I found a woman with less self-respect than Patty Kaldis
scottpierce...@yahoo.com
By Sarah St. John, The Olathe News
A former Olathe college student pleaded guilty Monday to killing David
Harmon almost a quarter century ago, stunning many with his change of
course.
Mark S. Mangelsdorf, 45, changed his plea to guilty Monday when charges
against him were reduced to intentional second-degree murder.
"I felt it was the best way to move forward and get this behind me,"
Mangelsdorf said after Monday's hearing.
Mangelsdorf had been charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy to
commit murder in the Feb. 28, 1982, beating death of 25-year-old
Harmon.
Mangelsdorf had been set to go to trial, and Monday was supposed to be
a motion hearing to determine whether his alleged accomplice, convicted
murderer 48-year-old Melinda R. Raisch, would be allowed to testify at
his trial.
But that changed Friday night, District Attorney Paul Morrison said
after Monday's hearing. That's when he and Mangelsdorf's attorneys
struck a deal that would put Mangelsdorf behind bars for 10 to 20 years
instead of the sentence of 15 years to life he would have faced had he
been found guilty at trial. He could now be eligible for parole in four
years and 11 months. He will remain free on $300,000 bond until his
sentencing at 1:30 p.m. May 12.
Morrison struck a similar deal with Raisch, Harmon's wife at the time
of his death. Prosecutors alleged she and Mangelsdorf were having an
affair and wanted to off David Harmon so Raisch wouldn't have to face
the stigma of divorce in the Nazarene church, of which the Harmons were
members.
Raisch was convicted in May of first-degree murder and conspiracy to
commit murder in her first husband's death, but her sentencing was
postponed repeatedly while attorneys negotiated a deal in exchange for
her testimony at Mangelsdorf's trial. Morrison said that if the
district court judge agrees, Raisch still will get her deal.
"This would never happened without her being available to us to
testify," Morrison said
She also could plead guilty to second-degree murder and serve 10 to 20
years in prison, becoming eligible for parole after five years.
Mangelsdorf's attorneys said they had until 10 a.m. Monday to accept
the deal.
"It was a deal we couldn't refuse," defense attorney Scott Kreamer
said.
Johnson County District Judge Thomas Bornholdt asked Mangelsdorf in
court whether he participated in the killing of David Harmon.
"Yes, your honor," Mangelsdorf replied.
This contradicts testimony he gave at Raisch's trial. He emphatically
hit his fist on the witness stand and said that he and Raisch were not
having an affair and that he had no involvement in the murder.
Defense Attorney Mickey Sherman said Mangelsdorf admitted only to
participating in the murder and did not state how.
"This was an appropriate ending," Sherman said. "He said he did
participate in the crime, but I'm not going to go beyond that."
The prosecution's statement of facts alleges that Mangelsdorf and
Raisch began a romantic relationship in the spring of 1981. By early
winter of that year, Mangelsdorf began to discuss the possibility of
David Harmon being out of the picture. He initially discussed Harmon
dying in an auto accident and then came up with a scenario in which
intruders would break into the Harmons' duplex at 1000 W. Sheridan and
kill David Harmon in bed. The intruders would ostensibly want the keys
to the bank where David Harmon worked.
"(Mangelsdorf) told Melinda that 'all you have to do is lie,'" the
statement of facts said.
Mangelsdorf's attorneys did not dispute the statement in court but said
they did not necessarily agree with all of it.
The statement said Mangelsdorf and Raisch discussed when the homicide
would happen, and Mangelsdorf purchased a crowbar with which to carry
it out. After watching television with the Harmons the evening of Feb.
27, Mangelsdorf went home and returned to the duplex in the early
morning hours of Feb. 28. wearing a mask. He beat David Harmon to death
as he slept. The beating awoke Raisch, who went downstairs and waited
until Mangelsdorf had finished killing Harmon. In Raisch's trial,
prosecutors called Harmon's beating "an overkill." Medical examiners
said Harmon would have died after three or four blows, but he
apparently was hit about a dozen times.
Mangelsdorf then went home and disposed of the murder weapon as the
couple had planned. Raisch then called him about an hour later from a
neighbor's to secure his alibi. At Harmon's funeral, Mangelsdorf told
Raisch he disposed of the murder weapon.
"After realizing the horror of what had actually happened, Melinda
became completely uninterested in pursuing a relationship with
Mangelsdorf," the statement of facts said.
The two had no other contact after the the funeral.
Raisch married again and had two children. She was living in a suburb
of Columbus, Ohio, when Olathe police reopened the case in 2001 and
paid her a visit. She then gave a different story from what she had
said in 1982.
Mangelsdorf went on to graduate from MidAmerica Nazarene College in the
spring of 1982 and earned his master's in business administration at
Harvard University. He married his college sweetheart, and the two had
four children. He had a series of high-level marketing jobs and
divorced his first wife. He then married Kristina Mangelsdorf in 1997.
The couple lives in suburban New York City and has two children, the
latest just born in December.
(After Monday's hearing, Kristina Mangelsdorf said she was standing by
her man.
"I love my husband," she said. "He is the best husband and the best
father he could be, and we're going to be there for him." ) Hey lady
your husband is also a confessed killer. He beat a man with a crowbar.
Anyone with an iota of self-respect would be so repulsed they would
immediately run to a divorce lawyer.
* I'm an obese pig and I'm damn proud to be one.*
http://deseretnews.com/logos/pierce.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2005-The Olathe News - All rights reserved.
The Olathe News
514 South Kansas Ave., Olathe, KS 66061
Ken Smith
> Mangelsdorf pleads guilty to Harmon murder
> By Sarah St. John, The Olathe News
[snipped article]
Ted, do you seriously believe that you will be able to persuade
anyone here?
scottpierce...@yahoo.com
screaming match which is not my intention. If Cam Brown is proven
guilty, which may or may not occur, I have no doubt that Mrs. Kaldis
would not stay married to a proven murderer. Here we have an extreme
case of a man who confesses to murder and yet his wife has no 2nd
thoughts about staying married to a man who pled guilty to beating
another man with a crowbar. While I question the judgement of a woman
who insists on staying married to a man who stands accused of killing a
child, I find utterly beyond comprehension the judgement of a woman who
knows her husband is a killer and yet still wants to stay married to
such a man. I think that makes her just as immoral as her husband.
* I'm an obese pig and I am damn proud to be one. You can read my
daily columns at Desnews.com and click onto television.*
http://deseretnews.com/logos/pierce.jpg
e-mail me only at Pie...@desnews.com
CG
Violent Offender" is just one of their sub-forums. All these guys (and
gals) have their groupies, wives, girlfriends and pen pals. Unreal.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Ted, do you seriously believe that you will be able to persuade anyone
> here?
Does it matter? You won't be sitting on the jury.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Actually let me make myself clear before this degenerates into a
> screaming match which is not my intention. If Cam Brown is proven
> guilty, which may or may not occur, I have no doubt that Mrs. Kaldis
> would not stay married to a proven murderer.
My mother isn't married to him in the first place. But if you mean my
sister, you are WRONG. And no one is a "proven" murderer unless they
are caught in the act. And whatever the outcome of the Cam Brown case,
he is NOT a murderer, and (beyond him committing a murder in the future)
nothing can change that.
[...]
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>Ted, do you seriously believe that you will be able to persuade anyone
>>here?
>
> Does it matter? You won't be sitting on the jury.
So, why *are* you here, venting about Cam's case so obsessively?
Is it because you *get off* on being humiliated, Teddums?
Ken Smith
> scottpierce...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Actually let me make myself clear before this degenerates into a
>>screaming match which is not my intention. If Cam Brown is proven
>>guilty, which may or may not occur, I have no doubt that Mrs. Kaldis
>>would not stay married to a proven murderer.
>
> My mother isn't married to him in the first place. But if you mean my
> sister, you are WRONG. And no one is a "proven" murderer unless they
> are caught in the act.
If Cam is convicted, it means that the State proved that he murdered
Lauren beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers.
> And whatever the outcome of the Cam Brown case,
> he is NOT a murderer, and (beyond him committing a murder in the future)
> nothing can change that.
Whatever the outcome of the Camoron Brown case, he will *always* be
reasonably believed to be a child-murderer, and (in light of the unique
facts of the case) nothing can change that.
Sounds like the awful reality that Cam is likely to be convicted is
finally sinking into Ted's thick skull. He's changed his position from
"Cam will be proven innocent" to "all we need is reasonable doubt" to
"even if Cam is convicted, he is *still* innocent."
I guess we have Dane to thank for his scorched-earth campaign against
the Kooky Kaldis Kornspiracy Theory du jour. I suspect Ted was
really, really, really, really *counting on* the conservancy issue to
get a bit more traction than it deserved; he obviously worked quite hard
on it.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Ted, do you seriously believe that you will be able to persuade
>>> anyone here?
>> Does it matter? You won't be sitting on the jury.
> So, why *are* you here, venting about Cam's case so obsessively?
I'm not. I'm only responding to your LIES. (Which is a task akin to
cleaning the Augean Stables.)
> Is it because you *get off* on being humiliated, Teddums?
No. It's because I get off on humiliating YOU. You just don't realise
it.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> scottpierce...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Actually let me make myself clear before this degenerates into a
>>> screaming match which is not my intention. If Cam Brown is proven
>>> guilty, which may or may not occur, I have no doubt that Mrs. Kaldis
>>> would not stay married to a proven murderer.
>> My mother isn't married to him in the first place. But if you mean
>> my sister, you are WRONG. And no one is a "proven" murderer unless
>> they are caught in the act.
> If Cam is convicted, it means that the State proved that he murdered
> Lauren beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers.
Anyone so convicted is NOT a "proven" murderer, but a CONVICTED
murderer. And there are more than a few convicted "murderers" who have
later been exonerated.
>> And whatever the outcome of the Cam Brown case, he is NOT a murderer,
>> and (beyond him committing a murder in the future) nothing can change
>> that.
> Whatever the outcome of the Camoron Brown case, he will *always* be
> reasonably believed to be a child-murderer,
I say he will be EXONERATED.
> and (in light of the unique facts of the case) nothing can change
> that.
There are already people who recognise his innocence.
> Sounds like the awful reality that Cam is likely to be convicted is
> finally sinking into Ted's thick skull.
The possibility that he can potentially be convicted has always been
apparent to me. But the likelihood that he will be is even less than
the likelihood that you might prevail in court in your case.
> He's changed his position from "Cam will be proven innocent" to "all
> we need is reasonable doubt" to "even if Cam is convicted, he is
> *still* innocent."
You mendacious prevaricator, you. I suppose you can't help it. It's
just a part of your nature. My position hasn't changed at all. Their
case is so weak that I can't even see them bringing this case to trial.
> I guess we have Dane to thank for his scorched-earth campaign against
> the Kooky Kaldis Kornspiracy Theory du jour.
Dane doesn't know any more about this case than you do. He just seems
to be a guy who thinks that he's smarter than everyone else, and
supposes that, just by looking at a few facts, the Great Dane has it all
figured out. In Dane's mind, what use is there waiting for the outcome
of a trial?, we know everything we need to know right now.
> I suspect Ted was really, really, really, really *counting on* the
> conservancy issue to get a bit more traction than it deserved;
No, you've reacted exactly as I predicted you would. The posting of
that wasn't for your benifit, or the benefit of anyone posting here.
> he obviously worked quite hard on it.
And from what I can tell, it's serving its purpose. (Which has nothing
to do with what's going on here.)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> I suspect Ted was really, really, really, really *counting on* the
> conservancy issue to get a bit more traction than it deserved; he
> obviously worked quite hard on it.
Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. It's not going to get too much
traction here, where you can glibly mischaracterise certain aspects of
the situation, and where those who don't know better might takes your
assertions at face value. But people close to the situation can see it
in its proper perspective, and they react differently to it than you do.
You mendacious prevaricator, you.
ienj...@yahoo.com
directly from court filings by Craig Hum.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Ted, do you seriously believe that you will be able to persuade
>>>>anyone here?
>>>
>>>Does it matter? You won't be sitting on the jury.
>>
>>So, why *are* you here, venting about Cam's case so obsessively?
>
> I'm not. I'm only responding to your LIES.
And which "lies" are those? Please give specific examples and prove
that they are in fact lies ... as opposed to "lies" as defined in Ted
Kaldis' Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary.
> (Which is a task akin to cleaning the Augean Stables.)
Given that the Aegean Stables don't exist -- and my list of lies is
equally short -- it shouldn't be terribly difficult. One post or two
should be more than enough.
>>Is it because you *get off* on being humiliated, Teddums?
>
> No. It's because I get off on humiliating YOU.
So, your sole purpose here is to injure me? More obsessive, stalking
behavior. Please seek psychiatric counseling for your condition.
> You just don't realise it.
Perhaps it is a function of the fact that you have been so remarkably
ineffectual.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>I suspect Ted was really, really, really, really *counting on* the
>>conservancy issue to get a bit more traction than it deserved; he
>>obviously worked quite hard on it.
>
> Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. It's not going to get too much
> traction here, where you can glibly mischaracterise certain aspects of
> the situation,
What is there to mischaracterize, Ted? It is difficult to imagine
how the conservancy project could ever be affected by the apparent
murder of Lauren Key or the apparent suicide of Kamil Szybinski. Even if
they were accidents related to erosion -- as you contend here -- it's
not like RPV residents don't know that coastal hills are eaten away by it.
The REAL threat to the conservancy is Barry Hon.
Besides, the Corps doesn't seem all that interested in the area.
(See
http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=14&Itemid=31
> and where those who don't know better might takes your
> assertions at face value. But people close to the situation can see it
> in its proper perspective, and they react differently to it than you do.
That's why I'm cordially inviting those who are actively promoting
the project to monitor this discussion. Everybody here knows that you
are a complete crackpot, but the folks in RPV might not know you as well
as we do, and would benefit from all the dirt they can gather on you.
> You mendacious prevaricator, you.
If they know you like we know you, and you are causing any damage
with your false, malicious, and desperate slander campaign, they will be
well advised to collect appropriate intel on you.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>scottpierce...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Actually let me make myself clear before this degenerates into a
>>>>screaming match which is not my intention. If Cam Brown is proven
>>>>guilty, which may or may not occur, I have no doubt that Mrs. Kaldis
>>>>would not stay married to a proven murderer.
>>>
>>>My mother isn't married to him in the first place. But if you mean
>>>my sister, you are WRONG. And no one is a "proven" murderer unless
>>>they are caught in the act.
>>
>>If Cam is convicted, it means that the State proved that he murdered
>>Lauren beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers.
>
> Anyone so convicted is NOT a "proven" murderer, but a CONVICTED
> murderer. And there are more than a few convicted "murderers" who have
> later been exonerated.
A conviction necessarily implies that the *fact* of a murder has been
*proven* beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of one's peers in a court
of law.
>
>>>And whatever the outcome of the Cam Brown case, he is NOT a murderer,
>>>and (beyond him committing a murder in the future) nothing can change
>>>that.
>>
>>Whatever the outcome of the Camoron Brown case, he will *always* be
>>reasonably believed to be a child-murderer,
>
> I say he will be EXONERATED.
You also said Craig Hum was running for office. We saw what happened
there.... :)
>>and (in light of the unique facts of the case) nothing can change
>>that.
>
> There are already people who recognise his innocence.
Your family and friends? Beyond that, I rather doubt it.
>>Sounds like the awful reality that Cam is likely to be convicted is
>>finally sinking into Ted's thick skull.
>
> The possibility that he can potentially be convicted has always been
> apparent to me. But the likelihood that he will be is even less than
> the likelihood that you might prevail in court in your case.
You kept saying that Cam wouldn't be indicted, either. Look at what
happened, 'O Great Karnak!
>>He's changed his position from "Cam will be proven innocent" to "all
>>we need is reasonable doubt" to "even if Cam is convicted, he is
>>*still* innocent."
>
> You mendacious prevaricator, you.
You are the one advancing this new fallback position -- he will be
eternally innocent in your eyes, regardless of what the jury decides.
> I suppose you can't help it. It's
> just a part of your nature. My position hasn't changed at all. Their
> case is so weak that I can't even see them bringing this case to trial.
So, why are you insisting upon staking out a fallback position?
>
>>I guess we have Dane to thank for his scorched-earth campaign against
>>the Kooky Kaldis Kornspiracy Theory du jour.
>
> Dane doesn't know any more about this case than you do.
He knows enough about this case to tear your Kooky Kaldis Kornspiracy
Theory du jour to shreds, as he has demonstrated.
> He just seems
> to be a guy who thinks that he's smarter than everyone else, and
> supposes that, just by looking at a few facts, the Great Dane has it all
> figured out.
Dane has examined the available facts, and determined that your Kooky
Kaldis Kornspiracy Theory is completely without any semblance of factual
support.
