|
|
|
From: "Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kent Wills: Complete Ignoramus
Date: Friday, December 31, 2004 11:19 PM
I see that on Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:45:28 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
There's really nothing more to say here.
If, as you imply, I am ignorant of something (actually, being a
mere human, I'm ignorant of a great many things, as all are), why not
eliminate that ignorance? Supply proof of your claims and remove the
ignorance you think exists.
You could start by giving me the contact information needed so I
can order my own copy of the autopsy report. I sure that in its
entirety it will prove damning to your position, but it would do much
to eliminate any perceived ignorance.
Or, if you prefer, you may scan the whole thing and E-mail the
scans to me. This option would prove cheaper for me, of course, and
as such, has some appeal.
Once you've completed one of these tasks, we can move on to other
items where you might think I am ignorant.
Kent
--
WOOOO PIG SOOIE!!!
Poor Ted. He's soooo transparent, such a glaring conspicuous fraud. He's
scared #@($less to reveal what's in that autopsy, a public record btw.
Hey, Ted, now even your few supporters are laughing up their sleeves at you
and your many detractors, well, they are LTAO.
What snakes are in that autopsy, Ted, that you dare not let them crawl out?
Don't you know sooner or later they'll slither out hissing and bite you!
Woooooo Piggie, Piggie, Soooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
<LMAO>
|
| |
| |
"jls" wrote:
Poor Ted. He's soooo transparent, such a glaring conspicuous fraud.
Guess again.
He's scared #@($less to reveal what's in that autopsy, a public record btw.
So order it. But I've already said they've tampered with it. Nevertheless,
there's still nothing there that undermines my case.
Hey, Ted, now even your few supporters are laughing up their sleeves at you
and your many detractors, well, they are LTAO.
Sit tight, there's a hearing a week from Monday. Hopefully after that, I'll
be able to say more.
He who laughs last, laughs best, btw.
What snakes are in that autopsy, Ted, that you dare not let them crawl out?
As you said, it's a public document. Why don't you order it?
Don't you know sooner or later they'll slither out hissing and bite you!
Oh, somebody's CERTAINLY going to get bit here. And it WON'T be me.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
"jls" wrote:
Guess again.
Thank you, Alex. What is, "He's got the intelligence of a kumquat?
I'll take 'Freaks of Nature' for 2,000, Alex...."
He's scared #@($less to reveal what's in that autopsy, a public record btw.
So order it. But I've already said they've tampered with it. Nevertheless,
there's still nothing there that undermines my case.
It's amazing: Ted sees nothing wrong with one gospel saying that
Jesus first "appeared" to his assembled disciples in Jerusalem after his
death and crucifixion (and, even more significantly, that they had never
left) and the other, asserting that he first appeared to them in
Galilee. But yet, a few supposed minor changes to an autopsy report is
supposed to be the Holy Grail?!?
Hey, Ted, now even your few supporters are laughing up their sleeves at you
and your many detractors, well, they are LTAO.
Ted has supporters? Uncle Sam has even steered clear of him.
Sit tight, there's a hearing a week from Monday. Hopefully after that, I'll
be able to say more.
Ted, you can't shut up about this case, even though you've admitted
to having been told by not one but two legal teams to STFU.
He who laughs last, laughs best, btw.
As you said, it's a public document. Why don't you order it?
It's the Kaldis Syndrome: Everyone has to prove their claims but Ted.
You made the claims, Ted. You prove them.
Don't you know sooner or later they'll slither out hissing and bite you!
Oh, somebody's CERTAINLY going to get bit here. And it WON'T be me.
You said that Lauren tripped and fell forward -- which points to Cam,
who may well have just extended his outstretched foot....
He may be acquitted on charges of the murder of Lauren Key (I've been
saying this all along, but as Ted says, what do I know? :) ), but he'll
NEVER be exonerated.
|
| |
| |
I see that on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:48:03 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com>
wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Thank you, Alex. What is, "He's got the intelligence of a kumquat?
