In Retrospect-Kronk Believes He Saw Skull In August

[Just Jayla]

BBM

Oh, but I have to ...

Why would anyone call the police to make a report, wait on scene for an officer to respond, then hope that the officer doesn't actually want to look?

I guess my common sense is working poorly today as well, but this sounds mighty bizarre. Is this what you are suggesting as a reasonable possibility, Wudge?

He spoke with not one, but two officers at the scene. See Kethlin Cutcher interview.

 

[BeanE]

Is that 10 to 15 feet supported by a document BTW? Or do I need to go digging for a measurement?

TIA to anyone who has the info handy. If not, I'll dig for it.

 

[AnnaMouse]

Before you go on with this diatribe about Kronk, I suggest you find a nice dense wooded area with plenty of palmetto bushes, preferably swampy and with lots of vines. Then proceed to try to look under every bush, behind every thicket and behind every tree. Do this for a 1/16 mile, 100 feet wide. Have a friend place a couple filled garbage bags in there ahead of time, without telling you where, and then try to find them.

Here is a picture of what the woods look like in Orlando. This is not the woods where she was found but it does give you a look at just how dense the underbrush is in Orlando:

 

[sleutherontheside]

Sure one could ask Kronk to "march in" 15 feet. But given dense vegetation, vines, water, and a sloping topography....one would not likely be able to walk straight in. Likely, Kronk didn't follow a straight path either.

 

[Muzikman]

Defense attorneys are supposed to have a bias towards their client. As for TES............................................

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

 

[christee]

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?

My belief is that you have never searched in woods with thick vegetation - trees, palmetto bushes, picker bushes, vines etc. In Florida especially. And then throw in the swampy area that Caylee was tossed like garbage.

Those of us that HAVE done this, completely understand the situation in a way that you do not, and do not see a problem with the whole Kronk scenario - other than Cain being a pansy and not checking it out as thoroughly as he should have. And he is paying for that mistake.

Before you go on with this diatribe about Kronk, I suggest you find a nice dense wooded area with plenty of palmetto bushes, preferably swampy and with lots of vines. Then proceed to try to look under every bush, behind every thicket and behind every tree. Do this for a 1/16 mile, 100 feet wide. Have a friend place a couple filled garbage bags in there ahead of time, without telling you where, and then try to find them.

Then, and only then, may you begin to understand the entire situation with some clarity.

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.

BBM
MM! Hope you don't mind if I add another tip for searching: Don't forget to strap on snorkeling gear for the underwater search.

ETA:
:wink:

 

[mitzi]

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.

Bold mine.

OR 3. Whether the searcher who says there was no water has been Baked Acted five times.

 

[BeanE]

Oh Lord! I'm googling and finding distances of anywhere from 10 to 60 feet from the road!

:banghead:

 

[mitzi]

Wudge, you use alot of terms I don't understand and big words, but one thing you have to remember...the jury will not be made up of people with law degrees, etc. There will be people like me, who just from hearing of the 31 days and seeing KC partying hardy during that time, and after seeing some of the scientific evidence, will have no problems finding Casey guilty as charged.

 

[Friday]

The identity of TES searchers needs to be protected (allegedly) from what?

:floorlaugh: You know exactly "from what." :floorlaugh:

Good night, Wudge.

 

[Muzikman]

BBM
MM! Hope you don't mind if I add another tip for searching: Don't forget to strap on snorkeling gear for the underwater search.

Actually waders might be much better, but you have to be extremely careful that you don't accidentally step on evidence and destroy it.

 

[Muzikman]

Oh Lord! I'm googling and finding distances of anywhere from 10 to 60 feet from the road!

:banghead:

35 to 40 feet might be more accurate. Maybe.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Is that 10 to 15 feet supported by a document BTW? Or do I need to go digging for a measurement?

TIA to anyone who has the info handy. If not, I'll dig for it.

In this thread on page 34 post number 845 is a video that may help you

 

[BeanE]

In this thread on page 34 post number 845 is a video that may help you

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.

 

[Friday]

Is that 10 to 15 feet supported by a document BTW? Or do I need to go digging for a measurement?

TIA to anyone who has the info handy. If not, I'll dig for it.

Thanks for looking, BeanE, I don't remember either, and I'd like to be certain.

 

[christee]

Actually waders might be much better, but you have to be extremely careful that you don't accidentally step on evidence and destroy it.

Very True, MM. Unless you spit in a snorkeling mask it can fog up. Makes it hard to find evidence. Walking upright has it's advantages, definitely. :wink:

 

[Harmony 2]

Is that 10 to 15 feet supported by a document BTW? Or do I need to go digging for a measurement?

TIA to anyone who has the info handy. If not, I'll dig for it.

35 to 40 feet might be more accurate. Maybe.

I think Wudge was referring to the distance from the treeline.
See my attachment for the information...

 

[christee]

Actually waders might be much better, but you have to be extremely careful that you don't accidentally step on evidence and destroy it.

Very True, MM. Unless you spit in a snorkeling mask it can fog up. Makes it hard to find evidence. Walking upright has it's advantages, definitely. :wink:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

Here is the actual survey with all of the areas marked. It is to scale. Area A where the skull was found is just under 20 feet from the edge of the pavement. Page 34.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/6440.6475.pdf

(It's a good thing to be a stickler for facts!!!)

 

[cecybeans]

In this thread on page 34 post number 845 is a video that may help you

Thanks for bringing that video to our attention. It's remarkable that it exhibits just one season of growth for the area - only six months after her body was found and the entire place was stripped as clean as an archeological dig. It is easy to see that the area would have been much more overgrown at the time Caylee's remains were there. Frankly I think a formal search would have been difficult at best, and it would have been easy to miss things. I have so much respect for those who cared enough to volunteer.

We also have to remember that DC and Hoover went slashing around and were very close but did not notice anything. And that there was a much bigger buildup of garbage at the time.