Cam Brown's Trial Scheduled for Oct. 17 -- What a, er, Surprise... (was Re: I Think We Might Have Another Souter Here!
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>[...] As I have said before, a strict constructionist with appropriate
>>>>>respect for precedent equals affirmance of Roe.
>>>>
>>>Don't be so sure about that.
>>
>>Why not?
>
> Because you seem to have a habit of perennially guessing wrong.
Really? It seems that, in the case of your precious 995 motion, I
hit it right on the screws, Ted. Dead solid perfect. Nothing but net.
:)
______________________________________________________
Man accused of throwing his daughter, 4, off a Rancho Palos Verdes
cliff gets tentative Oct. 17 trial date.
By Denise Nix
Daily Breeze
A judge refused Friday to dismiss the murder case against Cameron John
Brown, accused of throwing his 4-year-old daughter off a Rancho Palos
Verdes cliff to avoid child support payments.
[exactly as I predicted]
Brown's attorney, Mark Geragos, argued in Torrance Superior Court that a
biomechanical engineer who testified before a grand jury about the
circumstances surrounding the girl's plunge off the cliff was not
qualified and performed an experiment incorrectly.
Geragos said Wilson Hayes applied new science to his techniques and that
his experiment about the trajectory of the fall was not conducted at the
scene of the death.
Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum argued that Hayes used basic physics
in his analysis.
[again, exactly as predicted]
Judge Mark S. Arnold found Geragos' motion to dismiss "well-taken and
well-argued," but denied it, noting that, even without the disputed
testimony, there was still basis for the grand jury's indictment.
[Again, what did I tell you? The standard was "no basis," and you
had to give the prosecution the benefit of every doubt. And yes, I read
the "well-taken and well-argued" part as consummate bullshit -- as the
judge can afford to appear magnanimous. It looks better upon appeal.]
An appeal will be filed, said Geragos, a well-known attorney whose
clients have included Scott Peterson, who killed his wife, Laci.
[Get used to saying "Affirmed." In a motion like this, the standard
is usually one of abuse of discretion, which means that for the ruling
to be overturned, no reasonable judge could have ruled as Judge Arnold
did. And given some of his reported comments, Cam's appeal is going to
be a cold-ass loser. This puppy is going to trial.]
A grand jury indicted Brown, 44, in July 2004, of the special circum-
stances murder of Lauren Sarene Key on Nov. 8, 2000.
From the grand jury transcript, Arnold said he gathered that Lauren did
not like the outdoors, hiking, heights or water. Yet Brown told
investigators that after his daughter cried, she took off on a 1½-mile
hike during which Brown, an airline baggage handler in athletic shape,
had trouble keeping up. "This story, in my view, doesn't add up," Arnold
said.
[Another vote on our side. And unfortunately for Ted, this one
really counts. :) ]
The judge also noted that the evidence shows that $1,000 in child
support Brown was paying monthly to Lauren's mother was causing him
financial hardship, and Brown was angry at Lauren's mother for stating
in family court that he has poor parenting skills.
In addition, Arnold listed the ways Brown's demeanor and actions at the
time of Lauren's death pointed to his guilt.
For example, Brown was concerned about his appearance for the television
news cameras, complained about his wet shoes, discussed with a deputy
the outcome of the disputed presidential election, didn't try to see
Lauren after her body was recovered and showed no emotion.
[Whether these facts will be found as true upon a trial on the merits
is beside the point; in a motion to dismiss, the facts as alleged must
be taken as true, and if the judge is doing his job, he has no leeway.]
Arnold also said the forensic evidence was consistent with the theory
that Lauren did not fall, but was thrown.
[Which is, of course, why Ted did not post the entire autopsy.]
[discussion of Hayes' findings elided for brevity]
Arnold ordered Brown to remain held in jail without bail, and set a
tentative Oct. 17 trial date. Although Brown is eligible for lethal
injection because the charge carries special circumstance allegations,
prosecutors decided not to seek the death penalty. If convicted, Brown
faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of
parole.
[from http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/1728382.html]
_________________________________________________
As I've said before, the fact that Cam doesn't face possible
execution probably works against him, because the case won't be
scrutinized nearly as closely as if he faced the needle.
"- Prof Jonez坼
Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!
"- Prof Jonez坼
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:05:01 GMT, Ken Smith <for...@it.com> wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > > Ken Smith wrote:
> > > > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > > > > mimus wrote:
> > > > > > Ken Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > [...] As I have said before, a strict constructionist
> > > > > > > with appropriate respect for precedent equals affirmance
> > > > > > > of Roe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Don't be so sure about that.
> > > >
> > > > Why not?
> > >
> > > Because you seem to have a habit of perennially guessing wrong.
> >
> > Really? It seems that, in the case of your precious 995 motion, I
> > hit it right on the screws, Ted. Dead solid perfect. Nothing but
> > net. :)
> > ______________________________________________________
> >
> > Man accused of throwing his daughter, 4, off a Rancho Palos Verdes
> > cliff gets tentative Oct. 17 trial date.
> >
> > By Denise Nix
> > Daily Breeze
> >
> > A judge refused Friday to dismiss the murder case against Cameron
> > John Brown, accused of throwing his 4-year-old daughter off a
> > Rancho Palos Verdes cliff to avoid child support payments.
> >
> > [exactly as I predicted]
> >
>
> psychic hotline :-)
>
> > Brown's attorney, Mark Geragos, argued in Torrance Superior Court
> > that a biomechanical engineer who testified before a grand jury
> > about the circumstances surrounding the girl's plunge off the cliff
> > was not
> > qualified and performed an experiment incorrectly.
> >
> > Geragos said Wilson Hayes applied new science to his techniques and
> > that his experiment about the trajectory of the fall was not
> > conducted at the scene of the death.
>
> Personally, I would have preferred it, but that's just me.
>
> >
> > Deputy District Attorney Craig Hum argued that Hayes used basic
> > physics
> > in his analysis.
> >
> > [again, exactly as predicted]
>
> Physics profs at the university. Each one has stated Hayes' methods
> are based on sound scientific principles.
>
> >
> > Judge Mark S. Arnold found Geragos' motion to dismiss "well-taken
> > and well-argued," but denied it, noting that, even without the
> > disputed testimony, there was still basis for the grand jury's
> > indictment.
> >
> > [Again, what did I tell you? The standard was "no basis," and you
> > had to give the prosecution the benefit of every doubt. And yes, I
> > read the "well-taken and well-argued" part as consummate bullshit
> > -- as the judge can afford to appear magnanimous. It looks better
> > upon appeal.]
> >
> > An appeal will be filed, said Geragos, a well-known attorney whose
> > clients have included Scott Peterson, who killed his wife, Laci.
> >
> > [Get used to saying "Affirmed." In a motion like this, the
> > standard
>
> Ted's unlikely to ever accept it himself, so the likelihood of him
> saying affirmed in regards to Cam's case is small.
>
> > is usually one of abuse of discretion, which means that for the
> > ruling
> > to be overturned, no reasonable judge could have ruled as Judge
> > Arnold
> > did. And given some of his reported comments, Cam's appeal is
> > going to
> > be a cold-ass loser. This puppy is going to trial.]
>
> unlikely at this late stage), it IS going to trial.
>
> >
> > A grand jury indicted Brown, 44, in July 2004, of the special
> > circum- stances murder of Lauren Sarene Key on Nov. 8, 2000.
> >
> > From the grand jury transcript, Arnold said he gathered that Lauren
> > did not like the outdoors, hiking, heights or water. Yet Brown told
> > investigators that after his daughter cried, she took off on a
> > 1½-mile
> > hike during which Brown, an airline baggage handler in athletic
> > shape,
> > had trouble keeping up. "This story, in my view, doesn't add up,"
> > Arnold said.
> >
> > [Another vote on our side. And unfortunately for Ted, this one
> > really counts. :) ]
>
> with Cameron's version of events.
>
> >
> > The judge also noted that the evidence shows that $1,000 in child
> > support Brown was paying monthly to Lauren's mother was causing him
> > financial hardship,
>
> bounced checks. Cameron was hurting.
>
> > and Brown was angry at Lauren's mother for stating
> > in family court that he has poor parenting skills.
>
> really -- mostly general comments Lindsay's made), this isn't much in
> the way of proof. Parents frequently claim the other is a bad parent.
> It may be true here, but Sarah's saying it alone isn't enough to
> convince me.
> When added to the other evidence available, well...
>
> >
> > In addition, Arnold listed the ways Brown's demeanor and actions at
> > the time of Lauren's death pointed to his guilt.
>
>
> >
> > For example, Brown was concerned about his appearance for the
> > television news cameras,
>
> died a violent death, and he's worried about how he'll look on camera.
> And Cam wasn't considered for "Parent of the Year"? :)
>
> > complained about his wet shoes,
>
> concerned about their shoes.
> Dang! Cameron DID disassociate himself emotionally from
> Lauren.
>
> > discussed with a deputy
> > the outcome of the disputed presidential election, didn't try to see
> > Lauren after her body was recovered and showed no emotion.
> >
> > [Whether these facts will be found as true upon a trial on the
> > merits
> > is beside the point; in a motion to dismiss, the facts as alleged
> > must
> > be taken as true, and if the judge is doing his job, he has no
> > leeway.]
