2009.11.19 Defense Files Motion suggesting Kronk as Killer #4

[notthatsmart]

Caylee was not seen after June 15th. Kronk was not assigned to the Hopespring area till August 11th. That has been verified with documentation. AGAIN, on page 7 of the link it says that Roy's timesheet and detailed log of when Roy worked at the Suburban area were acquired from the District Manager for Orange County Public Works, Tim Armstrong.

http://www.momlogic.com/cdn/v3/pdf/casey_anthony_detectives_report.pdf

Caylee had already been missing for approximately seven weeks before Kronk even came into the picture. <sigh>

Thanks for the link again. The only evidence that I know of that Rk first went to suburban is his own statement. The document you speak of has not been verified. As a matter of fact, Yuri states in the document that he thought Rk was out there in Sept or Oct, contradicting what Rk said which was Aug Nov Dec. I did ask Musikman, if he knows about these records and am still waiting for a response.

Hearsay, but I did see one report that said Rk went to work for Orange County in May. I can't find that report though.

 

[Novice Seeker]

I agree. Hence the motion. Le does need to talk to her and get sworn testimony. I would feel much more comfortable with this. She does need protection.

I'm confused, what????



Novice Seeker

 

[LambChop]

Solid rock bottom line is Caylee did not walk to the site. Her mother had full responsibility for her and indicated to everyone the child was safe during those 31 days. There is more evidence in KC trunk that Caylee was placed in there then there is evidence that she was not. KC stated she left her child with the nanny. There is no nanny, never was, no records, nothing. There is no connection to RK or defense would have brought it out into the open as there is no reason to hide this discovery. KC knows what happened to her daughter as she admits being the last one with her before she disappeared. If it were SOP we would know by now instead of them going through the process of "throwing people under the bus". There is no connection to RK, none. There is a connection to KC. The strongest evidence is that KC will not say what happened because it is not in her best interest. Her own lawyer stated this to the media. Only thing missing is the neon sign.

 

[mydailyopinions]

Solid rock bottom line is Caylee did not walk to the site. Her mother had full responsibility for her and indicated to everyone the child was safe during those 31 days. There is more evidence in KC trunk that Caylee was placed in there then there is evidence that she was not. KC stated she left her child with the nanny. There is no nanny, never was, no records, nothing. There is no connection to RK or defense would have brought it out into the open as there is no reason to hide this discovery. KC knows what happened to her daughter as she admits being the last one with her before she disappeared. If it were SOP we would know by now instead of them going through the process of "throwing people under the bus". There is no connection to RK, none. There is a connection to KC. The strongest evidence is that KC will not say what happened because it is not in her best interest. Her own lawyer stated this to the media. Only thing missing is the neon sign.

:bow:
Exactly!
There is no connection. Kronk is just another person that the defense is trying to blame this crime on. If Kronk is what they are looking for with reasonable doubt...I think they are certainly sealing the envelope on the death penalty for Casey..
In all honesty, they would get more reasonable doubt if they blamed Cindy or George.. at least this way they would have a connection to the home and the items that were found with the body coming from the home at some point in time...

 

[Just Jayla]

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? No, her not seeing Caylee is not evidence, but her not reporting that her daughter was kidnapped up to 31 days later is evidence.

B. What facts do we have that tie KC to the premeditated murder? The state will point to the computer searches and the Zanny references, I think. 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. We do not know that any of the above will be submitted as exhibits at trial. However, KC was charged in part because she was the last person to have Caylee alive and mislead police as to where they could find her-so in order to even begin to determine whether any of this stuff on RK is good circumstantial evidence, we have to establish that he even had access to Caylee, and only KC can tell us that.

