2009.11.19 Defense Files Motion suggesting Kronk as Killer #4

[cecybeans]

Bolded by me: I just wanted to clear this up. We were referring to two different incidents. I thought you were talking about the child who was interviewed by one of the stations on Dec 11th and the child had said that the water had receded recently and that several months ago the police were called about a smell in the woods and they came out and found a dead dog. I cant find that video anywhere, but I did see it at one point on the news.

You were talking about stuffed animals and Kw.

So, in retrospect, Jw had nothing to do with any dead animals.

Right - sorry for the miscommunication.

 

[LambChop]

The motion has no basis. There is no evidence to prove RK had any connection to KC or Caylee. The A's are in denial. They know the truth because something happened in terms of an argument or disagreement prior to KC leaving that stopped them from demanding KC bring Caylee home. It never stopped CA in the past. In CA's "My Caylee is Missing" statement on Myspace CA states something to the effect that jealousy was keeping CA from Caylee. That sounds like a confrontation, clear and simple. So based on supposed "evidence" so far against RK there is absolutely nothing to support the motion. The defense can have all the "hinky" feelings they want, there is no evidence to support Mr. Kronk had contact with Caylee or KC. JMO

Also added. LE has finished their investigation into RK and appear to be satisfied. Defense clearly has investigated RK also and the videos are the best they can do. For the defense it sounds like this part of their investigation is closed. They have nothing but a theory that will not wash.

 

[RR0004]

I believe that from the very beginning of this fact finding mission, Le interrogated Kc and based on the questions they asked and didn't ask, they had no idea whatsoever what had happened. They were even accusing her of lies based on everyones misconception of the date June 9th.

Since then it has been the same thing. Everyone is looking at every angle and suspecting every person because no one and I mean no one really knows what happened here. Many believe that the evidence points to Kc, but there is no real rock solid physical evidence, and most circumstantial is after the crime and not leading up to the crime.

The A's clearly have no idea what happened here. That is why they are speculating and hope the Le investigates everyone including Kc. I think because Le has the right to look into suspicion (when they are not sure), everyone else has the right to look at anyone that looks suspicious in anyway.

Until there is some rock solid evidence, then we should all be looking at other options. That includes many others. Currently Rk is the one with circumstantial evidence making me suspicious. I tip my hat to Le for looking into all these people and hope they continue to do so, I also tip my hat to the defense for pointing out that they missed some stuff with Rk. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism . I am sure Le welcomes it, and I really do believe Le would love to investigate Rk again. Investigating is what they do, and I am sure they enjoy it as much as I enjoy my job.

I'm sure the State will argue that RK was thoroughly investigated (to be honest with you, I'm not even sure this Motion has any legs to be heard). It's a ploy IMO...nothing more. They don't believe RK had anything to do with Caylee's murder. They're just hoping to make LE look bad. So trust me...the prosecution has all of their ducks in a row. Again...JMHO.

 

[RR0004]

The motion has no basis. There is no evidence to prove RK had any connection to KC or Caylee. The A's are in denial. They know the truth because something happened in terms of an argument or disagreement prior to KC leaving that stopped them from demanding KC bring Caylee home. It never stopped CA in the past. In CA's "My Caylee is Missing" statement on Myspace CA states something to the effect that jealousy was keeping CA from Caylee. That sounds like a confrontation, clear and simple. So based on supposed "evidence" so far against RK there is absolutely nothing to support the motion. The defense can have all the "hinky" feelings they want, there is no evidence to support Mr. Kronk had contact with Caylee or KC. JMO

Also added. LE has finished their investigation into RK and appear to be satisfied. Defense clearly has investigated RK also and the videos are the best they can do. For the defense it sounds like this part of their investigation is closed. They have nothing but a theory that will not wash.

Geez, LC...you're in my head. LOL

 

[LambChop]

Geez, LC...you're in my head. LOL

I know, move over.

 

[BeanE]

Yes, I may be confused as to exactly what the motion is. Perhaps it is to be allowed to bring this info up at trial, or is it to order an investigation into Rk?

My understanding is that it's only asking permission to be able to introduce testimony of the ex-wives etc.

What's interesting to me is that the people in the videos were not sworn in, and they were simply interviewed by Mort the PI.

It's unusual to request to introduce 'bad acts' concerning a witness, and even further unusual to accompany this motion with plain interviews, rather than sworn testimony. Since they were not sworn, their actual testimony could be different. How is the judge to decide whether or not to allow testimony when he doesn't know for sure what that testimony will be? I'm thinking he may dismiss it without prejudice because of the unsworn testimony.

But again... I'm not a lawyer.

Happy New Year to you, nts.

ETA: I should also say that if the judge dismisses it without prejudice to allow them an opportunity to refile and accompany the motion with sworn testimony, that the judge will then dismiss the motion with prejudice, based on the defense not providing evidence to support what they contend, specifically, that there is equal circumstantial evidence. There simply is not, and IMO, this is a 'throwing spaghetti against the wall' motion, which A Lyon is known to have a proclivity for filing and which she advocates doing.

