In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[RR0004]

Junk science does not quantify expected results. Junk science has trouble with questions such as yours.

As for a juror assessing what is reasonable, that is not what our system of jurisprudence requires them to do. Rather, it requires them to assess reasonable doubt, which is a much different measure.

I think "junk science" as you refer to modern science is gonna stay around for awhile. At least until they invent new "junk science".

 

[lisalei321]

It does matter, and it's certainly not at all immaterial. TES does not get to decide if what seachers know represents exculpatory and admissable evidence. That's for the Court to decide.

I was a searcher for TES...I searched where I was sent, and, if I remember correctly, we signed statements that anything we found would not be discussed other than with LE, I met quite a few other posters there as well.

Are you saying that every aspect of my life for the past 45 years is admissable to the proceedings against KC?

It's common knowledge here on WS that my daughter was in prison, should that have made me ineligable to search?

 

[marspiter]

Junk science does not quantify expected results. Junk science has trouble with questions such as yours.

As for a juror assessing what is reasonable, that is not what our system of jurisprudence requires them to do. Rather, it requires them to assess reasonable doubt, which is a much different measure.

So forensic anthropology, medical examiners, botany (specilization of dendrology), and any other forensic science is considered junk science? On what grounds or evidence do you have to suggest as such?

Have you personally conducted your own tests on plant growth, done your own medical examination, or studied and received a doctorate in a chosen field of forensic science?

The science behind that data collection at the crime scene has been used and proven many times over. Unless your willing to give evidence to the contrary I believe I'll stick with the ME, and scientists assessment of the evidence in the documents we have. They have pin-pointed a time line and that time line seems consistant with Kronk's testimony.

 

[Wudge]

Also maybe I'm reading the posts wrong. Wudge are you indicating that Mr. Kronk had something to do with Caylee's demise? Are you indicating that it is your assessment that Kronk moved Caylee from one location to the location where she was found?

That or are you just trying to say someone, anyone other then Casey could have dumped Caylee?

What would Kronk's motive be? That and why would poor little innocent Casey sit in jail and not disclose the name of the real killer/kidnapper? To me there is only one answer to that particular question.

Based on what I know, I don't hold that Mr. Kronk was involved with Caylee's death. I've said this before.

Still, there are many irreconcilables inside Mr. Kronk's storyline that go towards reasonable doubt, and that lies on top of the absence of highly reliable inculpatory evidence (based on the evidence we know of) that is needed to support, as the State claims, that Caylee died from a premeditated murder.

 

[RR0004]

Based on what I know, I don't hold that Mr. Kronk was involved with Caylee's death. I've said this before.

Still, there are many irreconcilables inside Mr. Kronk's storyline that go towards reasonable doubt, and that lies on top of the absence of highly reliable inculpatory evidence (based on the evidence we know of) that is needed to support, as the State claims, that Caylee died from a premeditated murder.

Ok...take RK out of the mix. Let's say he hadn't seen or reported anything...the same "reasonable doubt" could hold true in keeping with your opinions about the methods used to determine how long the body was there. Who's to say exactly how long Caylee was left there amidst the trash, right? I feel confident enough to say, science will win out here.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I see the reference to the term "junk science" as relating to the position that the defense team will argue. I know that there is no such "science" designation and that it is just a word used to describe a particular new theory and process used to arrive at a "result". Not long ago, DNA, fingerprints, facial recognition, toxicology, and more were considered junk science. So while I understand the defense holding on to the "junk science" designation relating to unfavorable conclusions made by TBF as a lifeline, and while they are within their rights to argue that point, I have to wonder how they can can simultaneously argue that previous "junk science" results (no KC fingerprints on tape, mysterious hair / DNA) do hold water.

 

[marspiter]

Based on what I know, I don't hold that Mr. Kronk was involved with Caylee's death. I've said this before.

Still, there are many irreconcilables inside Mr. Kronk's storyline that go towards reasonable doubt, and that lies on top of the absence of highly reliable inculpatory evidence (based on the evidence we know of) that is needed to support, as the State claims, that Caylee died from a premeditated murder.

Well given that WS is not a court of law. What evidence is there to suggest someone other then Casey did it? Who else had motive, and access to the Anthony home?

Where is the evidence that points to another person? One can point fingers at bogeymen all day long. If one such bogeyman exists then I would like to see the evidence as such. They apparently like to hide under beds and closets? Maybe they left fibers there so where are the fibers?

So far based on the evidence we have seen the case is pretty strong against Casey. Statistically the location where Caylee's body was found would point to Casey. The lies she has told in order to hinder the investigation point to Casey. The items found at the crime scene point to Casey. Casey's silence in jail points to Casey and a whole slue of other evidence points to Casey.

So where exactly is the evidence that points to another. No arguing reasonable doubt and Casey's innocence until proven guilty, but real evidence that shows it was someone else. In accordance with this thread where is the evidence that shows someone else placed Caylee there.

 

[Searchfortruth]

Based on what I know, I don't hold that Mr. Kronk was involved with Caylee's death. I've said this before.

Still, there are many irreconcilables inside Mr. Kronk's storyline that go towards reasonable doubt, and that lies on top of the absence of highly reliable inculpatory evidence (based on the evidence we know of) that is needed to support, as the State claims, that Caylee died from a premeditated murder.

