In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[Daylight/1257]

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

So, we are talking three independent onsites ... and a deathbed confession? :innocent:

 

[capps]

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.

The hitch to get out of the giddyup. I like that! LOL.

 

[Kentjbkent]

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.

:laugh:

Not sure why I found that so funny, but thanks for the comic relief!!

(sorry for the OT...back to regular programming....)

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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.

Posts 944 and 945 have links that both mention searches in this area, although some do not like those sources, and the descriptions are a little sketchy. However, I do sincerely hope that in some future doc dump that LE did indeed do a diligent search in what should be considered a highly likely area to search for a missing child that went missing from a house very near the woods in question. There are references to some searches made by police in Richard Cains interview. What are the ramifications if LE did not search the first wooded area approximately 1/4 of a mile from the Anthony home?

 

[Harmony 2]

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.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/17169920/detail.html

For the second time in two days, Orange County sheriff's deputies and K-9 units performed a search for Caylee Anthony. Orange County sheriff's deputies on Tuesday requested the assistance of Osceola County's K-9 unit and searched a wooded area near the home of Caylee's grandparents. The search was called off and nothing was believed to have been found, Local 6 News reported. On Monday, deputies searched a wooded area near Lee Vista Boulevard and Narcoossee Road.

The article is dated August 12 so the previous Tuesday was August 5th which is the day Phil Keating is reporting on the two youtube videos I posted.

I think what might have happened may be similar to what occurred in the Chandra Levy case where searchers were in the general area and came within a few yards of her remains before they called off the search.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

What are the ramifications if LE did not search the first wooded area approximately 1/4 of a mile from the Anthony home?

That would represent gross incompetence on the part of LE. In turn, the defense would use it to cast LE in Orlando as an incredibly incompetent organization proven to be true to the extent that none of the evidence LE allegedly produced should be seen as credible.

When combined with Mr. Kronk's obvious credibility problem and the lack of inculpatory evidence that we know of to prove premeditation, that would provide an abundance of reasonable doubt to support a not guilty verdict.

 

[BeanE]

Posts 944 and 945 have links that both mention searches in this area, although some do not like those sources, and the descriptions are a little sketchy. However, I do sincerely hope that in some future doc dump that LE did indeed do a diligent search in what should be considered a highly likely area to search for a missing child that went missing from a house very near the woods in question. There are references to some searches made by police in Richard Cains interview. What are the ramifications if LE did not search the first wooded area approximately 1/4 of a mile from the Anthony home?

Thanks, deviled. Those links mention but don't confirm searches, and one of the links is to a blog which isn't an accepted source here.

I too hope that a future doc dump will provide something definitive from LE on whether they ever were able to search that area, and if so, how extensively, and with or without dogs.

Over the past few days, I've been reading Richard Cain's interviews, as well as the interviews of the other responding officers, and news articles regarding Cain. From what I saw, at one point, Cain made reference to having been told the area had been searched and 'cleared'. This assertion by Cain was never supported.

So far as ramifications, I worry more that it will turn out that LE did do a full and effective search of the area, and did not find Caylee's remains. But I'm not terribly worried about that. There is, so far, no evidence that LE or TES or any other professional or trained entity did a full and unhindered search of the area.

 

[nobull]

What are the ramifications if LE did not search the first wooded area approximately 1/4 of a mile from the Anthony home?

There are no ramifications. They simply didn't look there. They are under no obligation to comb every single square inch in Orlando with a fine tooth comb. How exactly is this LE's fault? They were trying to find a child at that time over miles of land and thousands of leads. The same child that was "lost" by her mother for 31 days who provided not one viable lead, but lied continuously throughout. LE, along with the thousands of volunteers (including RK) did a pretty amazing job, IMO.

I will agree that there is something rotten in Denmark here, but it's not from the RK side of the fence.

 

[cecybeans]

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

However, we were not discussing junk science, per se, but rather a legitimate scientists "rate of certainty" which you strove to quantify. Just because one can quantify something doesn't make it necessarily legitimate , particularly when the rubric for "quantification" is based on something that is impossible to quantify (human certainty). And plenty of things that can be quantified can be used to obfuscate the truth ("lying" with statistics by extrapolating them out of context is one example).

