture of him with a bandito mustache and “Wanted: Dead or Alive!” in town square. We know that perception is everything. Even if the allegations were false, based on the “sales presentation” we perceive this man as being capable of murdering his child because we can now perceive him as being a very bad man.

This is how it works.

So, what did the defense do to erase or modify this perception? Put his mother on the stand! Put his brother on the stand! Seriously, that’s like getting a product endorsement from the salesman's mom – “Buy this from my little Johnny. He’s a good boy.” Would you insult your potential customers that way? I hope not, because you would starve as a salesperson.

If the defense wants to change the jurors’ (and public) perception of Cam Brown, they had better come up with something convincing. Their current sales presentation stinks.

In Memory of Lauren - on her Birthday

You were loved, little girl, even before you were born. You are loved now, even though you are gone. In the words of e. e. cummings:

somewhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond
any experience,your eyes have their silence:
in your most frail gesture are things which enclose me,
or which i cannot touch because they are too near

[...]

nothing which we are to perceive in this world equals
the power of your intense fragility: whose texture
compels me with the colour of its countries,
rendering death and forever with each breathing

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

To Lauren's famiy and friends, our sincerest wishes for peace.

Once Upon a News Group - Ted Kaldis's Preposterous Pomposity

It would be difficult to list all the allegations, predictions and theories Ted Kaldis posted on Usenet the past two years that proved to be erroneous or simply fiction, but here are a few of the most memorable – mainly because they were repeated ad nauseum ad infititum and resembled an endless loop of insipid muzak:

• The case was a “turkey” and would never go to trial.
• The case would be dismissed and Geragos’s 995 motion would be accepted.
• The preliminary hearing would exonerate Brown; then when the prosecutors called a grand jury, Kaldis predicted that the grand jury would not hand down an indictment.
• That Cameron Brown was railroaded by an aggressive DDA who had ambitions to run for public office.
• That the Palos Verdes Conservancy had organized a conspiracy to charge Brown with murder to protect their fundraising efforts and/or liability issues.
• That the county was liable for Lauren’s death, even though the statute of limitations for a lawsuit had run out.
• That Sarah Marer’s acceptance of an insurance settlement for Lauren’s wrongful death would disqualify the matter for criminal prosecution.
• That Brown’s trial was a violation of his Constitutional rights and that his civil rights were ignored because he was refused bail or that this was some sort of “double jeopardy.”
• That main players in the trial: Sarah Marer, Jeff Leslie, and other law enforcement officers had perjured themselves on the witness stand.
• That Sarah Marer was somehow able to enlist the LA Sheriffs, the DA, and subsequently a reputable jurist in her vendetta against Brown.
• That the DA has nothing better to do than try innocent people for murder; even ordinary, unglamorous baggage handlers.
• That his twin sister Patty got all the “cute genes.”
• That Hayes was a hack and would be disredited at trial. Also, that Hayes had some unseemly events in his history that would embarass him on the stand.
• That the defense never delayed the trial; all the delays were due to the prosecution.
• That Brown would be acquitted at the trial.
• That Mark Geragos was a great lawyer. (ROFL...sorry.)
• That the prosecution shopped for an expert and found a "paid wh*re." (His words, not mine.)
• That there would be “H-bomb-class” revelations at the trial.
• That we who were participating in the discussion didn’t know anything about anything and that he knew everything and it would all be clear once the trial took place; if the trial ever took place, of course.
• That Brown was a “loving father” who “doted” on his daughter and was “overly permissive” because of his affection.
• That the defense would have a "Perry Mason" moment with a surprise witness whose testimony would exonerate Brown.
• That the Browns were fit to take custody of Lauren from her mother, since Sarah was unfit, an illegal immigrant, and that the Browns lived in a tony neighborhood and had more money.
• That the Browns were in excellent financial shape and could buy and sell us all into slavery tomorrow.

Feel free to add those you recall that I missed.

Once Upon a News Group - Part III

Patty Brown first began posting using her real name on my blog last summer after I published an analysis of the case as I knew it at the time (republished in this blog). At first, I thought it was Ted or someone else posting as Patty, since I found it hard to believe that the wife of a defendant charged with first-degree murder would be so indiscrete; especially in a venue where most (if not all) of the participants were clearly in the "guilty" camp. It was a hostile environment where she was either viewed with skepticism at best, or believed to be a “troll” at worst.

