In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[RR0004]

Sure, Kronk could attempt to change his past statements (LE, news shows etc.), but changing his story on the witness stand would suit Casey's defense team just fine, for it would go to his credibility and the credibility that where Kronk found Caylee's body in December was indeed where it was in August.

He already has numerous things that he needs to reconcile. The more he gives his cross-examiner to work with, the longer and tougher his cross is going to be.

But, I thought it had been found that the location(s) were not "exactly" the same...easily explained by the rise and fall of the water.

 

[faefrost]

As regards providing evidence that proves the necessary element of premeditation, I have yet to hear a bug testify.

Bugs testify all of the time. It is just a matter of knowing how to listen. They are very efficient and effective biological clocks that can clearly establish a timeline, and in some cases establish the conditions of death or disposal.

It really doesn't matter what Kronk says about whether or not the body was there in August or how believable his testimony is. The bugs and plants give much better much clearer testimony of the actual timeline.

 

[RR0004]

I don't think the defense will have to try to discredit him, I think his statements to the police have already done that.
In his first 911 call he said there is a gray bag, a little further up there is something white.
In his second 911 call he said there is a gray, vinyl like bag, like a pool cover, there was something round and white underneath it.
Ok so we have a gray bag with something round and white underneath it.

In the December 11th OCSO statement he said BLACK plastic bag, he pulled bag with meter stick, twice. Bag opened and a small human skull dropped out.

OK so we have a Black plastic bag (not a gray vinyl like, like a pool cover) that he pulled twice with his meter stick, bag opened and skull dropped out(not something round and white underneath).

In RK interview #1 he said I saw something protruding out of the water, it looked like the top of a human skull.

Ok, so how can we have something that looked like a human skull protruding out of the water IF he was telling the truth in the second 911 call and something round and white was UNDERNEATH the gray bag? AND OR how can something that looked like the top of a human skull be protruding out of the water IF as stated in his OCSO statement he had to pull on the black bag with his meter stick to get the black bag to open so the human skull could drop out?

I think that he was too far away the first time he spotted something to be honest with you.
ETA: I don't believe any discrepancy in his stories will hurt the prosecution. Trying to discredit his "find" will do nothing to help Casey's case IMHO.

 

[noonie]

Plants and rocks, and bugs and things will tell the story. I am glad Kronk stumbled upon the body rather than the A's PI's!!!!!!!!! That would have been the end of a lot of evidence. I think DC and his buddy were too afraid (MILK TOASTS) to approach the dense wooded area. Scared S$%^less as to what might be there! Who were they trying to kid???? LOL. End of that tale.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

You know, JMO, but saying there is not enough evidence to convict Casey of murder, is comparable to a fifteen year old who suddenly sprouts 3 inches during the summer. Well, I didn't SEE it happen, HEAR it happen, so therefore, it may not have happened. So taking a tape measure, and doing the measurements, viola! By George that kid did grow, BUT WAIT! What if the measuring tape is somehow broken? Ok so trying a different tape measure, it is off about 1/8th of an inch. HMMM. My point being that just because I did not see it, hear it, and the measurement off a little does not mean that it didn't happen. I could go through fifty tape measures all of them being off a bit, but in the end, it is obvious that the kid grew. Not sure if this makes any sense to anyone, but sometimes you do not have to step outside to make sure it is raining when you can see through the window.

Oh it's ridiculous the way that some people will take pleasure or pride in gaming the legal system. Personally, it makes no difference to me if a jury does the right thing but does it the wrong way, in terms of being 'tainted' or whatever. The legal system does not have a fool proof way of trying people. It's not a mathematical equation. Jurors with common sense are much better in my opinion than these professional scammers and headline chasers with books to sell. Wouldn't OJ be proud?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

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.

Which is a perfect illustration of the disgusting tactics used to manipulate people into saying what a lawyrer wants, regardless of the truth. And all this to set murderers free. Nice.

 

[Wudge]

If I'm not mistaken, I think this is referring to any claim the defense may make that Kronk could have conceivably put Caylee there months after the fact that she went missing...when it would have been "impossible" for Casey to have done it.

No. It simply referred to the fact that establishing a timeline would not prove that Casey committed a premeditated murder.

 

[Wudge]

Which is a perfect illustration of the disgusting tactics used to manipulate people into saying what a lawyrer wants, regardless of the truth. And all this to set murderers free. Nice.

More than a few people have significant problems with Kronk's version of things. Would there be a problem if the cross-examination of Kronk were to bring forth a new version?