The organization, "Friends of the Kumquat," is holding on line
two. Seems they're quite offended that you put Ted in with the same
company as the kumquat.
I'll take 'Freaks of Nature' for 2,000, Alex...."
He's scared #@($less to reveal what's in that autopsy, a public record btw.
It's amazing: Ted sees nothing wrong with one gospel saying that
Jesus first "appeared" to his assembled disciples in Jerusalem after his
death and crucifixion (and, even more significantly, that they had never
left) and the other, asserting that he first appeared to them in
Galilee. But yet, a few supposed minor changes to an autopsy report is
supposed to be the Holy Grail?!?
Once the report is final (that is, signed by the ME or coroner),
no medical examiner and/or coroner is going to allow it to be changed.
The only possible exception would be for pending tox reports, but
it's very unlikely the report would be signed before they were
concluded. And it wouldn't matter in this case, since there was/is no
reason to suspect Lauren was into drugs, so no toxology screen would
have been ordered.
[...]
What snakes are in that autopsy, Ted, that you dare not let them crawl out?
As you said, it's a public document. Why don't you order it?
It's the Kaldis Syndrome: Everyone has to prove their claims but Ted.
You made the claims, Ted. You prove them.
Amazingly, when I offered to order it, Ted refused to tell me
whom to contact. The logical conclusion is that the report in its
entirety makes Cameron look even more guilty.
Don't you know sooner or later they'll slither out hissing and bite you!
You said that Lauren tripped and fell forward -- which points to Cam,
who may well have just extended his outstretched foot....
He may be acquitted on charges of the murder of Lauren Key (I've been
saying this all along, but as Ted says, what do I know? :) ), but he'll
NEVER be exonerated.
And that will follow him for the rest of his life. Cameron is
the one who will be bitten.
Kent
--
WOOOO PIG SOOIE!!!
|
| |
| |
Kent Wills wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Amazingly, when I offered to order it, Ted refused to tell me whom to
contact.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!! LIE! I said you could find out where to order
it from on the web. So go do a little footwork if you want it that bad.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
same old drooling stupidity.
Poor cowardly Teddie, afraid to publish the other pages of the damning
autopsy; what a yellow-striped wuss.
|
| |
| |
jls wrote:
same old drooling stupidity.
Poor cowardly Teddie, afraid to publish the other pages of the damning
autopsy; what a yellow-striped wuss.
And it's not like it's copyrighted and/or a state secret, or anything
like that.
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!! LIE! I said you could find out where to order
it from on the web. So go do a little footwork if you want it that bad.
More like, we honestly don't give a flying @$#* about your [alleged]
baby-killing brother-in-law and frankly, don't have enough interest in
the matter to do our own footwork.
Now, if we were persuaded that a grave injustice had occurred (I
can't necessarily speak for the others, but I rather expect that they'd
concur with me on this), you'd get a much different reaction. But you
made the claim that Cam is "obviously innocent," and the State is
prosecuting him for motives other than the obvious one, and you bear the
burden of proof on both. As you have failed to produce credible
evidence of malfeasance on investigators' part, and undisputed facts
surrounding Lauren's death are such that Cam could never be exonerated
(a push is as good as a trip or a small toss), we remain unpersuaded by
your claims.
And based on your track record, we find your claims laughable.
Exactly what part of this do you not understand?
|
| |
| |
Kent Wills wrote:
I see that on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:48:03 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com>
wrote:
The organization, "Friends of the Kumquat," is holding on line
two. Seems they're quite offended that you put Ted in with the same
company as the kumquat.
They'll have to wait their turn behind the Cockroach Anti-Defamation
League.... :)
I'll take 'Freaks of Nature' for 2,000, Alex...."
He's scared #@($less to reveal what's in that autopsy, a public record btw.
So order it. But I've already said they've tampered with it. Nevertheless,
there's still nothing there that undermines my case.
It's amazing: Ted sees nothing wrong with one gospel saying that
Jesus first "appeared" to his assembled disciples in Jerusalem after his
death and crucifixion (and, even more significantly, that they had never
left) and the other, asserting that he first appeared to them in
Galilee. But yet, a few supposed minor changes to an autopsy report is
supposed to be the Holy Grail?!?