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. Refer to Black's and ask the lawyers here why circumstantial evidence is defined this way, that is beyond my expertise and I hate to write that, but I really don't know where that bar is set or why. Also my brain is tired, so maybe I am missing the point! My best guess is that, in writing the law behind this, legislatures give good faith credit to the jury that they are inherently fair and will not imply, from circumstances, facts that are outlandish. Yes, it could have been the fountain, but without knowing all of the variables (such as not knowing she walked by the fountain) we don't assume she walked by a fountain. If the state tells me how Roy got Caylee from KC and it explains why she won's tell us, then I can make more precise assumptions. Make any sense at all? :waitasec:
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. Don't wanna go there on this thread in full
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

I think my main sticking point has to be telling us how Roy got Caylee, and in the method he got Caylee, how it may have caused Casey to be silent about it.
Again, sorry to be broken record, but JG had way more opportunity, it would not escape me how he could get his hands on Caylee. I might need a little help, though, even with JG, understanding why KC would not tell anyone.

 

[LambChop]

I agree. Hence the motion. Le does need to talk to her and get sworn testimony. I would feel much more comfortable with this. She does need protection.

Since she would be a defense witness it was up to them to set up a deposition that included someone from SA's office. JK's statement on the video leaves a lot to be desired and my understanding is that she will NOT come to Florida to give a depo so how credible is she. Bet if you asked 90% of the people who are divorced what their opinion was of their ex, they would not give a glowing report. Plus the video has too many interruptions to it. Defense should have done it right the first time but they may not have gotten the results they wanted. My guess is LE would have asked her to take a polygraph if they felt the information was related. I am sure JK does not want to take a poly.

Plus she has not needed protection in 10 years, nor does she seem afraid of speaking her mind now. People who are afraid do not accuse people of a crime they are not sure they committed and then fear for their lives. She seemed to feel pretty comfortable putting it out there and no fear of RK coming after her. She just appears very bitter to me and her statement shows little objectivity. I've seen more anger out of GA then RK.

 

[The World According]

I can't find an exact link to TL's brief to remove the DP, but it was widely reported last year (around November I think) and blogged about extensively (I remember posting on several forums and the details were well known). I saw copies of some of the pictures he had included in the motion of KC (as a child) and read that he had cited examples of other mothers tried for murdering their children. In addition, he put forth the theory that if Caylee had died it was likely due to accidental overdose and a mental condition like PPD. I remember specifically it was widely discussed on multiple forums that PPD was unlikely to jive with KC's behavior or her psychological profile.

I can see that you are fascinated with further exploration of RK, but even if it weren't difficult to explain why may have somehow met the family the day he found the body (and if he met DC, that would be the only person at that point who might have had access to information as to the location of Caylee's remains) - it would still not answer why a month earlier human decomp had been reported by GA and several others in the Pontiac.

I did not mean to imply there was a link between JW and KW (the guy who found the animals), other than they also seem to have been interested in searching near the house (which would fit the profile of where bodies of people killed by family members end up) and that they are people who have, uh, problems in their past. This case is turning into a witch hunt for anyone and everyone who may have walked by the Anthony home, imo, regardless of how much of a stretch it is to connect them to this crime. I don't think that JW is all that credible for a variety of reasons; I read on another blog she used to frequent that she may have admitted to them she changed the dates on the photos in her computer. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, then LE certainly figured that out when they investigated her computer and has factored that in to anything she may have told them.

This crime was such a double-edged sword for so many. The public was encouraged to care about Caylee and to find her and bring her home to rest, but everyone that actually went out of their way to search ran the risk of being vilified and set up as an artificial SODDI for the defense. IMO, this will create a situation in which even people with completely spotless reputations will be reticent to help others. That's very sad, because some day a family who would be grateful for such help will find it hard to receive because people have become wary of extending their aid in case they are suddenly the fodder for fabricating a reasonable doubt scenario by the defense.

I agree with you CeCy. The most telling thing in this entire case for me was Nejame removing himself from helping George and Cindy and giving every penny he earned for doing so to Roy Kronk, a thorough and public washing his hands of the lies. That spoke volumes to me!!![ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ENR8RQSwTU[/ame]

 

[Novice Seeker]

bold 1: I thought she said 31 days. Sounds pretty accurate to me. So no not sad at all. She was being truthful.

