|
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"forevernitefan" wrote:
(Unlike some, I have never been asked to
submit to a psychological examination.)
But bear in mind:
"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid,
that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness
shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in
closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." [Luke 12:2-3, KJV]
Those who have conspired against Cameron Brown should take heed. For if they
wear the mantle of justice, they have conspired also against God. And they
SHALL SURELY be recompensed for their deeds. "There is nothing hid, except
that it should be manifested, nor anything kept secret except that it should
come abroad." The mouth of the Lord has spoken it, and it shall SURELY come
to pass.
Now, Ted's hearing voices on the #@($ter. He's gone completely
stark, raving mad!!! Honestly, Ted, I've never seen *anyone* in more
desperate need of *IMMEDIATE* psychiatric care than you are now.
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"forevernitefan" wrote:
(As, moreover, will also be revealed the identity of the individual
who currently calls himself "S.O. Damocles".) Stand and watch.
I hope you find him -- I'm rather looking forward to buying him a
beer. :)
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"forevernitefan" wrote:
Contrary to your peurile imaginations, USENET is not the center of the
universe (except perhaps for Ken Smith). Whatever I know, I have also given
to Mark Geragos. And he's not moving with it just yet, so I'm keeping mum
for now. (And it has NOTHING to do with "satan worshippers" or anything of
the like.)
For crying out loud, a man's LIFE hangs in the balance here! What makes you
think I can't restrain myself?
Given the stakes, we've all been asking why you *HAVEN'T* restrained
yourself -- even after the lead attorney in the case *told you* to shut
the @$#* up.
[snip]
Claims of cover-ups and trying discredit expert witnesses testimony are
typical responses of people who for one reason or another think the accused
is innocent.
I, on the other hand, KNOW that Cameron is innocent.
God told him so -- on the #@($ter. Or just maybe, Ted found the man
Cam was having wild gay sex with at the time. Simply put, there is no
way Ted could KNOW that Cam was innocent, unless he was there.
The little girl was small enough to be pushed or thrown off the cliff and
nitpicking as to which one is redundant,
It isn't that it would be "redundant", but rather would be UNAVAILING (to use
a word that we have seen used elsewhere within the past year and a half), IF
ONLY your following conditional were to hold -- which in this case DOESN'T.
More like it is unnecessary to quibble about it, as even you have
said that she went down the cliff head-first. That makes it more likely
that *Cam* was the cause, as opposed to Lauren merely slipping and
falling on her backside.
if Cam INTENDED the girl to fall and die.
I'd like to see how the prosecution proposes to show intent -- because their
case centers EXCLUSIVELY on the circumstances of the event -- and some of
them have even been made up, apparently. Look elsewhere -- beyond the LIES
that they have disseminated -- and a completely different picture emerges.
That's easy. It's quite simply the perfect place and time to kill
your illegitimate four-year-old daughter ... and make it look like an
accident. That's enough for reasonable people.
I read true crime books and people kill for the stupidest of reasons.
In his case, he had ABSOLUTELY no reason -- and even less desire -- to kill
anyone, let alone his own lovely daughter whom he loved dearly.
Break out the violins!
If Cam had the idea in his head at the time that the little girl death
could be seen as accidental, he might have given in to his urge to shove or
toss her off the cliff.
Except that he had NO such "urge".
HE DID NOT! This is a vicious LIE!
Ted said it and you should believe it, and that settles it, Moe! ;)
and I suspect that the reason he became a suspect was because of his
behavior afterwards that the cops observed.
That had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. There are other factors at play
here, which we won't go into right now.
That wasn't what the detective was saying to the press....
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Given the stakes, we've all been asking why you *HAVEN'T* restrained
yourself -- even after the lead attorney in the case *told you* to shut the
@$#* up.
If you only knew the complete scope of this, you would know ...
Claims of cover-ups and trying discredit expert witnesses testimony are
typical responses of people who for one reason or another think the
accused is innocent.
I, on the other hand, KNOW that Cameron is innocent.
God told him so -- on the #@($ter.
No. I know Cam, and I know how much he loved his daughter.
Or just maybe, Ted found the man Cam was having wild gay sex with at the
time.
Whack-job Ken Smith is out in left field again -- as usual.
Simply put, there is no way Ted could KNOW that Cam was innocent, unless he
was there.
Come on, Ken. They even had to manufacture the "evidence" against Cam.
The little girl was small enough to be pushed or thrown off the cliff and
nitpicking as to which one is redundant,
It isn't that it would be "redundant", but rather would be UNAVAILING (to
use a word that we have seen used elsewhere within the past year and a
half), IF ONLY your following conditional were to hold -- which in this
case DOESN'T.
More like it is unnecessary to quibble about it, as even you have said that
she went down the cliff head-first. That makes it more likely that *Cam*
was the cause, as opposed to Lauren merely slipping and falling on her
backside.
She slipped and fell FORWARD, with forward momentum.
if Cam INTENDED the girl to fall and die.
I'd like to see how the prosecution proposes to show intent -- because
their case centers EXCLUSIVELY on the circumstances of the event -- and
some of them have even been made up, apparently. Look elsewhere -- beyond
the LIES that they have disseminated -- and a completely different picture
emerges.
That's easy.
It's easier said than done.
It's quite simply the perfect place and time to kill your illegitimate
four-year-old daughter ... and make it look like an accident.
But this STILL focuses only on the CIRCUMSTANCES. And moreover, it ISN'T the
"perfect" place -- with other people around -- or time (daytime).
That's enough for reasonable people.
That's FAR from "enough" for reasonable people, when the hear about all the
other background issues -- EVERY ONE OF WHICH evince against a crime.
I read true crime books and people kill for the stupidest of reasons.