Once the report is final (that is, signed by the ME or coroner),
no medical examiner and/or coroner is going to allow it to be changed.
The only possible exception would be for pending tox reports, but
it's very unlikely the report would be signed before they were
concluded. And it wouldn't matter in this case, since there was/is no
reason to suspect Lauren was into drugs, so no toxology screen would
have been ordered.
[...]
What snakes are in that autopsy, Ted, that you dare not let them crawl out?
As you said, it's a public document. Why don't you order it?
Amazingly, when I offered to order it, Ted refused to tell me
whom to contact. The logical conclusion is that the report in its
entirety makes Cameron look even more guilty.
It would be the inference Ted would draw -- and has drawn in the
past, when it suited him -- were the situation reversed. :) You've bent
over backward to give him an opportunity to make his case, and he's
rewarded you with a relentless barrage of insults and epithets.
Don't you know sooner or later they'll slither out hissing and bite you!
Oh, somebody's CERTAINLY going to get bit here. And it WON'T be me.
You said that Lauren tripped and fell forward -- which points to Cam,
who may well have just extended his outstretched foot....
He may be acquitted on charges of the murder of Lauren Key (I've been
saying this all along, but as Ted says, what do I know? :) ), but he'll
NEVER be exonerated.
And that will follow him for the rest of his life. Cameron is
the one who will be bitten.
Absolutely.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Exactly what part of this do you not understand?
The part I understand best is why you refused to submit to that psychological
examination that the Examiners' Board of the Colorado Bar Association asked
you to submit to.
And in a week from Thursday, you will be eligible to reapply to the Bar in
Colorado. What measures have you taken to assure that you will be able to
get past the Bar Examiners this time?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070808070301070204050303
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
The part I understand best is why you refused to submit to that psychological
examination that the Examiners' Board of the Colorado Bar Association asked
you to submit to.
Obsess much, Ted?
As a practicing mental health professional has recently indicated
(see attached), you appear to be in need of immediate psychiatric care.
--------------070808070301070204050303
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedstalker.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedstalker.eml"
From - Thu Oct 28 16:28:10 2004
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ba2a9a51!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <4180DCAD.7050003@it.com>
From: Ken Smith <forget@it.com>
Reply-To: Ranger57@concentric.net
Organization: ?????
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.true-crime,ca.general,co.politics
Subject: Re: Ken Smith Before The Colorado Bar Examiners
References: <qi50o0d4e7uussh06m60p1g2ici1urdqeo@4ax.com> <20041027190203.17534.00001878@mb-m20.wmconnect.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:50:43 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.227.169.21
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1098964243 4.227.169.21 (Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:50:43 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:50:43 PDT
Xref: news.earthlink.net misc.legal:462333 alt.true-crime:956377 ca.general:107006 co.politics:115354
X-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 04:50:33 PDT (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Lindsay wrote:
From: Kent Wills compuelf@gmail.com
Ken Smith wrote:
Ted's conspiracy theories -- especially, the one about the hit man -- are
so bizarre as to identify him as a crank, but I'd imagine that we've
gotten there already. :)
So tell us again, why is it that you're not a lawyer in Colorado?
Obsess much?
Ted has displayed, and is displaying, traits consistent with obsessive
compulsive disorder. His life revolves around Ken and Ken's dealings with the
Colorado Bar. How long has it been since Ken first tried to gain admittance
with the Colorado Bar? People not directly involved in the case would have let
go the matter and continued on with their lives. Ted's posts indicate an
inability to do so.
His tendency towards stalking is also evident in his driving clear across
Melbourne, Australia, to take a picture of an advisory's primary residence and
place it on a web site. This fits into the intimidation aspect of the
stalker's mind set perfectly. Had Ted been able to stay longer, he may well
have found many more opportunities to just "happen to be in the neighborhood."
