2009.11.19 Defense files motion suggesting Kronk as the killer. #3

[Rlaub44]

Ask yourself this question, if your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, or best friend was accused of the premeditated murder of a 2 year old child, what lengths do you think are acceptable for the defense to try to gain an acquittal? Prosecution wins and the death penalty is given, the execution is carried out, but even though a mountain of circumstantial evidence resulted in the conviction, in your heart of hearts you knew your loved one did not commit this murder, Ten years pass, modern technology improves, and the new technology exonerates your loved one who has already been executed. The results are the real killer is still on the streets, and your loved one has been wrongfully executed. Where in this scenario has justice been served for the murdered 2 year old? In my opinion, if my loved one was on trial for premeditated murder, I would want the attorney to use any legal means available to defend my loved one. If the attorney is brash, and hurts a persons feelings, sorry, my loved ones life is on the line here.

If RK is completely innocent of any wrongdoing regarding this case, he has nothing to worry about. The evidence will prove him innocent. If, as a result of this motion, he is investigated further by LE, and something comes of it, great. How is it wrong that the defense brought their suspicions of RK to light?

Are we questioning whether this motion is moral or ethical? If you were on trial, presuming you are innocent, how far would you allow your attorney to go to defend you?

This motion is the result of a team of lawyers, one of which has been called in because the states attorney reinstated the DP, doing a lot of work together. Anyone thinking this is a frivolous motion, or wishful thinking by the defense, is probably mistaken in my opinion. At the very least, should JS dismiss this motion, it will be used in the appeal, should the jury convict, IMO.

BBM

But that is the problem. RK will never get his day in court to have a verdict, because he is not charged with the crime. They are looking to discredit him the way OJ's lawyers did to Fuhrman, and although most observers understood that Fuhrman did not plant evidence, his reputation was forever tarnished because of past unrelated incidents.

Regardless of what happens from here on, Roy Kronk will forever be linked to the headlines that the defense considers him a suspect. Much as with Richard Jewell, a man who could have been received as a hero has found himself under suspicion, IMO unwarranted.

This is why the actual person named Zenaida Gonzales filed a civil suit. There are lingering effects from being unfairly targeted, and if publically naming someone a suspect was done maliciously, that person should have recourse.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Depends on the situation. There should never be a standard operating procedure of blaming the person who finds a murder victim's body as a possible murderer UNLESS there is something to back it up. Let's get real here - the guy has ex wives that don't like him and he plays online games...so what? So do millions of people. If he knew the anthonys or babysat for caylee or had some connection to this, it would be a different story. Unless they can show how he had access to the car, etc, this is frivolous and it harms society at large.

As one poster previously stated - BEWARE if you volunteer to search for a missing child, and beware if you report finding a body...because you will be scrutinized and accused by lazy defense attorneys with no better defense for their client.

Obviously, some may have a different opinion as to whether or not the defense has something to back this motion up. My opinion is they do, others may think they don’t. I am glad we have JS to rule on this motion.
Although my past is not spotless, and I am fully aware that were I to search and find a child in this type of situation, my past may come to light. I would not hesitate to report the missing child, I found by calling 911. I would also have been much more demanding of the police officer that came to where I pointed out what I had found, but that is just me. Additionally, I would have called 911 when I first spotted what I believed to be a human skull, even though my friends were there saying I was crazy. If I truly was 99.999% certain it was indeed a skull, I would not have waited four months to rediscover, and then call 911. Again, that is just me, obviously RK is not me. I find his inconsistent statements in the police interviews to be red flags or something possibly suspicious in nature. That is just my opinion of course, but I think it gives the defense a sound reason for pursuing this motion.

 

[TakeNote]

i think the defense maybe trying to find the daisy chain link to kronk....this could be there way to force it out of him.....

not saying there is a daisy chain.....but who knows....could exsplian why kronk kept going back there....cause someone told him it was there......but maybe not....he could just had a hunch....like we all did....trying to find little caylee

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

BBM

But that is the problem. RK will never get his day in court to have a verdict, because he is not charged with the crime. They are looking to discredit him the way OJ's lawyers did to Fuhrman, and although most observers understood that Fuhrman did not plant evidence, his reputation was forever tarnished because of past unrelated incidents.