> In Dane's mind, what use is there waiting for the outcome
> of a trial?, we know everything we need to know right now.
Dane has offered a compelling demonstration that, in the absence of
some pretty astonishing evidence -- and dirt on the investigators will
not do -- it can be considered proven that Camoron Brown murdered his
illegitimate four-year-old daughter Lauren. You've conceded that the
investigators were just doing their jobs. Therefore, the trial will go
on and SHOULD go on, your bluster notwithstanding.
>>I suspect Ted was really, really, really, really *counting on* the
>>conservancy issue to get a bit more traction than it deserved;
>
> No, you've reacted exactly as I predicted you would. The posting of
> that wasn't for your benifit, or the benefit of anyone posting here.
>
>>he obviously worked quite hard on it.
>
> And from what I can tell, it's serving its purpose. (Which has nothing
> to do with what's going on here.)
Suuuuurrrre, it is. The Conservancy hasn't even been mentioned in
the Breeze since the funding came through.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>I suspect Ted was really, really, really, really *counting on* the
>>conservancy issue to get a bit more traction than it deserved; he
>>obviously worked quite hard on it.
>
> Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. It's not going to get too much
> traction here, where you can glibly mischaracterise certain aspects of
> the situation,
What is there to mischaracterize, Ted? It is difficult to imagine
how the conservancy project could ever be affected by the apparent
murder of Lauren Key or the apparent suicide of Kamil Szybinski. Even if
they were accidents related to erosion -- as you contend here -- it's
not like RPV residents don't know that coastal hills are eaten away by it.
The REAL threat to the conservancy is Barry Hon.
Besides, the Corps doesn't seem all that interested in the area.
(See
http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=14&Itemid=31
> and where those who don't know better might takes your
> assertions at face value. But people close to the situation can see it
> in its proper perspective, and they react differently to it than you do.
That's why I'm cordially inviting those who are actively promoting
Theodore A. Kaldis
> So far most of what Ken has discussed is accurate since it comes
> directly from court filings by Craig Hum.
What's NOT accurate is the topographic map that his "expert" used to
come to his conclusions.
Theodore A. Kaldis
[...]
> Dane has examined the available facts, [...]
The only problem is that Dane doesn't have ENOUGH available facts.
[...]
> Dane has offered a compelling demonstration that [...]
Dane's pulling his pud.
[...]
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> I suspect Ted was really, really, really, really *counting on* the
>>> conservancy issue to get a bit more traction than it deserved; he
>>> obviously worked quite hard on it.
>> Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. It's not going to get too
>> much traction here, where you can glibly mischaracterise certain
>> aspects of the situation,
> What is there to mischaracterize, Ted?
The character of Rancho Palos Verdes. Its reputation is well-known
around the South Bay, and it is known as a "beaner-free zone". And
don't ever get caught driving an old car through the town. You risk
getting pulled over, and the cops are likely to put you through the
third degree. (I know someone that it's happened to.) The fact that
they let a monument be put up for Lauren without opposition is VERY
suspicious.
> The REAL threat to the conservancy is Barry Hon.
Not any more, I don't think.
> Besides, the Corps doesn't seem all that interested in the area.
Why should they be, now that the conservancy seems to be getting off the
ground?
>> and where those who don't know better might takes your assertions at
>> face value. But people close to the situation can see it in its
>> proper perspective, and they react differently to it than you do.
> That's why I'm cordially inviting those who are actively promoting
> the project to monitor this discussion. Everybody here knows that you
> are a complete crackpot, but the folks in RPV might not know you as
> well as we do, and would benefit from all the dirt they can gather on
> you.
I think it would be wiser for you to mind your own business, but if you
want to involve RPV and other interested parties to watch this debate,
you have no complaint from me. As for who's the "crackpot", it wasn't
for nothing that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board asked you to submit
to a psychological examination, if you ask me.
>> You mendacious prevaricator, you.
> If they know you like we know you, and you are causing any damage with
> your false, malicious, and desperate slander campaign, they will be
> well advised to collect appropriate intel on you.
As far the conservancy and the "open space park" (as you call it) goes,
I really have no position on it. I neither support nor oppose it. And
I have made NO false, nor malicious, nor slanderous comments about it.
I have merely stated some facts, and some conclusions (which may or may
not be correct) that I have arrived at on the basis of the facts that
are on record.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> [The same thing twice]
Do you like repeating yourself?
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>[The same thing twice]
>
> Do you like repeating yourself?
*YOU* certainly do, ANUStasous.
Ken Smith
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:21:14 GMT, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I suspect Ted was really, really, really, really *counting on* the
>>>>>conservancy issue to get a bit more traction than it deserved; he
>>>>>obviously worked quite hard on it.
>>>>
>>>>Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. It's not going to get too
>>>>much traction here, where you can glibly mischaracterise certain
>>>>aspects of the situation,
>>>
>>>What is there to mischaracterize, Ted?
>>
>>The character of Rancho Palos Verdes. Its reputation is well-known
>>around the South Bay, and it is known as a "beaner-free zone". And
>>don't ever get caught driving an old car through the town. You risk
>>getting pulled over, and the cops are likely to put you through the
>>third degree. (I know someone that it's happened to.)
Newport Beach was infamous for stopping people for DWB.
> The fact that
>>they let a monument be put up for Lauren without opposition is VERY
>>suspicious.
>
> No it's not. They got to look like compassionate people for
> doing it. People will remember it during elections.
>
>
>>>The REAL threat to the conservancy is Barry Hon.
>>
>>Not any more, I don't think.
>
> It's certainly not the funding, as you already know.
>
>
>>>Besides, the Corps doesn't seem all that interested in the area.
>>
>>Why should they be, now that the conservancy seems to be getting off the
>>ground?
>
> Getting off the ground? It was off the ground in Sept. 2005.
>
>>>>and where those who don't know better might takes your assertions at
>>>>face value. But people close to the situation can see it in its
>>>>proper perspective, and they react differently to it than you do.
>>>
>>>That's why I'm cordially inviting those who are actively promoting
>>>the project to monitor this discussion. Everybody here knows that you
>>>are a complete crackpot, but the folks in RPV might not know you as
>>>well as we do, and would benefit from all the dirt they can gather on
>>>you.
>>
>>I think it would be wiser for you to mind your own business, but if you
>>want to involve RPV and other interested parties to watch this debate,
>>you have no complaint from me. As for who's the "crackpot", it wasn't
>>for nothing that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board asked you to submit
>>to a psychological examination, if you ask me.
>
> You're the ONLY one who feels the NEED to display his mental
> illness nearly every day.
And talk about someone who *repeats himself* ad nauseum....
>
>>>>You mendacious prevaricator, you.
>>>
>>>If they know you like we know you, and you are causing any damage with
>>>your false, malicious, and desperate slander campaign, they will be
>>>well advised to collect appropriate intel on you.
>>
>>As far the conservancy and the "open space park" (as you call it) goes,
>>I really have no position on it. I neither support nor oppose it. And
>>I have made NO false, nor malicious, nor slanderous comments about it.
No, but you have made malicious, slanderous, and presumptively false
statements about local politicians which are related to it. Don't be so
dishonestly parsimonious, Ted. (If you want to play that game, Scott
McClellan's job should be open relatively soon.)
> Not directly.
> You have stated that the reason Cameron is sitting in jail is
> to protect the funding for the conservancy. A stupid position to
> take, given the known and established facts.
>
>>I have merely stated some facts, and some conclusions (which may or may
>>not be correct) that I have arrived at on the basis of the facts that
>>are on record.
>
> Yet you failed to include one very important fact. That the
> private funding was realized roughly a month BEFORE the original trial
> date.
Ted conceniently forgets any and all facts which do not fit within
the framework of his Kooky Kaldis Kornspiracy du jour.
>
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> So far most of what Ken has discussed is accurate since it comes
>>> directly from court filings by Craig Hum.
>> What's NOT accurate is the topographic map that his "expert" used to
>> come to his conclusions.
> The map is accurate, of course.
No it's not. I'm looking at it right now, while you've never seen it.
> That the hollows don't show
They SHOULDN'T -- but on Hayes' map, they do.
> (presuming you're being honest about that)
Why should I lie?
> is irrelevant, unless they are material to the investigation.
Hayes' map shows a MUCH gentler slope, and it shows a slope where there
should be a hollowed out area. As a result, it shows a much greater
horizontal distance to the water than there actually is. That way, he
can maintain his baseless assertion that Cameron must have THROWN
Lauren, because that would have been the only way that she would have
landed in the water. In fact, the horizontal distance is MUCH shorter
than Hayes' map depicts, and she SLID and FELL into the water.
Ken Smith
[snip to focus on this point]
> Why should I lie?
Good question. Whether it is attempting to deceive with your absurd
Aussie affect or lies about your alcohol consumption, you seem to spew
falsehoods with almost a compulsion. By way of example:
_______________________________________________________________________
Nah, that never happens. I'll plug in my laptop, connect through the
network (if LodgeNet is available there) or else dial up Worldnet, nd
start pounding away. And I'll turn on the tube and see what's on.
(If I'm in Dallas, they have heaps of religious programming on the TV
there.) Or maybe I'll just dig the Gideons Bible out of the drawer
and start reading and meditating on the Word of God. Or if I'm not n
such a spiritual mood, I might run down to the hotel bar for a few
brewski's and shoot the bull with the bartender.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, Mar. 13, 2002 (Note:
Toad cancel-botted the original)
Sorry, Bruce. I don't drink.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, Aug. 10, 2002
As for "drunken", that's another one of Ken's lies. The last time I
got really toasted was in 1979. I drink in moderation -- never more
than just a couple of beers or a glass of wine. And not a drop if I
am going to be getting behind the wheel anytime in the next few
hours.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, Sept. 10, 2003
I have nothing to hide. And I don't drink.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, Jan. 8, 2004
_______________________________________________________________________
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>> I suspect Ted was really, really, really, really *counting on* the
>>>>> conservancy issue to get a bit more traction than it deserved; he
>>>>> obviously worked quite hard on it.
>>>> Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. It's not going to get too
>>>> much traction here, where you can glibly mischaracterise certain
>>>> aspects of the situation,
>>> What is there to mischaracterize, Ted?
>> The character of Rancho Palos Verdes. Its reputation is well-known
>> around the South Bay, and it is known as a "beaner-free zone". And
>> don't ever get caught driving an old car through the town. You risk
>> getting pulled over, and the cops are likely to put you through the
>> third degree. (I know someone that it's happened to.) The fact that
>> they let a monument be put up for Lauren without opposition is VERY
>> suspicious.
> No it's not.
Yes it is.
> They got to look like compassionate people for doing it.
Compassion doesn't improve their property values, nor their view. These
people could not care LESS about what you think.
> People will remember it during elections.
And vote AGAINST them, in RPV.
>>> The REAL threat to the conservancy is Barry Hon.
>> Not any more, I don't think.
> It's certainly not the funding, as you already know.
It certainly was in 2001.
>>> Besides, the Corps doesn't seem all that interested in the area.
>> Why should they be, now that the conservancy seems to be getting off
>> the ground?
> Getting off the ground? It was off the ground in Sept. 2005.
But NOT in the spring of '01.
>>>> and where those who don't know better might takes your assertions
>>>> at face value. But people close to the situation can see it in its
>>>> proper perspective, and they react differently to it than you do.
>>> That's why I'm cordially inviting those who are actively promoting
>>> the project to monitor this discussion. Everybody here knows that
>>> you are a complete crackpot, but the folks in RPV might not know you
>>> as well as we do, and would benefit from all the dirt they can
>>> gather on you.
>> I think it would be wiser for you to mind your own business, but if
>> you want to involve RPV and other interested parties to watch this
>> debate, you have no complaint from me. As for who's the "crackpot",
>> it wasn't for nothing that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board asked
>> you to submit to a psychological examination, if you ask me.
> You're the ONLY one who feels the NEED to display his mental illness
> nearly every day.
What "mental illness"? Unlike you and Ken Smith, I don't suffer from
any such "illness".
>>>> You mendacious prevaricator, you.
>>> If they know you like we know you, and you are causing any damage
>>> with your false, malicious, and desperate slander campaign, they
>>> will be well advised to collect appropriate intel on you.
>> As far the conservancy and the "open space park" (as you call it)
>> goes, I really have no position on it. I neither support nor oppose
>> it. And I have made NO false, nor malicious, nor slanderous comments
>> about it.
> Not directly.
Nor indirectly.
> You have stated that the reason Cameron is sitting in jail is to
> protect the funding for the conservancy.
While I can't say categorically that such is the reason, it seems to be
the likeliest scenario to me.
> A stupid position to take, given the known and established facts.
You don't have enough of the "known" and established facts. I have far
more to work with in this regard than do you.
>> I have merely stated some facts, and some conclusions (which may or
>> may not be correct) that I have arrived at on the basis of the facts
>> that are on record.
> Yet you failed to include one very important fact. That the private
> funding was realized roughly a month BEFORE the original trial date.
This is disingenuous. The salient event to look at is his ARREST, not
the trial date.
Theodore A. Kaldis
>>> [The same thing twice]
> *YOU* certainly do, ANUStasous.
And you call ME a "stalker"???
Ken, this can only mean one thing: You are LOSING, and you know it.
And you are becoming frustrated, and thus you post this in an effort to
INTIMIDATE me. But I can see through your little ruse, and I know that
I have gotten the best of you.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>>>I suspect Ted was really, really, really, really *counting on* the
>>>>>>conservancy issue to get a bit more traction than it deserved; he
>>>>>>obviously worked quite hard on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't pat yourself on the back too hard. It's not going to get too
>>>>>much traction here, where you can glibly mischaracterise certain
>>>>>aspects of the situation,
>>>>
>>>>What is there to mischaracterize, Ted?
>>>
>>>The character of Rancho Palos Verdes. Its reputation is well-known
>>>around the South Bay, and it is known as a "beaner-free zone". And
>>>don't ever get caught driving an old car through the town. You risk
>>>getting pulled over, and the cops are likely to put you through the
>>>third degree. (I know someone that it's happened to.) The fact that
>>>they let a monument be put up for Lauren without opposition is VERY
>>>suspicious.
>>
>>No it's not.
>
> Yes it is.
No, it's not.
>
>>They got to look like compassionate people for doing it.
>
> Compassion doesn't improve their property values, nor their view. These
> people could not care LESS about what you think.
Not everyone in RPV would have been affected by the purported
project. IIRC, there weren't more than a few hundred homes affected,
and that is not even a tithe of eligible voters in the city.
>>People will remember it during elections.
>
> And vote AGAINST them, in RPV.
How many RPV city councilmen have been replaced in the past five
years on account of that act? Name names, and prove a connection.
>>>>The REAL threat to the conservancy is Barry Hon.
>>>
>>>Not any more, I don't think.
>>
>>It's certainly not the funding, as you already know.
>
> It certainly was in 2001.
Evidently, Hon was planning the development then.
>
>>>>Besides, the Corps doesn't seem all that interested in the area.
>>>
>>>Why should they be, now that the conservancy seems to be getting off
>>>the ground?
>>
>>Getting off the ground? It was off the ground in Sept. 2005.
>
> But NOT in the spring of '01.
There is zero logical nexus between the question of whether Cam threw
his daughter off a cliff and the viability of the conservancy. Even you
have conceded that all the residents really gave a damn about was their
property values.
>
>>>>>and where those who don't know better might takes your assertions
>>>>>at face value. But people close to the situation can see it in its
>>>>>proper perspective, and they react differently to it than you do.
>>>>
>>>>That's why I'm cordially inviting those who are actively promoting
>>>>the project to monitor this discussion. Everybody here knows that
>>>>you are a complete crackpot, but the folks in RPV might not know you
>>>>as well as we do, and would benefit from all the dirt they can
>>>>gather on you.
>>>
>>>I think it would be wiser for you to mind your own business, but if
>>>you want to involve RPV and other interested parties to watch this
>>>debate, you have no complaint from me. As for who's the "crackpot",
>>>it wasn't for nothing that the Colorado Bar Examiners' Board asked
>>>you to submit to a psychological examination, if you ask me.
>>
>>You're the ONLY one who feels the NEED to display his mental illness
>>nearly every day.
>
> What "mental illness"?
Obsessive-compulsive disorder, as tentatively diagnosed by a licensed
psychologist. One could also add that you are a borderline psychopath,
as is evidenced by your compulsive lying and stated goal of maliciously
injuring others.
> Unlike you and Ken Smith, I don't suffer from
> any such "illness".
That you are in denial is hardly surprising.
>
>>>>>You mendacious prevaricator, you.
>>>>
>>>>If they know you like we know you, and you are causing any damage
>>>>with your false, malicious, and desperate slander campaign, they
>>>>will be well advised to collect appropriate intel on you.
