Kronk's Ex-Wife Questioned By Prosecutors

[nachomama]

Kronk's Ex-Wife Questioned By Prosecutors


http://www.wftv.com/news/22673799/detail.html

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The ex-wife of the former Orange County meter reader who found Caylee's remains was questioned Thursday by prosecutors. Jill Kerley's deposition was taken via Skype from her attorney's office in Knoxville, Tennessee.

 

[logicalgirl]

Kronk's Ex-Wife Questioned By Prosecutors


http://www.wftv.com/news/22673799/detail.html

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The ex-wife of the former Orange County meter reader who found Caylee's remains was questioned Thursday by prosecutors. Jill Kerley's deposition was taken via Skype from her attorney's office in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Skype, eh? I think if they were taking her very seriously they would have gone in person IMO.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Skype, eh? I think if they were taking her very seriously they would have gone in person IMO.

Amen.
They don't want to waste public money on this woman and her vendetta.

 

[Brattigirle]

Kronk's Ex-Wife Questioned By Prosecutors


http://www.wftv.com/news/22673799/detail.html

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The ex-wife of the former Orange County meter reader who found Caylee's remains was questioned Thursday by prosecutors. Jill Kerley's deposition was taken via Skype from her attorney's office in Knoxville, Tennessee.

I think a face to face woulda been harder on her... easier to tell mistruths over Skype :innocent:

 

[The World According]

Casey Anthony: Roy Kronk’s ex-wife questioned
posted by halboedeker on February, 25 2010 6:35 PM
<snipped>
What were prosecutors trying to do with today&#8217;s deposition?

&#8220;They&#8217;re going to try to get her [Kerley] under oath to catch her in lies,&#8221; said Orlando attorney Richard Hornsby in offering analysis for WESH. &#8220;I&#8217;m willing to bet she&#8217;s not going to make a very good witness.&#8221;

Hornsby noted that Kerley wouldn&#8217;t be able to offer her personal opinions in the Anthony murder trial. He also questioned the defense team&#8217;s strategy of using Kerley, saying jurors would &#8220;assume she has an ax to grind, that she&#8217;s bitter.&#8221;

www.orlandosentinel.com

 

[notthatsmart]

I think they questioned her today because they don't want any surprises later. I don't see any sense in trying to catch her in lies. It is not their duty to protect Rk. Key witnesses are not always good people. She is a battered woman and I think the state should be sensitive to that. I don't believe she will be seen as an ex wife with an ax to grind at all. She didn't start this. They went to her. Also even though RH says she will not be able to offer her personal opinion, she will be able to offer what happened to her in the past. I think RH is way off on this one. IMO

 

[whiteangora]

I think they questioned her today because they don't want any surprises later. I don't see any sense in trying to catch her in lies. It is not their duty to protect Rk. Key witnesses are not always good people. She is a battered woman and I think the state should be sensitive to that. I don't believe she will be seen as an ex wife with an ax to grind at all. She didn't start this. They went to her. Also even though RH says she will not be able to offer her personal opinion, she will be able to offer what happened to her in the past. I think RH is way off on this one. IMO

bbm
IMO, this woman is not a key witness and I am willing to bet she will never be a part of Casey's trial.

 

[notthatsmart]

bbm
IMO, this woman is not a key witness and I am willing to bet she will never be a part of Casey's trial.

Was refferring to RK

 

[Jomo]

I think they questioned her today because they don't want any surprises later. I don't see any sense in trying to catch her in lies. It is not their duty to protect Rk. Key witnesses are not always good people. She is a battered woman and I think the state should be sensitive to that. I don't believe she will be seen as an ex wife with an ax to grind at all. She didn't start this. They went to her. Also even though RH says she will not be able to offer her personal opinion, she will be able to offer what happened to her in the past. I think RH is way off on this one. IMO

Respect your opinion...Everyone is entitled to one.

I totally don't agree.

 

[Sammiejam]

I think they questioned her today because they don't want any surprises later. I don't see any sense in trying to catch her in lies. It is not their duty to protect Rk. Key witnesses are not always good people. She is a battered woman and I think the state should be sensitive to that. I don't believe she will be seen as an ex wife with an ax to grind at all. She didn't start this. They went to her. Also even though RH says she will not be able to offer her personal opinion, she will be able to offer what happened to her in the past. I think RH is way off on this one. IMO

And who says she is a battered woman? Is there evidence, police reports etc, to support this? She has inserted herself in this case and clearly,OBVIOUSLY does have an axe to grind.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I think they questioned her today because they don't want any surprises later. I don't see any sense in trying to catch her in lies. It is not their duty to protect Rk. Key witnesses are not always good people. She is a battered woman and I think the state should be sensitive to that. I don't believe she will be seen as an ex wife with an ax to grind at all. She didn't start this. They went to her. Also even though RH says she will not be able to offer her personal opinion, she will be able to offer what happened to her in the past. I think RH is way off on this one. IMO

I don't understand this. Do you think the state should not question her? Or just not question her today? Because, obviously, she should be questioned. The state is not trying to protect Mr Kronk; they are trying to find the truth. And I know, from your previous posts, that is exactly what you want too. So I'm not understanding why it seems this post indicates that you are against further exploring the truth. Can you enlighten me? :waitasec:

 

[notthatsmart]

I don't understand this. Do you think the state should not question her? Or just not question her today? Because, obviously, she should be questioned. The state is not trying to protect Mr Kronk; they are trying to find the truth. And I know, from your previous posts, that is exactly what you want too. So I'm not understanding why it seems this post indicates that you are against further exploring the truth. Can you enlighten me? :waitasec:

Of course not. I think the state should question her and find out as much they can about the truth. I think that makes sense. I do not believe they should be anything but sensitive to her and handle her with kit gloves. Others were indicating that the state should try to catch her in lies. I disagree. I think they should flat out ask her the truth, but be kind about it. That is just my opinion.

