In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[legalmania]

Bold mine.

If Caylee's little body was placed on Suburban around June 18th, with Florida's heat, within a month or less, decomposition would be complete, therefore no smell in mid August. (when Cain arrived on the scene.)

IIRC, there was info from neighbors to the Suburban site that within the first month, they smelled something, but a decaying dog was found and thought to be the cause of the smell, and so no further search was done.

Don't forget that everyone but the killer, (KC, in my opinion), did not know of Caylee being missing until 7/15. At that point, decomp was complete.

What about the dogs? Those dogs can smell human remains sometimes for years. Now if Caylee was in a bag so was the smell. If Caylee was in that spot the whole time so was that smell. Did the dogs detect the smell on Caseys clothes? If the smell was so strong in the trunk it surly was on the duct tape on the blanket and whatever else was on in the bag, or in the area where Caylee was found. I'm kinda surprised the dogs didn't go running from the house to Suburban street to find her remains. JMO

http://www.slate.com/id/2174177/

 

[BeanE]

Thank you so much for the distance, Expecting Unicorns and Harmony!

That's also a *very* interesting, detailed description in that document of the vegetation that obscured the remains. I knew it was dense, but reading the description, particularly of the hanging vines, was very helpful.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Hmmmm... is that that blogger? Marinade Dave or whatever?

I'm looking for an accurate measurement by LE. They (and Casey) are the only ones who know exactly how far from the road Caylee was.

Sorry, I'm just a stickler for facts.

Somewhere in this thread is a set of police photos with the blue tent set up. I looked over those before i saw this video. Disregarding his statistics I thought it was a pretty good video of the scene. For me it made the photographs easier to understand. Although the statistics he gave seem fairly close to the estimates I made from looking at the police photos. I haven't seen anything that is quick and easy as a reference i.e. caylee's skull was exactly 18'7" from the curb. I looked at the topographical map but could not figure out the distance from area A to suburban dr.

 

[christee]

I just had a serious thought(ok no laughing). I think there's a chance Caylee was maybe not right in that spot.
Hang on! Don't gasp!
I mean originally maybe a few feet or yards away.
Think about what happens to an object that can float when it is in the center of a pond, and the edge of rising water slowly seeps around it and picks it up. When the water stands and stops rising the object is still floating but not traveling very far due to tree trunks and leaves, and then when the water slowly starts to recede, the object is left on the mud while the water still recedes, a certain distance away from the original center point. In other words, Caylee may have originally been a little further away from the road, but the wind and water blew her closer to the road where she was found?

IDK just a thought

ETA-to get back on topic: Wonder if RK went further into woods in August than he did in Dec?

 

[BeanE]

Somewhere in this thread is a set of police photos with the blue tent set up. I looked over those before i saw this video. Disregarding his statistics I thought it was a pretty good video of the scene. For me it made the photographs easier to understand. Although the statistics he gave seem fairly close to the estimates I made from looking at the police photos. I haven't seen anything that is quick and easy as a reference i.e. caylee's skull was exactly 18'7" from the curb. I looked at the topographical map but could not figure out the distance from area A to suburban dr.

Yes, videos like that are very helpful for getting a clear perspective on things. Thank you for pointing it out.

 

[christee]

Somewhere in this thread is a set of police photos with the blue tent set up. I looked over those before i saw this video. Disregarding his statistics I thought it was a pretty good video of the scene. For me it made the photographs easier to understand. Although the statistics he gave seem fairly close to the estimates I made from looking at the police photos. I haven't seen anything that is quick and easy as a reference i.e. caylee's skull was exactly 18'7" from the curb. I looked at the topographical map but could not figure out the distance from area A to suburban dr.

I like this pic because it's taken from the interior of the property looking towards the blue tent and Suburban.

 

[reeseeva]

What about the dogs? Those dogs can smell human remains sometimes for years. Now if Caylee was in a bag so was the smell. If Caylee was in that spot the whole time so was that smell. Did the dogs detect the smell on Caseys clothes? If the smell was so strong in the trunk it surly was on the duct tape on the blanket and whatever else was on in the bag, or in the area where Caylee was found. I'm kinda surprised the dogs didn't go running from the house to Suburban street to find her remains. JMO

http://www.slate.com/id/2174177/

BBM

IIRC, the dogs never, were in the house

 

[Wudge]

BBM

So, Wudge, you think Caylee was just lying out in the open and could be easily spotted by anybody walking by there or in there?