>>>
>>>As far the conservancy and the "open space park" (as you call it)
>>>goes, I really have no position on it. I neither support nor oppose
>>>it. And I have made NO false, nor malicious, nor slanderous comments
>>>about it.
>>
>>Not directly.
>
> Nor indirectly.
You have libelled certain persons by innuendo, even though it may not
be actionable on account of the vagueness of your statements. However,
you have most certainly libelled Det. Leslie, accusing him of commission
of a felony.
>>You have stated that the reason Cameron is sitting in jail is to
>>protect the funding for the conservancy.
>
> While I can't say categorically that such is the reason, it seems to be
> the likeliest scenario to me.
Based on the facts, the likeliest scenario is that Cam Brown murdered
his illegitiamte four-year-old daughter Lauren.
>
>>A stupid position to take, given the known and established facts.
>
> You don't have enough of the "known" and established facts. I have far
> more to work with in this regard than do you.
And yet, all you can spew is Kooky Kaldis Kornspiracy Theories and
baseless innuendo.
>>>I have merely stated some facts, and some conclusions (which may or
>>>may not be correct) that I have arrived at on the basis of the facts
>>>that are on record.
>>
>>Yet you failed to include one very important fact. That the private
>>funding was realized roughly a month BEFORE the original trial date.
>
> This is disingenuous. The salient event to look at is his ARREST, not
> the trial date.
That's what we *were* looking at. It was almost a year after the
statute of limitations ran on an action against the City for negligence.
As Cam could do them no harm at that point, they didn't *need* to
enter into the conspiracy that you claim (using Ted Kaldis'
Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary) isn't a conspiracy.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>
>
>>>>[The same thing twice]
>>>
>>>Do you like repeating yourself?
>>
>>*YOU* certainly do, ANUStasous.
>
> And you call ME a "stalker"???
Huh?
>
> Ken, this can only mean one thing: You are LOSING, and you know it.
How does that logically follow, Anus?
> And you are becoming frustrated, and thus you post this in an effort to
> INTIMIDATE me.
By that metric, you have been trying *for five years* to intimidate
me into not speaking freely on issues of the day by constantly libelling
me via innuendo. You have admitted a bad motive -- the desire to injure
my reputation and "humiliate" me. Ergo, this is a tacit admission that
you have been losing for five years.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> [...] you have most certainly libelled Det. Leslie, accusing him of
> commission of a felony.
No I didn't. Jeff Leslie LIED to the Grand Jury when he said he found
only a few photographs of Cameron with Lauren. In fact, he found MANY,
and took them.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Why should I lie?
> Good question.
Indeed. Ergo, I'm not lying.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>
>>[...] you have most certainly libelled Det. Leslie, accusing him of
>>commission of a felony.
>
> No I didn't. Jeff Leslie LIED to the Grand Jury when he said he found
> only a few photographs of Cameron with Lauren. In fact, he found MANY,
> and took them.
How many is "many?" How many is "a few?" And how would you know if
you weren't physically there when Det. Leslie was there?
Do you have any clue as to the concepts of evidence and proof? Based
on your whining here, it is obvious that your knowledge is deficient.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>>>Why should I lie?
>
>>Aussie affect or lies about your alcohol consumption, you seem to spew
Why did you snip the above, if you weren't practicing to deceive?
> Indeed. Ergo, I'm not lying.
Logic was never your strongest suit.
Let us start by examining one of the MANY things you *constantly* lie
about, Toad Anus.
Do you drink, or don't you? How about a straight answer for a change
-- and a coherent explanation of the following quotes. (We don't know
who to believe: Ted Kaldis, or Ted Kaldis.)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Do you drink, or don't you?
Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>Do you drink, or don't you?
>
> Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't.
If that is true, then you do drink and therefore, you *LIED* when you
said:
Sorry, Bruce. I don't drink.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, Aug. 10, 2002
I have nothing to hide. And I don't drink.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, Jan. 8, 2004
Either you lied then, or you lied now. I'll accept either answer.
Jesus must be *soooooooooooooooo* proud of you.... :)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Do you drink, or don't you?
>> Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't.
> If that is true, then you do drink
When I'm off the wagon.
> and therefore, you *LIED* when you said:
> Sorry, Bruce. I don't drink.
> -- Theodore A. Kaldis, Aug. 10, 2002
No I didn't. I was on the wagon when I wrote that. And as I was using
present tense, I was telling the truth.
> I have nothing to hide. And I don't drink.
> -- Theodore A. Kaldis, Jan. 8, 2004
Then too.
> Either you lied then, or you lied now. I'll accept either answer.
I didn't lie either time. Both statements were accurate when I said
them.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> So far most of what Ken has discussed is accurate since it comes
>>>>> directly from court filings by Craig Hum.
>>>> What's NOT accurate is the topographic map that his "expert" used
>>>> to come to his conclusions.
>>> The map is accurate, of course.
>> No it's not. I'm looking at it right now, while you've never seen
>> it.
> You can't legally have a copy, of course.
Why can't I? I didn't break any laws in obtaining it.
>>> That the hollows don't show
>> They SHOULDN'T -- but on Hayes' map, they do.
>>> (presuming you're being honest about that)
>> Why should I lie?
> Only you could answer that question.
I have no reason to lie -- and contrary to what mendacious prevaricator
Ken Smith says, I don't lie.
>>> is irrelevant, unless they are material to the investigation.
>> Hayes' map shows a MUCH gentler slope, and it shows a slope where
>> there should be a hollowed out area. As a result, it shows a much
>> greater horizontal distance to the water than there actually is.
>> That way, he can maintain his baseless assertion that Cameron must
>> have THROWN Lauren, because that would have been the only way that
>> she would have landed in the water.
> It's not the only way, of course. If he is stating it was the ONLY
> way, he's going to have problems at trial.
You BET he is.
>> In fact, the horizontal distance is MUCH shorter than Hayes' map
>> depicts, and she SLID and FELL into the water.
> The injuries detailed in the autopsy report don't support that view.
Sure they do.
Ken Smith
IOW, you are a recovering alcoholic, who has tried to go "cold
turkey" at least twice. (By contrast, I'll cut back when training for
marathons or when on diets [alcohol equals empty calories], but I'd
never say that I didn't drink.) I suppose I can accept that answer....
...and good onya. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't drink.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>ienj...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>So far most of what Ken has discussed is accurate since it comes
>>>>>>directly from court filings by Craig Hum.
>>>>>
>>>>>What's NOT accurate is the topographic map that his "expert" used
>>>>>to come to his conclusions.
>>>>
>>>>The map is accurate, of course.
>>>
>>>No it's not. I'm looking at it right now, while you've never seen
>>>it.
>>
>>You can't legally have a copy, of course.
>
> Why can't I? I didn't break any laws in obtaining it.
>
>>>>That the hollows don't show
>>>
>>>They SHOULDN'T -- but on Hayes' map, they do.
>>
>>>>(presuming you're being honest about that)
>>>
>>>Why should I lie?
>>
>>Only you could answer that question.
>
> I have no reason to lie
Then you publicly admit to your alcoholism, and at least one failed
attempt to fight it?
> -- and contrary to what mendacious prevaricator
> Ken Smith says, I don't lie.
We've caught you so many times in lies, it's ridiculous.
_______________________________________________________
I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon"
--Theodore A. Kaldis
At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
blacks in the U.S. (and I don't know what the exact figure is, but I
would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get
between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
"nigger rich".
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by Guido's
rather than by coons.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
_______________________________________________________
The logical explanation is that you are MPD.
>>>>is irrelevant, unless they are material to the investigation.
>>>
>>>Hayes' map shows a MUCH gentler slope, and it shows a slope where
>>>there should be a hollowed out area. As a result, it shows a much
>>>greater horizontal distance to the water than there actually is.
>>>That way, he can maintain his baseless assertion that Cameron must
>>>have THROWN Lauren, because that would have been the only way that
>>>she would have landed in the water.
>>
>>It's not the only way, of course. If he is stating it was the ONLY
>>way, he's going to have problems at trial.
>
> You BET he is.
I suspect it's good enough to eliminate the slip-and-fall theory,
leaving you with the "running-start-to-take-a-flying-leap" theory
(laughable on its face).
>>>In fact, the horizontal distance is MUCH shorter than Hayes' map
>>>depicts, and she SLID and FELL into the water.
>>
>>The injuries detailed in the autopsy report don't support that view.
>
> Sure they do.
Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. I'll believe him
long before I'd evef consider believing you.
Wayne Delia
But both statements would also be accurate between sips of your electric
beer. For example: You're drinking an electric beer, take a swallow, put
the glass down, claim "I don't drink," pick the glass up, take another
swallow. You were on the wagon when you claimed that; it just happened
to be a very, very short trip on the wagon.
WMD
Wayne Delia
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>(presuming you're being honest about that)
>
>>>Why should I lie?
>
>>Only you could answer that question.
>
> I have no reason to lie -- and contrary to what mendacious prevaricator
> Ken Smith says, I don't lie.
But in your previous post, you allowed for the times you drink, even
when you said "I don't drink." As it turns out, you don't drink during
the times you aren't drinking, which is what your assertion "I don't
drink" referred to. So, right here, for all we know, you could be using
the same attempted clever wordplay: you don't lie during the times when
you're not lying. That's not very often, of course, but it's very
selectively true. The problem is you've destroyed any credibility you
might have had if you had any, even though you didn't start with any. I
am reminded of a favorite line we used on the railroad, in the ticket
office: "Our trains are always on time, except when they're late." See,
they're always on time when they're on time, not counting the times when
they're not on time. Very similarly, you don't drink except for the
times you do drink.
Very many people drink; most of the men who drink are man enough to
admit it (except, of course, those in denial or lack of honesty about
problems of excessive alcohol consumption). I am forced to conclude that
you've either got a huge problem with alcohol that you're trying to
cover up, or else - as usual - you're trying to effect an image you are
unable to back up, and once that image is claimed, you can't establish it.
WMD
WMD
Wayne Delia
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>Why should I lie?
>
>>Only you could answer that question.
>
> I have no reason to lie -- and contrary to what mendacious prevaricator
> Ken Smith says, I don't lie.
In fact Toad never lies. He "WAS ONLY HAVING YOU ON, YOU SOD!" Which, of
course, he doesn't consider to be a lie.
WMD
Wayne Delia
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Why should I lie?
>>>
>>> Only you could answer that question.
>>
>> I have no reason to lie
>
> Then you publicly admit to your alcoholism, and at least one failed
> attempt to fight it?
Technically, he's not admitting to his alcoholism, although that would
be a logical deduction from "I have no reason to lie" plus "Sometimes I
do [drink] and sometimes I don't."
The obvious conclusion is that Toad is telling the truth, that he
doesn't drink during the times he doesn't drink - which is something of
an unsatisfactory tautology.
So when Toad croaked the following:
Sorry, Bruce. I don't drink.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, Aug. 10, 2002
I have nothing to hide. And I don't drink.
-- Theodore A. Kaldis, Jan. 8, 2004
he entirely could have meant "I don't drink [WHEN I'M NOT DRINKING],"
instead of "I don't drink [AT ALL]." The first one could allow for the
times when Toad admittedly falls off the wagon, and could also cover the
scenario I mentioned earlier: he's a hopeless alcoholic, puts the
electric beer down, says "I don't drink" (referring only to the time the
mug of electric beer is down), then picks up the electric beer for
another swig.
>> -- and contrary to what mendacious prevaricator
>> Ken Smith says, I don't lie.
>
> We've caught you so many times in lies, it's ridiculous.
> _______________________________________________________
>
> I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon"
> --Theodore A. Kaldis
>
> At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
> blacks in the U.S. (and I don't know what the exact figure is, but I
> would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get
> between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
> "nigger rich".
> --Theodore A. Kaldis
>
> I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by Guido's
> rather than by coons.
> --Theodore A. Kaldis
> _______________________________________________________
>
> The logical explanation is that you are MPD.
Well, that's entirely possible, sure, but not necessarily true. Toad's
statement above, "I do not use the word 'nigger', nor do I use the word
'coon'" only referred to the times he didn't actually use those words,
and it did not refer to the times when he fell "off the wagon" and
actually used those terms, as you and John Hattan have cited. It's a way
for Toad to get around the painful admission of "I was lying then, but
I'm not lying now."
WMD
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>> Do you drink, or don't you?
>>>> Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't.
>>> If that is true, then you do drink
>> When I'm off the wagon.
>>> and therefore, you *LIED* when you said:
>>> Sorry, Bruce. I don't drink.
>>> -- Theodore A. Kaldis, Aug. 10, 2002
>> No I didn't. I was on the wagon when I wrote that. And as I was
>> using present tense, I was telling the truth.
>>> I have nothing to hide. And I don't drink.
>>> -- Theodore A. Kaldis, Jan. 8, 2004
>> Then too.
>>> Either you lied then, or you lied now. I'll accept either answer.
>> I didn't lie either time. Both statements were accurate when I said
>> them.
> IOW, you are a recovering alcoholic, who has tried to go "cold turkey"
> at least twice.
Nope. I've never had an out-of-control drinking problem.
> (By contrast, I'll cut back when training for marathons or when on
> diets [alcohol equals empty calories], but I'd never say that I didn't
> drink.) I suppose I can accept that answer....
> ... and good onya. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't drink.
I CAN handle it. But Scripture tells to be not drunk with wine nor
strong drink.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>>>Do you drink, or don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Sometimes I do, and sometimes I don't.
>>>>
>>>>If that is true, then you do drink
>>>
>>>When I'm off the wagon.
>
>>>>and therefore, you *LIED* when you said:
>>>
>
>>>>Sorry, Bruce. I don't drink.
>>>> -- Theodore A. Kaldis, Aug. 10, 2002
>>>
>>>No I didn't. I was on the wagon when I wrote that. And as I was
>>>using present tense, I was telling the truth.
>
>>>>I have nothing to hide. And I don't drink.
>>>> -- Theodore A. Kaldis, Jan. 8, 2004
>
>>>Then too.
>
>>>>Either you lied then, or you lied now. I'll accept either answer.
>>>
>>>I didn't lie either time. Both statements were accurate when I said
>>>them.
>
>>IOW, you are a recovering alcoholic, who has tried to go "cold turkey"
>>at least twice.
>
> Nope. I've never had an out-of-control drinking problem.
That you will admit. As Wayne pointed out, you can be on the wagon
between chugs of VB ... but to say that you are on the wagon in those
circumstances is to intentionally deceive. Therefore, you are either
being unduly parsimonious and therefore a liar, or you are an alcoholic
who was in fact trying to go on the wagon and failed. Which is it?
>>(By contrast, I'll cut back when training for marathons or when on
>>diets [alcohol equals empty calories], but I'd never say that I didn't
>>drink.) I suppose I can accept that answer....
>
>>... and good onya. If you can't handle it, you shouldn't drink.
>
> I CAN handle it. But Scripture tells to be not drunk with wine nor
> strong drink.
That's not what was being asked of you. You said that you didn't
drink.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report? Or is he
LYING about this, also? Inquiring minds want to know.
Kent: do you have a copy of the Autopsy Report? If so, then can you
please tell me what it says under the heading marked "Evidence of
Injury" on page 2 of the section marked "12" on the top left corner?
Specifically, I would like you to copy verbatim the first 4 sentences
from the section under "External" marked "Head/Face" (the first
paragraph). Also, I would like you to copy the 1st sentence under
the heading "Opinion" on the bottom of page 7 of the same section
(marked "12"). Otherwise, I'll know that you're just BS'ing.
If Kent neglects to furnish these sentences, anyone else out there who
might have a copy of the Autopsy Report, feel free to supply them.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>
>>Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>
> Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report? Or is he
> LYING about this, also? Inquiring minds want to know.
Toad Anus.' mind is hardly an inquiring one. We're still waiting for
you to display your evidence, Toad. Raise or call.
> Kent: do you have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
Kent: Tell Toad Anus. to GO FISH!!!
> If so, then can you
> please tell me what it says under the heading marked "Evidence of
> Injury" on page 2 of the section marked "12" on the top left corner?
> Specifically, I would like you to copy verbatim the first 4 sentences
> from the section under "External" marked "Head/Face" (the first
> paragraph). Also, I would like you to copy the 1st sentence under
> the heading "Opinion" on the bottom of page 7 of the same section
> (marked "12"). Otherwise, I'll know that you're just BS'ing.
How do we know that you aren't just making these references up? Show
us your copy of the autopsy report, and we'll go from there.
Given how many of *our* questions *you* have ducked, I hardly see
that that would constitute proof of "BS'ing." Why don't you just put
all of the motions and public filings in the matter on your website, so
that we can see not only what you say, but what Hum says.
Crickets on standby.
> If Kent neglects to furnish these sentences, anyone else out there who
> might have a copy of the Autopsy Report, feel free to supply them.
