995 Motion to Dismiss Bogus Indictment Against Cameron Brown
Theodore A. Kaldis
Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the "evidence"
against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and that the prosecution
has essentially contrived a case out of thin air -- AND HAS PERPETRATED AN
OBSCENE INJUSTICE AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT MAN!
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>
> Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the
> "evidence" against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and
> that the prosecution has essentially contrived a case out of thin air
> -- AND HAS PERPETRATED AN OBSCENE INJUSTICE AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY
> INNOCENT MAN!
LOL!
Teddy, this motion is a non-starter. Ain't got a snowball's chance in hell of
being
granted -- but take note imbecile -- even if it *were* granted, the prosecutor
can simply re-indict Cameron once he obtains bio-mechanical testing from a
"certified" engineer.
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
LAWYERS
39th Floor
350 S. Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071-3480
Telephone (213) 625-3900
Facsimile (213) 625-1600
MARK J. GERAGOS SBN108325
Attorney for Defendant CAMERON JOHN BROWN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAMERON JOHN BROWN,
Defendant.
)
))))))))))
Case No.: BA255206
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO SET ASIDE INDICTMENT
PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE
SECTION 995; POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
DATE: April 1, 2005
PLACE: Dept. G
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
TO: DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEVE COOLEY and his deputy Craig Hum; and
TO: CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 1, 2005, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard, Defendant Cameron Brown, through counsel, will move
this
court for an order setting aside the indictment pursuant to section 995 of the
California
Penal Code on the grounds that the indictment was not found, endorsed, or
presented as
prescribed in section 939.6 of the Penal Code and Defendant was indicted without
any
reasonable or probable cause.
The motion will be based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached
herewith, the Reporter's Transcript of grand jury proceedings (RT), on such oral
and
documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion, and on
any
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
argument of counsel made at the hearing of the motion.
Dated: March 17, 2005 Respectfully submitted,
GERAGOS & GERAGOS
By:
MARK J. GERAGOS
Attorney for Defendant
MOTION
Defendant hereby moves the court for an order setting aside the indictment filed
herein pursuant to Penal Code Section 995 on the grounds that the indictment was
not
found, endorsed, and presented as prescribed in section 939.6 of the Penal Code
and
Defendant was indicted without any reasonable or probable cause.
Dated: March 17, 2005 Respectfully submitted,
GERAGOS & GERAGOS
By:
MARK J. GERAGOS
Attorney for Defendant
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The following evidence was presented at the grand jury proceeding in this
matter.
Sarah Louise Key-Marer (Sarah) met and started dating Cameron Brown
(Cameron) in early November, 1995. (RT 15.) In December, 1995, she discovered
she
was pregnant. (RT 16.) Cameron was initially shocked by the news. (RT 17.) He
later
suggested to Sarah to consider an abortion. (RT 18-19.) Then, at Cameron's
suggestion,
they saw a counselor together. (RT 19.) The conversation with the counselor "led
to
suggestion of abortion." (RT 20.) Shortly thereafter, around February, 1996,
Cameron
and Sarah stopped seeing each other. (RT 21.)
On August 29, 1996, Sarah gave birth to Lauren Key-Marer (Lauren). (RT 21.)
Shortly after Lauren's birth, Sarah filed for child support with the Orange
County District
Attorney's Office. (RT 23.) For several years, Sarah raised Lauren by herself.
(RT 22.)
During those years Cameron did not contact Sarah or Lauren. (RT 22.)
In the Summer of 1998, Sarah was notified that Cameron was contesting paternity.
(RT 23.) Consequently, a paternity test was conducted establishing Cameron as
Lauren's
father. (RT 23.)
In February 1999, a child support order was issued directing Cameron to pay
child
support (RT 23) in the amount of $1,000 per month (RT 24). In July, 1999,
Cameron
filed paperwork with the court requesting visitation, joint custody and
reduction in the
child support in accordance with his request of 117 visitation days. (RT 24-25.)
Cameron had not yet met Lauren at this point in time. (RT 25.)
Cameron and Sarah through a mediator agreed to work out a "graduated visitation"
schedule. (RT 25.) Sarah prepared her own "graduated visitation" plan so that
Cameron
and Lauren would start with supervised visitation and gradually move into longer
unsupervised visitation. (RT 25, 27.)
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
At the time the visitation started Sarah was married to Gregory Marer. (RT 26.)
The initial visits went "okay." The once a week visits would alternate between
overnight visits and visits where Cameron would pick Lauren up early from school
and
drop her off at Sarah's residence on the same day. (RT 27.)
As the visits progressed, Cameron's and Sarah's relationship deteriorated. (RT
28.) They argued in front of Lauren mostly about Sarah allowing Lauren to visit
with
Cameron's mother and about Cameron expressing his hate for his mother in front
of
Lauren. (RT 28, 30.) Sarah testified that Lauren's behavior changed following
the
unsupervised visits. (RT 29.) She became emotional and would have angry
outbursts.
(RT 29.)
Sarah testified that in February, 2000, she informed Cameron, over the phone,
that
her husband was interested in adopting Lauren which would free him of any
financial
responsibility and he could still maintain a relationship with Lauren if Cameron
and
Lauren so desired. (RT 30-31.) According to Sarah's testimony, Cameron
immediately
agreed to the adoption. (RT 31.) A week later, at the Planet Kids, Cameron told
her in
person that "he was happy to go ahead" with the adoption. (RT 31.) Cameron told
her
that he planned on moving to Northern California to start a family and "if
Lauren wanted
to be part of that she could, but it didn't really matter if she didn't want to,
he would be
okay with it." (RT32.) At the time, Cameron told Sarah he was dating a woman,
whom
he subsequently married. (RT 32.)
Shortly thereafter, there was a court proceeding related to the custody and
support
issues. (RT 33.) Despite Cameron's agreement to the adoption, he had continued
pursuing the custody and reduction in child support. (RT 33, 47.) In response to
a grand
juror question asked by the prosecutor, Sarah agreed that this behavior "seem"ed
to be
"odd." (RT 47.) Sarah testified, however, that Cameron did not explain to her
why he
continued pursuing the custody and reduction in child support when he had agreed
to her
husband adopting Lauren. (RT 47.) Sarah filed a declaration that was
"unflattering"
about Cameron's parenting skills for the hearing. (RT 33.) Sarah did not explain
her
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
reasons for filing such "unflattering" declaration following Cameron agreeing to
the
adoption. See Sarah's testimony at the Grand Jury Proceedings (RT 14-49.) Sarah
testified that Cameron became angry after reading the declaration and she
"think[s] he
said that he would get [her] [] for this." (RT 33.) Cameron would not speak to
her after
the hearing. (RT 34.) As a result, the adoption never occurred. (RT 34.)
A couple of months later, Sarah found out that Cameron had made allegations of
child abuse against Sarah. (RT 34.) She testified that the charges were
investigated and
determined to be unfounded. (RT 34.)
On November 8, 2000, as Sarah pulled up to the driveway of Lauren's school, she
told Lauren that Cameron would be picking her up from school. (RT 37.) Lauren
became distraught and started crying. (RT 38.) The school called Sarah at around
12:00
or 12:15 p.m. in regards to Lauren. (RT 40.) While Sarah was talking to Lauren,
who was
still crying and sobbing, Cameron arrived at the school to pick Lauren up. (RT
40.)
Investigator Jeffrey Leslie testified that Cameron told him that he picked
Lauren
up from the Christian Montessori school at 12:30 p.m. (RT 172-173.) Lauren told
Cameron that she was not supposed to go with him that day. (RT 173.) She was
crying at
the time. (RT 173.) After Cameron clarified with the school that this was his
visitation
day, Lauren left with him. (RT 173-174.)
Cameron told Investigator Leslie that his original plan was to take Lauren to
his
home; however, he decided to spend time alone with Lauren because she was upset.
(RT
174.) Consequently, he drove to Abalone Cove Shoreline Park. (RT 174.) Cameron
and
Lauren hiked down to the playground area in Abalone Cove where Lauren played for
20
minutes. (RT 174). Then Lauren started hiking. (RT 174-175.) Cameron told
Investigator Leslie that he was having difficulty keeping up with Lauren who was
too
energetic. (RT 176.) They hiked up the trail to Inspiration Point with Lauren
walking
ahead of Cameron and throwing rocks off the trails. (RT 176-177.)
Cameron told Investigator Leslie that once at Inspiration Point, he sat in an
area
four feet away from the edge of the cliff. (RT 177.) Lauren was initially in
front of him
1According to Investigator Leslie, he had Cameron repeat the story several times
throughout
the interview at the police station. (RT 178.) On the second occasion Cameron
addressed the events
immediately preceding Lauren falling off the cliff, Cameron stated that "he
heard a nervous 'ah' as
he was looking to his left; he looked back and saw the child's feet as she was
going over the cliff and
had surmised that she had lost her balance." (RT 178.) Cameron stated that
Lauren was going down
the cliff head first. (RT 178.) The third time Cameron described to the
investigator the
circumstances surrounding Lauren's fall was as follows:
"He recalled actually pointing to his left at the Portuguese Bend Club or where
Marineland used to be, one of the two; he said he heard her say, 'oh, oh,' and
he
looked back, and this time he saw her upper body from the back and basically the
left side, he described seeing the left side of the young girl, going forward
and go
over the cliff head first, and at that point had surmised to us, as if she was
throwing
a rock and had hurled herself forward."
(RT 179-180.) Cameron, however, had previously told another officer at the scene
of the incident
that Lauren was throwing rocks off the edge of Inspiration Point when she
suddenly fell. (RT 59.)
2Cameron told Investigator Leslie that he got undressed before retrieving his
daughter
because he had seen it on the television program "Baywatch" and "did not want to
be wet or cold
later on." (RT 183.)
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
to his left, then behind him, and then to his right. (RT 177.) Then Cameron, who
was
pointing different areas of interest to Lauren, pointed to his left towards
Portuguese Bend
Club, Catalina, and also where Marineland used to be. (RT 178.) At that point,
Cameron
heard a nervous "ah" and Lauren "vanished".1
Cameron told Investigator Leslie that he then ran down to the nude beach on the
west side of Inspiration Point where he hollered out for anybody with a cellular
phone.
(RT 181.) Upon finding a cellular phone, he called "911" and informed the
California
Highway Patrol 911 operator that his daughter had fallen off the cliff. (RT
181.)
Cameron told Deputy Dale Falcone that while at the nude beach, he determined
that he
could not hike down from the west side. (RT 92.) Consequently, Cameron ran back
up
the trail to Inspiration Point and down the other side towards the Archery Club,
around
the cove, and towards the inlet where he found his daughter's body floating face
down.
(RT 182.)
At that point, Cameron took off his clothes which consisted of a flannel
overshirt,
a t-shirt, and walking shorts.2 (RT 183.) Then, dressed in his boxer shorts and
shoes,
Cameron entered the water; retrieved Lauren's body; set her on top of a flat
rock;
3Following the arrival of the homicide unit, Cameron was taken to the station
where he
waited for five to six hours to be interviewed.
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C.P.R.) for about a minute; removed his
wet
boxer shorts and wore his shorts and t-shirt; put her on his shoulder; and began
running
to the Archery Range where the paramedics would be meeting him. (RT 183-184.)
While running towards the Archery Range, Cameron felt his shirt was becoming
blood
soaked. (RT 184.) So he carried Lauren in a cradle position for the remainder of
the
distance towards the Archery Range. (RT 184.)
At the Archery Range, Cameron set Lauren's body on one of the tables and waited
for the paramedics who arrived within three minutes of Cameron placing Lauren's
body
on the picnic table. (RT 184-185.)
Officer Jessica Brothers, the first officer on the scene, testified that while
waiting
for the homicide unit between 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Cameron sobbed two or
three times.
(RT 65.) Other officers testified that Cameron was not emotional while at the
scene or
during the interview at the station after midnight.3
Deputy medical examiner Ogbonna Chinwah classified Lauren's death as a
homicide. (RT 127.) He testified that Lauren's injuries were inconsistent with
an
accidental fall. (RT 128.) Dr. Chinwah opined that an individual who falls
inadvertently
from the edge of a cliff would have injuries all over the body because he or she
"would
seek a means not to - not to die. The individual would try to grasp at anything
that is
available there." (RT 128.) Consequently, "there will be abrasions all over the
arms, all
over the abdomen, the legs and so forth, which were quite absent in this case
here." (RT
128.) Dr. Chinwah further testified that the injuries were consistent with one
impact
from a fall. (RT 129.)
Deputy Sheriff Dale Falcone, from the Scientific Services Bureau, testified that
he
lifted casts from five "slight dug-out area"s, which he "felt" were shoe prints,
around the
edge of Inspiration Point directly on top of the water inlet where Cameron found
Lauren's
body. (RT 99-101.) He believed them to be adult-size shoe prints. (RT 102.) He
did not
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
find any child-size shoe prints on the cliff. (RT 102.) The officers were unable
to
compare those casts to anyone's shoes. (RT 215.) In fact, Dr. Wilson Hayes, the
biomechanics expert testified that it would be "extremely difficult" to
correlate the
footprints to a 10 foot per second throw of a 40 pound weight off the cliff. (RT
261.) He
further testified that those footprints were related to launching Lauren off the
cliff but
"could have been put down at any point in the time that they were there." (RT
261.)
Jane Ngo, a supervising investigative auditor for the Los Angeles District
Attorney's Office, testified that 39 percent of Cameron's salary was garnished
for
purposes of child support. (RT 223.) Following a review of Cameron's financial
records
and credit reports, she concluded that the child support payments created a
severe
financial hardship on Cameron. (RT 224.) Interestingly, she failed to factor
into her
analysis income by Cameron's wife. See Jane Ngo's testimony (RT 220-226.)
The most critical evidence at the grand jury proceeding, however, was testimony
by Dr. Wilson Hayes and a 13 page report he had prepared determining that Lauren's
cause of death was intentional.
Dr. Hayes' qualifications were as follows. He testified that he is a
biomechanical
engineer. (RT 227.) He has an undergraduate and masters degrees in mechanical
engineering and a PH.D. in biomedical engineering. (RT 228.) He has studied the
biomechanics of fracture and arthritis. (RT 229.) He testified that the most
relevant of
his research grants to the case at hand involved the study of falling in the
elderly. (RT
230.) He was also actively involved in clinical research in orthopedics. (RT
231.) He
further testified that "[m]uch of [his] academic research has been focused on
the issue of
falling and injuries associated to falling. (RT 232.) Dr. Hayes did not testify
about any
experience or studies of falling in children. See Dr. Wilson Hayes' testimony
(RT 227-
262.)