Most scientists are very conservative - since they are often dealing with exact or quantifiable substances - about offering what they feel is 99% certainty. Not because an exception is impossible, simply that it is highly improbable. Since scientists, as a rule, are hesitant to commit to a level of certainty that would satisfy most reasonable people, I tend to factor that in when listening to their opinions.

In order to use a quantification system for "certainty" you would have to standardize what perception is used. You have posted earlier that for many people a 51% level of uncertainty would be reasonable, and for some 99% would be. However there is no subsequent argument as to whether only 99% certainty would suffice as reasonable, which you earlier assumed, or how to objectively measure what "99% certainty" even is, which makes the entire argument an existential fallacy.

The science itself (whether junk or not) is moot, because the argument hinges on the "percentage of certainty" of the expert. The insistence on a "percentage of certainty" - or attempting to quantify something that is too subjective (according to most scientists) to measure in a standardized way, is what I said would be considered "junk science" by social scientists. In other words, the attempt to legitimize an opinion by somehow assigning a number based on a feeling, is not scientific at all and negates the very purpose.

It's possible to quantify certain things and whenever possible it should be done. But I don't see any cogent argument on how to accurately measure the concept of "certainty" or whether the attempt is even relevant. Reasonable certainty is simple a pass/fail matter, imo. If a subject matter expert says he is reasonably certain, I'd take that as being more certain than the average layman who does not know the particulars of the field of study in question. In fact, I'd be mighty skeptical about someone in any science who would insist he or she had 99% certainty of anything. 99% to me, is the same as the word "very". It's an attempt to quantify something that cannot be scientifically quantified. And, I have not seen an argument that proves that 99% certainty is what would be required by law to make any kind of reasonable determination.

 

[abel]

I can tell you that if I was a juror on this case and I was to ever entertain the notion that anyone else was ever involved in this crime or the aftermath I would first have to have a reasonable explanation for KC's actions from June 16 forward.

Not calling the authorities, watching videos the night her child is kidnapped, partying thereafter, new tatoos, stench in car, lying to and avoiding her family, sending LE on a wild goose chase, etc. etc. etc.

Until those questions were sufficiently answered so a simple guy like me could relate to the reasoning then any defence lawyer that tries to inject RK, JG, AH, RM or anyone else into this crime is just going to waste his words on me.
In fact, it's just going to have the opposite effect on me than what he's trying to achieve.

While I find the circumstances about the RK sightings and the eventual discovery odd, I find KC's actions (long before Kronk) downright inexcusable.
If there are parents on the jury, like myself, she's in big trouble from the get go.
"Ugly coping" ain't gonna cut it.

 

[BeanE]

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/17169920/detail.html

The article is dated August 12 so the previous Tuesday was August 5th which is the day Phil Keating is reporting on the two youtube videos I posted.

I think what might have happened may be similar to what occurred in the Chandra Levy case where searchers were in the general area and came within a few yards of her remains before they called off the search.

Thank you, Harmony.

They may have been in that area, or they may not have been. They may have conducted a full and unhampered search, or they may not have due to weather or some other factor. We just don't know. The few references we have are vague.

I really would like to see something definitive from LE without having to wait until trial. Maybe something will come out in discovery.

In my opinion, what we will find out is that LE wanted to search the area, planned to search the area, but were unable to due to the weather/water level.

 

[nobull]

I can tell you that if I was a juror on this case and I was to ever entertain the notion that anyone else was ever involved in this crime or the aftermath I would first have to have a reasonable explanation for KC's actions from June 16 forward.

Not calling the authorities, watching videos the night her child is kidnapped, partying thereafter, new tatoos, stench in car, lying to and avoiding her family, sending LE on a wild goose chase, etc. etc. etc.

Until those questions were sufficiently answered so a simple guy like me could relate to the reasoning then any defence lawyer that tries to inject RK, JG, AH, RM or anyone else into this crime is just going to waste his words on me.
In fact, it's just going to have the opposite effect on me than what he's trying to achieve.

While I find the circumstances about the RK sightings and the eventual discovery odd, I find KC's actions (long before Kronk) downright inexcusable.
If there are parents on the jury, like myself, she's in big trouble from the get go.
"Ugly coping" ain't gonna cut it.

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

EXACTLY.

 

[BeanE]

That would represent gross incompetence on the part of LE. In turn, the defense would use it to cast LE in Orlando as an incredibly incompetent organization proven to be true to the extent that none of the evidence LE allegedly produced should be seen as credible.

