2009.11.19 Defense Files Motion suggesting Kronk as Killer #4

[sleutherontheside]

I edited my post above # 89 with a snip regarding SSL. Kronk is entitled to privacy just as RR posted.

 

[Turnadot]

I edited my post above # 89 with a snip regarding SSL. Kronk is entitled to privacy just as RR posted.

Agreed. And, imo, it's such a shame the defense is doing this to Kronk. I wonder how many people will now choose to walk away and keep silent if they ever have the unfortunate experience of finding the remains of a victim.

 

[RR0004]

Do you have a link to the kidnapping charges and who filed them? How do we know they were bogus? How do we know it was an angry adult or ex? is there a news report? I mean I saw what Rk had to say about it, but I would like to see an actual document of it. thanks

Good point here...criminal background check done by the utility company wouldn't have even shown the charge...because it was expunged. Kronk, though, did make it known to his employers. Do you think they would have hired someone so dangerous?

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/18448218/detail.html

 

[RR0004]

No, I don't believe it was an accident by Kc. The defense is way too confident to call it an accident. They are going for the ghusto here. Not guilty of premeditated murder. I think when Jb said to Kb that she wasn't there, your in fairy land, that was the end of the accident theory for the defense. As far as I know, it is just a theory floating around out there. The facts that I stated are of my opinion.

Do you really see confidence?

OY!

Happy New Year, NTS!

 

[RR0004]

I think this thread is about Rk. Some want to compare Rk circumstantial evidence to Kc circumstantial evidence. I am trying to sleuth Rk circumstantial evidence, because that is what the motion is about. To compare it to Kc circumstantial evidence is not to investigate Rk. It is my opinion that since the Sa has no rock solid physical evidence that points to Kc, perhaps Le should look at other avenues.

Why should they when their investigation led them to Casey?

 

[BeanE]

Just found this info....BeanE, I may have been too broad. THanks for the reminder I believe this attached snippet regarding SSL covers Kronks timecards as he is a WITNESS and NOT a party in the case.

View attachment 6850

Thank you, sleuther. I couldn't remember for the life of me where the line was drawn on the witnesses.

 

[RR0004]

I think it's fair to say this is more than simply a theory - it was put forth by people on the defense or involved in it.

The first people to mention an accident were KC's parents. They ran a possible pool accident by her in jail and she scoffed. They also both mentioned it in their LE/FBI interviews as a possibility because they allegedly found the ladder to the pool still up on one occasion after KC and Caylee had left home.

The second theory was put forth by TL, the DP-qualified attorney previously on the defense in the brief he prepared to get the DP off the table. He suggested that Caylee had likely died due to an accidental drug overdose brought on by some form of PPD. I would assume he had the authority to speak on behalf of the team, or JB would have objected to that tactic, and he did not.

The fact that JB and team now appear to be trying out yet another SODDI defense with RK indicates to me they are running out of people to blame. IIRC, RK had just been assigned that route in August. I'll look for the documentation. If he saw a skull in August, there is no way Caylee's remains had not already been there for weeks - and it puts into the realm of fantasy trying to connect him to a living Caylee. And if simple proximity to the area is a factor in being a suspect, then JW and that kid who found the animals should be equally suspect in the public's eyes. They have pasts, like many people, that could be misread. If the defense wants to use JW as a serious witness, they'd be smart to realize she is much less credible than RK, imo.

I'm so glad you mentioned JW. I'm truly surprised her name as a suspect hasn't been put out there as well.

 

[LambChop]

When you think about how fast the videos were released and the timing of when they were released anyone with any common sense would realize the defense obviously has nothing on RK and no reason to believe he had anything to do with the death of Caylee. Plus it does not put their client in a better place defense wise. People are more likely to identify with RK as doing the right thing and being penalized for it. JMO

 

[BeanE]

How do you think the Judge will rule on this motion? I agree he was not a suspect in Dec 08, but now that we have his inconsistent statements and his ex wives and son statements, the judge may rule for the defense here. It appears to me to be a brilliant motion by the defense. It has taken the decision to investigate Rk out of SA hands and put it into the Judges hands. Does anyone have any idea when the Judge will rule on this motion?