Dr. Hayes' conclusions, as stated in his report, were as follows:
"Based on my review and analysis of this case, and on my academic and
consulting experience in fall dynamics and injury biomechanics, I conclude,
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
to a high degree of engineering and medical certainty and thus beyond a
reasonable doubt:
1) Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a single, high speed
impact to the cliff face at Inspiration Point; the impact produced massive
head, neck and brain injuries, abrasions and contusions to the head and upper
chest;
2) These injuries are inconsistent with a slip and/or trip and fall from the
point of departure since such a scenario would have produced signs of
multiple impacts over multiple body regions consistent with sliding, tumbling
and multiple impacts with the cliff face;
3) Lauren's fatal injuries were, however, consistent with her having been
thrown from the point of departure at an angle of about 22.5 degrees from the
horizontal at an initial velocity of 10 ft/s in an initial orientation with her
feet down and the force applied lightly above the center of gravity. Based
on the fundamental physical laws of projectile motion., such a scenario
would have produced not only the single impact with the cliff face but one in
which the impact occurred in a head down, face inward configuration and
was sufficient severity to produce the fatal head and neck injuries that she
in fact suffered;
4) The fall trajectory that would produce such an impact is well within the
physical capabilities of a reasonably fit adult male and can be produced by
picking up the child, supporting her under the buttocks and pushing
forcefully at a point slightly above the waist in an outward and slightly
upward direction.
5) Since Lauren could not have slipped or tripped or fallen as described by
her father, but could have sustained her fatal injuries by being pushed
forcefully from the point of departure and based on the facts of this case
and on the police and autopsy reports, I conclude that Cameron Brown
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
threw his 4-year old daughter, Lauren, off the cliff at Inspiration Point on
November 9, 2000.
(Dr.Hayes' Report (Report) 12-13; See transcripts of Dr. Hayes' testimony at the
grand
jury proceedings (RT 227-262.)) (Emphasis added.)
Dr. Hayes determined the initial launch velocity and trajectory of Lauren's fall
as
follows. He had a "reasonably fit, 28-year old" male associate (5'7; 160 lbs)
repeatedly
throw a 40 pound weight (comparable to Lauren's weight of 44 lbs at the time of
her
death). (Report 7; See RT 251.) Neither the report nor Dr. Hayes' grand jury
testimony
state where these repeated throws occurred, and it appears that Dr. Hayes never
performed any experiments in which weights were actually launched off of
Inspiration
Point itself. From these throwing experiments, which presumably occurred at a
location
other than at Inspiration Point, Dr. Hayes determined the launch trajectory and
the
maximum speed at which a child of Lauren's weight could be launched from the
point of
departure. (See Report 7, 10.) "Multiple video trials indicated that a
reasonable estimate
of the maximum speed at which a child of Lauren's weight could be launched from
the
point of departure was 15 ft/s." (Report 7; RT 251.) Dr. Hayes also determined
the
launch trajectory for an intermediate launch velocity of 10 ft/s. (Report 7, 10;
RT 251-
252.) The launch angle used was 22.5 degrees to maximize the throw distance.
(Report
7.) Dr. Hayes did his analysis without having a point of impact of Lauren's body
on the
cliff. (See RT 260.) The investigators had looked for but been unable to find
the point of
impact on the cliff. (RT 260.) Although Dr. Hayes refers to a "point of
departure" in
both his report and during his testimony, it is unclear exactly which location
on the cliff
he uses as that point.
Dr. Hayes also used an average walking speed of a child of Lauren's age, roughly
about 5 ft/s, to determine the trajectory of the fall had Lauren slipped or
tripped off the
edge of the cliff. (RT 252.) Dr. Hayes did not mention in his report or at the
grand jury
proceedings any experiments to determine the trajectory of a fall where the
child runs
(rather than walks) and trips off the cliff. (See Report; See also RT 227-262.)
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
Dr. Hayes relied on the following for his analysis and conclusions in the
instant
case: the autopsy report; the topography of Inspiration Point determined through
photographs and an aerial survey of the scene accomplished through the use of
overflight
airplanes and a high resolution camera (RT 246; See RT 239); and the experiments
described above. On the other hand, Dr. Hayes makes his calculations without
knowing
either an exact point of departure or point of impact and by conducting his
experiments
presumably at a location other than the scene of the incident.
On July 20, 2004, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging
Defendant Cameron Brown with first degree murder of his daughter Lauren
Key-Marer
and special circumstances of lying in wait and financial gain. (See Indictment;
See also
RT 285-286.)
I. DEFENDANT WAS INDICTED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 939.6
OF THE PENAL CODE AND WITHOUT REASONABLE OR
PROBABLE CAUSE.
Section 939.6 of the California Penal Code provides in pertinent part:
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), the grand jury shall not receive
any evidence except that which would be admissible over objection at the
trial of a criminal action, but the fact that evidence that would have been
excluded at trial was received by the grand jury does not render the
indictment void where sufficient competent evidence to support the
indictment was received by the grand jury.
(Emphasis added.)
Case law is also clear that an indictment based solely on hearsay or otherwise
incompetent evidence is unauthorized and must be set aside on motion under
section 995
of the California Penal Code. People v. Backus (1979) 23 Cal.3d 360, 387.
(Citing
People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 22; Rogers v. Superior Court (1955) 46
Cal.2d
4The Kelly-Frye rule has its basis in California Supreme Court case, People v.
Kelly (1976)
17 Cal.3d 24, which adopted the rule then followed in federal courts that was
based on the District
of Columbia Circuit case, Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013.
Frye has since been
superseded in federal courts by the federal rules of evidence, which instead
require that the scientific
evidence be relevant and reliable to be admissible. California, however, has
declined to follow the
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
3, 8.)
Furthermore, in People v. Backus, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 393, the California
Supreme Court held that "when the extent of the incompetent evidence before the
grand
jury is such that, under the instructions and advice given by the prosecutor, it
is
unreasonable to expect that the grand jury could limit its consideration to the
admissible,
relevant evidence, the defendants have been denied due process and the
indictment must
be dismissed notwithstanding Penal Code section 939.6." The court reasoned as
follows:
"We recognized []that the Fifth Amendment guarantee that a defendant not
be held to answer in a federal prosecution 'unless on a presentment or
indictment of a grand jury' presupposed a grand jury acting independently
of the prosecutor or judge, and that the function of the federal grand jury 'as
a protective bulwark standing solidly between the ordinary citizen and an
overzealous prosecutor' (citation omitted), was equally that of a state grand
jury. If the grand jury cannot fulfill its obligation to act independently and
to protect citizens from unfounded obligations (citation omitted) when not
advised of relevant exculpatory evidence neither can it do so if it is invited
to indict on the basis of incompetent and irrelevant evidence."
Id., at p. 393.
A. The grand jury should not have heard expert testimony by
biomechanical engineer William Carlyle Hayes since it would not
have been admissible at trial.
1. Kelly-Frye test4:
new rule announced in Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) 509 U.S. 579,
and has
instead reaffirmed Kelly-Frye, which is now called the Kelly rule. 3-71
California Criminal Defense
Practice section 71.04. (Citing Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d 24; Frye, supra, 293 F.
1013; Daubert,
supra, 509 U.S. 579.)
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
In People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, the California Supreme Court adopted the
test established by the District of Columbia Circuit Court in Frye v. United
States (D.C.
Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013 for admitting evidence derived from new scientific
methodology.
The Kelly-Frye test is an "evidence-screening device that targets highly
sophisticated
scientific evidence that to the average juror would not be comprehensible in
process but
also irresistibly convincing in result." People v. Pizarro (Ct. App. 2003) 110
Cal.App.4th
530, 554-555. In Kelly, the California Supreme Court, in encouraging judicial
caution in
the acceptance of evidence developed by new scientific techniques emphasized
that the
Frye test was "deliberately intended to interpose a substantial obstacle to the
unrestrained
admission of evidence based upon new scientific principles" because "lay jurors
tend to
give considerable weight to 'scientific' evidence when presented by 'experts'
with
impressive credentials." Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 30-31.
The Kelly-Frye test requires proponents of evidence derived from new scientific
methodology to establish the following three prongs. The first prong requires
the
proponent of the evidence to establish the reliability of the method, usually by
expert
testimony. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30; Frye, supra, 293 F. at p.1014. To
satisfy the
reliability test, the scientific method must be "sufficiently established to
have gained
general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs." Frye, supra,
293 F. at p.
1014. The purpose of this prong of the Kelly-Frye test is to assure that "those
most
qualified to assess the general validity of a scientific method will have the
determinative
voice" in deciding the reliability of the new scientific methodology rather than
a trial
judge. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 30. (Citing United States v. Addison (D.C.
Cir. 1974)
498 F.2d 741, 743-744.) The existence of the first prong may be determined by
prior
case law. Pizarro. supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 556. Once a trial court has
admitted
15Section 405 provides in pertinent part:
The court shall determine the existence or nonexistence of the
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
evidence derived from new scientific technology and that decision is affirmed by
a
published appellate decision, "the precedent so established may control
subsequent trials,
at least until new evidence is presented reflecting a change in the attitude of
the scientific
community." Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at 32; People v. Venegas (1998) 18 Cal.4th
47, 54.
The second prong of the Kelly-Frye test requires that the witness furnishing
testimony about the reliability of the scientific methodology "be properly
qualified as an
expert to give an opinion on the subject." Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p.30.
The third prong requires the proponent to demonstrate that correct scientific
procedures were used in the particular case. Id. This prong is a case-specific
inquiry.
Venegas, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p.78. The third prong of the Kelly-Frye test
assumes that
the new scientific methodology has met the general acceptance requirement. Id.
Hence,
the remaining issue is whether the procedures utilized in the case at hand
complied with
the technique generally accepted as valid by the scientific community. Id.
Expert
testimony from a member of the scientific community is not necessary for
establishing
such compliance with the accepted technique. Id. "It does, however, require that
the
testifying expert understand the technique and its underlying theory, and be
thoroughly
familiar with the procedures that were in fact used in the case at bar to
implement the
technique." Id.
The party offering evidence derived from new scientific methodology has the
burden of proving its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence under the
Kelly-
Frye test. People v. Ashmus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932, 970.
In the Kelley-Frye analysis, the trial judge is the "gatekeeper", allowing
evidence
that is reliable and trustworthy to reach the jurors. Pizarro, supra, 110
Cal.App.4th at p.
555. The determination under the first prong of the Kelly-Frye test of whether a
new
scientific methodology has gained general acceptance by the scientific community
is a
determination under California Evidence Code section 4055 requiring the court to
make
preliminary fact and shall admit or exclude the proffered evidence
as required by the rule of law under which the question arises.
6Cocaine was also found to be a contributing cause of death. Id., at p. 290. The
presence of cocaine was detected in the child's blood and large quantities of
the same drug
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
the final determination regarding the existence of the preliminary fact that the
scientific
methodology has been generally accepted by the scientific community. Id. at p.
556.
Similarly, the determination under the third prong of the Kelly-Frye test of
whether the
generally accepted procedures were actually followed in the case before the
court is a
determination under section 405 requiring that the court make the final
determination
regarding the existence of the preliminary fact that proper scientific
procedures were
followed. Most importantly, the determination by the court under either prong is
final and
not a question of whether there is evidence sufficient to permit a jury to
decide the
question. Id., at p. 538. Because of the immense power of scientific evidence,
the Kelly-
Frye test goes to admissibility rather than the weight of the evidence. Id., at
p. 555.
(Citation omitted.)
2. The prosecution cannot satisfy the three prongs of the
Kelly-Frye Test in the case at hand.
In People v. Dellinger (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 284, the California Court of Appeal
held that conducting an experiment wherein an anthropomorphic dummy was used to
simulate the fall of a child down a flight of stairs did not satisfy the
Kelly-Frye test. In
Dellinger, the issue was whether defendant's stepdaughter had died as a result
of an
accidental fall down a flight of stairs or had died as a result of another blunt
force to her
head. The defendant told officers that he was alone with his two year old
stepdaughter at
their residence when he heard a thud and found his stepdaughter on the first
landing of
the carpeted staircase. Id., at p. 290. The pathologist determined the major
cause of
death to be a swelling of the brain due to blunt force trauma to the head. Id.6
A
were found in her liver and stomach. Id.
7Under the finite element analysis, the characteristics of the structure of the
brain and
skull were fed into a computer, a force was mathematically applied, and then the
computer
predicted the pressures and stresses in the brain and skull. Id., at p. 292.
Using in the
analysis the impact force developed at the apartment, the computer verified that
the injury
to the head could not have resulted from a fall down the stairs. Id.
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
biomedical engineer, Carley Ward, testified that the child's injuries were not
caused by a
fall down the stairs. Id., at p. 292. She based her opinion on an experiment she
conducted where she had an officer drop an anthropomorphic dummy, similar in
height
and weight to the child, from different positions down the stairs in the
defendant's
apartment where the injuries occurred. Id., at p. 291. The dummy had a special
metal on
the back of its head in the location of the injury. Id., at p. 292. Dr. Ward
determined the
amount of force sustained on impact by cross referencing the indentations in the
metal to
a chart prepared by General Motors. Id. The chart indicated that the force from
the test
falls was 17.95 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) compared to the 34 p.s.i.
required to cause
the brain damage and skull fracture to the child. Id. Dr. Ward then verified her
findings
with another procedure called finite element analysis. Id. 7
The court held that a proper foundation required under the Kelly-Frye rule was
not
established for the admission of the biomedical engineer's expert opinion on the
amount
of force needed to sustain the injury to the child's head. Id., at pp. 293-296.
First the
court held that using anthropomorphic dummies in fall experiments and the finite
element
analysis had not gained general acceptance in the scientific community. Id., at
p. 293.
