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

[Woe.be.gone]

It's a damn shame what happened with Cain. He was unprofessional and he pissed Roy off. But Roy was 99.999% sure that he was seeing a small skull. He could have called 911 (or even the non-emergency number) again.

"Hi. I met with an officer Cain yesterday and he was rude and brushed me off. I'd like you to send a different officer or detective because I am 99.999% sure that there is a little skull here in the woods near Caylee's house. I can get within 4-6' of it and I'm telling you it is a skull. I'll meet this other person you send, and I'll point right to the skull for them."

No. Caylee would wait on Roy.

Now you're talking. That is exactly what I would have done.
Common sense I tell ya, common sense.

When I first heard the report on T.V. that someone had discovered the remains of a small child I thought, "this is good, there can be some closure." Remember all the discussion about death versus kidnapping - that could come to an end (the smell in the car made death seem more realistic as much as we all would have liked it not to be so).
Then, within a day or two, the story got to be more and more confusing and I thought, "this doesn't sound right." I wanted to believe that an average guy happened to find the remains - like an answer from the universe - but it didn't seem that simple to me when the details started coming out.

 

[Wudge]

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.

Many alleged privileges are just that, alleged. For example, reporters allege a Constitutional privilege not to reveal the source or sources of their information. Judges often handle that alleged privilege by giving them a jail cell in which they can research the Constitution.

As regards any true privilege DC might claim, I believe that would likely only prove to be true if he had been hired by an attorney who had been previously hired by one of the principals in this case.

As for conflicts, the Judge would have to sort out any such conflicting statements, however, any ambiguity would almost assuredly be resolved against the maker of that ambiguity. So, against your hypo, I would expect the SA to prevail.

FWIW

 

[Hot Dogs]

http://cfnews13.com/uploadedfiles/audio/RoyKronkJan.wma

I snipped your post just to get this link to Kronk's OCSO interview. Near the end they ask him if he told anyone he saw a skull in the woods after the Aug 11-13 thing. He said no, but that he indeed had told various people about his "theory". What was his theory? That Caylee was in that swamp on Suburban Drive.

He told family, friends, co-workers, and who-knows-who-else that Caylee was in that swamp. But he stopped short of telling them that he saw a skull in that swamp. He said he was 99.999% sure it was a skull. But he didn't tell anyone that (other than the 2 co-workers with him that are named in the docs). He may have begun to tell people that as early as August 11. He said he didn't talk about the skull... but maybe he did. Anyway, even if he didn't, he could have started a daisy chain that spead out from him. Folks talk - and the folks that hear start talking too.

There could have been any number of people passing along what started as a theory (I think she's in the swamp) to something that sounds more factual (she is in the swamp). Next thing you know, somebody is saying "A friend of a friend has been in that swamp and he says Caylee is there." Whoa!

The same might be true of the two workers that were with RK when he said "Hey guys. I see a skull in here." They might have said to other people "My co-worker said he saw a skull in those woods."

Maybe that is what brought DC to the Suburban Drive woods. But why the heck would he have gone to that abandoned house as well?

 

[Wudge]

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

.....No.

 

[mydailyopinions]

.....No.

:waitasec:

 

[amethyst221]

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!

Just a comment on the defamation/privilege issue. I speculate that the defense is trying to insulate themselves from any possible civil liability for defaming RK by placing their claims in a court filing that is masquerading as a typical evidentiary motion. Presumably, there is an absolute privilege, regardless of whether they are saying what they are saying in bad faith, because it is part of a court proceeding. Stating or "publishing" this same information elsewhere, like on national television, if it is false and defamatory and they are acting with the required degree of recklessness, would not be protected. If the want the police to investigate RK, why don't they just take their "information" directly there and file a police report? I think Florida, unlike some other states, does not recognize an absolute privilege in this context.

 

[Searchfortruth]

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

My thoughts exactly, the defense would use Dominic, but there is a small problem considering Jose told him not to call the police should he find Caylee's body. No, I don't think Jose wants Dominic to talk too much.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Puzzle pieces.
YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

In August, Keith Williams found a bag of clothes and a child's sandal as well as balloons and stuffed animals. He gathered the items (found across the street on Suburban from where the remains were later discovered) took them to Cindy Anthony's front door and allowed her to dig through them.
He told CA where he had found them, she vehemently denied any familiarity to the items or that they had in fact belonged to Caylee.

She shifted the topic to a "Caylee sighting" she claimed they had gotten a tip on. KW went back to the scene, called LE, was dismissed by Deputy Cain, Cain threw the things back into the woods.

This is so unbelievable to me (I'm not saying I don't believe it or the poster). I'm just flat out stunned that any of the four parts of this story could have happened.

1. KW gathering the stuff and bringing it to CA
2. CA doing what KW claims she did
3. KW going back to the scene with the stuff he had tampered with
4. Cain's actions/behaviors being called to the scene - both with KW and RK.

