Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
ienjball@yahoo.com wrote:
Geragos is the 2nd attorney here. And the first one said basically the same
thing.
So, why is the first attorney gone? If this is a job for Jon Beaver,
it doesn't make sense to hire a $1000/hr. gun.
He made alot of promises and declarations during the Peterson trial that he
didn't follow up on.
And I'm waiting to hear what he has to say publicly about this case. So far
he hasn't spoken up.
Moreover, Cameron isn't Scott Peterson.
At least, Peterson didn't look like a cold-blooded killer. More than
one Netizen has commented on the fact that they got the impression that
he was capable of it just by looking at your photos.
I don't know all the procedural issues, so maybe a judge will find a defect
that will get the case thrown out on procedural grounds, but on evidentiary
grounds I suspect the state can prevail.
_IF_ everything is on the up-and-up. Maybe it isn't.
IOW, this is Ted's fall-back position -- kind of like the one he had
for the indictment [a competent D.A. can "indict a ham sandwich"]. :)
Remember, the standard is not weather the state can prevail at trial, but
simply two questions. Is there a homicide?
The real answer to that is "no".
The legal answer is that there is legally acceptable reason to
believe that a homicide has occurred.
They have an expert who says that it is.
They have an "expert" whom THEY HAVE PAID TO SAY that there is. But of
course he wasn't there.
And neither were your experts -- unless you count the carpet-munchin'
fat Hindu chick behind the grassy knoll. ;)
Unfortunately, I cannot be specific here. But I cannot see them going to
trial with the "evidence" that they have.
As long as they *CAN* go to trial with the evidence they have, Cam is
lawfully incarcerated. And that's all we're really talking about here.
The law says that any issues that point to the likelihood of guilt must be
resolved at trial.
Perhaps there are questions of a different nature that can be raised.
And how would they be relevant to a murder prosecution? Are we going
to have another Mark Fuhrmann fiasco? It's great theater at trial, but
you still have to go through the trial.
I understand that you believe the expert is an incompetent hack with no
basis for his conclusions.
He's no "hack", and his problem isn't "competence".
Okay, so he is a competent expert witness that a court should be able
to rely on. I will accept that admission against interest. :)
That goes to the weight his testimony carries and as such must be reviewed
and resolved by a trial jury.
And this "testimony" should be real interesting. I think that we should
examine it VERY closely once it comes out.
But that implies that there will be a trial.
There is no crime, therefore Brown is no killer.
If there is a crime, Brown is the only one who could be the killer.
And the real question here is, why has he been hounded and persecuted, when
it is MANIFESTLY obvious to everyone who has investigated the case that this
was an accident?
So, it was MANIFESTLY OBVIOUS to the detectives on the case, and the
district attorney, and the judge who signed off on the arrest warrant,
the expert witness, AND the grand jury that indicted him?
Suuuuuuuuurrrrrrre.
I reckon there's a different definition of "everyone" in Ted Kaldis'
Thoroughly-Fucked Dictionary, as well.... :)
