In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[sleutherontheside]

I'll comment on the term previous searches. Many well intentioned folks went out and "searched" and they are to be applauded for it. However, that area was never officially cleared by TES or LE. As a volunteer, are we to assume that those folks, on their free time, were well versed in search methods and procedure? Are we to assume that they would be so inclined to wade into swamp water to be sure? I think not. The area Kio offered was further up the road, dry, and had actual paths worn in the soil. People may have walked by, may have peeked in, may have walked near, but never fully searched. TES admitted it was impossible to clear that area due to conditions. How could amateurs claim otherwise? JMO

 

[RR0004]

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

Oh, I thought the list you provided of wrongful convictions meant you believed the defendents were innocent.
Phew...and here I thought you were thinking that SP was innocent!
Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Wudge]

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.

What 'science' will win out?

 

[suepitzl]

whatever u are trying to purport as an angle for reasonable doubt.........it will not fly with the rest of the overwhelming circumstansial evidence MOO

 

[Wudge]

Oh, I thought the list you provided of wrongful convictions meant you believed the defendents were innocent.
Phew...and here I thought you were thinking that SP was innocent!
Thanks for clarifying that.

You're welcome.

(When there's a conviction and my assessment is that evidence did not support the verdict, I hold that to be a wrongful conviction.)

HTH

 

[LambChop]

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

If that is all there was in this case I agree. But there is more, so much more to be considered.

 

[Rlaub44]

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.

The defense may likely choose such a vigorous cross of RK.

If, however, the forensics (plants, bugs, ground impressions, decomp, etc.) end up creating a pretty solid timeline for placing the body in that location very close to the time of death, a wise attorney might decide not to waste time on such a "pursuit of undomesticated geese."

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I am fairly new to WS. When Jbean says bumpity bump what does he mean?

 

[Wudge]

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

DNA is circumstantial evidence. It's not direct evidence.

Even if DNA odds compute out at a trillion to one against a defendant, it's still circumstantial evidence. It's certainly highly reliable circumstantial evidence, but it's still circumstantial evidence.

HTH

 

[reeseeva]

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

Wudge, I appreciate all your posts, as they stretch the minds of those who follow you.

I have one question, taking off your JD hat, for a moment, do you believe Casey is responsible for the death of her child? Just your feelings as a human being will do.

Thanks

 

[Searchfortruth]

The only people I ever hear berate circumstantial evidence are defense lawyers, as if it's not really evidence. They know better, juries can relate and understand the significance of a mother not reporting her toddler missing while out partying with her latest boyfriend. That's only a piece of what we have in this case though. Jurors are asked to use their common sense, bring their life experiences with them into the court room...I'll bet not one of them will be able to understand the actions Casey took when her precious child went "missing". Any thing the defense comes up with on Kronk or any of the others will pale in comparison to the actions of this defendant.

 

[marspiter]

What is the confidence level and precision range of 'expected'. Is the confidence level 99% or is it less?

What level of certainty is attached to 'would not be inconsistent'?

I wouldn't bank too much on the alleged bone distribution pattern, root growth (through bones), and the alleged rate of decomposition. Moreover, as best I know, the four month figure was released without an accompaning confidence level and precision range.

Did they provide an exact identification as regards which plant or plants they relied on to produce their four month estimate?.

I should note that I haven't been able to find the scientific name for reading bone pattern distribution. Nevertheless, did you know that Witch Doctors toss out mystic bones and then read what those bones tell them?

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.

Just think about it. Who asks jurors to divine legal precautions? What reliability gets assigned to 'would not be inconsistent'? It that answer at all clear? Really, what is it worth?

It's standard junk science talk. This well represents how junk science plays into wrongful convictions.

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

Heres your quotes above. Based on your train of thought here it's pretty clear the interpretation is that this is "junk science" in regards to the data collected at the bodies location (plant evidence and such). So where is your evidence that the "alleged" root growth, bone distribution, and rate of decomposition is junk sceince?

You asked for levels of certainty in regards to this evidence can you provide data that shows that these types of data collections are sub-par science and not admissible in court?

 

[RR0004]

I am fairly new to WS. When Jbean says bumpity bump what does he mean?

Just bumping a thread up for discussion.

 

[RR0004]

Is it me...or am I seeing double?