>
> at the GJ. The TV Camera and shoes might have been as well. The
> testimony can't change much from what was given there, lest the
> witnesses risk being charged with perjury.
>
> >
> > Arnold also said the forensic evidence was consistent with the
> > theory
> > that Lauren did not fall, but was thrown.
> >
> > [Which is, of course, why Ted did not post the entire autopsy.]
>
> sending the report to me. On the plus side, they never charged my
> credit card, so I'm only out time.
> I'd still like to read the report.
> Hey Ted. Why not make it available to me? If it proves
> Lauren's injuries were consistent with an accident, I'll say so.
>
> >
> > [discussion of Hayes' findings elided for brevity]
> >
> > Arnold ordered Brown to remain held in jail without bail, and set a
> > tentative Oct. 17 trial date. Although Brown is eligible for lethal
> > injection because the charge carries special circumstance
> > allegations, prosecutors decided not to seek the death penalty. If
> > convicted, Brown faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison
> > without the possibility of parole.
>
> However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
> Jonez (frightening, I know).
Yeeeeee haaaaaaaaaa!
ARCHIVED !! for all eternity !!
Oh glorious day ! --
From: Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: comp...@gmail.com
Message-ID: <31g4e1lunqnes27lf...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.152.217.159
X-Trace: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net 1122125618 ST000 69.152.217.159 (Sat, 23 Jul
2005 09:33:38 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:33:38 EDT
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:33:38 GMT
However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez (frightening, I know). Spending the next 60+ years in a cell
will prove a far more effective form of punishment than lethal
injection.
> Spending the next 60+ years in a cell
> will prove a far more effective form of punishment than lethal
> injection.
>
> >
> > [from http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/1728382.html]
> > _________________________________________________
> >
> > As I've said before, the fact that Cam doesn't face possible
> > execution probably works against him, because the case won't be
> > scrutinized nearly as closely as if he faced the needle.
>
>
>
> Kent
Encore !!
From: Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: comp...@gmail.com
Message-ID: <31g4e1lunqnes27lf...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.152.217.159
X-Trace: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net 1122125618 ST000 69.152.217.159 (Sat, 23 Jul
2005 09:33:38 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:33:38 EDT
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:33:38 GMT
"However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez."
"However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez."
"However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez."
"However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez."
"However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez."
"However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez."
"However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez."
"However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez."
"However, the more I think about it, the more I have to agree with
Jonez."
RetzQ
Peterson case, I have decided to follow the Cameron Brown case and
predict that he will fail again using the same, spectacularly inept
modus operandi.
For my current entries on Brown:
http://www.misfitting.com/archives/cat_geragos_watch.html
Tomorrow I will be publishing a thorough fisk of Gergos's denied 995
motion, and what he has revealed of his upcoming defense in Brown,
which is utterly predictable.
For my Peterson book, see this site:
Or you can get it online at any number of bookstores (but they charge
too much.)
Regarding Ted the Brother-in-Law, I'm afraid he has been bamboozled by
the Shaman in Ray Bans. He will learn the hard way that Mark Geragos is
unworthy of his adulation.
Point in fact - this alleged "exculpatory evidence" that should have,
by law, been introduced at the grand jury hearing, will not be
admissable in trial if not substantiated by the evidence code. He can
bluster all he wants to the press, but in the courtroom he has to
follow the law. Not an easy task for Geragos.
Vilifying the victim's mother would be career suicide, thus inadvisable
to alienate the jury by badmouthing Sarah Key.
Sarah Key's personal history is irrelevant to the charges against Cam
and will not be introduced in court. How does impeaching the pregnancy
test (by the way, I can attest that you can determine pregnancy within
3 days of a missed cycle) exonerate Cam Brown? Since Sarah was not
present at the park where the "accident" took place, her motives for
getting pregnant or not are irrelevant.
Cam's relationship with his mother, albeit rife with Oedipal twists, is
interesting but irrelevant, too.
The fact is, the DAs would never have brought this before a grand jury
without a pretty darn good case. To imply that they just try these
cases on a whim, or out of tunnel vision is simply absurd. As if
California has that kind of money to throw around to convict a nobody
baggage handler.
The reality is they probably have a slam dunk case, just as they did in
Peterson.
Ken Smith
> On 28 Jul 2005 12:56:16 -0700, "RetzQ" <lore...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Since I wrote the book on Mark Geragos's defense strategy in the
>>Peterson case, I have decided to follow the Cameron Brown case and
>>predict that he will fail again using the same, spectacularly inept
>>modus operandi.
>>
>>For my current entries on Brown:
>>
>>http://www.misfitting.com/archives/cat_geragos_watch.html
>
> Very insightful take on Geragos.
This is Ted's worst fuckin' nightmare -- a published author, looking
into the details of this case, coming to conclusions that make us seem
charitable. And it looks as if she's done her homework. From her site:
____________________________________________________________
The Deadly Decision
On November 8, 2000, Brown picked Lauren up from school for his
visitation and, according to witnesses at the school, Lauren was visibly
upset and did not want to leave with him. Brown stated he was going to
take her home, but instead decided to “spend some time alone with her”
and drove to a playground in Abalone Cove, at the foot of a steep cliff
overlooking the ocean.
And now for something totally absurd: Brown claimed that Lauren ran up
the hill ahead of him and that he had trouble keeping up. From what we
have learned about Brown, he was a great outdoorsman, sailor, surfer,
cyclist, ten-wheeler, and hiker, and was employed in a job that required
physical exertion. Are we (or the jury) to believe that he couldn’t keep
up with a four-year-old girl skipping up a hill? When Lauren reached the
top of the hill (and no mention of his trying to stop or discourage
her), she entertained herself by throwing rocks off the edge of this
120-foot cliff into the ocean below as her dad sat on a bench four feet
away. Right. First, Brown recounted that he heard a “nervous ah” and saw
her feet going over the cliff. Later, during questioning by police, he
changed his story for the third time:
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.
________________________________________________________
We didn't even dig for these details. She might even have the
autopsy in her possession. :)
And as I had warned him, Ted's website defending Cam is actually
being used against him. Again, from her site:
________________________________________________________
Before we review the 995 Motion and the background story of how Lauren
and her dad came to be at Inspiration Point on November 8, 2000, here
are a few “character references” submitted by Brown’s friends, posted on
a website HERE. (Excerpts of the support letters in italics.)
One trait that has stood out, is his volunteer efforts to friends,
acquaintances, and sometimes strangers alike.
helping a neighbor with moving, engine work or yard work.
Sounds a little like Scott the Renaissance Kid.
We shared a love of skateboarding, snow skiing, camping and other
outdoor sports.
He was always into something- one time it was VW buses. Then it was a
deuce-and-a-half old army truck.
We have hiked and biked all over Colorado and Utah. Cam is definitely an
outdoor enthusiast and wants to share his love of the outdoors with
everyone he meets.
Every time Cam and I would get together it feels like my life would
shift into high gear and some type of adventure would ensue.
Here's a guy who always wrote Lisa and I a "Thank-you" letter after he
would come out for a visit to go fishing, skiing, snow boarding, hiking...
he informed me that he had sold his car and purchased a sail boat on
which he would be residing. "How very Cam!" I thought to myself.
Cam showed up at my house driving a 1950's army truck ... a HUGE army
truck with ten tires! That's right, Cam didn't go 4 wheeling (that's for
average folk), he went 10 wheeling!
Do you see a pattern, here? It sounds as though Cam liked toys;
expensive toys and freedom.
One thing I remember about Cam was making sure his grandmother got her
swiss chard.
Well, at least he had a real grandmother.
Always remembers birthday and Christmas greetings. He returns phone
calls when he says he will and makes an effort at keeping friends.
can't wait to have Cam meet him and spend time with [my son], I would
never think twice about having my son spend time with Cam alone or when
he is old enough to even go out camping etc.
He plays with our two kids and I've witnessed him being real lovable
with all animals.
Reminiscent of testimony in the Peterson penalty phase, here's good old
Uncle Cam. It’s easy to be fun with kids and pets that are temporary and
not your responsibility.
We discussed many things, and he helped me understand the true meaning
of life. That was enjoying the finer things of life, but not living to
lavishly.
Is that the meaning of life according to Cam Brown? Fascinating!
He was always nice and respectful to others and will always be one
person who should be free to continue his mission of goodwill.
I wouldn't be surprised if that idea was taken from one of Brown's
letters from jail. He has a spiritual mission, you know.
Cam has always had a good paying job and he was never desperate for
money. Cam was never the type to have want or need for a lot of money.
The whole theory by these detectives is absurd.
I disagree. The numerous accounts of his freewheeling and extravagant
lifestyle would be severely impacted by a $1,000 a month child support
award. Lauren was going to cramp his style, undermine his new marriage,
and create a significant hardship to a guy like Brown. So much so that
he believed that the only solution was to eliminate the problem
permanently. Sounds just like Scott Peterson.
__________________________________________________________
OUCH!!! While she may not have it all, she's got the bulk of it.
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
>>Regarding Ted the Brother-in-Law, I'm afraid he has been bamboozled by
>>the Shaman in Ray Bans. He will learn the hard way that Mark Geragos is
>>unworthy of his adulation.
>
> Everyone else has accepted it. Ted can not as he is trying to
> protect his sister.
Geragos doesn't seem to know when to quit; he could have won the
Scott Peterson case if he had just shown a little common sense.