Yes, Ted does want, or at least did want, people to think he's Australian. He
once boasted about how natives thought he was native. No native is going to
confuse an Australian accent with an American one. Indeed, no tourist is going
to confuse the two either. He had to impersonate a native accent to pull off
this ruse. The fact that natives were fooled indicates the degree to which Ted
studied the accent. The sole reason to do this would be to make one's self seem
native.
Ted most certainly has issues that he would do well to have address with the
aid of a competent mental health professional.
Ted, if you'd like, I could look up some psychologists in your area that could
help you discover and deal with the underlying cause of your problems.
The E-mail address I'm posting with is temporary. If you wish for me to assist
you, you will need to ask for it here. Kent will let me know if you accept my
offer.
Lin
Kent and Lindsay, I do appreciate the input, coming as it does from a
practicing professional. Ted's persistence in this matter goes WAAAAAAY
beyond what is normal, and his tendency toward stalking suggests that he
might pose a threat. His brother-in-law's incarceration for the alleged
murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter appears on its face to
have put Ted under considerable stress, which could make him dangerous.
--------------070808070301070204050303--
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
">And in a week from Thursday, you will be eligible to reapply to the Bar in
Colorado. What measures have you taken to assure that you will be able to get
past the Bar Examiners this time?"
Maybe Ken can hire Mark Geragos....<g>
-------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!!
Solar
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
">> So order it. But I've already said they've tampered with it. Nevertheless,
there's still nothing there that undermines my case."
">But yet, a few supposed minor changes to an autopsy report is supposed to be
the Holy Grail?!?"
Grrrrrrrrrrrreat. Now the *autopsy* is altered ??!!!
Brand new year, same old Kaldis: D-E-S-P-E-R-A-T-E
------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!!
Solar
|
| |
| |
I see that on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:01:22 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTT!!! LIE!
Liar. You have yet to tell me whom to contact. Another lie to
add to the list.
I said you could find out where to order
it from on the web. So go do a little footwork if you want it that bad.
You are the one who claims Cam is obviously innocent. When I
offer to acquire the evidence on my own, and at my expense, you refuse
to assist. I guess Cameron is obviously guilty, else you would
quickly offer the contact information.
Kent
--
When the world ends, there'll be no more air.
That's why it's important to pollute the air now. Before it's too
late. :)
|
| |
| |
I see that on Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:59:08 -0500, " jls"
<jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote:
same old drooling stupidity.
Poor cowardly Teddie, afraid to publish the other pages of the damning
autopsy; what a yellow-striped wuss.
Worse than that. He's unwilling to give me the contact
information needed for me to purchase my own copy. One can only
conclude that the report, in its entirety, is very damning to the
position Ted has taken.
Kent
--
Si hoc legere scis numium eruditionis habes.
|
| |
| |
I see that on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:16:55 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com>
wrote:
jls wrote:
And it's not like it's copyrighted and/or a state secret, or anything
like that.
It's a public document. Posting scans is not illegal, nor
unethical (not that either would prove problematic for Ted).
Kent
--
May God bless those who love us. And those who do not love us, may He
turn their hearts. And if He does not turn their hearts, may He turn
their ankles so we may know them by their limping. - Irish Blessing.
|
| |
| |
I see that on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:26:25 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
The part I understand best is why you refused to submit to that psychological
examination that the Examiners' Board of the Colorado Bar Association asked
you to submit to.
And in a week from Thursday, you will be eligible to reapply to the Bar in
Colorado. What measures have you taken to assure that you will be able to
get past the Bar Examiners this time?
Get help for your OCD, Ted. Seriously. I'm not trying to be
funny here. You honestly NEED help.
Kent
--
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
|
| |
| |
Kent Wills wrote:
I see that on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:26:25 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Get help for your OCD, Ted. Seriously. I'm not trying to be
funny here. You honestly NEED help.
