| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
" \- Prof. Jonez©" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2005 12:32:11 AM |
| Object: |
Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Your god must be pretty angry with Cam, Ted. :)
Oh, I'm sure he is. Murdering your little girl is a big no-no.
God is not angry at Cam, nor at Ken Smith, nor at Loretta Serrano.
God loves us all so much that He gave His only negotten Son for us.
I thought Jeeebus *was* supposed to be gaawd incarnate.
Please receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour so that you
might have Salvation and Eternal Life.
Why did Jeeebus need to be baptized ?
.
|
|
| User: "RAS" |
|
| Title: Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
08 Aug 2005 11:15:15 AM |
|
|
"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Your god must be pretty angry with Cam, Ted. :)
Oh, I'm sure he is. Murdering your little girl is a big no-no.
God is not angry at Cam, nor at Ken Smith, nor at Loretta Serrano.
God loves us all so much that He gave His only negotten Son for us.
I thought Jeeebus *was* supposed to be gaawd incarnate.
Please receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour so that you
might have Salvation and Eternal Life.
Why did Jeeebus need to be baptized ?
Your deliberate, insulting, bastardization of Jesus' name is a clear
indication of your level of maturity.
Jesus did not NEED to be baptized; He did it to set the example for
those who would follow His teachings. It is merely an open declaration
of one's willingness to obey God's word, not necessary for salvation.
RAS
.
|
|
|
| User: "RetzQ" |
|
| Title: Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
08 Aug 2005 11:29:18 AM |
|
|
Just after
the accident happened, just as soon as the lead detective arrived at the
site, he decided -- without having done any investigation whatsoever -- that
this must have been a crime, and so he snarled in Cameron's face, "I'm going
to get you for this
Lee Peterson: "They worked strictly on a theory that was dreamt up by
this lead detective within the first eight hours, and they've pursued
it backward from there and they have neglected so many good leads."
So the relationship between Cameron and the investigators was adversarial and
characterised by distrust. But this isn't because Cameron is guilty of any
crime, but rather because he perceived (correctly, apparently) that the cops
were bent on persecuting him for something he didn't do
The reason Scott Peterson is in custody today, and has been held to
answer charges that carry with them a possible penalty of death, is
that the Modesto Police, at the very inception of the investigation of
this case, in the absence of any physical evidence, or any other
evidence of any kind, decided that Scott was responsible for Laci's
disappearance. They deliberately ignored any exculpatory evidence, and
from day one worked only toward putting Scott in the gas chamber.
December 22, 2003 Defense Motion to Set Aside Information
Nevertheless, the investigators were unable to discover any hard, physical
evidence that a crime had been committed here, and were unable to develop a
case against Cam Brown. They certainly should have been able to find MUCH
exculpatory evidence -- it was right there in the open -- but it seems that
they have developed tunnel-vision and have ignored it (and in some cases even
suppressed it).
Lee Peterson: "They'll see the police have just bungled this
investigation from day one. They can come after me. That's fine. But
they've bungled this case."
Jackie Peterson: "I think every man out there should be in fear if this
is the way the police worked. If a crime happens to your wife, you'd
better know you're with six people and they weren't drunk and they are
good friends who are going to be able to put up with this. If they have
any kind of shady character, the police will dismiss them and you'll be
ruined."
Just after
the accident happened, just as soon as the lead detective arrived at
the
site, he decided -- without having done any investigation whatsoever --
that
this must have been a crime, and so he snarled in Cameron's face, "I'm
going
to get you for this
Lee Peterson: "They worked strictly on a theory that was dreamt up by
this lead detective within the first eight hours, and they've pursued
it backward from there and they have neglected so many good leads."
So the relationship between Cameron and the investigators was
adversarial and
characterised by distrust. But this isn't because Cameron is guilty of
any
crime, but rather because he perceived (correctly, apparently) that the
cops
were bent on persecuting him for something he didn't do
The reason Scott Peterson is in custody today, and has been held to
answer charges that carry with them a possible penalty of death, is
that the Modesto Police, at the very inception of the investigation of
this case, in the absence of any physical evidence, or any other
evidence of any kind, decided that Scott was responsible for Laci's
disappearance. They deliberately ignored any exculpatory evidence, and
from day one worked only toward putting Scott in the gas chamber.