Furthermore I would like to see Cs and Bs deposed. Would also like to see Rk's current girlfriend Mc questioned. I can wish. Moo

 

[Imbackon]

Just because JK, says something is the truth, why should this be taken at face value? You don't seem to take anyone elses word at face value, like RK's for example.
Anytime one is deposed, in order to get at the "truth" means separating fact from fiction, thus exposing what may be lies.

 

[nomoresorrow]

I think they questioned her today because they don't want any surprises later. I don't see any sense in trying to catch her in lies. It is not their duty to protect Rk. Key witnesses are not always good people. She is a battered woman and I think the state should be sensitive to that. I don't believe she will be seen as an ex wife with an ax to grind at all. She didn't start this. They went to her. Also even though RH says she will not be able to offer her personal opinion, she will be able to offer what happened to her in the past. I think RH is way off on this one. IMO

I personally believe that the state has extensively looked into/at any records pertaining to RK & JK's history and they know exactly what is and what isn't there - JK made a serious and public statement claiming that she suspected her ex, RK, of being involved in this crime - battered woman or not, she needs to have something, on record from the past, showing why she suspects her ex in this case, besides her alleging to be a battered woman. If there is nothing on record (which the state already knows whether there is or not), JK will be seen as a woman with an ax to grind. JMO~

 

[whiskeygurl]

I think they questioned her today because they don't want any surprises later. I don't see any sense in trying to catch her in lies. It is not their duty to protect Rk. Key witnesses are not always good people. She is a battered woman and I think the state should be sensitive to that. I don't believe she will be seen as an ex wife with an ax to grind at all. She didn't start this. They went to her. Also even though RH says she will not be able to offer her personal opinion, she will be able to offer what happened to her in the past. I think RH is way off on this one. IMO

Where are the police reports that prove she was battered by Mr. Kronk? I am pretty sure the D.A. checked Kronk's history with a fine tooth and nail. No where is there been reports that Kronk abused his ex wife. Do you have these police reports that support your statement of her being a battered woman? She didn't want to come to florida because she is probably lying. I hope they do catch her lying. Casey defense team is full of Clowns.

 

[notthatsmart]

I take Jk's word at face value because she has not given me a reason to do otherwise. If she does, then I will take it with a grain of salt and hope they catch her on tape.

Rk on the otherhand has several inconsistent statements. None of his interviews make any sense. I am very suspicious he is lieing because he has given me reason.

But for the most part, a lot of the witnesses have inconsistencies in their statements. Some have changed their mind about what has happened. So yeah your right, I don't take most at face value. This is my opinion after reading the docs.

 

[RR0004]

Of course not. I think the state should question her and find out as much they can about the truth. I think that makes sense. I do not believe they should be anything but sensitive to her and handle her with kit gloves. Others were indicating that the state should try to catch her in lies. I disagree. I think they should flat out ask her the truth, but be kind about it. That is just my opinion.

Furthermore I would like to see Cs and Bs deposed. Would also like to see Rk's current girlfriend Mc questioned. I can wish. Moo

Kind? This is a deposition. Would you hope the defense was kind to RK? The man has also been through a great deal.

 

[RR0004]

I take Jk's word at face value because she has not given me a reason to do otherwise. If she does, then I will take it with a grain of salt and hope they catch her on tape.

Rk on the otherhand has several inconsistent statements. None of his interviews make any sense. I am very suspicious he is lieing because he has given me reason.

But for the most part, a lot of the witnesses have inconsistencies in their statements. Some have changed their mind about what has happened. So yeah your right, I don't take most at face value. This is my opinion after reading the docs.

Do you know JK personally? Just curious.

 

[notthatsmart]

I personally believe that the state has extensively looked into/at any records pertaining to RK & JK's history and they know exactly what is and what isn't there - JK made a serious and public statement claiming that she suspected her ex, RK, of being involved in this crime - battered woman or not, she needs to have something, on record from the past, showing why she suspects her ex in this case, besides her alleging to be a battered woman. If there is nothing on record (which the state already knows whether there is or not), JK will be seen as a woman with an ax to grind. JMO~

Well I believe if they did look into this extensively, they would have had to turn that info over to the defense according to our on board Lawyers. The defense claims that they did not. That they did not even aquire Rk phone records. They would know. its the law. So I don't believe this has already been investigated at all. Hence the Judge's ruling to go ahead and depose.

Once they do investigate, they may find something on record. IMO

 

[notthatsmart]

Do you know JK personally? Just curious.

No, do you?