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19341482/detail.html

Also Dec 11th interview and Dec 17th interview.

notthatsmart, are you saying that you think the judge is going to be ruling on whether or not another investigation into Kronk is to take place?

 

[RR0004]

[/B]

Yeah I think the parents talking about an accident theory is just one of the hundreds of theories they were speculating. I am interested in the doc that says the defense thought it was an accident.

He suggested that Caylee had likely died due to an accidental drug overdose brought on by some form of PPD.

When did he suggest this? I mean was the defense actually saying that Caylee had died way back when TL was on the team? I did see TL on Ng much later after they brought the dp back. I noted yesterday on our WS news thread that TL had only visited Kc one time in jail. He was suggesting on Ng that he thought they should have went with an insanity defense. When did he have time with Kc to determine all this?

I think the defense has always gone with the soddi theory and have never changed that.

I saw the documentation of Rk being just assigned that route in August and it was RK saying that. I would like to see the details though. When did he start reading meters in the area and adjacent areas. Did his supervisor really used to live on Hopespring? (dispatch call dec 11) ? Phone records and pings. Take a look at the car he got rid of since Aug 11th (Rk interview Jan 6th) Did he actually read the Anthony meter on Aug 11th in front of their home? Was Kc at home that day? Did he meet DC or JH or GA in the front yard? Were there news stations there that day on Aug 11th? Protesters? (Rk interview Jan 6th)

I have a lot of questions for Rk. And I just hope we could clear them all up so we can move on with this case.

What do you know about Jw and the kid that found the animals? Is there a link. This sounds very interesting. I have heard it as rumor, but I thought it was way before Caylee was reported missing? Jw is a very very interesting subject and possibly tied to this link since she said she saw an man in those woods on Aug 11th between one and two pm. I do believe that Sa will impeach Jw, but pretty hard to impeach the video or pictures. Thank you for bringing these things up. And of course after reading the docs in the case, everything I say in the post is of my opinion only.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19341482/detail.html

Casey was not at home that day because she was in jail. This has been repeated time and time again.

 

[BeanE]

Agreed. And, imo, it's such a shame the defense is doing this to Kronk. I wonder how many people will now choose to walk away and keep silent if they ever have the unfortunate experience of finding the remains of a victim.

It's vile. It's made me lose so much faith in the justice system. It is not justice. It does nothing good for either the victim or the accused. It was a sad, sad day when the defense filed that motion.

 

[LambChop]

It's vile. It's made me lose so much faith in the justice system. It is not justice. It does nothing good for either the victim or the accused. It was a sad, sad day when the defense filed that motion.

Thanks to Ms. Lyon's I would imagine.

 

[BeanE]

[/B]

Yeah I think the parents talking about an accident theory is just one of the hundreds of theories they were speculating. I am interested in the doc that says the defense thought it was an accident.

He suggested that Caylee had likely died due to an accidental drug overdose brought on by some form of PPD.

When did he suggest this? I mean was the defense actually saying that Caylee had died way back when TL was on the team? I did see TL on Ng much later after they brought the dp back. I noted yesterday on our WS news thread that TL had only visited Kc one time in jail. He was suggesting on Ng that he thought they should have went with an insanity defense. When did he have time with Kc to determine all this?

notthatsmart, Lenamon has stated a number of times that he was not suggesting insanity as a defense, because there is no basis for it, but was suggesting mental health issues as mitigation in the penalty phase.

Terry's document has apparently been removed from the internet since it was an inappropriate leak by the defense team. I read it when it was on the internet, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find a copy of it in recent months.

If anyone has access to a copy, I'd love to read it again!

 

[BeanE]

When you think about how fast the videos were released and the timing of when they were released anyone with any common sense would realize the defense obviously has nothing on RK and no reason to believe he had anything to do with the death of Caylee. Plus it does not put their client in a better place defense wise. People are more likely to identify with RK as doing the right thing and being penalized for it. JMO

Not to mention that none of the video statements were sworn.