December 22, 2003 Defense Motion to Set Aside Information
Lee Peterson: "They'll see the police have just bungled this
investigation from day one. They can come after me. That's fine. But
they've bungled this case."
Jackie Peterson: "I think every man out there should be in fear if this
is the way the police worked. If a crime happens to your wife, you'd
better know you're with six people and they weren't drunk and they are
good friends who are going to be able to put up with this. If they have
any kind of shady character, the police will dismiss them and you'll be
ruined."
But the reason they have had such a hard time of it wasn't
that this was any cleverly-executed crime -- or even that Cameron was just
plain "lucky" -- but that there was NO evidence to find. Because Cameron
Brown did NOT commit any crime.
Are we expected to believe that the arguably minor but incriminating
evidence admitted in the grand jury hearing that held Brown over for
trial was a trumped-up phantasmagoric invention of a deranged law
enforcement agency hell bent on hanging an innocent man out of
laziness, ineptitude or guile? This notion begs the question, "Why?"
..
I don't know what he thinks about this case now, or about Cameron's guilt or
innocence. But even if he is having second thoughts, he can't very well back
down now, at least not gracefully. Not after the amount of money that has
been spent on this case, and also after holding a man whom he would have to
concede might very well be innocent for over a year and a half.
Oh, bull. You are fantasizing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: God Doesn't Hate ANY Man |
08 Aug 2005 11:44:14 AM |
|
|
RetzQ wrote:
Oh, bull. You are fantasizing.
Or conjecturing. You do it all the time, what's the problem? Oh, I see ...
In order to accept my conjecture, we would necessarily have to conclude that
Loretta is wrong. And that's just plain unthinkable.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "RetzQ" |
|
| Title: Re: God Doesn't Hate ANY Man |
08 Aug 2005 11:57:29 AM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Oh, bull. You are fantasizing.
Or conjecturing. You do it all the time, what's the problem? Oh, I see ...
In order to accept my conjecture, we would necessarily have to conclude that
Loretta is wrong. And that's just plain unthinkable.
As usual, you refuse to acknowledge the truth even when it's right in
front of your face.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: God Doesn't Hate ANY Man |
08 Aug 2005 12:47:50 PM |
|
|
RetzQ wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Oh, bull. You are fantasizing.
Or conjecturing. You do it all the time, what's the problem? Oh, I see ...
In order to accept my conjecture, we would necessarily have to conclude that
Loretta is wrong. And that's just plain unthinkable.
As usual, you refuse to acknowledge the truth even when it's right in
front of your face.
Ted *specializes* in that.... :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "interested" |
|
| Title: Re: God Doesn't Hate ANY Man |
08 Aug 2005 02:04:51 PM |
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Oh, bull. You are fantasizing.
Or conjecturing. You do it all the time, what's the problem? Oh, I see ...
In order to accept my conjecture, we would necessarily have to conclude that
Loretta is wrong. And that's just plain unthinkable.
As usual, you refuse to acknowledge the truth even when it's right in
front of your face.
Ted *specializes* in that.... :)
And you should know better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: God Doesn't Hate ANY Man |
08 Aug 2005 11:10:00 PM |
|
|
interested wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Oh, bull. You are fantasizing.
Or conjecturing. You do it all the time, what's the problem? Oh, I see ...
In order to accept my conjecture, we would necessarily have to conclude that
Loretta is wrong. And that's just plain unthinkable.
As usual, you refuse to acknowledge the truth even when it's right in
front of your face.
Ted *specializes* in that.... :)
And you should know better.
About what? The fact is that Ted refuses to acknowledge
uncomfortable truths, and there is a long history of incidences to this
effect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: God Doesn't Hate ANY Man |
10 Aug 2005 07:49:41 PM |
|
|
God hates all men and women.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "interested" |
|
| Title: Re: God Doesn't Hate ANY Man |
08 Aug 2005 01:43:51 PM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Oh, bull. You are fantasizing.
Or conjecturing. You do it all the time, what's the problem? Oh, I see ...
In order to accept my conjecture, we would necessarily have to conclude that
Loretta is wrong. And that's just plain unthinkable.