Some of the wildest stuff I've ever heard.

 

[chefmom]

Many alleged privileges are just that, alleged. For example, reporters allege a Constitutional privilege not to reveal the source or sources of their information. Judges often handle that alleged privilege by giving them a jail cell in which they can research the Constitution.

As regards any true privilege DC might claim, I believe that would likely only prove to be true if he had been hired by an attorney who had been previously hired by one of the principals in this case.

As for conflicts, the Judge would have to sort out any such conflicting statements, however, any ambiguity would almost assuredly be resolved against the maker of that ambiguity. So, against your hypo, I would expect the SA to prevail.

FWIW

Thank you! :blowkiss: I had hoped that would be your answer.

 

[Hot Dogs]

When a person sees a skull at a short distance that no other person else can see and it turns out that the skull was inside a bag or bags, which means it could not have been seen by anyone, then the person with the x-ray vision should be considered nothing less than a suspect if not a prime suspect.

Wudge, I'll give my opinion on this matter FWIW. Nobody can accuse me of not paying attention to the Kronk thing, as probably 20% of my posts were/are about him and the details of the August discovery and the December one.

I think Kronk said he saw a skull sticking out of the water on August 11th because he did see that. The skull was no longer inside any bag at this point in time. I think he called a black plastic trash bag a "grey bag" because he couldn't tell exactly what color it was in the water.

On December 11th, he came upon the same remains which were now arranged differently. One of the black bags was now covering the skull, but the skull was not inside the bag. When he initially said that the skull fell out of the bag, he was using a figure-of-speech and it was not literally correct. The CSI examined the disposition of the skull and declared that it could not have fallen out of the bag because it could not have been inside the bag. At that point everyone (including Kronk) learned that he was wrong concerning the "fell out" part. In his OCSO interview (linked above) he even says that he knew it didn't fall out but that his nervous anxiety caused him to say that in error.

IMO: On Aug 11 the skull was outside of any bag and was visible to the naked eye from 4-6 feet away. On Dec 11 the skull was still outside of any bag, but was concealed beneath a bag.

 

[Hot Dogs]

This is so unbelievable to me (I'm not saying I don't believe it or the poster). I'm just flat out stunned that any of the four parts of this story could have happened.

1. KW gathering the stuff and bringing it to CA
2. CA doing what KW claimes she did
3. KW going back to the scene with the stuff he had tampered with
4. Cain's actions/behaviors being called to the scene - both with KW and RK.

Some of the wildest stuff I've ever heard.

Oh that list isn't complete. It's much more wild that that even. Two words...

Sexy Bomb

 

[BeanE]

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 would NEVER allow or support the destruction of the life of an innocent person so that myself or a loved one, even if innocent, could go free. NEVER.

I would stick the needle in my own arm rather than let an innocent person be put through this.

What the defense team in this case is doing to Roy Kronk is taking a severe toll on my faith in the justice system, and in humanity.

 

[rhornsby]

So the defense is suggesting it is about 50/50 between KC and Kronk.

The difference is who has the burden of proof. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee. On the other hand the Defense does not have to prove Kronk killed Caylee beyond a reasonable doubt, they do not even have to convince the jury that Kronk killed Caylee.

Rather they only have to raise the reasonable possibility Roy Kronk did (or was involved) and they acquit Casey. And the more the defense digs, the more they are finding dirt and inconsistency about Kronk...

 

[ZsaZsa]

The difference is who has the burden of proof. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee. On the other hand the Defense does not have to prove Kronk killed Caylee beyond a reasonable doubt, they do not even have to convince the jury that Kronk killed Caylee.

Rather they only have to raise the reasonable possibility Roy Kronk did (or was involved) and they acquit Casey. And the more the defense digs, the more they are finding dirt and inconsistency about Kronk...

If all they need to do is find dirt and inconsistency it should be easy enough.... A Lyons/JBaez seem to have a penchant for that. They only find it distasteful when the same scrutiny is applied to them.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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.

I am always impressed by your ability to express your opinions in your posts. Sometimes I agree with you completely, sometimes not so much.

From what I am reading in your post, your opinion is that the defense has opportunistically disguised this motion based on unsubstantiated allegations, and you feel it is unethical to do this. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.

If I was of the opinion the defense was basing this motion on unsubstantiated allegations, then I would agree with you, because I would think that would be unethical also.

My opinion is that the motion has been based on allegations that stemmed from RK’s statements made to police. These inconsistent statements by RK are well documented. Personally, I felt RK needed to be investigated based solely on these statements. There is just something very bothersome to me in the inconsistency of those statements. So I think the motion is not only ethical, but a good move by the defense. The testimony by the exes, and the son just bolstered my opinion that RK needed to be investigated further.
So I am not of the opinion that the defense is being unethical here.