>>Point in fact - this alleged "exculpatory evidence" that should have,
>>by law, been introduced at the grand jury hearing, will not be
>>admissable in trial if not substantiated by the evidence code. He can
>>bluster all he wants to the press, but in the courtroom he has to
>>follow the law. Not an easy task for Geragos.
>
> Well... Looks like Cameron should get fitted for prison blues.
>
>>Vilifying the victim's mother would be career suicide, thus inadvisable
>>to alienate the jury by badmouthing Sarah Key.
>
> It's unlikely that Geragos was thinking of acting along these
> lines. I think Ted was the only one to want to go there.
>
>>Sarah Key's personal history is irrelevant to the charges against Cam
>>and will not be introduced in court. How does impeaching the pregnancy
>>test (by the way, I can attest that you can determine pregnancy within
>>3 days of a missed cycle) exonerate Cam Brown?
I agree entirely. Most of what Ted wants to introduce isn't going to
get anywhere near a jury.
>
> It doesn't, of course. Regardless as to when she found out
> she was pregnant, it's clear she was, and it's clear Cam was the dad.
>
>>Since Sarah was not
>>present at the park where the "accident" took place, her motives for
>>getting pregnant or not are irrelevant.
>>
>>Cam's relationship with his mother, albeit rife with Oedipal twists, is
>>interesting but irrelevant, too.
>
> Bummer. I was hoping to find out just why Cam hates, or at
> least hated, his mom so much.
>
>>The fact is, the DAs would never have brought this before a grand jury
>>without a pretty darn good case.
>
> Probably. Even so, an indictment doesn't impress me a great
> deal. As Ted has accurately stated, a competent DA can indict a ham
> sandwich.
>
>>To imply that they just try these
>>cases on a whim, or out of tunnel vision is simply absurd. As if
>>California has that kind of money to throw around to convict a nobody
>>baggage handler.
>
> Therein lies Ted's biggest problem. The DA, et al., are not
> going to spend the time and money they have just to convict a baggage
> handler of a trumped up charge. There is absolutely no reason for it.
No one is buying the tripe Ted's selling.
>>The reality is they probably have a slam dunk case, just as they did in
>>Peterson.
>
> I don't know about slam dunk. 1st degree murder is a tough
> sell.
In a state which acquitted both O.J. and Robert Blake, a first-degree
murder conviction is never a foregone conclusion. But I agree with her
that Geragos is taking one of his trademark 'fliers' here.
> While it's no longer the impossibility I was thought it to be,
> it won't be a walk in the park for Hum. 2nd degree is much more
> plausible. And the further down we go the list of included lesser
> charges, the more likely a conviction will be.
> It's lucky for Cam that criminal negligence isn't included as
> it IS a slam dunk with only the evidence Ted doesn't dispute.
It's nice to see that she is aware of Ted's extensive on-line defense
of Cam, as it has provided a wealth of material for her book. Seems he
should have taken the attorney's advice to STFU.
forevernitefan
connection, enough so that you might do another book? Or is this just
an extension of the Peterson trial-Gregaros involvement? There does
seem to be a few books out on the Peterson case.
You advertising your book through Lulu indicates that this is in
essence a vanity publication. There's nothing wrong with vanity
publication and some good books have come out through vanity presses.
Your analysis of the Cam brown case is interesting and raises a few
good points.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
forevernitefan
be used against Cam? I seem to remember that I posted twice along those
lines. I should have, being a true crime reader, considered a true
crime WRITER would have taken advantage of the postings. :-D
I think I am gonna check out this author. Might be interesting.....
RetzQ
The material Ted provides is a glimpse into the defense strategy. He
reminds me of a bunch of posters on the Court TV message boards whome I
described as "wraiths," like in LOTR. They were Geragos's lackeys who
posted all kinds of theories in order to see how they would fly to
those following the case.
Some of them were introduced at trial, like the "transients murdered
Laci" theory and the "bodies planted at the bay" theory. These posters
who were in the defense camp (and maybe being fed ideas) insisted that
the Croton watch pawn shop ticket was exculpatory, that the baby was
kept in a plastic bag, that the hydrology would defy the bodies'
location, etc etc.
They, like Ted, presented these issues as facts. Insisted, jumped up
and down, that they would be bombshells in trials.
Needless to say, it was all hooey.
So are Ted's claims.
Let's take a look at a couple of very important facts that Ted has
ignored. Maybe if he ignores them long enough, they'll go away? That is
the Ostrich Strategy. (Very unsuccessful. Not advised.)
1. The civil settlement prior to a criminal trial may not be based on
facts later discovered in a criminal prosecution. Therefore, the
agreement is based on an acceptance of a premise of accidental death,
and the assumption that the accident was the fault of Cameron Brown.
Similar to a plea of "no contest," only in consideration for money,
Cameron Brown makes no actual admission of guilt, and does not have to
answer to the plaintiff's petition.
The actual settlement agreement is kept private unless all parties
agree to disclose.
In the Brown/Key case, it was handled like an insurance transaction
(and it may have been covered by a policy he had). If he is found
guilty in a criminal trial, new info discovered, etc. that settlement
agreement could be revisited and challenged. Also, if a policy was
involved, the insurance company can go after him.
It appears both parties were eager to settle. On Oct. 11, 2001, a
partial dismissal with prejudice of her complaint. Partial. I'd have to
read the judges order to see exactly what remained to be retried at a
later time-if applicable.
Therefore, Sarah's acceptance of a settlement has no bearing,
whatsoever, on the criminal case.
More to come.
RetzQ
A new book? Maybe. If I can get enough access to the court documents
and transcripts, and attend the trial, and interview any major players,
sure. I doubt anyone else will bother with this case.
Re: Vanity Press? Lulu is not a vanity press, it's a print-on-demand
publisher. Big difference. Only those books that are purchased are
printed. Good for the ecology! No hassles with being ripped off by
publishers or going out of print or giving up my rights.
FWIW I have a literary agent who shopped the dickens out of the book.
The fact that I am an outsider, a blogger, a no-name, nobody wanted to
take a chance on me. That's ok. I understand the business and am doing
much better without a Mainstream publisher for this work.
The sales are good and I will have much more credibility in round 2.
Meanwhile, more on Brown:
http://www.misfitting.com/archives/cat_geragos_watch.html#000944
More to come.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>On 28 Jul 2005 12:56:16 -0700, "RetzQ" <lore...@cox.net> wrote:
>> It's nice to see that she is aware of Ted's extensive on-line defense
>>of Cam, as it has provided a wealth of material for her book. Seems he
>>should have taken the attorney's advice to STFU.
>
> The material Ted provides is a glimpse into the defense strategy. He
> reminds me of a bunch of posters on the Court TV message boards whome I
> described as "wraiths," like in LOTR. They were Geragos's lackeys who
> posted all kinds of theories in order to see how they would fly to
> those following the case.
Since the conversation started here long before Geragos, I doubt that
it was pursuant to a conscious plan. Instead, I suspect that Ted came
here as a desperate family member, looking for moral support. Remember
that Cam's first attorney was a PD.
> Some of them were introduced at trial, like the "transients murdered
> Laci" theory and the "bodies planted at the bay" theory. These posters
> who were in the defense camp (and maybe being fed ideas) insisted that
> the Croton watch pawn shop ticket was exculpatory, that the baby was
> kept in a plastic bag, that the hydrology would defy the bodies'
> location, etc etc.
>
> They, like Ted, presented these issues as facts. Insisted, jumped up
> and down, that they would be bombshells in trials.
>
> Needless to say, it was all hooey.
>
> So are Ted's claims.
On this particular point, you're not telling us anything we haven't
already gotten to on our own.
> Let's take a look at a couple of very important facts that Ted has
> ignored. Maybe if he ignores them long enough, they'll go away? That is
> the Ostrich Strategy. (Very unsuccessful. Not advised.)
That's Ted's well-established M.O.
>
> 1. The civil settlement prior to a criminal trial may not be based on
> facts later discovered in a criminal prosecution. Therefore, the
> agreement is based on an acceptance of a premise of accidental death,
> and the assumption that the accident was the fault of Cameron Brown.
> Similar to a plea of "no contest," only in consideration for money,
> Cameron Brown makes no actual admission of guilt, and does not have to
> answer to the plaintiff's petition.
>
> The actual settlement agreement is kept private unless all parties
> agree to disclose.
>
> In the Brown/Key case, it was handled like an insurance transaction
> (and it may have been covered by a policy he had). If he is found
> guilty in a criminal trial, new info discovered, etc. that settlement
> agreement could be revisited and challenged. Also, if a policy was
> involved, the insurance company can go after him.
Not that they ever would, as a practical matter.
>
> It appears both parties were eager to settle. On Oct. 11, 2001, a
> partial dismissal with prejudice of her complaint. Partial. I'd have to
> read the judges order to see exactly what remained to be retried at a
> later time-if applicable.
Interesting. VERY interesting. I've been to the crime scene, but it
is obvious that you have done your homework. (Ted isn't a particularly
honest person by nature, and he tends to hide bad facts -- it only makes
matters worse when we learn about them.) I wasn't aware that dismissal
of the civil case was conditional in any respect.
> Therefore, Sarah's acceptance of a settlement has no bearing,
> whatsoever, on the criminal case.
We've been trying to tell him this since day one.
>
> More to come.
A warm welcome to you.