SNIP

That the specific dump area was swampy until December will be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. That the area was heavily overgrown will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That Caylee was placed there in June 2008 will also be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, IMO.

And then Casey, and ONLY Casey, will be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to have tossed Caylee, her own daughter, there, with several layers of duct tape around her head and bagged like trash.


What I don't understand, is why some people just do not seem to want to see justice served, but instead focus on tiny technicalities that are but a sliver of the evidence against Casey.

I never said or implied that whatever it was that Mr. Kronk saw in August was easy to see.

When Mr. Kronk first, allegedly, saw something in August, which he believes was Caylee's skull, there were two other men in the vehicle with Mr. Kronk that day. Those two men could not see what Mr. Kronk alleges he saw. They didn't see anything suspicious. Yet, Caylee's remains seem to have been but 10 feet to 15 feet off the road. And Mr. Kronk knew exactly where the object was that he saw, but he couldn't, or wouldn't, simply direct Mr. Cain to that spot along the road and then have him take three to five steps straight ahead.

Moreover, an obvious question is: how do you see a skull in August that you find inside a closed black plastic bag in December? Mr. Kronk's story is not evidence that works against Casey. Mr. Kronk's story is evidence that works against Mr. Kronk.

As for having justice served, that comes about by having highly reliable evidence to support the charge or charges levied by prosecutors. And, no one, anywhere, has been able to cite the highly reliable evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder (murder one).

 

[Wudge]

My take was that it was inside by this conversation between YM and RK. If a bag were laying on top of the skull then you would use words like...Did you lift the bag up or did you remove it. And not statements like "Did you open it?" No, it was closed. How do you close a bag that is just laying on top of something covering it up?:waitasec:

Caylee's skull was inside the closed black plastic bag, andnd my take has always been that black plastic was lying directly on the surface of the top part of Caylee's skull. That would produce a 'dome' shape, which is what Mr. Kronk alleges he saw.

 

[BeanE]

I never said or implied that whatever it was that Mr. Kronk saw in August was easy to see.

When Mr. Kronk first, allegedly, saw something in August, which he believes was Caylee's skull, there were two other men in the vehicle with Mr. Kronk that day. Those two men could not see what Mr. Kronk alleges he saw. They didn't see anything suspicious. Yet, Caylee's remains seem to have been but 10 feet to 15 feet off the road. And Mr. Kronk knew exactly where the object was that he saw, but he couldn't, or wouldn't, simply direct Mr. Cain to that spot along the road and then have him take three to five steps straight ahead.

Moreover, an obvious question is: how do you see a skull in August that you find inside a closed black plastic bag in December? Mr. Kronk's story is not evidence that works against Casey. Mr. Kronk's story is evidence that works against Mr. Kronk.

As for having justice served, that comes about by having highly reliable evidence to support the charge or charges levied by prosecutors. And, no one, anywhere, has been able to cite the highly reliable evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder (murder one).

I looked this up for you last night, Wudge, as did 2 other posters in this thread. Links to the document confirming the distance were posted last night.

Caylee's skull was found 19' 8" off the road.

Kronk did point Cain to what he saw. Cain went, looked, came back, told Kronk it was "nothing", and disparaged and dismissed Kronk.

Kronk tried very hard to get Cain to adequately respond, but Cain did not. Cain's employment was terminated for his inadequate response. Link to discovery doc confirming this was posted by me.

I'm sorry, but the facts simply don't support your contentions.

 

[BeanE]

The top of the black plastic bag was closed; other portions of the bag were shredded and/or disintegrated.

Links to documents supporting these facts have been provided in this thread.

 

[Wudge]

I looked this up for you last night, Wudge, as did 2 other posters in this thread. Links to the document confirming the distance were posted last night.

Caylee's skull was found 19' 8" off the road.

Kronk did point Cain to what he saw. Cain went, looked, came back, told Kronk it was "nothing", and disparaged and dismissed Kronk.

Kronk tried very hard to get Cain to adequately respond, but Cain did not. Cain's employment was terminated for his inadequate response. Link to discovery doc confirming this was posted by me.

I'm sorry, but the facts simply don't support your contentions.

Thanks for the 19'8". My links do not have that figure. Do you have a link?

If Kronk pointed what he saw out to Mr. Cain, and if Mr. Cain looked at it and told Mr. Kronk that it was nothing, then Mr. Kronk did not find Caylee's remains in August, which makes his alleged discovery in December even far more suspicious.

That is called: for the defense.

