2009.11.19 Defense Files Motion suggesting Kronk as Killer #4

[BeanE]

Yeah! What Joy said! :dance:

:floorlaugh:

 

[RR0004]

Bold one: I believe he was persistent in his calls. (3 calls that we know of)
I found it disturbing that he was not persistent once the police arrived on the scene.

Bold two: I am concerned about Kc's lies and inconsistencies. Most of the Lies and inconsistencies came from the interrogation out at Universal Studios. In that interview, they were all under the misconception that Caylee was last seen on June 9th. I am sure she was confused as well. Not sure you can prove someone lied when you were talking about a false date.

But your right, this thread is about Rk and his inconsistencies. We can't get to the truth of the matter if we flood it with a different part of the case.

All they have to do is investigate to clear up any inconsistencies. The SA should be confident and go ahead with a full investigation. That would clear up this whole mess and point the finger back to Kc. With this in the way, they can't keep their eye on the ball.

Don't you think it's pretty sad when a mother can't remember the last day she saw her child? Especially if someone kidnapped her child...and she was h*ll bent on finding her. So how come Casey never said it was RK? Sorry, this theory has become so convoluted I can't keep track of what's what. LOL

 

[RR0004]

I totally agree. But perhaps she is scared to death of him.

Too late now...how will the PI protect her? I'd think that LE would be better able to do that.

 

[mydailyopinions]

I totally agree. But perhaps she is scared to death of him.

Who Casey?
:floorlaugh:

 

[A_News_Junkie]

If I may respond: the inner marrow celluar material could have exhibited definite damage: the normal osmosis of the cell would have been interupted by crystalization vs osmosis and dehydration. Histiocytes would have been abnormally shaped in the os, the bones themselves MIGHT have exhibited "stress" fractures if they were damaged as the corpse were "banged about" while in a brittle/frozen state (note: this would NOT be a condition similiar to the rigor mortis state!). Had Caylee been frozen after death, retained in that state and then dumped at any time other than the end of June date, the entamalogical and botanical data STILL has to be explained away by the defense! And nope, you can't "transplant" vegetation and pupa on a corpse to upset the TOD/DOD unless you're REALLY REALLY REALLY a genius forensic specialist in EVERYTHING and very very very DARN lucky to all that "faked data" take root and live!

Woot wOOT!!!!! Here I was off finding stuff I read long ago when researching adipocere. Study on icemen and the effects on bone. They noted hairline fractures believed to be from the process of freezing. http://radiology.rsna.org/content/226/3/614/T2.expansion.html from this article if Icemen are your thing! http://radiology.rsna.org/content/226/3/614.full
Then I moved on to looking up the effects reported forensically when a body has been frozen and found this abstract http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(01)00566-7/abstract

BUT - I didn't need to go looking cause we have a real life pathologist, I take it?! (New here, so I am assuming you are a pathologist, if not you should be!)
so.............. Thank you for this great post that puts that puppy to bed.

 

[RR0004]

bbm...actually it's not my opinion. It comes from al's mouth....so i consider it routine and fact not opinion. Her position is that if you don't like the evidence...file a motion about it. File a motion on everything....one out of (can't remember what number she used ) every ___ may get approved. Feel free to listen to the 3 plus hours of her lectures about "story telling and defender tools" at the link in this post.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4581777&postcount=798



that's how i was able to anticipate her plan. I share my opinion here often, but most of the time i have a reason for it and back it up with a link. The al thread is closed, but i have a number of posts with al quotes that i find worthy of notice. I did post specific quotes there but you must listen to the mp3 in its entirety to get the full effect. Like i said....this is her strategy and nothing more.... And certainly not brilliant. And certainly not jb's doing.

jinx!!!

 

[RR0004]

Who Casey?
:floorlaugh:

No...RK's ex-wife.

(Oh...I get it!! lol)

 

[Just Jayla]

...and how do you know that he wasn't thoroughly investigated?

I made that insuinuation to NTS a few posts ago-That the defense may be picking on RK because it brings Richard Cain into the picture and his bad police work, and because the state had not dumped investigative info on RK like they did on JG.
But you are right, maybe the state does have a dossier on RK.

 

[mydailyopinions]

Don't you think it's pretty sad when a mother can't remember the last day she saw her child? Especially if someone kidnapped her child...and she was h*ll bent on finding her. So how come Casey never said it was RK? Sorry, this theory has become so convoluted I can't keep track of what's what. LOL

ITA!
This theory is seriously convoluted...
Casey can't even remember where she left her child on the day she forgot when she was taken..She can't remember steps or being thrown down on the ground..


Its garbage and the jury will never buy it..

 

[RR0004]

ITA!
This theory is seriously convoluted...
Casey can't even remember where she left her child on the day she forgot when she was taken..She can't remember steps or being thrown down on the ground..


Its garbage and the jury will never buy it..

Casey just lied too many times...and didn't blink an eyelash.