A couple of months later, Patty began to participate on one of the bashing blogs and was warmly embraced by the mutts; one of them, not surprisingly, was “Just Amazed” from Usenet (formerly “Mistyblue" from Free Republic; and if you know anything about that message board, you know what kind of politics are expressed there). Eventually, many of the mutts kicked Patty to the curb once they had more information about the case during the trial. (As it is with thieves, there is no honor among psychos). The “moderators” of the bashing blog forbade anyone from discussing the Brown case; how ironic, since all of the posters from that group originated from discussions about the Peterson case or other murder cases that I reviewed on my blog. When taking a position on the Brown case was verboten in Muttville, it was obvious that the mutts were welcoming Patty simply because she shared their contempt of me. Their commonality was a tenuous thread and ultimately snapped when the facts of the case and Ted Kadis’s lies were revealed on Usenet and other forums to which the mutts were privy.

Meanwhile, a strange satellite blog appeared where the author promised to share his observations about various “blog wars” around cyberspace; however, he only managed to post three entries, two of which were devoted to yours truly. He linked his blog to the kennel, and all the eager mutts clicked on this link to read yet more absurd blather about how I had acquired a little army of brain-dead minions who were mesmerized by my sociopathic charms, or other such nonsense. The blog author embedded a site meter to the main page but forgot to make it private, so anyone could click on the meter and see the IP addresses of the people reading his site, including those originating from Muttville. This careless error proved to be the mother lode of information, and I and others noticed that an IP from the Ventura, California area had visited this site several times a day. This IP matched exactly one of Ted Kaldis’s IPs from his posts at Usenet, and the IP of the poster named “Patty Brown” at my blog. Curiouser and curiouser.

Was Ted posting as Patty on my blog and at the kennel? That was our first guess. He vehemently denied this and insisted that they shared a router. I concluded that this could only be the case if he used her computer or lived with her. At that point, Ted had to admit that he was living with his sister who, as it turns out, was his fraternal twin as well. Kaldis had posted on a high school reunion site where his and Patty’s graduation year were the same. Ribald and rambunctious ridicule resulted. Ted’s fellow posters on Usenet found this peculiar revelation to be irresistibly whacky and tormented him for weeks with amusing speculation as to why he would be a stow-away on the ill-fated Brown boxcar destined to derail in short order.

I couldn’t make this stuff up.

Once Ted and Patty’s IP were exposed as the same, Patty challenged Ken Smith from the safety (and censorship) of the kennel to view the information she had gathered that she believed would exonerate her husband. Apparently, she hoped to persuade Ken that Cam had been railroaded by a corrupt and single-minded district attorney and that Lauren’s death was an accident. I’m not sure what she sent Ken, but based on the lack of his subsequent defense of Brown, I assume it wasn’t very convincing. Patty and Ted continued to post disparaging comments about me with their little pals, and they basked in the mutt sympathy. I believe this just served to make them look like bigger fools.

In Usenet and on my blog, I speculated that Patty had something to do with Lauren’s death. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but my intuition told me that she was involved in some way. As it turns out, she was, even if it was just because she nagged Cam to death about getting custody of Lauren (although, that would have been virtually impossible under the circumstances), or because she complained about the money it was costing them in child support. I never believed the Browns were all that well off, especially since we knew that Ted had been living with Patty for several years. Hers and Brown’s credit profile and all the judgments against them and the lien on her house were proof enough.

When Ted posted on Usenet that Patty and Cam had filed for “joint custody” I asked to see the court documents, because I knew it had to be based on bogus information or had never been formally filed. I knew that there was no way that Patty and Cam could demonstrate that taking that child at the tender age of 4 from the only home and parent she knew would ever be in her best interests. Based on the law, the Browns would have had to design a shared parenting agreement that mapped out all the arrangements for where Lauren lived and how she got to school. I knew that the Browns would have had to relocate near Sarah in order for this to be considered by the court. When none of those things ever occurred, I knew that either Ted was lying or that Patty and Cam were lying. The custody issue had never seen the light of a courtroom, and would not even if Lauren were still alive, despite Patty’s diligent research or the Brown’s spurious allegations that Sarah was physically abusing Lauren.

It was outrageous that Patty would consider taking that child (re: “full custody”) from her mother just to spite her husband’s ex-lover or to further solidify her newlywed bliss. Later, the prosecution would posit that this was a way for Patty to have her cake and eat it too. Perhaps her experiments with voodoo or witchcraft were designed to harm Sarah, never imagining that Cam would ultimately kill Lauren. One could argue that Patty Brown indirectly caused Lauren’s murder, and the guilt of that has compelled her to make reckless decisions and expose herself to unnecessary scrutiny. Meanwhile, her twin brother’s frantic theories and protestations on Usenet were becoming equally implausible and desperate.

To be continued.