Ken Smith
> Gee, didn't I say that Teddie should realize what he posts here could
> be used against Cam? I seem to remember that I posted twice along those
> lines. I should have, being a true crime reader, considered a true
> crime WRITER would have taken advantage of the postings. :-D
>
> I think I am gonna check out this author. Might be interesting.....
This woman HAS done her homework.
RetzQ
The entire 995 analysis is complete.
Ken Smith
> http://www.misfitting.com/archives/cat_geragos_watch.html#000944
>
> The entire 995 analysis is complete.
Here's my take (from a couple of months ago):
_____________________________________________________
Ken Smith wrote:
> Dane Metcalfe wrote:
>> "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:4262883B...@worldnet.att.net...
>>> ienjb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Once the Hamberian trial is over, in the event that Cam Brown
stands >>>trial,
>>> as I believe that he will, is Brown next on the roster for Geragos?
>>>
>> So we hear.
>>
>>> Does Geragos have other trials lined up after Hamberian,
>>>
>> I don't believe that he does.
>>>
>>> or will he be ready to head to trial in the Brown case?
>>>
>> Yes. Scheduled trial date at this point is Aug. 29th.
I found the date of Geragos' motion particularly telling, insofar as
it only gave Hum two weeks to respond. Our courts routinely grant an
extension to government officials who can't meet a sudden deadline, as
their workload can at times be problematic. We can read nothing into
Hum's request for more time in which to respond -- except to note that
Geragos agreed to it on behalf of his client. If it was filed in early
February, I'd be inclined to read more into the delay.
>>> Yes Ted, I know that you believe the judge will toss the case
>>>
>> No one can predict with any certainty what any judge will do.
>> (Though the 995 motion appears pretty compelling.)
>>
Ted, I have read the 995 motion in it's entirety and lurked through the
majority of posts concerning it. Without pulling the cites given and
actually reading them I give you that it appears to be resting upon a
firm legal foundation as to the nature of it's validity.
The problem is with the *factual* foundation. Various facts presented
to the GJ were damning enough that you shouldn't need Dr. Hayes to reach
the conclusion that Lauren was murdered. First, there was the testimony
offered by the deputy ME (presumably corroborated by the autopsy report,
because Ted won't release it!) that Lauren didn't have scrapes, cuts, or
abrasions where you would expect to see them: all over her body. Second,
there was Deputy Falcone's inability to find any child-sized footprints
where they should have been. The muddy crime scene Mark Geragos alludes
to minus Lauren's footprints equals murder.
The criticisms of Dr. Hayes' reports are trademark Geragos, frequently
bordering on the facially ludicrous. "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." To believe Mark Geragos, you would have to believe that
Lauren got a running start to take that flying leap off that cliff -- an
argument so silly, even his "Dr. Monkey" might be embarrassed to use it.
What I found most remarkable was Geragos' bold-type assertion that "an
instrumented anthropomorphic dummy did not seem to be a good simulator
since orientation at impact would be difficult to control in a free-fall
situation and since dummy reactions are often not human-like," and that
"a dummy would not execute the same trajectory as a child because of its
lack of musculature reflexes." If you will recall, Ted claimed that the
defense has an "expert" available who performed time-and-motion studies
that will exonerate Cam -- studies which Geragos now claims are
invalid. You can't have it both ways, Ted.
Several of Geragos' criticisms appear to hurt his case more than help
them. Specifically, the ME's testimony appears to be the sine qua non
of the prosecution's case, while Dr. Hayes' testimony is corroborative;
this gets them under the bar under Roehler. Further, claiming that the
tossing of a weight cannot be used to determine the speed of a falling
object seems itself to be ludicrous, as that practice has been accepted
since a certain scientist dropped objects off the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
I'm also interested in how it would matter that Dr. Hayes had one of
his assistants throw their dummy off of a cliff somewhere other than at
Inspiration Point. "A person throwing a weight on flat ground in the
safety of someone's backyard" might achieve different results, the most
obvious of which is that the weight he threw wouldn't *fall* 130 feet.
If the person throwing a weight off a cliff in California would be in
some way inhibited by "safety concerns," it seems that the same person
throwing a weight off a cliff in Colorado or Oregon would have the same
basic concerns. And the muddier the terrain, the more likely that we'd
find Lauren's footprints: the conclusive evidence that she deliberately
and consciously leapt into the beyond.
It's not like Dr. Hayes' theory is particularly radical. When people
fall, the rules of physics do apply. Rules we all learned in college,
if not high school. To call it "experimental" is to do violence to the
word.
>I also understand your
>points made in reference to it, as you present a case that the "expert
>witness" testimony as relying solely upon flawed scientific evidence as
>providing the essential nexus for the GJ indictement (if memory serves
>me correctly).
>>
> But, if you remember, please, in an earlier post to you I responded
to >a statement by yourself that the state had elected to prosecute Cam
>upon purely manufactured evidence by bringing your attention to a
great >deal of circumstantial evidence that has (basically) been stipulated
>upon by you that points a finger of guilt his direction.
I concur with Dane here. It's the other evidence that causes the most
pressing problems, and I'd rather score points with the jury by tearing
the expert witness apart on the witness stand than to telegraph my moves
at a largely meaningless 995 motion hearing.
If I should defer to Mark Geragos' expertise, why won't Teddy and the
Beaver defer to David Lane's?
> As has been said in here before, with, or without, the "paid whore's"
> report, the facts admitted to by Cam himself would have easily
provided the
> DA the probable cause to file an information against Brown for, at
least in
> Oklahoma, the crime of reckless endangerment of a child. I see no problem
> personally with Hum's decision to patiently bide his time and acquire the
> additional evidence necessary to bring the matter before a jury to
see just
> what crime(s) he actually is reasonably certain to be guilty of.
>>
> As has also been pointed out, Cam, by his attorney's conduct in the
> defense,
> has also been content to waive his rights to a speedy trial so that the
> state can further perfect it's case, which you can be sure that the
> prosecution will unveal more that's not being said at the present, in my
>> opinion....
>
Remember that a in a grand jury proceeding, the prosecution only gives
up enough evidence to secure an indictment.
>
>> ...but, whatever...
>>
>> I just can't see the 995 motion as being as compelling as you seem to
>> think. Luckily for you ( and Cam), I'm not the judge ;).
>
Geragos' free-floating criticisms of Hayes' methodology don't seem to
rise to the level of proof required to dismiss an indictment, insofar as
the GJ could have been persuaded by all the rest of that evidence. It's
sheer *speculation* on his part that Hayes' testimony was given crushing
weight.
>
> In all fairness, do you intend to post the reply brief by the state,
> if one is filed, (and you know it will be)?
Fairness? From TED?!? Perish the thought.
RetzQ
see we are on the same page (as would be any reasonable person with a
lick of common sense), but I have spotted a number of other issues that
Geragos will have a rough time excusing with innocent explanations when
it's Showtime.
I wish we could see the Reply by the People of Geragos's 995 motion.
Keep in mind that "Cameronomics" is going to play a big role, if the
People have their act together.
Even though they didn't need it, based on the verdict they got anyway,
the People in Peterson had a great deal of "Peternomics" to demonstrate
a strong financial motive for murder.
I hope that the People in Brown have a good calculator. Considering the
arrears that Brown piled up for three years and then the hefty award
Key received, you can bet there was a sizzling resentment over that
money that pushed him right over the edge, so to speak.
Having that debt and that current expense drove him mad.
Perhaps Geragos can get a shrink to declare Brown insane.
RetzQ
financial strain played a big part, especially when you consider that
Cam didn't get married until he was almost 40 years old, and that he
was used to a lot of financial freedom; combined with the new bride in
the picture who probably had ambitions of a better life with him.
Here is the defense strategy:
1. Show that the Browns were solvent and could afford the child support
and were not strapped by the wage garnishment, which was probably more
in the neighborhood of $1300 a month. (Good luck. His credit report was
mentioned in the GJ hearing and the witness said that the child support
was a SEVERE hardship.
2. Attempt to demonstrate that the injuries were consistent with a
fall/roll from a running start. (Not gonna fly, either.)
3. Attempt to demonstrate that daddy loved his daughter and had a
loving relationship with her. (Trot out the pictures.)
He will have to put witnesses on for that, such as any of Cam's friends
who saw him with his daughter. I did not notice too many of the letters
of support on Ted's site mention Cam with his daughter. I wonder how
many witnesses, besides Patty, there will be to this "loving"
relationship.
4. Attempt to show (as he did in Peterson) that Lauren was physically
able to climb that mountain running ahead of her athletic daddy without
slipping, getting hit with mini rock slides, or tiring out. Geragos
tried to make Laci Peterson into a triathlete.
5. Attempt to discredit the scientific method behind any of the
biomechanical evidence.
RetzQ
but don't know, that it would be put into the public domain, unless
someone could convince a judge to seal it. I don't see a reasonable
argument for sealing it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It should be available right now. I am working on getting all the court
documents from a source in LA I have.
RetzQ
month, and the arrears are garnished at another 20 - 30% of the monthly
award, he could have been paying $1300 a month and it would represent
30% of his gross.
However, if the original award was $800 a month, the $1,000 a month
could represent the base monthly payment plus the arrears.
It indicates in the GJ transcript that Key was awarded $1,000 a month
in child support. It implies that was the original order.