Bingo! You hit that one dead center.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "interested" |
|
| Title: Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
08 Aug 2005 01:32:07 PM |
|
|
RetzQ wrote:
Just after
the accident happened, just as soon as the lead detective arrived at the
site, he decided -- without having done any investigation whatsoever -- that
this must have been a crime, and so he snarled in Cameron's face, "I'm going
to get you for this
Lee Peterson: "They worked strictly on a theory that was dreamt up by
this lead detective within the first eight hours, and they've pursued
it backward from there and they have neglected so many good leads."
So the relationship between Cameron and the investigators was adversarial and
characterised by distrust. But this isn't because Cameron is guilty of any
crime, but rather because he perceived (correctly, apparently) that the cops
were bent on persecuting him for something he didn't do
The reason Scott Peterson is in custody today, and has been held to
answer charges that carry with them a possible penalty of death, is
that the Modesto Police, at the very inception of the investigation of
this case, in the absence of any physical evidence, or any other
evidence of any kind, decided that Scott was responsible for Laci's
disappearance. They deliberately ignored any exculpatory evidence, and
from day one worked only toward putting Scott in the gas chamber.
December 22, 2003 Defense Motion to Set Aside Information
Nevertheless, the investigators were unable to discover any hard, physical
evidence that a crime had been committed here, and were unable to develop a
case against Cam Brown. They certainly should have been able to find MUCH
exculpatory evidence -- it was right there in the open -- but it seems that
they have developed tunnel-vision and have ignored it (and in some cases even
suppressed it).
Lee Peterson: "They'll see the police have just bungled this
investigation from day one. They can come after me. That's fine. But
they've bungled this case."
Jackie Peterson: "I think every man out there should be in fear if this
is the way the police worked. If a crime happens to your wife, you'd
better know you're with six people and they weren't drunk and they are
good friends who are going to be able to put up with this. If they have
any kind of shady character, the police will dismiss them and you'll be
ruined."
Bill Clinton, "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica
Lewinsky!"
I just bet the guys who have been released from prison years after
their conviction because of DNA said many things to maintain their
innocence. Are you suggesting that they should not? For you to trot
out statements by the Peterson's only shows that even without hearing
the case, you have pre-determined Cam's guilt. At least the others
hear have stated their willingness to hear the facts before they draw a
final opinion. Your agenda apparently has nothing to do with justice.
I do find that quite pathetic.
Just after
the accident happened, just as soon as the lead detective arrived at
the
site, he decided -- without having done any investigation whatsoever --
that
this must have been a crime, and so he snarled in Cameron's face, "I'm
going
to get you for this
Lee Peterson: "They worked strictly on a theory that was dreamt up by
this lead detective within the first eight hours, and they've pursued
it backward from there and they have neglected so many good leads."
So the relationship between Cameron and the investigators was
adversarial and
characterised by distrust. But this isn't because Cameron is guilty of
any
crime, but rather because he perceived (correctly, apparently) that the
cops
were bent on persecuting him for something he didn't do
The reason Scott Peterson is in custody today, and has been held to
answer charges that carry with them a possible penalty of death, is
that the Modesto Police, at the very inception of the investigation of
this case, in the absence of any physical evidence, or any other
evidence of any kind, decided that Scott was responsible for Laci's
disappearance. They deliberately ignored any exculpatory evidence, and
from day one worked only toward putting Scott in the gas chamber.
December 22, 2003 Defense Motion to Set Aside Information
Lee Peterson: "They'll see the police have just bungled this
investigation from day one. They can come after me. That's fine. But
they've bungled this case."
Jackie Peterson: "I think every man out there should be in fear if this
is the way the police worked. If a crime happens to your wife, you'd
better know you're with six people and they weren't drunk and they are
good friends who are going to be able to put up with this. If they have
any kind of shady character, the police will dismiss them and you'll be
ruined."
But the reason they have had such a hard time of it wasn't
that this was any cleverly-executed crime -- or even that Cameron was just
plain "lucky" -- but that there was NO evidence to find. Because Cameron
Brown did NOT commit any crime.
Are we expected to believe that the arguably minor but incriminating
evidence admitted in the grand jury hearing that held Brown over for
trial was a trumped-up phantasmagoric invention of a deranged law
enforcement agency hell bent on hanging an innocent man out of
laziness, ineptitude or guile? This notion begs the question, "Why?"