When combined with Mr. Kronk's obvious credibility problem and the lack of inculpatory evidence that we know of to prove premeditation, that would provide an abundance of reasonable doubt to support a not guilty verdict.

Not necessarily. If the weather/water level prevented searching the area, that's not incompetence.

There is, however, as much as I hate to say it, evidence of some amount of incompetence IMO on the part of LE, specifically Richard Cain. Reading the documentation, it does not appear to me that he handled his response to Kronk's call in August in a reasonably effective or adequate manner.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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.

I took your advice and did some research on cadaver dogs, and I must admit they are not quite the superdogs I held them up to be. I am fairly sure they were used in the area where Caylee was found, but after researching cadaver dogs, I now understand how it could happen that they missed Caylee's remains, if her remains were there at the time they searched.
It is unfortunate for Roy Kronk, that no searches or cadaver dogs were successful in finding the remains. Had that happened RK would not be under such scrutiny.

 

[FORDANIEL]

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

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the importance of circumstantial evidence-the other choice is eye witness testimony-which in itself can be wrong-such as a case of mistaken identity.For some reason you seem to think that this evidence is somehow "lesser" than an eyewitness to the actual murder.

 

[Wudge]

However, we were not discussing junk science, per se, but rather a legitimate scientists "rate of certainty" which you strove to quantify. Just because one can quantify something doesn't make it necessarily legitimate , particularly when the rubric for "quantification" is based on something that is impossible to quantify (human certainty). And plenty of things that can be quantified can be used to obfuscate the truth ("lying" with statistics by extrapolating them out of context is one example).

Most scientists are very conservative - since they are often dealing with exact or quantifiable substances - about offering what they feel is 99% certainty. Not because an exception is impossible, simply that it is highly improbable. Since scientists, as a rule, are hesitant to commit to a level of certainty that would satisfy most reasonable people, I tend to factor that in when listening to their opinions.

In order to use a quantification system for "certainty" you would have to standardize what perception is used. You have posted earlier that for many people a 51% level of uncertainty would be reasonable, and for some 99% would be. However there is no subsequent argument as to whether only 99% certainty would suffice as reasonable, which you earlier assumed, or how to objectively measure what "99% certainty" even is, which makes the entire argument an existential fallacy.

The science itself (whether junk or not) is moot, because the argument hinges on the "percentage of certainty" of the expert. The insistence on a "percentage of certainty" - or attempting to quantify something that is too subjective (according to most scientists) to measure in a standardized way, is what I said would be considered "junk science" by social scientists. In other words, the attempt to legitimize an opinion by somehow assigning a number based on a feeling, is not scientific at all and negates the very purpose.

It's possible to quantify certain things and whenever possible it should be done. But I don't see any cogent argument on how to accurately measure the concept of "certainty" or whether the attempt is even relevant. Reasonable certainty is simple a pass/fail matter, imo. If a subject matter expert says he is reasonably certain, I'd take that as being more certain than the average layman who does not know the particulars of the field of study in question. In fact, I'd be mighty skeptical about someone in any science who would insist he or she had 99% certainty of anything. 99% to me, is the same as the word "very". It's an attempt to quantify something that cannot be scientifically quantified. And, I have not seen an argument that proves that 99% certainty is what would be required by law to make any kind of reasonable determination.

The reason that the level of certainy is important for evidence is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt represents a level of certainty. If you were to hold that proof beyond a reasonable doubt equates to 98% certainty, then you would need at least one piece of inculpatory evidence that meets or exceeds 98% certainty.

The smog pots currently burning around Mr. Kronk's storyline certainly should effect the certainty of whether Caylee's remains were indeed there in August.

 

[Friday]

Respectfully snipped and bolded by Friday

Snip:

As regards TES, the reports I read in the media indicate that TES has not been willing to turn their search records of that area over to Casey's defense team. If that is, in fact, true, it could suggest that TES might not be objective and/or have an agenda and/or a bias.

OMG, Wudge, you're absolutely right! I've admitted before on other threads that I think I'm deviousness-impaired, but your reply proves beyond a doubt that I am. I shamefully admit to you that I've never understood why on earth JB filed a subpoena demanding TES provide the defense with not only the records of every single search, but of every single searcher--who participated in a search for Caylee anywhere in the greater Orlando area.