Regardless of what happens from here on, Roy Kronk will forever be linked to the headlines that the defense considers him a suspect. Much as with Richard Jewell, a man who could have been received as a hero has found himself under suspicion, IMO unwarranted.

This is why the actual person named Zenaida Gonzales filed a civil suit. There are lingering effects from being unfairly targeted, and if publically naming someone a suspect was done maliciously, that person should have recourse.

If RK feels he is being unfairly targeted, isn't his recourse the same as ZG? He can sue can he not?

I'm not sure if he did anything wrong or not. It is my opinion that the motion is valid. Had he not made inconsistant statements to the police, then I do not think the defense would have brought this motion into play. moo

 

[cecybeans]

Ask yourself this question, if your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, or best friend was accused of the premeditated murder of a 2 year old child, what lengths do you think are acceptable for the defense to try to gain an acquittal? Prosecution wins and the death penalty is given, the execution is carried out, but even though a mountain of circumstantial evidence resulted in the conviction, in your heart of hearts you knew your loved one did not commit this murder, Ten years pass, modern technology improves, and the new technology exonerates your loved one who has already been executed. The results are the real killer is still on the streets, and your loved one has been wrongfully executed. Where in this scenario has justice been served for the murdered 2 year old? In my opinion, if my loved one was on trial for premeditated murder, I would want the attorney to use any legal means available to defend my loved one. If the attorney is brash, and hurts a persons feelings, sorry, my loved ones life is on the line here.

If RK is completely innocent of any wrongdoing regarding this case, he has nothing to worry about. The evidence will prove him innocent. If, as a result of this motion, he is investigated further by LE, and something comes of it, great. How is it wrong that the defense brought their suspicions of RK to light?

Are we questioning whether this motion is moral or ethical? If you were on trial, presuming you are innocent, how far would you allow your attorney to go to defend you?

This motion is the result of a team of lawyers, one of which has been called in because the states attorney reinstated the DP, doing a lot of work together. Anyone thinking this is a frivolous motion, or wishful thinking by the defense, is probably mistaken in my opinion. At the very least, should JS dismiss this motion, it will be used in the appeal, should the jury convict, IMO.

I think it is not necessarily fair to assume the means justifies the ends simply because this is a DP trial. And I think we need to distinguish between what is opportunistically disguised as a "motion" (perhaps "ex limine" would have been a better term) and the subsequent actions of the defense to run to the media to discuss what are unsubstantiated allegations to discredit an important witness. Certainly it is more appropriate and ethical to leave that for the trial rather than a blatant attempt to poison a jury pool.

Since you asked, I would certainly be upset if a relative was accused of murdering a 2-year old. If mountains of circumstantial evidence was found, even if that relative was later proved innocent, I would have to question or at least wonder why there was so much circumstantial evidence to begin with. Managing perception is as important as innocence sometimes. It would certainly be heartbreaking if it was a DP state and after the execution new testing (or a confession) exonerated my relative. But I don't think I could stomach public defamation of a witness before trial as an ethical tactic regardless. That is not simply "hurting someone's feelings", it's defamatory in that if it took place outside a court (which this did) would be subject to civil action.

I don't generally believe in the "means justifies the end" as an ethical practice in any circumstance. While I believe some things may be worth dying for, life at any cost is not one of them, and perhaps dignity and decency is. If it was me, I'd hope my attorney fought hard and fair for my life, but not at the cost of needlessly sacrificing others or ruining lives to create artificial scapegoats that simply existed to create a shadow of doubt. And I would hope they would be professional enough to limit their tactics to the courtroom. I have to be aware that there are a variety of things beyond my control that could end my life needlessly at any minute (getting hit by a bus comes to mind), so I am under no illusion that my life is somehow free from the quirks of manmade error.

And I often wonder, just as I wonder why a right-to-lifer would kill people by bombing an abotion clinic, why zealots tend to isolate their principles without extrapolating them to their natural end.