I would have to see the order to know what the actual amount was. It
could have been more with the arrears.
That's public record, too.
I could get copies from the clerk, but they charge 50 cents a page. I
might have a way to get them cheaper from the court reporter herself.
RetzQ
grosses $3000 a month, which is a good guess of his salary as a baggage
handler. ($36K a year.)
RetzQ
wages, but without knowing Brown's wages, we don't know what he was
making.
Was he making less than $3000 a month gross? If so, he was living
pretty high for that measly amount of money in Orange County!
Court reporters make transcripts available all the time. I have gotten
them before that way, and I don't think there is anything untoward
about it.
As far as my legal background, let's just say I am pretty familiar with
California criminal law, and some of the domestic law, and when I'm not
sure of something, I have several friends who are lawyers who can point
me in the right direction or send me the relevant code.
It's really not rocket science.
RetzQ
net wages of both custodial and non-custodial parent, not gross.
Therefore, Brown was making more than $3000 a month net in order for
that $1000 a month to qualify as 39% of his pay, unless they wree using
his gross pay as the base of their 39% statement.
If you do the math on this calculator, he would have to be making
between 3000 and 3500 a month (net) and Sarah at least 2000 a month
with him having 20 - 25% of the time with the child to come up with a
$1000 per month order.
http://www.west.net/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/ivguy/support_calc.pl
If he raised his percentage of time with the child to 35% (140
days/year) his obligation would drop substantially.
RetzQ
I don't know why that link didn't work, but here is the main page.
RetzQ
about $20 an hour, which is $3467 a month, which is $2826 net, per that
calculator site.
Brown had to have been making more, and his percentage of time with the
child when he was ordered to pay was 0% for that $1,000 to have been
the original award. You are probably right that it was closer to $750 -
$800 and the arrears were tacked on.
Even changing that to 25% (typical of non-custodial parents), would
have lowered the obligation.
Sarah Key's salary is not mentioned in any of the documents so far.
RetzQ
He had no idea how long the adoption would take. Every month that went
by was costing him $1000, and he might have thought the arrears would
go away, too. How do we know he isn't dumb as a post?
He sure looks dumb.
We can't ascribe a sophisticated motive on a guy like Cam Brown.
People have killed for much less than that!
RetzQ
little we know about it, based on those support letters - the guy was
single until he was almost 40.
That kind of indicates either a commitment-phobe or a guy with "issues"
about which side of the plate he bats, if you get my drift.
jls
"interested" <jp...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1122779675....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> LOL.
> Sorry, we are crossing posts and I have had a couple of interruptions
> here . You seem to have figured it out! :)
>
> The more Sarah made, the less Cam would have had to pay. They don't
> seem to take into account the wage of the other spouse so that would
> have impacted his ability to handle the award. Seems that his wife was
> supportive of his relationship with the little girl. It's so sad.
> What a beautiful child! I can only imagine what the loss must be to
> her mom.
>
You touch on something. Anger may have figured into the motive. Spite
against the mother directed at the child.
jls
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pahoe150ijf667a6f...@4ax.com...
> On 30 Jul 2005 20:17:11 -0700, "interested" <jp...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, I am sure many people kill for less than that. But I am having a
> >bit of trouble making sense out of this one. LOL! Dumb as a post.
> >That's good! :)
> >
> >Aside from the money, however, I think you are right about there not
> >being a good motive.
>
> It's the only motive I can see.
> Would the arrears still apply even though Lauren died?
Yes, they are a vested debt.
>
> Kent
> --
> When cryptography is outlawed,
> bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Ken Smith
> Kent, sorry I am skipping around here but I noticed your statement
> about being able to decipher the autopsy report. That should be easy
> enough to get. I would also like to see it. If what Ted said was
> correct, inasmuch as the report was altered to reflect that it was a
> homicide, that would perk up my ears.
Ted has leveled a vast litany of charges, any of which would perk up
my ears if they had any semblance of evidence to support them. However,
every charge which was amenable to being proven wrong has been proven to
be wrong (e.g., Ted's claim that A.D.A. Craig Hum was prosecuting this
case to help him in his run for D.A., and that he would be able to walk
away from it when he got elected was shot down by the fact that Hum was
not a candidate for higher office). Add that to Ted's well-established
propensity for lying, and you have little reason to believe that there
is any of his Preparation-H-Bomb-class evidence out there....
> As far as Cam wanting to see his daughter more frequently, so would
> most parents! Since California has been recognizing 50/50 arrangements
> much more in recent years, and since it does reflect on the amount of
> child support paid, he would have been foolish not to want more access,
> imo. No one forced him to make those weekly trips. If he were truly
> not interested in the child at all, I can't imagine that he would have
> done that. I know of many who send the check and that's it!
>
> Did you go to Inspiration Point or was that Ken? It's been a long time
> since I have been there.
'Twas me. My take is that you would have to have the intelligence of
a common garden implement to not recognize that taking any child of that
age to the edge of that cliff was inherently hazardous, and that it was
about the only place in the Basin (I lived there, too) where you could
kill off your four-year-old child and make it look like an "accident."
>
> The other thing I wanted to mention is the fact that some kids would
> not have been daunted by that hike at all. Even at 4. In fact I
> remember as a kid spending hours at a time running through the sand
> dunes up and down the hills. And my own kids have done the same.
I would tend to agree with Loretta and Kent, based on the experience
I have as a hiker. Kids of that age end up getting carried not long
after the hike starts.
> I don't have the foggiest clue whether or not Cameron John Brown killed
> his little girl. I just don't like the idea that we make snap
> judgments without the benefit of more pertinent information. If we are
> going to be reasonable in our assessments, we need to have more facts.
The only substantive question that I have tried to tackle is whether
the State had probable cause to believe that Cam murdered Lauren, which
is a prerequisite to his being charged and indicted and more importanly,
incarcerated pending a trial on the merits.
> Can't just launch an attack because he made the unfortunate mistake of
> hiring someone I believe is a complete ass.
True. However, given the dynamics of the case, wouldt you rather
have a Mark Geragos, or a public defender? Geragos is a good choice for
this case, because Cam needs to complete a Hail Mary, and Mark Geragos
isn't afraid to throw them.
Ken Smith
> Ok, so you are making a guestimate. You really don't have to know the
> amount of his wages to know that 40% does not fall within the scale at
> that level of employment.
IIRC, the award was $936/mo., which would make sense if you added on
arrearages. I've never seriously questioned the number, insofar as the
amount is usually determined by formula, and we don't know Cam's exact
income.
> Cam didn't live in Orange County. His daughter did at the time of the
> award. That county would have had jurisdiction and he had to travel to
> Orange County from where he lived, which was on the Central Coast of
> California.
According to Ted, he lived in Rancho Palos Verdes -- not exactly the
poor side of town. How he managed to live that well on $3,000 a month
gross is a mystery, at first glance.
> He also had to hire an attorney to represent him, I would
> think. You are right, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
> some of this out.
>
> Having worked in the legal system in California for more years then I
> care to think about, I think you are wrong to assume that there is
> nothing wrong with a court reporter selling transcripts. She doesn't
> own them and can not sell them. The County Clerk does that. But then,
> maybe you travel in different circles then I am use to.
The practice varies among jurisdictions. In some states, you contact
the reporter; in others, you go through the clerk.
Ken Smith
> According to the prevailing wage, a baggage handler in California makes
> about $20 an hour, which is $3467 a month, which is $2826 net, per that
> calculator site.
>
> Brown had to have been making more, and his percentage of time with the
> child when he was ordered to pay was 0% for that $1,000 to have been
> the original award. You are probably right that it was closer to $750 -
> $800 and the arrears were tacked on.
>
> Even changing that to 25% (typical of non-custodial parents), would
> have lowered the obligation.
>
> Sarah Key's salary is not mentioned in any of the documents so far.
IIRC, she was a secretary/receptionist type; presumably, she wasn't
making a large income.
RetzQ
is one description:
I consider myself to be an outdoorsy, adventurous person. I encourage
my children to appreciate the outdoors and take as many 'nature'
excursions as we have time for. That said, the path at Inspiration
Point is no place for a four-year-old.
The area is very upscale and beautiful, and the path along the top of
the cliffs is well-known by bikers, joggers, and dog walkers, but the
actual path down starts abruptly and is practically vertical. There was
a suicide and another attempted murder (man tried to push his wife) in
that same spot during the three years I was there. I was in good shape
when I lived there, and although the spot was close and extremely
intriguing to me (I was on a mission to prove to my smug NorCal
neighbors that there was scenic beauty to be found in LA County!), I
was only able to hike down maybe three or four times.
We basically had to "ski" down the diagonal sections of dirt path and
then wait for the rocks and dirt that would slide and tumble down to
pass before continuing. Very precarious. I had to stop walking the path
along the edge when I was pregnant because the vertigo scared me
(literally teetering on the edge), and I never again went to the spot
to walk after I had my daughter.
Ken Smith
> Ken, btw, regarding the transcripts, I believe those from the Grand
> Jury are not generally released to the public. The Grand Jury
> transcripts are generally sealed unless there is a court order making
> them public. That is how the Grand Jury functions, but I suspect you
> know that. :)
I know that ... but since when has top-secret government information
ever *really* been secret?
Ken Smith
> Ken, assuming you are correct and Lauren was too tired to walk to the
> top then you would have to wonder why Cam would lie about it. That
> would bear some weight on my decisions about his guilt.