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

After harping in many prior posts about motive being about plotting for financial gain causing him to wait...I think I got it wrong. Maybe Kronk was afraid to be the one who found her for it would put him under the microscope for either suspicion, or more likely that some personal history or issues may be exposed that he wants kept secret. (more than child support issues)
He knew the body was there in August...he makes an anonymous call.
How does one think back and go..hmmm..you know, now that I think about it..I think I did see a skull there in August.. huh? You really think that statement makes any sense? A human skull.. either he saw it or didn't. I say he did see it. Who retrospectively thinks they saw a human skull? I know the given explanation for that, which I just can't buy.

I hope I never find a body, but, after this case, if I did, I would think long and hard about a) reporting it at all , or b) since I know myself and I probably would report it, I would do it in a very anonymous manner.

 

[Wudge]

In your opinion, do you think a reasonable person would think it a coincidence that a blanket belonging to caylee was found with her remains and said blanket was known to have existed in the A home where KC and Caylee both resided, then went missing? A coincidence that a whitney brand laundry bag held caylee's remains and the same type of laundry bag is/was used in the A home? A coincidence that Caylee was "missing for 31 days" while the car she was last seen in reeked of decomposition from a human body? A coincidence that a head hair matching caylee's showed signs of decomposition? A coincidence that none of the A's or KC herself never saved a text message, email message, voice mail message, had an address or a phone # from the supposed nanny, who KC stated was who she left her daughter with?
A coincidence that none of KC's friends ever saw an alive caylee after June 16th? A coincidence that a rare brand of Henkel duct tape was found with the remains and also on gas cans used in the A home? A coincidence that the roll of tape has never been found? A coincidence that KC spoke of dead animals plastered to the engine of the car, when no such animal residue was ever found? A coincidence that when KC had the opportunity, while out of jail, she never looked for her daughter? A coincidence that when caylee was "missing" for 31 days, she never mentioned it to anyone?:waitasec::waitasec:

My position has been and remains that the evidence we know of is insufficient to prove the murder one charge, and nothing you mentioned is highly reliable inculpatory evidence that proves Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Please recognize that Caylee not being seen after a certain date does not translate into proof of premeditation. As regards the tape on the gas can, no lab report match says it matches the tape found on Caylee. As regards your claim that a certain roll of tape was not found in the home, not finding such is certainly not inculpatory evidence. As regards the laundry bag, you cannot derive proof of premediation from that. The same holds true for the Winnie the Pooh blanket, which I certainly do not see to be sinister.

It seems to me that you believe Casey committed a premeditated murder and are attempting to curve fit the evidence we know of into highly reliable proof that supports your preconceived notion. I suggest taking the item of inculpatory evidence that you believe has the highest certainty as regards being proof of premeditation and assessing that certainty level against the certainty level needed for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

My position has been and remains that the evidence we know of is insufficient to prove the murder one charge, and nothing you mentioned is highly reliable inculpatory evidence that proves Casey committed a premeditated murder.

Please recognize that Caylee not being seen after a certain date does not translate into proof of premeditation. As regards the tape on the gas can, no lab report match says it matches the tape found on Caylee. As regards your claim that a certain roll of tape was not found in the home, not finding such is certainly not inculpatory evidence. As regards the laundry bag, you cannot derive proof of premediation from that. The same holds true for the Winnie the Pooh blanket, which I certainly do not see to be sinister.

It seems to me that you believe Casey committed a premeditated murder and are attempting to curve fit the evidence we know of into highly reliable proof that supports your preconceived notion. I suggest taking the item of inculpatory evidence that you believe has the highest certainty as regards being proof of premeditation and assessing that certainty level against the certainty level needed for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know. I think if the computer evidence (see the thread on Is Casey Zanny?) pans out it would go a long way for showing premeditation.

Wudge, I might not always agree with you, but, I do enjoy reading your work and greatly admire your writing. Are you a courtroom attorney or do you do mostly appellate work? Just curious.

 

[iamkimba]

My position has been and remains that the evidence we know of is insufficient to prove the murder one charge, and nothing you mentioned is highly reliable inculpatory evidence that proves Casey committed a premeditated murder.

But the point is that the evidence we have seen is very compelling, though it is circumstantial.

But in my view the more telling evidence..is the evidence we have not seen yet.
How can you be so certain of your version of events, or the potential outcome, if you haven't got all the evidence either?

