Kronk's Ex-Wife Questioned By Prosecutors

[ZsaZsa]

I thought they used Skype?

This says they went to Knoxville.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/feb/25/local-deposition-in-fla-death/

She went to her Attorney's office in Knoxville, and the deposition was done by Skype with the SA

 

[The World According]

.... and in what state of imagination could Kronk be confused with a beautiful young twenty five year old girl with long straight hair,perfect teeth going by the name of Zanny the Nanny?

It is just popycock as Lee would say.

Thanks for the link to the Tennessee news. That article states the defense had lawyers present. We had been wondering if they would be there. www.knoxnews.com

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Okay on topic.
The defense put in a motion to depose Jk. The Sa did not even object to it. The Judge ruled for the defense. The Sa followed up and indeed did depose Jk. So in my opinon, the Judge, the defense and the Sa all agreed that it was important to depose Jk. Furthermore the Sa's actions were to go out and depose Jk. I arrived at my opinion based on these facts. They, the Judge, the Sa and the Defense all gave creedence to it. So do I.

I don't believe the "testimony" of JK that has been released to the media, etc. was obtained through a judicial process, until today. The "testimony" up until the SA deposed this woman was by tape recorded and video taped question and answer sessions done by the defense. Just because the State is deposing JK does not mean they give any credence to anything she is saying, they are just CTA before trial, as the defense has put her out there as a potential witness. That all.

 

[Katprint]

I thought they used Skype?

This says they went to Knoxville.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/feb/25/local-deposition-in-fla-death/

It is possible that some of the attorneys physically traveled to Knoxville for the deposition and some of the other attorneys "appeared" (as the legal phrase is used) via Skype i.e. they were electronically present in realtime and could see and hear the deposition as it took place but were not physically present at it.

When the deposition transcript is released, it should say who was physically present and who was electronically present via telephone, Skype, etc. My experience has been that if someone enters or leaves the room during the course of a deposition then that is recorded in the deposition transcript as well.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Gma Kat]

IMO - anyone who has something of value to offer in this case should be providing it quietly to LE. There is no need to be in front of the cameras discussing one's ex-husband. Whenever someone wants "facetime" with respect to testimony or information - I find it suspect. The SA needs to procure her testimony to memorialize not just what she has to say, but also document her behavior while saying it. Her credibility is at-isse as are all witnesses' credibility. The battered women I have known would not be looking for ways to "grind their axe" against their exes.....they are lucky to have gotten away with their lives and would never re-insert themselves into their exes lives now out of the same fears that made them leave. I can't say one-way or the other if JK was battered by RK, but I do know I am surprised she has so publicly drawn him back into her world....I recall in the JBR case a woman came forward to say her ex was involved, I see motivation to lie to hurt RK - but that doesn't mean he didn't abuse her I guess....

 

[Intermezzo]

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

Your are right NTS, JK did not start this, Casey Anthony's Defense team sought out JK..illness and all.

You don't see any sense in trying to catch her in lies...so if she is lying then it's okay, the SA should not to depose her under oath in order to get at the truth? :waitasec:

I don't know if she is or is not a battered woman, I have not seen nor read proof of that..until then it is a she said, he said exchange...

 

[Intermezzo]

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

NTS,
You agree that the State should question her and find out the truth..that makes sense to you. Right?
I believe the State will flat out ask the question(s) they need to ask and JK is supposed to answer truthfully, she will be under oath after all.
There wouldn't be any "catch her in a lie" if she never lied to begin with.

 

[Intermezzo]

Actually Rk when leaving the deposition said to the press that Jb was very kind to him. lol

Yes, Rk did say Baez was polite to him all day..
I'd assume Baez would be in a very good mood because he knew that by the end of the day he was filing a new motion stating "Roy Kronk, and not Miss Anthony, is equally likely to be responsible for the death of Caylee Anthony."

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/...ronk_about_recovery_of_caylee39s_remains.html

 

[Intermezzo]

I wouldn't know if this woman was lying or telling the truth so I couldn't say I take whatever she says at face value. I don't think she has any place here in this case...but that's not because of what she says or doesn't say...I don't believe it to be relevant. RK is not a suspect. The defense can work this scenario as much as they like. It seems to be the only thing they have. I bet if JB gave the State a "witness" we'd see another depo. That's how the case moves forward. This is all the defense team has given the State...so they do a depo.

BBM
I agree.

 

[LisaNY]

Yes, Rk did say Baez was polite to him all day..
I'd assume Baez would be in a very good mood because he knew that by the end of the day he was filing a new motion stating "Roy Kronk, and not Miss Anthony, is equally likely to be responsible for the death of Caylee Anthony."

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/...ronk_about_recovery_of_caylee39s_remains.html

LOL, JB does get that "Cat that ate the Canary" look about him when he thinks he has something.


oops --- almost forgot ... MOO

 

[RR0004]

RR, the date I'm finding on the statement, made by Baez, is October 14th (I believe), which was the day Casey was indicted. I believe he made this comment during the speech at his office, with Casey at his side, before she was arrested. I don't have a news link to the date and statement, but found the date mentioned on some blogs...which I can't link here.

The statement was as follows...

Baez said. “I sincerely believe that when we have finally spoken, everyone, and I mean everyone, will sit back and say, ‘Now, I understand. That explains it.’”

Bless you! I guess he also had psychic powers and knew that RK would turn up on the scene and discover Caylee's bones. Can the prosecution use dear Mr. Baez's own words to come back and bite him? They already have Casey's...and only she can link the imaginary nanny to RK. Point being...who cares what JK has to say about her ex...it doesn't matter!

ETA: OOPS- almost forgot, JMHO!