This is one of those classic "Occam's Razor" cases. And to believe
in Cam's innocence, you basically have to believe a dozen impossible
things before breakfast. These are questions I posed to Ted:
____________________________________________________________________
I've attached what you can't seem to deal with straightaway. So tell
us, Ted, which of the facts I used in that brief proposed 'prosecutor's
introduction' to the case against Cam Brown are "manufactured?"
Do you deny that there are suitable playground facilities in Long
Beach, Huntington Beach, and/or Redondo Beach?
Do you now deny that Abalone Cove is way out of the way (it certainly
was, in your humble opinion, when I went there ;) )?
Do you deny that, on a typical weekday during the off-season, Abalone
Cove is normally next to deserted (see, my pictures, and the USGS' pics
in 2004)?
Do you deny that the weather on that day wasn't particularly nice for
SoCal (mid-60s, iirc)?
Do you deny that as a practical matter, Abalone Cove is about the
only place in the Basin where a man could murder his four-year-old
daughter, and make it look like an "accident?" [only remote cliffs around]
Do you deny that most of the adults who visit Abalone Cove go there
to hike to Inspiration Point (three for three in my survey)?
Do you deny that, if a man intended to murder his child in the manner
proposed herein, the taking of photographs would help to establish his
excuse/alibi (he took her there to play)?
Do you deny that a hike from the pay parking lot to Inspiration Point
via the playground and back would be an extremely ambitious hike for a
four-year-old girl? (Kent knows a little about four-year-olds and their
capabilities.)
Do you deny that Inspiration Point (before the fence, which you tell
us was added later) was too dangerous a place to allow a four-year-old
to run around unattended?
Do you deny that a marginally sentient adult who surveyed Inspiration
Point from either the playground or the parking lot would know that it
was too dangerous a place to allow a four-year-old to run around unattended?
Do you deny that even a marginally responsible parent who was aware
of the dangers of Inspiration Point would let his four-year-old child
out of his grasp in such a place (much less, stray anywhere near the
edge of the cliffs)?
Do you now deny that Cam and Lauren were never separated (prior to
her hard landing)?
Do you deny that the cause of Lauren's death was a fall off a
40-meter high cliff?
There's your case for Murder One, in a nutshell. A responsible
parent wouldn't have let Lauren anywhere near that cliff. Period. You
do the math.
If you deny any of these things, please state specifically why you
do, and what specific evidence you would use to support your contention.
______________________________________________________________________
I've been to the crime scene, and as any juror would, I bring my own
life experiences into the Internet venire. And all I'm saying is that
the facts of the case as we now know them -- and there is no reason to
believe they would change materially -- certainly constitute probable
cause for the State to believe that Cam murdered Lauren. And if that is
the case, we can't say that an injustice has been visited upon him.
> Having been involved with law enforcement over the years I would most
> often think that anyone who was charged with a crime was probably
> guilty of that crime. However, having been involved with law
> enforcement over the years, I know for a fact that unsubstantiated
> claims are made. I know that charges are trumped up and cases are
> built to fit the need. Having argued cases on both sides of the issue,
> you have to prove it to me before I automatically assume the cops are
> right.
I am especially mindful of this, having been the victim of the same
kind of administrative malfeasance. Interestingly, Ted seems to think
that the authorities should be trusted implicitly -- unless, of course,
someone in *HIS* family is in the State's crosshairs.
What I've been consistently challenging Ted to do is give us some red
meat -- something we can hang our hats on to *PROVE* that the State has
acted in bad faith. While I don't trust the State, I can't do anything
without credible evidence to back up my claims.
> And this is coming from someone who has my strongest
> inclination imbedded in the support of law enforcement. Once they are
> challenged by competent persons, the charges can not be supported. In
> that case, the key is the competence of the defense. In the case of
> Geragos, it will be interesting to see how he proceeds with the
> defense. If we see him highjacked by absurdity, the case against Cam
> is probably fairly solid. If the cops have f**ked up, Geragos won't
> have to resort to the same kind of defense he tried to provide for
> Scott Peterson, imo.
Geragos has the resources to do this right. The question is, does he
have a hand worth playing? This isn't like the World Series of Poker,
where you get to see everyone's hand. All I can say with confidence is
that probable cause exists -- and that, based on the evidence I'm privy
to, I have no reason to believe that the State has cooked the books.
> Public defender? No friggen way! LOL! Once again, having seen the
> volume of their personal caseload and their inability to keep up with
> the law regarding those cases, unless they are springing for a good
> investigator to do their leg work (the key being "good") forget it. I
> have, however, seen some excellent work come out of the Public
> Defenders office when they are given adequate resources and support.
Which is a genuinely rare occurrence. In America, you get about as
much justice as you can afford.
> Although some might think that the California legal system is a piece
> of cake (not rocket science), and some might believe that you can crack
> open the codes and gain an immediate understanding of the content, I
> beg to differ.
Speaking from the perspective of one who has a J.D., it's not rocket
science -- although it was clearly beyond Ted's ability to comprehend.
Advocacy is about developing the facts, mindful of the law which makes
certain facts more relevant than others. It is there *where* the real
artistry of a capable lawyer shines through.
I've been practicing law in a narrow bailiwick for twenty years, and
have a pretty good idea as to how it's done in the criminal courts.
> I have been there and done that and I (and many here)
> know better. Geragos does his homework and he has a support team that
> other attorneys dream about. My opposition to people of his caliber is
> the propensity to bring out the thugs and goons from time to time.
Based on comments from his peers (e.g., Ann Coulter, Dan Caplis and
Craig Silverman, et al.), his ability as an advocate is easily dwarfed
by his ability to promote himself. And if he had had the common sense
not to promise that he would prove Peterson's innocence, he could have
rested his case without putting the infamous "Dr. Monkey" on the stand.
>
Ken Smith
> I agree with your reader's assessment of the area. I have not tried to
> walk the path myself and have read other's who have also concluded that
> it is a precarious area, at best. I have always been the kind of
> mother who looked ahead to any potential dangers and had an over
> abundance of caution where my kids were concerned. If there was a
> cliff anywhere near, you can bet they would not very likely be taken
> there! Having said that, if Lauren had to be carried to the area I
> would find that highly suspect. That poor, sweet little girl. I don't
> know that Cam threw her from the cliff, but his judgment seems
> incredibly lacking just based on the fact that she was anywhere near a
> cliffside! I would have to agree with you on this point.
I'd go so far to say that, merely on the basis of my knowledge of the
crime scene, that alone could be sufficient to warrant a conviction for
second-degree "depraved heart" murder. As Kent has observed, criminal
negligence resulting in the death of a child (or, whatever you call it
out there) is a veritable slam-dunk.
RetzQ
there. It doesn't even make sense to take a grown woman there on a
date, unless you knew she was into hiking in a big way.
The only reasonable explanation that he would forgoe all the easier,
closer, safer playgrounds or parks more appropriate for a 4-year old is
because he intended for there to be an "accident."
His intent is going to lend itself to premeditation.
The only playground that is even within a 1/4 mile is the private
nursery school one where he would have to trespass in order for Lauren
to use the (inadequate) equipment.
I have had four kids, one born in 1979 and one in 2000. In 20 years, I
have never taken any of my children of any age to a place like Abalone
Cove to play. It wouldn't even occur to me to take them there. It would
only occur to someone who had plotted their child's demise, IMO.
RetzQ
voluntary manslaughter the government must prove that the person killed
another person; the person acted in the heat of passion; and heat of
passion was caused by adequate provocation.
Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger or terror.
Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might naturally
cause a reasonable person in the passion of the moment to lose
self-control and act on impulse and without reflection
vs. First or Second Degree Murder:
MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first
degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another
person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought;
and the killing was premeditated.
To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and
intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.
Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time
needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the
circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to
kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to
have considered the killing.
(SECOND DEGREE actually has the same definition, but without
premeditation.)
RetzQ
According to the law (and hearing and reading a number of closing
arguments), premeditation can be that moment when you decide that if
you do something to a person, that person could die, and you do it
anyway.
The moment Brown decided to let go of that child off the cliff, rather
than just picking her up to move her away from a dangerous area, that
constitutes premeditation.
I don't see how a manslaughter charge could even apply, here. Lauren
could not provoke her father to kill her. She was only 4 years old.
It's not like a spouse or jealous boyfriend who kills someone in some
passionate impulse.
He could not have a sudden, passionate reaction against this child.
No. This is either involuntary manslaughter or first-degree murder.
There
is no in-between that would qualify in this scenario.
RetzQ
involuntary manslaughter the government must prove that someone was
killed as a result of an act by the person;
Second, in the circumstances existing at the time, the person's act
either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with
reckless disregard for human life; and
Third, the person either knew that such conduct was a threat to the
lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause
the person to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives
of others.
RetzQ
Involuntary manslaughter - put someone in danger - knowingly
(applicable in the very least - why not plead it out?)
1st or 2nd - murder with malice - have to prove malice - that's the
crap shoot.
Ken Smith
> Kent, I thought he lived in Ventura, but that is at the time he was
> arrested. I believe it was Ken who said earlier that he lived on the
> Peninsula at the time the event occurred. I have not done anything to
> find out for sure where he was living on that day. If he was from out
> of the area and unfamiliar with the area, I might be able to accept
> that he took her there thinking it was a beautiful area. A nature
> person, as he seemed to be, could have concluded that. On the other
> hand, if he lived there and knew the area, it seems far less likely
> that it was a good choice. What was he doing in that area? Where was
> the school she was attending in relation to Abalone Cove?
