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?