Wassamatta, Teddi Anus? Kent's got the goods on you, and you can't
stand not having an edge? If Kent says he's got it, he's got it. He
has no reason to lie -- and he isn't a chronic liar like you.
Tell you what: You put yours on-line, and Kent can do the same within
24 hours after you do. After all, you are the one who is claiming that
you have the original. Deal?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>> Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
I say "no".
> Believe what you want.
Why should I think you have a copy? I challenge you to demonstrate that
you do, and you fall FLAT! Ergo, you must NOT have a copy.
> You aren't one to let truth and accuracy get in the way.
Mendacious prevarications from Ken Smith.
>> Or is he LYING about this, also? Inquiring minds want to know.
> Also? What have I lied about? Please be specific.
Many things. Being in Iowa, for one.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>>>
>>>Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
>>
> I say "no".
You can *say* whatever you want, Toad Anus.
>>Believe what you want.
>
> Why should I think you have a copy? I challenge you to demonstrate that
> you do, and you fall FLAT! Ergo, you must NOT have a copy.
He already said that he would, Toad Anus. All you have to do is post
your copy to your website; Kent agreed that he would post his within 24
hours. The scans are certain to be different in some identifiable way.
It's raise or call, Kaldishonest.
>>You aren't one to let truth and accuracy get in the way.
>
> Mendacious prevarications from Ken Smith.
So why *did* you quit drinking, then start up again, then quit again,
and so on? If you couldn't quit when you really wanted to, then you're
probably an alcoholic. And what about these classics?
__________________________________________
I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon"
--Theodore A. Kaldis
At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
blacks in the U.S. (and I don't know what the exact figure is, but I
would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get
between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
"nigger rich".
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by Guido's
rather than by coons.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
_________________________________________
None of them come from me, but they prove that you are a liar.
>>>Or is he LYING about this, also? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>>Also? What have I lied about? Please be specific.
>
> Many things. Being in Iowa, for one.
Are you sure, Ted? You had me in friggin' *TAHITI* when I was right
here at home. Not that I wouldn't have preferred you to be right.... :)
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>> Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>>>> Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
>> I say "no".
> You can *say* whatever you want,
And I'm right. I have posted the two pages that have the information
that I asked for and Kent was unable to supply. But they are redacted.
You can see them at:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_2.pdf>
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_7.pdf>
Of course I'm sure that you are eager to know what is contained in the
redacted portions. Perhaps Kent can fill you -- if only he had the
Autopsy Report as he dishonestly maintains. But he DOESN'T. And so he
CAN'T. Therefore, you can only wonder.
> Toad Anus.
The name is "Ted". (Or have I got your goat to the extent that you are
compelled to call me names?)
[...]
Wayne Delia
>>Why should I think you have a copy? I challenge you to demonstrate that
>>you do, and you fall FLAT! Ergo, you must NOT have a copy.
>
> I've challenged you to supply any and all exculpatory evidence
> related to Cameron Brown's case. Using your standards, we can now all
> say there is none.
> By YOUR standards, you've just admitted that you KNOW Cameron
> is guilty.
Rather than a possible "tu quoque" logical fallacy, this argument has
some merit.
Kent makes a particular claim (of possessing a particular document).
Toad challenges him to demonstrate evidence of the claim, which is not
provided. Toad therefore concludes that Kent's claim must not be true.
Toad makes a particular claim (of the innocence of Camoron Brown). Kent
challenges him to demonstrate evidence of the claim, which is not
provided. Kent therefore concludes that Toad's claim must not be true.
It's pretty much the same line of reasoning in both scenarios. Since
it's Toad's line of reasoning, Toad must necessarily concede the
argument about Camoron's guilt - unless Toad's standard only applies to
everyone else except Toad, evidently.
WMD
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>
>
>>>>>>Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
>>>>
>>>I say "no".
>>
>>You can *say* whatever you want,
>
> And I'm right. I have posted the two pages that have the information
> that I asked for and Kent was unable to supply. But they are redacted.
Obviously, you are hiding something ... and Kent knows what you have
a compulsion to hide. Your behavior confirms his assertion.
> You can see them at:
> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_2.pdf>
> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_7.pdf>
>
> Of course I'm sure that you are eager to know what is contained in the
> redacted portions.
I'm not all that concerned, to be perfectly honest. My life won't
end if I don't know.
> Perhaps Kent can fill you -- if only he had the
> Autopsy Report as he dishonestly maintains. But he DOESN'T. And so he
> CAN'T. Therefore, you can only wonder.
Perhaps you can prove that Cam Brown is innocent. But you DON'T.
Because you CAN"T. Therefore, we can only wonder....
>>Toad Anus.
>
> The name is "Ted".
Toad. Anus. Kaldishonest. Kaldisturbed.
Ken Smith
Q.E.D., Teddums.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>>>
>>>Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
>>
> I say "no".
>
>>Believe what you want.
>
> Why should I think you have a copy? I challenge you to demonstrate that
> you do, and you fall FLAT! Ergo, you must NOT have a copy.
Why should any of us think you have H-bomb-class evidence exonerating
your brother-in-law? We have all challenged you on countless occasions
to demonstrate that you do, and you fall FLAT! Ergo, you must not have
any such H-bomb-class evidence.
Your logic, applied to you. If it applies to Kent, it applies to you.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>>>>>> Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
>>>> I say "no".
>>> You can *say* whatever you want,
>> And I'm right. I have posted the two pages that have the information
>> that I asked for and Kent was unable to supply. But they are
>> redacted.
> Obviously, you are hiding something
Am I? No I'm not. Whatever I have redacted is EASILY available from
the Autopsy Report itself. All you have to do is look in it and see --
it's SUPPOSED TO BE a public document. And if they are declining to
make it available to you, it is THEY who are hiding something, and not
me. (More later.)
> ... and Kent knows what you have a compulsion to hide.
Apparently he does not -- because he obviously does NOT have a copy of
the Autopsy Report, as he dishonestly asserts that he does.
> Your behavior confirms his assertion.
Whistling in the dark from Ken Smith.
>> You can see them at:
>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_2.pdf>
This page (in case anybody is too lazy to look at it) says this:
Head/face: There is extensive abrasion contusion of the forehead
involving an area about 3-1/4 inch in diameter. The abrasion
contusion extends down the face over the nose lip to the chin.
It also extends to the left side of the face and the cheek. On
the forehead are multiple irregular lacerations, some oriented
horizontally, others diagonally. [redacted ...]
What you should note from this is that it says there are "MULTIPLE
lacerations, some oriented HORIZONTALLY, others DIAGONALLY". This is
key.
>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_7.pdf>
And this page says this:
[redacted]
WITNESSES:
Detective Smith (LASD-Homicide0 witnessed the autopsy.
[redacted]
OPINION:
The cause of death in this 4 year female is multiple blunt force
traumatic injuries [redacted ...]
Again, please note: "MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries".
[I included the part about Det. Smith because the chump retired, and
WASN'T called to testify before the Grand Jury.]
>> Of course I'm sure that you are eager to know what is contained in
>> the redacted portions.
> I'm not all that concerned, to be perfectly honest.
If this isn't a blatant, bald-faced LIE, I don't know what is.
> My life won't end if I don't know.
And that's a good thing too, because you WON'T (at least not from Kent).
>> Perhaps Kent can fill you -- if only he had the Autopsy Report as he
>> dishonestly maintains. But he DOESN'T. And so he CAN'T. Therefore,
>> you can only wonder.
> Perhaps you can prove that Cam Brown is innocent. But you DON'T.
> Because you CAN"T. Therefore, we can only wonder ...
But I can CERTAINLY prove that he has been incarcerated on the basis of
PERJURED testimony. From Geragos' 995 motion, we learn that Hayes said
in his report that:
1) Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a single,
high speed impact to the cliff face at Inspiration Point; the
impact produced massive head, neck and brain injuries, abrasions
and contusions to the head and upper chest; [995 Motion, page
9, lines 3 - 6]
And in the Grand Jury hearing, Hayes testified [on page 243]:
15 A YES. MY REVIEW OF THESE INJURIES IN THE
16 AUTOPSY REPORT AND OTHER RECORDS INDICATES STRONGLY THAT
17 LAUREN'S MASSIVE TRAUMATIC INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH A
18 SINGLE, HIGH-VELOCITY IMPACT TO THE CLIFF. [...]
Notice that in both places he says that Lauren's injuries were the
result of a SINGLE high speed (or velocity) impact. But the Autopsy
Report indicates MULTIPLE injuries and trauma. But, you might object,
isn't possible that this one SINGLE impact produced multiple injuries?
UH-UH! NO WAY! A single impact CANNOT produce lacerations that are
oriented in different directions ("some oriented horizontally, others
diagonally"). It's IMPOSSIBLE, it just CAN'T HAPPEN! And the "single
impact" hypothesis is CRITICAL to Hayes' theory of what happened.
There can only be one of two conclusions that is correct here: either
Hayes is a quack, or else he is LYING to the Grand Jury. Those are the
ONLY possible conclusions. Either way, this is PERJURY, as Hayes
contends UNDER OATH, TO THE GRAND JURY, that the Autopsy Reports
indicates that Lauren experienced a single impact, when in fact the
report shows that her injuries were consistent with MULTIPLE impacts.
And this CLEAR -- there CANNOT be any controversy about it. In the
meanwhile, an INNOCENT man has been incarcerated for well over 2 years
on false testimony.
And I believe that all this has been done KNOWINGLY -- which explains
why the Autopsy Report -- which is supposed to be a PUBLIC document --
has been embargoed.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
>>>>>>
>>>>>I say "no".
>>>>
>>>>You can *say* whatever you want,
>>>
>>>And I'm right. I have posted the two pages that have the information
>>>that I asked for and Kent was unable to supply. But they are
>>>redacted.
>>
>>Obviously, you are hiding something
>
> Am I? No I'm not. Whatever I have redacted is EASILY available from
> the Autopsy Report itself. All you have to do is look in it and see --
> it's SUPPOSED TO BE a public document. And if they are declining to
> make it available to you, it is THEY who are hiding something, and not
> me. (More later.)
So why *not* make it public, without the redactions? It makes it
look as if you have something to hide. (Remember that you made this
argument against me. :) )
>>... and Kent knows what you have a compulsion to hide.
>
> Apparently he does not -- because he obviously does NOT have a copy of
> the Autopsy Report, as he dishonestly asserts that he does.
I'd be shocked if this were the case.
>>Your behavior confirms his assertion.
>
> Whistling in the dark from Ken Smith.
This has been your M.O. for longer than I've even known you, Ted.
>>>You can see them at:
>>
>>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_2.pdf>
>
> This page (in case anybody is too lazy to look at it) says this:
>
> Head/face: There is extensive abrasion contusion of the forehead
> involving an area about 3-1/4 inch in diameter. The abrasion
> contusion extends down the face over the nose lip to the chin.
> It also extends to the left side of the face and the cheek. On
> the forehead are multiple irregular lacerations, some oriented
> horizontally, others diagonally. [redacted ...]
>
> What you should note from this is that it says there are "MULTIPLE
> lacerations, some oriented HORIZONTALLY, others DIAGONALLY". This is
> key.
Not necessarily. Assuming that she hit the cliff as theorized, she
would have also had a fairly spectacular collision when she hit the water.
>
>>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_7.pdf>
>>
> And this page says this:
>
> [redacted]
>
> WITNESSES:
>
> Detective Smith (LASD-Homicide0 witnessed the autopsy.
Irrelevant and immaterial. Libelous, even (CA recognizes the tort of
libel by innuendo).
> [redacted]
>
> OPINION:
>
> The cause of death in this 4 year female is multiple blunt force
> traumatic injuries [redacted ...]
>
> Again, please note: "MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries".
Again, if she hit the cliff, there would have been two impacts, and
possibly more (depending on where she hit the cliff). The problem is?
> [I included the part about Det. Smith because the chump retired, and
> WASN'T called to testify before the Grand Jury.]
>
>>>Of course I'm sure that you are eager to know what is contained in
>>>the redacted portions.
>>
>>I'm not all that concerned, to be perfectly honest.
>
> If this isn't a blatant, bald-faced LIE, I don't know what is.
I'm not concerned, Ted. I could have asked either one of them for a
copy, but chose not to.
>
>>My life won't end if I don't know.
>
> And that's a good thing too, because you WON'T (at least not from Kent).
This sounds like a threat. And here, I thought you said Cam wasn't
violent....
>>>Perhaps Kent can fill you -- if only he had the Autopsy Report as he
>>>dishonestly maintains. But he DOESN'T. And so he CAN'T. Therefore,
>>>you can only wonder.
>>
>>Perhaps you can prove that Cam Brown is innocent. But you DON'T.
>>Because you CAN"T. Therefore, we can only wonder ...
>
> But I can CERTAINLY prove that he has been incarcerated on the basis of
> PERJURED testimony. From Geragos' 995 motion, we learn that Hayes said
> in his report that:
>
> 1) Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a single,
> high speed impact to the cliff face at Inspiration Point; the
> impact produced massive head, neck and brain injuries, abrasions
> and contusions to the head and upper chest; [995 Motion, page
> 9, lines 3 - 6]
>
> And in the Grand Jury hearing, Hayes testified [on page 243]:
>
> 15 A YES. MY REVIEW OF THESE INJURIES IN THE
> 16 AUTOPSY REPORT AND OTHER RECORDS INDICATES STRONGLY THAT
> 17 LAUREN'S MASSIVE TRAUMATIC INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH A
> 18 SINGLE, HIGH-VELOCITY IMPACT TO THE CLIFF. [...]
>
> Notice that in both places he says that Lauren's injuries were the
> result of a SINGLE high speed (or velocity) impact.
It is only his professional opinion, which cannot constitute perjury.
> But the Autopsy
> Report indicates MULTIPLE injuries and trauma. But, you might object,
> isn't possible that this one SINGLE impact produced multiple injuries?
> UH-UH! NO WAY! A single impact CANNOT produce lacerations that are
> oriented in different directions ("some oriented horizontally, others
> diagonally").
As I've pointed out, if Hayes' theory were true, there were at least
two impacts by definition. However, it is quite possible that Lauren
was dead (or at least, mortally wounded and unconscious) by the time she
hit the water.
> It's IMPOSSIBLE, it just CAN'T HAPPEN!
No, it can't. However, as two impacts are necessarily theorized in
Lauren Key's death, your objection is not relevant to this case.
> And the "single
> impact" hypothesis is CRITICAL to Hayes' theory of what happened.
As I haven't read Hayes' report, I have no opinion on this.
> There can only be one of two conclusions that is correct here: either
> Hayes is a quack, or else he is LYING to the Grand Jury. Those are the
> ONLY possible conclusions.
False dilemma. Hayes' theory is that she died from the force of the
first impact, and the coroner didn't have the requisite biomechanical
expertise to be sure. We know that if there was only one impact, this
fact might be problematic for the prosecution, but this means that she
would have had to have missed the cliff entirely.
> Either way, this is PERJURY, as Hayes
> contends UNDER OATH, TO THE GRAND JURY, that the Autopsy Reports
> indicates that Lauren experienced a single impact, when in fact the
> report shows that her injuries were consistent with MULTIPLE impacts.
I hope this isn't your H-bomb-class evidence, because it will fizzle.
Hayes should be able to explain why Lauren's injuries were
incompatible with a slip-and-fall, and why his theory fits the facts.
Geragos may or may not be able to raise reasonable doubt, but it is far
and away from saying that the case was based on perjured testimony.
Unless you have more, all you can do is wait for the trial.
> And this CLEAR -- there CANNOT be any controversy about it.
Yes, there can be -- although not in your mind.
> In the
> meanwhile, an INNOCENT man has been incarcerated for well over 2 years
> on false testimony.
False premises; false conclusion. You haven't proven squat.
> And I believe that all this has been done KNOWINGLY -- which explains
> why the Autopsy Report -- which is supposed to be a PUBLIC document --
> has been embargoed.
You have shown a marked propensity to believe whatever you want,
irrespective of the facts at hand.
Larry
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> This page (in case anybody is too lazy to look at it) says this:
>
> Head/face: There is extensive abrasion contusion of the forehead
> involving an area about 3-1/4 inch in diameter. The abrasion
> contusion extends down the face over the nose lip to the chin.
> It also extends to the left side of the face and the cheek. On
> the forehead are multiple irregular lacerations, some oriented
> horizontally, others diagonally. [redacted ...]
>
> What you should note from this is that it says there are "MULTIPLE
> lacerations, some oriented HORIZONTALLY, others DIAGONALLY". This is
> key.
It's not that key. See below.
> >> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_7.pdf>
>
> And this page says this:
>
> [redacted]
>
> WITNESSES:
>
> Detective Smith (LASD-Homicide0 witnessed the autopsy.
>
> [redacted]
>
> OPINION:
>
> The cause of death in this 4 year female is multiple blunt force
> traumatic injuries [redacted ...]
