In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[Just Jayla]

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.

I would also like to know, if the FBI laboratory at Quantico is cranking out junk science, then to whom shall we look for right-science?

 

[marspiter]

I would also like to know, if the FBI laboratory at Quantico is cranking out junk science, then to whom shall we look for right-science?

Apparently experts whom are beyond the age of technology are the only ones who can provide us with the rock solid science in this case.

 

[Wudge]

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.

Please. Do hand it to me on a plate. All posts do not appear on my screen. ... HTH

As regards 'Huck', I have no idea what you're referring to.

 

[BeanE]

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.

You've been provided the correct footage by two posters last night, and also guided on how to find those posts with that information by me this morning.

 

[Wudge]

I would also like to know, if the FBI laboratory at Quantico is cranking out junk science, then to whom shall we look for right-science?

The FBI lab has changed what they will stand behind as being reliable evidence. You can expect more changes in the future. The Lab's ugly history of scandal has taken its toll on their credibility. And contaminating the evidence in this case is certainly not going to raise their competency index.

HTH

 

[BeanE]

Please. Do hand it to me on a plate. All posts do not appear on my screen. ... HTH

As regards 'Huck', I have no idea what you're referring to.

Wudge, are you able to read Acrobat PDF documents on your computer?

 

[Muzikman]

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.

TES is objective, however there is no reason for the defense to be plastering the names, phones numbers and other highly personal info of searchers that were miles away and were never in the area that Caylee was found, all over the internet. There have been several other players rightfully objecting to the amount of info Baez is seeking from them, it is overly broad and nothing but a fishing expedition.

Here is a page of the media thread that has much info on what you're seeking. Motions, letters and even the hearing so you can watch for yourself how the TES motion was handled by the judge - very correctly, IMO.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71772&page=8

You can thank me now.

 

[Wudge]

You've been provided the correct footage by two posters last night, and also guided on how to find those posts with that information by me this morning.

Every post that is made does not appear on my screen. This morning, I saw you refer to 19'8". I thanked you for the input. I also asked if you had a link. If there is an official measurement, I would certainly appreciate knowing that and having the link.

FWIW

 

[Wudge]

Wudge, are you able to read Acrobat PDF documents on your computer?

....Yes.

 

[JBean]

Please. Do hand it to me on a plate. All posts do not appear on my screen. ... HTH

As regards 'Huck', I have no idea what you're referring to.

There is one attached image to a table showing the distances but there is no link. Maybe someone will provide that.
but there is a link to the medical report which includes a topo map of sorts with measurements:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf

 

[Wudge]

TES is objective, however there is no reason for the defense to be plastering the names, phones numbers and other highly personal info of searchers that were miles away and were never in the area that Caylee was found, all over the internet. There have been several other players rightfully objecting to the amount of info Baez is seeking from them, it is overly broad and nothing but a fishing expedition.

Here is a page of the media thread that has much info on what you're seeking. Motions, letters and even the hearing so you can watch for yourself how the TES motion was handled by the judge - very correctly, IMO.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71772&page=8

You can thank me now.

I had no problem with the Judge's decision.

I was after the official link for the distance from the road measurement as regards Caylee's remains.

 

[JBean]

don't even start on Huck this morning please. It has no place in this thread.
thanks.

 

[BeanE]

....Yes.

Okay. Was going to try to provide HTML if your computer doesn't handle PDFs.

Here you are:

http://www.wftv.com/_blank/18740668/detail.html

page 3480 (handwritten page number in lower right hand corner of page)

19 feet 8 inches south of Suburban Drive

 

[Wudge]

There is one attached image to a table showing the distances but there is no link. Maybe someone will provide that.
but there is a link to the medical report which includes a topo map of sorts with measurements:
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf

Thank you Jill.

 

[Wudge]

Okay. Was going to try to provide HTML if your computer doesn't handle PDFs.

Here you are:

http://www.wftv.com/_blank/18740668/detail.html

page 3480 (handwritten page number in lower right hand corner of page)

19 feet 8 inches south of Suburban Drive

Thank you.

 

[Just Jayla]

The FBI lab has changed what they will stand behind as being reliable evidence. You can expect more changes in the future. The Lab's ugly history of scandal has taken its toll on their credibility. And contaminating the evidence in this case is certainly not going to raise their competency index.

HTH

It appears they are evolving and broadening their views on their approach to forensic science. Here is an article regarding FBI training at the Body Farm, done in July of this year. The article does not give the impression that they are backing away from this type of science, but rather, that they are going to use it regularly as one of the tools in their toolbox:


http://www.fbi.gov/page2/july09/bodyfarm_070709.html
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/july09/bodyfarm_071609.html

I suppose I am biased, because I have a cousin that works on DNA at Quantico and she is a stand-up gal. She may make mistakes, but I would point out that NASA made many life-threatening mistakes when trying to get us to the moon. I use that analogy because I am certainly aware that mistakes in this case could endanger KC's life.

I am not sure how the contamination will effect the jurors-While contamination was a powerful tool against the state's case against OJ Simpson, it may not be here becase the FBI has gone back before trial to identify where the contamination came from and who the DNA belonged to. Between OCSO and the FBI, the communication seems to be timely and a series of checks and balances are in place.

But now you have made me more curious than before to get a real answer to my question: If the FBI cannot give us reliable science, who can?

 

[notthatsmart]

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



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



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.


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.



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.

Only the bolded part. I dont think anyone can claim authority on dense woods. Millions of people have been in dense woods. From the picture I can see that they are dense. I have much experience in the jungles of the Phillipines and Okinawa to know what a dense woods looks like. I think the problem lies in that Mr Kronk could see it with his eyes, so Why couldn't Mr Cain see it with his eyes. My opinon repectfully submitted.

 

[marspiter]

The FBI lab has changed what they will stand behind as being reliable evidence. You can expect more changes in the future. The Lab's ugly history of scandal has taken its toll on their credibility. And contaminating the evidence in this case is certainly not going to raise their competency index.

HTH

Can you please provide a link in which it states that the FBI's lab evidence is so non-credible that it can no longer be used as evidence in a court of law?

Yes I'm sure mistakes have been made in the past, as humans conducting lab tests can be flawed. I'm not asking for individual cases where a mistake was made.

I would like to see where this assertion of the FBI labs being so full of scandal has impacted them in such a way that the courts no longer consider evidence by them to be admissible. Any link or referenced documentation would be much welcomed to back up this assertion.

 

[marspiter]

Only the bolded part. I dont think anyone can claim authority on dense woods. Millions of people have been in dense woods. From the picture I can see that they are dense. I have much experience in the jungles of the Phillipines and Okinawa to know what a dense woods looks like. I think the problem lies in that Mr Kronk could see it with his eyes, so Why couldn't Mr Cain see it with his eyes. My opinon repectfully submitted.

Because Cain didn't look. This is why Cain was fired.

 

[BeanE]

snipped by me

I think the problem lies in that Mr Kronk could see it with his eyes, so Why couldn't Mr Cain see it with his eyes.

It's no mystery. Cain's response to Kronk's concerns was inadequate, to the extent that his employment was terminated because of it.

The details can be found in this LE document which contains, among other things, synopses of interviews with Kronk and the officers who responded to Kronk's calls in August.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5429204/Casey-Anthony-Deputy-Richard-Cain