You have to be as mentally disturbed as Ted (or, as mentally retarded
as Cam Brown) to actually think that that has any relevance *whatsoever*
to the matter of Cam's apparent murder of his illegitimate four-year-old
daughter. (And yes, Cam has to be more than a few bricks shy of a load
to not realize the danger he was placing Lauren in.)
|
| |
| |
Kent Wills wrote
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
">> I said you could find out where to order it from on the web. So go do a
little footwork if you want it that bad."
">You are the one who claims Cam is obviously innocent."
'MANIFESTLY innocent' to those that have investigated this, even !!!!!
"When I offer to acquire the evidence on my own, and at my expense, you refuse
to assist."
Imagine THAT. Any chance we get a lead on what television channel Ted was on
while we are at it ???
">I guess Cameron is obviously guilty, else you would quickly offer the contact
information."
Interesting how Ted claims that the autopsy is altered (yet still does not
undermine his position). Wonder how *that* gets proven.... <g>
--------
Employ the formal rules of logic.... and have a GREAT day !!!!!
Solar
|
| |
| |
SolarChase wrote:
Kent Wills wrote
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
">> I said you could find out where to order it from on the web. So go do a
little footwork if you want it that bad."
">You are the one who claims Cam is obviously innocent."
'MANIFESTLY innocent' to those that have investigated this, even !!!!!
And Ted claims that he doesn't need to prove that statement?!? Ted's
"rules of logic" would rival the Red Queen's....
As I see it, if the hearing is going to happen in a week, there is no
particular reason to dicker about it until then. After all, Ted has no
excuse whatsoever for hiding it after that....
But I'll say it again: No "evidence" will ever exonerate Cam, for the
very same reason he'll probably be acquitted at trial: It is impossible,
given those facts we cannot possibly know, to ever be *certain* that Cam
didn't give little Lauren a discreet push.
"When I offer to acquire the evidence on my own, and at my expense, you refuse
to assist."
Imagine THAT. Any chance we get a lead on what television channel Ted was on
while we are at it ???
Ted's obviously so embarrassed by it that he really, really, *REALLY*
doesn't want us to know what he said. And given the attorney's reaction,
my guess is that there's an obvious reason.
">I guess Cameron is obviously guilty, else you would quickly offer the contact
information."
Interesting how Ted claims that the autopsy is altered (yet still does not
undermine his position). Wonder how *that* gets proven.... <g>
If the autopsy report supports his position, the alleged
"alterations" to it are by definition immaterial -- and he would have no
reason not to show this public document to us in its entirety. As such,
it is logical to conclude that Ted is obviously lying to us yet again. :)
|
| |
| |
SolarChase wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
">And in a week from Thursday, you will be eligible to reapply to the Bar in
Colorado. What measures have you taken to assure that you will be able to get
past the Bar Examiners this time?"
Maybe Ken can hire Mark Geragos....<g>
Simply put, I can't afford him and even if I could, I'd be spending
that money on public relations. A full-page ad in the Post explaining
nonpublication rules, and how our judges are committing felonies on an
industrial scale under their auspices, would give me far more bang for
the buck. :)
But that has nothing to do with the matter of Cameron Brown's
apparent cold-blooded murder of his illegitimate four-year-old daughter,
which IS what we were discussing here.
|
| |
| |
I see that on Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:01:22 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Liar. You have yet to tell me whom to contact. Another lie to
add to the list.
You are the one who claims Cam is obviously innocent. When I
offer to acquire the evidence on my own, and at my expense, you refuse
to assist. I guess Cameron is obviously guilty, else you would
quickly offer the contact information.
Kent
--
Logic like that is hard to dispell I affirm.
Offense not intended.
Dane
When the world ends, there'll be no more air.
That's why it's important to pollute the air now. Before it's too
late. :)
|
| |
| |
Well if Kaldis actually published this autopsy report ( and why not,
he's damn near loudly proclaimed all sorts of things about this case
online as it is), assuming his claim that the report would be altered
to frame Cam, having the original report online would be a backup proof
of Kaldis's claims about this conspiracy to frame poor old Cam.
Unless, OC the autopsy report gives damning clues that the poor child
was indeed pushed off the cliff.
