In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[Wudge]

Speaking of pot roast...what would you say about the A's PI? Kronk found the body...so he must have killed Caylee? That is all they have? I can't wait to see what KC has to contribute to the world (if) she gets out. Again, until you address why the PI was in the same area...poking at Kronk won't get it done.

I've never held nor am I of the mind that Mr. Kronk killed Caylee. But he's a key State witness. So if I were championing Casey's defense, I would want to impeach him -- just as I would any witness for the State. It's simply that Mr. Kronk has pulled the crosshairs onto his own person. Talk about a sitting duck; it's almost not fair. (chuckle)

Still, season opens when the gavel falls to start the trial, which means it's every varmit for himself time.

 

[Bittiness39]

I guess he could always use the "I don't remember"..."I don't know"..." Yea, I think I had to pee" kinda responses to the defense's questions. He has already admitted to being interested enough in the case to look. The defense can't discredit the find. Caylee is still very much dead.

So why was the A's PI in the same area?:banghead:

 

[Muzikman]

The art of most any great cross-examination is usually based on giving the witness no place to turn. I would start out by using Kronk's original story -- that he had his partner were simply looking for a shady area -- to pin him down as to how they first came to be in the area in August where Caylee's body was eventually discovered. And I would use multiple (basically repeat) questions to reinforce that that was the reason that they were there and absolutely no other reason. I would then have him pinned to that story.

After you have your witness pinned, a skilled cross examiner would almost assuredly use Chinese water torture questions (drip, drip, drip) to slowly and carefully show the absurdity of that likely being true or, still better, get him to add something (change his story) as Kronk feels the heat of the cross-examination exposing his story as being simply unbelievable.

As for keeping Mr. Kronk on the witness stand for several days, please understand that Mr. Kronk will be a spotlight cross. Any defense attorney who is worth anything would lust for the opportunity to slow cook Mr. Kronk by gently turning up the heat on him, degree by slow degree, until he's been turned into a thoroughly cooked pot roast.

And what happens when instead, this cross-exam makes the defense look foolish (which has already happened in several court hearings) and it is CASEY that ends up turned into a throughly cooked pot roast, courtesy of her own team?

Kronk has but a small part in this whole tragedy, the one to put the "Caylee is ALIVE!" hoopla to it's final rest. At least as far as anybody other than the Anthony's are concerned....

 

[RR0004]

I could not agree more. However, that's not his story, and I expect his story to cost him dearly under cross-examination.

The same will be true of all the As BTW.

 

[JBean]

It still does not make Caylee's body disappear from the snake infested swamp. I don't think the jury will take too kindly to disparaging the "hero" in this story.

I don't know RR. I think the defense will try and impeach kronk because of his hinky story that ,as even you say, may be fabricated in some ways. The sad thing is the hinky factor probably has zero to do with anything and imo his fabrications are harmless, but not being 100% honest is like not being 100% pregnant to a jury some time.The defense will obviously create reasonable doubt and impeaching the witnesses is one way to do it.
if he is dishonest about this what else is he dishonest about?

Just to be clear, I don;t think Kronk is guilty of anything, but his story will certainly raise lots of questions and if he has been honest no problem at all. But if he hasn't been, it could be a problem.
I think he was mentioned earlier, but Fuhrman is the perfect example of impeaching a witness who may have been telling the truth. but since he perjured himself, it just didn't work out.

 

[RR0004]

So why was the A's PI in the same area?:banghead:

Really!!

 

[lizzysf]

It still does not make Caylee's body disappear from the snake infested swamp. I don't think the jury will take too kindly to disparaging the "hero" in this story.

I think the jury is going to get over it too...but I do believe Kronk has fibbed about his storyline...he found the body in August but was trying to avoid the spotlight being put on him.