In his case, he had ABSOLUTELY no reason -- and even less desire -- to
kill anyone, let alone his own lovely daughter whom he loved dearly.
Break out the violins!
Ken obviously has a taste for string music. Like Beethoven? Might I
recommend the _Beethoven:_Complete_String_Quartets_ Box Set by Quartetto
Italiano? At $79.98 for a 10-disc set, it's a veritable bargain.
Or if you enjoy Cajun music, you might try Michael Doucet and Beausoliel.
As for Country Fiddlers, there are many: Chubby Wise, Johnny Gimble, Benny
Martin, Kenny Baker, Vassar Clements, etc. As Australian Paul "Pixie"
Jenkins once told me, there is no shortage of country fiddlers, even in
Australia.
If Cam had the idea in his head at the time that the little girl death
could be seen as accidental, he might have given in to his urge to shove
or toss her off the cliff.
Except that he had NO such "urge".
He had motives to want the girl dead,
HE DID NOT! This is a vicious LIE!
Ted said it and you should believe it, and that settles it, Moe! ;)
But of course, it's much more compelling when the Orange County Court Record
of Orange County Family Court says it -- as it does!
and I suspect that the reason he became a suspect was because of his
behavior afterwards that the cops observed.
That had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. There are other factors at
play here, which we won't go into right now.
That wasn't what the detective was saying to the press ...
Yeah, well, there are lots of things you read in the press that you shouldn't
believe.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
If you only knew the complete scope of this, you would know ...
It's hard to fathom corruption much worse than the kind I am facing
-- judges knowingly ignoring ironclad precedent precisely on-point,
writing their own "designer law," applying to me and ONLY me! -- but you
express nothing but glee and delight at this. As you've said
repeatedly, that's the way the world works, and if it's not worth
getting excited about in my case, it surely isn't worth getting worked
up about with respect to Cam.
Claims of cover-ups and trying discredit expert witnesses testimony are
typical responses of people who for one reason or another think the
accused is innocent.
I, on the other hand, KNOW that Cameron is innocent.
God told him so -- on the #@($ter.
No. I know Cam, and I know how much he loved his daughter.
IOW, you don't *KNOW* anything.
Or just maybe, Ted found the man Cam was having wild gay sex with at the
time.
Whack-job Ken Smith is out in left field again -- as usual.
It would be an effective and plausible alibi. ;)
Come on, Ken. They even had to manufacture the "evidence" against Cam.
You've been on about this for months, but you've yet to come forward
with any evidence to support your claim. On the face of it, they have
enough evidence to indict: By his own admission, Cam was there, and no
one else was.
The little girl was small enough to be pushed or thrown off the cliff and
nitpicking as to which one is redundant,
It isn't that it would be "redundant", but rather would be UNAVAILING (to
use a word that we have seen used elsewhere within the past year and a
half), IF ONLY your following conditional were to hold -- which in this
case DOESN'T.
She slipped and fell FORWARD, with forward momentum.
Which is unlikely on its face, given the presence of a doting father
disinclined to expose her to unnecessary danger. It is far more likely
that she was impelled in some manner by Cam. That's enough to indict,
if not necessarily enough to convict. It's positively damning.
if Cam INTENDED the girl to fall and die.
I'd like to see how the prosecution proposes to show intent -- because
their case centers EXCLUSIVELY on the circumstances of the event -- and
some of them have even been made up, apparently. Look elsewhere -- beyond
the LIES that they have disseminated -- and a completely different picture
emerges.
That's easy.
It's easier said than done.
But this STILL focuses only on the CIRCUMSTANCES. And moreover, it ISN'T the
"perfect" place -- with other people around -- or time (daytime).
And your witnesses are?
Come on, Ted! If he pushes her -- and it doesn't have to be that
hard -- no one is going to notice unless he or she has binoculars
trained on them at the time. And we're talking about a weekday in
November -- not exactly the prime hiking season in SoCal. (Best time to
do Disneyland, btw -- ZERO lines.)
That's enough for reasonable people.
That's FAR from "enough" for reasonable people, when the hear about all the
other background issues -- EVERY ONE OF WHICH evince against a crime.
Seems that the reasonable people here in this NG can reasonably beg
to differ with you there. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be
reasonable doubt in my mind, but vis-a-vis unjust incarceration, it's
enough that a reasonable person could find for the State (you can't rely
on me, as you think I'm manifestly unreasonable ;) ).
I read true crime books and people kill for the stupidest of reasons.
In his case, he had ABSOLUTELY no reason -- and even less desire -- to
kill anyone, let alone his own lovely daughter whom he loved dearly.
Break out the violins!
Ken obviously has a taste for string music.
Cry me a river, Ted! Everyone else agrees that it is quite possible
that Cam killed her, even though the more unreasonable among us seem to
think that there is reasonable doubt on that score. And under the law,
whether for good or ill, we lock these suspects up.
If Cam had the idea in his head at the time that the little girl death
could be seen as accidental, he might have given in to his urge to shove
or toss her off the cliff.
Except that he had NO such "urge".
He had motives to want the girl dead,
HE DID NOT! This is a vicious LIE!
But of course, it's much more compelling when the Orange County Court Record
of Orange County Family Court says it -- as it does!
And the Court actually had reason to state on the record that Cam had
no motive to want Lauren dead?! They are not making that statement; you
are drawing that inference. It is valuable as evidence, but hardly what
you could call conclusive.
and I suspect that the reason he became a suspect was because of his
behavior afterwards that the cops observed.
That had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. There are other factors at
play here, which we won't go into right now.
That wasn't what the detective was saying to the press ...
Yeah, well, there are lots of things you read in the press that you shouldn't
believe.
Ditto, the pronouncements of a court. See, e.g., Professor D'Amato's
take on the Branion murder case.
|
| |
| |
|