Kaldis over the years online has made many claims about Ken Smith (
almost always mean and cruel) and has posted racist and sexist comments
ad nauseum. His credibility online is nil.
Seems to me, karmically speaking, Kaldis is starting to reap what he's
sown. :-D
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
"A vampire cop? REALLY?"
|
| |
| |
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Kent Wills wrote:
Logic like that is hard to dispell I affirm.
Are you so sure about that? Don't you suppose the fact that this is an OPEN
case might have something to do with it? As I said, there isn't anything in
the Autopsy Report to either exonerate or convict Cameron.
But then, Kent really isn't all that interested in the truth of the matter.
He is more interested in beating me up. So if that's what he wants to do,
let him go pay for his own copy of the Autopsy Report, just like I did. As
for the contact information, it involves nothing more difficult than finding
the website of the Los Angeles County Coroner. How hard can that be?
Offense not intended.
Then it would perhaps be wiser for you to AVOID this issue. Because Kent's
intent -- and more so Ken Smith's _IS_ to offend.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
heodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Let's be clear here. There is _NOTHING_ in the Autopsy report that would
exonerate Cameron. On the other hand, neither is there anything there that
would CONVICT him.
What _YOU_ fail to comprehend is that _THAT_ is legally sufficient to
take the matter to trial.
A reasonable person could (and, any number of reasonable people
have!) conclude, just from the facts of the case *you* have presented
(and, are therefore regarded as undisputed), that it is more likely than
not that Cam murdered his illegitimate four-year-old daughter. The
salient facts include the time and location of the alleged murder (a
relatively remote location, on a weekday in November, where pedestrian
traffic would be at a bare minimum), Lauren's illegitimacy (Cam has a
history of, as you put it, "making poor life-choices"), that she went
down face-first (not your typical "slip-and-fall"), and the lack of any
plausible alternatives to murder.
Is this enough to overcome the presumption of innocence Cam enjoys?
I don't honestly know. But to say that the State cannot even bring a
case against him on the undisputed facts is completely preposterous.
Because, if there was, they would have used it to convict
him 4 years ago.
And I reasonably question that unsubstantiated claim. As the State
is in no particular hurry to prosecute (there is no statute of
limitations for murder, and there is no practical destination in the
world where Cam could go to evade extradition), and only gets 'one bite
at the apple' of capital murder charges, time is on their side. If it
took them three or even ten years to build a bullet-proof case, it is
better that they take that time. I'd rather they wait three years and
be *reasonably assured* of a conviction than to rush to judgment and lose.
But (as I have already stated), they have tampered with it,
adding extraneous information, in an attempt to implicate Cameron.
I guess I'm missing the significance of this, insofar as you have
said (I assume, arguendo, that it's a true fact here) that the autopsy
report neither implicates or exonerates him. Unless the original report
would have exonerated him -- an impossibility, given the undisputed
facts -- I fail to see how it would matter.
The reason the Autopsy Report was even brought up was to illustrate that
Cameron Brown was apparently indicted on the basis of LIES told the Grand
Jury (if the Torrance _Daily_Breeze_ is to be believed).
IOW, the same _Daily Breeze_ that *never* gets it right? LOL!
So, you don't actually *know* what the grand jury was told? And your
evidence of official misconduct is *ALL* strictly hearsay?!? And here,
I thought -- based on your deliberate misrepresentations! -- that the GJ
transcript had been released, and YOU had a copy.
I know that this is going to be a tough concept for you to grasp,
Ted, but you don't actually KNOW what the GJ was told, or whether the
Breeze inadvertently misinterpreted what they had. Moreover, just as a
jury is not obligated to believe the State's expert at trial, a GJ is
not under any obligation to believe the expert in their proceedings.
All they are charged with is determining whether "probable cause" exists
to believe a crime was committed. And they can get there from facts
even *you* don't dispute.