 

[RR0004]

I don't know RR. I think the defense will try and impeach kronk because of his hinky story that ,as even you say, may be fabricated in some ways. The sad thing is the hinky factor probably has zero to do with anything and imo his fabrications are harmless, but not being 100% honest is like not being 100% pregnant to a jury some time.The defense will obviously create reasonable doubt and impeaching the witnesses is one way to do it.
if he is dishonest about this what else is he dishonest about?

Just to be clear, I don;t think Kronk is guilty of anything, but his story will certainly raise lots of questions and if he has been honest no problem at all. But if he hasn't been, it could be a problem.
I think he was mentioned earlier, but Fuhrman is the perfect example of impeaching a witness who may have been telling the truth. but since he perjured himself, it just didn't work out.

ITA...but other than LE (sorry to say I still believe in them) and all the forensic pathologists employed by the State...who will be telling the truth come trial? Probably Casey's ex-friends...but not one person on the defense side will speak one word of it...that I would lay a bet on. Unless the defense has proof that RK wasn't out there "peeing" at the time and has some "ulterior motive" that we're not aware of...I just don't think it will add up to much in the case against Casey.
ETA: and if the defense comes at him for not being 100% truthful because he feared for what would be said/done to him...they're only proving he was right. I see a jury sympathizing with that.

 

[Wudge]

I guess he could always use the "I don't remember"..."I don't know"..." "Yea, I think I had to pee" kinda responses to the defense's questions. He has already admitted to being interested enough in the case to look. The defense can't discredit the find. Caylee is still very much dead.

ETA: I understand the defenses' job is to deflect attention away from the obvious...but I find RK to be such a small part of this case. Let them have their moment...I think it will reflect badly on them.

That's when you place a transcript of what the witness had previously said in front of him and ask him to read what he had previously said to the court. After he has done so, you then ask him: did that refresh your memory?

After about the third time that this takes place, my experience is that anytime you reach for a transcript, that forgetful witness might well suddenly blurt out something akin to: oh yes, I suddenly remember now.

(great things, those transcripts ... snicker)

 

[Bittiness39]

I am going to keep posting this until I get answers from the defenders of the defense: What was the A's PI doing poking around in the same area "poking" through garbage bags? What was he doing there? Only the guilty know.

 

[JBean]

I am going to keep posting this until I get answers from the defenders of the defense: What was the A's PI doing poking around in the same area "poking" through garbage bags? What was he doing there? Only the guilty know.

I don't think it is "defending the defense" as it is just discussing the possible defense strategy and what may happen in trial.

 

[JBean]

ITA...but other than LE (sorry to say I still believe in them) and all the forensic pathologists employed by the State...who will be telling the truth come trial? Probably Casey's ex-friends...but not one person on the defense side will speak one word of it...that I would lay a bet on. Unless the defense has proof that RK wasn't out there "peeing" at the time and has some "ulterior motive" that we're not aware of...I just don't think it will add up to much in the case against Casey.
ETA: and if the defense comes at him for not being 100% truthful because he feared for what would be said/done to him...they're only proving he was right. I see a jury sympathizing with that.

As far as other witnesses, that is a separate topic. I am only addressing the fact that Kronk may or may not be a good prosecution witness. As I said, it may add up to absolutely nothing in the scheme of things but the topic is Kronk and so was discussing the possibilities.

 

[RR0004]

That's when you place a transcript of what the witness had previously said in front of him and ask him to read what he had previously said to the court. After he has done so, you then ask him: did that refresh your memory?

After about the third time that this takes place, my experience is that anytime you reach for a transcript, that forgetful witness might well suddenly blurt out something akin to: oh yes, I suddenly remember now.

(great things, those transcripts ... snicker)

Which transcript...his initial statemen(s) to LE? So they'll have their moment when he says..."Oh, I really had to go to the bathroom...and then something caught my eye."? He's already admitted publically that he was interested in the case. That's why he kept calling 911.

 

[Bittiness39]

I don't think it is "defending the defense" as it is just discussing the possible defense strategy and what may happen in trial.