All citizens are entitled to a vigorous and decent defense. The operative word is decent. If you need to rail against the concept of a death sentence, then advocate outside the court for its abolishment and don't use it as an excuse or ruse in a specific case to play dirty.

RK may be innocent, but you know as well as I that he does have something to worry about. When someone's reputation is tarnished, even involving things that are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, they are tainted for life (unless it's in politics or one is rich and famous). If RK is taken to task for anything he did in his past, it was certainly not murder and he does not deserve to have it splashed all over the public simply because a prevaricating murder defendant doesn't have a leg to stand on and her team needs to cross moral boundaries and use lowhanded tricks to "win".

I think Yale teaches legal ethics, but I am thinking that the course should be absolutely mandatory for those who are taught to suspend their beliefs sometimes in order to argue law. It can be very eroding to their morals, imo.

 

[chefmom]

No, the defense did so claim, just as prosecutors claim they have inculpatory evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Hey, Wudge. :seeya: If you don't mind, I have a question you might be able to answer. Suppose the SA decides to look into the defenses theory of RK as a suspect, allegations of the ex's and son, other various tid bits of his life, and then say that they can clear him of having anything to do with KC and Caylee. But, afterwards they agree with the defense that there are others who should be looked into further and they turn their radar towards DC. Now, IIRC, DC has given conflicting info regarding the dates of his employ with JB, the A's, and KC. My question is this: Using the conflicting statements DC has given, IF the SA were questioning him and he claimed priveledge, yet the SA had sworn statements that conflicted as well as copies of contracts that are dated within a timeframe that should allow him to answer their questions, would they be able to put him in jail for contempt if he continued to contest and claim priveledge, in spite of the contrary evidense the SA may have? I hope that makes sense.

 

[KenoshaKid]

Wudge, do you see Dominic C as being a potential suspect as well?

 

[Rlaub44]

If RK feels he is being unfairly targeted, isn't his recourse the same as ZG? He can sue can he not?

I'm not sure if he did anything wrong or not. It is my opinion that the motion is valid. Had he not made inconsistant statements to the police, then I do not think the defense would have brought this motion into play. moo

Thanks for your reply. I believe one of the attorneys here said that since the attorneys brought this up in a motion, they are protected. Whether media appearances would open them up to liability differently from a legally filed motion, I don't know.

If you don't mind my asking, because you have always been good about supporting your opinions, which inconsistencies do you feel are relevant?

I know he has changed his story from relieving himself to actually searching, but as I already mentioned, that certainly makes sense seeing as how he was on the job at the time. Meter readers all have to go, but it would certainly be frowned upon to indulge a personal interest on company time. Are there other things, other than Hot Dogs' issue with the use/non-use of the word skull, that I am missing?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Rlaub44]

No, the defense did so claim, just as prosecutors claim they have inculpatory evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

In my opinion, the difference here is that the prosecution actually believes what they are claiming, where I think that the defense's claims about Kronk are simply a tactic.

I'm sure Baez will claim he believes Kronk is an equally likely suspect; I just don't believe that he believes it.

 

[Leila]

Ita - and as I also said in the first thread, KioM.T also made a statement to police AND told the A neighbours that the perp would put Caylee at Suburban Drive where she buried pets!

Many many people knew Suburban could be the dump site, it was a well known fact. RoyK just happened to be the only person to actually have a damn good look there. His job took him there and the media had already reported the info about the KioM and the pet cemetary! Of course he was going to scope it out a few times. Anyone who had found her would be undergoing this character asassination. They are even going after people who DIDNT find her and volunteered their time! Its utterly ridiculous imho of course.:furious:

I agree.............many people felt that area was the most logical site for Casey to dump Caylee's remains. I really think the search efforts should have initially focused on that area, and Caylee may have been found a whole lot earlier. But LE was concentrating on Casey's locations with cell phone pings, and they put her near the airport, and that's where search efforts were made.

It's beyond ridiculous that the defense is attempting to go after people who are innocent of any wrong-doing. I think it's going to back fire on them, because all they're doing is making people angry. People who are part of the potential jury pool.

 

[Leila]

Personally, I think hurting Cindy was her primary motive. No longer having her skanking around and partying hampered by the need for a babysitter was just icing on the cake.