 

[Angel4u2Whisper2]

I have heard people talk about the possiablity that Mr. Kronk's ex wife was abused based on her statements. I do not know her or Mr.Kronk so I can not say anything about what happened in their lives. I would like to make a brief statement about my life, If I could. I will try to make it short and relevent. I was an abused wife, I almost died at the hands of my ex husband. What I do know is that I would never want to bring him back into my life ever. IMOO, the anger is resentment of being left not relief that he "left", like omg thank God he is far away so as he is less likely to hurt me again. Maybe he has found someone else to control and has forgotten about me for awhile. I still have a hard time talking about the abuse and how much it hurts. I am not a professional but a person with experience that I wish I never had. IMO, she is bitter for being left and sick for that she will "make him pay" for it. My 2 cents.

 

[ynotdivein]

I have heard people talk about the possiablity that Mr. Kronk's ex wife was abused based on her statements. I do not know her or Mr.Kronk so I can not say anything about what happened in their lives. I would like to make a brief statement about my life, If I could. I will try to make it short and relevent. I was an abused wife, I almost died at the hands of my ex husband. What I do know is that I would never want to bring him back into my life ever. IMOO, the anger is resentment of being left not relief that he "left", like omg thank God he is far away so as he is less likely to hurt me again. Maybe he has found someone else to control and has forgotten about me for awhile. I still have a hard time talking about the abuse and how much it hurts. I am not a professional but a person with experience that I wish I never had. IMO, she is bitter for being left and sick for that she will "make him pay" for it. My 2 cents.

Angel, first I am glad you are still with us to post and share your perspective.

Second I think there are plenty of potential jurors who, should this testimony ever see the light of a courtroom, will understand the backstories and the psychological angles at play here; many through their own or their loved ones' experiences. This is a testament to the prevalence of domestic abuse, which is OT for this conversation in general.

I don't discount the troubles JK has experienced in her life. But in terms of relevance to Caylee's murder, I do have serious doubts.

 

[mitzi]

It is possible that some of the attorneys physically traveled to Knoxville for the deposition and some of the other attorneys "appeared" (as the legal phrase is used) via Skype i.e. they were electronically present in realtime and could see and hear the deposition as it took place but were not physically present at it.

When the deposition transcript is released, it should say who was physically present and who was electronically present via telephone, Skype, etc. My experience has been that if someone enters or leaves the room during the course of a deposition then that is recorded in the deposition transcript as well.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Bold mine.

How much ya wanna wager that Baez and team were by Skype, cuz it seems they would be out of $$$ for a trip to Tennesse. :crazy:

 

[logicalgirl]

RR, the date I'm finding on the statement, made by Baez, is October 14th (I believe), which was the day Casey was indicted. I believe he made this comment during the speech at his office, with Casey at his side, before she was arrested. I don't have a news link to the date and statement, but found the date mentioned on some blogs...which I can't link here.

The statement was as follows...

Baez said. “I sincerely believe that when we have finally spoken, everyone, and I mean everyone, will sit back and say, ‘Now, I understand. That explains it.’”

Sorry Baez, but even when you have finally spoken, everyone, and I mean everyone will not sit back and say, "Now I understand why Casey killed Caylee". You can take that to the bank.

 

[Steely Dan]

Sorry Baez, but even when you have finally spoken, everyone, and I mean everyone will not sit back and say, "Now I understand why Casey killed Caylee". You can take that to the bank.

I've been trying to come up with a scenario that might make it understandable. I've even thrown the completely ridiculous ideas around and I cannot come up with something even Baez might make up. :waitasec:

 

[abbra]

I wonder how much the former Mrs. Kronk is getting paid to divulge her " so called damaging remarks against her former husband." Lest we hear nil about THE Zenaida Gonsalus anymore. Baez must be in quite a pickle if he is willing to pull the x-misses out of the rabbits hat.
Forget Kronk! WHAT ABOUT ZENAIDA!!!!!!!!!

 

[abbra]

I've been trying to come up with a scenario that might make it understandable. I've even thrown the completely ridiculous ideas around and I cannot come up with something even Baez might make up. :waitasec:

Love those bears Steely....Thanks for posting those pics with your comments.

 

[Tuba]

The court is not on a fact finding mission. Juries determine what is factual or not factual. Until deliberation, a great deal of material is raked up and the judge decides relevance. Since the defense acting for Ms. Anthony sought permission to preserve Jill Kerley's testimony by deposing her and were granted that permission, the prosecutors would be failing to exercise due diligence if they did not likewise depose her. Since she is critically ill, the relevance & materiality of her statements under oath can be weighed and argued later. What value would those arguments and that evaluation have if she expired and her statements under oath were never memorialised? It would be an exercise in futility, so circumstances in February were exigent. In this regard and to both defense and prosecution, it is not what she did say (casually & to a p.i.) but what she might offer, that is now being preserved for the record.

 

[The World According]

I've been trying to locate that statement that JB made...about how when we get to the trial we'll all understand...and the time frame it was said appears to have been before October, 2008 (searched and found a comment about it here on WS). So, my question is...how could JB know the "truth" and sell us the story that it will all make sense to us before RK finds Caylee's body? How can he sling this, IMO, garbage testimony at us...when a) his client states ZFG stole Caylee, b) CA and GA have stated that it was ZFG, c) and he, himself, states ZFG kidnapped Caylee? So, first he believes his client's story...so much so that he's pretty dang sure we'll understand...and then he decides to NOT believe this story? Is it me...or is this whole RK, JK, and "all known" relatives stuff just plain crazy?

Very good catch RR!

To put it in the words The Honorable Judge Strickland once spoke to Mr. Baez,

"This is where posturing can get you in to trouble."

This the epitome of reason the lawyers should refrain from commenting outside of the courtroom.