And now- my anecdotal point...
I worked a mobile security patrol, that put me in a very large urban area. We had 2 missing person cases, both near the area. If I was scheduled to be in a certain sector close to where the people disappeared, I was very careful to look for anything suspicious, sometimes even getting out of my car to look at a strange area of brush that looked like it had odd protrusions (bones?) or- a boggy area, looking for strange piled up areas, slowly driving along gravel back roads in the area ( slightly off my patrol- not much but a bit- isolated areas) looking at the drainage ditches, looking at the treeline,in case there was a possible suicide. These cases both were getting a lot of media play, there was no reward that I remember, just a feeling I had that I wanted to be able to help somehow, the families were devastated. In one case, a friend's child was taught by one of the missing people.
I frequented one area in particular, because I just had a feeling that the area was a likely dumping area, or that it was isolated enough.But I WAS drawn to it.I kept feeling like I would find something there. It was along a shoreline, a beach. Well- one of the victims was found..on the shoreline, on a beach - burned beyond recognition. On the opposite side of the river that I was drawn to.

But according to some of you folks here, I was potentially culpable.
But I was operating on pretty much the same thing RK and KW was- a feeling. I don't discount either of their stories. If RK knew something more, and that's why he was drawn to the area, well- as someone else said- he found the body. No matter why he was there..he found that little girl.

 

[Wudge]

I don't know. I think if the computer evidence (see the thread on Is Casey Zanny?) pans out it would go a long way for showing premeditation.

Wudge, I might not always agree with you, but, I do enjoy reading your work and greatly admire your writing. Are you a courtroom attorney or do you do mostly appellate work? Just curious.

(Tip of my hat. ... I never divulge personals.)

 

[Nosey Parker]

More than a few people have significant problems with Kronk's version of things. Would there be a problem if the cross-examination of Kronk were to bring forth a new version?

My answer to your question, Wudge, is - probably not. While I respect your legal arguments, IMO too much drama is being attached to Mr. Kronk. Is there evidence that he killed Caylee? No. Is there evidence that he knew the killer? No. Is there evidence that he overheard the body was located there? No. The only fact relevant to this case is that he found the body. In addition, his dismissal has nothing to do with his involvement in this case, other than his future legal fees have been withdrawn, at least for the time being.

While the defence may spend hours of cross, ripping him apart, and trying to muddy the time line, I believe the jury is going to see that as yet another attempt at SODDI. It isn't going to help KC one little bit, IMO. Possibly the opposite.

 

[Wudge]

But the point is that the evidence we have seen is very compelling, though it is circumstantial.

But in my view the more telling evidence..is the evidence we have not seen yet.
How can you be so certain of your version of events, or the potential outcome, if you haven't got all the evidence either?

And now- my anecdotal point...
I worked a mobile security patrol, that put me in a very large urban area. We had 2 missing person cases, both near the area. If I was scheduled to be in a certain sector close to where the people disappeared, I was very careful to look for anything suspicious, sometimes even getting out of my car to look at a strange area of brush that looked like it had odd protrusions (bones?) or- a boggy area, looking for strange piled up areas, slowly driving along gravel back roads in the area ( slightly off my patrol- not much but a bit- isolated areas) looking at the drainage ditches, looking at the treeline,in case there was a possible suicide. These cases both were getting a lot of media play, there was no reward that I remember, just a feeling I had that I wanted to be able to help somehow, the families were devastated. In one case, a friend's child was taught by one of the missing people.
I frequented one area in particular, because I just had a feeling that the area was a likely dumping area, or that it was isolated enough.But I WAS drawn to it.I kept feeling like I would find something there. It was along a shoreline, a beach. Well- one of the victims was found..on the shoreline, on a beach - burned beyond recognition. On the opposite side of the river that I was drawn to.

But according to some of you folks here, I was potentially culpable.
But I was operating on pretty much the same thing RK and KW was- a feeling. I don't discount either of their stories. If RK knew something more, and that's why he was drawn to the area, well- as someone else said- he found the body. No matter why he was there..he found that little girl.

Mr. Kronk has not claimed that he was drawn to the area where he found Caylee's body based on his prior experience (bounty hunter, bondsman). His story is that finding Caylee's remains was but in the way of happenstance.

As regards my posture that there is insufficient evidence to support the premediated murder charge, it's based what we know to be the evidence; i.e., evidence that is in the public domain. It's possible that highly reliable inculpatory evidence is being kept back by the D.A.'s office. Though I doubt that is the case.

 

[heartfortruth]

I don't know. I think if the computer evidence (see the thread on Is Casey Zanny?) pans out it would go a long way for showing premeditation.

Wudge, I might not always agree with you, but, I do enjoy reading your work and greatly admire your writing. Are you a courtroom attorney or do you do mostly appellate work? Just curious.