Now I get it: The Defense didn't really want all those records of searchers who never went within miles of where Caylee's remains were discovered! The Defense simply wanted TES to object to the subpoena as written because the Defense knew they could then imply to the media and the jury (to paraphrase you): "TES has not been willing to turn their search records of that area over to Casey's defense team...(which proves that) TES might not be objective and/or have an agenda and/or a bias."

Good lord--I'll bet the Defense knew in advance that in view of Florida's Sunshine Law, TES would feel honor-bound to ask the court to limit the Defense to receiving only the records of searchers who were in the broad general area where Caylee's remains were actually found.

I'll bet the Defense even knew in advance that the Court would agree with TES's request, which of course the Court did. But by then, the Defense had already achieved their real goal--they'd forced TES to oppose them which will now enable the Defense to suggest, as you so aptly summed it up, "that TES might not be objective and/or have an agenda and/or a bias."

That would also explain why, after pretending they needed to Subpoena thousands of searcher records from TES, the Defense had no objection at all when TES instead volunteered to let Brad Conway, and the Anthony's, and the Defense, narrow the records down themselves to the Suburban location and check off the less than 40 searchers' records they actually wanted.

It pains me to admit this, but the Defense is obviously way more clever than most of us realize...and I am way more gullible and simple minded than the most ordinary defense lawyer. But also much more honorable, I hope.

 

[cecybeans]

The reason that the level of certainy is important for evidence is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt represents of level of certainty. If you were to hold that proof beyond a reasonable doubt equates to 98% certainty, then you would need at least one piece of inculpatory evidence that meets or exceeds 98% certainty.

The smog pots currently burning around Mr. Kronk's storyline certainly should effect the certainty of whether Caylee's remains were indeed there in August.

One last reply then I'm giving this a rest. This is an "if...then" argument in which the supposition is being used to prove the conclusion. I do not agree that reasonable doubt equates to 98% certainty because I cannot accurately measure 98% - it is a arbitrarily applied value. One person's 51% may equate to another's 98%. There is no way to accurately measure what 98% certainty even is. I don't see smog pots or witch doctors at all. And I will not assign a value to my certainty because I believe it is an imprecise, false and subjective measurement. And that's all she wrote.

 

[Wudge]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the importance of circumstantial evidence-the other choice is eye witness testimony-which in itself can be wrong-such as a case of mistaken identity.For some reason you seem to think that this evidence is somehow "lesser" than an eyewitness to the actual murder.

SNIP

Exactly, what did I say causes you to so conclude?


(Your conclusion is false. ... I do admit to knowing a few law students though. ... chuckle)

 

[OneLostGrl]

Respectfully snipped and bolded by Friday

Snip:

OMG, Wudge, you're absolutely right! I've admitted before on other threads that I think I'm deviousness-impaired, but your reply proves beyond a doubt that I am. I shamefully admit to you that I've never understood why on earth JB filed a subpoena demanding TES provide the defense with not only the records of every single search, but of every single searcher--who participated in a search for Caylee anywhere in the greater Orlando area.

Now I get it: The Defense didn't really want all those records of searchers who never went within miles of where Caylee's remains were discovered! The Defense simply wanted TES to object to the subpoena as written because the Defense knew they could then imply to the media and the jury (to paraphrase you): "TES has not been willing to turn their search records of that area over to Casey's defense team...(which proves that) TES might not be objective and/or have an agenda and/or a bias."

Good lord--I'll bet the Defense knew in advance that in view of Florida's Sunshine Law, TES would feel honor-bound to ask the court to limit the Defense to receiving only the records of searchers who were in the broad general area where Caylee's remains were actually found.

I'll bet the Defense even knew in advance that the Court would agree with TES's request, which of course the Court did. But by then, the Defense had already achieved their real goal--they'd forced TES to oppose them which will now enable the Defense to suggest, as you so aptly summed it up, "that TES might not be objective and/or have an agenda and/or a bias."

That would also explain why, after pretending they needed to Subpoena thousands of searcher records from TES, the Defense had no objection at all when TES instead volunteered to let Brad Conway, and the Anthony's, and the Defense, narrow the records down themselves to the Suburban location and check off the less than 40 searchers' records they actually wanted.

It pains me to admit this, but the Defense is obviously way more clever than most of us realize...and I am way more gullible and simple minded than the most ordinary defense lawyer. But also much more honorable, I hope.

As always, great post!