Bold 2: Did you see the defense on 48 hours where they said that Kc did have someone looking into it? I myself wonder who that was.

Bold 3: I don't think Kc knew Rk. And Rk is the topic of this thread. I think most need to tie Kc to Rk to take the motion seriously. I do not. There are many perps that do not know their victim.

Yes KC was truthful when she told LE that she hadn't seen Caylee for 31 days. The more important question is WHY KC hadn't seen Caylee for 31 days. Why wasn't LE or a family member, or friend for the matter, contacted when Caylee first disappeared? KC did have friends in LE and a daddy who claims to be one of the best detectives within the police department where he was working.


If and that's a big IF KC did in fact have someone searching during that period of time, why keep it a secret? Why withold that extremely important bit information? KC wouldn't be sitting in jail charged w/ murder and looking at the death penalty right now.

Keep throwing all the spaghetti you want to but it won't stick b/c nothing explains, excuses or justifies why KC did absolutely nothing for 31 days to find her daughter. LE was only brought in when Cindy accessed 911.


Novice Seeker

 

[The World According]

Since she would be a defense witness it was up to them to set up a deposition that included someone from SA's office. JK's statement on the video leaves a lot to be desired and my understanding is that she will NOT come to Florida to give a depo so how credible is she. Bet if you asked 90% of the people who are divorced what their opinion was of their ex, they would not give a glowing report. Plus the video has too many interruptions to it. Defense should have done it right the first time but they may not have gotten the results they wanted. My guess is LE would have asked her to take a polygraph if they felt the information was related. I am sure JK does not want to take a poly.

Plus she has not needed protection in 10 years, nor does she seem afraid of speaking her mind now. People who are afraid do not accuse people of a crime they are not sure they committed and then fear for their lives. She seemed to feel pretty comfortable putting it out there and no fear of RK coming after her. She just appears very bitter to me and her statement shows little objectivity. I've seen more anger out of GA then RK.

You are correct Lamb Chop. Baez actually already admitted , on national TV , mind you, that he knows that she will never be allowed to testify, that the incidents are too remote in time for the judge to deem relevant! Rut row.
I wont publicly disparage her here, except to tell you that if you google her name you will see her history is not without blemish. That wont matter since we will never hear from her. This was, as Baez admitted ( the inference I took from his remarks) not so much expected to be a motion granted, but more done to raise awareness of what he perceives as a lack of thoroughness on the part of LE. I believe the terms he used is it is done to protect the record for the future ( meaning the eventual appeal).He better sit down and listen to a few of Andrea's lectures. She specifically instructs that one must not, must not ....insult the jury's intelligence or they will turn on you straight away.

We will no sooner hear from Kronk's exs than we will hear from someone who sold a joint to Tony ten years ago or who Jesse drank gatorade with in high school gym class. In Baez's own words "It is too remote in time". By the time the State rests its case and the defense gets up to speak they may realize they better get serious. As one of our fine posters said "We are not on Hope Springs Drive anymore!!!!"

 

[notthatsmart]

You are correct Lamb Chop. Baez actually already admitted , on national TV , mind you, that he knows that she will never be allowed to testify, that the incidents are too remote in time for the judge to deem relevant! Rut row.I wont publicly disparage her here, except to tell you that if you google her name you will see her history is not without blemish. That wont matter since we will never hear from her. This was, as Baez admitted ( the inference I took from his remarks) not so much expected to be a motion granted, but more done to raise awareness of what he perceives as a lack of thoroughness on the part of LE. I believe the terms he used is it is done to protect the record for the future ( meaning the eventual appeal).He better sit down and listen to a few of Andrea's lectures. She specifically instructs that one must not, must not ....insult the jury's intelligence or they will turn on you straight away.

We will no sooner hear from Kronk's exs than we will hear from someone who sold a joint to Tony ten years ago or who Jesse drank gatorade with in high school gym class. In Baez's own words "It is too remote in time". You do not need a law library to look up that rule.