I wonder what you think, evidence wise, points to Casey's guilt...yes circumstantial evidence counts. Just wondering...

If this question is too OT for this thread just ignore.

 

[Wudge]

So forensic anthropology, medical examiners, botany (specilization of dendrology), and any other forensic science is considered junk science? On what grounds or evidence do you have to suggest as such?

Have you personally conducted your own tests on plant growth, done your own medical examination, or studied and received a doctorate in a chosen field of forensic science?

The science behind that data collection at the crime scene has been used and proven many times over. Unless your willing to give evidence to the contrary I believe I'll stick with the ME, and scientists assessment of the evidence in the documents we have. They have pin-pointed a time line and that time line seems consistant with Kronk's testimony.

Ask a scientist to quantify the odds that a DNA sample came from a certain individual and they can and will do that. Similarly, the math is sound for fingerprint matches; e.g., twelve matching points or thirteen matching points or sixteen matching points, etc..

Now, what math do you wish to note?

 

[RR0004]

Ask a scientist to quantify the odds that a DNA sample came from a certain individual and they can and will do that. Similarly, the math is sound for fingerprint matches; e.g., twelve matching points or thirteen matching points or sixteen matching points, etc..

Now, what math do you wish to note?

IIRC when DNA testing first came on the scene it wasn't as "exact" a science as it is now, yet you accept it. Was there a time when you didn't?

 

[Wudge]

Well given that WS is not a court of law. What evidence is there to suggest someone other then Casey did it?

SNIP

I don't hold that anybody did it (murdered Caylee).

In any criminal case or criminal trial, I assess whether or not the evidence necessary to support the charge or charges hurdles our legal proof standard; i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[marspiter]

Ask a scientist to quantify the odds that a DNA sample came from a certain individual and they can and will do that. Similarly, the math is sound for fingerprint matches; e.g., twelve matching points or thirteen matching points or sixteen matching points, etc..

Now, what math do you wish to note?

Once again what evidence is there that shows forensic anthropology is junk science? What evidence do you have that dendrochronology can not determine a specific time line?

I'm not asking about DNA and finger prints. You specifically said that these particular sciences were junk science and I am asking you for your proof or evidence of such a claim.

So where is your evidence showing the contrary to what these scientists in the evidence documents have stated?

 

[RR0004]

I don't hold that anybody did it (murdered Caylee).

In any criminal case or criminal trial, I assess whether or not the evidence necessary to support the charge or charges hurdles our legal proof standard; i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

...and if they don't...the person is innocent, correct?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Ask a scientist to quantify the odds that a DNA sample came from a certain individual and they can and will do that. Similarly, the math is sound for fingerprint matches; e.g., twelve matching points or thirteen matching points or sixteen matching points, etc..

Now, what math do you wish to note?

Sure a scientist can quantify the odds and they can and will do that using a reasonable and generally accepted margin of error. As far as "math" for fingerprint matches, the number of points are based upon what has become a generally accepted industry standard for fingerprints. That does not discount or invalidate other semi matches that may be impacted by external factors. There is no scientist that will ever state that ANYTHING can be deemed 100%. If they do, they aren't much of a scientist. But scientific results are based upon generally accepted parameters. After that, "REASONABLE DOUBT" fills in the rest.

 

[Wudge]

IIRC when DNA testing first came on the scene it wasn't as "exact" a science as it is now, yet you accept it. Was there a time when you didn't?

I was an early supporter of using DNA as circumstantial evidence to prove guilt as well as to prove that a wrongful conviction had taken place.

 

[marspiter]

I don't hold that anybody did it (murdered Caylee).

In any criminal case or criminal trial, I assess whether or not the evidence necessary to support the charge or charges hurdles our legal proof standard; i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So Caylee walked into the woods, placed tape on her mouth, and crawled into the bags on her own accord?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

After rereading the last several pages of this thread, it seems to me

There is a reasonable possiblity that some searches were made in the area where the remains were ultimately found prior to Aug 11th.
Although it is highly unlikely, it remains a possiblity (however slim) that Caylee's remains were placed at the site they were ultimately found after Aug 13th.
Roy Kronk made inconsistant statements to police.
No one but Roy Kronk saw anything at the site the remains were found prior to Dec. 11th

In light of the above I think the impact during the trial is this, the defense will vigorously cross examine Roy Kronk about his inconsistant statements.
Personally, I think his answers under a vigorous cross examination will prove to be very very interesting.

 

[Wudge]

Once again what evidence is there that shows forensic anthropology is junk science? What evidence do you have that dendrochronology can not determine a specific time line?

I'm not asking about DNA and finger prints. You specifically said that these particular sciences were junk science and I am asking you for your proof or evidence of such a claim.

So where is your evidence showing the contrary to what these scientists in the evidence documents have stated?

Don't rewrite what you think I said, quote me.

 

[Wudge]

...and if they don't...the person is innocent, correct?

No. It doesn't mean that. It means the defendant should be found 'not guilty'.

 

[RR0004]

I was an early supporter of using DNA as circumstantial evidence to prove guilt as well as to prove that a wrongful conviction had taken place.

So DNA is not scientific proof...it's circumstancial proof? I'm not getting what you're saying, I'm afraid.