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

[RR0004]

It makes sense to me.

RK doesn't strike me as extremely confident about himself or anything else. He isn't a professional body finder. Cain, the professional LE, who should have at least looked around, ARGUED with him. I believe Cain told RK that it WASN'T possible for Caylee to have skeletonized so soon. IIRC, RK said Cain told him he couldn't have seen a skull.

...and he was particularly offended by Cain's attitude. That really bothered him. I think he felt foolish. You and I may have ignored the "slights" RK perceived...he obviously didn't.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Please link!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

No, "they" didn't all say this. One of her bosom buddies (I believe he called himself the Italian Stallion) received communication from Casey where she referred to Caylee as a "snot nosed" something. I think Casey only appeared to be a loving mother when she knew that anything less (in front of most of her friends) would be unacceptable.

iirc Nobody said that. That was in a text that KC sent to the other Tony (TR the Cop) who ended up getting fired because he lied about his relationship with KC during the investigation. He wanted a sexual relationship with her THAT NIGHT that she sent the text saying something like "do you want me to bring the snothead" because CA or the babysitter were unavailable. Of course he didn't want her to bring Caylee because he wanted KC for sex.

Adding - TR may have verbally confirmed this exchange later while talking to LE come to think of it. But we can see it in writing within KC's texts.

 

[RR0004]

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.

What an eloquent post!

 

[Hot Dogs]

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.

No way could anyone see into those woods from the road, and probably not even from the mowed shoulder. There was an air potato vine "curtain" that literally concealed the interior of the woods and the swampy part. That is evident in photos (before the vines were removed by CSI) and in various testimonies.

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.

I agree and I am clueless why Kronk didn't take control of the moment and point right at the skull. In the OCSO interview he says that Cain pissed him off so much that he didn't want to deal with him any more.

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).

Look Wudge, the CSI and the ME said that the skull could not have been inside the (any) bag on Dec 11. This is because of the plant growth and the ground beneath the skull itself. An investigator could reasonably determine that the skull could not have been inside the bag because of XYZ. They went as far as to say that the skull had been laying there for a long period (outside of the bag). It seems that the skull was out of the bag by August 11 and was never again inside the bag.

His entire storyline is repete with such irreconciables and nonsense.

I agree with that, but you've already been reading where I disagree with you on specifics.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I couldn't agree more! And that search of the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found took place well before RK found Caylee's remains. If RK is a suspect.................how did the Anthony family know where to send their private investigator to search..........a month before the remains were found?

IMO..............the Anthonys had the information on the general location of Caylee's remains. They obtained that information either directly or indirectly from Casey. They told the PI where to search. They were on a quest to find the remains before anyone else did.

Meanwhile, RK, interested in the case because it was in the local news every day, speculated that the most likely place would somewhere near the Anthony home. He knew that there was a large wooded area behind the homes on Hopespring. He figured that was the place to look, and kept his eye out for anything that looked unusual or out of place.

Prior to Caylee's remains being found, Tim Miller organized two major search efforts, one in September and one in November. We had members here at WS who live in the area volunteer for the searches. I remember asking several times if the woods behind the Anthony home had been searched. Others here agreed that the woods behind the Anthony home needed to be searched. So, I don't think it was unusual for RK to zero in on the same area.

What happened to the line of thought that RK was tipped off by a girlfriend who worked in the jail? That is how he supposedly may have heard about the suspected location of Caylee's remains. Does anyone know if this is still a possibility or has it been disproven?
I think RK was after the reward money but I would like to know the truth behind his botched attempts at pointing out the remains. LE must have proof that Cain messed up because they fired him, right?

 

[RR0004]

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.

I hate to belabor the point...but are you blaming RK for not doing enough to find Caylee?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

iirc Nobody said that. That was in a text that KC sent to the other Tony (TR the Cop) who ended up getting fired because he lied about his relationship with KC during the investigation. He wanted a sexual relationship with her THAT NIGHT that she sent the text saying something like "do you want me to bring the snothead" because CA or the babysitter were unavailable. Of course he didn't want her to bring Caylee because he wanted KC for sex.

My apologies, Woe! We're talking about the same person. But I got his name wrong. I should have said NYITALIANO3 ~ not Italian Stallion. Sorry! :blushing: In any case, my post was to point out that she didn't always represent herself as the loving mother and I thought that this communication was an example of that.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

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:

Did Kio ever elaborate about what pets KC buried there? How many? Their type and names? Did the A's let KC wander off with her dead pets and bury them wherever without their supervision (since the girls were in grade school at that time). Was it the remains site or another location closeby? I'm still wondering how a friend from one's past would automatically, several years later, insert herself into the case and bring this info to the table as if were fact prior to any other knowledge surfacing.