In fact, sometimes I wonder if that flurry of calls to George and Cindy was KC telling them that she was dumping Caylee and taking off, and they'd better get their a@@es home to take care of her. When neither of them, particularly Cindy, didn't respond, she paid Cindy back in the ultimate tit-for-tat game - she killed Caylee.

In any case, I think years of rage at Cindy is the crux of the motive. Even perhaps, psychologically, she was symbolically killing Cindy, rather than Caylee.

:moo:

I totally agree! Years of pent up rage at Cindy is the primary motive. That fight on June 15th was the catalyst for Caylee's death and all that happened afterward.

 

[Tuffy]

Ask yourself this question, if your mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, or best friend was accused of the premeditated murder of a 2 year old child, what lengths do you think are acceptable for the defense to try to gain an acquittal? Prosecution wins and the death penalty is given, the execution is carried out, but even though a mountain of circumstantial evidence resulted in the conviction, in your heart of hearts you knew your loved one did not commit this murder, Ten years pass, modern technology improves, and the new technology exonerates your loved one who has already been executed. The results are the real killer is still on the streets, and your loved one has been wrongfully executed. Where in this scenario has justice been served for the murdered 2 year old? In my opinion, if my loved one was on trial for premeditated murder, I would want the attorney to use any legal means available to defend my loved one. If the attorney is brash, and hurts a persons feelings, sorry, my loved ones life is on the line here.

If RK is completely innocent of any wrongdoing regarding this case, he has nothing to worry about. The evidence will prove him innocent. If, as a result of this motion, he is investigated further by LE, and something comes of it, great. How is it wrong that the defense brought their suspicions of RK to light?

Are we questioning whether this motion is moral or ethical? If you were on trial, presuming you are innocent, how far would you allow your attorney to go to defend you?

This motion is the result of a team of lawyers, one of which has been called in because the states attorney reinstated the DP, doing a lot of work together. Anyone thinking this is a frivolous motion, or wishful thinking by the defense, is probably mistaken in my opinion. At the very least, should JS dismiss this motion, it will be used in the appeal, should the jury convict, IMO.

The two bolded statements conflict. Because you believe your loved one is innocent, is not enough of a reason to make it okay to try to implicate another innocent person. IMO

 

[believe09]

BBBBBBBWWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAAAAAA.

Sorry, I may have already typed this opinion....we knew this was coming. Next candidate will be DC some of you think?? Hmmm, that could be, although I still think George is a strong candidate. JMO.

 

[Soju]

Thanks for your reply. I believe one of the attorneys here said that since the attorneys brought this up in a motion, they are protected. Whether media appearances would open them up to liability differently from a legally filed motion, I don't know.


!

snippy for space.

From what I understand, the way the defense brought this up in the guise of a motion protects them from liability, but they would be liable for saying these things on tv....and that's why I think you'll notice they were so careful in their wording during this latest media blitz. They wouldn't comment on the content of their motion, they just used is as a platform to blast LE.

JMO

 

[Leila]

Hello WS

I am sure this has been said by someone here on WS but this just hit me. Isn't Dominic Casey just as suspicious as RK? DC did more slinking around the area of the remains than RK. If we are to find RK's statements and actions suspicious, what about DC first saying he was on the phone with his sick daughter and then saying it was a psychic? Talk about changing stories! And, on with the suspicious...a psychic? This is the reason he gives for knowing where to look when he was employed by the Anthonys, who could be privy to where their daughter put Caylee, which is more believable than saying a psychic told him, to most people's minds. For the record, I do believe in psychic ability: I just do not think that is why DC knew where to look. And, talk about lies-DC has changed his story about his employment dates with the Anthonys, while under oath.

Maybe DC should be a suspect? Of course I don't really think DC had anything to do with this...I bet you all got that anyway. :innocent:

And, a bit ot but I feel I must say: I go around WS posting that parents have responsibility for how their children turn out. I feel that strongly. But: I just realized that those who have been victims of terrible crimes and are my fellow WSer's might take that I mean to say the person who commits the crime isn't responsible because "mommy and daddy were mean to me."