>
> Again, please note: "MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries".
>
> [I included the part about Det. Smith because the chump retired, and
> WASN'T called to testify before the Grand Jury.]
He wouldn't be able to testify about the autopsy or the cause of death
anyway, it would be hearsay.
You know, it's a common tactic of defense lawyers to focus on the
evidence that isn't there, when the evidence that is known is strong.
If the prosecution has pictures, the defense tries to argue that's not
enough, and the jury should expect to see videotape. If the prosecution
has videotape, the defense demands fingerprints. If there are
fingerprints, the defense says there must be DNA for the jury to
convict. It's because we all know that in many circumstances of
everyday life, we're convinced of things BARD without videotape,
fingerprints, or DNA.
<snip>
Well, there is a third option - that the defense lawyer, who is the most
obvious hired-gun in this case, is lying or distorting the evidence as
well. I'm not saying he is, but its possible.
But we don't even have to get that far, Ted, because these two
descriptions are *not* inconsistent. The Dr. did NOT testify, as you
claim, that she only sustained one impact or that all of her injuries
were from one impact. He - quite clearly - said that the *massive*
injuries are from a single impact. It's entirely possible that the
"massive" injuries (which the defense referred to as head, neck, and
brain injuries) came from a single impact, while the other, incidental
injuries (the facial lacerations of in multiple orientations, any
scratches, bruises, etc.) were caused from other, multiple impacts.
Regardless of how she ended up going off the cliff, it seems entirely
possible that, for example, her face hit some branches or brush on the
way down, or even that she rolled after receiving the single, fatal
impact, causing additional cuts and scratches to her face and body.
> And I believe that all this has been done KNOWINGLY -- which explains
> why the Autopsy Report -- which is supposed to be a PUBLIC document --
> has been embargoed.
Instead of speculating that a public document isn't public, try to get
it. Go to the clerk's office and ask for it, or make a FOIA request.
If you're denied, then you might have some of us thinking your
allegation has merit. Otherwise, you're just guessing.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>>>>>>>> Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
>>>>>> I say "no".
>>>>> You can *say* whatever you want,
>>>> And I'm right. I have posted the two pages that have the
>>>> information that I asked for and Kent was unable to supply. But
>>>> they are redacted.
>>> Obviously, you are hiding something
>> Am I? No I'm not.
> Yes, you are, if you are consistent with your standards.
No I'm not. The information is available in what should be a public
document (which you SAY you have but very CLEARLY do NOT!).
>> Whatever I have redacted is EASILY available from the Autopsy Report
>> itself. All you have to do is look in it and see -- it's SUPPOSED
>> TO BE a public document. And if they are declining to make it
>> available to you, it is THEY who are hiding something, and not me.
>> (More later.)
> Then make the whole thing available to those who don't currently have
> a copy and wish to see it.
What?!? I thought you HAD a copy. OBVIOUSLY you do NOT!
> It really is that simple.
Why don't you just email it around to everyone who wants it? You say
that you have it.
> You won't, of course, because there are those who will see the truth;
> Lauren's injuries are consistent with being thrown/tossed off the
> cliff, or having taken a running leap.
If so, then why don't you disseminate this information?
>>> ... and Kent knows what you have a compulsion to hide.
>> Apparently he does not --
> I most certainly do. You show it FREQUENTLY.
So what am I hiding?
>> because he obviously does NOT have a copy of the Autopsy Report, as
>> he dishonestly asserts that he does.
> Then you do not have any exculpatory evidence in regards to Cameron's
> case.
This is a non sequitur. One does not follow from the other.
> If we use YOUR standards, you believe Cameron is guilty of first
> degree murder.
You may FALSELY believe that, but I KNOW that it isn't true.
>>> Your behavior confirms his assertion.
>> Whistling in the dark from Ken Smith.
> Ken is 100% accurate.
Ken is off the wall.
>>>> You can see them at:
>>>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_2.pdf>
>> This page (in case anybody is too lazy to look at it) says this:
>> Head/face: There is extensive abrasion contusion of the forehead
>> involving an area about 3-1/4 inch in diameter. The abrasion
>> contusion extends down the face over the nose lip to the chin.
>> It also extends to the left side of the face and the cheek. On
>> the forehead are multiple irregular lacerations, some oriented
>> horizontally, others diagonally. [redacted ...]
>> What you should note from this is that it says there are "MULTIPLE
>> lacerations, some oriented HORIZONTALLY, others DIAGONALLY". This
>> is key.
> That only shows that the rocks within the tidal pool weren't
> uniformly aligned.
What "rocks within the tidal pool"? We've never heard that before,
neither in the Hayes Report nor in the Grand Jury testimony. You're
just making this up as go along, because you've been had. This is in
fact just a LIE from Kent Wills ...
> Which is what one would expect.
>>>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_7.pdf>
>> And this page says this:
>> [redacted]
>> WITNESSES:
>> Detective Smith (LASD-Homicide0 witnessed the autopsy.
>> [redacted]
>> OPINION:
>> The cause of death in this 4 year female is multiple blunt force
>> traumatic injuries [redacted ...]
>> Again, please note: "MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries".
> 100% consistent with having been thrown, or her having taken a
> running leap.
Or have ACCIDENTALLY fallen. And without clear, convincing evidence to
the contrary -- which we do NOT have here -- one is obliged (at least
from a legal standpoint) to conclude that this MUST HAVE been an
ACCIDENT!
> Upon impact, she hit not only the water, but any rocks found within
> the tidal pool. Each rock would cause different lacerations and traumas.
Except for the fact that there AREN'T any rocks in the tidal pool.
> This isn't rocket science, Ted.
It seems to be for you (and you don't understand rocket science).
>> [I included the part about Det. Smith because the chump retired, and
>> WASN'T called to testify before the Grand Jury.]
> It's not like he could add anything.
Or, more likely, that his testimony would NOT help their case.
>>>> Of course I'm sure that you are eager to know what is contained in
>>>> the redacted portions.
>>> I'm not all that concerned, to be perfectly honest.
>> If this isn't a blatant, bald-faced LIE, I don't know what is.
> A large number of your posts, perhaps?
Of course not. Come on, Ken't. You know how eager he is to find out
what's in the redacted portions. Just as you are.
>>> My life won't end if I don't know.
>> And that's a good thing too, because you WON'T (at least not from
>> Kent).
> Are you so sure?
Of course. I don't see you filling in anyone else here -- and you
WOULD be, if only you could.
>>>> Perhaps Kent can fill you -- if only he had the Autopsy Report as
>>>> he dishonestly maintains. But he DOESN'T. And so he CAN'T.
>>>> Therefore, you can only wonder.
>>> Perhaps you can prove that Cam Brown is innocent. But you DON'T.
>>> Because you CAN"T. Therefore, we can only wonder ...
>> But I can CERTAINLY prove that he has been incarcerated on the basis
>> of PERJURED testimony.
> No you can't.
I ALREADY have.
> You have no evidence of it,
What, have you lost your copies of the 995 motion and the Grand Jury
transcript?
> and as such, you can not prove it.
Again, I've ALREADY done so.
> You've been asked to prove it multiple times, and have fallen flat,
> ergo no one has committed perjury.
Dr. Hayes has. (And so has Det. Jeff Leslie, though I've not posted
documentation about that.)
> I'm using your standards, Ted.
Not quite.
>> From Geragos' 995 motion, we learn that Hayes said in his report
>> that:
>> 1) Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a single,
>> high speed impact to the cliff face at Inspiration Point; the
>> impact produced massive head, neck and brain injuries, abrasions
>> and contusions to the head and upper chest; [995 Motion, page
>> 9, lines 3 - 6]
> Consistent with a toss/throw from the edge and hitting the tidal pool
> and any rocks found within.
That's NOT what Hayes says. He says that she struck ONCE on the cliff
face, and then fell into OPEN WATER. (But this "once" seems to have
somehow resulted in lacerations in two different orientations. Either
that, or Hayes is LYING.)
>> And in the Grand Jury hearing, Hayes testified [on page 243]:
>> 15 A YES. MY REVIEW OF THESE INJURIES IN THE
>> 16 AUTOPSY REPORT AND OTHER RECORDS INDICATES STRONGLY THAT
>> 17 LAUREN'S MASSIVE TRAUMATIC INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH A
>> 18 SINGLE, HIGH-VELOCITY IMPACT TO THE CLIFF. [...]
>> Notice that in both places he says that Lauren's injuries were the
>> result of a SINGLE high speed (or velocity) impact. But the Autopsy
>> Report indicates MULTIPLE injuries and trauma. But, you might
>> object, isn't possible that this one SINGLE impact produced multiple
>> injuries?
> It's not only possible, but expected.
"MULTIPLE blunt force trauma" indicates trauma from MULTIPLE hits.
> When one considers the terrain, it would be *very* suspect if she
> didn't have multiple injuries.
Which is INCONSISTENT with what Hayes testified (and indicated in his
report).
>> UH-UH! NO WAY! A single impact CANNOT produce lacerations that are
>> oriented in different directions ("some oriented horizontally,
>> others diagonally"). It's IMPOSSIBLE, it just CAN'T HAPPEN!
> Yes, in fact, it can, but you would need to know something of the
> human body and how it displays trauma.
Bullsh*t.
> It's not something a glorified telephone repair man would generally
> know.
I know enough to know when you're LYING.
>> And the "single impact" hypothesis is CRITICAL to Hayes' theory of
>> what happened.
> And very accurate.
Not according to what the Autopsy Report states.
>> There can only be one of two conclusions that is correct here:
>> either Hayes is a quack,
> Has he ever claimed to be a medical doctor? Even once?
Doesn't matter. He could still be a quack (and probably is).
> If not, you've been less than honest by calling him a quack.
The term isn't applied exclusively to MD's.
> But then, you do show a distaste for honesty.
I certainly have a distaste for those who EXHIBIT dishonesty, that's
for sure.
>> or else he is LYING to the Grand Jury. Those are the ONLY possible
>> conclusions.
> Or, as is the case, you are spinning it in such a way as to get the
> results you want.
I'm not spinning anything. The Autopsy Report CLEARLY indicates
MULTIPLE traumas, while Hayes dishonestly asserts that there was only
one.
>> Either way, this is PERJURY, as Hayes contends UNDER OATH, TO THE
>> GRAND JURY, that the Autopsy Reports indicates that Lauren
>> experienced a single impact, when in fact the report shows that her
>> injuries were consistent with MULTIPLE impacts.
> Actually, the report shows multiple injuries consistent with a single
> impact into a tidal pool that had rocks in it.
BBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!! LIE! The Autopsy Report doesn't say
that, and the idea of "rocks in the tidal pool" has never come up
before. In fact, she fell into an INLET, not a "tidal pool".
>> And this CLEAR -- there CANNOT be any controversy about it. In the
>> meanwhile, an INNOCENT man has been incarcerated for well over 2
>> years on false testimony.
> The available evidence shows Cameron is NOT innocent.
NO IT DOES NOT! The ONLY place where this has EVER beem said is in
Hayes' "expert's" report, based COMPLETELY on his assertion that Lauren
suffered only a SINGLE impact to the cliff face. This "single impact"
theory is the ONLY explanation that differentiates between an accident
and foul play. Anything else, and there is no basis up which to make
any such differentiation. And without it, there is NO basis to press
any charges or have a trial.
> Whether he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is something for a
> jury to decide.
As it looks to me, HAYES is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- guilty
of FABRICATING evidence, and of LYING to a Grand Jury.
>> And I believe that all this has been done KNOWINGLY --
> You are free to believe whatever you want, of course. heck, you
> believe people committed perjury, even though there is NO evidence of
> it.
There is if you compare Hayes' "expert's" report with the Autopsy
Report.
>> which explains why the Autopsy Report -- which is supposed to be a
>> PUBLIC document -- has been embargoed.
> Unless you know who to ask.
You apparently don't.
> And it didn't even cost me a dime
Because you don't have it.
> (in case anyone was worried that I bribed someone into getting me a
> copy).
As you don't have a copy, this question should never come up.
Ken Smith
> Kent Wills wrote:
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>Kent has the autopsy, and the expertise to read it. [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh, really? Does Kent have a copy of the Autopsy Report?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I say "no".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You can *say* whatever you want,
>>>>>
>>>>>And I'm right. I have posted the two pages that have the
>>>>>information that I asked for and Kent was unable to supply. But
>>>>>they are redacted.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, you are hiding something
>>>
>>>Am I? No I'm not.
>>
>>Yes, you are, if you are consistent with your standards.
>
> No I'm not. The information is available in what should be a public
> document (which you SAY you have but very CLEARLY do NOT!).
You are hiding the redacted information. We can reasonably infer
that its contents are damaging to your case. Your argument, used
against you. :)
>>>Whatever I have redacted is EASILY available from the Autopsy Report
>>>itself. All you have to do is look in it and see -- it's SUPPOSED
>>>TO BE a public document. And if they are declining to make it
>>>available to you, it is THEY who are hiding something, and not me.
>>>(More later.)
>>
>>Then make the whole thing available to those who don't currently have
>>a copy and wish to see it.
>
> What?!? I thought you HAD a copy. OBVIOUSLY you do NOT!
>
>>It really is that simple.
>
> Why don't you just email it around to everyone who wants it? You say
> that you have it.
Maybe he just wants to make you squirm. You deserve it. :)
>>You won't, of course, because there are those who will see the truth;
>>Lauren's injuries are consistent with being thrown/tossed off the
>>cliff, or having taken a running leap.
>
> If so, then why don't you disseminate this information?
He said that he would show his if you showed yours first. ALL of it,
and not just what you want us to see.
>>>>... and Kent knows what you have a compulsion to hide.
>>>
>>>Apparently he does not --
>>
>>I most certainly do. You show it FREQUENTLY.
>
> So what am I hiding?
At this point, not much.
>
>>>because he obviously does NOT have a copy of the Autopsy Report, as
>>>he dishonestly asserts that he does.
>>
>>Then you do not have any exculpatory evidence in regards to Cameron's
>>case.
>
> This is a non sequitur. One does not follow from the other.
It's YOUR logic. Wassamatta? Don't like your standards applied to
your arguments?
>
>>If we use YOUR standards, you believe Cameron is guilty of first
>>degree murder.
>
> You may FALSELY believe that, but I KNOW that it isn't true.
You can't *KNOW* unless you were there, and you said you were out of
state at the time.
>>>>Your behavior confirms his assertion.
>>>
>>>Whistling in the dark from Ken Smith.
>>
>>Ken is 100% accurate.
>
> Ken is off the wall.
Poor Teddums.
>>>>>You can see them at:
>>>>
>>>>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_2.pdf>
>>>>
>>>This page (in case anybody is too lazy to look at it) says this:
>>
>>> Head/face: There is extensive abrasion contusion of the forehead
>>> involving an area about 3-1/4 inch in diameter. The abrasion
>>> contusion extends down the face over the nose lip to the chin.
>>> It also extends to the left side of the face and the cheek. On
>>> the forehead are multiple irregular lacerations, some oriented
>>> horizontally, others diagonally. [redacted ...]
>>
>>>What you should note from this is that it says there are "MULTIPLE
>>>lacerations, some oriented HORIZONTALLY, others DIAGONALLY". This
>>>is key.
>>
>>That only shows that the rocks within the tidal pool weren't
>>uniformly aligned.
>
> What "rocks within the tidal pool"?
That there are rocks in the tidal pool is hardly surprising.
> We've never heard that before,
> neither in the Hayes Report nor in the Grand Jury testimony.
No real need to. You have multiple impacts by definition, if Hayes
is right.
> You're
> just making this up as go along, because you've been had.
By whom, and why? Who would fabricate a second autopsy, just to fool
Kent Wills?
> This is in fact just a LIE from Kent Wills ...
Is it? Prove it with some real evidence, Ted.
>>Which is what one would expect.
>
>>>>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_7.pdf>
>>>>
>>>And this page says this:
>>
>>> [redacted]
>>
>>> WITNESSES:
>>
>>> Detective Smith (LASD-Homicide0 witnessed the autopsy.
>>
>>> [redacted]
>>
>>> OPINION:
>>
>>> The cause of death in this 4 year female is multiple blunt force
>>> traumatic injuries [redacted ...]
>>
>>>Again, please note: "MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries".
>>
>>100% consistent with having been thrown, or her having taken a
>>running leap.
>
> Or have ACCIDENTALLY fallen.
If you can show this to requisite tolerances to the jury, you earn an
acquittal. Unfortunately, that is hell and gone from proving that the
State has incarcerated Cam on the basis of perjured evidence.
> And without clear, convincing evidence to
> the contrary -- which we do NOT have here -- one is obliged (at least
> from a legal standpoint) to conclude that this MUST HAVE been an
> ACCIDENT!