Many are of the opinion that the state has a very strong circumstantial case against KC. Based on what I interpret the evidence we know of to be, I have arrived at a different opinion. When I take away the things I question, the smell of death, the air sample, the hair with the death band on it, the entomology report, the duct tape (because of the FBI saying it was dissimilar to the duct tape on the gas can), the heart shaped sticker, and so on and so on, I find the states circumstantial case may not be as strong as some people may think. With this in mind, I think the defense can say that RK has as much circumstantial evidence against him, that KC has against her.

At trial, the state may very well answer all my questions in a satisfactory manner, and at that time I may very well change my opinion. Right now, however, I believe the defense has made a legitimate motion.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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!

Prior to the filing of this motion, I had read all of RK's statements and interviews, as well as everything I could find about the Cain dismissal. I had the page numbers and which doc each inconsistancy was on in notes that are currently buried. However, nearly all the questions I had about those inconsistancies are brought up and well summarized in the actual motion beginning on page 16, and a link for that doc is in the first post of this thread.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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?

Respectfully snipped by me. This is the real heart of the matter, isn't it? And an age old question, at that.

It reminded me of the judgement of Solomon. To find which of the two women who claimed to be the mother of a baby, he ruled to cut the baby in half and give each woman a fair share. The real mother revealed herself by begging that the baby not be killed but be allowed to go with the other woman.

While Solomon was able to recognize the real mother by her compassion, I don't think that was necessarily the only pearl of wisdom he illustrated. I think it also looks to the eagerness of the false mother to have been satisfied with a dead child. . .

In my eyes, I think it's very possible to stay within the letter of the law but entirely miss the intent. It looks to me that Casey's team will be joyfully "splitting" many "babies" before they are finished. It makes my heart heavy to know that this is not only an accepted legal practice but one that is so successful that there are people who deliver lectures on how to best dissect those babies. Sadly moo.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, I'll give my opinion on this matter FWIW. Nobody can accuse me of not paying attention to the Kronk thing, as probably 20% of my posts were/are about him and the details of the August discovery and the December one.

I think Kronk said he saw a skull sticking out of the water on August 11th because he did see that. The skull was no longer inside any bag at this point in time. I think he called a black plastic trash bag a "grey bag" because he couldn't tell exactly what color it was in the water.

On December 11th, he came upon the same remains which were now arranged differently. One of the black bags was now covering the skull, but the skull was not inside the bag. When he initially said that the skull fell out of the bag, he was using a figure-of-speech and it was not literally correct. The CSI examined the disposition of the skull and declared that it could not have fallen out of the bag because it could not have been inside the bag. At that point everyone (including Kronk) learned that he was wrong concerning the "fell out" part. In his OCSO interview (linked above) he even says that he knew it didn't fall out but that his nervous anxiety caused him to say that in error.

IMO: On Aug 11 the skull was outside of any bag and was visible to the naked eye from 4-6 feet away. On Dec 11 the skull was still outside of any bag, but was concealed beneath a bag.

The problem is that on August 11th, the skull would have been but 6 to 7 steps from the edge of the road. If Mr. Kronk could see it, others certainly should have been able to see it too.

Obviously, Mr. Kronk could have easily pointed straight to the skull. This includes pointing it out to Mr. Cain and then watching as he walked to it. . But Mr. Kronk did not do that. And after Mr. Cain came back and told him that he found nothing, the skull would have still been right where Mr. Kronk says he first saw it and it would still have been just as visible.

As regards Mr. Kronk saying in December that he picked up a bag and the skull fell out versus saying that I picked up a bag and the skull was underneath it, this notion that Mr. Kronk did not know how to express himself is just more storyline dribble in my mind.

I think Mr. Kronk came to realize, too late, that by saying the skull fell out of the bag (in December) that such could not possibly reconcile with him previously that he saw a skull (in August).

His entire storyline is repete with such irreconciables and nonsense. They exist for a reason. I hold that reason to be that he has not told the truth. Moreover, the continual absurdities throughout his storyline along with his seeming blatant lies should have made him a suspect if not a prime suspect.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

You are confident, RK sees tigers lurking around every corner to put him down and make him feel bad. He's stuck himself out before, jobs, marriages, with his family...it didn't go so well. He got his courage up, called LE and Cain let him know that it was impossible for Caylee to have skeletonized. Once again he was a loser who didn't know what he was talking about.

RK isn't a professional witness, nor a professional body finder.

Refresh my memory, didn't RK claim to be in the P.I. business once upon a time? I seem to recall I heard that somewhere. Guess I'll have to go back and read all of these interviews again - wish I had a photographic memory!

 

[Wudge]

Refresh my memory, didn't RK claim to be in the P.I. business once upon a time? I seem to recall I heard that somewhere. Guess I'll have to go back and read all of these interviews again - wish I had a photographic memory!

He had been a bounty hunter in previous years.