 

[mitzi]

Don't you think it's pretty sad when a mother can't remember the last day she saw her child? Especially if someone kidnapped her child...and she was h*ll bent on finding her. So how come Casey never said it was RK? Sorry, this theory has become so convoluted I can't keep track of what's what. LOL

Personally, I think that's the whole point of this...confuse the heck out of a thread, and when someone new to WS comes along, they get further confused. Sorry, but it ain't workin'! :croc:

 

[christee]

No the claim that Botanist David Hall used only a photo is not true. A link was provided earlier with this information. Why rehash this?

 

[christee]

Woot wOOT!!!!! Here I was off finding stuff I read long ago when researching adipocere. Study on icemen and the effects on bone. They noted hairline fractures believed to be from the process of freezing. http://radiology.rsna.org/content/226/3/614/T2.expansion.html from this article if Icemen are your thing! http://radiology.rsna.org/content/226/3/614.full
Then I moved on to looking up the effects reported forensically when a body has been frozen and found this abstract http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(01)00566-7/abstract

BUT - I didn't need to go looking cause we have a real life pathologist, I take it?! (New here, so I am assuming you are a pathologist, if not you should be!)
so.............. Thank you for this great post that puts that puppy to bed.

ITA-Yes knowledge is a wonderful thing (and knowledgeable friends are wonderful too!).

 

[Pondering Mind]

Off topic, but the botonist did this off of a picture and the defense is challenging the entamalogist. Saying to Tony Pipitone those were not coffin flys and we have experts ready to cross examine these people. Furthermore they suggested to Tony to do the same type of investigation with the Botonist report and the Entamalogy reports that you did with the Chloroform syringe , and you will find the same type of results.

So they are very confident that these reports will not fly with a jury.
So again, here I am again discussing other things than Rk. Sorry bots. Think I will get some sleep. Goodnight

ok, now I'm really confused, when you say 'we have experts' do you mean you, the Botonist, the defense, Tony Pipitone? And who are 'these people' that are ready to be cross examined? I must have missed all this although I must admit this kind of stuff tends to go right over my head..

Have a good night NTS...

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see him being tied to Henkel duct tape because someone in an inadmissbale, illegally gathered interview said he used duct tape on her-Am I missing evidence that he had purchased Henkel, or had it in his home/truck?

Circumstantial Evidence:


a) Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which leads to, but does not prove as specific conclusion. What evidence leads to RK? Evidence having it's own definition, and someone NOT seeing something is not evidence

b) Using circumstantial evidence is way of reasoning which draws probable conclusions from facts that are known. The know facts lead to conclusion that are a reasonable step from the know facts. For example, the statement: "When she came in her umbrella was dripping wet." implies but does not conclusively prove that she had been outside in the rain. What facts do we have that tie RK to this circumstance? Facts cannot be presented to a jury from illegally gained interviews with RK's exes.

c) Deductions regarding the topic of discussion can be drawn form related facts and information. They infer other facts which usually and reasonable follow from the available evidence. What part of Roy's presence infers that he knew any of this prior to the call? If we are to believe his co-worker, this was the first time RK was there

d) Circumstantial evidence consists of facts pointing in a particular direction-- facts that are in harmony with one side or another the hypothesis being analyzed, but standing alone this related evidence is not sufficient to draw any definite conclusions. What is the defense's hypothesis as to how RK captured, killed and hid Caylee?

e) Deductions and implication can be drawn form available data and information which is somewhat distant from, but relates to the topic of discussion. This is commonly relied upon when direct evidence is not available. Need more data from the defense, IMO, but not saying they cannot come up with something good

f) If you want a strict, legal definition, we refer you to Black Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Page 221. There you'll find a rather lengthy definition of "circumstantial evidence."

Interesting,
A. if someone not seeing something is not evidence, then would it not be true that KC not seeing Caylee for 31 days is not evidence?
B. What facts do we have that tie KC to the premeditated murder? The 31 days is not evidence. She lied about many things, but lying does not mean someone committed murder. According to the FBI report the Henkel Duct tape found on Caylee’s remains was dissimilar to the tape found on the gas can, and no fingerprints were found on the duct tape, so the Duct tape can’t be used to tie KC to the crime. The FBI could not confirm that the hair found in the trunk had a death band. The forensic reports about the trunk are all questionable. There was no blood found in the trunk. The air sample technology has never been used in court before.
C. Deductions regarding the topic of discussion can be drawn from related facts and information. They infer other facts which usually and reasonably follow from the available evidence. How can one make deductions regarding the topic of discussion if there is no available evidence? If the only evidence you have is circumstantial, how can you make circumstantial deductions? Using the example when KC came in her umbrella was soaking wet circumstantially rain, so now you can infer that her shoes are wet because she was walking in the rain so it is a fact. You can infer that her pants had water spots on them because it was raining hard, so it is a fact. So you are now ready with 3 pieces of evidence that KC was walking in the rain, two facts and one piece of circumstantial evidence? Is this correct? Because, the truth was KC walked by a fountain on her way, dropped the umbrella in the fountain which splashed on her shoes and pants and made the umbrella soaking wet, the facts and the circumstantial evidence was wrong. Honestly I am confused about all this circumstantial stuff. If the available evidence is circumstantial, which to my understanding it is, what facts are available to make deductions from? Is the prosecution or the defense for that matter allowed to make deductions from circumstantial evidence, and this allows them to infer other facts which usually and reasonably follow from the available evidence? I don’t understand how something inferred from a circumstance can be considered a fact. I do think you can infer a circumstance from something that is a fact.
D. What is the prosecutions hypothesis as to when, where, how, and why KC committed the premeditated murder of Caylee? Standing alone, the evidence the state has that we know of is not sufficient to draw any definite conclusions.
E. Need more data from the prosecution to convict KC, IMO, but not saying they cannot come up with something good.