Again, everything you 'know' about the law is wrong. If the State
can make a legitimate case that it wasn't an accident, they are entitled
to -- and the ultimate decision will rest with the jury. As for me, I
have confidence that they will do the right thing, whatever that is.
>>Upon impact, she hit not only the water, but any rocks found within
>>the tidal pool. Each rock would cause different lacerations and traumas.
>
> Except for the fact that there AREN'T any rocks in the tidal pool.
And you have evidence of this? A few pictures of the site would go a
long way toward proving this ... but you'd have to prove that that was
where Lauren hit. Looking at the aerial pictures, there does seem to be
a number of places where the splatter could have been gruesome. (As for
the sand in SoCal, it isn't always pure silica.)
>>This isn't rocket science, Ted.
>
> It seems to be for you (and you don't understand rocket science).
>
>>>[I included the part about Det. Smith because the chump retired, and
>>>WASN'T called to testify before the Grand Jury.]
>>
>>It's not like he could add anything.
>
> Or, more likely, that his testimony would NOT help their case.
Detective Smith is not a coroner. All he could do is testify to the
fact that it was the body of Lauren Key, and that the coroner performed
certain procedures in his presence.
>>>>>Of course I'm sure that you are eager to know what is contained in
>>>>>the redacted portions.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not all that concerned, to be perfectly honest.
>>>
>>>If this isn't a blatant, bald-faced LIE, I don't know what is.
>>
>>A large number of your posts, perhaps?
>
> Of course not. Come on, Ken't. You know how eager he is to find out
> what's in the redacted portions. Just as you are.
Now that your fifteenth H-bomb has fizzled, I'm basically content to
wait for the trial. If you would STFU, this would go away in fairly
short order.
>
>>>>My life won't end if I don't know.
>>>
>>>And that's a good thing too, because you WON'T (at least not from
>>>Kent).
>>
>>Are you so sure?
>
> Of course. I don't see you filling in anyone else here -- and you
> WOULD be, if only you could.
>
>>>>>Perhaps Kent can fill you -- if only he had the Autopsy Report as
>>>>>he dishonestly maintains. But he DOESN'T. And so he CAN'T.
>>>>>Therefore, you can only wonder.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you can prove that Cam Brown is innocent. But you DON'T.
>>>>Because you CAN"T. Therefore, we can only wonder ...
>>>
>>>But I can CERTAINLY prove that he has been incarcerated on the basis
>>>of PERJURED testimony.
>>
>>No you can't.
>
> I ALREADY have.
Not to the knowledgeable audience here. When you have Larry and me
in agreement, you're probably in a world of hurt. ;)
>
>>You have no evidence of it,
>
> What, have you lost your copies of the 995 motion and the Grand Jury
> transcript?
We've heard your argument, and shot gaping holes in it.
>>and as such, you can not prove it.
>
> Again, I've ALREADY done so.
Not to this audience, you haven't.
>
>>You've been asked to prove it multiple times, and have fallen flat,
>>ergo no one has committed perjury.
>
> Dr. Hayes has.
We've tried to explain this to you, but as is always the case, it
goes in one ear and out the other. Dr. Hayes' testimony is his
professional opinion, which is not perjury.
> (And so has Det. Jeff Leslie, though I've not posted
> documentation about that.)
Again, this claim falls short for the lack of adequate proof.
>
>>I'm using your standards, Ted.
>
> Not quite.
Yes, quite.
>
>>>From Geragos' 995 motion, we learn that Hayes said in his report
>>>that:
>>
>>> 1) Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a single,
>>> high speed impact to the cliff face at Inspiration Point; the
>>> impact produced massive head, neck and brain injuries, abrasions
>>> and contusions to the head and upper chest; [995 Motion, page
>>> 9, lines 3 - 6]
>>
>>Consistent with a toss/throw from the edge and hitting the tidal pool
>>and any rocks found within.
>
> That's NOT what Hayes says. He says that she struck ONCE on the cliff
> face, and then fell into OPEN WATER. (But this "once" seems to have
> somehow resulted in lacerations in two different orientations. Either
> that, or Hayes is LYING.)
You are at liberty to prove this with credible evidence.
>
>>>And in the Grand Jury hearing, Hayes testified [on page 243]:
>>
>>> 15 A YES. MY REVIEW OF THESE INJURIES IN THE
>>> 16 AUTOPSY REPORT AND OTHER RECORDS INDICATES STRONGLY THAT
>>> 17 LAUREN'S MASSIVE TRAUMATIC INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH A
>>> 18 SINGLE, HIGH-VELOCITY IMPACT TO THE CLIFF. [...]
>>
>>>Notice that in both places he says that Lauren's injuries were the
>>>result of a SINGLE high speed (or velocity) impact. But the Autopsy
>>>Report indicates MULTIPLE injuries and trauma. But, you might
>>>object, isn't possible that this one SINGLE impact produced multiple
>>>injuries?
>>
>>It's not only possible, but expected.
>
> "MULTIPLE blunt force trauma" indicates trauma from MULTIPLE hits.
Having been there, I can see how she might have hit the cliff twice
(the second impact would not have been relevant, except to explain the
rest of the injuries, if (arguendo) they cannot be explained. That is
the coroner's problem.
>>When one considers the terrain, it would be *very* suspect if she
>>didn't have multiple injuries.
>
> Which is INCONSISTENT with what Hayes testified (and indicated in his
> report).
Produce Hayes' report.
>>>UH-UH! NO WAY! A single impact CANNOT produce lacerations that are
>>>oriented in different directions ("some oriented horizontally,
>>>others diagonally"). It's IMPOSSIBLE, it just CAN'T HAPPEN!
>
>>Yes, in fact, it can, but you would need to know something of the
>>human body and how it displays trauma.
>
> Bullsh*t.
Bullshot?!? Why don't you bust out with something like this:
"BULL-F***IN'-S*IT! ... Wipe your f***in' @ss with your opinion,
b*tch. ... you must have some bug up your @ss. B*tch. ... You
know sh*t."
-- Theodore A. Kaldis
[Widdle Baby Jesus just ***LOVES*** ast*r*sks. :) ]
>
>>It's not something a glorified telephone repair man would generally
>>know.
>
> I know enough to know when you're LYING.
Bullshot. :)
>>>And the "single impact" hypothesis is CRITICAL to Hayes' theory of
>>>what happened.
>>
>>And very accurate.
>
> Not according to what the Autopsy Report states.
As duly interpreted by Dr. Toad Anus. Kaldiseased, Ph.D., the world's
foremost expert in criminal law, biomechanics, forensic pathology,
psychiatry, Internet address tracing, and especially, the mating habits
of homosexual men. How can you argue with that, Kent? :)
>>>There can only be one of two conclusions that is correct here:
>>>either Hayes is a quack,
>>
>>Has he ever claimed to be a medical doctor? Even once?
>
> Doesn't matter. He could still be a quack (and probably is).
>
>>If not, you've been less than honest by calling him a quack.
>
> The term isn't applied exclusively to MD's.
>
>>But then, you do show a distaste for honesty.
>
> I certainly have a distaste for those who EXHIBIT dishonesty, that's
> for sure.
We've always said that self-loathing was an integral part of your
pathology.
>
>>>or else he is LYING to the Grand Jury. Those are the ONLY possible
>>>conclusions.
>>
>>Or, as is the case, you are spinning it in such a way as to get the
>>results you want.
>
> I'm not spinning anything. The Autopsy Report CLEARLY indicates
> MULTIPLE traumas, while Hayes dishonestly asserts that there was only
> one.
Produce Hayes' report.
>
>>>Either way, this is PERJURY, as Hayes contends UNDER OATH, TO THE
>>>GRAND JURY, that the Autopsy Reports indicates that Lauren
>>>experienced a single impact, when in fact the report shows that her
>>>injuries were consistent with MULTIPLE impacts.
>>
>>Actually, the report shows multiple injuries consistent with a single
>>impact into a tidal pool that had rocks in it.
>
> BBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!! LIE! The Autopsy Report doesn't say
> that, and the idea of "rocks in the tidal pool" has never come up
> before. In fact, she fell into an INLET, not a "tidal pool".
We don't *know* where she fell, Ted. Only Cam knows, and he is not
exactly the most trustworthy of witnesses.
>>>And this CLEAR -- there CANNOT be any controversy about it. In the
>>>meanwhile, an INNOCENT man has been incarcerated for well over 2
>>>years on false testimony.
>>
>>The available evidence shows Cameron is NOT innocent.
>
> NO IT DOES NOT! The ONLY place where this has EVER beem said is in
> Hayes' "expert's" report, based COMPLETELY on his assertion that Lauren
> suffered only a SINGLE impact to the cliff face.
From what we are told, Dr. Hayes said that the *cause of death* was a
single impact -- something you can probably figure out by examining the
speed at which she fell. What happened after that is not his concern.
> This "single impact"
> theory is the ONLY explanation that differentiates between an accident
> and foul play. Anything else, and there is no basis up which to make
> any such differentiation. And without it, there is NO basis to press
> any charges or have a trial.
The body is notably short on injuries consistent with a
slip-and-fall. This, coupled with the force of the impact, and the
incriminating facts and circumstances of her death, would be sufficient
for them to conclude that a crime was likely committed. They may be
wrong, but they are not acting outside the scope of their duties.
>>Whether he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is something for a
>>jury to decide.
>
> As it looks to me, HAYES is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- guilty
> of FABRICATING evidence, and of LYING to a Grand Jury.
Men willingly se what they wish.
>>>And I believe that all this has been done KNOWINGLY --
>>
>>You are free to believe whatever you want, of course. heck, you
>>believe people committed perjury, even though there is NO evidence of
>>it.
>
> There is if you compare Hayes' "expert's" report with the Autopsy
> Report.
Produce the report, and we will consider your claim.
>
>>>which explains why the Autopsy Report -- which is supposed to be a
>>>PUBLIC document -- has been embargoed.
>>
>>Unless you know who to ask.
>
> You apparently don't.
Evidently, somebody does.
>
>>And it didn't even cost me a dime
>
> Because you don't have it.
>
>>(in case anyone was worried that I bribed someone into getting me a
>>copy).
>
> As you don't have a copy, this question should never come up.
Prove it.
Give us something to be outraged about, Ted. Right now, this looks
like a garden-variety murder investigation, in which everyone was just
doing their job (as even *you* have admitted). Come up with something
more than your usual slimeballs, as we've been hitting them for batting
practice.
Theodore A. Kaldis
[...]
> You know, it's a common tactic of defense lawyers to focus on the
> evidence that isn't there, when the evidence that is known is strong.
And what "evidence" is "strong" for them in this case? Certainly NOT
whatever they had before the "expert's" report -- because they couldn't
even get Cam ARRESTED with it, let alone charged. They weren't able to
make a case against him until they got that "expert's" report -- and it
was the PROSECUTOR who arranged for that, NOT the investigators.
Why their "expert's" report is so crucial to their case is because it
is the ONLY piece of "evidence" that differentiates between an accident
and a crime. (And as it turns out, it has been MANUFACTURED on a
mischaracterisation of what actually happened.) That was their whole
problem all along: they have been unable to say that Lauren's death was
POSITIVELY the result of an INTENTIONAL crime, not simply an accident.
Hayes solved their "problem" by saying -- on the basis of his UNFOUNDED
"single impact" theory -- that Cameron must have necessarily THROWN her
off the cliff (at a 22 1/2 degree upward angle), that she didn't simply
slip and fall. (And by doing so, he rules out a push as well.)
> [...]
Not in this case. I posted actual pages of the Autopsy Report (with
some passages redacted, to be sure). What is shown is what the Autopsy
Report actually states. (Ask Kent Wills if this is so -- he claims to
have a copy of the Autopsy Report -- a dubious claim, if you ask me, so
don't be sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for a response.) And
the line from the "expert's" report was quoted in a defence motion
before the court, so we can trust that for its accuracy. The testimony
to the Grand Jury comes right from the transcript -- which many here
have, so that hasn't been falsified.
So what's been "distorted"? The Autopsy Report CLEARLY states MULTIPLE
blunt force trauma injuries" -- which are generally understoo to mean
injuries from multiple hits -- while the "expert" testifies about a
"single impact". (And to clear up the matter about the "multiple"
trauma, there is the part about lacerations in different orientations
(horizontally and diagonally) on the forehead. CERTAINLY a "single"
impact wouldn't have causes such injuries. What's been distorted, it
seems clear to me, is how the "expert" has characterised her injuries,
and built a FALSE and UNFOUNDED theory around this distortion. And it
is the ONLY piece of "evidence" that was strong enough to build a case
on.
> But we don't even have to get that far, Ted, because these two
> descriptions are *not* inconsistent.
No? Autopsy Report: "The cause of death in this 4 year female is
MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries ..." [emphasis added]. Dr.
Hayes: "Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a SINGLE, high
speed impact to the cliff face ..." [emphasis added]. So unless
"multiple" is consistent with "single", we are FORCED to concede that
these two descriptions ARE in fact INCONSISTENT.
> The Dr. did NOT testify, as you claim, that she only sustained one
> impact or that all of her injuries were from one impact.
Sure he did. From page 244 of the Grand Jury transcript:
1 [...] AS SHE DESCENDS,
2 SHE FOLLOWS AN ARC, AND HER HEAD TURNS SO THAT IT IS
3 DOWN; AND SHE STRIKES THE CLIFF FACE WITH HER FACE
4 TOWARDS THE CLIFF, HER HEAD DOWN. AND SHE IMPACTS THE
5 CLIFF WITH THE LEFT SIDE AND TOP OF HER FACE AND
6 FOREHEAD. SHE HAS HER RIGHT HAND EXTENDED TO TRY TO
7 CATCH HERSELF; AND SHE HITS ONCE, AND NOT AGAIN, AND GOES
8 INTO THE WATER.
So tell me, how can she get lacerations on her forehead in 2 different
orientations -- some horizontal, and others diagonal -- as the Autopsy
Report CLEARLY states -- if she impacted the face of the cliff only
once?
[...]
>> And I believe that all this has been done KNOWINGLY -- which
>> explains why the Autopsy Report -- which is supposed to be a PUBLIC
>> document -- has been embargoed.
> Instead of speculating that a public document isn't public, try to
> get it.
I already have a copy.
> Go to the clerk's office and ask for it, or make a FOIA request. If
> you're denied, then you might have some of us thinking your
> allegation has merit. Otherwise, you're just guessing.
Lowrenta said she tried to get it (or maybe it was one of her lackeys),
but was told that there was an "investigation hold" on it. (Or some
such thing.) But there isn't any investigation going on in this case
(at least not by the cops or authorities). In any event, it seems that
some of the lugs posting here have been unable to get it. If so, then
this might be the reason.
Ken Smith
> Larry wrote:
[snip]
>>Well, there is a third option - that the defense lawyer, who is the
>>most obvious hired-gun in this case, is lying or distorting the
>>evidence as well. I'm not saying he is, but its possible.
>
> Not in this case. I posted actual pages of the Autopsy Report (with
> some passages redacted,
Why? What are you hiding from us? I'm sure it's quite
incriminating. Your argument, used against you. :)
Larry
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > You know, it's a common tactic of defense lawyers to focus on the
> > evidence that isn't there, when the evidence that is known is strong.
>
> And what "evidence" is "strong" for them in this case? Certainly NOT
> whatever they had before the "expert's" report -- because they couldn't
> even get Cam ARRESTED with it, let alone charged. They weren't able to
> make a case against him until they got that "expert's" report -- and it
> was the PROSECUTOR who arranged for that, NOT the investigators.
You think there's something inherently suspect about the report simply
because the prosecutor ordered it? Does that mean any report or
experiment the defense arranges is likewise automatically suspect?
> Why their "expert's" report is so crucial to their case is because it
> is the ONLY piece of "evidence" that differentiates between an accident
> and a crime. (And as it turns out, it has been MANUFACTURED on a
> mischaracterisation of what actually happened.)
If this is the case, I bet the judge will issue a trial order of
dismissal (or whatever the California equivalent is) once the
prosecution rests their case. Or, at worst, the jury should deliberate
for how long - less than an hour? If it is as clear cut as you say it
is...
> That was their whole
> problem all along: they have been unable to say that Lauren's death was
> POSITIVELY the result of an INTENTIONAL crime, not simply an accident.
Ted, this is not a "problem." People die all the time due to accidents.
Thousands of deaths a year are investigated by the police and ruled
accidental - or even suspected to be criminal, but there is no one who
the evidence indicates is criminally liable. I'd venture to say no cop
or prosecutor has ever lost his or her job over an unsolved crime or an
accidental death for which no one was criminally charged. So what,
exactly, is the "problem"?
Read closely. He says that the MASSIVE injuries were the result of a
single trauma. If someone punches someone else 5 times, then hits them
in the head with a baseball bat, causing their death, the cause of death
is a single blunt force trauma to the head, although they might still
have broken ribs and bruises and lacerations from the punches.
