Re: Ken Smith: Self Absorbed Fool

Ken Smith wrote:

Dane wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Dane wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Dane wrote:

I see words on a screen, but no explanation.

It's not my fault that you have comprehension problems.

Oh, I remember now. It's because without a launch point and impact point
there can be no trajectory analysis.

Bravo! You're improving.

But wait ...

For what?

It was shown that Hayes went by Cam's statement as to the launch point
and impact point,

Huh? WHAT statement? Cameron NEVER made any such statement.

and if he was lying, well ... you know ... he's guilty of murdering an
innocent child.

Well, someone is lying -- and it AIN'T Cameron. (Do you seriously
believe that he told investigators, "oh yeah, this is where I threw her
from"? Get real.)

I believe he told investigators where lauren was when she "fell" amd where
he found her.

Yeah, the top of the cliff. From which she ACCIDENTALLY FELL. But as he
didn't see the actual fall, it's kind of hard to narrow it down.

Failure to do so would probably have resulted in his arrest.

WTF? What, failure to tell them that she fell? What kind of drugs are you
on?

And after that exchange, you never have specified as to the nature of
the error in Hayes report.

Hayes' report is a joke. In it, he asserts that after a baseball pitcher
throws a pitch, he falls BACKWARDS off the mound.

Oh really?

Yes, really.

You wouldn't mind showing us that silly report then, I'm sure.

What for? You have no involvement here. Why should you care? It's none of
your business.

Nevertheless, I'll point you to this: since you [most likely] already have a
copy of the Grand Jury Testimony, please refer to the testimony on page 260.
Hayes is testifying:

2 Q IF LAUREN WERE LAUNCHED AT A VELOCITY OF
3 APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET PER SECOND BY CAMERON BROWN, WOULD
4 THAT HAVE RESULTED IN CAMERON BROWN GOING OVER THE CLIFF
5 ALSO?

6 A THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, ACTUALLY. AND
7 PERHAPS I CAN DEMONSTRATE AGAIN, IF I MIGHT.

8 SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF NEWTON'S LAW
9 AND THE PHRASE "FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A REACTION."

10 IN ANSWER TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, WHEN
11 YOU THROW SOMETHING, YOU GENERALLY ARE PUSHED BACKWARDS
12 FROM THAT THROW. AND SO THE STORIES THAT HE TOLD ABOUT
13 HER LAUNCHING A ROCK, THROWING A ROCK, THAT'S NOT THE WAY
14 WE THROW THINGS. WE THROW THINGS AND GENERALLY WE COME
15 BACKWARDS, UNLESS WE ARE RUNNING FORWARD. SO UNLESS HE
16 WERE RUNNING TOWARDS THE CLIFF FACE WHEN HE LAUNCHED HER,
17 WHICH WOULD GIVE HIM SOME MOMENTUM TOWARDS THE CLIFF
18 FACE, I WOULD EXPECT, IF HE LAUNCHES HER FROM A STANDING
19 POSITION, THAT HE WOULD BE PUSHED BACKWARDS, AS OPPOSED
20 TO GOING OVER THE CLIFF.

This is utterly LUDICROUS! This is NOT how we throw things. When we throw
something, we make sure that we are on solid footing, and then we put our
BODY into the throw. And whatever opposite reaction there is (according to
Newton's Law) is absorbed by the earth (the mass of which is FAR greater than
anything that we are capable of throwing.

If this is a case of Hayes "blinding them with science", it is the TRUTH that
he is blinding them from. And that "truth" is that Cameron Brown COULD _NOT_
HAVE "thrown" his daughter off the cliff -- otherwise he would almost
certainly have gone over himself.

Of course, he won't.

Because THERE IS NO NEED TO. It's NONE OF YOUR F***IN' BUSINESS. You have
enough problems of your own, Ken. I suggest you attend to them, rather than
try to rattle my cage.

Ted is all hat, no cattle. Always has been.

We'll see who has the cattle, and who has only the hat.

The biomechanics of pitching are not germane, for reasons those who
understand pitching or biomechanics know. It's essentially a whipping
motion.

It isn't the biomechanics of pitching that he is talking about, but rather
the PHYSICS. His assertion is that, as you throw an object, you fall
backwards as a result. When was the last time that that happened to you?

That argument just kind of died away in favor of the unspecified H-Bomb.
As confidential as the Manhatton Project.

It's a pretty BIG deal, that H-bomb.

I comprehend it all quite well now.

Well, it should be detonating sometime soon, I'm sure.

Perhaps.

If it was actually worth anything, it would have been detonated more than a
year ago. Or did Geragos keep his client in the slammer for an extra year,
just so he could FINALLY win a high-profile case in court?

Ken knows squat.

I'm not so sure.

As sure as you was that this turkey would never go to trial?

Ted has been 100% wrong about everything in this trial to date; why should
anything change now?

There hasn't been a trial yet, so you can't say that I was wrong about that.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.