Do you have a link to this? Where Baez said this? National Tv? Or could you point out which station? Is that a fact that a Judge won't allow in testimony if it is too far out?

I noted in the Oj case, the Judge allowed in excerpts of the Mark Furhman tapes even though they were old.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Who is JOYPATH?

I know this one! She is a poster here. She (or he?) is a pathologist. If you read this full page you will find her and her thoughts are brain candy!

 

[logicalgirl]

It appears that most of the "circumstantial evidence" that has been presented here against RK is fabricated by theories and way after the fact of Caylee going missing. So what is the point of this motion? No one has provided a link to June 16th when Caylee was supposed to be spotted at Walmart with her mother shortly after 4pm. By 6pm we know she was not with her mother. Not too much of a stretch of the imagination to know that she ended up in the trunk.

Having duct tape means nothing...we all have it and I bet even Nun's have it in their households. Now the brand found on Caylee..not so much..but clearly that brand points it's finger squarely at her mother. With all the finger point CA has done for her to come out through her attorney and make a statement supporting RK, I think speaks volumes. The A's know who the guilty party is so why ruin innocent people unnecessarily when they have to live in this community after this trial is over. They are covering their bases. JMO

Do these pants make my base(s) look fat?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

My questions and opinions in red. My question is how many times does it take in ther_beatingA_Dead before they accept the horse isn't going to jump back up???


Novice Seeker

Obviously, your opinion differs substantially from my opinion. The only thing that really matters on this motion is what the judge decides. I think the judge not only can differentiate fact from circumstantial, but will do so when making his decision to allow or dismiss.

If I felt my opinion could not change by continuing to discuss the motion, then I would leave the thread. My initial opinion was the motion was ridiculous, as the media had suggested. Then I read and reread the motion, and reread RK’s inconsistent statements in his interviews. My opinion changed upon this closer examination. Further discussion on this motion may again change my opinion.

 

[LambChop]

Do these pants make my base(s) look bigger?

LOL: I'm sorry did I say base...I mean't, well, you know.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

--------> snipped respectfully

Hopefully the Judge will stay above the frey when the SA and Defense use SOP tactics, meanwhile taking the motions seriously and considering the defendants right to a fair trial. MOO

I think that the Judge has done this already and that is the essence of our court system, is it not? I think we all take every motion in this case seriously and look at it every which way but loose to see if it has any merit. So far, I personally have not found merit in this motion for it's intended purpose. I have only seen merit for purposes the defense or their clients family and inner circle might not want.
Just wanted to respond to this, because I have a very open mind and if COMPELLING evidence is brought forward to show the wrong person is in jail, for justice sake I want to know that. I am willing to change my mind - but only if I am given something worth chewing on. So far, the defense has not given me anything that causes me to pause.

JMHO, etc...

 

[coco puff]

I certainly respect your opinion. I have come up with one similiar, but I acceppt it as SOP.

Just because a defense Lawyer throws stuff at the wall, doesn't mean they don't believe in their clients innocense. It is their job to create as much doubt as possible.. You may be right that the motion was not brilliant, but clever. I can accept that. Seems to be a good word.

Sa has done the same thing with the trunk. There is no physical evidence that Caylee was in the trunk, so just throw everything out there that you can and hope it sticks. SOP in my opinion.

Hopefully the Judge will stay above the frey when the SA and Defense use SOP tactics, meanwhile taking the motions seriously and considering the defendants right to a fair trial. MOO

There is physical evidence in the form of air samples from Oak Ridge labs that there was human decomposition in the trunk.
And before you say junk science, think about this. The jury will hear how we have been able to test air samples for years. Radon, Carbon Monoxcide, pollution, etc. Air tests are not new. The fact that a decomposing body gives off specific gases is not a bombshell. There is a reason for that horrible stench. The fact that gases in the air can be analyzed is not a new technology. The jury will get this. Of course, who's body was in the trunk is left for them to decide.