Am I the ONLY one who finds this strange?

 

[Hot Dogs]

I hate to belabor the point...but are you blaming RK for not doing enough to find Caylee?

Not literally, and it's only based on the way you worded your question.

Roy Kronk had already found Caylee Anthony on August 11th and he knew it. He knew it 99.999%.

I fully blame him for not doing enough to bring that fact to the attention of LE. I understand the problem that Cain caused - but yet I still blame Kronk for not doing more until December 11.

These are my opinions and feelings based upon everything I've read and heard so far.

 

[RR0004]

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.

Do we have a link saying the skull fell out of the bag...cause in the police interview he did not say that.

 

[RR0004]

Not literally, and it's only based on the way you worded your question.

Roy Kronk had already found Caylee Anthony on August 11th and he knew it. He knew it 99.999%.

I fully blame him for not doing enough to bring that fact to the attention of LE. I understand the problem that Cain caused - but yet I still blame Kronk for not doing more until December 11.

These are my opinions and feelings based upon everything I've read and heard so far.

...but just curious as to what this has to do with him being the killer?

And we'll never know if he was 100% sure it was Caylee so I guess we can only hope the next time he'll do it better.

 

[RR0004]

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.

...and this is where they should be very careful.

 

[RR0004]

Did Kio ever elaborate about what pets KC buried there? How many? Their type and names? Did the A's let KC wander off with her dead pets and bury them wherever without their supervision (since the girls were in grade school at that time). Was it the remains site or another location closeby? I'm still wondering how a friend from one's past would automatically, several years later, insert herself into the case and bring this info to the table as if were fact prior to any other knowledge surfacing.

Am I the ONLY one who finds this strange?

Heck my old friends could say the same thing. It's not so uncommon for kids to have a "special place" to bury their pets. The problem I had with this friend is her credibility about other things...but not the pets.

 

[Hot Dogs]

Do we have a link saying the skull fell out of the bag...cause in the police interview he did not say that.

Back on Dec 11, nearly all the media was saying "fell out of the bag" or "rolled out of the bag" because that is what Kronk said on that day. He was wrong.

That OCSO interview can serva as a link of sorts. You hear the cops talking to Roy about the "falling out" bit and he tells them he was wrong and why he was wrong. He told them he initially said it because he was excited and nervous. He even posed a hypothetical in the interview challenging anyone to keep their mind and story straight after seeing a human skull in the woods.

 

[Wudge]

No way could anyone see into those woods from the road, and probably not even from the mowed shoulder. There was an air potato vine "curtain" that literally concealed the interior of the woods and the swampy part. That is evident in photos (before the vines were removed by CSI) and in various testimonies.


SNIP


Look Wudge, the CSI and the ME said that the skull could not have been inside the (any) bag on Dec 11. This is because of the plant growth and the ground beneath the skull itself. An investigator could reasonably determine that the skull could not have been inside the bag because of XYZ. They went as far as to say that the skull had been laying there for a long period (outside of the bag). It seems that the skull was out of the bag by August 11 and was never again inside the bag.

If both Mr. Kronk and his cronies were closer to the alleged skull in August than the edge of the road, that would make it still more absurd that he could see the skull but they could not. No matter how you look at what he alleges, it simply does not compute.

As for the skull 'falling' -- we all know when something falls versus when something does not fall -- in December, I hold to my previous assessment as regards Mr. Kronk likely recognizing (too late) that his stories did not reconcile.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

When hookers or questionable characters discover a murder victim in the streets of Detroit, they walk over them for this exact reason. I think even Baez admitted that the would be dirt he dug up on Kronk is too remote in time and ( clearly with history of crimes of dishonesty, FRAUD by one of the ex wives just for starters) I believe this motion will go by the wayside and be deemed a "Farce" by LDB and the judge will reign this in. These folks, like Joy, are going to blow up in the defense's face, in a colossal way.They got so excited when they heard their claims, but they imo did not go to the next obvious necessary step to look into their backgrouds to question their veracity. People hear of 20k and 200k being paid for photos and stories and that is a huge, life changing amount of money and could clearly motivate some scorned lover to spin a tale. People have sold their soul for a lot less, right? Don't make me name names, LOL! When someone feels cheated out of money, years of money, in child support they develop a very intense real hatred for the person they consider a loser ( of course I wish every person paid their child support and was a wonderful active parent in the child's life). What I am saying is the person who feels slighted and angry may not be the most rational judge of what Roy may have done. If you listen to the interviews closely you will see they are edited, a lot. I am willing to venture a guess these folks seem even more out for revenge and far fetched on the parts we did not hear. My Gram would have told the investigator, son......consider the source very carefully. My teachers would have told the investigator, be sure they swear to their statements under oath. Ethics would have told the investigator caution them they are not to sell their story, it will destroy their credibility. I would have told the investigator to use the common sense God gave him. We have learned Andrea's defense strategy is the end justifies the means, so thus we see the investigator was sent out with a mission and returned with the desired results, no questions asked. When Mark said it would have a "Chilling effect" on folks who volunteer in the future, he was spot on. Who would want their ex's interviewed or folks we have fired or things we did twenty years ago drug up? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? This is just this news cycle, next month they will be ripping in to Tony and I do predict they are eventually get around to Mommy Cindy, God help us all.