 

[BeanE]

The motion has no basis. There is no evidence to prove RK had any connection to KC or Caylee. The A's are in denial. They know the truth because something happened in terms of an argument or disagreement prior to KC leaving that stopped them from demanding KC bring Caylee home. It never stopped CA in the past. In CA's "My Caylee is Missing" statement on Myspace CA states something to the effect that jealousy was keeping CA from Caylee. That sounds like a confrontation, clear and simple. So based on supposed "evidence" so far against RK there is absolutely nothing to support the motion. The defense can have all the "hinky" feelings they want, there is no evidence to support Mr. Kronk had contact with Caylee or KC. JMO

Also added. LE has finished their investigation into RK and appear to be satisfied. Defense clearly has investigated RK also and the videos are the best they can do. For the defense it sounds like this part of their investigation is closed. They have nothing but a theory that will not wash.

I agree 100%, Lambchop, except that I can't say what the defense contends in this motion rises to the level of a theory. It's closer to vicious, baseless gossip.

 

[LambChop]

I agree 100%, Lambchop, except that I can't say what the defense contends in this motion rises to the level of a theory. It's closer to vicious, baseless gossip.

If RK is the best they can do....it looks like deep dodo's for the defense. JMO

 

[BeanE]

I believe that from the very beginning of this fact finding mission, Le interrogated Kc and based on the questions they asked and didn't ask, they had no idea whatsoever what had happened. They were even accusing her of lies based on everyones misconception of the date June 9th.

Since then it has been the same thing. Everyone is looking at every angle and suspecting every person because no one and I mean no one really knows what happened here. Many believe that the evidence points to Kc, but there is no real rock solid physical evidence, and most circumstantial is after the crime and not leading up to the crime.

The A's clearly have no idea what happened here. That is why they are speculating and hope the Le investigates everyone including Kc. I think because Le has the right to look into suspicion (when they are not sure), everyone else has the right to look at anyone that looks suspicious in anyway.

Until there is some rock solid evidence, then we should all be looking at other options. That includes many others. Currently Rk is the one with circumstantial evidence making me suspicious. I tip my hat to Le for looking into all these people and hope they continue to do so, I also tip my hat to the defense for pointing out that they missed some stuff with Rk. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism . I am sure Le welcomes it, and I really do believe Le would love to investigate Rk again. Investigating is what they do, and I am sure they enjoy it as much as I enjoy my job.

BBM.

Hi, notthatsmart. Actually, LE does not have the right to look into suspicion willy nilly. There are checks and balances in place so that our rights aren't violated. Think of search warrants, for example.

And everyone else does not have the right to investigate those they think are suspicious. There are checks and balances on this too so that, for example, we are not stalked or harrassed, do not have our privacy invaded, and are not defamed.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Can you elaborate on the Doctored video? I am unaware of this. I thought Mort was highly respected. This may give me reasonable doubt to take the defense seriously. thanks

IMO, when Mort agreed to work with Baez his credibility was lost. To participate in the witch hunt for the reasons Baez/Lyon premeditated puts him in the same class as Dom. Another PI who doesn't place much value on ethic's or morals.

Novice Seeker

 

[Novice Seeker]

Watch his interviews...they are stopped...then started...get the picture?

Why does this not surprise me??:snooty: Will these interviews and information gathered be material the defense could use for their case in the murder trial????

Novice Seeker

 

[believe09]

An equal amount of circumstantial evidence??? Really?

Car with decomp under the control of one person, the mother of the victim, who then dumps it. Same mother never reports her child missing. Same mother misleads investigators for months with stories of a fictitious nanny and a fictitious job with fictitious co-workers. Child is found in the area where the same mother was known to bury family pets and party as a teen.

We are supposed to consider the fact that RK found Caylee twice and had a domestic violence incident involving kidnapping as equal to this? Head shakin...

 

[RR0004]

Why does this not surprise me??:snooty: Will these interviews and information gathered be material the defense could use for their case in the murder trial????

Novice Seeker

Will have to see how the motion goes...but I'd be very surprised if it's not tossed.

 

[Novice Seeker]

Will have to see how the motion goes...but I'd be very surprised if it's not tossed.

Curious if RK could have legal grounds to sue for defamation b/c of the methods the defense used to get these testimonies??? Because of the shoddy, unprofessional manner these testimonies one would think it wouldn't be protected by any legal grounds. Can't the persons who were deposed be denied the "limited immunity" that we keep seeing?

Novice Seeker

 

[notthatsmart]

BBM.

Hi, notthatsmart. Actually, LE does not have the right to look into suspicion willy nilly. There are checks and balances in place so that our rights aren't violated. Think of search warrants, for example.

And everyone else does not have the right to investigate those they think are suspicious. There are checks and balances on this too so that, for example, we are not stalked or harrassed, do not have our privacy invaded, and are not defamed.