From what I understand (Ted has *not* been forthcoming on this point,
which is probably incriminating, based on his M.O.), Cam lived in Palos
Verdes, as opposed to RPV. Sarah lived in Huntington (probably in the
inland area, based on her income); the Montessori school Lauren attended
is there, as well (you could google it from the name given in the 995
motion). And as Cam was reportedly taking Lauren home, the most direct
route would have been the 405. Abalone Cove is at the very southernmost
part of RPV, overlooking Catalina -- if you live in Palos Verdes, it's A
LOT easier to get to Redondo. I tried to illustrate this point on a map
(http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/lb_surroundingareacam.jpg) -- the
yellow and green lines indicate Cam's approximate route home, the black
arrows indicate areas whith suitable playgrounds, and the purple circle
is Abalone Cove.
[Everyone who has lived there knows that navigating the Basin is done
in three dimensions: North, South, and Time. But while there are times
when you avoid the 405 altogether, the middle of the day is not one of
them.]
Once you get to Abalone Cove, the next trick is getting Lauren to the
crime scene (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/rpv2004anarr.jpg)
itself. The only public access is via the parking lot circled in yellow,
and the only possible playground site -- a PRIVATE playground, as noted
by RPV officials -- is circled in purple. And according to Ted, Lauren
played there for 20-30 minutes and then, wanted to hike to Inspiration
Point (the approximate path is shown in red).
This photo (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/rpvcliff2.jpg) can
give you some appreciation for how dangerous it would be to let a girl
of four run around at the edge of the cliff at the site.
To believe that Cam is innocent, you have to believe an awful lot of
extremely improbable things. You have to believe it reasonable for Cam
to go a long way out of his way to take Lauren to THIS playground, when
there were so many other more convenient playgrounds available. Then,
you must believe that Lauren walked from the parking lot to the private
playground, played there for ~20-30 minutes, was able to walk ahead of
her athletically inclined 'surfer-dude' father all the way to the top of
the trail and yet, *still* have the energy to throw rocks off the cliff.
Next, you must believe that Cam didn't perceive the mortal danger he
was placing Lauren in by letting her run around unattended on the side
of a 40-meter-high seacliff. Finally, you have to believe that on her
own, Lauren generated speed necessary for her to fall off the cliff in
such a way that there wouldn't be the kind of scrapes on her body you'd
expect to see in the classic slip-and-fall (Ted won't show us the full
autopsy report, which suggests that he has something to hide).
And that's before we start looking at the indirect evidence,
including Cam's patently weird demeanor.
Is it enough for Murder One? That's for *the jury* to decide. But
is it enough for probable cause? Absolutely.
Ken Smith
> RetzQ. You must first prove that the child was killed by her father.
> That may not be an easy hurdle. By placing himself at Inspiration
> Point with his daughter he may have created the opportunity, but what
> about motive?
Motive is not an element of murder; all the State has to do is prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. The problem in this case is
that there is no plausible innocent explanation for how she got there.
> You say Lauren could not have possibly provoked him into
> murder. So then, was it simply about the money? With her dead he is
> still liable for the back pay. With an arrangement to adopt wherein
> the adoptive parents relieve him of that obligation (and I suspect the
> mother would have done that to keep her child to herself), he would
> have had a much easier way out. Murdering a child when that option was
> available simply makes no sense to me. So why would he have done it?
It's hard to make the killing of a four-year-old child make sense.
Ken Smith
> Also, I'd like to point out the law with regard to "premeditation."
>
> that if you do something to a person, that person could die, and you do
> it anyway.
>
> The moment Brown decided to let go of that child off the cliff, rather
> than just picking her up to move her away from a dangerous area, that
> constitutes premeditation.
>
> could not provoke her father to kill her. She was only 4 years old.
> It's not like a spouse or jealous boyfriend who kills someone in some
> passionate impulse.
From the CA Penal Code [pertinent excerpts]:
__________________________________________
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
(In the case of "depraved heart" murder, malice is implied.)
189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to
penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any
other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which
is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate,
arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train
wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a,
or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a
firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside
of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the
first degree. All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.
_________________________________________
The question of premeditation is one for the jury; it could find that
Cam was aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk he placed Lauren
in -- malice, as defined by Section 188 -- but that his actions did not
fall under the ambit of "first degree murder" as defined by Section 189.
(Naturally, if the jury is convinced as to the *manner* in which she
was murdered as proposed by the State, there is no doubt as to Murder One.)
Specifically, if the jury believes TED'S theory of the case, or even
has a reasonable doubt as to whether the State's theory fits the facts,
it can still find that Cam acted with a depraved heart, and convict him
of second-degree murder.
(FWIW, I actually discussed Cam's case, in hypothetical form, with
Dr. Henry Lee.)
> He could not have a sudden, passionate reaction against this child.
>
> No. This is either negligent manslaughter or first-degree murder. There
> is no in-between that would qualify in this scenario.
I can see how the jury could rationalize a compromise verdict, and it
would probably stand on appeal.
Ken Smith
> Ken, thanks for pulling the map and picture. I have not lived on the
> Peninsula, but I have visited friends frequently over the years. That
> is why I questioned if he was from the area or not. It would not be a
> straight shot from anywhere, although he may have just been driving
> around and stumbled upon it somehow. He might have been making his way
> up PCH.
According to Ted, he has been there before. And if you didn't have
local knowledge, how would you ever know that there was a playground
here (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/rpvplayground.jpg)? But
having too much local knowledge also means knowing that the cliffs at
Inspiration Point are inherently dangerous.
> I would love to know how he explains making his way to Abalone
> Cove. His familiarity with the area would have some significance to
> me.
Problem is, if it isn't recorded in the police reports, we'll never
know -- Geragos would only put him on the stand if there is no other
choice, especially if he told three different tales wrt what actually
happened.
> I won't have time to devote to this for the next few days, but
> after that I can probably fish up some pretty good info that might
> answer some of the questions. Your points are well taken, but I still
> hesitate on the motive and state of mind. I know. The state of mind
> issue is one you could drive a mack truck through. :)
I look at this case from the "How would I defend Cam, if he were my
client?" perspective. I fully agree that if I were defending him, I'd
be hammering on that point, and would have blown off the 995 motion to
drop the critique of Dr. Hayes on the jury. But you have to be mindful
of what the other side will say, and the problem with the state of mind
question is that his state of mind *will be inferred from his actions*,
and there's not a particularly good explanation as to how he got there.
Worse yet, there's even less of an explanation as to how Cam conducted
himself afterward.
Cam is certainly in for the fight of his life. It's tough to convict
in California, and Cam's family has millions of dollars to throw at the
defense -- if he had a PD, he'd be toast -- but this isn't going to be a
walk in the park.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
He's goin' DOWN !
mo...@az.com
>Once you get to Abalone Cove, the next trick is getting Lauren to the
>crime scene (http://home.earthlink.net/~19r anger57/rpv2004anarr.jpg)
>itself.
Woah. I've been reading about this case but this is the first time I've
seen a photo like this. For some reason (probably because I wasn't
reading carefully) I assumed the path from the playground to the cliff
was a really short walk -- which didn't make much sense to me because
who builds a playground, even a fenced playground, so close to a cliff?
Now I see there's actually some distance there.
Cam's story would be more believable if he had claimed to give her a
piggyback ride up there to show her the view but that photo tells me
the "she ran ahead of me, I couldn't keep up" story is bogus. I think
the reason he didn't admit to carrying her up there is because it's the
truth and he thought it made him look bad, he carried her to the scene
of her death like it was premeditated (which it was). He thought it
took the heat off of him to blame the child for being there.
I think I know what the verdict will be if the jury is allowed to visit
the playground and walk up the path to the cliff.
Moxie
RetzQ
If they can prove he set her up in a sort of "ambush" to get her to a
place of this level of danger, he will do a long time in prison for
that.
I think it's a big mistake not to plead it out to manslaughter, but you
know Geragos is going to go all the way to the wall, as is his style.
He is the kiss of death.
"- Prof. Jonez坼
> Ken Smith wrote:
> > interested wrote:
> > > Ken, thanks for pulling the map and picture. I have not lived on
> > > the Peninsula, but I have visited friends frequently over the
> > > years. That is why I questioned if he was from the area or not.
> > > It would not be a straight shot from anywhere, although he may
> > > have just been driving around and stumbled upon it somehow. He
> > > might have been making his way up PCH.
> >
> > According to Ted, he has been there before. And if you didn't
> > have local knowledge, how would you ever know that there was a
> > playground here
> > (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/rpvplayground.jpg)? But
> > having too much local knowledge also means knowing that the cliffs
> > at Inspiration Point are inherently dangerous.
>
> >
> > > I would love to know how he explains making his way to Abalone
> > > Cove. His familiarity with the area would have some significance
> > > to me.
> >
> > Problem is, if it isn't recorded in the police reports, we'll
> > never know -- Geragos would only put him on the stand if there is
> > no other choice, especially if he told three different tales wrt
> > what actually happened.