The court reasoned that other than Dr. Ward's "self serving and uncorroborated"
testimony there was no other evidence corroborating the reliability of either of
her
techniques. Id. In fact, the court stated that studies that Ward relied upon
contradicted
her conclusions. Id. Specifically, in a study, conducted by the University of
Michigan
Highway Safety Research Institute, the authors warned, "'an instrumented
anthropomorphic dummy did not seem to be a good simulator since orientation at
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
impact would be difficult to control in a free fall situation and since dummy
reactions are often not human like." Id. (Citing Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety,
Final Rep., Dec 5, 1977, Impact Tolerance Through Free-Fall Investigation.) The
court
further emphasized that the reliability of the techniques used by Dr. Ward was
not
sufficiently established by expert testimony. Id., at p. 294.
The Dellinger court further held that the prosecution did not establish the
second
prong of the Kelly-Frye test. Id. The court reasoned that Dr. Ward was not
qualified to
testify as an expert on the subject matter because her testimony was based on
research and
experience with animals and cadavers only; she had "no medical background or
experience with the variances attributable to the brain and skull of a child";
and "she
had no expertise in fall-related injuries." Id. (Emphasis added.) The court
emphasized
that the "competency of an expert is relative to the topic and fields of
knowledge about
which the person is asked to make a statement. In considering whether a person
qualified
as an expert, the field of expertise must be carefully distinguished and
limited." Id.
(Citing Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 39.)
Moreover, the court held that there was insufficient showing that Dr. Ward used
correct scientific procedures. Id., at p. 295. The court reasoned that "there
was evidence
received . . . stating a dummy would not execute the same trajectory as a child
because of its lack of musculature reflexes." Id. (Emphasis added.) The court
further
stated that Dr. Ward failed to take into consideration the data on the
compressibility of the
victim's skull and scalp, the compressibility of the carpet and the mass of the
child's
body. Id.
Finally, the Dellinger court held that the jury was unduly prejudiced by Dr.
Ward's
scientific findings because the prosecution's "case rested on 'the aura of
certainty'
enveloping Dr. Ward's scientific findings." Id., at p. 296.
Even though in People v. Roehler (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 353, a different division
of another district of the California Court of Appeal held as admissible Dr.
Carley Ward's
testimony about an experiment she conducted to determine the force exerted on
the head
8The court added as follows:
"In Dellinger, the testing consisted of a police officer's throwing the
dummy down some stairs, without any trajectory analysis. We agree
with the Dellinger majority that this did not remotely constitute a scientific
procedure of any reliability. Contrast, however, the use in the present case
of correct engineering principles to establish the velocity figures before the
dummy was introduced into the experimental process."
Id., at p. 390.
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
of an eight year old child, Dellinger is distinguishable from Roehler. The issue
in the
Roehler case was whether defendant Roehler's wife and son Douglas died of
accidental
drowning caused by the sudden overturning of the dory they were in or whether
the
defendant killed them. During the trial a fluid mechanics expert testified that
based on
experiments he had conducted with the dory in the body of water where the boat
had
overturned, the dory would not have overturned accidentally. Id., at p. 379. The
same
expert also testified about experiments he had conducted, using a boy the size
and weight
of Douglas, to test the velocity of a boy of Douglas' size and weight rising in
the water
from immersion. Id., at p. 369. He also determined the combined closing velocity
between the dory and the boy Douglas' size popping to the surface. Id., at p.
369. Dr.
Ward, a biomedical expert, used the fluid mechanics expert's work to determine
the
closing velocity as well. Id., at pp. 370-371. Using a dummy fashioned to be as
similar to
Douglas as possible and the Roehler dory, Dr. Ward conducted experiments to
determine
the force exerted on Douglas' head prior to his death. Id., at p. 370. She
determined that
the maximum force generated by the dory would have resulted in a relatively
small
amount of pressure on Douglas' skull. Id.
Dellinger is distinguishable from Roehler for the following reasons. First, as
stated by the Roehler court, "there is no similarity between the techniques
employed in
Dellinger and used at the case at bench."8 Id., at p. 390. The most glaring
difference
between the two experiments is that Dellinger involved an experiment about
falling from
a height while the Roehler experiment dealt with the human head being hit by a
dory.
Second, the reliability and results of the experiments in Roehler were supported
by
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
extensive expert testimony. As emphasized by the Roehler court, the reliability
of the
method used to measure the velocity involved was supported by the testimony of a
soft
tissue mechanics expert; the accuracy of the closing velocity figures obtained
by the fluid
mechanics expert and Dr. Ward were confirmed by another engineering expert; and
Dr.
Ward's testimony was supported by two medical experts in traumatic head
injuries. Id., at
pp. 389-390. Third, as stated by the Roehler court, "the testing concerning the
dummy
and the dory was but a small part of the presentation of the evidence in this
case rather
than the sine qua non of the case against the defendant." Id., at p. 388. . In
fact, the
Roehler court emphasized that "the evidence regarding the dummy was not the
basis
for the conclusion that the boy's head injuries were the result of premeditated
murder but this case is an example of using scientific evidence to corroborate
the
conclusion of the medical examiner pathologist. Id., at p 390. (Emphasis added.)
Fourth, as stated by the Roehler court, the trial court delineated between the
engineering
and the medical testimony, Id., at p. 390, by making the "important ruling" that
"the
engineering experts could testify concerning engineering principles and that
only
appropriately qualified medical experts could testify concerning the injuries
[to] human
heads involved", Id., at pp. 388-389. Fifth, Dr. Ward, qualified as an
engineering expert
because the trial court limited her testimony to engineering principles only.
Id., at p. 390.
In the case at hand, the testimony by Dr. Hayes about whether Lauren's fall off
Inspiration Point was intentional or accidental should have never been
introduced to the
grand jury because it would have been inadmissible evidence at trial for the
reasons
discussed below.
i. The prosecution cannot satisfy the first prong of the
Kelly-Frye test because the procedures employing
biomechanical principles used by Dr. Hayes have
not gained general scientific acceptance.
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Dellinger decision and analysis applies to the case at hand. In Dellinger,
the
court held that using anthropomorphic dummies in fall experiments has not gained
general acceptance in the scientific community. In this case, what was used was
far less
scientific than Dellinger's anthropomorphic dummy. Instead, Dr. Hayes used a
"weight"
comparable to Lauren's weight used in an experiment to determine the velocity of
the
launch and the trajectory of Lauren's fall. The weight used for the experiment
in this case
is not only less accurate in simulating the child's body than the Roehler dummy
which
was fashioned to be as similar to the victim as possible but less accurate than
the
Dellinger dummy. It follows that the use of a weight comparable to the weight of
a child
in a fall experiment has not gained general acceptance in the scientific
community. And,
certainly the prosecution did not establish during Dr. Hayes' testimony that
using a
weight in an undetermined location to determine various launch velocities and
trajectories
is generally accepted in the scientific community.
Furthermore, the Hayes testimony is less reliable than the dummy tests conducted
in Dellinger because at least in Dellinger the tests were conducted at the same
location
where the death occurred, i.e., on the stairway in decedent's house. Dellinger,
supra, 163
Cal.App.3d at pp. 291-92. There is no indication in the grand jury record that
Hayes'
assistant threw this 40 lb. weight off of Inspiration Point. This is not a
trivial detail: a
person throwing a weight on flat ground in the safety of someone's backyard is
likely to
achieve significantly different results than a person throwing that same weight
(or, to
accept the prosecution's theory, a small child who may be wriggling to get free
or, at a
minimum, moving her limbs around) off a steep cliff. One need not be a scientist
to
understand that the person throwing the weight off the cliff may be inhibited by
his or her
own safety concerns. Presumably, that person will not want to follow the weight
off the
cliff's edge. Hence, both the velocity and trajectory could be significantly
less than those
obtained from the experiments described by Hayes.
Next, as in Dellinger, no expert other than Dr. Hayes testified about the
reliability
of his experiment. In fact, one of the studies relied on by the Dellinger court
in its
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
reasoning that the dummy experiment was not reliable involved a warning by the
authors
that dummies are not good simulators in fall experiments because "dummy
reactions are
often not human like." It goes without saying that weight reactions are not
human like
either.
And, unlike the testimony by Dr. Ward in Roehler, Dr. Hayes' testimony and the
reliability of his experiments were not corroborated by other engineering or
medical
experts and the results of his experiments were not confirmed by other experts.
In fact,
there is hardly any testimony by Dr. Hayes himself about the reliability of his
experiments
and trajectory analysis.
Most importantly, unlike Roehler where the experiment involving the dummy and
the dory was a small part of the evidence in the case and also was not the basis
for the
conclusion that the injuries on the boy's head were the result of premeditated
murder, Dr.
Hayes' experiment is the sine qua non of the case against Cameron. In fact,
without Dr.
Hayes' testimony, there is no case.
ii. The prosecution cannot satisfy the second prong
of the Kelly-Frye test because Dr. Hayes is not
qualified as an expert in the injury biomechanics
field relating to falls by children
As in Dellinger, the record is devoid of any testimony related to Dr Hayes
having
any expertise about injuries resulting from children falling. In Dellinger, the
court held
that Dr. Ward was not qualified as an expert because she had "no medical
background or
experience with the variances attributable to the brain and skull of a child."
Dellinger,
supra, 163 Cal. App.3d at p. 294. Similarly, here Dr. Hayes lacks such medical
expertise. In fact, Dr. Hayes testified that the most relevant experience to
this case that he
has had involved studies of falls in the elderly. Furthermore, unlike the trial
court in
Roehler, the prosecutor did not limit Dr. Hayes' testimony to engineering
principles.
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
Rather, Dr. Hayes made conclusions "to a high degree of engineering and medical
certainty, and thus beyond a reasonable doubt." (Report 12; See RT 238.) Dr.
Hayes
not only acted as an expert in engineering and medicine but was also permitted
to usurp
the function of the fact finder when he rendered the inadmissible legal
conclusion that he
was certain of his opinion "beyond a reasonable doubt." Dr. Hayes was not a
physician
and clearly was not qualified to render an opinion to any medical certainty. In
fact, Dr.
Hayes' qualification as an engineer is questionable as well since he is not
licensed to
practice in California as discussed below in section III.
iii. The prosecution cannot satisfy the third prong
of the Kelly-Frye test because of an insufficient
showing that Dr. Hayes used correct scientific
procedures.
In the instant case, there is an insufficient showing of the accuracy of Dr.
Hayes'
scientific procedures for the following reasons. The fall trajectories developed
by Dr.
Hayes from the experiments was a trajectory of Lauren's body's center of
gravity, the
area between the belly and the back. (RT 249-250.) The main impact to Lauren's
body,
however, was to her head and upper chest as reflected in the autopsy report. (RT
240-
242.) This means that the fall trajectories of Lauren's body do not accurately
represent
the location of her head during the fall. Furthermore, the Dellinger court held
that one of
the reasons for the insufficiency of evidence showing correct scientific
procedures was
the evidence at trial showing that "a dummy would not execute the same
trajectory as a
child because of its lack of musculature reflexes." Id., at p. 295. This is in
contradiction
to Dr. Hayes' testimony that the trajectory of a body's center of gravity does
not change
regardless of any movements by the falling person. Dr. Hayes' failure to address
those
studies in his testimony casts doubt on the reliability of his dummy launching
experiment.
Additionally, Dr. Hayes did not conduct any experiments to determine the
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
trajectory of a child the same height and weight as Lauren tripping off the
cliff while
running towards the edge. He only developed the fall trajectory of a child the
same age as
Lauren walking towards the edge of the cliff prior to tripping. Furthermore, the
fall
trajectory of the walking child that trips off the edge of the cliff is not
reliable because it
is based on the walking speed of the average child Lauren's age. Clearly, the
fall
trajectory would have been different had Lauren been running before slipping or
tripping,
since her launching velocity would have been higher.
Unlike the experiments conducted in the Roehler case, Dr. Hayes conducted his
experiments presumably at a location other than the scene of the incident,
Inspiration
Point. Interestingly, Dr. Hayes does not allude to the location of the
experiments. It is
axiomatic, that differences in topography and the type of ground involved would
impact
the results of the experiments. For example, a maximum walking or running speed
at a
particular location depends on the type of soil involved. The muddier the soil,
the more
difficult it would be to run at high speeds and to maintain one's balance
without slipping
or falling. In fact, Dr. Hayes' experiments can not show whether an adult, the
size of Mr.
Cameron could have run at the speeds involved in the experiments at Inspiration
Point
without falling off the cliff himself!
Finally, Dr. Hayes conducted his experiments without knowing Lauren's exact
point of departure or Lauren's point of impact with the face of the cliff.
Lauren's body
could have hit any part of the cliff and bounced off into the water. Dr Hayes,
however,
presumed that the point of impact was about forty to fifty-five feet above the
water based
on his experiment involving an initial launch velocity of 10 ft/s, an experiment
that did
not factor in the exact point of departure! Had the point of impact been closer
to the top
of the 125 foot cliff, the launch velocity required would have been
significantly less.
Also, the point of impact would differ based on the point of departure because
of
topographical differences in the face of the cliff. Dr. Hayes' failure to factor
into his
calculations the exact point of departure and point of impact renders his
opinion flawed to
the point that it is inadmissible.
____________________
MOTION TO DISMISS
3. The admission of Dr. Hayes' testimony unduly prejudiced
the grand jury.
The testimony of Dr. Hayes' was highly prejudicial because it was the most
inculpatory testimony presented to the grand jury. In fact, Dr. Hayes testimony
was
opinion dressed up as fact.
As in Dellinger, this case "rested on 'the aura of certainty' enveloping" Dr.
Hayes'
scientific findings. In fact, Dr. Hayes' testimony was exponentially more
prejudicial than
Dr. Ward's testimony in Dellinger, because in addition to the lack of competent
evidence
supporting the indictment in the instant case, Dr. Hayes also gave his
conclusions in terms
of high degrees of engineering and medical certainty. Even worse, Dr. Hayes
testified
that Lauren's fall was intentionally caused by the defendant beyond a reasonable
doubt.
This is in complete contradiction to the Roehler decision which emphasized that
the
experimental evidence should corroborate other evidence rather than serve as the
main
evidence itself.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to
grant the
motion to dismiss.
Dated: March 17, 2005 Respectfully submitted,
GERAGOS & GERAGOS
By:
MARK J. GERAGOS
Attorney for Defendant
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>> Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the "evidence"
>> against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and that the
>> prosecution has essentially contrived a case out of thin air -- AND HAS
>> PERPETRATED AN OBSCENE INJUSTICE AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT MAN!