 

[JBean]

when the forum stalls like that don't keep reposting. All the posts are in a queue waiting for the hitch to get out of the giddyup, and so will eventually post. Mosts likely someone did a search on a word like "crime' in the whole forum and it hung up looking for every mention of the word crime in WS lol.

 

[BeanE]

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.

BBM

Again, can you (or anyone) please provide a link to an LE or media source confirming that the area was searched?

Noone has as of yet provided any. The only confirmed information we have is that TES was going to search the area but could not due to the water level.

This is important because if the defense is going to contend that searches were made, it will certainly go better for them if they can prove it, rather than saying they 'think' there were searches.

The two other important things for the defense to provide IMO, should they go down this route, is 1) whether the searchers were professional, trained, and/or experienced, and 2) whether the searchers conducted a full and unhampered search.

There's a big difference between a full, organized, effective, and unhampered search by LE or TES, and an untrained, curious person poking about in what is likely a haphazard and ineffective manner.

 

[MissJames]

I think TES is a good organization. However, prior to TES involvement, and prior to the tropical storm, I believe some local search groups searched this area and found nothing. I also believe local police conducted searches in the area where the remains were found, and found nothing. If the police did not use dogs to walk the woodline in the most logical place to start to looking for a missing child, I would have to ask why not. If dogs were used, and only walked the woodline, how could a dog miss the scent of a recently decomposed body, a mere 15 feet or less from the woodline. The most logical answer to this is the remains were not there at the time of these searches. Roy Kronk called 911, prior to this call the area in question had been searched by local police and local searchers and nothing was found. Officer Cain did not see anything. This just seems not only odd to me, but seems like there is much more to this part of the story.

BBM

You need to understand how these dogs work. Tracking dogs track LIVE people that are moving in any given direction.We have a tracking dog [see siggie].LIVE people are constantly shedding skin cells and that provides the scent tracking dogs follow.The cells can be scattered by wind ,so the dog may not follow the exact footsteps,but will be going in the same direction until they find their live person.If they lose the scent there are techniques to go back and try and pick it up,but if a person got into a car and drove off the scent would stop where they last stepped.The elements have a direct bearing on how long the scent remains available to track.Arrid areas will lose scent much quicker than humid areas.
Cadaver dogs don't follow a scent.They travel until they "hit" on a spot that has or had a cadaver upon it.Similar to drug dogs or arson dogs,they don't go crazy when they enter a room with the scent somewhere in it,they actually "alert" to the very spot that the scent can be found.
To the best of my knowledge this explains how a cadaver dog may have been to the tree line,and still didn't find Caylee. It's really fascinating to learn how the different dogs work .I highly recommend researching the subject of tracking and cadaver dogs if you still are not convinced.
It would also be helpful to actually learn more about the times cadaver dogs were in the area.A psychic had her cadaver dog near there because the dog was getting sick in the car so she stopped and let him out.They weren't searching.
LE had cadaver dogs in the woods at some point because neighbors complained of a smell.A dead animal was found and that ended the search,unfortunately.At that point LE was noticing the cell phone hits in a wooded area near the airport and believed [IMO] that KC had traveled away from the home with Caylee's body.Remember,there was evidence of decomp in the car trunk.I don't think anyone really believed Caylee's body was dumped so close to the home.

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, I appreciate all your posts, as they stretch the minds of those who follow you.

I have one question, taking off your JD hat, for a moment, do you believe Casey is responsible for the death of her child? Just your feelings as a human being will do.

Thanks

I don't go beyond the evidence. Nothing good comes from going beyond the evidence.

 

[JBean]

I am fairly new to WS. When Jbean says bumpity bump what does he mean?

it brings a thread on top again. Anyone can bump a thread and you all do it everyday when you post.
When you don;t have anything to add to a thread but just want to bring it up front for discussion, just post bumpp (gotta have 5 characters) and it will come to the front. OR if you have something to say just write your post and it will bump the thread to the top.

 

[Wudge]

Heres your quotes above. Based on your train of thought here it's pretty clear the interpretation is that this is "junk science" in regards to the data collected at the bodies location (plant evidence and such). So where is your evidence that the "alleged" root growth, bone distribution, and rate of decomposition is junk sceince?

You asked for levels of certainty in regards to this evidence can you provide data that shows that these types of data collections are sub-par science and not admissible in court?

I said earlier and have long said that junk science does not quantitfy expected results.