> (And to clear up the matter about the "multiple"
> trauma, there is the part about lacerations in different orientations
> (horizontally and diagonally) on the forehead. CERTAINLY a "single"
> impact wouldn't have causes such injuries.
Medically speaking, a laceration to the face is not a significant
injury. It's certainly not a trauma. So when the expert opined about
the cause of the "massive traumatic injuries," he most certainly was NOT
referring to scratches on her face.
> What's been distorted, it
> seems clear to me, is how the "expert" has characterised her injuries,
> and built a FALSE and UNFOUNDED theory around this distortion. And it
> is the ONLY piece of "evidence" that was strong enough to build a case
> on.
There's more evidence than that. There's her body found at the bottom
of the cliff. There's Cameron found on the top. There's their history
and relationship. All these things are corroboration.
> > But we don't even have to get that far, Ted, because these two
> > descriptions are *not* inconsistent.
>
> No? Autopsy Report: "The cause of death in this 4 year female is
> MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries ..." [emphasis added]. Dr.
> Hayes: "Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a SINGLE, high
> speed impact to the cliff face ..." [emphasis added]. So unless
> "multiple" is consistent with "single", we are FORCED to concede that
> these two descriptions ARE in fact INCONSISTENT.
"Multiple" and "single" are adjectives in this context, and they
describe different things. There were multiple INJURIES, but a single
IMPACT with the cliff.
This is not inconsistent. From a single blunt force impact, one could
sustain multiple injuries. For example, if someone jumps out of a
window and hits the, ground (a single impact), they could end up with a
broken arm, a few broken ribs, and a concussion (multiple injuries),
couldn't they? This isn't the least bit inconsistent, factually,
medically, or legally.
> > The Dr. did NOT testify, as you claim, that she only sustained one
> > impact or that all of her injuries were from one impact.
>
> Sure he did. From page 244 of the Grand Jury transcript:
>
> 1 [...] AS SHE DESCENDS,
> 2 SHE FOLLOWS AN ARC, AND HER HEAD TURNS SO THAT IT IS
> 3 DOWN; AND SHE STRIKES THE CLIFF FACE WITH HER FACE
> 4 TOWARDS THE CLIFF, HER HEAD DOWN. AND SHE IMPACTS THE
> 5 CLIFF WITH THE LEFT SIDE AND TOP OF HER FACE AND
> 6 FOREHEAD. SHE HAS HER RIGHT HAND EXTENDED TO TRY TO
> 7 CATCH HERSELF; AND SHE HITS ONCE, AND NOT AGAIN, AND GOES
> 8 INTO THE WATER.
>
> So tell me, how can she get lacerations on her forehead in 2 different
> orientations -- some horizontal, and others diagonal -- as the Autopsy
> Report CLEARLY states -- if she impacted the face of the cliff only
> once?
Just off the top of my head I can field this one. See that last part,
"goes into the water"? Maybe she got facial lacerations from hitting
the water - or rocks at the bottom of the water - or from debris or
objects floating or suspended in the water.
>
> [...]
>
> >> And I believe that all this has been done KNOWINGLY -- which
> >> explains why the Autopsy Report -- which is supposed to be a PUBLIC
> >> document -- has been embargoed.
>
> > Instead of speculating that a public document isn't public, try to
> > get it.
>
> I already have a copy.
Then I guess it's not being hidden or covered up, now is it?
> > Go to the clerk's office and ask for it, or make a FOIA request. If
> > you're denied, then you might have some of us thinking your
> > allegation has merit. Otherwise, you're just guessing.
>
> Lowrenta said she tried to get it (or maybe it was one of her lackeys),
> but was told that there was an "investigation hold" on it. (Or some
> such thing.) But there isn't any investigation going on in this case
> (at least not by the cops or authorities).
You think there are currently-pending murder charges and they think the
case is closed??? Of course its pending!
Theodore A. Kaldis
>>>>>> I say "no".
I still haven't seen those briefs we were asking you for oh so long
ago. So you're in no position to ask me to make ANYTHING public.
[...]
>>>> You can see them at:
>>>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_2.pdf>
>> This page (in case anybody is too lazy to look at it) says this:
>> Head/face: There is extensive abrasion contusion of the forehead
>> involving an area about 3-1/4 inch in diameter. The abrasion
>> contusion extends down the face over the nose lip to the chin.
>> It also extends to the left side of the face and the cheek. On
>> the forehead are multiple irregular lacerations, some oriented
>> horizontally, others diagonally. [redacted ...]
>> What you should note from this is that it says there are "MULTIPLE
>> lacerations, some oriented HORIZONTALLY, others DIAGONALLY". This
>> is key.
> Not necessarily.
Yes necessarily.
> Assuming that she hit the cliff as theorized, she would have also had
> a fairly spectacular collision when she hit the water.
So since when does falling into the water cause lacerations?
>>>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_7.pdf>
>> And this page says this:
>> [redacted]
>> WITNESSES:
>> Detective Smith (LASD-Homicide0 witnessed the autopsy.
> Irrelevant and immaterial. Libelous, even (CA recognizes the tort of
> libel by innuendo).
What's libelous about this? This is EXACTLY what the Autopsy Report
states. Where's the innuendo?
>> [redacted]
>> OPINION:
>> The cause of death in this 4 year female is multiple blunt force
>> traumatic injuries [redacted ...]
>> Again, please note: "MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries".
> Again, if she hit the cliff, there would have been two impacts, and
> possibly more (depending on where she hit the cliff). The problem
> is?
What Hayes testified to the Grand Jury [page 244]:
1 LEAVES THE CLIFF IN THIS ORIENTATION. AS SHE DESCENDS,
2 SHE FOLLOWS AN ARC, AND HER HEAD TURNS SO THAT IT IS
3 DOWN; AND SHE STRIKES THE CLIFF FACE WITH HER FACE
4 TOWARDS THE CLIFF, HER HEAD DOWN. AND SHE IMPACTS THE
5 CLIFF WITH THE LEFT SIDE AND TOP OF HER FACE AND
6 FOREHEAD. SHE HAS HER RIGHT HAND EXTENDED TO TRY TO
7 CATCH HERSELF; AND SHE HITS ONCE, AND NOT AGAIN, AND GOES
8 INTO THE WATER.
"She hits once, and not again".
[...]
>>>> Of course I'm sure that you are eager to know what is contained in
>>>> the redacted portions.
>>> I'm not all that concerned, to be perfectly honest.
>> If this isn't a blatant, bald-faced LIE, I don't know what is.
> I'm not concerned, Ted.
Come on, Ken. Who's fooling who here?
> I could have asked either one of them for a copy, but chose not to.
Because you KNOW they don't have it.
>>> My life won't end if I don't know.
>> And that's a good thing too, because you WON'T (at least not from
>> Kent).
> This sounds like a threat.
There's no threat here.
> And here, I thought you said Cam wasn't violent ...
He isn't, nor am I.
>>>> Perhaps Kent can fill you -- if only he had the Autopsy Report as
>>>> he dishonestly maintains. But he DOESN'T. And so he CAN'T.
>>>> Therefore, you can only wonder.
>>> Perhaps you can prove that Cam Brown is innocent. But you DON'T.
>>> Because you CAN"T. Therefore, we can only wonder ...
>> But I can CERTAINLY prove that he has been incarcerated on the basis
>> of PERJURED testimony. From Geragos' 995 motion, we learn that
>> Hayes said in his report that:
>> 1) Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a single,
>> high speed impact to the cliff face at Inspiration Point; the
>> impact produced massive head, neck and brain injuries, abrasions
>> and contusions to the head and upper chest; [995 Motion, page
>> 9, lines 3 - 6]
>> And in the Grand Jury hearing, Hayes testified [on page 243]:
>> 15 A YES. MY REVIEW OF THESE INJURIES IN THE
>> 16 AUTOPSY REPORT AND OTHER RECORDS INDICATES STRONGLY THAT
>> 17 LAUREN'S MASSIVE TRAUMATIC INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH A
>> 18 SINGLE, HIGH-VELOCITY IMPACT TO THE CLIFF. [...]
>> Notice that in both places he says that Lauren's injuries were the
>> result of a SINGLE high speed (or velocity) impact.
> It is only his professional opinion, which cannot constitute perjury.
It can when he says that he's read the Autopsy Report, but the Autopsy
Report says she suffered MULTIPLE traumas, and he claims to the Grand
Jury -- FALSELY -- that the Autopsy Report says she suffered a SINGLE
trauma.
>> But the Autopsy Report indicates MULTIPLE injuries and trauma. But,
>> you might object, isn't possible that this one SINGLE impact
>> produced multiple injuries? UH-UH! NO WAY! A single impact CANNOT
>> produce lacerations that are oriented in different directions ("some
>> oriented horizontally, others diagonally").
> As I've
mistakenly
> pointed out, if Hayes' theory were true, there were at least two
> impacts by definition.
But Hayes testified that there was only ONE impact. (An impact with
the surface of the water doesn't count, because it can't produce
lacerations.)
[...]
>> It's IMPOSSIBLE, it just CAN'T HAPPEN!
> No, it can't. However, as two impacts are necessarily theorized in
> Lauren Key's death, your objection is not relevant to this case.
Disingenuous, for reasons pointed out above.
>> And the "single impact" hypothesis is CRITICAL to Hayes' theory of
>> what happened.
> As I haven't read Hayes' report, I have no opinion on this.
I have read it. And you should be able to read enough of it as it is
quoted in the 995 motion.
>> There can only be one of two conclusions that is correct here:
>> either Hayes is a quack, or else he is LYING to the Grand Jury.
>> Those are the ONLY possible conclusions.
> False dilemma.
REAL dilemma. For the prosecution.
> Hayes' theory is that she died from the force of the first impact,
Which he says was the ONLY impact.
> and the coroner didn't have the requisite biomechanical expertise to
> be sure.
The coroner EXAMINED THE BODY. And some quack -- WHO HASN'T -- is
second-guessing him 3 years later? That's not going to fly.
> We know that if there was only one impact, this fact might be
> problematic for the prosecution, but this means that she would have
> had to have missed the cliff entirely.
An impact with the surface of the water would NOT have resulted in
lacerations (let alone in 2 different orientations). And that she
landed in the water is NOT in dispute.
>> Either way, this is PERJURY, as Hayes contends UNDER OATH, TO THE
>> GRAND JURY, that the Autopsy Reports indicates that Lauren
>> experienced a single impact, when in fact the report shows that her
>> injuries were consistent with MULTIPLE impacts.
> I hope this isn't your H-bomb-class evidence, because it will fizzle.
This ain't it. I told you, the H-bomb stuff will not appear here until
AFTER it has been revealed in court. (And it is REAL H-bomb class --
more than that I cannot say.)
> Hayes should be able to explain why Lauren's injuries were
> incompatible with a slip-and-fall, and why his theory fits the facts.
What, with double-talk? Equivocation? You know how that stuff goes
over with a jury.
> Geragos may or may not be able to raise reasonable doubt, but it is
> far and away from saying that the case was based on perjured
> testimony.
Yeah. And the Colorado Bar Examiners were out to "get" Ken Smith.
Sure.
> Unless you have more, all you can do is wait for the trial.
Should there ever be one.
>> And this CLEAR -- there CANNOT be any controversy about it.
> Yes, there can be -- although not in your mind.
Not a substantive controversy at least.
>> In the meanwhile, an INNOCENT man has been incarcerated for well
>> over 2 years on false testimony.
> False premises;
You haven't shown ANY of my premises to be faulty.
> false conclusion. You haven't proven squat.
You just can't admit when you're wrong.
>> And I believe that all this has been done KNOWINGLY -- which
>> explains why the Autopsy Report -- which is supposed to be a PUBLIC
>> document -- has been embargoed.
> You have shown a marked propensity to believe whatever you want,
> irrespective of the facts at hand.
You have shown a marked propensity to believe whatever you want,
irrespective of the facts at hand -- as that you might prevail before
Judge Nottingham, or in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Theodore A. Kaldis
>> What's been distorted, it seems clear to me, is how the "expert" has
>> characterised her injuries, and built a FALSE and UNFOUNDED theory
>> around this distortion. And it is the ONLY piece of "evidence" that
>> was strong enough to build a case on.
> There's more evidence than that.
But it wasn't enough to even get Cam ARRESTED, let alone charged.
> There's her body found at the bottom of the cliff. There's Cameron
> found on the top. There's their history and relationship. All these
> things are corroboration.
And you you really haven't read much about their history and
relationship (except a little innuendo based on mischaracterisations).
And the reason for that is that it does NOT work in favour of the
prosecution.
Ken Smith
> Ken Smith wrote:
[betwixt us, where it matters]
>>>>Obviously, you are hiding something
>>>
>>>Am I? No I'm not. Whatever I have redacted is EASILY available
>>>from the Autopsy Report itself. All you have to do is look in it
>>>and see -- it's SUPPOSED TO BE a public document. And if they are
>>>declining to make it available to you, it is THEY who are hiding
>>>something, and not me. (More later.)
>>
>>So why *not* make it public, without the redactions? It makes it
>>look as if you have something to hide. (Remember that you made this
>>argument against me. :) )
>
> I still haven't seen those briefs we were asking you for oh so long
> ago.
Exactumundo. If you can infer negative things from my refusal, we
can infer it from yours. Differing weights and measures.... :)
[...]
>>> Head/face: There is extensive abrasion contusion of the forehead
>>> involving an area about 3-1/4 inch in diameter. The abrasion
>>> contusion extends down the face over the nose lip to the chin.
>>> It also extends to the left side of the face and the cheek. On
>>> the forehead are multiple irregular lacerations, some oriented
>>> horizontally, others diagonally. [redacted ...]
>>
>>>What you should note from this is that it says there are "MULTIPLE
>>>lacerations, some oriented HORIZONTALLY, others DIAGONALLY". This
>>>is key.
>>
>>Not necessarily.
>
> Yes necessarily.
Not necessarily. Kent explained it more capably than I could.
>>Assuming that she hit the cliff as theorized, she would have also had
>>a fairly spectacular collision when she hit the water.
>
> So since when does falling into the water cause lacerations?
Hitting the bottom sure as hell can. Ever step on coral?
>>>>> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AR_12_7.pdf>
>>>>
>>>And this page says this:
>>
>>> [redacted]
>>
>>> WITNESSES:
>>
>>> Detective Smith (LASD-Homicide0 witnessed the autopsy.
>>
>>Irrelevant and immaterial. Libelous, even (CA recognizes the tort of
>>libel by innuendo).
>
> What's libelous about this? This is EXACTLY what the Autopsy Report
> states. Where's the innuendo?
In your other posts. (I note for the record that the salient
comments are gone.)
>>> OPINION:
>>
>>> The cause of death in this 4 year female is multiple blunt force
>>> traumatic injuries [redacted ...]
>>>Again, please note: "MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries".
>>
>>Again, if she hit the cliff, there would have been two impacts, and
>>possibly more (depending on where she hit the cliff). The problem
>>is?
>
> What Hayes testified to the Grand Jury [page 244]:
>
> 1 LEAVES THE CLIFF IN THIS ORIENTATION. AS SHE DESCENDS,
> 2 SHE FOLLOWS AN ARC, AND HER HEAD TURNS SO THAT IT IS
> 3 DOWN; AND SHE STRIKES THE CLIFF FACE WITH HER FACE
> 4 TOWARDS THE CLIFF, HER HEAD DOWN. AND SHE IMPACTS THE
> 5 CLIFF WITH THE LEFT SIDE AND TOP OF HER FACE AND
> 6 FOREHEAD. SHE HAS HER RIGHT HAND EXTENDED TO TRY TO
> 7 CATCH HERSELF; AND SHE HITS ONCE, AND NOT AGAIN, AND GOES
> 8 INTO THE WATER.
>
> "She hits once, and not again".
Lauren hits the cliff once, causing multiple blunt force traumatic
injuries. Additional injuries may have occured when she hit the water
-- not the water, but the bottom.
> [...]
>>>>>Of course I'm sure that you are eager to know what is contained in
>>>>>the redacted portions.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not all that concerned, to be perfectly honest.
>>>
>>>If this isn't a blatant, bald-faced LIE, I don't know what is.
>>
>>I'm not concerned, Ted.
>
> Come on, Ken. Who's fooling who here?
I'm really *not* concerned, Ted. Cam's case is going to trial, and I
have enough faith in Geragos' abilities (uinlike some here) that he will
get a fair trial. (Truthfully, I'd feel one hell of a lot better about
it if Larry Smith was his counsel -- that is one *sharp* cat.) My
only concern in pre-trial is whether there was sufficient credible
evidence indicating that a miscarriage of justice has been committed.
Giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt, as the law does here, I
could find nothing that rises to the level of a civil rights violation
-- and if it makes you feel any better, neither does Larry.