They might as well have been infomercials. Oh... maybe they were...

 

[Novice Seeker]

I find it disturbing when the defense tries to throw anyone and everyone under the bus so that the guilty party (IMO) can get a chance to walk free. The defense has made claims that they have "proof" as to Casey's innocence. I find it disturbing that the defense is holding back that information. I'm sure that Casey would much rather prefer to be out of jail if she is indeed innocent and has said proof. The SA is not required to provide us with everything they have until the trial. We may not like it but that's the way it is. Some things are better left to the professionals such as those photos. I don't think that any photos of Caylee's body or remains should be put out in the public.

JMO

We are talking about an attorney who allowed an innocent man to server prison time for a crime he didn't commit for one reason...so her client would walk free. Oh, that's right, she and others like her wave that tiny little ethics banner to justify why she kept silent.

Novice Seeker

 

[Tuffy]

snipped by me:

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

I understand the points in your post, TDA. As usual, you are very thorough in explaining your reasoning.

The snipped part, I don't follow though. If you don't think RK is guilty, why should the investigators working on Caylee's murder case continue to investigate him?

 

[Novice Seeker]

If someone else other than KC committed this crime how in the world were they able to prevent KC from recognizing that her daughter was missing? What could have been done to force a mother, whose child has disappeared, to party hard, jump beds, run up air time minutes chit chatting with friends that no one would have even the slightest hint of something wrong and sit for a tatoo that declares the good life?


That question can stand on its own to suggest someone else could be possible suspect or not. Sure would save a lot of time and save an innocent person from being drug thru the cess-pool, IMO

Novice Seeker

 

[Searchfortruth]

When I think back to the many many months we waited for Caylee to be found, I remember just how thankful I am for Roy K and his efforts. The day this child was discovered was a day that her family should be thankful for, so many families of the missing never get that closure. They should have thanked Roy privately and publicly.

A good defense doesn't have to accuse innocent people of a heinous crime in their efforts to defend their client.

 

[LambChop]

We are talking about an attorney who allowed an innocent man to server prison time for a crime he didn't commit for one reason...so her client would walk free. Oh, that's right, she and others like her wave that tiny little ethics banner to justify why she kept silent.

Novice Seeker

One in the same. While this person thinks of herself as somewhat of a hero to her clients "Angel of Death Row" her clients are, in fact, people who are being tried for killing one or more human beings who had families, friends and loved ones. Her job is to keep the State from doing the very thing her clients had no problem doing themselves to a person more likely than not without justification. So, for the most part apparently her ethics are out the window for her cause. JMO

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

snipped by me:



I understand the points in your post, TDA. As usual, you are very thorough in explaining your reasoning.

The snipped part, I don't follow though. If you don't think RK is guilty, why should the investigators working on Caylee's murder case continue to investigate him?

I think LE should investigate him because although he ultimately was successful in getting LE to Caylee’s remains, his actions prior to that success are questionable. Also the inconsistencies in his statements to police are questionable. I think LE needs to investigate him thoroughly so when in court the defense tries to impeach RK and question his actions, the prosecution will be able to eliminate any doubts the defense has managed to raise. If LE does not investigate, as defense has, the defense will be able to use RK’s inconsistent statements and questionable actions to their advantage in trying to give the jury reasonable doubt as to KC’s guilt. I do not think it is necessary for the defense to prove RK actually abducted and murdered Caylee. I think they only need to prove it might be possible, to raise reasonable doubt. If LE has done a thorough investigation of RK that would make it much more difficult for the defense to try to prove it might be possible. If the Judge allows the motion to bring in RK’s prior bad acts and other circumstantial evidence they would like to bring in, then I think it is very important that LE has done a thorough investigation of RK. The items the defense would like to bring in would not show RK in a good light to the jury, and could possibly raise reasonable doubt in the minds of those jurors. As always my entire post is moo