 

[LambChop]

KC's lie, after lie, after lie, after lie about the whereabouts of her daughter is saying she is hiding something. RK's perceived inconsistences? Have not seen one dot to connect him to KC on June 16th. Not one. And I bet he has the paperwork to prove where he was. In RK's statement to police he stated he walked down to the water's edge to show Officer Cain what he had seen and Cain dismissed him. His friends also could not verify what he saw. But we know from evidence collected that her body was indeed there. So unless there is some big connection to RK and KC on June 16th before 6pm it does not matter how many inconsistences you can find, there is still nothing, nothing that points to RK being the killer. It amazes me when we critize others by saying that we would have done it differently when we have all come upon something not quite right and maybe taken some time to think about it to make sure that what we saw, what we heard was correct. It is so easy to say, he should have when we really do not know what we would do in that instance.

The person with all the information is sitting in jail, not saying a word. The jury will be composed of some parents, I would imagine. And as a parent we have all had times when our children were very young when friends wanted us to go to a party and we could not because we had no sitter. So KC's actions in those 31 days will not go in her favor regardless of what JB's says on TV. There is no excuse, none, that can explain away her actions. She is stuck with the lies.

Defense is beating a dead horsey. It's JB saying to AL, you grab the head and I'll grab the tail and we'll her pull up to her feet. The minute they let it go it'll be back on the ground. Face the facts. Say your prayers, the motion is deader than the horse.

 

[cloud9]

There is physical evidence in the form of air samples from Oak Ridge labs that there was human decomposition in the trunk.
And before you say junk science, think about this. The jury will hear how we have been able to test air samples for years. Radon, Carbon Monoxcide, pollution, etc. Air tests are not new. The fact that a decomposing body gives off specific gases is not a bombshell. There is a reason for that horrible stench. The fact that gases in the air can be analyzed is not a new technology. The jury will get this. Of course, who's body was in the trunk is left for them to decide.

Exactly!!! I had a faulty gas heater in my house years ago. I kept feeling more and more ill. One morning I woke up to extreme dizziness and called 911. The fire department tested for carbon monoxide in the house by the AIR. It tested positive for carbon monoxide, high level. Air samples are accurate, not "junk science."

 

[joypath]

Hopefully Joypath will weigh in as to whether there is physical evidence in the trunk and your claim that SA is just throwing it out there to see if it sticks. That would help put the Kronk charade to rest since Casey was the only one with custody of her vehicle.

Just jumping into the fray: at this point, the only thing out in the public domain is DISCOVERY material which will be well fought over in court to be entered in as scientific evidence. I'm going with the hope, belief and fingers crossed (very very technical procedure!) that the "sniffer" results WILL be accepted since 1. the basic scientific principle is provable,2. the results achieved are replicated by others, 3. the test results were performed with standards and controls. Then we have testimony of LE individuals with experience in the field of homicide and body retrieval, we have a small detail called adipocere present in the "cover-up" trash bag, testimony of a family member who also has had past life experiences in LE and the coup de grace, the spontaneous utterance of the Grandmother of the YEAR! As in every case, the State presents its courtroom story grain by grain of sand until a dune is formed that smothers the defendant in reality.

And.....that pesky "death banded hair sample" that is similiar to that of Caylee's hair: remember, NOT chemically treated, mtDNA of the Anthony ladies who DO have chemically treated hair and, as Casey so aptly mentioned....giggles.... are alive!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I think my main sticking point has to be telling us how Roy got Caylee, and in the method he got Caylee, how it may have caused Casey to be silent about it.
Again, sorry to be broken record, but JG had way more opportunity, it would not escape me how he could get his hands on Caylee. I might need a little help, though, even with JG, understanding why KC would not tell anyone.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your opinion. I appreciate it. Just the statement JG had way more opportunity (even though you do not think JG has anything to do with what happened), suggests you are still observing this case with an open mind. I agree with your thoughts that the legislature gives good faith credit to the jurors, in regards to circumstantial evidence. I am hoping that the judge will do the same and allow this motion. If he dismisses this motion, is he not taking away KC’s right to pursue a SODDI defense strategy?