> LOL!
> Teddy, this motion is a non-starter. Ain't got a snowball's chance in hell
> of being granted
Don't be so sure. Moron. It seems to have scared the beJesus out of the
prosecutor.
> -- but take note imbecile -- even if it *were* granted, the prosecutor can
> simply re-indict Cameron once he obtains bio-mechanical testing from a
> "certified" engineer.
You're an idiot. That is only a minor objection. Under People v. Roehler,
it was noted that experimental evidence should corroborate other evidence,
not serve as the main evidence itself.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>> Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the "evidence"
> An interesting out you've left yourself. If anyone disagrees with you,
Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it. Whether they disagree with
the FACTS is what counts.
> well, they didn't give the motion a "fair" reading.
And if you disagree with the facts, you haven't.
>> against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and that the
>> prosecution has essentially contrived a case out of thin air
> Not so.
So.
> The motion draws Hayes' credibility into question,
And certainly not without good reason.
> but this does not in any way indicate that Hum, or anyone else within the
> LADA's office, contrived a case out of thin air.
Hayes certainly seems to have. And the rest of them are relying on him.
>> -- AND HAS PERPETRATED AN OBSCENE INJUSTICE AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT
>> MAN!
> Except that Cameron is NOT obviously innocent.
He CERTAINLY is -- when you take ALL the facts into account. (But then, you
don't HAVE all the facts.)
> In fact, it's more likely than not that he did murder Lauren.
Not from where I'm standing. From what I can see, it is INCONCEIVABLE that
he would have done anything to harm his daughter.
> A jury will review the evidence present and determine if he is guilty of
> 1st degree murder (or a lesser charge, if included) or not.
I don't think they WANT to put this thing in front of a jury. Because then
it will become painfully obvious that they are persecting an innocent man.
> BTW, your claim that Cameron wouldn't give up his parental rights was
> destroyed by the motion. Seems he was willing to at first, since Lauren
> would still be allowed to be a part of his life, but then, for reasons
> unknown, changed his mind.
He never was. This is Sarah's side of the story, and she is being less than
accurate. This is what she told the Grand Jury, but none of this appears in
the Orange County court record (except the declaration that her husband was
willing to adopt Lauren).
> Since, according to the motion, Lauren would still be allowed to be an
> active part of his life, care to tell me, and anyone else who may care, the
> *REAL* reason he refused? This is more a curiosity on my part than
> anything else.
Sarah BS'd the Grand Jury. (Statements such as these are formally known as
"perjury".)
> And why didn't Geragos bring up the point about the date of the financial
> audit?
I dunno. Why don't you ask him? (213) 625-3900.
> According to you, the information supplied to the GJ was from a period well
> AFTER Lauren's death. If this claim were true,
It IS true.
> I would have expected it to be mentioned in the motion.
He's not going to argue the whole case in one motion.
> That Geragos didn't tells me that he agrees with the information provided.
That doesn't necessarily follow. There are MANY more things wrong with this
case that are not addressed in this motion.
> He did wisely point out that the analysis of the financial burden did fail
> to take into account any monies Patty had. It still hurt him, as the
> reposition, seven items in collection, etc. indicate.
I have another document where he DOES take issue with this "collection"
nonsense. but it is not a public document, so I'm not going to post it.
> Will you have access to Hum's response? I'd like to see how he counters
> the motion.
It will be argued in court. It looks as if Hum has a few tricks up his
sleeve, but we're on to him. Mark says he hopes that Hum does try them,
because he can make him look like an idiot if he does.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:03:59 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez坼""
> <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
>
> > LOL!
> >
> > Teddy, this motion is a non-starter. Ain't got a snowball's chance
> > in hell of being
> > granted -- but take note imbecile -- even if it *were* granted, the
> > prosecutor can simply re-indict Cameron once he obtains
> > bio-mechanical testing from a "certified" engineer.
> >
> >
> > ____________________
> >
> > MOTION TO DISMISS
>
>
>
> Tell me you didn't type that all out yourself. :)
If I did, will you renounce "religion"?
>
> Kent
"- Prof. Jonez坼
What part of "they can re-indict / re-arrest him at ANY time in the future"
don't you comprehend, moron?
The ONLY way to insure this is off his back once and for all, it
to have (begin) the fucking trial. Then jeapordy attaches, and he cannot
be re-charged. Get it, dipshit?
chainsaw
> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>><jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>LOL!
>>>
>>>Teddy, this motion is a non-starter. Ain't got a snowball's chance
>>>in hell of being
>>>granted -- but take note imbecile -- even if it *were* granted, the
>>>prosecutor can simply re-indict Cameron once he obtains
>>>bio-mechanical testing from a "certified" engineer.
>>>
>>>
>>>____________________
>>>
>>>MOTION TO DISMISS
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>Tell me you didn't type that all out yourself. :)
>
>
> If I did, will you renounce "religion"?
DIE you bitch!
"- Prof. Jonez坼
You first, spineless coward.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
Are you just plain stupid, or are you suffering from some version
of Korsakoff's psychosis?
Of course he'll put it to the jury dipshit, that's what *juries* do! --
they decide the fate of 1,000s of innocent people every day.
ALL people who appear before a criminal jury are INNOCENT
Ted, right up until the moment of the verdict when the jury
decides otherwise.
That IS the American System, life in the big city as it were.
If you don't like it, move back to Greece you swarthy half-breed.
>
> > BTW, your claim that Cameron wouldn't give up his parental rights
> > was destroyed by the motion. Seems he was willing to at first,
> > since Lauren would still be allowed to be a part of his life, but
> > then, for reasons unknown, changed his mind.
>
> He never was. This is Sarah's side of the story, and she is being
> less than accurate. This is what she told the Grand Jury, but none
> of this appears in the Orange County court record (except the
> declaration that her husband was willing to adopt Lauren).
>
> > Since, according to the motion, Lauren would still be allowed to be
> > an active part of his life, care to tell me, and anyone else who
> > may care, the *REAL* reason he refused? This is more a curiosity
> > on my part than anything else.
>
> Sarah BS'd the Grand Jury. (Statements such as these are formally
> known as "perjury".)
And Geragos will be motioning the court to charge Sarah for that FELONY,
right Ted?
>
> > And why didn't Geragos bring up the point about the date of the
> > financial audit?
>
> I dunno. Why don't you ask him? (213) 625-3900.
>
> > According to you, the information supplied to the GJ was from a
> > period well AFTER Lauren's death. If this claim were true,
>
> It IS true.
Yet, the great and magnificent Geragos failed to raise the issue,
which means it cannot be addressed on appeal. Hmmmmm.
>
> > I would have expected it to be mentioned in the motion.
>
> He's not going to argue the whole case in one motion.
Well Teddles, if he don't argue the issues now, he can't raise
them later when appealing Cameron's conviction. But
you knew that, didn't you?
>
> > That Geragos didn't tells me that he agrees with the information
> > provided.
>
> That doesn't necessarily follow. There are MANY more things wrong
> with this case that are not addressed in this motion.
Well then Teddy, you better hope there is some sooper sekrit
appeals court in that confabulated fantasy world of yours,
because here on Earth, in the USA, if Geragos don't raise
the issues now, he won't get to raise them after.
>
> > He did wisely point out that the analysis of the financial burden
> > did fail to take into account any monies Patty had. It still hurt
> > him, as the reposition, seven items in collection, etc. indicate.
>
> I have another document where he DOES take issue with this
> "collection" nonsense. but it is not a public document, so I'm not
> going to post it.
If it's part of the court case, then it IS public Ted.
>
> > Will you have access to Hum's response? I'd like to see how he
> > counters the motion.
>
> It will be argued in court. It looks as if Hum has a few tricks up
> his sleeve, but we're on to him.
LOL!
>Mark says he hopes that Hum does
> try them, because he can make him look like an idiot if he does.
Well Teddy, you can dress Hum up like Michael Jackson and make
him recite Mother Goose fairy tales in Pig-Latin, it won't do
sweet fuck all to get Cameron acquitted of the charges of FIRST
DEGREE MURDER of his 4 year old daughter, Lauren Key.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
Ken Smith
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>>http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>>
>>Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the
>>"evidence" against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and
>>that the prosecution has essentially contrived a case out of thin air
>>-- AND HAS PERPETRATED AN OBSCENE INJUSTICE AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY
>>INNOCENT MAN!
>
> LOL!
>
> Teddy, this motion is a non-starter. Ain't got a snowball's chance in hell of
> being
> granted -- but take note imbecile -- even if it *were* granted, the prosecutor
> can simply re-indict Cameron once he obtains bio-mechanical testing from a
> "certified" engineer.
Alas! but this is the first week of April, and I really don't have
the time to give this motion a full and fair reading. However, I will
note for the record that at first glance, conceded facts of this case
bear little resemblance to the "facts" presented by Ted.
> ____________________
>
> MOTION TO DISMISS
>
> GERAGOS & GERAGOS
[snip]
> STATEMENT OF FACTS
>
> The following evidence was presented at the grand jury proceeding in this
> matter.
>
> Sarah Louise Key-Marer (Sarah) met and started dating Cameron Brown
> (Cameron) in early November, 1995. (RT 15.) In December, 1995, she discovered
> she
> was pregnant. (RT 16.) Cameron was initially shocked by the news. (RT 17.) He
> later
> suggested to Sarah to consider an abortion. (RT 18-19.) Then, at Cameron's
> suggestion,
> they saw a counselor together. (RT 19.) The conversation with the counselor "led
> to
> suggestion of abortion." (RT 20.) Shortly thereafter, around February, 1996,
> Cameron and Sarah stopped seeing each other. (RT 21.)
>
> On August 29, 1996, Sarah gave birth to Lauren Key-Marer (Lauren). (RT 21.)
It appears as though Ted's claim that Cam didn't know about Sarah's
condition is untenable. Ted, lying again? What a surprise.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> "Prof. Jonez" wrote:
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>>> Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the "evidence"
>>> against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and that the
>>> prosecution has essentially contrived a case out of thin air -- AND HAS
>>> PERPETRATED AN OBSCENE INJUSTICE AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT MAN!
>> LOL!
>> Teddy, this motion is a non-starter. Ain't got a snowball's chance in hell
>> of being granted -- but take note imbecile -- even if it *were* granted,
>> the prosecutor can simply re-indict Cameron once he obtains bio-mechanical
>> testing from a "certified" engineer.
> Alas! but this is the first week of April,
Life is tough. Sh*t happens. (As for example, the Bar Examiners asking a
candidate to submit to a psychological exam.)
> and I really don't have the time to give this motion a full and fair
> reading.
And even if you did have the time, you certainly DON'T have an INCLINATION to
give it a fair reading.
> However, I will note for the record that at first glance, conceded facts of
> this case bear little resemblance to the "facts" presented by Ted.
That's because the "facts" presented in the first part of the motion are a
recount of the "facts" as presented to the Grand Jury. And there is MUCH to
take issue with here as well, but let's not get distracted with that for now.
>> ____________________
>> MOTION TO DISMISS
>> GERAGOS & GERAGOS
> [snip]
>> STATEMENT OF FACTS
>> The following evidence was presented at the grand jury proceeding in this
>> matter.
>> Sarah Louise Key-Marer (Sarah) met and started dating Cameron Brown
>> (Cameron) in early November, 1995. (RT 15.) In December, 1995, she
>> discovered she was pregnant. (RT 16.)
After just a month? How, pray tell, did THAT happen? Was she clairvoyant?
>> Cameron was initially shocked by the news. (RT 17.) He later suggested to
>> Sarah to consider an abortion. (RT 18-19.) Then, at Cameron's suggestion,
>> they saw a counselor together. (RT 19.) The conversation with the
>> counselor "led to suggestion of abortion." (RT 20.)
I'm not so sure about all of this (and unfortunately, I am unable to get a
clarification from Cameron, being as he's kind of hard to get a hold of).
But what I _DO_ know is that, while he was seeing her, she insisted that they
have an "open" relationship, that she wanted to be free to see other guys at
the same time. And this can be documented. Cameron, of course, was not
receptive to such an arrangement. But this is hardly the behaviour of a
woman who is insisting to her man that she is pregnant with his child.
Sarah DID at some point inform Cameron that she believed she was pregnant,
with his child. But it was after about 2 months from when he started seeing
her. He did suggest that she get an abortion. I don't know anything about
any "counselor".
>> Shortly thereafter, around February, 1996, Cameron and Sarah stopped
>> seeing each other. (RT 21.)
And why was that? BECAUSE CAMERON CAUGHT SARAH IN THE PASSIONATE EMBRACE OF
ANOTHER MAN!!! He stopped seeing altogether at that time, and broke off all
contact with her. And he began to doubt that she was pregnant with his
child.
>> On August 29, 1996, Sarah gave birth to Lauren Key-Marer (Lauren). (RT
>> 21.)
And NO attempt was made to contact Cameron and tell him about the birth.
> It appears as though Ted's claim that Cam didn't know about Sarah's
> condition is untenable.
Rather, it seems that Sarah's account to the Grand Jury is somewhat less than
candid. And this can be demonstrated (something which perhaps should be a
matter of concern for Sarah).
> Ted, lying again?
Nope. Ted doesn't lie.
> What a surprise.
There are many surprises, genuine ones, in store for you, so hold on to your
hat.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> "Prof. Jonez" wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>>>> Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the "evidence"
>>>> against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and that the
>>>> prosecution has essentially contrived a case out of thin air -- AND HAS
>>>> PERPETRATED AN OBSCENE INJUSTICE AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT MAN!
>>> LOL!
>>> Teddy, this motion is a non-starter. Ain't got a snowball's chance in
>>> hell of being granted
>> Don't be so sure. Moron. It seems to have scared the beJesus out of the
>> prosecutor.
>>> -- but take note imbecile -- even if it *were* granted, the prosecutor
>>> can simply re-indict Cameron once he obtains bio-mechanical testing from
>>> a "certified" engineer.
>> You're an idiot. That is only a minor objection. Under People v.
>> Roehler, it was noted that experimental evidence should corroborate other
>> evidence, not serve as the main evidence itself.
> What part of "they can re-indict / re-arrest him at ANY time in the future"
> don't you comprehend, moron?
The part where you seem to believe that they can do so WITHOUT EVIDENCE!
BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY! All they have is a pompous blow-hard (whom they
hired, and have paid many thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money) saying
that, because he's such a super-duper smart guy, he can say "to a high degree
of engineering and medical certainty, and thus beyond a reasonable doubt"
that this was a crime. Sorry, doesn't cut it. He's no medical doctor, and
thus he can't say ANYTHING with medical certainty. So his report should
properly get tossed.
> The ONLY way to insure this is off his back once and for all, it to have
> (begin) the fucking trial.
With what evidence? (Because, without their "expert's" report, they don't
have any.)
> Then jeapordy
Jeopardy.
> attaches, and he cannot be re-charged. Get it, dipshit?
I say, demand a dismissal of all charges, WITH prejudice.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Sarah BS'd the Grand Jury. (Statements such as these are formally known
>> as "perjury".)
> And Geragos will be motioning the court to charge Sarah for that FELONY,
> right Ted?
Doubtful. She's suffered an UNSPEAKABLE loss. It's only right to cut her
some slack.
Solar
>Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the
"evidence" against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and that
the prosecution has essentially contrived a case out of thin air -- AND
HAS PERPETRATED AN OBSCENE INJUSTICE AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT MAN"
Mmmmmmmmmmm.... Looks like this turkey *is* going to trial <g>
--------
have a GREAT day !!!!!
Solar
Solar
>MOTION TO DISMISS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The following evidence was presented at the grand jury proceeding in
this matter. "
Hey, Jonezy: THANK YOU !!!!!!!! ;-)
Now, where oh *where* to start..... LOL
-------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!
Solar
Solar
((from the Mark Geragosthemoney's slow-motion to dismiss))
>"Defendant hereby moves the court for an order setting aside the
indictment filed herein pursuant to Penal Code Section 995 on the
grounds that the indictment was not found, endorsed, and presented as
prescribed in section 939.6 of the Penal Code and Defendant was
indicted without any reasonable or probable cause. "
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So, if the Defendant cant be indicted for
this, who can ???
Geez, this is reading like the start of the Scott Peterson ordeal....
<g>
--------
"- Prof. Jonez坼
ROTFLMAO !!! That about sums up Ted's knowledge of female biology.
>
> > > Cameron was initially shocked by the news. (RT 17.) He later
> > > suggested to Sarah to consider an abortion. (RT 18-19.) Then, at
> > > Cameron's suggestion, they saw a counselor together. (RT 19.)
> > > The conversation with the counselor "led to suggestion of
> > > abortion." (RT 20.)
>
> I'm not so sure about all of this (and unfortunately, I am unable to
> get a clarification from Cameron, being as he's kind of hard to get a
> hold of).
What? You don't know where it is? He hasn't moved in over 15 months,
same miserable jail, same tiny cell. While I do see he isn't authorized
to have any jail visitors (why is that?), you can of course write to him,
and/or he can call you collect from the jail phone if you give him your
phone #.
> But what I _DO_ know is that, while he was seeing her, she
> insisted that they have an "open" relationship, that she wanted to be
> free to see other guys at the same time.
Sounds reasonable.
> And this can be documented.
> Cameron, of course, was not receptive to such an arrangement. But
> this is hardly the behaviour of a woman who is insisting to her man
> that she is pregnant with his child.
Well, was she or wasn't she?
>
> Sarah DID at some point inform Cameron that she believed she was
> pregnant, with his child. But it was after about 2 months from when
> he started seeing her.
A distinction without a difference.
> He did suggest that she get an abortion.
So he never really wanted Lauren as a daughter, eh?
>I
> don't know anything about any "counselor".
>
> > > Shortly thereafter, around February, 1996, Cameron and Sarah
> > > stopped seeing each other. (RT 21.)
>
> And why was that? BECAUSE CAMERON CAUGHT SARAH IN THE PASSIONATE
> EMBRACE OF ANOTHER MAN!!!
Oh my!
>He stopped seeing altogether at that time,
> and broke off all contact with her. And he began to doubt that she
> was pregnant with his child.
And something as unimportant as one's own child doesn't deserve
any further investigation, right?
>
> > > On August 29, 1996, Sarah gave birth to Lauren Key-Marer
> > > (Lauren). (RT
> > > 21.)
>
> And NO attempt was made to contact Cameron and tell him about the
> birth.
Why should she contact some lout who was, as you claim, uninterested
in an unwanted child?
>
> > It appears as though Ted's claim that Cam didn't know about Sarah's
> > condition is untenable.
>
> Rather, it seems that Sarah's account to the Grand Jury is somewhat
> less than candid. And this can be demonstrated (something which
> perhaps should be a matter of concern for Sarah).
If so, then she can and should be charged with Felony Purjury.
When is that going to happen, Ted?
>
> > Ted, lying again?
>
> Nope. Ted doesn't lie.
You really are a mentally sick individual Ted, you should
get some mental health treatment as others, including a licensed
professional psychologist, have suggested.
>
> > What a surprise.
>
> There are many surprises, genuine ones, in store for you, so hold on
> to your hat.
Oh boy!
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> "Prof. Jonez" wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
> > > Sarah BS'd the Grand Jury. (Statements such as these are
> > > formally known as "perjury".)
>
> > And Geragos will be motioning the court to charge Sarah for that
> > FELONY, right Ted?
>
> Doubtful. She's suffered an UNSPEAKABLE loss.
It's not unspeakable, Ted, we and 100s others speak about it every day.
> It's only right to cut her some slack.
Cut a Felon some slack? A Felon who's actions would, as you claim,
take the entire Life of another, "innocent", person? No Teddy, if
she commited Perjury, then she needs to be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law and given the MAXIMUM sentence for that crime.
Solar
(from the motion to dismiss)
>" In fact, Dr. Hayes' experiments can not show whether an adult, the
size of Mr. Cameron could have run at the speeds involved in the
experiments at Inspiration Point without falling off the cliff
himself!"
OBJECTION !!!! The defense cannot be speaking on the behalf of Mr.
Cameron, because the Defendant's name is Mr. Brown.
Hey, does it bother *anyone* that proofreading is such a lost art when
you are spending a million bucks on a defense where little details
matter ??
Geez, i hope Mr. Cameron is released quickly because Mr Brown is in a
whole *lot* of trouble..... <g>
-----------
Sayyyy... Where Is The Autopsy ???!!!!
Solar
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> Prof Jonez wrote
>
> (from the motion to dismiss)
>
> > " In fact, Dr. Hayes' experiments can not show whether an adult, the
> size of Mr. Cameron could have run at the speeds involved in the
> experiments at Inspiration Point without falling off the cliff
> himself!"
Well then how the fuck could lil' Lauren Key have run that fast?
Guess no one was running at all Mr. Geragos, not is seems
certain that some little girl was THROWN off the cliff like
so much unwanted baggage.
>
>
> OBJECTION !!!! The defense cannot be speaking on the behalf of Mr.
> Cameron, because the Defendant's name is Mr. Brown.
>
> Hey, does it bother *anyone* that proofreading is such a lost art when
> you are spending a million bucks on a defense where little details
> matter ??
>
> Geez, i hope Mr. Cameron is released quickly because Mr Brown is in a
> whole *lot* of trouble..... <g>
Shhh. That's Ted's WMD class defense secret, they're going to pull the
old switcheroo in court with Mr. Cameron, pegging some bowery bum
with the same general physical features as Mr. Brown, then there'll be
an accidental explosion/fire killing "Mr. Brown" (nee Mr. Cameron).
I saw it once on an Agatha Christie episode ...
>
> -----------
> Sayyyy... Where Is The Autopsy ???!!!!
My question exactly!
Hey Teddy ...?!
> Solar
Solar
>" I have another document where he DOES take issue with this
"collection" nonsense. but it is not a public document, so I'm not
going to post it."
Then how do YOU have it ???
Sounds like somebody's talkin after school...... <g>
---------
Oh, Hey, POST THE AUTOPSY !!!!!!
Solar
Solar
>" He did suggest that she get an abortion."
Yep, that's a keeper... <g>
---------
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Mmmmmmmmmmm ... Looks like this turkey *is* going to trial <g>
With what evidence? All they have is a blowhard "professor". And NO judge
is going to let him take the stand and declare that he can say "with a high
degree of engineering and medical certainty, and thus beyond a reasonable
doubt" that this was a crime -- and let this serve as the core of the state's
case. And beyond this "expert's" report, they have NOTHING!
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > > "Prof. Jonez" wrote:
> > > > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
> > > > > http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>
> > > > > Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the
> > > > > "evidence" against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit,
> > > > > and that the prosecution has essentially contrived a case out
> > > > > of thin air -- AND HAS PERPETRATED AN OBSCENE INJUSTICE
> > > > > AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY INNOCENT MAN!
>
> > > > LOL!
>
> > > > Teddy, this motion is a non-starter. Ain't got a snowball's
> > > > chance in hell of being granted
>
> > > Don't be so sure. Moron. It seems to have scared the beJesus
> > > out of the prosecutor.
>
> > prosecutor?
>
> On the basis that he's going to LOSE.
classic Korsakoff's psychosis.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
Then why would Cameron AGREE to remain in jail for nearly 2 years now?
ienj...@yahoo.com
You're right. No judge will allow him to say that he's convinced it's
a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That's within the province of the
jury. He will allow the expert to take the stand and offer his opinion
on what the medical evidence shows. Forensic experts do so all the
time. Hayes might be a quack as you say, but the judge will most
likely let a jury decide.
Teresita
>
>"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>>> Sarah BS'd the Grand Jury. (Statements such as these are formally known
>>> as "perjury".)
>
>> And Geragos will be motioning the court to charge Sarah for that FELONY,
>> right Ted?
>
>Doubtful. She's suffered an UNSPEAKABLE loss. It's only right to cut her
>some slack.
If only it were UNSPEAKABLE we'd have some calmer discussion around here.
--
Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 22:30:32 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez坼""
> <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
>
> > Kent Wills wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:03:59 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez坼""
> > > <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > LOL!
> > > >
> > > > Teddy, this motion is a non-starter. Ain't got a snowball's
> > > > chance in hell of being
> > > > the prosecutor can simply re-indict Cameron once he obtains
> > > > bio-mechanical testing from a "certified" engineer.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > MOTION TO DISMISS
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >
> > > Tell me you didn't type that all out yourself. :)
> >
> > If I did, will you renounce "religion"?
> >
>
> No.
Your loss.
>
> Kent
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Solar wrote:
>>> Mmmmmmmmmmm ... Looks like this turkey *is* going to trial <g>
>> With what evidence? All they have is a blowhard "professor". And NO
>> judge is going to let him take the stand and declare that he can say "with
>> a high degree of engineering and medical certainty, and thus beyond a
>> reasonable doubt" that this was a crime -- and let this serve as the core
>> of the state's case. And beyond this "expert's" report, they have
>> NOTHING!
> You're right. No judge will allow him to say that he's convinced it's a
> crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That's within the province of the jury.
> He will allow the expert to take the stand and offer his opinion on what
> the medical evidence shows.
No he won't. Because the "expert" is NOT a medical doctor, and has NO
meaningful medical testimony to offer. It would be like the judge allowing
YOU to take the stand and offer your opinion on what the medical evidence
shows.
> Forensic experts do so all the time.
Forensic experts who can demonstrate expertise in a given field. Hayes
cannot demonstrate expertise in any medical field according to accepted
standards in that profession.
> Hayes might be a quack as you say,
And he can very EASILY be shown to be a quack on the stand (aside from other
problems that he has).
> but the judge will most likely let a jury decide.
If so, then the judge will have failed to exercise his duties properly.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Except the financial audit showing that the roughly $1000.00 a month in
> support was a serious hardship for him.
There is NO such audit. I certainly haven't seen it. Have you? And this
contention can EASILY be shown to be ludicrous.
> Except for the fact that Lauren suffered from acrophobia and wouldn't have
> gotten near the cliff's edge.
Lauren did NOT suffer from acrophobia. And this can be demonstrated in
court.
> Except for the fact that he has disassociated himself from Lauren
> emotionally,
LIE! And these pictures:
<http://www.freecambrown.org/Pictures/pictures.htm>
clearly demonstrate that this is a LIE!
> as can be demonstrated by his calm manner when speaking with the 911
> dispatcher, his taking the time to apologize to the people on the nude
> beach (or telling them they need to get dressed).
These are all mischaracterisations.
> And so on.
The problem is, the things you have cited are all inconclusive. They are NOT
enough to bring a case. That is why the prosecution had to commission the
contrived Hayes Report. And now, we are starting to see what a travesty the
Hayes Report really is.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> "Prof. Jonez" wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Sarah BS'd the Grand Jury. (Statements such as these are formally known
>>>> as "perjury".)
>>> And Geragos will be motioning the court to charge Sarah for that FELONY,
>>> right Ted?
>> Doubtful. She's suffered an UNSPEAKABLE loss. It's only right to cut her
>> some slack.
> Are you serious? Her testimony could (and probably will) help CONVICT
> Cameron of murder.
You're hallucinating. Her "testimony" is, for the most part, inadmissible.
And moreover, it was almost certainly given with the expectation that she
would never have to testify in any trial.
> You can't think Geragos, an officer of the court, would allow this to go
> unchallenged.
Don't worry, he knows how to handle a grieving mother.
> If she has committed perjury, then Geragos is obligated to see that justice
> is served and that she is arrested, tried and convicted of perjury.
Sarah's not the enemy here. The game plan is NOT to get Cameron released by
prosecuting Sarah.
Ken Smith
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>"Prof. Jonez" wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>
>>>>>http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
[snip]
>____________________
>>>
>>>>MOTION TO DISMISS
>>>
>>>>GERAGOS & GERAGOS
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>>>STATEMENT OF FACTS
>>>
>>>>The following evidence was presented at the grand jury proceeding
>>>>in this matter.
>>>
>>>>Sarah Louise Key-Marer (Sarah) met and started dating Cameron
>>>>Brown (Cameron) in early November, 1995. (RT 15.) In December,
>>>>1995, she discovered she was pregnant. (RT 16.)
>>>
>>After just a month? How, pray tell, did THAT happen? Was she
>>clairvoyant?
>
> ROTFLMAO !!! That about sums up Ted's knowledge of female biology.
You forget -- he's relying on solely on the expertise of "Dr.