> >
> > > I won't have time to devote to this for the next few days, but
> > > after that I can probably fish up some pretty good info that might
> > > answer some of the questions. Your points are well taken, but I
> > > still hesitate on the motive and state of mind. I know. The
> > > state of mind issue is one you could drive a mack truck through.
> > > :)
> >
> > I look at this case from the "How would I defend Cam, if he were
> > my client?" perspective. I fully agree that if I were defending
> > him, I'd be hammering on that point, and would have blown off the
> > 995 motion to drop the critique of Dr. Hayes on the jury. But you
> > have to be mindful of what the other side will say, and the problem
> > with the state of mind question is that his state of mind *will be
> > inferred from his actions*, and there's not a particularly good
> > explanation as to how he got there. Worse yet, there's even less
> > of an explanation as to how Cam conducted himself afterward.
>
> explored both sides of the issue. The ability to defend someone who
> has been accused of a specific action is probably most intriguing to
> me. I am personally aware of more than one case where the evidence
> was easily proven to have been manufactured. I am a great supporter
> of the Police, but I expect them to do better than that! :) If they
> can't, they deserve to lose.
> >
> > Cam is certainly in for the fight of his life. It's tough to
> > convict in California, and Cam's family has millions of dollars to
> > throw at the defense -- if he had a PD, he'd be toast -- but this
> > isn't going to be a walk in the park.
>
> it. Put aside the fact that he was at the Point (because it isn't
> against the law to go someplace like that, and as stupid as it may
> have been, I am sure he isn't the first to let a child roam in an
> unsafe area), and look at the situation that may have played into his
> frame of mind and motive. His wife and her family have obviously been
> supportive of him and it was stated that she enjoyed the time with
> Lauren. They were looking forward to having a family and Lauren's
> presence was not a negative. He decided against allowing her to be
> adopted, something that I believe would have taken care of his problem
> post hast. It was said several times by speculation that he didn't
> want to continue paying for her support during the year it took to
> complete the adoption, but that could have been waived by the mother
> and I bet it would have been. Unless the mother was getting some sort
> of support from the County, she is the only one who he is financially
> responsible to. Even if she had not agreed to lower or drop the
> support, he would have only been paying it for an additional year, at
> best. Still, in the negotiations, he had a strong hand for the
> obligation to at least be reduced if he stopped trying to see the
> little girl. Considering that, why would he want her dead? I think
> this is a big hurdle to jump.
You're erroneously attempting to attribute normal and rational thoughts
to someone who has murdered his own 4-year old daughter, which is,
for whatever reason or no reason, a quite abnormal and irrational act.
Ken Smith
> BTW, Ken, I know that motive is not an element of murder and that you
> do not have to have motive in order to prove the case, however, it is a
> part of our discussion and for that reason I think it is worthy of
> debate. As far as the circumstantial case against Cam, being able to
> add the circumstance of motive would strengthen the case.
I agree that it is the very best fact Cam has going for him. But if
you can't come up with a plausible innocent explanation for how Lauren
got from point A to point B, "motive" is functionally irrelevant. The
prosecutor might say something like this:
"I don't know why he did it? For that matter, I honestly don't know
why ANYONE would have done it. But to believe that Cam is innocent,
you have to believe...."
I came up with a list of about ten pretty implausible things that you
would have to believe to find Cam innocent (which I won't repeat here on
grounds of brevity), and while you may be able to buy off on one or two
of them, it's awful difficult to buy off on all ten at once.
Without being privy to their thought process, I think this is why the
State took so long bringing this case to trial. It appears from what I
know about it to be a pretty solid case, but *the proof* is more subtle
than it would be in your typical murder case.
> Without it
> the case then falls on the weight of the other circumstances. In the
> public opinion arena, I think many people have concluded Cam's guilt
> based solely on the motive stressed by the prosecution. It has been
> headlined repeatedly as "Father kills child because of child support!"
> Might not be an element of the case in court, but it is definitely an
> element in the arena of public opinion.
I can only speak authoritatively to USENET opinion -- which has been
shaped in large part by Ted Kaldis' inept defense, and focused on what
was reported to have happened. Giving Cam the benefit of the doubt wrt
motive wouldn't change my analysis in the slightest, though I'd hammer
it home to the jury if I were arguing the case.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>
>>>Ken, thanks for pulling the map and picture. I have not lived on the
>>>Peninsula, but I have visited friends frequently over the years. That
>>>is why I questioned if he was from the area or not. It would not be a
>>>straight shot from anywhere, although he may have just been driving
>>>around and stumbled upon it somehow. He might have been making his way
>>>up PCH.
[BTW, Abalone Cove isn't on PCH. Getting there from PCH is a trifle
complicated; you have to go through Long Beach, and that isn't quick or
particularly pleasant.]
>> According to Ted, he has been there before. And if you didn't have
>>local knowledge, how would you ever know that there was a playground
>>here (http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/rpvplayground.jpg)? But
>>having too much local knowledge also means knowing that the cliffs at
>>Inspiration Point are inherently dangerous.
>
> Absolutely, and this is why I want to know how much knowledge he had.
Unfortunately, this is not a fact they are going to be able to
develop at trial with any precision.
>>>I would love to know how he explains making his way to Abalone
>>>Cove. His familiarity with the area would have some significance to
>>>me.
>>
>> Problem is, if it isn't recorded in the police reports, we'll never
>>know -- Geragos would only put him on the stand if there is no other
>>choice, especially if he told three different tales wrt what actually
>>happened.
>>
>>>I won't have time to devote to this for the next few days, but
>>>after that I can probably fish up some pretty good info that might
>>>answer some of the questions. Your points are well taken, but I still
>>>hesitate on the motive and state of mind. I know. The state of mind
>>>issue is one you could drive a mack truck through. :)
>>
>> I look at this case from the "How would I defend Cam, if he were my
>>client?" perspective. I fully agree that if I were defending him, I'd
>>be hammering on that point, and would have blown off the 995 motion to
>>drop the critique of Dr. Hayes on the jury. But you have to be mindful
>>of what the other side will say, and the problem with the state of mind
>>question is that his state of mind *will be inferred from his actions*,
>>and there's not a particularly good explanation as to how he got there.
>> Worse yet, there's even less of an explanation as to how Cam conducted
>>himself afterward.
>
> Ah! I like the way you have approached this. I am glad you have
> explored both sides of the issue. The ability to defend someone who
> has been accused of a specific action is probably most intriguing to
> me. I am personally aware of more than one case where the evidence was
> easily proven to have been manufactured. I am a great supporter of the
> Police, but I expect them to do better than that! :) If they can't,
> they deserve to lose.
You have to understand the history of this. Ted Kaldis has a
personal vendetta against me, and it would actually be in my interest to
be able to find *some* piece of legal or factual jiu jitsu which could
prove his bro-in-law "obviously innocent." Problem is, it simply isn't
there.
As for manufacturing evidence, this just isn't the kind of case where
you'd reasonably expect it. Lauren simply isn't JonBenet, in the sense
that rich parents and/or perverse behavior aren't involved. There's no
Natalee Holloway or Chandra Levy-style public clamor to solve the case.
Cam was only a modern stevedore, who wasn't challenging the local
power structure. Sarah got her insurance proceeds, and it was headed
for the 'cold case' file. Both parents were moving on with their lives,
and it seems the matter was closed.
Neither the L.A.S.D. nor the D.A.'s office have any discernable
motive for cooking the books -- and they're not going to drop a cool
million on an obvious turkey where there's no pressing need to bring it
to trial in the first place. I mean, it's not like they have a shortage
of murders to prosecute in L.A....
>> Cam is certainly in for the fight of his life. It's tough to convict
>>in California, and Cam's family has millions of dollars to throw at the
>>defense -- if he had a PD, he'd be toast -- but this isn't going to be a
>>walk in the park.
>
> Well, here we go again with the support issue and his ability to pay
> it. Put aside the fact that he was at the Point (because it isn't
> against the law to go someplace like that, and as stupid as it may have
> been, I am sure he isn't the first to let a child roam in an unsafe
> area),
Remember that this is about more than just a parent letting a child
roam in an unsafe area. The steps you hve to take to get there scream
"conscious plan."
> and look at the situation that may have played into his frame of
> mind and motive. His wife and her family have obviously been
> supportive of him and it was stated that she enjoyed the time with
> Lauren. They were looking forward to having a family and Lauren's
> presence was not a negative. He decided against allowing her to be
> adopted, something that I believe would have taken care of his problem
> post hast. It was said several times by speculation that he didn't
> want to continue paying for her support during the year it took to
> complete the adoption, but that could have been waived by the mother
> and I bet it would have been. Unless the mother was getting some sort
> of support from the County, she is the only one who he is financially
> responsible to. Even if she had not agreed to lower or drop the
> support, he would have only been paying it for an additional year, at
> best. Still, in the negotiations, he had a strong hand for the
> obligation to at least be reduced if he stopped trying to see the
> little girl. Considering that, why would he want her dead? I think
> this is a big hurdle to jump.
Under ordinary circumstances, I'd concur with you: If what Ted says
is true is true (unfortunately, Ted's reputation for honesty and candor
are astonishingly poor, and there appears to be some conflicting
evidence on pecuniary questions), it is a big hurdle to jump. But as
others have so eloquently observed, if the facts say murder, the jury
*will* supply the motive. I've seen enough child custody battles in my
business to know that nine times out of ten, it *ain't* about the money.