Using what some will probably consider illogical logic, from the above points, it seems to me that the circumstantial evidence against KC is equally as strong as the circumstantial evidence against RK. I think this because it seems like there are precious few actual facts in either scenario, and almost everything is circumstantial from both sides. The judge may very well dismiss this motion, but if he does, I will be very interested in his explanation as to why he dismissed it.
I have to agree with those who believe the defense is trying to raise doubt, since that is their job, also that AL has used spaghetti throwing as a tactic. RK’s inconsistent statements and his past makes him a good candidate for the defense to use. The media has insinuated that many others have been thrown under the bus, but I think that is all just media hype. As far as I know, this motion is the first time the defense has shown anything that involves a SODDI defense. As always my entire post is moo

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I think it was Aug 13th at 15:37 hours in the afternoon. Not at night. Here is the link to Kethlin Cutchers depo.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5232688/Casey-Anthony-Kethlin-Cutcher-interview-part-one

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

You are correct, that says roughly 15:37, and on page 5615 RK says 9 or 10 pm. So once again RK must have been mistaken or confused. Being at roughly 3:30 in the afternoon it very well could have been a coworker with RK.

 

[joypath]

Hi Joypath!! Loved your input in the Annie Le case!! I hope you stick around the Caylee forum, your knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

Plan to be here and there, as time and work permits! :dance:

 

[joypath]

Off topic, but the botonist did this off of a picture and the defense is challenging the entamalogist. Saying to Tony Pipitone those were not coffin flys and we have experts ready to cross examine these people. Furthermore they suggested to Tony to do the same type of investigation with the Botonist report and the Entamalogy reports that you did with the Chloroform syringe , and you will find the same type of results.

So they are very confident that these reports will not fly with a jury.
So again, here I am again discussing other things than Rk. Sorry bots. Think I will get some sleep. Goodnight

Please accept my profound apologies that I interfered with your conversation: MY simple minded response was to a query raised regarding RK! For discussion and on topic: the hypothetical of RK in possession of a frozen corpse and the subsequent anomalies that might be present.


As a participant in more than my share of court cases, I would anticipate that the defense WOULD ATTEMPT to muster experts in the fields of FORENSIC entamology and FORENSIC botany to refute the released discovery documents, remember, no documents from the defense have been proffered as of yet!

 

[joypath]

Woot wOOT!!!!! Here I was off finding stuff I read long ago when researching adipocere. Study on icemen and the effects on bone. They noted hairline fractures believed to be from the process of freezing. http://radiology.rsna.org/content/226/3/614/T2.expansion.html from this article if Icemen are your thing! http://radiology.rsna.org/content/226/3/614.full
Then I moved on to looking up the effects reported forensically when a body has been frozen and found this abstract http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(01)00566-7/abstract

BUT - I didn't need to go looking cause we have a real life pathologist, I take it?! (New here, so I am assuming you are a pathologist, if not you should be!)
so.............. Thank you for this great post that puts that puppy to bed.

LOL THANKS~ yep: hence the nic: "joy of pathology":angel::dance::blushing:

 

[Novice Seeker]

Well lookity here. Looks like Richard Cain not only lied to Roy Kronk about having checked out what Kronk reported, but he also lied to a fellow deputy - his own partner!!!

KC: And he say "Oh no, it's nothing. It was just trash. It was a bunch of bags with trash."

So let's see. We've had a few people say Kronk chose not to show Cain what he found, that Kronk should have grabbed Cain and marched him down to what he'd reported.

Logic follows that Cutcher, then, chose not to follow up, and should have grabbed Cain and marched him right on down in there, demanding that he prove to her it was just trash.

What does this tell us? YES! OF COURSE! Deputy Cutcher is Caylee's killer!!!

Why did it take me so long to figure this out??

Hold on - I need to send a note to Baez.

ETA: I hereby contend that there is an equal amount of circumstantial evidence against Cutcher as there is against Kronk.

While you're doing that I'll call DC. :innocent:


Novice Seeker