Monkey," whom Geragos must *still* have on retainer. Remember that Ted
has never managed to *have* a meaningful relationship with a woman;
anyone who has would know of whence I speak.
I won't judge Ted's motion yet, because I haven't had ample time to
study it. But if this is any indication of what Ted thinks... ;)
Ken Smith
>>
>
> Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it. Whether they disagree with
> the FACTS is what counts.
That's the problem, Ted: The FACTS have not been established yet, and
in any motion to dismiss, the other side is supposed to get their facts,
and the benefit of every favorable inference.
You don't *know* the facts. I don't know the facts. And guess what?
WE don't get to decide the facts. :)
>>well, they didn't give the motion a "fair" reading.
>
> And if you disagree with the facts, you haven't.
What we do know is that there is evidence (that even you don't
presume to dispute) that Cam knew that Sarah was pregnant with Lauren.
Seems to me that if they both went to family counseling, the counselor
would have records of it; as such, Cam couldn't plead ignorance of the
existence of his illegitimate daughter.
This is a fact which tends to prove that Cam murdered Lauren, whether
you like it or not.
>>BTW, your claim that Cameron wouldn't give up his parental rights was
>>destroyed by the motion. Seems he was willing to at first, since Lauren
>>would still be allowed to be a part of his life, but then, for reasons
>>unknown, changed his mind.
>
> He never was. This is Sarah's side of the story, and she is being less than
> accurate. This is what she told the Grand Jury, but none of this appears in
> the Orange County court record (except the declaration that her husband was
> willing to adopt Lauren).
Why would it be relevant?
[snip]
> It will be argued in court. It looks as if Hum has a few tricks up his
> sleeve, but we're on to him. Mark says he hopes that Hum does try them,
> because he can make him look like an idiot if he does.
Let's see, now. On the one hand, Ted doesn't talk with Geragos about
the case (and can't be deposed), but on the other, "Mark" is telling him
his strategy? Funny how whenever Ted tells a story, he doesn't tell the
same story twice. ;)
Sounds like he'll call on "Dr. Monkey?"
Solar
>"Shhh. That's Ted's WMD class defense secret, they're going to pull
the old switcheroo in court with Mr. Cameron, pegging some bowery bum
with the same general physical features as Mr. Brown, then there'll be
an accidental explosion/fire killing "Mr. Brown" (nee Mr. Cameron). I
saw it once on an Agatha Christie episode ... "
Vlad Putin strikes *again* !!!!!!! <g>
---------
Got Autopsy ?
Solar
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>>>> Any fair reading of this motion will quickly reveal that the "evidence"
>>> An interesting out you've left yourself. If anyone disagrees with you,
>> Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it. Whether they disagree with
>> the FACTS is what counts.
> Ok. I disagree with a lot of what you claim to be facts.
On the basis of what, aside from prejudice? Have you researched the matter
(beyond having read a newspaper "hit piece")?
>>> well, they didn't give the motion a "fair" reading.
>> And if you disagree with the facts, you haven't.
> I've given it several fair readings. And I still believe Cameron actually
> did murder Lauren.
And these:
<http://www.freecambrown.org/Pictures/pictures.htm>
are all faked pictures. Riiiiiiiiight.
>>>> against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and that the
>>>> prosecution has essentially contrived a case out of thin air
>>> Not so.
>> So.
> Your position is not supported by the motion.
If only because you are completely oblivious to what the motion really says.
>>> The motion draws Hayes' credibility into question,
>> And certainly not without good reason.
>>> but this does not in any way indicate that Hum, or anyone else within the
>>> LADA's office, contrived a case out of thin air.
>> Hayes certainly seems to have. And the rest of them are relying on him.
> Hayes used his knowledge and experience to arrive at the conclusion he
> reached. It's not contrived.
Hayes was PAID to say what needed to be said. If Hayes would have said
something other than what he did, he would NOT have gotten paid.
>>>> -- AND HAS PERPETRATED AN OBSCENE INJUSTICE AGAINST AN OBVIOUSLY
>>>> INNOCENT MAN!
>>> Except that Cameron is NOT obviously innocent.
>> He CERTAINLY is -- when you take ALL the facts into account. (But then,
>> you don't HAVE all the facts.)
> And that would be YOUR fault. All available evidence shows that Cameron
> DID kill Lauren.
And where is all of this phantom "evidence"? Nobody seems to have seen any
of it -- not even the Grand Jury.
>>> In fact, it's more likely than not that he did murder Lauren.
>> Not from where I'm standing. From what I can see, it is INCONCEIVABLE
>> that he would have done anything to harm his daughter.
> Riiiight.
Absolutely right.
> It's actually quite easy to see why he would. The $1000.00 a month in
> support was hurting him.
In fact it was NOT! This is a vicious LIE! You repeat the lies of men who
apparently have no honour. What kind of "Christian" are you?
> And, for whatever reason, he changed his mind about allowing Lauren to be
> adopted (even though she would be allowed to be a part of his life).
He NEVER agreed to allow Lauren to be adopted. And there was NEVER any
discussion that he would be allowed to see her if he did.
>>> A jury will review the evidence present and determine if he is guilty of
>>> 1st degree murder (or a lesser charge, if included) or not.
>> I don't think they WANT to put this thing in front of a jury.
> Um ... Yeah, they do.
NO THEY DON'T!
>> Because then it will become painfully obvious that they are persecting an
>> innocent man.
> If that were the case, Hum would have dropped the charges by now.
Are you sure of that?
> He's done it in the past,
The other case was a different situation than this.
> and he's likely to do it in the future, when the evidence shows the
> defendant is not guilty.
The evidence here CLEARLY indicates that the defendant is not guilty. And
yet, he's not doing it here.
> That he hasn't done so with Cameron tells me that Hum believes he can prove
> Cameron is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
You must be an easy man to con. No wonder Larson got his hooks in you.
Do you know what "black and white thinking" is?
>>> BTW, your claim that Cameron wouldn't give up his parental rights was
>>> destroyed by the motion. Seems he was willing to at first, since Lauren
>>> would still be allowed to be a part of his life, but then, for reasons
>>> unknown, changed his mind.
>> He never was. This is Sarah's side of the story, and she is being less
>> than accurate.
> So you were there and heard the discussion?
No, but I've seen the Orange County transcript, where she testified to this.
> She stated this UNDER OATH.
As she was in Orange County. And the Orange County record says NOTHING about
Cameron seeing his daughter were she to be adopted.
>> This is what she told the Grand Jury, but none of this appears in the
>> Orange County court record (except the declaration that her husband was
>> willing to adopt Lauren).
> Care to scan and post a link to those records, so that I, and anyone else
> who wished, can confirm your claim?
Sorry, I don't happen to have it handy at the moment.
>>> Since, according to the motion, Lauren would still be allowed to be an
>>> active part of his life, care to tell me, and anyone else who may care,
>>> the *REAL* reason he refused? This is more a curiosity on my part than
>>> anything else.
>> Sarah BS'd the Grand Jury. (Statements such as these are formally known
>> as "perjury".)
> Riiiight.
This is nothing. Virtually ALL of her testimony is BS.
> Everyone on earth is out to get Cameron, save for you and Patty.
No, actually, he has MANY defenders. Some of them have even written on his
behalf on this website:
<http://www.freecambrown.org/>
Apparently they are men of better character than you.
> Here's a thought: Maybe Sarah was being 100% honest.
And maybe pigs can fly. [Clue: Sarah is manipulative. And it shows.]
> Geragos doesn't even make the implication that she was lying, so one must
> presume he believes her.
You seem to make a lot of unwarranted presumptions that later come back to
bite you. (Such as believing Bob Larson.)
>>> And why didn't Geragos bring up the point about the date of the financial
>>> audit?
>> I dunno. Why don't you ask him? (213) 625-3900.
> We all know the answer.
No, you do NOT know the answer -- you are making an unwarranted presumption
again.
> The audit covered the time frame prior to Lauren's death.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!! WRONG! No kewpie doll for you!
> It's quite possible that he had another repo eight months after being
> arrested, but that wouldn't matter.
In 2000, he was driving an old Subaru wagon (more than 10 years old). Who
would want to repo that old clunker? His main mode of transportation was
his Gold Wing. And that never got repo'd either. Oh, and Cam and Pat also
had a camper at the time -- which they still have.
> It wouldn't be used as evidence in the case.
If only because there is NO such "evidence".
>>> According to you, the information supplied to the GJ was from a period
>>> well AFTER Lauren's death. If this claim were true,
>> It IS true.
> Riiiight!
ABSOLUTELY right. What's your problem (aside from being gullible)?
> They're going to give the GJ an audit of his finances a few years AFTER
> Lauren's death.
That's what they told the newspaper they did. But I don't see where any
audit was presented to the Grand Jury.
> This would have NO baring on his finances at the time of her death, and
> would be completely useless as evidence.
Duh?
>>> I would have expected it to be mentioned in the motion.
>> He's not going to argue the whole case in one motion.
> But it doesn't hurt to point out other alleged problems with the
> prosecution's evidence.
He can always file additional motions.
>>> That Geragos didn't tells me that he agrees with the information
>>> provided.
>> That doesn't necessarily follow. There are MANY more things wrong with
>> this case that are not addressed in this motion.
> Then Geragos should have brought them up. The more ammo one can use, the
> better the chances of a win.
Don't worry -- there's still time.
>>> He did wisely point out that the analysis of the financial burden did
>>> fail to take into account any monies Patty had. It still hurt him, as
>>> the reposition, seven items in collection, etc. indicate.
>> I have another document where he DOES take issue with this "collection"
>> nonsense. but it is not a public document, so I'm not going to post it.
> It's not nonsense. Either there were items in collection, or there were
> not.
In November of 2000, there were NOT!
>>> Will you have access to Hum's response? I'd like to see how he counters
>>> the motion.
>> It will be argued in court. It looks as if Hum has a few tricks up his
>> sleeve, but we're on to him. Mark says he hopes that Hum does try them,
>> because he can make him look like an idiot if he does.
> If possible, get a transcript of the argument. I honestly would like to
> read how Hum counters the motion.
That depends on how much it will cost me.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Alas! but this is the first week of April,
>> Life is tough. Sh*t happens. (As for example, the Bar Examiners asking a
>> candidate to submit to a psychological exam.)
> Another example: An engineer, with the name Theodore A. Kaldis, suffering
> from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
I knew you'd say that.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Sounds like he'll call on "Dr. Monkey?"
It looks like Dr. "Monkey" is testifying for the prosecution this time.
Solar
>"With what evidence?"
Welllllllllll, glad you asked. According to Black's, the definition of
'evidence' starts with....
"Any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the
trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and throught the medium of
witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for
the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to
their contention. (Taylor v. Howard, 111 R.I. 527, 304 A.2d 891, 893.)
Testimony, writings, or material objects offered in proof of an alleged
fact or proposition. That probative material, legally received, by
which the tribunal may be lawfully persuaded of the truth or falsity of
a fact in issue. (People v Leonard, 207 C.A. 2d 409, 24 Cal Rptr. 597,
600).
....
"See also: Adminicular evidence; Aliunde; Autoptic evidence; Best
evidence; Beyond a reasonable doubt; Circumstantial evidence; Competent
evidence; Conclusive evidence; Conflicting evidence; Corroborating
evidence; Critical evidence; Cumulative evidence; Demeanor evidence;
Demonstrative evidence; Derivative evidence; Direct evidence;
Documentary evidence; Exemplars; Extrajudicial evidence; Extraneous
evidence; Extrinsic evidence......"
Geeeez, Ted, if you plan to F**** The Dictionary Definitions of all
those evidence(s), you are gonna be a busy boy this week.... <g>
>"All they have is a blowhard "professor"..."
And Sarah Key, a few cops, at least one employee of the school and what
looks to be a family friend all under oath. Add that to the autopsy,
the credit report and Cam's own statements and thats _before_ we get to
all your blatherings about it on the net. Looks like they got some
decent cards to open with.
>" And NO judge is going to let him take the stand and declare that he
can say "with a high degree of engineering and medical certainty, and
thus beyond a reasonable doubt" that this was a crime -- and let this
serve as the core of the state's case."
Thats because Geragos would scream "Objection" first. The Judge would
then say "Sustained" and they would rephrase and move on.... <g>
>"And beyond this "expert's" report, they have NOTHING!"
Sayyyyyyy.... Didnt Mark Geragos *just* lose a case where the State
couldnt place the defendant at the scene of the crime nor they could
determine the time, place or manner of a young woman's death ??
-----------
Hello... Is The Autopsy There ???
Solar
ienj...@yahoo.com
there's also the deputy medical examiner who told the grand jury that
she labeled the death a homicide in her report because if it were an
accidental fall there would be abrasions because Lauren would have
tried to grab on to anything to stop the fall. this is admissible
evidence which would allow the finder of fact to return a potential
verdict of guilt.
Solar
>" Ok. I disagree with a lot of what you claim to be facts."
Once Ted Kaldistortion gets done F****ing the Dictionary Defintion of
"facts" it may become a completely different case. <g>
----------
Give us an "A", give us a "U", Give us a "T" and an "O"...
Solar
ienj...@yahoo.com
him was very impressive.
For those who are interested you can learn all about him at
hayesassoc.com. In particular click on his brochure where a US
district judge is quoted as saying he was an impressive witness.
ienj...@yahoo.com
ienj...@yahoo.com
i think i was right after all.
Solar
>"In 2000, he was driving an old Subaru wagon (more than 10 years old).
Who would want to repo that old clunker?"
Depends. Who was still owed money for it ???
>"His main mode of transportation was his Gold Wing. And that never
got repo'd either.
So...which vehicle were you talking about that was blocked in the
driveway so it couldnt be 'taken' ???
>"Oh, and Cam and Pat also had a camper at the time -- which they still
have."
Was it already paid off or were they still making payments on this
camper ? Sayyyy, you might be F****ing the dictionary definition of
"repossession" here Ted. <g>
[...]
>"That depends on how much it will cost me."
Good thing you already spent the cash on getting that autopsy, huh ??
---------
Dont Delay, POST THE AUTOPSY Today !!!!
Solar
Theodore A. Kaldis
> there's also the deputy medical examiner who told the grand jury that she
> labeled the death a homicide in her report because if it were an accidental
> fall there would be abrasions because Lauren would have tried to grab on to
> anything to stop the fall. this is admissible evidence which would allow
> the finder of fact to return a potential verdict of guilt.
What woman is this? The original coroner who performed the autopsy first
found that the injuries on the girl's body were consistent with the father's
description of the accident, and was therefore classifying the death as
"accidental". But before he could release the autopsy, the investigating
detectives leaned on him to change his findings. The best they could get him
to do was to say that the autopsy was inconclusive with respect to whether
she fell accidentally, or was pushed or thrown.
This wasn't good enough for them, so they went out and got some woman
psychologist to add a report to the autopsy. But given that her "findings"
weren't based on any accepted principles of psychology, this counts as
nothing more than opinion, and is therefore not admissible in court.
Believe me, we've been all through this before. If they could have arrested
him on the basis of the autopsy report, they would have done so. But they
couldn't, which is why they went out and hired their "expert".
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Ted, I've been to the Hayes associates webpage and what I read about him
> was very impressive.
You're supposed to be impressed. At the rates he charges, he can obviously
afford to hire top notch public relations people to prepare his promotional
material. But we happen to know that he has some skeletons in his closet.
> For those who are interested you can learn all about him at
> hayesassoc.com.
And here we can learn all we need to know about him, right? After all, this
is a completely unbiased source of information, no?
> In particular click on his brochure where a US district judge is quoted as
> saying he was an impressive witness.
Yes, well, we know some things about him where he WASN'T at his sterling
best. And I can assure you that he hopes we don't know about this. But he
will find out differently on the stand, where he will be IMPEACHED! (If it
ever comes to that.)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
>> In 2000, he was driving an old Subaru wagon (more than 10 years old). Who
>> would want to repo that old clunker?
> Depends. Who was still owed money for it ???
No one.
>> His main mode of transportation was his Gold Wing. And that never got
>> repo'd either.
> So ... which vehicle were you talking about that was blocked in the
> driveway so it couldnt be 'taken' ???
Last year? His Ford Ranger pickup truck, which he bought in '02.
>> Oh, and Cam and Pat also had a camper at the time -- which they still
>> have."
> Was it already paid off or were they still making payments on this camper?
Paid off. I happen to think it's a bit of a heap, but they use it to go out
camping in the desert when they go dirt-biking. He's got several old dirt
bikes: a Bultaco, a Jawa CZ, a couple of Husqvarna's (anyone know where I can
get a stator for an '83 510 TX?), and also a fairly new KTM that's also
street-legal.
> Sayyyy, you might be F****ing the dictionary definition of "repossession"
> here Ted. <g>
No.
>> That depends on how much it will cost me.
> Good thing you already spent the cash on getting that autopsy, huh ??
If they want too much for it, I'm not going to bother.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
And don't forget the broken battered corpse of 4 year old Lauren Key,
that's 40lbs of evidence that'll have the weight of an 800lb gorilla
in the minds of the Jury.
>
>
> > " And NO judge is going to let him take the stand and declare that
> > he
> can say "with a high degree of engineering and medical certainty, and
> thus beyond a reasonable doubt" that this was a crime -- and let this
> serve as the core of the state's case."
>
>
> Thats because Geragos would scream "Objection" first. The Judge would
> then say "Sustained" and they would rephrase and move on.... <g>
>
>
> > "And beyond this "expert's" report, they have NOTHING!"
>
> Sayyyyyyy.... Didnt Mark Geragos *just* lose a case where the State
> couldnt place the defendant at the scene of the crime
Cameron ADMITS to being at the scene of this murder.
> nor they could
> determine the time, place or manner of a young woman's death ??
1,2,3, they have all of the above in this case. That's make it a whole
lot easier for Geragos ... to LOSE!
>
> -----------
> Hello... Is The Autopsy There ???
"If he did inflict, you must convict!"
> Solar
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
>> With what evidence?
> Welllllllllll, glad you asked. According to Black's, the definition of
> 'evidence' starts with....
> "Any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the trial
> of an issue, by the act of the parties and throught the medium of
> witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for the
> purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to their
> contention. (Taylor v. Howard, 111 R.I. 527, 304 A.2d 891, 893.)
> Testimony, writings, or material objects offered in proof of an alleged
> fact or proposition. That probative material, legally received, by which
> the tribunal may be lawfully persuaded of the truth or falsity of a fact in
> issue. (People v Leonard, 207 C.A. 2d 409, 24 Cal Rptr. 597, 600).
What seems to be missing in the above is "opinion" -- which is ALL that their
"expert" can offer. And, as he's NOT a medical doctor, it doesn't even
qualify as "expert" opinion.
> ....
> "See also: Adminicular evidence; Aliunde; Autoptic evidence; Best evidence;
> Beyond a reasonable doubt; Circumstantial evidence; Competent evidence;
> Conclusive evidence; Conflicting evidence; Corroborating evidence; Critical
> evidence; Cumulative evidence; Demeanor evidence; Demonstrative evidence;
> Derivative evidence; Direct evidence; Documentary evidence; Exemplars;
> Extrajudicial evidence; Extraneous evidence; Extrinsic evidence ..."
> Geeeez, Ted, if you plan to F**** The Dictionary Definitions of all those
> evidence(s), you are gonna be a busy boy this week ... <g>
Don't need to. NOTHING of what they have is conclusive. Even when taken as
a whole.
>> All they have is a blowhard "professor" ...
> And Sarah Key,
She wasn't there.
> a few cops,
Who appear to be biased.
> at least one employee of the school and what looks to be a family friend
> all under oath.
None of whose testimony is conclusive.
And what exculpatory evidence does the defence have? HEAPS! But you haven't
seen hardly any of it.
> Add that to the autopsy,
And take into account that the examining coroner was leaned on by the
investigating officers to change his findings -- which he did NOT appreciate.
> the credit report
The credit report EXONERATES Cam, because it shows that he was on SOLID
financial footing at the time of the accident.
> and Cam's own statements
Which have been misrepresented.
> and thats _before_ we get to all your blatherings about it on the net.
Which are inadmissible.
> Looks like they got some decent cards to open with.
They have squat.
So tell me: how does it feel to be a loser?
>> And NO judge is going to let him take the stand and declare that he can
>> say "with a high degree of engineering and medical certainty, and thus
>> beyond a reasonable doubt" that this was a crime -- and let this serve as
>> the core of the state's case."
> Thats because Geragos would scream "Objection" first.
It wouldn't even come to that.
> The Judge would then say "Sustained" and they would rephrase and move
> on ... <g>
No. The report MUST necessarily be based on some generally accepted
principle of science. This one does not. Moreover, the proper purpose of
the report would be to corroborate some other piece of evidence, and NOT to
be the core of evidence by itself.
>> And beyond this "expert's" report, they have NOTHING!
> Sayyyyyyy ... Didnt Mark Geragos *just* lose a case where the State
> couldnt place the defendant at the scene of the crime nor they could
> determine the time, place or manner of a young woman's death ??
But this case isn't that case. In that case, you had a woman who was
OBVIOUSLY murdered. The question was, who was the murderer? In this case
you have a little girl who fell off a cliff, where it cannot be established
beyond a reasonable doubt that her fall wasn't accidental.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> Solar wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
>
> > > In 2000, he was driving an old Subaru wagon (more than 10 years
> > > old). Who would want to repo that old clunker?
>
> > Depends. Who was still owed money for it ???
>
> No one.
>
> > > His main mode of transportation was his Gold Wing. And that
> > > never got repo'd either.
>
> > So ... which vehicle were you talking about that was blocked in the
> > driveway so it couldnt be 'taken' ???
>
> Last year? His Ford Ranger pickup truck, which he bought in '02.
More financial burden, eh?
>
> > > Oh, and Cam and Pat also had a camper at the time -- which they
> > > still have."
>
> > Was it already paid off or were they still making payments on this
> > camper?
>
> Paid off. I happen to think it's a bit of a heap, but they use it to
> go out camping in the desert when they go dirt-biking. He's got
> several old dirt bikes: a Bultaco, a Jawa CZ, a couple of Husqvarna's
> (anyone know where I can get a stator for an '83 510 TX?), and also a
> fairly new KTM that's also street-legal.
They haven't seen much use lately, have they?
I'll give you $500 for the lot of them. That'll buy another hour
of Geragos' time.
>
> > Sayyyy, you might be F****ing the dictionary definition of
> > "repossession" here Ted. <g>
>
> No.
>
> > > That depends on how much it will cost me.
>
> > Good thing you already spent the cash on getting that autopsy, huh
> > ??
>
> If they want too much for it, I'm not going to bother.
What's "too much" Teddy?
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> Solar wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
>
> > > With what evidence?
>
> > Welllllllllll, glad you asked. According to Black's, the definition
> > of 'evidence' starts with....
>
> > "Any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at
> > the trial of an issue, by the act of the parties and throught the
> > medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete
> > objects, etc., for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of
> > the court or jury as to their contention. (Taylor v. Howard, 111
> > R.I. 527, 304 A.2d 891, 893.) Testimony, writings, or material
> > objects offered in proof of an alleged fact or proposition. That
> > probative material, legally received, by which the tribunal may be
> > lawfully persuaded of the truth or falsity of a fact in issue.
> > (People v Leonard, 207 C.A. 2d 409, 24 Cal Rptr. 597, 600).
>
> What seems to be missing in the above is "opinion" -- which is ALL
> that their "expert" can offer. And, as he's NOT a medical doctor, it
> doesn't even qualify as "expert" opinion.
Clearly he does, Teddy.
>
> > ....
>
> > "See also: Adminicular evidence; Aliunde; Autoptic evidence; Best
> > evidence; Beyond a reasonable doubt; Circumstantial evidence;
> > Competent evidence; Conclusive evidence; Conflicting evidence;
> > Corroborating evidence; Critical evidence; Cumulative evidence;
> > Demeanor evidence; Demonstrative evidence; Derivative evidence;
> > Direct evidence; Documentary evidence; Exemplars; Extrajudicial
> > evidence; Extraneous evidence; Extrinsic evidence ..."
>
> > Geeeez, Ted, if you plan to F**** The Dictionary Definitions of all
> > those evidence(s), you are gonna be a busy boy this week ... <g>
>
> Don't need to. NOTHING of what they have is conclusive. Even when
> taken as a whole.
The Grand Jury says you're WRONG ... then again nearly everyone else
says that too.
>
> > > All they have is a blowhard "professor" ...
>
> > And Sarah Key,
>
> She wasn't there.
>
> > a few cops,
>
> Who appear to be biased.
Biased Cops? You're kidding, right?
>
> > at least one employee of the school and what looks to be a family
> > friend all under oath.
>
> None of whose testimony is conclusive.
Conclusions are for the JURY to draw Ted. Thanks for proving
the point that this case should be brought to trial.
>
> And what exculpatory evidence does the defence have? HEAPS! But you
> haven't seen hardly any of it.
But the JURY will, when Cameron goes on trail for First Degree Murder
of his helpless 4 year old daughter, Lauren Key.
>
> > Add that to the autopsy,
>
> And take into account that the examining coroner was leaned on by the
> investigating officers to change his findings -- which he did NOT
> appreciate.
And your evidence of this is what exactly?
>
> > the credit report
>
> The credit report EXONERATES Cam, because it shows that he was on
> SOLID financial footing at the time of the accident.
There you go then, no worries, just get it to trial asap, waive any/all
cross examinations of the State's witnesses / experts, present no motions
nor enter any defense exhibits ... EXCEPT for Cameron's Equifax Credit Report,
just waive that in front of the 12 jurors and DEMAND they set Cameron free !!
>
> > and Cam's own statements
>
> Which have been misrepresented.
Jaaayzus H Kaahriste on a stick!
Didn't the cops / prosecutor do *anything* right in this case Teddy?
Anything at *all* ???
>
> > and thats _before_ we get to all your blatherings about it on the
> > net.
>
> Which are inadmissible.
Why would your blatherings be inadmissible per se?
>
> > Looks like they got some decent cards to open with.
>
> They have squat.
Squatted on Cameron for about 18 months now, eh?
>
> So tell me: how does it feel to be a loser?
>
> > > And NO judge is going to let him take the stand and declare that
> > > he can say "with a high degree of engineering and medical
> > > certainty, and thus beyond a reasonable doubt" that this was a
> > > crime -- and let this serve as the core of the state's case."
>
> > Thats because Geragos would scream "Objection" first.
>
> It wouldn't even come to that.
>
> > The Judge would then say "Sustained" and they would rephrase and
> > move
> > on ... <g>
>
> No. The report MUST necessarily be based on some generally accepted
> principle of science.
Newton's Laws of Motion are fairly well accepted by now Teddie.
> This one does not. Moreover, the proper
> purpose of the report would be to corroborate some other piece of
> evidence, and NOT to be the core of evidence by itself.
The "core" being the crushed lifeless corpse of 4 year old Lauren Key, right?
>
> > > And beyond this "expert's" report, they have NOTHING!
>
> > Sayyyyyyy ... Didnt Mark Geragos *just* lose a case where the State
> > couldnt place the defendant at the scene of the crime nor they could
> > determine the time, place or manner of a young woman's death ??
>
> But this case isn't that case. In that case, you had a woman who was
> OBVIOUSLY murdered.
Could have been an elaborate suicide, staged to get revenge on Scott Peterson
for
cheating on her.
> The question was, who was the murderer?
The answer is --- Mark Geragos' ex-client, Scott Peterson.
> In this case you have a little girl who fell off a cliff,
The Grand Jury determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Cameron John Brown did indeed MURDER his 4 year old daughter,
Lauren Key, with Malice Aforethought !
>where it cannot be established beyond a reasonable doubt that
> her fall wasn't accidental.
So why would Cameron AGREE to remain in jail for over a YEAR past
the Speedy Trial deadline? If it's as simple and clear cut as you claim Teddy,
just bring it to trial and get the "sure thing" acquittal.
ienj...@yahoo.com
That's what you say. The jury will make the final decision, and based
on what's been presented I'd be very surprised if any judge didn't
allow a jury to make the final decision. Look at the bright side. If
a jury convicts you might have better luck with your legal arguments in
the court of appeals.
Ken Smith
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 17:59:26 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>>That he hasn't done so with Cameron tells me that Hum believes he can prove
>>>Cameron is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>>You must be an easy man to con. No wonder Larson got his hooks in you.