 

[iamkimba]

But- if Mr Cain did not investigate fully, as he had several complaints made about him - about this very thing, then how can he be used as a "witness" to Kronk not finding the child's body? It seems you are taking someone that would himself be on the hotseat on cross examination, and are holding him up in an evidenciary manner. Seems like you are building the case against Kronk on a house of cards, Cain is certainly not beyond reproach in his behaviour. Cain as a witness is no stronger than Kronk, and considerably less so, in my book.
I would expect on cross examination, that Cain would be devastated, since he didn't adequately investigate what Kronk saw.And was disciplined for it.

 

[marspiter]

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

Wudge,

There is also some problems with you asking for "levels of certainty" with the evidence and data collected at the remains site.

First is that you are asking posters to assign a level of mathmatical certainty to this evidence. I would suspect that no one participating in this thread has a doctorate in a forensic science field, anthropology, or botany. Now that assumption on my part could be wrong as there could in fact be a person with those credentials participating in this thread. However if there is that individual does not have the evidence in front of them to analyze and give said level of certainty to the evidence. So in essence you are asking posters to give you info that would not be readily available to them or would have expert opinion enough to comment on.

Second and for this we will look at the plant evidence. A scientist is not going to give a level of certainty as to whether or not plants grow at measurable intervals. It either does or it doesn't and science has determined they do grow at measurable levels. Hence why we have the science of dendrochronology. Now what the scientist will do and what his testimony will be used for in court is to establish a time line based on this knowledge.

The expert will then assign a "margin of error" not a "level of certainty" regarding the data and evidence. This margin of error will relate the plant growth to the time line that Caylee was placed in the woods. Things such as soil nutrients and abundance of water will cause a slight margin of error by causing the plant to either grow slightly faster or slightly slower depending on these factors.

This in no way assigns a level of certainty of the evidence. I will assert that this magical mathematical level of certainty that you are asking for doesn't exist and is not used.

So if you would please link or reference the documentation where this level of certainty is mandated for evidence to be used in a court of law. What that percentage is, and how that percentage is determined.

Furthermore would you please also link and or reference the documentation that states the types of data and evidence collection used at the remains site is sub-par science (junk science), and is not used or admissible in a court of law.

 

[BeanE]

Thanks for the 19'8". My links do not have that figure. Do you have a link?

If Kronk pointed what he saw out to Mr. Cain, and if Mr. Cain looked at it and told Mr. Kronk that it was nothing, then Mr. Kronk did not find Caylee's remains in August, which makes his alleged discovery in December even far more suspicious.

That is called: for the defense.

- Links to the discovery doc were provided for you last night by both Harmony2 and ExpectedUnicorns on the fact of the measured 19' 8" distance of Caylee's skull from the road.

- Cain did not look at what Kronk directed him to. Cain led Kronk to believe that he had. Cain was terminated for his inadequate response to Kronk's concerns. I provided a link for you to the documentation supporting these facts.

- Wudge, your contentions and suppositions would be better taken could they be supported, and not so easily disputed by, the facts. I would sincerely welcome any credible links you can provide to support your contentions.

I want the facts - no matter what they are. Caylee deserves as much as possible of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of what happened to her to be known, regardless of anything that may happen at trial.

 

[Muzikman]

I never said or implied that whatever it was that Mr. Kronk saw in August was easy to see.

This is what you said, and it does imply Cain could have walked right in and saw it:

I can't figure out why Mr. Kronk did not simply lead Mr. Cain to a place along the edge of the road that was directly in front of what he saw. He could have pointed to what he saw and asked Mr. Cain to march straight ahead (for 10 to 15 feet) and see what it is.

BBM below - In my recollection, those 2 men did not go all the way in, thus would not have seen what Kronk saw.

When Mr. Kronk first, allegedly, saw something in August, which he believes was Caylee's skull, there were two other men in the vehicle with Mr. Kronk that day. Those two men could not see what Mr. Kronk alleges he saw. They didn't see anything suspicious. Yet, Caylee's remains seem to have been but 10 feet to 15 feet off the road. And Mr. Kronk knew exactly where the object was that he saw, but he couldn't, or wouldn't, simply direct Mr. Cain to that spot along the road and then have him take three to five steps straight ahead.

BBM - red - Again implying that Caylee was easy to spot. I believe your estimate of footage is incorrect, please look it up, as your inference is that anybody could have spotted Caylee easily.