What I mean is this: the fact that someone was abused as a child, should be taken into account and brought to light in the course of the trial because the fact that children are abused needs to be talked about as much as possible and the outcome of that abuse needs to be shown. But, after it has been said and shown that the "defendant-perp" was abused-they should be held 100% responsible for their OWN actions.

Some children are not strong enough to overcome what was done to them and shown to them-and they grow up to repeat what they have experienced. This is all I want shown, how much abuse is going on-and when the person who is the perp is an adult it is hard to have sympathy for them because they have become the abuser-and I sooo understand that-but my idea is to remember that they were an abused child at one point. And then just to push my point here: they should then be held 100% responsible for their own actions.

As example: Casey Anthony. I feel there is no doubt that the way Cindy and George are as people and parents led to Casey being Casey. That should be said and acknowledged. I feel if when it is not allowed, then the parents get away with their abuse and society has a way to say that abuse should just be "gotten over." When it is not that simple nor that way and helps adults who abuse to have an excuse to not take responsibility for how they treat their children. Then once that is said, we move on to: Casey is responsible for what she did to her daughter.

I just felt that maybe I was seeming to come across like I thought only the parents should be blamed and I was saying that people who do terrible things to people and have been abused have some kind of excuse because they were abused. I don't feel that way at all and after remembering that there are many on WS who are the victims of terrible crimes I thought they would have every right to be offended in thinking that was what I was saying. Not that any of the wonderful people on WS even came close to making me think or feel that way: this was my own revelation.

Sorry for the impromptu tour of my mind...

...jmo...

If it comes to a matter of who should be considered suspicious, DC certainly outranks RK. DC was directed by Cindy to search the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found. It appears there was an attempt to cover up what exactly happened. DC changed his story about who he was talking to on the cell phone - at first he said it was his sick daughter, and later said it was a psychic that was advising him. The psychic says she spoke to Cindy and that Cindy sent her one of Caylee's stuffed animals.

All this is very suspicious. I think Casey told Cindy, either directly or indirectly (through JB or LA), and the claim that the psychic had directed DC to search for Caylee's remains in that location was just a cover up for where the information came from.

I think George and Cindy's parenting, or lack of parenting, will come into play during the penalty phase of the trial. The defense will use Cindy's behavior/abuse and lack of parenting to try to mitigate Casey's crime and seek a lesser punishment.

 

[Soju]

If it comes to a matter of who should be considered suspicious, DC certainly outranks RK. DC was directed by Cindy to search the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found. It appears there was an attempt to cover up what exactly happened. DC changed his story about who he was talking to on the cell phone - at first he said it was his sick daughter, and later said it was a psychic that was advising him. The psychic says she spoke to Cindy and that Cindy sent her one of Caylee's stuffed animals.

.

snippy for space.

I'm guessing there's a really good reason the defense won't want to dig too deeply into DC's search, and none of it has anything to do with work product.

JMO

 

[LinasK]

If it comes to a matter of who should be considered suspicious, DC certainly outranks RK. DC was directed by Cindy to search the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found. It appears there was an attempt to cover up what exactly happened. DC changed his story about who he was talking to on the cell phone - at first he said it was his sick daughter, and later said it was a psychic that was advising him. The psychic says she spoke to Cindy and that Cindy sent her one of Caylee's stuffed animals.

All this is very suspicious. I think Casey told Cindy, either directly or indirectly (through JB or LA), and the claim that the psychic had directed DC to search for Caylee's remains in that location was just a cover up for where the information came from.

I think George and Cindy's parenting, or lack of parenting, will come into play during the penalty phase of the trial. The defense will use Cindy's behavior/abuse and lack of parenting to try to mitigate Casey's crime and seek a lesser punishment.

I so totally agree!

 

[cecybeans]

DC's story is of course hinkier than RK's. If he used a pyschic, I'm Princess Di.