Cameron Brown sits in jail in Los Angeles, charged with the murder of his
little 4-year-old daughter, who died in an ACCIDENTAL fall off a cliff in
Rancho Palos Verdes, California in November of 2000. The _Breeze_ asserts
that the Grand Jury was told that there were "no cuts and scrapes over the
girl's body":
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Clip.htm>
But this assertion is contradicted by the actual Autopsy Report:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AutopsyReport2.htm>
Also, here is another curious statement from the _Breeze_ article:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Clip2.htm>
All we can reasonably infer from those facts is that the Breeze must
have gotten it wrong. Remember, the grand jurors weren't reading the
friggin' Breeze, for cry-iy! THEY WERE READING *THE AUTOPSY REPORT*!!!
You have to be thick as a brick to not understand that, Ted. :)
He picked her up and "turned her to face the ... ocean". Why would he bother
doing that, if his intent was to kill her?
You've answered your own question, in asserting that people might
have seen. The more that it looks like an accident, the more plausible
Cam's assertion that it WAS an accident becomes. A quick look around
for the stray eyewitness, and a lightning-quick heave, and it's over.
(Even you say it looks like an accident, Ted. "Mission accomplished?" :) )
The ONLY reason they say that is
because they NEED her to be in that position for their scenario to work.
It's an assertion that fits the facts. A quick push would have much
the same effect, but her death might be much less certain. :)
Because she fell forward and slid on her belly off the cliff (probably after
throwing a rock).
"Probably?!?" You mean, you don't KNOW?!?
In essence, what Ted is asserting is that, if Ted has a theory on how
she died, that theory is dispositive, and we can all go home -- because
Ted hears it directly from Gawd while sitting on the #@($ter, and Gawd
is NEVER wrong. :)
For Ted's theory to work, you have to assume that the same Lauren who
her mother has described as a "very prissy girl" who "didn't like mud or
bugs" [L.A. Times, iirc] would necessarily (a) be inclined to pick up a
rock and throw it into the ocean, and (b) get up a running start (c) to
make the kind of overhand throw you'd expect from a boy.
Ever heard the expression, "he throws like a girl?" :)
Moreover, under Ted's "sliding into second" theory, we would expect
to see significant abrasions on the palms of her hands, as she
desperately struggled for any kind of traction she could get. Further,
we would not expect to see a broken wrist AND mandible, as a sliding
Lauren would not gather so much momentum that her instinctive act of
putting her hands in front of her face to break her fall would result in
that kind of injury. (You'd need an expert to testify to that effect, of
course, but Ted says that the State's expert is certainly competent, and
we can only surmise in the absence of cross-examination that Ted's
theory was considered and reasonably discounted.)
I guess Cameron is obviously guilty, else you would quickly offer the
contact information.
Logic like that is hard to dispell I affirm.
Are you so sure about that? Don't you suppose the fact that this is an OPEN
case might have something to do with it?
No. After all, the autopsy report is a public record that anyone who
wanted it could obtain, and disclosure of that record could neither hurt
nor help Cam's defense. Similarly, by your own admission, it would not
help or hurt his case even if it were non-public information. As such,
it is apparent that you are hiding the repor
|
| |
| |
I see that on Tue, 04 Jan 2005 07:57:13 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[...]
Let's be clear here. There is _NOTHING_ in the Autopsy report that would
exonerate Cameron. On the other hand, neither is there anything there that
would CONVICT him. Because, if there was, they would have used it to convict
him 4 years ago. But (as I have already stated), they have tampered with it,
adding extraneous information, in an attempt to implicate Cameron.
If true, someone is in SERIOUS trouble. Can you prove anyone
tampered with the final report? If so, you should run, not walk, to
the state attorney general's office with the proof.
The reason the Autopsy Report was even brought up was to illustrate that
Cameron Brown was apparently indicted on the basis of LIES told the Grand
Jury (if the Torrance _Daily_Breeze_ is to be believed).
Why not read the transcript of the GJ? You would then know for
certain what was and what was not presented.
Cameron Brown sits in jail in Los Angeles, charged with the murder of his
little 4-year-old daughter, who died in an ACCIDENTAL fall off a cliff in
Rancho Palos Verdes, California in November of 2000. The _Breeze_ asserts
that the Grand Jury was told that there were "no cuts and scrapes over the
girl's body":
That *is* what the GJ was told.