What you are to believe is that this prosecution has taken every route
it can, apparently, to back door the defense. Grand Jury indictments
are not difficult to come by as it might be to hold someone for trial
after a preliminary hearing. You can indict a ham sandwich! Your
contention is ridiculous. Of course, a preliminary hearing would have
ensured that those making the decision and the public would have had
more access to both sides of this case. It's not real difficult to
figure out why the prosecution opted out of that option. I sure as
hell wasn't there when Lauren died and I don't know everything there is
to know about it. Neither do you. Your attacks speak for themselves.
God forbid Cam should be innocent! It would ruin the entire premise
for your next self-published piece of work.
.
I don't know what he thinks about this case now, or about Cameron's guilt or
innocence. But even if he is having second thoughts, he can't very well back
down now, at least not gracefully. Not after the amount of money that has
been spent on this case, and also after holding a man whom he would have to
concede might very well be innocent for over a year and a half.
Oh, bull. You are fantasizing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solar" |
|
| Title: Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
08 Aug 2005 07:58:53 PM |
|
|
Interested wrote
"What you are to believe is that this prosecution has taken every route
it can, apparently, to back door the defense. Grand Jury indictments
are not difficult to come by as it might be to hold someone for trial
after a preliminary hearing. You can indict a ham sandwich! "
My, my, my what an *original* statement.... think of that yourself, did
you ??
----------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!
Solar
.
|
|
|
| User: "interested" |
|
| Title: Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
08 Aug 2005 08:23:29 PM |
|
|
Solar wrote:
Interested wrote
"What you are to believe is that this prosecution has taken every route
it can, apparently, to back door the defense. Grand Jury indictments
are not difficult to come by as it might be to hold someone for trial
after a preliminary hearing. You can indict a ham sandwich! "
My, my, my what an *original* statement.... think of that yourself, did
you ??
Common knowledge which only underlines what I was saying, which, btw, I
notice you did not refute.
----------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!
Solar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solar" |
|
| Title: Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
08 Aug 2005 08:53:12 PM |
|
|
Interested wrote
Solar wrote
"> My, my, my what an *original* statement.... think of that yourself, did you ??
"Common knowledge which only underlines what I was saying, which, btw, I notice you did not refute."
Actually, I'm too busy *laughing* at it.
Sayyyyy.... does this hypothetical and indict-able 'ham sandwhich' of
yours come with a free Glasser of water ??? <g>
-------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!
Solar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kent Wills" |
|
| Title: Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
09 Aug 2005 01:05:36 AM |
|
|
On 8 Aug 2005 18:53:12 -0700, "Solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Interested wrote
Solar wrote
"> My, my, my what an *original* statement.... think of that yourself, did you ??
"Common knowledge which only underlines what I was saying, which, btw, I notice you did not refute."
Actually, I'm too busy *laughing* at it.
Sayyyyy.... does this hypothetical and indict-able 'ham sandwhich' of
yours come with a free Glasser of water ??? <g>
Rim shot!
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solar" |
|
| Title: Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
09 Aug 2005 11:32:56 AM |
|
|
Kent Wills wrote
">>Solar wrote
Sayyyyy.... does this hypothetical and indict-able 'ham sandwhich' of
yours come with a free Glasser of water ??? <g>
"Rim shot!"
And, less than four hours after that, Larry shows up.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Ohhhhhkay..... *now*, i'm thinking of a big ol' sloppy bucket of
tuna...and perhaps some yarn. Maybe a flea collar too, just for good
measure.
Hey, this _could_ be easier than fishing <g>
-----------
have a GREAT day !!!!!!
Solar
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RetzQ" |
|
| Title: Re: God HATES the Kaldis family... |
08 Aug 2005 02:38:23 PM |
|
|
interested wrote:
What you are to believe is that this prosecution has taken every route
it can, apparently, to back door the defense. Grand Jury indictments
are not difficult to come by as it might be to hold someone for trial
after a preliminary hearing. You can indict a ham sandwich! Your
contention is ridiculous. Of course, a preliminary hearing would have
ensured that those making the decision and the public would have had
more access to both sides of this case. It's not real difficult to
figure out why the prosecution opted out of that option. I sure as
hell wasn't there when Lauren died and I don't know everything there is
to know about it. Neither do you. Your attacks speak for themselves.
God forbid Cam should be innocent! It would ruin the entire premise
for your next self-published piece of work.
Grand juries are very common. No big secret. Nothing untoward about
that. Happens every day. I see no conspiracy. Geragos has the
discovery. He knows what the People have on Cam. If he has a good
affirmative defense, I'm all ears.
