Thank you NTS for gathering back up for your information. I admit do not have a handle on the information that may support RK as a viable suspect and look forward to your compilation.
I consider RK to represent the doubt factor but that is all.
I agree with you that the defense will be trying to use RK to represent the doubt factor in this case.
Do I think RK is guilty of the murder of Caylee? NO. Do I think KC is guilty of the premeditated murder of Caylee? NO. Do I think LE should have thoroughly investigated KC? Yes. Do I think LE should thoroughly investigate RK? Yes
Because LEs investigation of KC has not provided the answers to the questions Where was Caylee killed, How was Caylee killed, When was Caylee killed, Why was Caylee killed. And although the SA has indicted KC for premeditated murder, the evidence that we know of leaves me with reasonable doubt at this time, so I do not think LE has the answer to Who murdered Caylee, or even if anyone murdered Caylee.(I still think an accidental death is a possibility)
I am fully aware that LE and the SA suspect Caylee was murdered on the 16th of June or soon thereafter, that Caylee had been in the trunk of the Pontiac for around 2.6 days, that KCs actions for the 31 days prior to the 911 call from CA provides answers to Why Caylee was killed, and the duct tape indicates How Caylee was killed. The media hypes this all to be proven facts, and has been instrumental in persuading the majority of the public to formulate the opinion that KC is indeed guilty of the charges. It is easy to understand why most people believe KC is guilty. However, none of the above has been proven to be fact in a court of law, nor has it been cross examined by the defense team. If one piece of evidence could be definitive, then I would join the majority. One piece of definitive evidence would corroborate the mountain of circumstantial evidence. To my knowledge there are many pieces of evidence that would be that one piece of definitive evidence, if they could be proven as fact, instead of proven to be possibilities. For example, the duct tape, the decomp in the trunk, the smell of death, the hair with the alleged death band, to name a few. An example of what I personally would find as a definitive piece of evidence would be if they had found KCs fingerprints on the sticky side of the duct tape found on Caylees remains, Or if the FBI had said the hair found in the trunk of the pontiac was definitely Caylees and definitely had a death band on it therefore Caylee was definitely deceased while she was in the trunk. Or even if the forensic reports would say it was ADIPOCERE on the napkins, or there was Caylees blood or human decomp in the trunk. Any one of those would convince me, if any one was definitive, instead of questionable. Yes, each of these are reasonably possible, however, there are other reasonable possibilities to each of these. For example the decomp in the trunk COULD have been from a decomposition event that was not from human origin. My apologies for this long winded explanation of why I think the circumstantial evidence against KC is no stronger than the circumstantial evidence against RK. All of the above is why I think that LE made a good decision in investigating KC. What follows will be why I think it would be a good decision by LE to investigate RK thoroughly.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19341482/detail.html
YM said to RK on page 5615 if someone were to ask you why you didnt call that afternoon while you were standing there if you thought it was a skull, what would your reaction to that be?
RK Well, it, it , like I said it looked like a skull to me. I was like ninety-nine point nine, nine, nine percent sure it was a skull. And but you know, Dave tells me Im crazy. And honestly, it was a hot day. I just wanted to go home. I just wanted to take a shower. I wanted to you know, like drink a soda, relax, get in the pool.
Page 5620
EE says to RK From the timeframe that you knew you probably saw a skull, to when you went back in there uh, in December
if asked why that big window exists that you didnt do something else to draw attention to it, what would you say?
RK Uh, I had real things on my mind. My car blew up, I had to replace it, Ok? Uh I had just started a relationship with my son after uh, eighteen years of not seeing him. Alright, I got insurance to pay. I have to pay my parents back. I had to go out and find a car. I think we spent all Memorial weekend, all three days out trying to find me a car. I had real things to do ok.
EE So on a scale of one to ten, and lets even use the percentage. What was the percentage of belief that that was a human skull in there? If you had to go back to when you first saw it, what percentage are we at?
RK A hundred percent.
Page 5622
RK I saw to me what distinctly looked like a skull again under a bag, or you know, in a bag, under a bag, I dont know. I just saw over top of this thing.
Page 5623
EE Now, lets use the percentage thing again. What percentage do you think that this was the same area where you made the observation back in August?
RK Not fifty, maybe.
Page 5628
RK Uh, you know what, if you want to hear the greedy, materialistic, pig side of me. At the time there was a two hundred and thirty uh five thousand dollar reward. If I thought you know like I said, I thought it was a skull, why the hell would I call anybody and tell them oh, you want two hundred and thirty five thousand dollars? Go over there and pick it up, you know? So
EE but the same could be asked there as well like If you knew that money was available why wouldnt you go back there and persist or would you stop
RK Because the cop pissed me off.
These statements from RK are bothersome to me, and make me suspicious of RK. The situation that causes the most suspicion about RK was the situation where the cop pissed him off. At that point in time, with an officer less than 10 feet from where the remains were ultimately found, and RK being 100 percent sure there was a skull there on August 13th, to not just walk over (snakes be damned, water be damned) the 10 feet or less and pick up the bag and PROVE to the officer that you were 100 percent correct and this is a skull, to me is just unbelievably suspicious.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21674736/detail.html
Now you take the motion made by the defense, with all their reasoning and testimony they provided, and you add the inconsistencies in the statements that RK made to the police in various interviews. This looks to be quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that RK may be guilty of something. Just as all the circumstantial evidence there is that KC may be guilty of something. I believe the motion made by the defense is valid, not ridiculous. I think the defense will not have a problem impeaching RK on the stand. The defense does not have to prove RK abducted and killed Caylee, they need only prove it may be possible. The question often asked is how did RK abduct Caylee, and although I do not have the answer, I pose this question, How does any abductor who never knew his victim prior to the abduction abduct the victim? The question Why would RK involve himself in the finding of Caylee if he was the abductor? I pose the question Why does any abductor involve themselves in a case where they are the abductor? I dont know the answers, but I do know it has happened. RK said his car blew up and he had to get a new car. Based on the inconsistencies of his statements to police, and the defense motion, would it not be normal police work to check RKs story about his car blowing up. The defense may suggest he had to get rid of the car because Caylees remains had been in there at one point in time. The testimony provided in the motion suggests RK had used duct tape, had displayed inappropriate behavior towards a minor, and once was accused of kidnapping. By itself, since the kidnapping charge was expunged, and the rest is hearsay, it may not mean anything, but when you add it to RK saying he had reconnected his relationship with his son, had made so many inconsistent statements, and is not the boy scout we once thought he was, then I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant doing a serious investigation on RK.
It is possible, and likely that LE has already done a serious investigation on RK, and we have just not been made aware of it. If they have, thats great. Then, in court the prosecution will have no trouble shooting down any accusations thrown towards RK by the defense. If, however, the defense manages to convince the jury that it is possible that RK may have been involved and the prosecution doesnt manage to shoot down that possibility, it will weaken the prosecutions circumstantial case against KC. If I am not mistaken in a circumstantial case like this, if the defense can show circumstances that somebody else could have committed the crime, then the jury will have reasonable doubt, and will not be able to convict KC
There are more circumstances involving RK that I do not have the links for at hand, however, even without these additional circumstances, based on all of the above paragraphs I have formulated the opinion that this motion by the defense is a valid motion, and that it would be a good idea for LE to thoroughly investigate RK if they have not already done so. As always my entire post is moo.
I believe this attached snippet regarding SSL covers Kronks timecards as he is a WITNESS and NOT a party in the case.