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Clip.htm>
But this assertion is contradicted by the actual Autopsy Report:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/AutopsyReport2.htm>
Actually, no, it doesn't. The assertion that the GJ was told
this is not contradicted by the report.
The accuracy of the testimony given to the GJ *IS* contradicted,
but that's not the same thing.
Also, here is another curious statement from the _Breeze_ article:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Clip2.htm>
He picked her up and "turned her to face the ... ocean". Why would he bother
doing that, if his intent was to kill her? The ONLY reason they say that is
because they NEED her to be in that position for their scenario to work.
Because she fell forward and slid on her belly off the cliff (probably after
throwing a rock).
Or, he picked her up, and said something like, "Look at the
ocean. Isn't it pretty?" Then tossed her to her death.
It's certainly possible. And at this time, there is nothing to
prove nor disprove it.
I guess Cameron is obviously guilty, else you would quickly offer the
contact information.
Are you so sure about that?
Yes.
Don't you suppose the fact that this is an OPEN
case might have something to do with it?
No. It's in the public domain. Nothing contained within can
harm or help Cameron any more than it has.
As I said, there isn't anything in
the Autopsy Report to either exonerate or convict Cameron.
Then why do you REFUSE to give me the contact information? I'm
more than willing to pay for my own copy. Just tell me what phone
number to dial, or the address to write to, and I'll take it from
there.
But then, Kent really isn't all that interested in the truth of the matter.
I'm very interested. If I weren't, I wouldn't have asked for the
contact information.
He is more interested in beating me up.
Actually, that's just a bonus :-)
So if that's what he wants to do,
let him go pay for his own copy of the Autopsy Report, just like I did.
I've stated more than once that I am willing to do so.
As for the contact information, it involves nothing more difficult than finding
the website of the Los Angeles County Coroner. How hard can that be?
What's the URL then?
I'm not going to put any more effort into this than I need to.
It's YOUR job to prove your claim, not mine. But given that you are
unwilling to do so, due, I suspect, to the fact that it's damning to
your position, I am willing to buy my own copy.
Tell me the number to call, or the address to write, or the URL
to visit.
Then it would perhaps be wiser for you to AVOID this issue. Because Kent's
intent -- and more so Ken Smith's _IS_ to offend.
My intention is to point out the flaws in your argument. Only
Ken can truly answer as to what his intentions are, but I presume they
are much the same.
Kent
--
May God bless those who love us. And those who do not love us, may He
turn their hearts. And if He does not turn their hearts, may He turn
their ankles so we may know them by their limping. - Irish Blessing.
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Ted will take offense at anyone who dares to disagree with him -- and he
has *even* been known to engage in stalking behavior in his crusades
against those who have principled disagreements with him. Teddi is one
*seriously* sick @$#*, and if you are *at all* worried about him showing up
on your doorstep with his tyre-iron, you'd do well to give him a wide
berth. :)
Ken Smith illustrates here that has well and truly earned his reputation as a
mendacious prevaricator.
[I figure that Ted is already so obsessed enough with me that at this
point, there is nothing I could do to reduce that very real threat.]
Do you know how many times I've been through Denver since you've been
slandering and maligning me, you psychotic f***? Frankly, I don't know
either, because I've lost count. And how many times have I bothered to track
you down? ZERO!!!
Liar.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
I see that on Tue, 04 Jan 2005 15:10:27 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
|
| |
| |
I see that on Tue, 04 Jan 2005 15:18:42 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Ken Smith illustrates here that has well and truly earned his reputation as a
mendacious prevaricator.
Get a new thesaurus. You've used this line to the point of
boredom.
Do you know how many times I've been through Denver since you've been
slandering and maligning me, you psychotic f***?
Zero?
Kent
--
Born once - Die twice. Born twice - Die only once. Your choice...
Sig "borrowed" from Joe.
|
| |
| |
| |