So far he has Gera-logic and Smoke, his typical defense of desperation
and duplicity. Even people with more credentials than I have opined to
that effect.
As far as your cheap shots at me, personally, I'll just let those roll
off my back.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
08 Aug 2005 08:45:47 PM |
|
|
RRetzQ wrote:
Grand juries are very common. No big secret. Nothing untoward about that.
Happens every day. I see no conspiracy. Geragos has the discovery. He
knows what the People have on Cam. If he has a good affirmative defense,
I'm all ears.
Then wait for the trial -- if ever there is any (because I can't see them
bringing this turkey to trial).
The fact is, you are wrong about so much in this case. I'd try to set you
straight, but it's something that you don't want to hear, so you wouldn't
believe me. What can I do but let you wallow in your ignorance?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dane Metcalfe" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
08 Aug 2005 09:51:26 PM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:42F80ACB.5299C388@worldnet.att.net...
RRetzQ wrote:
Grand juries are very common. No big secret. Nothing untoward about
that.
Happens every day. I see no conspiracy. Geragos has the discovery. He
knows what the People have on Cam. If he has a good affirmative
defense,
I'm all ears.
Then wait for the trial -- if ever there is any (because I can't see them
bringing this turkey to trial).
The fact is, you are wrong about so much in this case. I'd try to set you
straight, but it's something that you don't want to hear, so you wouldn't
believe me. What can I do but let you wallow in your ignorance?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing of the
relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case, which in
itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which laying in
wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon those cases
where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RetzQ" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
08 Aug 2005 10:19:05 PM |
|
|
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing of the
relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case, which in
itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which laying in
wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon those cases
where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
He ignored me when I cited that law, too. I guess he doesn't have an
answer.
My guess (as others' guessed) is that Brown is a flight risk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dane Metcalfe" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 12:26:48 AM |
|
|
"RetzQ" <lorettas2@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1123557545.492967.143260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing of
the
relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case, which
in
itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which laying in
wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon those
cases
where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
He ignored me when I cited that law, too. I guess he doesn't have an
answer.
My guess (as others' guessed) is that Brown is a flight risk.
According to CA law, there are no provisions for the complete denial of bail
for flight risk, but only as described above. And why is Cam so much more of
a flight risk, as opposed to, say, the BTK killer, who was granted the
opportunity to post bail (Lol, to the tune of 10,000,000 worthless federal
reserve debt dollars
;-0 ).
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kent Wills" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 01:10:09 AM |
|
|
On 8 Aug 2005 20:19:05 -0700, "RetzQ" <lorettas2@cox.net> wrote:
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing of the
relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case, which in
itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which laying in
wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon those cases
where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
He ignored me when I cited that law, too. I guess he doesn't have an
answer.
My guess (as others' guessed) is that Brown is a flight risk.
With Dad's money available to him, Cam is a serious flight
risk. It wouldn't take much to get to Brazil where Cam would be safe
from extradition.
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dane Metcalfe" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 07:12:03 AM |
|
|
"Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3igf11ukjc7n2q4on3ha7qpr3l8rdmuok@4ax.com...
On 8 Aug 2005 20:19:05 -0700, "RetzQ" <lorettas2@cox.net> wrote:
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing
of the
relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case, which
in
itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which laying
in
wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon those
cases
where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
He ignored me when I cited that law, too. I guess he doesn't have an
answer.
My guess (as others' guessed) is that Brown is a flight risk.
With Dad's money available to him, Cam is a serious flight
risk. It wouldn't take much to get to Brazil where Cam would be safe
from extradition.
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Then CA law called for increased bail, not total denial of bail...unless, of
course, the evidence or presumption of guilt was so great...that...the
defense concluded it to be the best trial strategy to not apply their only
legal remedy to attack the sufficiency of the evidence prior to trial by
invoking the issue in a bail hearing?
And, if so, and what Ken says is true about it being the normal course for
the state to go by indictment when the defense is responsible for delays, is
it possible that the defense purposely delayed so as to force the
prosecutions hand so that Cam would not have to deal with this issue in a
preliminary examination?
Oh, how I love a real life mystery! :)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "interested" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 10:34:20 AM |
|
|
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
"Kent Wills" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3igf11ukjc7n2q4on3ha7qpr3l8rdmuok@4ax.com...