ITA........and I go back and forth between Wudge and others .......my mind is not made up about some things in this case and I would have to be in the courtroom and hear all evidence that was ALLOWED to be presented and HOW. I appreciate all the different views here.
I am hoping the Kronk "stories" will all be straightened out in the courtroom and I lean toward the idea that , as JB said, "people do funny things".

 

[The World According]

In your opinion, do you think a reasonable person would think it a coincidence that a blanket belonging to caylee was found with her remains and said blanket was known to have existed in the A home where KC and Caylee both resided, then went missing? A coincidence that a whitney brand laundry bag held caylee's remains and the same type of laundry bag is/was used in the A home? A coincidence that Caylee was "missing for 31 days" while the car she was last seen in reeked of decomposition from a human body? A coincidence that a head hair matching caylee's showed signs of decomposition? A coincidence that none of the A's or KC herself never saved a text message, email message, voice mail message, had an address or a phone # from the supposed nanny, who KC stated was who she left her daughter with?
A coincidence that none of KC's friends ever saw an alive caylee after June 16th? A coincidence that a rare brand of Henkel duct tape was found with the remains and also on gas cans used in the A home? A coincidence that the roll of tape has never been found? A coincidence that KC spoke of dead animals plastered to the engine of the car, when no such animal residue was ever found? A coincidence that when KC had the opportunity, while out of jail, she never looked for her daughter? A coincidence that when caylee was "missing" for 31 days, she never mentioned it to anyone?:waitasec::waitasec:

ITA, "There are no coincidences in criminal law": Nancy Grace (who by the way had a 98% success rate prosecuting!)

 

[The World According]

My understanding has been that the area was searched by cadaver dogs. Here's one link.

http://www.rosespeaks.com/rose-blog...has-been-monitored-since-day-one-in-mid-july/

Moreover, I have it in my notes that Caylee's remains were, perhaps, but 15 feet from the road. However, that 'perhaps' is just that. I have yet to hear or read a reliable source that would well corroborate that distance to be true.

After listening to Tim Miller carefully, over time, didn't Jessica concede that she was mistaken about the time frame and agree that it was indeed under water when Mr. Miller and his hundreds and hundreds of volunteers said it was? I will look through my notes later today and find it for you where she corrected the record.Tim Miller, founder of Texas EquuSearch, a group that looks for missing people, said the area where the body was found was underwater when volunteers attempted to search it in August and November.

"When Caylee disappeared, Florida was in a drought," Miller said. "When we searched that area, a tropical storm had come through, and the water was too high."

More than 4,500 people participated in searches, Miller said.

Miller said he called off the search after a volunteer destroyed a four-wheeler in deep water.

The find gave Miller hope that Caylee will soon have a dignified burial.

"Caylee's one of those little cases that's touched the hearts of everybody and broken the hearts of everybody that's been involved at all," Miller said.

 

[The World According]

KC is guilty. The rest is just dressing on the turkey of a defense that her lawyers have. JMO. Nothing points to anyone else having anything to do with Caylee's demise. I could give a fig about how she was found. And if we are splitting hairs...what in the holy heck was the PI working for the A's doing in the same area looking for three pavers and a dead baby? I don't care about a daisy chain. If Kronk got some information on where that precious child was he got it via the A's no one else. The whole family is disgusting.

You just can't make this stuff up. When Dominick claimed in the hearing, under oath, that he was working for Jose, Casey and George and Cindy when he was in the woods searching for the body, if he thought he was doing any service to his beloved Cindy, he was mistaken. It does not serve Casey to have an investigator, who works for her, at the site where the baby was, and it most certainly DOES NOT IMPLICATE KRONK as the murderer!

 

[Wudge]

After listening to Tim Miller carefully, over time, didn't Jessica concede that she was mistaken about the time frame and agree that it was indeed under water when Mr. Mille and his hundreds and hundreds of volunteers said it was? I will look through my notes later today and find it for you where she corrected the record.

I have no idea what the search particulars truly were. I simply posted one of many links that refer to cadaver dog searches having taken place in the area where Caylee's remains were found. I'm more interested in just how far Caylee's remains really were from the road. If it was but 15 feet, that is a very short distance. And I would have trouble with Mr. Kronk seeing something at a short distance that no one else could see.

Moreover, I'm not positive, but I believe Mr. Kronk had a partner riding with him on the day in August when they were allegedly seeking shade and came to be in that area. If there was another person riding with Mr. Kronk that day, I expect to hear them testify as to what took place, what they remember seeing and what Mr. Kronk said to him.