>>I could have asked either one of them for a copy, but chose not to.
>
> Because you KNOW they don't have it.
I honestly don't believe I've ever asked before today. Really, I
don't care at this point.
>>>>My life won't end if I don't know.
>>>
>>>And that's a good thing too, because you WON'T (at least not from
>>>Kent).
>>
>>This sounds like a threat.
>
> There's no threat here.
>
>>And here, I thought you said Cam wasn't violent ...
>
> He isn't, nor am I.
So if Kent isn't going to do me in, Cam isn't, and you aren't ... I
suppose I could use a little of Kent's divine retribution. :)
>>>But I can CERTAINLY prove that he has been incarcerated on the basis
>>>of PERJURED testimony. From Geragos' 995 motion, we learn that
>>>Hayes said in his report that:
>>
>>> 1) Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a single,
>>> high speed impact to the cliff face at Inspiration Point; the
>>> impact produced massive head, neck and brain injuries, abrasions
>>> and contusions to the head and upper chest; [995 Motion, page
>>> 9, lines 3 - 6]
>>
>>>And in the Grand Jury hearing, Hayes testified [on page 243]:
>>
>
>>> 15 A YES. MY REVIEW OF THESE INJURIES IN THE
>>> 16 AUTOPSY REPORT AND OTHER RECORDS INDICATES STRONGLY THAT
>>> 17 LAUREN'S MASSIVE TRAUMATIC INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH A
>>> 18 SINGLE, HIGH-VELOCITY IMPACT TO THE CLIFF. [...]
>>
>>>Notice that in both places he says that Lauren's injuries were the
>>>result of a SINGLE high speed (or velocity) impact.
>>
>>It is only his professional opinion, which cannot constitute perjury.
>
> It can when he says that he's read the Autopsy Report, but the Autopsy
> Report says she suffered MULTIPLE traumas, and he claims to the Grand
> Jury -- FALSELY -- that the Autopsy Report says she suffered a SINGLE
> trauma.
Reading comprehension has never been your strongest suit. One
impact, multiple injuries. Then, a second impact in the ocean, which
may or may not have inflicted other incidental injuries. Injuries not
consistent with a slip-and-fall.
>>>But the Autopsy Report indicates MULTIPLE injuries and trauma. But,
>>>you might object, isn't possible that this one SINGLE impact
>>>produced multiple injuries? UH-UH! NO WAY! A single impact CANNOT
>>>produce lacerations that are oriented in different directions ("some
>>>oriented horizontally, others diagonally").
>>
>>As I've
>
> mistakenly
>
>>pointed out, if Hayes' theory were true, there were at least two
>>impacts by definition.
>
> But Hayes testified that there was only ONE impact. (An impact with
> the surface of the water doesn't count, because it can't produce
> lacerations.)
How deep was the water? It doesn't look like it is more than a few
feet, and the tides in SoCal are relatively mild. Lauren certainly hit
the bottom. The extent to which this exascerbated her injuries may not
be anyone's concern.
> [...]
>>>It's IMPOSSIBLE, it just CAN'T HAPPEN!
>>
>>No, it can't. However, as two impacts are necessarily theorized in
>>Lauren Key's death, your objection is not relevant to this case.
>
> Disingenuous, for reasons pointed out above.
>
>>>And the "single impact" hypothesis is CRITICAL to Hayes' theory of
>>>what happened.
>>
>>As I haven't read Hayes' report, I have no opinion on this.
>
> I have read it. And you should be able to read enough of it as it is
> quoted in the 995 motion.
I've read enough of it to know that your argument is risible.
>>>There can only be one of two conclusions that is correct here:
>>>either Hayes is a quack, or else he is LYING to the Grand Jury.
>>>Those are the ONLY possible conclusions.
>>
>>False dilemma.
>
> REAL dilemma. For the prosecution.
I'm sure they're sweating bullets ... NOT!!!
>>Hayes' theory is that she died from the force of the first impact,
>
> Which he says was the ONLY impact.
You mean, she didn't hit the water?
>>and the coroner didn't have the requisite biomechanical expertise to
>>be sure.
>
> The coroner EXAMINED THE BODY. And some quack -- WHO HASN'T -- is
> second-guessing him 3 years later? That's not going to fly.
As Larry pointed out, the Hayes report and the coroner's report are
compatible and complementary. You are trying to create a discrepancy
where none exist.
>>We know that if there was only one impact, this fact might be
>>problematic for the prosecution, but this means that she would have
>>had to have missed the cliff entirely.
>
> An impact with the surface of the water would NOT have resulted in
> lacerations (let alone in 2 different orientations). And that she
> landed in the water is NOT in dispute.
She wouldn't have hit the bottom? On which planet do you live these
days? Ever do any platform diving?
>>>Either way, this is PERJURY, as Hayes contends UNDER OATH, TO THE
>>>GRAND JURY, that the Autopsy Reports indicates that Lauren
>>>experienced a single impact, when in fact the report shows that her
>>>injuries were consistent with MULTIPLE impacts.
>
>>I hope this isn't your H-bomb-class evidence, because it will fizzle.
>
> This ain't it. I told you, the H-bomb stuff will not appear here until
> AFTER it has been revealed in court. (And it is REAL H-bomb class --
> more than that I cannot say.)
Since it's going to trial, you might as well save your whining for then.
>>Hayes should be able to explain why Lauren's injuries were
>>incompatible with a slip-and-fall, and why his theory fits the facts.
>
> What, with double-talk? Equivocation? You know how that stuff goes
> over with a jury.
Larry explained it quite cogently. And it's not like he's used to
being in my corner.... :)
>>Geragos may or may not be able to raise reasonable doubt, but it is
>>far and away from saying that the case was based on perjured
>>testimony.
>
> Yeah. And the Colorado Bar Examiners were out to "get" Ken Smith.
> Sure.
Sure. The evidence speaks for itself, but you refuse to listen.
>
>>Unless you have more, all you can do is wait for the trial.
>
> Should there ever be one.
As Larry has patiently explained to you, the only way out is a plea
bargain. The chances of their dismissing this case, given the evidence
they have, are infinitesmal.
>>>And this CLEAR -- there CANNOT be any controversy about it.
>>
>>Yes, there can be -- although not in your mind.
>
> Not a substantive controversy at least.
No, you will never let there be one. You have made up your mind, and
that is that.
>>>In the meanwhile, an INNOCENT man has been incarcerated for well
>>>over 2 years on false testimony.
>>
>>False premises;
>
> You haven't shown ANY of my premises to be faulty.
Sure I have. Everyone else has been showing it to you, as well.
>
>>false conclusion. You haven't proven squat.
>
> You just can't admit when you're wrong.
And you can? Remember, YOU were the one who wouldn't admit it
because you feared that I'd beat you over ther head with it. :)
>>>And I believe that all this has been done KNOWINGLY -- which
>>>explains why the Autopsy Report -- which is supposed to be a PUBLIC
>>>document -- has been embargoed.
>>
>>You have shown a marked propensity to believe whatever you want,
>>irrespective of the facts at hand.
>
> You have shown a marked propensity to believe whatever you want,
> irrespective of the facts at hand -- as that you might prevail before
> Judge Nottingham, or in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I didn't say that I would prevail; I merely said that I should
prevail -- if the judge followed the law. I had little warning that the
judges would stray as far from the letter of the law as they did, but
you can't run your life from a position of fear.
One thing is absolutely certain: *YOUR* advice would have resulted in
CERTAIN failure -- and I wouldn't have learned anything from it.
The Cam Brown situation has been a sort of divine retribution, as it
is the Kaldiseased family who is on the business end of the wrath of the
government. There is a certain *symmetry* in seeing you and your family
suffer, given that you have stated that your intended purpose here is to
attempt to injure and defame me personally by any means possible. It's
nice to see bullies and thugs like you get their comeuppance.
Recognize this, Ted: Cam will never really go home. Even if he does
come back to Sister Patty, he will be so radically changed that things
will never be as they were.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 18:49:25 GMT, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
> <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >No? Autopsy Report: "The cause of death in this 4 year female is
> >MULTIPLE blunt force traumatic injuries ..." [emphasis added]. Dr.
> >Hayes: "Lauren Key-Marer died as a direct consequence of a SINGLE, high
> >speed impact to the cliff face ..." [emphasis added]. So unless
> >"multiple" is consistent with "single", we are FORCED to concede that
> >these two descriptions ARE in fact INCONSISTENT.
>
> You're not even trying to compare apples and oranges with this
> one.
> One can have a single impact resulting in multiple injuries.
> A skier hits a tree. His leg is broken AND he has abrasions to the
> leg. Two injuries from a single impact. The concept is very similar
> in Lauren's death.
Here's a clearer example for Ted. Someone could be shot five times.
Once in each leg, once in each arm, once in the torso. Suppose only the
last shot was the one that killed him. Cause of death? A *single*
gunshot wound to the torso. Did the person sustain *multiple*
significant injuries? Of course. Does it mean he was only shot once?
Of course not.
Larry
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> >> What's been distorted, it seems clear to me, is how the "expert" has
> >> characterised her injuries, and built a FALSE and UNFOUNDED theory
> >> around this distortion. And it is the ONLY piece of "evidence" that
> >> was strong enough to build a case on.
>
> > There's more evidence than that.
>
> But it wasn't enough to even get Cam ARRESTED, let alone charged.
Actually, there was, because it happened. Res ipsa loquitur.
Not only was it enough for him to be arrested, which any police officer
has the authority to do, the arrest was subsequently supported by a
grand jury indictment.
Larry
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
<snip>
> >> And in the Grand Jury hearing, Hayes testified [on page 243]:
>
> >> 15 A YES. MY REVIEW OF THESE INJURIES IN THE
> >> 16 AUTOPSY REPORT AND OTHER RECORDS INDICATES STRONGLY THAT
> >> 17 LAUREN'S MASSIVE TRAUMATIC INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH A
> >> 18 SINGLE, HIGH-VELOCITY IMPACT TO THE CLIFF. [...]
>
> >> Notice that in both places he says that Lauren's injuries were the
> >> result of a SINGLE high speed (or velocity) impact.
No, it says the MASSIVE TRAUMATIC injuries are from a single impact.
Unless lacerations are massive traumatic injuries, they are not included
in his conclusion as he stated it in that sentence.
> > It is only his professional opinion, which cannot constitute perjury.
>
> It can when he says that he's read the Autopsy Report, but the Autopsy
> Report says she suffered MULTIPLE traumas, and he claims to the Grand
> Jury -- FALSELY -- that the Autopsy Report says she suffered a SINGLE
> trauma.
This isn't what he claimed.
<snip>
> But Hayes testified that there was only ONE impact. (An impact with
> the surface of the water doesn't count, because it can't produce
> lacerations.)
No, he didn't. The Dr. testified that the *major injuries* were caused
by one impact. It doesn't mean there weren't others. Just that
medically speaking, they were insignificant. And, medically speaking,
lacerations and abrasions to the face are insignificant injuries when
someone is dead.
<snip>
> An impact with the surface of the water would NOT have resulted in
> lacerations (let alone in 2 different orientations). And that she
> landed in the water is NOT in dispute
But was the water perfectly pure, with a smooth, soft bottom surface?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Larry wrote:
>>>> What's been distorted, it seems clear to me, is how the "expert"
>>>> has characterised her injuries, and built a FALSE and UNFOUNDED
>>>> theory around this distortion. And it is the ONLY piece of
>>>> "evidence" that was strong enough to build a case on.
>>> There's more evidence than that.
>> But it wasn't enough to even get Cam ARRESTED, let alone charged.
> Actually, there was, because it happened. Res ipsa loquitur.
In fact, it was NOT. He was arrested on the basis of an arrest warrant
signed by a judge. And the "evidence" that the judge used to justify
the arrest was the "expert's" report -- which we now know is a work of
FICTION. (Not that the judge understood the "expert's" report, mind
you. He had to have figured, "oh well, he's the 'expert' -- if the
'expert' says he's guilty, he must be".)
> Not only was it enough for him to be arrested,
If that's the case, then how come he was never arrested until they got
the "expert's" report?
> which any police officer has the authority to do,
Apparently not, because they needed the arrest warrant to effect the
arrest.
> the arrest was subsequently supported by a grand jury indictment.
And we now know that the Grand Jury was LIED to.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> And again you've been made to look the fool you are.
LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE! You're the FOOL. You say you have the
Autopsy Report. Now it is PAINFULLY obvious to EVERYONE that you do
NOT!
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> So what's been "distorted"? The Autopsy Report CLEARLY states
>> MULTIPLE blunt force trauma injuries" -- which are generally
>> understoo to mean injuries from multiple hits --
> Not so.
SO!
> Multiple blunt force trauma means just that.
Yes, multiple hits.
> Keep in mind that people who deal with such items read only what is
> written and don't need to decide what was "really" meant.
So why are YOU trying to decide what it "really" means? It means
"MULTIPLE BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA". Which you CAN'T get from a SINGLE
impact. Try as you will to twist the language, you just can't get it
to say that. At least, not believably. Sucks for you.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Here's a clearer example for Ted. Someone could be shot five times.
> Once in each leg, once in each arm, once in the torso. Suppose only
> the last shot was the one that killed him. Cause of death? A
> *single* gunshot wound to the torso. Did the person sustain
> *multiple* significant injuries? Of course. Does it mean he was
> only shot once? Of course not.
You and Ken DO seem to be peas in a pod. Why have you been giving him
such a rough time all this time?
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Ken Smith wrote:
>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>> And in the Grand Jury hearing, Hayes testified [on page 243]:
>>>> 15 A YES. MY REVIEW OF THESE INJURIES IN THE
>>>> 16 AUTOPSY REPORT AND OTHER RECORDS INDICATES STRONGLY THAT
>>>> 17 LAUREN'S MASSIVE TRAUMATIC INJURIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH A
>>>> 18 SINGLE, HIGH-VELOCITY IMPACT TO THE CLIFF. [...]
>>>> Notice that in both places he says that Lauren's injuries were the
>>>> result of a SINGLE high speed (or velocity) impact.
> No, it says the MASSIVE TRAUMATIC injuries are from a single impact.
> Unless lacerations are massive traumatic injuries, they are not
> included in his conclusion as he stated it in that sentence.
So how did the lacerations get there? Did they just appear
spontaneously? Anyway, he said that she hit the cliff face only ONCE:
4 [...] AND SHE IMPACTS THE
5 CLIFF WITH THE LEFT SIDE AND TOP OF HER FACE AND
6 FOREHEAD. SHE HAS HER RIGHT HAND EXTENDED TO TRY TO
7 CATCH HERSELF; AND SHE HITS ONCE, AND NOT AGAIN, AND GOES
8 INTO THE WATER.
[page 244 of the Grand Jury Transcript]
>>> It is only his professional opinion, which cannot constitute
>>> perjury.
>> It can when he says that he's read the Autopsy Report, but the
>> Autopsy Report says she suffered MULTIPLE traumas, and he claims to
>> the Grand Jury -- FALSELY -- that the Autopsy Report says she
>> suffered a SINGLE trauma.
> This isn't what he claimed.
OF COURSE it is.
>> But Hayes testified that there was only ONE impact. (An impact with
>> the surface of the water doesn't count, because it can't produce
>> lacerations.)
> No, he didn't. The Dr. testified that the *major injuries* were
> caused by one impact. It doesn't mean there weren't others.
Sure it does. Read it again:
4 [...] AND SHE IMPACTS THE
5 CLIFF WITH THE LEFT SIDE AND TOP OF HER FACE AND
6 FOREHEAD. SHE HAS HER RIGHT HAND EXTENDED TO TRY TO
7 CATCH HERSELF; AND SHE HITS ONCE, AND NOT AGAIN, AND GOES
8 INTO THE WATER.
And weep.
> Just that medically speaking, they were insignificant.
That's NOT what Dr. Hayes says.
> And, medically speaking, lacerations and abrasions to the face are
> insignificant injuries when someone is dead.
Maybe not, but they certainly ARE significant when they reveal that the
"expert" is a bigger mendacious prevaricator than even Ken Smith.
>> An impact with the surface of the water would NOT have resulted in
>> lacerations (let alone in 2 different orientations). And that she
>> landed in the water is NOT in dispute
> But was the water perfectly pure, with a smooth, soft bottom surface?
Whatever it was, we don't read ANYTHING about her injuries being caused
by anything in the water -- neither in the Autopsy report, nor in
Hayes' "expert's" report.
Theodore A. Kaldis
[...]
> Additional injuries may have occured [...]
> [...] which may or may not have [...]
> [...] The extent to which this exascerbated her injuries may not be
> [...]
Funny thing about all those "may's": they seem to have a magical way of
fostering reasonable doubt.
Theodore A. Kaldis
Ask Kent. He says he has a copy of the Autopsy Report. (Or is he
LYING?)