On 8 Aug 2005 20:19:05 -0700, "RetzQ" <lorettas2@cox.net> wrote:
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing
of the
relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case, which
in
itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which laying
in
wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon those
cases
where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
He ignored me when I cited that law, too. I guess he doesn't have an
answer.
My guess (as others' guessed) is that Brown is a flight risk.
With Dad's money available to him, Cam is a serious flight
risk. It wouldn't take much to get to Brazil where Cam would be safe
from extradition.
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Then CA law called for increased bail, not total denial of bail...unless, of
course, the evidence or presumption of guilt was so great...that...the
defense concluded it to be the best trial strategy to not apply their only
legal remedy to attack the sufficiency of the evidence prior to trial by
invoking the issue in a bail hearing?
And, if so, and what Ken says is true about it being the normal course for
the state to go by indictment when the defense is responsible for delays, is
it possible that the defense purposely delayed so as to force the
prosecutions hand so that Cam would not have to deal with this issue in a
preliminary examination?
Oh, how I love a real life mystery! :)
LOL! Me too. I think the choice between a Preliminary Hearing and an
Indictment is a part of strategy. The strategy could have something to
do with pushing toward a trial date and eliminating delays. The other
part of that is that the prosecution does not have to put out their
entire case and have cross examination by the defense. Do you recall
the Preliminary Hearing in the Blake case? That was where Tom
Messereau made mincemeat out of the prosecution witnesses. Blake was
still held to answer, but Messereau went to trial with a clear
advantage. He had already taken the witnesses to task. That is one
impressive attorney, imo. I didn't follow the trial.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kent Wills" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 04:59:47 PM |
|
|
On 9 Aug 2005 08:34:20 -0700, "interested" <jpinv@mn.rr.com> wrote:
LOL! Me too. I think the choice between a Preliminary Hearing and an
Indictment is a part of strategy. The strategy could have something to
do with pushing toward a trial date and eliminating delays. The other
part of that is that the prosecution does not have to put out their
entire case and have cross examination by the defense. Do you recall
the Preliminary Hearing in the Blake case? That was where Tom
Messereau made mincemeat out of the prosecution witnesses. Blake was
You're being too kind. Messereau did far worse than make
mincemeat out of that witness. After that, I kind of figured a not
guilty verdict would be the end result.
still held to answer, but Messereau went to trial with a clear
advantage. He had already taken the witnesses to task. That is one
impressive attorney, imo. I didn't follow the trial.
I didn't pay much attention after the Prelim. While not a
forgone conclusion, the likelihood of a not guilty verdict was a near
certainty. Other than the interest of a celebrity being on trial, I
didn't see any point in keeping up with it.
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
.
|
|
|
| User: "interested" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 05:26:48 PM |
|
|
Kent Wills wrote:
On 9 Aug 2005 08:34:20 -0700, "interested" <jpinv@mn.rr.com> wrote:
LOL! Me too. I think the choice between a Preliminary Hearing and an
Indictment is a part of strategy. The strategy could have something to
do with pushing toward a trial date and eliminating delays. The other
part of that is that the prosecution does not have to put out their
entire case and have cross examination by the defense. Do you recall
the Preliminary Hearing in the Blake case? That was where Tom
Messereau made mincemeat out of the prosecution witnesses. Blake was
You're being too kind. Messereau did far worse than make
mincemeat out of that witness. After that, I kind of figured a not
guilty verdict would be the end result.
That Prelim was an example of some of the best lawyering I have ever
seen. On the defense side, that is. Seems like he knocked the socks
off the prosecutors.
still held to answer, but Messereau went to trial with a clear
advantage. He had already taken the witnesses to task. That is one
impressive attorney, imo. I didn't follow the trial.
I didn't pay much attention after the Prelim. While not a
forgone conclusion, the likelihood of a not guilty verdict was a near
certainty. Other than the interest of a celebrity being on trial, I
didn't see any point in keeping up with it.
Of course, any high profile case with that kind of coverage might have
some lasting impact from that sort of performance, but normally Joe
Public has no clue what went on in the Prelim. I don't even recall if
the actual trial was televised. I think maybe not or I might have
watched more of it just to see Messereau in action. Very impressive.