This is where the experimenting I asked you to do comes in. I posit that from your armchair you have no concept of what it is like to look through heavy, dense brush and vegetation, and until you do, you will not understand this situation.

Moreover, an obvious question is: how do you see a skull in August that you find inside a closed black plastic bag in December? Mr. Kronk's story is not evidence that works against Casey. Mr. Kronk's story is evidence that works against Mr. Kronk.

See my response above about looking through dense underbrush in order to understand.

As for evidence that works against Casey - finding the body does exactly that!

Kronk's story does not "work against him.' Plenty of eyewitnesses recall more information - and differently - later as they think about it. Do you think he sat there and studied every detail until he had it memorized? He!! no, he saw something he believed to be Caylee, and hightailed it out of there to call the cops, as a responsible citizen should do - not hang around and possibly contaminate evidence.

As for having justice served, that comes about by having highly reliable evidence to support the charge or charges levied by prosecutors. And, no one, anywhere, has been able to cite the highly reliable evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey committed a premeditated murder (murder one).

It is pretty obvious to most people that understand human nature that Casey is responsible for whatever happened to Caylee - just based upon her actions and words alone. Without even putting any forensics into play. Her lying and making up people to support her lies speaks volumes.

Casey was raised apparently never having to pay for the consequences of her actions (all the previous thefts and lieing, etc), and I myself think it is high time she learns. I doubt that she will get the DP, but LWOP would be fine in this case. And maybe she will finally break down, admit what happened and get even less time (depending on what she admits).


My :twocents: , respectfully.

 

[Wudge]

TES should be protecting their searchers identity from unnecessary defense attorney fishing expeditions and harrassment.

If you would have watched the hearing, read the motions, and read the judge's order, you would see that that has happened. And that if there are further questions raised, Baez can look at more records In Camera.

I respectfully wish that you would do your homework. You have put forth a number of items in this thread that were patently untrue, half-true, and/or just incorrect guesswork. The real facts are fairly easy to find in this forum, and I for one would respect your opinions much more if you would look up the facts first. And link to them

TES does not come across as being objective. Moreover, TES does not decide what is necessary or unnecessary.

I will happily thank people if they have better information than I do at a point in time.

 

[marspiter]

TES does not come across as being objective. Moreover, TES does not decide what is necessary or unnecessary.

I will happily thank people if they have better information than I do at a point in time.

This is kind of a moot point as the courts have already decided this. As stated before in this thread the people that participated in searches near that area will be released to the defense and the others will not be released.

The courts not TES felt the having all the searchers info was not necessary for the defense to have. The courts did however leave the door open for the defense to come back and ask for other searchers info provided the defense could show just cause for that info, and that info would be released in camera.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

I believe your estimate of footage is incorrect, please look it up, as your inference is that anybody could have spotted Caylee easily.

SNIP

As for evidence that works against Casey - finding the body does exactly that!

SNIP

Kronk's story does not "work against him.'

SNIP

While I think you have a great cause in fighting against wrongful convictions, this is not one of those cases, IMO.

SNIP

What is the correct footage? Is there an official link?

As regards Caylee's remains, they do not prove she died from a premeditated murder.

Regarding Mr. Kronk and his storyline. I expect it will be used to impeach him on the witness stand.

You are right in saying that this case is not a wrongful conviction, yet. However, based on the evidence that we know of, if Casey is convicted of murder one, I will hold it to be a wrongful conviction.

 

[Muzikman]

What is the correct footage? Is there an official link?

As regards Caylee's remains, they do not prove she died from a premeditated murder.

Regarding Mr. Kronk and his storyline. I expect it will be used to impeach him on the witness stand.

You are right in saying that this case is not a wrongful conviction, yet. However, based on the evidence that we know of, if Casey is convicted of murder one, I will hold it to be a wrongful conviction.

1. Posted in the previous 2 pages. Do you want it handed to you on a plate?

2. Duct tape goes a long way towards proving that. See Huck, I know you already have.

3. I completely disagree on Kronk. He is but a sliver in this tragedy. While the defense may try to impeach him, IMO it will backfire on them.

4. All of the evidence has not even been released yet, you may change your mind after seeing more.

Here is a link to the Anthony Case Resource links thread (at the top of the forum). I ask that you use it, your posts may be more informative if you back up your assertions with real hard facts and links. Using the search function is also extremely helpful in finding threads where a lot of these facts have already been discussed in depth, and sometimes even resolved.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=233"]Anthony Case Resource Links, Case Calendar and Time Line Analysis Forum - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]