>
> I've reviewed the available evidence, as have others. Odd
> that the ONLY person on these groups to not see that Cameron likely
> did murder Lauren is you.
> Cameron must be one heck of a con man to be able to fool you,
> a man who claims to have great spiritual discernment.
Let us not forget that Cameron told Sarah that he wanted her to abort
Lauren -- Solar picked up on this immediately! -- which shows you what a
great Christian spiritual *giant* Ted's brother-in-law is. Pro-life Ted
doesn't seem to have a problem with Cam's expressed intention to murder
Lauren in the womb.... :)
So, Ted, can we conclude that you are now pro-choice, and that you'll
be making a generous contribution to Planned Parenthood this weekend? :)
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>
>>>>>http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>>>>
>>>>>Any fair reading
Which, in Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary, really means "any
reading that comes out to TED'S conclusion." :)
>>>>>of this motion will quickly reveal that the "evidence"
>>>>
>>>>An interesting out you've left yourself. If anyone disagrees with you,
>>>
>>>Disagreeing with me has nothing to do with it. Whether they disagree with
>>>the FACTS is what counts.
>>
>>Ok. I disagree with a lot of what you claim to be facts.
>
> On the basis of what, aside from prejudice?
The fact that your claims regarding the case are fatuous, fantastic,
and often demonstrably wrong.
> Have you researched the matter
> (beyond having read a newspaper "hit piece")?
I've been to the crime scene. And that counts for a lot.
>>>>well, they didn't give the motion a "fair" reading.
>>>
>>>And if you disagree with the facts, you haven't.
>>
>>I've given it several fair readings. And I still believe Cameron actually
>>did murder Lauren.
>
> And these:
>
> <http://www.freecambrown.org/Pictures/pictures.htm>
>
> are all faked pictures. Riiiiiiiiight.
Others have suggested that they reveal the face of a psychopathic killer.
>>>>>against Cameron Brown lacks ANY substantive merit, and that the
>>>>>prosecution has essentially contrived a case out of thin air
>>>>
>>>>Not so.
>>>
>>>So.
>>
>>Your position is not supported by the motion.
>
> If only because you are completely oblivious to what the motion really says.
The motion says whatever Ted *wants* it to say, just as the evidence
shows whatever Ted wants it to show, according to Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly
Fucked Rules of Debate. I'll try to draw my own learned opinion, Ted. :)
>>>>The motion draws Hayes' credibility into question,
>>>
>>>And certainly not without good reason.
Says Ted, who wouldn't concede a point -- especially to me -- if his
life depended on it, and previously admitted that fact in this forum.
>>>>but this does not in any way indicate that Hum, or anyone else within the
>>>>LADA's office, contrived a case out of thin air.
>>>
>>>Hayes certainly seems to have. And the rest of them are relying on him.
>>
>>Hayes used his knowledge and experience to arrive at the conclusion he
>>reached. It's not contrived.
>
> Hayes was PAID to say what needed to be said. If Hayes would have said
> something other than what he did, he would NOT have gotten paid.
Expert witnesses are paid for their opinion. It's hardly a scoop.
Are you claiming that he would not have gotten a nickel, but for his
complicity? You make the claim, you prove it.
All I have time for today, gents.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
[...]
>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.freecambrown.org/995Motion.pdf
>>>>>> Any fair reading
> Which, in Ted Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary, really means "any
> reading that comes out to TED'S conclusion." :)
I do not expect Ken Smith to give this motion a fair reading. Ken, after
all, has another agenda, and that agenda is not served by acknowledging the
truth in this matter.
[...]
> All I have time for today, gents.
Thank God for small miracles.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Solar wrote:
>>> Sayyyyyyy ... Didnt Mark Geragos *just* lose a case where the State
>>> couldnt place the defendant at the scene of the crime nor they could
>>> determine the time, place or manner of a young woman's death ??
>> But this case isn't that case. In that case, you had a woman who was
>> OBVIOUSLY murdered. The question was, who was the murderer? In this case
>> you have a little girl who fell off a cliff, where it cannot be
>> established beyond a reasonable doubt that her fall wasn't accidental.
> That's what you say.
The last statement might be pushing it a little -- or even, it might NOT!
Here, we have a little girl who died as a result of a fall off a cliff. The
question that remains is, what caused that fall? There is NOTHING to suggest
that the fall wasn't accidental, except for raw, unfounded suspicion. So
they hired a self-styled "expert" (who certainly seems to have dazzled you
with his "qualifications") to concoct a foundation for this contrived "case".
But as it is now becoming painfully apparent, this "expert" turns out to be
full of hot air. The whole case is based upon the word of this "expert" that
he can say "with a high degree of engineering and medical certainty, and thus
beyond a reasonable doubt" that this was a crime. But it turns out that he's
no medical doctor. So then where does this "medical certainty" issue forth
from?
As for the "engineering certainty", when you are working with flawed figures,
you will have flawed results. And we haven't done so as yet, but it can be
CATEGORICALLY shown that he is working with flawed figures.
> The jury will make the final decision, and based on what's been presented
> I'd be very surprised if any judge didn't allow a jury to make the final
> decision.
Then you haven't looked at this case very closely. The "expert's" report
here isn't reinforcing other evidence, BUT RATHER SERVES AS THE CORE OF THE
EVIDENCE ITSELF! That right there is a red flag. The problem is, there is
no other evidence.
> Look at the bright side. If a jury convicts you might have better luck
> with your legal arguments in the court of appeals.
Are you on drugs? Even if the judge does allow this thing to proceed to
trial, the prosecutor isn't going to have the temerity to make himself look
like a fool by trying it.
Ken Smith
> ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Solar wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Sayyyyyyy ... Didnt Mark Geragos *just* lose a case where the State
>>>>couldnt place the defendant at the scene of the crime nor they could
>>>>determine the time, place or manner of a young woman's death ??
>>>
>
>>>But this case isn't that case. In that case, you had a woman who was
>>>OBVIOUSLY murdered. The question was, who was the murderer? In this case
>>>you have a little girl who fell off a cliff, where it cannot be
>>>established beyond a reasonable doubt that her fall wasn't accidental.
>>
>>That's what you say.
>
>
> The last statement might be pushing it a little -- or even, it might NOT!
> Here, we have a little girl who died as a result of a fall off a cliff. The
> question that remains is, what caused that fall? There is NOTHING to suggest
> that the fall wasn't accidental, except for
the autopsy report, which you refuse to show us. :)
chainsaw
<the fucking TRAITOR scum!>
> And exploited and abused all those who died on 9.11
> the USA *deserved* the 9.11
> kick in the nuts --
> The US troops in Iraq DESERVE to DIE, they are
> terrorist war criminal scum, each and every one
> of them.
ienj...@yahoo.com
Excuse me, but if the prosecutor does not want to try this case he
would drop the charges before arguing the motion. If he fights to have
the judge send it to trial and the judge sends it off to trial, why
would he then turn around and drop the charges after getting the
go-ahead from the trial court?
"- Prof. Jonez坼
1) Is Lauren Key dead?
2) Was she found dead at the bottom of a 120 ft cliff?
3) Was she alive at the top of that cliff?
4) Did Cameron not confess that Lauren was alive when she
left the edge of the cliff, and dead when she arrived at the bottom?
Perhaps, in Kaldissoriented Land, you'd actually have to
be a Medical Doctor to figure out what caused her death.
Perhaps Kaldiscombobulated would claim it wasn't the
fall that killed Lauren, that she had a hear attack at the top
of the cliff, and was already dead as she fell.
Perhaps.
>
> As for the "engineering certainty", when you are working with flawed
> figures, you will have flawed results. And we haven't done so as
> yet, but it can be CATEGORICALLY shown that he is working with flawed
> figures.
That's good news for Cameron then. Hurry up and get this turkey to trial!
>
> > The jury will make the final decision, and based on what's been
> > presented I'd be very surprised if any judge didn't allow a jury to
> > make the final decision.
>
> Then you haven't looked at this case very closely. The "expert's"
> report here isn't reinforcing other evidence, BUT RATHER SERVES AS
> THE CORE OF THE EVIDENCE ITSELF! That right there is a red flag.
> The problem is, there is no other evidence.
There is all the circumstantial evidence as to Cameron's motive, means,
mens rea, and oportunity.
>
> > Look at the bright side. If a jury convicts you might have better
> > luck with your legal arguments in the court of appeals.
>
> Are you on drugs? Even if the judge does allow this thing to proceed
> to trial,
He will Ted, in spite of your delusions.
>the prosecutor isn't going to have the temerity to make
> himself look like a fool by trying it.
Ooooh, so the Judge is going to shitcan the 995 motion and set it for
trial, and then Hum is going to withdraw the case before that trial, eh?
Wow! What a brilliant legal strategy.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
Because psycho Ted says so ...
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> "- Prof. JonezŠ" wrote:
>
> <the fucking TRAITOR scum!>
>
crony scumbags who sent 1700+ US solders off to get slaughtered
for your avaricious lies and deceptions, you gutless maggot coward.
Here is the fate that awaits worthless fascist swine like you ScumBum
chainsaw -- http://aliyatls.notlong.com
Count on it!
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Are you on drugs? Even if the judge does allow this thing to proceed to
>> trial, the prosecutor isn't going to have the temerity to make himself
>> look like a fool by trying it.
> Excuse me, but if the prosecutor does not want to try this case he would
> drop the charges before arguing the motion.
He's got some tricks up his sleeve, I'm sure. And we just might have an idea
about what those tricks might be. Sparks may fly on June 3rd.
> If he fights to have the judge send it to trial and the judge sends it off
> to trial, why would he then turn around and drop the charges after getting
> the go-ahead from the trial court?
There's more to this case than meets the eye. Stay tuned.
ienj...@yahoo.com
What I know is the judge has three options. He can agree with the
defense motion, tossing Hayes out and tossing the case, which would be
without prejudice because jeopardy doesn't attach until a jury is
selected. He can allow Hayes to testify which means a trial would be a
foregone conclusion. He can toss Hayes out and still find probable
cause to send the case to trial. That is the only scenario under which
the prosecutor would reevaluate the case and decide wheather to proceed.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 11:36:12 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez坼""
> <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > >
> > > As for the "engineering certainty", when you are working with
> > > flawed figures, you will have flawed results. And we haven't
> > > done so as
> > > yet, but it can be CATEGORICALLY shown that he is working with
> > > flawed figures.
> >
> > That's good news for Cameron then. Hurry up and get this turkey to
> > trial!
>
> credit report exonerates Cameron.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > The jury will make the final decision, and based on what's been
> > > > presented I'd be very surprised if any judge didn't allow a
> > > > jury to make the final decision.
> > >
> > > Then you haven't looked at this case very closely. The "expert's"
> > > report here isn't reinforcing other evidence, BUT RATHER SERVES AS
> > > THE CORE OF THE EVIDENCE ITSELF! That right there is a red flag.
> > > The problem is, there is no other evidence.
> >
> > There is all the circumstantial evidence as to Cameron's motive,
> > means, mens rea, and oportunity.
> >
>
> circumstantial evidence.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Look at the bright side. If a jury convicts you might have
> > > > better luck with your legal arguments in the court of appeals.
> > >
> > > Are you on drugs? Even if the judge does allow this thing to
> > > proceed to trial,
> >
> > He will Ted, in spite of your delusions.
>
> going to trial.
>
> >
> >
> > > the prosecutor isn't going to have the temerity to make
> > > himself look like a fool by trying it.
> >
> > Ooooh, so the Judge is going to shitcan the 995 motion and set it
> > for trial, and then Hum is going to withdraw the case before that
> > trial, eh? Wow! What a brilliant legal strategy.
> >
>
> indictment... Oh wait, Hum DID seek one. Well, Ted told us Hum
> wouldn't actually get an indictment if it was sought... Wait. Cameron
> was indicted. Oh, Ted did tell us about Cameron's motion to be
> released on his own recognizance... oh yeah. That failed too.
> This is going to trial, and Hum is going to prosecute it. The
> buys in Vegas are giving one to one odds.
I'll put $500 on Cameron getting convicted, or pleading out to
some charge with prison time.
>
> Kent
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:30:17 GMT, chainsaw <x...@ooo.biz> wrote:
>
> > "- Prof. JonezŠ" wrote:
> >
> > <the fucking TRAITOR scum!>
> >
>
> Get over it.
> OK, Jonez is a pompous ass.
Thank you.
> We got it.
> OK, Jones holds unpopular opinions.
Copernicus, DaVinci, Newton, MLK, all held unpopular opinions.
> We got it.
> You think Jonez is someone named Eric. Maybe he is.
Nope.
> We got
> it.
>
> We just don't care. Find a new hobby, please.
Spammy is my Ted Kaldis class OCD'er.
>
> Kent
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:55:32 -0700, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Kent Wills wrote:
> >
> > > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >
> > > > > Alas! but this is the first week of April,
> >
> > > > Life is tough. Sh*t happens. (As for example, the Bar
> > > > Examiners asking a candidate to submit to a psychological exam.)
> >
> > > Another example: An engineer, with the name Theodore A. Kaldis,
> > > suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
> >
> > I knew you'd say that.
>
> I've mentioned it several times, as have others. You really
> should seek help for it.
This of course coming from somone who suffers from
the same perverse religions delusions as Teddy.
>
> Kent
chainsaw
>>
>><the fucking TRAITOR scum!>
>>
>
> Get over it.
No.
> OK, Jonez is a pompous ass. We got it.
Even that is preferable to being a traitor.
> OK, Jones holds unpopular opinions. We got it.
Oh, is that the metric now...unpopular?
He's a freaking beheading video posting, troop-hating, America-hating
TRAITOR!
> You think Jonez is someone named Eric. Maybe he is. We got
> it.
Good.
>
> We just don't care. Find a new hobby, please.
>
> Kent
Like pin the tail on the Teddy Beer?
chainsaw
<the fucking TRAITOR scum!>
> And exploited and abused all those who died on 9.11
chainsaw
<the fucking TRAITOR scum!>
> And exploited and abused all those who died on 9.11
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> review has classified religion, of any sort, as a mental illness?
Sounds more and more like Teddy.
Kent's now using the TKTFD:
"accepted" = one you agree with
>
> Kent