What is interesting, is since DC most likely got his info straight from the horse's mouth so to speak (hanging out with multiple defense and family types including the defendant herself), what might he have put in motion to get Caylee found WHILE KC WAS STILL IN JAIL. Let's see - perhaps he created a daisy chain. Gossiped a little about how someone might be famous if they found the remains. Mentioned it to a few close friends in confidence to pass on to someone else. A little civil servant daisy chain perhaps. So he would appear out of the loop and uninvolved.

That could be a more important reason for discrediting Kronk, because if RK leads to DC leads to JB or KC, somebody may be in a heap of trouble.

I still think it is perfectly reasonable - if a tad co-hinka-dental, that RK managed to pee in the exact proximity of the remains (although given the slope of the terrain, it might be strange).

However, if someone received a reward for acting on specific info, that could also explain RK's tenacity. And it would not implicate him in the least. A lot of people get anonymous tips or small compensation for doing a good deed.

If the initial attempt to alert LE failed, RK may have receded into the woodwork thinking he had done his duty. Perhaps he was contacted again in December (after DC himself could not locate her) and asked, since GA and CA were conveniently out of town, to return to the scene and look once more. Perhaps whoever tipped him off, or knew how he could have been tipped off, is extremely worried, so is taking great pains to publicly discredit RK in case something happens in DC's upcoming depo.

If that is what someone is thinking, I think they are desperate and naive to think this would work.

There is hink and dirty hink in this case. RK may be hink, but DC and JB are dirty hink, imo.

 

[cecybeans]

If it comes to a matter of who should be considered suspicious, DC certainly outranks RK. DC was directed by Cindy to search the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found. It appears there was an attempt to cover up what exactly happened. DC changed his story about who he was talking to on the cell phone - at first he said it was his sick daughter, and later said it was a psychic that was advising him. The psychic says she spoke to Cindy and that Cindy sent her one of Caylee's stuffed animals.

All this is very suspicious. I think Casey told Cindy, either directly or indirectly (through JB or LA), and the claim that the psychic had directed DC to search for Caylee's remains in that location was just a cover up for where the information came from.

I think George and Cindy's parenting, or lack of parenting, will come into play during the penalty phase of the trial. The defense will use Cindy's behavior/abuse and lack of parenting to try to mitigate Casey's crime and seek a lesser punishment.

I wonder if there was a map in that teddy bear...

And as our friend Little Bitty said the other day paraphrasing an NCIS episode, "It's a BURN phone, not a BAT phone, Cindy!"

This whole RK thing may be an elaborate smokescreen to cover the doodoo about to hit the fan with DC. Just hoping...

 

[mountaintime]

DC's story is of course hinkier than RK's. If he used a pyschic, I'm Princess Di.

What is interesting, is since DC most likely got his info straight from the horse's mouth so to speak (hanging out with multiple defense and family types including the defendant herself), what might he have put in motion to get Caylee found WHILE KC WAS STILL IN JAIL. Let's see - perhaps he created a daisy chain. Gossiped a little about how someone might be famous if they found the remains. Mentioned it to a few close friends in confidence to pass on to someone else. A little civil servant daisy chain perhaps. So he would appear out of the loop and uninvolved.

That could be a more important reason for discrediting Kronk, because if RK leads to DC leads to JB or KC, somebody may be in a heap of trouble.

I still think it is perfectly reasonable - if a tad co-hinka-dental, that RK managed to pee in the exact proximity of the remains (although given the slope of the terrain, it might be strange).

However, if someone received a reward for acting on specific info, that could also explain RK's tenacity. And it would not implicate him in the least. A lot of people get anonymous tips or small compensation for doing a good deed.

If the initial attempt to alert LE failed, RK may have receded into the woodwork thinking he had done his duty. Perhaps he was contacted again in December (after DC himself could not locate her) and asked, since GA and CA were conveniently out of town, to return to the scene and look once more. Perhaps whoever tipped him off, or knew how he could have been tipped off, is extremely worried, so is taking great pains to publicly discredit RK in case something happens in DC's upcoming depo.

If that is what someone is thinking, I think they are desperate and naive to think this would work.

There is hink and dirty hink in this case. RK may be hink, but DC and JB are dirty hink, imo.

Well said....there is certainly more that may come out.
And that last line is a classic. Dirty hink, indeed.