o/t GOD BLESS THE TROOPS WHO ARE AWAY THIS HOLIDAY SEASON, WE LOVE, LOVE , LOVE YOU, ONE AND ALL!!!!!:blowkiss::blowkiss:

Yes, I agree with everything you said in this post (especially the Troops message!). Since the accusation has been made, it is our duty as Websleuthers to explore the situation and ask the questions imo. Also it is not good when an individual has a collection of people who will say unsavory things about them - versus one scorned individual let's say. That said, I don't think we can just ignore the accusation because we think it's farfetched. Right?

 

[Hot Dogs]

...but just curious as to what this has to do with him being the killer?

I've said numerous times in the last few days that I do not think Roy killed Caylee.

But he is certainly something for the defense to use to try to raise reasonable doubt.

 

[cecybeans]

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.

Thanks for the compliment. But I was not able to express my opinion adequately.

I don't see anything wrong with introducing such evidence in court. I think it was unnecessary to file a motion in limine to do it, in that such a motion I believe is used to exclude information to begin with. It was opportunistic, because it gave JB a hasty way to get this info out into the public instead of waiting until he had qualified immunity to do so in court, or until he had presented his "discovery" to the SA and they had the requisite time to review before it could be petitioned by the media per FL's Sunshine Law. It also circumvented the SA's own investigation and the chance to have had the opportunity to submit their own discovery on these "witnesses" who came forward to conduct a character assassination. Most people would agree that an angry ex might have a bone to pick with their former significant other that might include a murder allegation. I think it would have had more impact if the source had been more credible. It's hard to discredit a witness using a source even less reputable, imo. In court that would have been made apparent.

Be that as it may, the truly unethical element, to me, is that JB seems to have used filing this motion as a springboard to getting this into the news media by giving it an official stamp rather than admitting it was simply muckraking and an attempt to poison the jury. That is where I find the most fault in the action. Simply filing a motion saying RK was now a murder suspect is one thing - going on national TV within 24 hours to play the interview tapes - which look like simulated evidence to me - is totally another.

We have no idea how well LE did or did not investigate RK as we have not been privileged to full discovery on that. The fact JB uses this to claim LE did not is something that remains to be seen; he has already benefitted from making public an unsubstantiated claim, imo.

While you may think that, in the absence of the circumstantial evidence, KC and RK have an equal chance of committing the crime, I think you are overlooking important factors such as motive and opportunity. We have no evidence that RK was ever even near the Anthony home before Caylee disappeared (his first day meter reading was the day he phoned in the tip) or have any connection with KC or her family in any way. That is certainly not true of KC, whose own father was one of the last people who saw her alive and in her mother's company. We have plenty of evidence to suggest that KC had both. If you are basing RK's potential culpability on simply finding the body (and not questionable and unverified claims by biased third parties), then I still don't think that holds up to logic. If two people would be equally suspect in the death of a little girl (and proximity was the same, which it is not) - I would still tend to favor the one who came forward with information over the one who obstructed justice by refusing to be truthful, carried on like she was burden-free afterward, made disparaging remarks about her child before and after she disappeared and whose own parents admitted she lied and stole from family and friends and was ultimately responsible for the well-being of this child. Sorry, I just can't see them on equal footing even without the forensics and other circumstantial evidence. Proximity and access have to count for something and that has not been established for RK in the least.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Do we have a link saying the skull fell out of the bag...cause in the police interview he did not say that.

OCSO interview with RK on December 11
RK claimed when he pulled at the bag with his meter stick, a human skull dropped out.

In the incident report filed by D/S Turso, RK is reported as describing the skull having rolled out of the bag.

Both of these are brought up in the motion on page 17.