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kent Wills" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 04:56:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 07:12:03 -0500, "Dane Metcalfe"
<quack_deala@hotmail.com> wrote:
Then CA law called for increased bail, not total denial of bail...unless, of
course, the evidence or presumption of guilt was so great...that...the
defense concluded it to be the best trial strategy to not apply their only
legal remedy to attack the sufficiency of the evidence prior to trial by
invoking the issue in a bail hearing?
The evidence I've seen makes me presume Cameron is guilty.
It's quite possible a judge would have felt the same way. Of course,
it's ultimately up to a jury.
And, if so, and what Ken says is true about it being the normal course for
the state to go by indictment when the defense is responsible for delays, is
it possible that the defense purposely delayed so as to force the
prosecutions hand so that Cam would not have to deal with this issue in a
preliminary examination?
It's been so long since Ted told us why Team Cameron delayed
that I've actually forgotten the reason. I do recall it made sense to
me at the time.
Oh, how I love a real life mystery! :)
It does keep us coming back.
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 11:59:46 AM |
|
|
RetzQ wrote:
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing of
the relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case,
which in itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which
laying in wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon
those cases where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
He ignored me when I cited that law, too. I guess he doesn't have an
answer.
I don't bother to answer every stupid question I encounter. (Or on the other
hand, perhaps you might want to help me set up a "Free Cam Brown" fund?)
My guess (as others' guessed) is that Brown is a flight risk.
But you tend to guess wrong.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 12:00:59 PM |
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing of
the relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case,
which in itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which
laying in wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon
those cases where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
He ignored me when I cited that law, too. I guess he doesn't have an
answer.
I don't bother to answer every stupid question I encounter.
And Ted also avoids every good question he can't answer.
(Or on the other
hand, perhaps you might want to help me set up a "Free Cam Brown" fund?)
I'll contribute $5 to the fund if you will make the *ENTIRE* autopsy
available to Kent, Loretta, myself, and Dane.
My guess (as others' guessed) is that Brown is a flight risk.
But you tend to guess wrong.
Dane's been batting close to 1.000, and there aren't too many things
he's been very far off on. You, on the other hand, have been swinging
like the son of Joe DiMaggio (about 1-for-51). :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kent Wills" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
09 Aug 2005 05:09:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:00:59 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
RetzQ wrote:
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing of
the relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case,
which in itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which
laying in wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon
those cases where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
He ignored me when I cited that law, too. I guess he doesn't have an
answer.
I don't bother to answer every stupid question I encounter.
And Ted also avoids every good question he can't answer.
(Or on the other
hand, perhaps you might want to help me set up a "Free Cam Brown" fund?)
I'll contribute $5 to the fund if you will make the *ENTIRE* autopsy
available to Kent, Loretta, myself, and Dane.
I'll send in $5.00 as well, under the same conditions.
My guess (as others' guessed) is that Brown is a flight risk.
But you tend to guess wrong.
Dane's been batting close to 1.000, and there aren't too many things
he's been very far off on. You, on the other hand, have been swinging
like the son of Joe DiMaggio (about 1-for-51). :)
Anyone facing a 1st degree murder charge is a likely flight
risk. A trial is always a gamble, since there's no way to know how
the jury will find. And with access to Dad's money, it's certainly
possible that Cam, under an assumed name, could be found surfing the
beaches of Rio.
While the people of Brazil don't especially like Americans,
they do LOVE the money, and would certainly be willing to tolerate the
presence of a wealthy American who has access to Dad's money.
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: God Hates NO Man! |
08 Aug 2005 10:13:40 PM |
|
|
Dane Metcalfe wrote:
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:42F80ACB.5299C388@worldnet.att.net...
RRetzQ wrote:
[snip]
Then wait for the trial -- if ever there is any (because I can't see them
bringing this turkey to trial).
The fact is, you are wrong about so much in this case. I'd try to set you
straight, but it's something that you don't want to hear, so you wouldn't
believe me. What can I do but let you wallow in your ignorance?
Speaking of which, dear Ted, why have you TWICE now ignored my citing of the
relevant statutes showing you that, even in a death penalty case, which in
itself must be predicated upon special circumstances, of which laying in
wait is just but one of many, bail may not be denied except upon those cases
where the evidence or the presumption of guilt is GREAT?
Because it just ruined his whole day. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