I understand what you are saying...but the throw Kronk under the bus is just as relevant as why the A's PI was there in the same place. And since I haven't heard anything relevant regarding that...I place as much stock in their defense as I do Big bird did it...if you know what i mean.

 

[Wudge]

The same will be true of all the As BTW.

Unless the Anthonys have been covering up clear and convincing evidence that Casey committed a premeditated murder, I just don't see that bearing fruit for prosecution.

My experience is that jurors will cut parents of defendants a ton of slack. Intuitively, jurors recognize the trauma done to innocent persons, and as much as many here seem to detest and enjoy vilifying the Anthonys, they are assuredly also victims.

 

[doogiesgirl]

The art of most any great cross-examination is usually based on giving the witness no place to turn. I would start out by using Kronk's original story -- that he had his partner were simply looking for a shady area -- to pin him down as to how they first came to be in the area in August where Caylee's body was eventually discovered. And I would use multiple (basically repeat) questions to reinforce that that was the reason that they were there and absolutely no other reason. I would then have him pinned to that story.

After you have your witness pinned, a skilled cross examiner would almost assuredly use Chinese water torture questions (drip, drip, drip) to slowly and carefully show the absurdity of that likely being true or, still better, get him to add something (change his story) as Kronk feels the heat of the cross-examination exposing his story as being simply unbelievable.

As for keeping Mr. Kronk on the witness stand for several days, please understand that Mr. Kronk will be a spotlight cross. Any defense attorney who is worth anything would lust for the opportunity to slow cook Mr. Kronk by gently turning up the heat on him, degree by slow degree, until he's been turned into a thoroughly cooked pot roast.

Where do you put KC in this whole fiasco? If what you've been saying holds up? -- that means lots of young mothers will just happen to "lose" the babies they don't want with no accountability. I don't get how you are getting past the non existent nanny, not reporting her daughter missing, lying to police and the dead body smell in the car, I could go on and on but won't. I just can't figure how you get to doubt. We know it was a dead body smell by the simple fact that her daughter turned up dead and several people testified that's what it was in their opinion. So by simple deduction = Caylee. Unless you have a theory about a different dead body in her trunk that I'm unaware of. Just so I understand you, are you saying you believe the smell wasn't from Caylee?

MOO

 

[Wudge]

Which transcript...his initial statemen(s) to LE? So they'll have their moment when he says..."Oh, I really had to go to the bathroom...and then something caught my eye."? He's already admitted publically that he was interested in the case. That's why he kept calling 911.

I was referring to Mr. Kronk's alleged discovery (first discovery) in August, not December.

 

[RR0004]

Unless the Anthonys have been covering up clear and convincing evidence that Casey committed a premeditated murder, I just don't see that bearing fruit for prosecution.

My experience is that jurors will cut parents of defendants a ton of slack. Intuitively, jurors recognize the trauma done to innocent persons, and as much as many here seem to detest and enjoy vilifying the Anthonys, they are assuredly also victims.

No...I was talking about them not being 100% honest. LE has their transcripts as well. They're innocent in their "mistruths", but RK isn't? You don't think the defense will use the As testimony to somehow bolster whatever defense they've concocted?

 

[Muzikman]

That's when you place a transcript of what the witness had previously said in front of him and ask him to read what he had previously said to the court. After he has done so, you then ask him: did that refresh your memory?

After about the third time that this takes place, my experience is that anytime you reach for a transcript, that forgetful witness might well suddenly blurt out something akin to: oh yes, I suddenly remember now.

(great things, those transcripts ... snicker)

Yeah, those transcripts of Casey, Cindy, George and Lee will be worth snickering over! heh

I do believe that you're putting too much emphasis on Kronk, Wudge. There is much more incriminating evidence against Casey then the guy who found Caylee's body 6 months later. He is but a small part of this whole tragedy.

This trial will be all about getting justice for Caylee, not smoke and mirrors.

 

[RR0004]

I was referring to Mr. Kronk's alleged discovery (first discovery) in August, not December.

IIRC...he had to go to the bathroom both times. Go figure!