2009.11.19 Defense Files Motion suggesting Kronk as Killer #4

[LambChop]

If he dismisses this motion, is he not taking away KC’s right to pursue a SODDI defense strategy?

Having been appointed a judge I would think he would not what is relevant and what is not. Just to the normal non-legal person it appears there is no connection between KC and RK. If there is no evidence to prove there is a connection my guess is no. KC is, afterall by her own admission, the main resource here, is she not? Speak up, Ms. Anthony, let's hear what you have to say as you are the one with all the answers.

 

[notthatsmart]

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!

Bold one: I would like to discuss this stuff in an appropriate thread. Where is the link that says that it was human adipocere? and what do you mean cover up trash bag? I know it was contaminated by a different dumpster, but not sure about a cover up.

bold 2: The last doc dump showed an email by the Fbi saying that they could not confirm that the hair was from an decomposing human. I respect your opinion, but am wondering where you are getting this information? sorry to be off topic, am willing to go to the correct thread.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

SNIP
If he dismisses this motion, is he not taking away KC’s right to pursue a SODDI defense strategy?

Short answer: No. (IMHO)
Most of the time a Judge will submit a written response in addition to his ruling. When a Judge simply rules without explanation it usually indicates he feels that the motion was frivolous or without merit.

I think he will give this motion due diligence as he has shown he is trying his best to preserve the integrity of this case to lesson the appeals arguments, as he should.

I have faith in the system, until there is a reason for that trust to be lost. Each case and each judge at a time.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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.

I will agree that there is evidence from the trunk that proves it is possible that Caylee’s remains may have been in the trunk. I believe that very same evidence also proves a scenario not involving Caylee’s remains being in the trunk is possible. To me what is disturbing about the trunk evidence is not so much the traces of evidence they found, but what is lacking. IOW why were only traces found instead of abundant amounts of decomp. If the A’s did such a masterful job of cleaning, why is there not abundant evidence of cleansers in the trunk? This part of the circumstantial case against KC, is all questionable to me. When the judge weighs the circumstances against KC to the circumstances against RK, will he just assume the forensic experts are correct in all their assumptions, or since this circumstantial evidence has not been cross examined by the defense experts will he not use it in making his decision to allow or dismiss the motion?

 

[LambChop]

Bold one: I would like to discuss this stuff in an appropriate thread. Where is the link that says that it was human adipocere? and what do you mean cover up trash bag? I know it was contaminated by a different dumpster, but not sure about a cover up.

bold 2: The last doc dump showed an email by the Fbi saying that they could not confirm that the hair was from an decomposing human. I respect your opinion, but am wondering where you are getting this information? sorry to be off topic, am willing to go to the correct thread.

What would lead you to believe the trash bag was contaminated? It was a business dumpster that contained primarily business papers according to SB's statement to LE. Only way it could get contaminated is if someone else's body was inside the bag. Coffin flies go to bodies not ham sandwhiches thrown out after lunch. What do you mean it was contaminated? To me it would mean something else got into the trash bag from another source. Just because evidence is not found where it originate does not mean it would be contaminated. Take to body for instance, woud that be contaminated, too.

Do you have a link for that FBI information about the hair because I thought they said it was consistent with being from a decomposing human? I would be interested in seeing that.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I would think that the judge would be looking for a connection between Roy and Casey, Roy and Casey's car, there is none.

 

[Harmony 2]

Bold one: I would like to discuss this stuff in an appropriate thread. Where is the link that says that it was human adipocere? and what do you mean cover up trash bag? I know it was contaminated by a different dumpster, but not sure about a cover up.

bold 2: The last doc dump showed an email by the Fbi saying that they could not confirm that the hair was from an decomposing human. I respect your opinion, but am wondering where you are getting this information? sorry to be off topic, am willing to go to the correct thread.

#3 mentions it is human decomp

http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0619/19801995.pdf

Kronk did not have access to Casey's vehicle. She never said anyone else but Jesse had access. No one stated there had been a break in to the Anthony home to retrieve a key.

 

[LambChop]

I will agree that there is evidence from the trunk that proves it is possible that Caylee’s remains may have been in the trunk. I believe that very same evidence also proves a scenario not involving Caylee’s remains being in the trunk is possible. To me what is disturbing about the trunk evidence is not so much the traces of evidence they found, but what is lacking. IOW why were only traces found instead of abundant amounts of decomp. If the A’s did such a masterful job of cleaning, why is there not abundant evidence of cleansers in the trunk? This part of the circumstantial case against KC, is all questionable to me. When the judge weighs the circumstances against KC to the circumstances against RK, will he just assume the forensic experts are correct in all their assumptions, or since this circumstantial evidence has not been cross examined by the defense experts will he not use it in making his decision to allow or dismiss the motion?

There is no evidence against RK. We still have not seen anything that is more important than the evidence they have against KC. This was not his child, no motive; he did not know the A's, no opportunity; he did not have babysitting problems nor did he have issues with CA. Looking at the type of person RK appears to be, would you want to have to deal with CA. And speaking of CA there was a report that she was seeing someone while she and GA were separated. Not sure who reported that but I believe it is in one of the statements given to LE by a friend of KC. So why is defense not looking into this person. I mean with the statement in the jailhouse video, "We forgive you if you said something." Strange man in the household, if it is true, and no one has brought up a name yet??? Well, maybe they are saving him for last.

 

[Just Jayla]

There is no evidence against RK. We still have not seen anything that is more important than the evidence they have against KC. This was not his child, no motive; he did not know the A's, no opportunity; he did not have babysitting problems nor did he have issues with CA. Looking at the type of person RK appears to be, would you want to have to deal with CA. And speaking of CA there was a report that she was seeing someone while she and GA were separated. Not sure who reported that but I believe it is in one of the statements given to LE by a friend of KC. So why is defense not looking into this person. I mean with the statement in the jailhouse video, "We forgive you if you said something." Strange man in the household, if it is true, and no one has brought up a name yet??? Well, maybe they are saving him for last.

This was a statement from one of the A's neighbors, a couple that lived accross the street, IIRC, and their names escape me right now, but someone here will remember!

 

[LambChop]

This was a statement from one of the A's neighbors, a couple that lived accross the street, IIRC, and their names escape me right now, but someone here will remember!

Better yet!!!! Nothing better than a noisy neighbor. LOL Not putting the neighbors down because I feel sometimes they are like a block watch group.

 

[joypath]

Again: my apologies: it appears that my comments have way-laid the thread, so off I go into "lurker" mode (oh okay, actually earning my keep but I'll peek in occasionally!)

 

[JBean]

lets break this puppy out to separate threads.
Figure out what you guys want to discuss and then either break it out into an existing thread or start a new one.

I have really been thinking about this Kronk as a suspect issue.

Kronk is not a suspect and normally conversation regarding him as a suspect would not be allowed. However, this discussion was allowed because it was directly related to the motion filed by the defense.

With that said, I am asking that we tread lightly here. I think those that consider Kronk a reasonable suspect have made their point, but I do not want to dedicate a thread to the possibilites of his guilt specifically because it is not fair to someone that is not a suspect.

So, we have let the conversation go on long enough for those that have something to say about it and all have been able to state their case.

but going forward, it is fine to reference some of this information or some of the inferences to Kronk being an "equal" suspect, but we aren't going to dedicate discussion to it because he is NOT a suspect at this time.

As always, this can change and if anyone would like to drop me a note and point out something that I have not considered, I will be more than happy to listen.

Thanks