Well I certainly agree that there are checks and balances and I highly approve. However, there is something called reasonable suspicion. If Le wants a search warrant, within reason, they can get one very easily. So, willy nilly, no, reasonable, yes.

I think everyone has the right to investigate within reason. Ie Sleuthing on WS.

On the other hand, what will it hurt for Le to investigate RK, if anything it will clear him. It will also give the Sa much more knowledge and power to fight the defense when this all comes up at trial. It is best that SA knows the answers to the questions before they are asked. To me it seems like a win win situation for everyone.

 

[LambChop]

Curious if RK could have legal grounds to sue for defamation b/c of the methods the defense used to get these testimonies??? Because of the shoddy, unprofessional manner these testimonies one would think it wouldn't be protected by any legal grounds. Can't the persons who were deposed be denied the "limited immunity" that we keep seeing?

Novice Seeker

This was not an actual deposition. There was no oath administered, no court recorder, no attorney for either side as I believe it was just MS asking the questions. It was basically a video taped statement with many breaks in the taping. Both witnesses could sit for an actual deposition but they would have to swear under oath that the statements they were giving were the truth. JMO

 

[LambChop]

Well I certainly agree that there are checks and balances and I highly approve. However, there is something called reasonable suspicion. If Le wants a search warrant, within reason, they can get one very easily. So, willy nilly, no, reasonable, yes.

I think everyone has the right to investigate within reason. Ie Sleuthing on WS.

On the other hand, what will it hurt for Le to investigate RK, if anything it will clear him. It will also give the Sa much more knowledge and power to fight the defense when this all comes up at trial. It is best that SA knows the answers to the questions before they are asked. To me it seems like a win win situation for everyone.

There is no suspicion. Not sure where you are getting your information because we have all discussed here extensively that there is nothing that ties KC to RK. There is also no reason to believe that LE has not investigated RK as they surely have done others in this case just to eliminate them as suspects. If there were something substantial such as KC stating she handed her daughter over to RK at 5:00 pm on 6/16 so he could watch her while she went off with TL that would be reasonable suspicion. The A's by their recent statement through their attorney say's it all. The A's are telling the media in no way should this man be suspected of having anything to do with Caylee's death. I believe they are trying to be respectful of him and the fact that he found their granddaughter's remains and in reality do not view him as a suspect in any way shape or form.

This motion by defense, waste, huge waste!

 

[logicalgirl]

This was not an actual deposition. There was no oath administered, no court recorder, no attorney for either side as I believe it was just MS asking the questions. It was basically a video taped statement with many breaks in the taping. Both witnesses could sit for an actual deposition but they would have to swear under oath that the statements they were giving were the truth. JMO

Didn't we ask RHornsby that question in his thread and he said no at this point nothing qualifies for Kronk to go after. Will check back in his thread for sure.

 

[BeanE]

Well I certainly agree that there are checks and balances and I highly approve. However, there is something called reasonable suspicion. If Le wants a search warrant, within reason, they can get one very easily. So, willy nilly, no, reasonable, yes.

I think everyone has the right to investigate within reason. Ie Sleuthing on WS.

On the other hand, what will it hurt for Le to investigate RK, if anything it will clear him. It will also give the Sa much more knowledge and power to fight the defense when this all comes up at trial. It is best that SA knows the answers to the questions before they are asked. To me it seems like a win win situation for everyone.

BBM

But they did investigate him, they found nothing, and they did clear him.

It's not a win for anybody when innocent people are vilified and harrassed. It's bad for all of us.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I actually just read the defense motion today in it's entirety. My thoughts are that all the motion shows is that it is "curious" "suspicious" (my quotes) the actions of RK. I have felt that all along. So are the actions of DC and many others who were on S. Drive prior to the 'discovery'. I actually put a ' possible daisy chain cast of characters and related dates' together some time ago as LP and his persistent utterances (before silenced) had enough merit that I wanted to see if laying it all out in chronological order would help. That said, the defense will have to file similar motions on each person who was driving around with dogs (G.ST J) and Hoover and DC and all the others who were there.
HOWEVER: Nothing has to date made me feel that any of these 'characters' murdered Caylee. What it makes me think and the defense motion only supported my opinions, was that it is POSSIBLE that KC or someone close to her leaked or was overheard talking about where the body was. I have always felt that *IF* CA knew that baby Caylee was gone, she would have wanted the body found. My point is: I think there is reason to be suspicious of wrong doing after the fact but certainly don't see any evidence pointing to RK or anyone having murdered baby Caylee.

I also wanted to say that we don't know if LE didn't in fact investigate RK (actually think I remember them saying at a news conference they did and had eliminated him, but I don't have a link so this is just my recall.) What is important is there is plenty we have not seen and that the prosecution doesn't have to release even under the liberal Sunshine laws. Here is a link discussing just some of the exemptions: http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/sunmanual/1BB05D142D8E4724852566F3006C7A1A

What is to say that there is not an "ongoing" investigation into RK for "some" crime still? (IMHO - not murder)

Newbie here at WS, so be nice! LOL :blowkiss: :Banane59: